Proposed Rule2023-04974
Proposed Priority and Requirements-National Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports
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
March 13, 2023
Issuing agencies
Education Department
Abstract
The Department of Education (Department) proposes a priority and requirements under the National Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (Center), Assistance Listing Number (ALN) 84.326S. The Center is funded jointly through the Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities and the School Safety National Activities programs. The priority and the requirements proposed in this document are specific to the work funded out of the School Safety National Activities program and are designed to improve student safety and well-being. We may use this priority or one or more of these requirements in fiscal year (FY) 2023 and later years.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 48 (Monday, March 13, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 48 (Monday, March 13, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15336-15343]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-04974]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter II
[Docket ID ED-2023-OESE-0038]
Proposed Priority and Requirements--National Technical Assistance
Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports
AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Proposed priority and requirements.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) proposes a priority
and requirements under the National Technical Assistance Center on
Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (Center), Assistance
Listing Number (ALN) 84.326S. The Center is funded jointly through the
Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services and Results
for Children with Disabilities and the School Safety National
Activities programs. The priority and the requirements proposed in this
document are specific to the work funded out of the School Safety
National Activities program and are designed to improve student safety
and well-being. We may use this priority or one or more of these
requirements in fiscal year (FY) 2023 and later years.
DATES: We must receive your comments on or before April 12, 2023.
ADDRESSES: Comments must be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at <a href="http://regulations.gov">regulations.gov</a>. However, if you require an accommodation or
cannot otherwise submit your comments via <a href="http://regulations.gov">regulations.gov</a>, please
contact the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT. The Department will not accept comments by fax or by email, or
comments submitted after the comment period closes. To ensure that the
Department does not receive duplicate copies, please submit your
comments only once. Additionally, please include the Docket ID at the
top of your comments.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Please go to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> to
submit your comments electronically. Information on using
Regulations.gov, including instructions for finding a notice on the
site and submitting comments, is available on the site under ``FAQ.''
Privacy Note: The Department's policy is to make all comments
received from members of the public available for public viewing on the
Federal eRulemaking Portal at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. Therefore,
commenters should be careful to include in their comments only
information that they wish to make publicly available.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Renee Bradley, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone:
(202) 987-1128. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5a283f343f3f7438283b3e363f231a3f3e743d352c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0a786f646f6f2468786b6e666f734a6f6e246d657c">[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:
Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding
the proposed priority and requirements. To ensure that your comments
have maximum effect in developing the final priority and requirements,
we urge you to clearly identify the specific section of the proposed
priority and requirements that each comment addresses.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and their overall
requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from the
proposed priority and requirements. Please let us know of any further
ways we could reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits
while preserving the effective and efficient administration of the
Department's programs and activities. Please also feel free to offer
for our consideration any alternative
[[Page 15337]]
approaches to the subjects addressed by the proposed priority and
requirements.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public
comments about the proposed priority and requirements by accessing
Regulations.gov. You may also inspect the comments in person. Please
contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT to make
arrangements to inspect the comments in person.
Note: The Center is jointly funded under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA). By combining funds from two separate programs,
the Department is able to make a more comprehensive investment to
address the purpose of the Center. The Department intends to publish a
notice inviting applications later this fiscal year and applicants may
be expected to address the priorities and requirements under both
authorizing statutes. 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 priorities from allowable activities specified in
the statute (see sections 663 and 681(d) of IDEA) that may be included
in a notice inviting applications for the Center. Therefore, we are
only taking public comment on the proposed priority and requirements
described in this document, which are to be funded under the ESEA.
Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the
Rulemaking Record: On request, we will provide an appropriate
accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who
needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the
public rulemaking record for the proposed priority and requirements. If
you want to schedule an appointment for this type of accommodation or
auxiliary aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Center is to enhance the
capacity of States and local educational agencies (LEAs) to implement
positive and safe school climates, and effectively support and respond
to students' social, emotional, behavioral, and mental health needs to
ensure participation and enhance learning, by implementing evidence-
based practices within a multi-tiered system of support (MTSS)
framework.
Program Authority: Section 4631(a)(1)(B) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C.
7281).
Proposed Priority:
This document contains one proposed priority.
Background:
Many students need additional supports to address social,
emotional, and behavioral challenges that impact their full access to
and participation in learning (Chafouleas, 2020). These challenges, if
not properly addressed, can lead to student responses that are
inconsistent with school or program expectations. The COVID-19 global
pandemic exacerbated these challenges, accelerating the need to provide
school-based social, emotional, behavioral, and mental health supports
and leverage the existing evidence base about how to provide nurturing
educational environments to meet the needs of our nation's youth.
MTSS frameworks such as positive behavioral interventions and
supports (PBIS) \1\ have been validated by numerous randomized control
trials (Bradshaw et al., 2012; Freeman et al., 2017). When implemented
with fidelity, PBIS outcomes include reductions in removals of students
from instruction; improved student exposure to and success in academics
(grades and completion); improved educator satisfaction and retention;
and improved overall ratings of school safety, belonging, and climate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The term ``positive behavioral interventions and supports''
was first used in a priority published by the Department in 1997,
and it is currently used in the IDEA (e.g., sections 601(c)(5)(F),
611(e)(2)(C)(iii), 614(d)(3)(B)(i), 662(b)(2)(A)(v), and 665) and
the ESEA (e.g., section 4631(a)(1)(B)). We do not use PBIS to mean
any specific program or curriculum. Rather, we use the term
generically to reference a multi-tiered framework used to improve
the integration and implementation of social, emotional, behavioral
and mental health practices, data-driven decision-making systems,
professional development opportunities, school leadership,
supportive SEA and LEA policies, and evidence-based instructional
strategies. A PBIS framework helps to organize practices to improve
social, emotional, behavioral, mental health and academic outcomes
by improving school climate, promoting positive social skills,
promoting effective strategies to support and respond to student
needs, and increasing learning time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite improved outcomes and knowledge from PBIS implementation
efforts over the last two decades, data from the Office for Civil
Rights Data Collection suggests students from underserved groups are
more likely to experience exclusionary discipline (e.g., suspensions,
expulsions) (U.S. Department of Education, Civil Rights Data Collection
SY17-18, Office for Civil Rights, 2021). Disaggregated data shows that
disproportionality in discipline grows when considering race, gender,
and disability (Civil Rights Data Collection SY17-18, Office for Civil
Rights, 2021). Research consistently shows that students of color,
particularly Black students, Native students, and Black students with
disabilities are significantly more likely than their non-disabled, or
white peers to be subjected to exclusionary discipline practices,
including office discipline referrals and suspensions (e.g., Gage et
al., 2019; McIntosh et al., 2018; McIntosh et al., 2021; Civil Rights
Data Collection SY17-18, Office for Civil Rights, 2021). While
disproportionality with respect to Black boys has long been
acknowledged, more recent data analysis indicates the
disproportionality also exists for Black girls as compared to White
girls (Hassan & Carter, 2021). Other studies show disproportionality
based on gender, historically demonstrating boys receive suspensions
and expulsions at higher rates than girls (Bradshaw et al., 2010).
Higher rates of punitive discipline practices also exist for students
who identify as LGBTQ and those with disabilities (Himmelstein and
Br[uuml]ckner, 2011; Brobbey, 2018). When students are denied access to
instruction and participation in school opportunities, they are more
likely to experience negative outcomes in school and later in life,
including poor academic outcomes, lower graduation rates,
incarceration, and employment and relationship challenges (Hemez et
al., 2020; Lansford et al., 2016).
One of the most significant barriers to reducing exclusionary and
aversive discipline practices for students, including students of color
and students with disabilities, is the lack of culturally and
linguistically inclusive pre-service and in-service training for
teachers and leaders on effective practices for creating positive, safe
learning environments to teach and support desired school behaviors and
for responding to and mitigating behaviors that are inconsistent with
school expectations and interfere with learning. The PBIS framework has
provided an effective multi-tiered structure through the implementation
and examination of systems, practices, and data to assist LEAs and
schools in addressing inequities. When there is fidelity in
implementing evidence-based practices (EBPs) to prevent, reduce, and
mitigate interfering behaviors within a PBIS framework, studies have
found the following statistically significant results: improved
perception of school safety; reductions in overall behaviors that are
inconsistent with classroom or school expectations and that interfere
with
[[Page 15338]]
learning; and reduction of bullying behaviors, office discipline
referrals, chronic absenteeism, and suspensions (Waasdorp et al.,
2012). The PBIS framework has solidified the importance of core
strategies, including: implementing EBPs; providing the systems needed
to support those practices; and data-based decision-making; to create
and sustain positive, safe, and predictable learning environments.
Fidelity in the implementation of the core strategies has also
demonstrated the importance of adult responses, including effectively
supporting and responding to student behavior (Horner, et al., 2020).
Although prior Department investments have led to successful
implementation of the PBIS framework and positive outcome data in over
27,000 schools, based on persistent needs in the field, the Department
has determined that additional and continued technical assistance (TA)
is needed to focus on: (1) students with more intensive social,
emotional, behavioral, and mental health needs and those most likely to
be excluded from the learning environment due to behavior that
interferes with learning; (2) pre-service and in-service training on
culturally and linguistically inclusive practices that support students
from underserved groups; (3) improving implementation fidelity; and (4)
addressing other systemic inequities such as access to school funding,
experienced educators, and advanced coursework opportunities. In
addition, the Department has determined that State educational agencies
(SEAs) and LEAs could benefit from further TA to develop, expand, and
sustain school-wide frameworks and to build personnel capacity and
expertise to promote safe, positive, predictable, and culturally and
linguistically inclusive learning environments where students feel a
sense of belonging. Such additional TA would be focused on increasing
the use of EBPs to more effectively support and respond to student
needs, such as teaching school and classroom expectations, building
classroom cultures of respect and belonging, and implementing trauma-
informed practices. Such additional TA also would be focused on using
EBPs to reduce the use of restraints seclusion and corporal punishment;
chronic absenteeism; incidents of bullying; the disproportionate
application of disciplinary procedures, such as suspension and
expulsion, for students, including students of color and those with
disabilities; unnecessary referrals of students to law enforcement; and
violent and traumatic school incidents.
The Center will support States and LEAs in implementing EBPs within
a MTSS/PBIS framework that improves results for children, including
children with disabilities. While PBIS is one evidence-based MTSS
framework for addressing social, emotional, behavioral and mental
health needs, the Department expects that the Center will stay abreast
of developing frameworks and identify and incorporate a broad array of
EBPs to support and respond to student needs, and tailor technical
assistance in the settings established in the priority. This investment
is aligned to the Secretary's Supplemental Priorities and Definitions
for Discretionary Grant Programs published in the Federal Register on
December 10, 2021 (86 FR 70612), in the areas of meeting student
social, emotional, and academic needs, and promoting equity in student
access to educational resources and opportunities.
Proposed Priority:
The Department proposes the following priority for this program. We
may apply this priority in any year in which this program is in effect.
Proposed Priority--Technical Assistance--School Safety National
Activities Program--National Technical Assistance Center on Positive
Behavioral Interventions and Supports.
The purpose of this priority is to enhance the capacity of SEAs and
LEAs to implement positive and safe school environments, and
effectively support and respond to students' social, emotional,
behavioral, and mental health needs to improve their learning, by
implementing evidence- based practices (EBPs) \2\ within a Multi-Tiered
System of Support (MTSS)/Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports
(PBIS) framework \3\ in one or more of the following settings:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For the purposes of this priority, ``evidence-based
practices'' (EBPs) means, at a minimum, demonstrating a rationale
(as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) based on high-quality research findings
or positive evaluation that such activity, strategy, or intervention
is likely to improve student outcomes or other relevant outcomes.
\3\ PBIS is an evidence-based, tiered framework (Tier 1:
Universal, Primary Prevention; Tier 2: Targeted, Secondary
Prevention; and Tier 3: Intensive and Individualized, Tertiary
Prevention) for supporting students' behavioral, academic, social,
emotional, and mental health.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Programs or schools serving high percentages of students from
low-income families in the following settings:
(1) Early learning programs.
(2) Elementary schools.
(3) Middle schools.
(4) High schools.
(5) Career and technical education programs.
(6) Rural schools.
(ii) Alternative schools and programs.
(iii) Juvenile justice system or correctional facilities.
(iv) Low-performing schools.
(v) Schools with a high student-to-mental health provider ratio.
(vi) Schools with high rates of chronic absenteeism, exclusionary
discipline, referrals to the juvenile justice system, bullying/
harassment, community and school violence, or substance abuse.
(vii) Schools in which students recently experienced a natural
disaster, incident of violence, or traumatic event.
(viii) Schools with high percentages of students with disabilities.
To meet this priority, the applicant must propose to achieve, at a
minimum, one or more of the following expected outcomes:
(a) Improved systems and resources at the national, regional,
State, and district levels to support, develop, align, and sustain
local implementation of MTSS/PBIS efforts to organize EBPs to support
positive school climates and respond to student social, emotional,
behavioral, and mental health needs to improve access to and engagement
in learning.
(b) Improved capacity of SEA and LEA personnel to support the
knowledge and skills development of school personnel to implement MTSS/
PBIS as a framework to organize EBPs to support and respond to student
needs, particularly those from underserved, culturally and
linguistically diverse backgrounds, and those whose behaviors may
interfere with a student's ability to fully participate in, and benefit
from, a high-quality learning environment.
(c) Increased use by SEAs, LEAs, and school-based personnel of
reliable and valid tools and processes for enhancing and assessing the
fidelity of implementation of a MTSS/PBIS Framework and for measuring
intended outcomes, including improvements in school climate; time spent
on instruction; well-being and belonging; overall academic achievement;
and reductions in absenteeism, discipline referrals, suspensions,
expulsions, the use of restraints or seclusion, illegal use of drugs,
and referrals to law enforcement.
(d) Improved implementation of a MTSS/PBIS framework, EBPs, and
assessment of SEA or LEA recipients of grant programs that focus on
improving positive school climates and implementing EBPs to support and
respond to students' social, emotional, behavioral, and mental health
needs.
[[Page 15339]]
(e) Enhanced response and recovery assistance, as requested by and
in collaboration with the Department, for violent or traumatic
incidents that impact school communities, including intensive
individualized support to facilitate recovery of the learning
environment.
(f) Increased body of knowledge and evidence to enhance
implementation of PBIS and other emerging MTSS frameworks and EBPs to
address the social, emotional, behavioral, and mental health needs of
students in the settings established in the priority.
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)).
Proposed Requirements:
The Department proposes the following eligible applicants and
application requirements for this program. We may apply one or more of
these requirements in any year in which the program is in effect.
Eligible Applicants: SEAs; State lead agencies under Part C of the
IDEA; LEAs, including public charter schools that are considered LEAs
under State law; institutions of higher education; other public
agencies; private nonprofit organizations; freely associated States and
outlying areas; Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations; and for-profit
organizations.
Proposed Application Requirements:
(a) Demonstrate how the proposed project will--
(1) Improve SEAs' and LEAs' implementation, scaling, and sustaining
of EBPs within a MTSS/PBIS framework and policies that are designed to
improve school climate and, as needed, provide additional behavioral
supports for students whose behavior impacts their ability to fully
participate in, and benefit from, a high-quality learning environment,
including students with disabilities. To meet this requirement, the
applicant must--
(i) Present applicable State, regional, or local data demonstrating
SEAs' and LEAs' needs related to (A) implementation of EBPs and
policies to improve school climate, student well-being and belonging;
and (B) increasing students' ability to fully participate in, and
benefit from, a high-quality learning environment;
(ii) Demonstrate knowledge of current education issues and policy
initiatives relating to MTSS/PBIS and school climate practices and
policies and EBPs to effectively support and respond to student
behavior that impacts learning; and
(iii) Present information about the current level of implementation
of MTSS/PBIS, EBPs, policies, best practices, and benefits for all
students, especially underserved students and those from culturally and
linguistically diverse backgrounds; and
(2) Improve the implementation of EBPs within a MTSS/PBIS framework
to effectively support and respond to student behaviors that impact
access to and participation in learning.
(b) Demonstrate 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 TA and information needs of the intended
recipients; and
(ii) Ensure that services and products meet the needs of the
intended recipients of the TA;
(2) Achieve its goals, objectives, and intended outcomes. To meet
this requirement, the applicant must provide--
(i) Measurable intended project outcomes; and
(ii) The logic model \4\ 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;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ As defined in 34 CFR 77.1, ``logic model'' (also referred to
as a theory of action) means a framework that identifies key project
components of the proposed project (i.e., the active ``ingredients''
that are hypothesized to be critical to achieving the relevant
outcomes) and describes the theoretical and operational
relationships among the key project components and relevant
outcomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Use a conceptual framework 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;
(4) Be based on current research and make use of EBPs. To meet this
requirement, the applicant must describe--
(i) The current research on the assessment of the implementation of
MTSS/PBIS frameworks and related EBPs;
(ii) The current research about adult learning principles and
implementation science that will inform the proposed TA; and
(iii) How the proposed project will incorporate current and
emerging research and practices 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 of
PBIS;
(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, a description
of the products and services that the Center proposes to make
available, and the expected impact of those 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 Center staff and including one-time,
invited or offered conference presentations by Center staff. This
category of TA also includes information or products, such as
newsletters, guidebooks, or research syntheses, downloaded from the
Center's website by independent users. Brief communications by
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 services based on
needs common to multiple recipients and not extensively
individualized. A relationship is established between the TA
recipient and one or more 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 15340]]
(A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of
recipients, that will receive the products and services, a description
of the products 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 systems, 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
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 from a variety of settings and geographic distribution, that
will receive the products and services designed to improve school
climate;
(B) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of the State-
and local-level personnel to work with the project, including their
commitment to the initiative, alignment of the initiative to their
needs, current systems, available resources, and ability to build
capacity at the local level;
(C) Its proposed plan for assisting SEAs, LEAs, local Part C
agencies, charter management organizations, and private school
organizations to build or enhance training systems that include
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, LEAs, schools,
families) to ensure that there is communication between each level and
that there are systems in place to support the use of PBIS;
(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) Include an evaluation plan for the project as described in the
following paragraphs. The evaluation plan must describe measures of
progress in implementation, including criteria for determining the
extent to which the project's products and services have met the goals
for reaching its target population; measures of intended outcomes or
results of the project's activities in order to evaluate those
activities; and how well the goals or objectives of the proposed
project, as described in its logic model, have been met.
The applicant must provide an assurance that, in designing the
evaluation plan, it will--
(1) Designate, with the approval of the Office of Special Education
Programs (OSEP) project officer in consultation with Office of
Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE) staff, a project liaison with
sufficient dedicated time, experience in evaluation, and knowledge of
the project to work in collaboration with the Center to Improve Program
and Project Performance (CIPP),\8\ the project director, and the OSEP
project officer on the following tasks:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The major tasks of CIPP are to guide, coordinate, and
oversee the design of formative evaluations for every large
discretionary investment (i.e., those awarded $500,000 or more per
year and required to participate in the 3+2 process) in OSEP's
Technical Assistance and Dissemination; Personnel Development;
Parent Training and Information Centers; and Educational Technology,
Media, and Materials programs. The efforts of CIPP are expected to
enhance individual project evaluation plans by providing expert and
unbiased TA in designing the evaluations with due consideration of
the project's budget. CIPP does not function as a third-party
evaluator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Revise the logic model submitted in the application, as
appropriate, to provide for a more comprehensive measurement of
implementation and outcomes and to reflect any changes or
clarifications to the model discussed at the kickoff meeting;
(ii) Refine the evaluation design and instrumentation proposed in
the application, as appropriate, to be consistent with the revised
logic model and using the most rigorous design suitable (e.g., prepare
evaluation questions about significant program processes and outcomes;
develop quantitative or qualitative data collections that permit both
the collection of progress data, including fidelity of implementation,
as appropriate, and the assessment of project outcomes; and identify
analytic strategies); and
(iii) Revise the evaluation plan submitted in the application such
that it clearly--
(A) Specifies the evaluation questions, measures, and associated
instruments or sources for data appropriate to answer these questions,
suggests analytic strategies for those data, provides a timeline for
conducting the evaluation, and includes staff assignments for
completing the evaluation activities;
(B) Delineates the data expected to be available by the end of the
second project year for use during the project's evaluation (3+2
review) by OSEP for continued funding described under the heading
Fourth and Fifth Years of the Project; and
(C) Can be used to assist the project director and the OSEP project
officer in consultation with OESE staff, with the assistance of CIPP,
as needed, to specify the project performance measures to be addressed
in the project's annual performance report;
(2) Dedicate sufficient staff time and other resources during the
first 6 months of the project to collaborate with CIPP staff, including
regular meetings (e.g., weekly, biweekly, or monthly) with CIPP and the
OSEP project officer, in order to accomplish the tasks described in
paragraph (c)(1) of this section; and
(3) Dedicate sufficient funds in each budget year to cover the
costs of carrying out the tasks described in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2)
of this section and revising and implementing the evaluation plan.
Please note in your budget narrative the funds dedicated for this
activity.
(d) Demonstrate 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, language,
sexual orientation, gender, age, or disability, as appropriate;
(2) The proposed key project personnel, consultants, and
subcontractors have the qualifications 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
[[Page 15341]]
(4) The proposed costs are reasonable in relation to the
anticipated results and benefits.
(e) Demonstrate 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 policymakers, among others, in its development and
operation.
(f) Address the following application requirements. The applicant
must--
(1) Include 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 kickoff meeting in Washington, DC after
receipt of the award, and an annual planning meeting in Washington, DC,
with the OSEP project officer, OESE representative, 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 during each year of the project period;
(iii) Three annual two-day trips to attend Department briefings,
Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by
OSEP or OESE; and
(iv) A one-day intensive 3+2 review meeting in Washington, DC
during the second year of the project period;
(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 in consultation with OESE staff as appropriate. 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 an assurance 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.
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 PBIS. 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.
References:
Bradshaw, C., Waasdorp, T., & Leaf, P. (2012). Effects of school-
wide positive behavioral interventions and supports on child
behavior problems. Pediatrics, 130(5), 1136-1145. <a href="https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/5/e1136">https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/5/e1136</a>.
Bradshaw, C.P., Mitchell, M.M., O'Brennan, L.M., & Leaf, P.J.
(2010). Multilevel exploration of factors contributing to the
overrepresentation of Black students in office disciplinary
referrals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 508-520.
Brobbey, G. (2018). Punishing the vulnerable: Exploring suspension
rates for students with learning disabilities. Intervention in
School and Clinic, 53, 216-219.
Chafouleas, S. (2020, August). Four questions to ask now in
preparing your child for school. Psychology Today.
<a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/promoting-student-well-being/202008/4-questions-ask-now-in-preparing-your-child-school">www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/promoting-student-well-being/202008/4-questions-ask-now-in-preparing-your-child-school</a>.
Freeman, J., Simonsen, B., Goodman, S., Mitchell, B., George, H.P.,
Swain-Bradway, J., Lane, K., Sprague, J., & Putnam, B. (2017). PBIS
technical brief on systems to support teachers' implementation of
positive classroom behavior support. PBIS Center. <a href="http://www.pbis.org/resource/pbis-technical-brief-on-systems-to-support-teachers-implementation-of-positive-classroom-behavior-support">www.pbis.org/resource/pbis-technical-brief-on-systems-to-support-teachers-implementation-of-positive-classroom-behavior-support</a>.
Gage, N.A., Grasley-Boy, N., George, H.P., Childs, K., & Kincaid, D.
(2019). A quasi-experimental design analysis of the effects of
school-wide positive behavior interventions and supports on
discipline in Florida. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions,
21(1), 50-61. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1098300718768208">https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1098300718768208</a>.
Hassan, H.H., & Carter, V.B. (2021). Black and White Female
Disproportional Discipline K-12. Education and Urban Society, 53(1),
23-41. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124520915571">https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124520915571</a>.
Hemez P., Brent J.J., & Mowen T.J. (2020). Exploring the school-to-
prison pipeline: How school suspensions influence incarceration
during young adulthood. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 18(3),
235-255. doi: 10.1177/1541204019880945.
Himmelstein, K.E., & Br[uuml]ckner, H. (2011). Criminal-justice and
school sanctions against nonheterosexual youth: A national
longitudinal study. Pediatrics, 127(1), 49-57.
Horner, R.H., Sugai, G., & Lewis, T.J. (2020). Is school-wide
positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) an evidence-
based practice? Center on PBIS, University of Oregon. <a href="http://www.pbis.org/resource/is-school-wide-positive-behavior-support-an-evidence-based-practice">www.pbis.org/resource/is-school-wide-positive-behavior-support-an-evidence-based-practice</a>.
Jennifer E. Lansford, Kenneth A. Dodge, Gregory S. Pettit, John E.
Bates, (2016). A Public Health Perspective on School Dropout and
Adult Outcomes: A Prospective Study of Risk and Protective Factors
From Age 5 to 27 Years, Journal of Adolescent Health, Volume 58,
Issue 6, Pages 652-658.
McIntosh, K., Girvan, E.J., McDaniel, S.C., Santiago-Rosario, M.R.,
St. Joseph, S., Fairbanks Falcon, S., Izzard, S., Bastable, E.
(2021). Effects of an equity-focused PBIS approach to school
improvement on exclusionary discipline and school climate.
Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and
Youth, 65(4), 354-361.
McIntosh, K., Girvan, E.J., Fairbanks Falcon, S., McDaniel, S.C.,
Smolkowski, K., Bastable, E., Santiago-Rosario, M.R., Izzard, S.,
Austin, S.C., Nese, R.N.T., & Baldy, T.S. (2021). An equity-focused
PBIS approach reduces racial inequities in school discipline: A
randomized controlled trial. School Psychology, 36(6), 433-444.
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000466">https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000466</a>.
McIntosh, K., Girvan, E.J., Horner, R.H., Smolkowski, K., & Sugai,
G. (2018). A 5-point intervention approach for enhancing equity in
school discipline. OSEP Technical Assistance Center on Positive
Behavioral Interventions and Supports. www.pbis.org/resource/a-5-
[[Page 15342]]
point-intervention-approach-for-enhancing-equity-in-school-
discipline.
U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (2021). 2017-
2018 Civil Rights Data Collection. <a href="https://ocrdata.ed.gov/estimations/2017-2018">https://ocrdata.ed.gov/estimations/2017-2018</a>.
Waasdorp, T.E., Bradshaw, C.P., & Leaf, P.J. (2012). The impact of
schoolwide positive behavioral interventions and supports on
bullying and peer rejection: A randomized controlled effectiveness
trial. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 166(2), 149-
56. doi: 10.1001/archpediatrics.2011.755.
Final Priority and Requirements: We will announce the final
priority and requirements in a document published in the Federal
Register. We will determine the final priority and requirements after
considering responses to the proposed priority and requirements and
other information available to the Department. 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 the priority and requirements, we invite
applications through a notice inviting applications in the Federal
Register.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, it must be determined whether this
regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject to the
requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget (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 proposed 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 proposed 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 on 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 proposed priority and requirements only on a
reasoned determination that their benefits would justify their costs.
In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those
approaches that would maximize net benefits. Based on an analysis of
anticipated costs and benefits, we believe that the proposed priority
and requirements are 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 the 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.
Potential Costs and Benefits
The Department believes that this proposed regulatory action would
not impose significant costs on eligible entities, whose participation
in our programs is voluntary, and costs can generally be covered with
grant funds. As a result, the proposed priority and requirements would
not impose any particular burden, except when an entity voluntarily
elects to apply for a grant. The proposed priority and requirements
would help ensure that the Center grant program selects a high-quality
applicant to implement activities that meet the goals of the program.
We believe these benefits would outweigh any associated costs.
Clarity of the Regulations
Executive Order 12866 and the Presidential memorandum ``Plain
Language in Government Writing'' require each agency to write
regulations that are easy to understand.
The Secretary invites comments on how to make the proposed priority
and requirements easier to understand, including answers to questions
such as the following:
<bullet> Are the requirements in the proposed priority and
requirements clearly stated?
<bullet> Do the proposed priority and requirements contain
technical terms or other wording that interferes with their clarity?
<bullet> Could the description of the proposed priority and
requirements in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the preamble
be more helpful in making the proposed priority and requirements easier
to understand? If so, how?
<bullet> What else could we do to make the proposed priority and
requirements easier to understand?
To send any comments on how the Department could make the proposed
priorities and requirements easier to understand, see the instructions
in the ADDRESSES section.
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
[[Page 15343]]
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.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
The Secretary certifies that this proposed 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
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 proposed regulatory action would
affect are LEAs. Of the impacts we estimate accruing to grantees or
eligible entities, all are voluntary. Therefore, we do not believe that
the proposed priority and requirements would significantly impact small
entities beyond the potential for increasing the likelihood of their
applying for, and receiving, a competitive grant from the Department.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The proposed priority and requirements contain information
collection requirements that do not require the Office of Management
and Budget's approval for the information collection, since the
Department anticipates less than 9 applicants for this targeted and
specialized program. According to section 1320.3(c) of the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), ``the ``collection of information'' includes the
obtaining of information by or for an agency by means of identical
questions imposed on ten or more persons.''
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 the 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.
James F. Lane,
Senior Advisor, Office of the Secretary, Delegated the Authority to
Perform the Functions and Duties of the Assistant Secretary, Office of
Elementary and Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2023-04974 Filed 3-10-23; 8:45 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 March 13, 2023.
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.