Proposed Rule2023-06417
Proposed Priority and Requirements-Technical Assistance on State Data Collection-National Technical Assistance Center To Improve State Capacity To Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Data To Address Significant Disproportionality
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 28, 2023
Issuing agencies
Education Department
Abstract
The Department of Education (Department) proposes a priority and requirements for a National Technical Assistance Center to Improve State Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Data to Address Significant Disproportionality (Center) under the Technical Assistance on State Data Collection program, Assistance Listing Number 84.373E. The Department may use this priority and these requirements for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2023 and later years. We take this action to focus attention on an identified national need to provide technical assistance (TA) to improve the capacity of States to meet the data collection requirements under Part B and Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This Center would support States in collecting, reporting, and determining how to best analyze and use their data to address issues of significant disproportionality and would customize its TA to meet each State's specific needs.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 59 (Tuesday, March 28, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 28, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18280-18286]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-06417]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter III
[Docket ID ED-2023-OSERS-0001]
Proposed Priority and Requirements--Technical Assistance on State
Data Collection--National Technical Assistance Center To Improve State
Capacity To Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Data To
Address Significant Disproportionality
AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services,
Department of Education.
ACTION: Proposed priority and requirements.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) proposes a priority
and requirements for a National Technical Assistance Center to Improve
State Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Data
to Address Significant Disproportionality (Center) under the Technical
Assistance on State Data Collection program, Assistance Listing Number
84.373E. The Department may use this priority and these requirements
for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2023 and later years. We take this
action to focus attention on an identified national need to provide
technical assistance (TA) to improve the capacity of States to meet the
data collection requirements under Part B and Part C of the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This Center would support
States in collecting, reporting, and determining how to best analyze
and use their data to address issues of significant disproportionality
and would customize its TA to meet each State's specific needs.
DATES: We must receive your comments on or before June 12, 2023.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal
or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not
accept comments by fax or by email or those submitted after the comment
period. Please submit your comments only one time, in order to ensure
that we do not receive duplicate copies. In addition, please include
the Docket ID at the top of your comments.
<bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> to
submit your comments electronically. Information on using
<a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>, including instructions for accessing agency documents,
submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on the site
under ``Help.''
<bullet> Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery: If you
mail or deliver your comments about the proposed priority and
requirements, address them to Richelle Davis, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5076, Potomac Center Plaza,
Washington, DC 20202-5076.
Privacy Note: The Department's policy is to make all comments
received from members of the public available for public viewing in
their entirety 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. Commenters should not include in their comments any
information that identifies other individuals or that permits readers
to identify other individuals.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richelle Davis, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5076, Potomac Center Plaza,
Washington, DC 20202-5076. Telephone: (202) 245-7401. Email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#24764d474c414848410a6045524d576441400a434b52"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="25774c464d404949400b6144534c566540410b424a53">[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 or requirement that each comment addresses.
We are particularly interested in comments about whether the
proposed priority or any of the proposed requirements would be
challenging for new applicants to meet and, if so, how the proposed
priority or requirements could be revised to address potential
challenges.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For additional information on significant disproportionality
and associated requirements related to the identification of
significant disproportionality, including information on the
required review of policies, practices, and procedures, please see
Significant Disproportionality Essential Questions and Answers at
<a href="https://sites.ed.gov/idea/files/significant-disproportionality-qa-03-08-17.pdf">https://sites.ed.gov/idea/files/significant-disproportionality-qa-03-08-17.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Directed Questions:
1. What are the common challenges or barriers experienced by State
educational agencies (SEAs) and local educational agencies (LEAs) when
using IDEA data to address significant disproportionality and promote
equity, and how could this investment help address those challenges and
barriers?
2. What supports do SEAs require in providing for the required
review of policies, practices, and procedures in LEAs identified as
having significant disproportionality?
3. What supports do SEAs require to assist, as needed, LEAs
identified as having significant disproportionality in conducting their
root cause analyses to identify the potential causes and contributing
factors of the significant disproportionality?
4. What supports do SEAs require to conduct their analysis of
significant disproportionality at the State level?
5. What supports do SEAs require to assist, as needed, LEAs
identified as having significant disproportionality in expending IDEA
funds on comprehensive coordinated early intervening services (CCEIS)
to address the causes and contributing factors of the significant
disproportionality?
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific
[[Page 18281]]
requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 to reduce any
regulatory burden that might result from the proposed priority and
requirements. Please let us know how we could further reduce potential
costs or increase potential benefits, while preserving effective and
efficient administration of the program.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public
comments about the proposed priority and requirements by accessing
<a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>. You may also inspect the comments in person in room
5076, 550 12th Street SW, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC, between
the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through
Friday of each week except Federal holidays.
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 Technical Assistance on
State Data Collection program is to improve the capacity of States to
meet IDEA data collection and reporting requirements. Funding for the
program is authorized under section 611(c)(1) of IDEA, which gives the
Secretary authority to reserve not more than \1/2\ of 1 percent of the
amounts appropriated under Part B for each fiscal year to provide TA
activities, where needed, to improve the capacity of States to meet the
data collection and reporting requirements under Parts B and C of IDEA.
The maximum amount the Secretary may reserve under this set-aside for
any fiscal year is $25,000,000, cumulatively adjusted by the rate of
inflation. Section 616(i) of IDEA requires the Secretary to review the
data collection and analysis capacity of States to ensure that data and
information determined necessary for implementation of section 616 of
IDEA are collected, analyzed, and accurately reported to the Secretary.
It also requires the Secretary to provide TA, where needed, to improve
the capacity of States to meet the data collection requirements, which
include the data collection and reporting requirements in sections 616
and 618 of IDEA. In addition, the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2023, Public Law 117-328, gives the Secretary authority to use funds
reserved under section 611(c) of IDEA to ``administer and carry out
other services and activities to improve data collection, coordination,
quality, and use under Parts B and C of the IDEA.'' Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2023, Public Law 117-328, Div. H, Title III, 136
Stat. 4459, 4891 (2022).
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1411(c), 1416(i), 1418(c), 1418(d),
1442; Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, Public Law 117-328, Div.
H, Title III, 136 Stat. 4459, 4891 (2022).
Note: Projects will be awarded and must be operated in a manner
consistent with the nondiscrimination requirements contained in Federal
civil rights laws.
Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR 300.646-300.647, 300.702; as
well as IDEA Part B State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report
(SPP/APR) Indicators 9 and 10 regarding disproportionate representation
resulting from inappropriate identification, under 20 U.S.C.
1416(a)(3)(C) and 34 CFR 300.600(d)(3); and IDEA Part B SPP/APR
Indicator 4 regarding significant discrepancy in suspensions and
expulsion rates, under 20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A) and 1412(a)(22) and 34
CFR 300.600(d)(1) and 300.170.
Proposed Priority:
This notice contains one proposed priority.
National Technical Assistance Center to Improve State Capacity to
Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Data to Address
Significant Disproportionality.
Background:
Under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA, States are required to collect,
report, analyze, and use data regarding students with disabilities.
These activities are intended support improved educational results and
functional outcomes for all children with disabilities, and to ensure
that States meet IDEA requirements, with an emphasis on those
requirements most closely related to improving educational results for
children with disabilities. Additionally, IDEA section 618(d) requires
States and the Department of the Interior to collect and examine data
to determine if significant disproportionality on the basis of race and
ethnicity is occurring in the State and the LEAs of the State with
respect to (1) identification of children as children with
disabilities, including by disability category; (2) placement of
children with disabilities by educational settings; and (3) the
incidence, duration, and type of disciplinary actions, including
suspensions and expulsions. There are 98 separate factors for
determining whether significant disproportionality exists in an LEA
(i.e., 14 categories of analysis with respect to identification,
placement, and disciplinary removal, cross-tabulated with seven racial
and ethnic groups).
In December 2016, the Department published a Notice of Final Rule
\2\ (NFR) on significant disproportionality in special education to
further clarify the statute. The NFR established a standard methodology
that SEAs must use to determine whether significant disproportionality
on the basis of race and ethnicity is occurring in the State and its
LEAs. The NFR also clarified the requirements for the review of
policies, practices, and procedures when significant disproportionality
is identified, and it requires LEAs to identify the factors
contributing to the significant disproportionality and address them,
including by reserving 15 percent of their IDEA Part B funds for CCEIS.
SEAs were required to begin implementing the regulation by reporting on
significant disproportionality beginning in 2020 for the 2018-2019
school year.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The full text of the NFR can be found at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document/ED-2015-OSERS-0132-0318">https://www.regulations.gov/document/ED-2015-OSERS-0132-0318</a>. Please also
see Significant Disproportionality Essential Questions and Answers
at <a href="https://sites.ed.gov/idea/files/significant-disproportionality-qa-03-08-17.pdf">https://sites.ed.gov/idea/files/significant-disproportionality-qa-03-08-17.pdf</a> for additional information on significant
disproportionality requirements.
\3\ On July 3, 2018, the Department postponed the date for
States to comply with these regulations until July 1, 2020. On March
7, 2019, the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia vacated the Department's delay. Council of Parent Attorneys
and Advocates, Inc. v. DeVos, 365 F. Supp. 3d 28 (D.D.C. 2019). The
regulations took effect immediately after that judicial decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since that time, the IDEA section 618 data reported by SEAs in the
Maintenance of Effort Reduction and Coordinating Early Intervening
Services collection (which include the number of LEAs required to
reserve 15 percent of their IDEA Part B funds due to being identified
as having significant disproportionality) \4\ reflected the following:
For school year (SY) 2018-2019 (reported by SEAs in May 2020), SEAs
reported that 417 LEAs, across 31 States, were required to reserve 15
percent of their IDEA Part B funds due to significant
disproportionality. Over the following two school years, the IDEA
section 618 data submitted by SEAs reflected an increase in both the
number of LEAs identified with significant disproportionality and the
overall number of States that identified
[[Page 18282]]
LEAs. For SY 2020-2021 (the most recent IDEA section 618 data
available, reported by SEAs in May 2022), SEAs identified 825 LEAs,
across 39 States, with significant disproportionality. While this
number represents only 5 percent of all LEAs in the country, it is a
significant increase from the number of LEAs identified in SY 2018-
2019. Of the 825 LEAs identified in SY 2020-2021, 648 LEAs had not been
identified with significant disproportionality in the previous two
school years and 99 LEAs had been repeatedly identified in all three
reporting years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ An LEA that is identified as having significant
disproportionality must reserve 15 percent of its IDEA, Part B funds
to provide CCEIS. Please see questions C-3-1 to C-3-10 in
Significant Disproportionality Essential Questions and Answers at
<a href="https://sites.ed.gov/idea/files/significant-disproportionality-qa-03-08-17.pdf">https://sites.ed.gov/idea/files/significant-disproportionality-qa-03-08-17.pdf</a> for more information on CCEIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department's analysis of the above data--i.e., the simultaneous
increase in the number of LEAs identified by the State for the first
time and the number of LEAs that have continued to be identified with
significant disproportionality--is that SEAs have varying needs for TA
to correctly use their IDEA data to both identify and address
significant disproportionality in their LEAs. In particular, SEAs with
LEAs that have been identified as having significant disproportionality
in multiple years may require additional TA to assist LEAs in
conducting more robust root cause analyses, including using various
data to identify and address the factors contributing to the
significant disproportionality. In addition, SEAs with LEAs newly
identified as having significant disproportionality may require
additional TA on how to support LEAs, whether in reviewing their
policies, practices, and procedures in the area in which the
significant disproportionality was identified, or in conducting a
robust root cause analysis to identify and address factors contributing
to the significant disproportionality.
Additionally, based on a review of IDEA Part B State Performance
Plans and Annual Performance Reports (SPP/APR) submitted by SEAs since
2016, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) has found
multiple instances of States confusing the methodologies used to
calculate significant disproportionality with those used to calculate
data under SPP/APR Indicator 4 (Suspension/Expulsion) and SPP/APR
Indicators 9 and 10 (Disproportionate Representation). While there may
be some similarities in these data sets and methodologies, the data
analysis required for each is different and based on separate, distinct
provisions of the IDEA. The significant disproportionality provision in
IDEA section 618(d) requires SEAs to determine whether significant
disproportionality on the basis of race and ethnicity is occurring in
the State and its LEAs, as it relates to identification, placement, and
discipline. In contrast, the reporting under SPP/APR Indicator 4 is
based on IDEA section 612(a)(22), which requires SEAs to identify
significant discrepancies, including by race and ethnicity, in the
rates of long-term suspensions and expulsions of children with
disabilities among the LEAs in the State or compared to rates for
nondisabled children in those LEAs. SPP/APR Indicator 9 is based on
IDEA section 616(a)(3)(C) and requires SEAs to identify LEAs with
disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special
education and related services that is the result of inappropriate
identification. SPP/APR Indicator 10, also based on IDEA section
616(a)(3)(C), requires SEAs to identify LEAs with disproportionate
representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability
categories that is the result of inappropriate identification. In
addition to providing data that is not valid and reliable to the
Department, SEA confusion with implementing the methodologies for
significant disproportionality and Indicators 4, 9, and 10, may lead to
incorrect identification or non-identification of significant
disproportionality, significant discrepancy, and disproportionate
representation. OSEP has determined that SEAs, and LEAs through their
work with SEAs, require additional assistance and resources to help
them: (1) collect high-quality data and analyze it according to the
SEA's standard methodology; (2) understand what their significant
disproportionality data mean; (3) conduct root cause analysis of the
data to identify the potential causes and contributing factors of the
significant disproportionality; (4) evaluate policies, practices, and
procedures that may be contributing to the significant
disproportionality; and (5) make changes, including through the
expenditure of IDEA funds for CCEIS, in any policy, practice, or
procedure, and address any other factors, identified as contributing to
the significant disproportionality.
To meet the array of complex challenges regarding the collection,
reporting, analysis, and use of data by States, OSEP proposes a
priority to establish and operate the National Technical Assistance
Center to Improve State Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use
Accurate IDEA Data to Address Significant Disproportionality.
Proposed Priority:
The purpose of the National Technical Assistance Center to Improve
State Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Data
to Address Significant Disproportionality (Center) is to promote equity
by improving State capacity to accurately collect, report, analyze, and
use section 618 data to address issues of significant
disproportionality. The Center will also work to increase the capacity
of State educational agencies (SEAs), and local educational agencies
(LEAs) through their work with SEAs, to use their data to conduct
robust root cause analyses and identify evidence-based strategies for
effectively using funds reserved for comprehensive coordinated early
intervening services (CCEIS).
The Center must achieve, at a minimum, the following expected
outcomes:
(a) Increased capacity of SEAs to analyze and use their data
collected and reported under section 618 of IDEA to accurately identify
significant disproportionality in the State and the LEAs of the State;
(b) Increased capacity of SEAs, and LEAs through their work with
SEAs, to use data collected and reported under section 618 of IDEA, as
well as other available data, to conduct root cause analyses in order
to identify the potential causes and contributing factors of an LEA's
significant disproportionality;
(c) Improved capacity of SEAs, and LEAs through their work with
SEAs, to review and, as necessary, revise policies, practices, and
procedures identified as contributing to significant
disproportionality, and to address any other factors identified as
contributing to the significant disproportionality;
(d) Improved capacity of SEAs to assist LEAs, as needed, in using
data to drive decisions related to the use of funds reserved for CCEIS;
(e) Increased capacity of SEAs, and LEAs through their work with
SEAs, to use data to address disparities revealed in the data they
collect; and
(f) Improved capacity of SEAs, and LEAs through their work with
SEAs, to accurately collect, report, analyze, and use data related to
significant disproportionality and apply the state methodology for
identifying significant disproportionality, including distinguishing
data collected under section 616 of the IDEA (SPP/APR Indicator 4
(Suspension/Expulsion) and SPP/APR Indicators 9 and 10
(Disproportionate Representation); and
(g) Increased capacity of SEAs to use data to evaluate their own
methodology for identifying significant disproportionality.
In addition to these programmatic requirements, to be considered
for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the application
and
[[Page 18283]]
administrative requirements in this priority, which are:
(a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under
``Significance,'' how the proposed project will--
(1) Address State challenges in collecting, analyzing, reporting,
and using their data collected under section 618 of IDEA to correctly
identify and address significant disproportionality. To meet this
requirement the applicant must--
(i) Demonstrate knowledge of IDEA data collections, including data
required under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA, as well as the
requirements related to significant disproportionality in section
618(d) of IDEA;
(ii) Present applicable national, State, and local data to
demonstrate the capacity needs of SEAs, and LEAs through their work
with SEAs, to analyze and use their data collected under section 618 of
IDEA to identify and address significant disproportionality;
(iii) Describe how SEAs, and LEAs through their work with SEAs, are
currently analyzing and using their data collected under section 618 of
IDEA to identify and address significant disproportionality; and
(iv) Present information about the difficulties SEAs, and LEAs
through their work with SEAs, have in collecting, reporting, analyzing,
and using their IDEA section 618 data to address significant
disproportionality; and
(2) Result in improved IDEA data collection, reporting, analysis,
and use in identifying and addressing significant disproportionality.
(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 of the grant;
(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 (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) by
which the proposed project will achieve its intended outcomes that
depicts, at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and intended
outcomes of the proposed project;
(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="https://osepideasthatwork.org/sites/default/files/2021-12/ConceptualFramework_Updated.pdf">https://osepideasthatwork.org/sites/default/files/2021-12/ConceptualFramework_Updated.pdf</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
practices (EBPs).\5\ To meet this requirement, the applicant must
describe--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ For purposes of these requirements, ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) The current information on the capacity of SEAs to use IDEA
section 618 data to correctly identify significant disproportionality
and assist LEAs as they conduct root cause analyses and review LEA
policies, practices, and procedures;
(ii) Current research and EBPs on effective practices to address
disproportionality, particularly through the provision of CCEIS; and
(iii) How the proposed project will incorporate current research
and 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
the capacity needs of SEAs, and LEAs through their work with SEAs, to
collect, report, analyze, and use IDEA section 618 data in a manner
that correctly identifies and addresses significant disproportionality
in States and LEAs;
(ii) Its proposed approach to universal, general TA,\6\ which must
identify the intended recipients, including the type and number of
recipients, that will receive the products and services under this
approach;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ ``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,\7\ which
must identify--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ ``Targeted, specialized TA'' means TA services based on
needs common to multiple recipients and not extensively
individualized. A relationship is established between the TA
recipient and one or more TA center staff. This category of TA
includes one-time, labor-intensive events, such as facilitating
strategic planning or hosting regional or national conferences. It
can also include episodic, less labor-intensive events that extend
over a period of time, such as facilitating a series of conference
calls on single or multiple topics that are designed around the
needs of the recipients. Facilitating communities of practice can
also be considered targeted, specialized TA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(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,\8\ which
must identify--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ ``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 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 level;
(C) Its proposed plan for assisting SEAs to build or enhance
training systems related to the use of IDEA section 618 data to
correctly identify and address significant disproportionality that
include professional development based on adult learning principles and
coaching;
(D) Its proposed plan for working with appropriate levels of the
education
[[Page 18284]]
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 capacity needs of SEAs, and LEAs
through their work with SEAs, to collect, report, analyze, and use IDEA
section 618 data to correctly identify and address significant
disproportionality; and
(E) Its proposed plan for collaborating and coordinating with
Department-funded projects, including those providing data-related
support to States, such as the IDEA Data Center, the Early Childhood
Data Center, the Center for IDEA Fiscal Reporting, the Center on the
Integration of IDEA Data, the National Center for Systemic Improvement,
the EDFacts Initiative, and Institute of Education Sciences/National
Center for Education Statistics research and development investments,
where appropriate, in order to align complementary work and jointly
develop and implement products and services to meet the purposes of
this priority;
(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.
(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.\9\ The evaluation plan must--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 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 APR and at the end of
Year 2 for the review process; 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,'' 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 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, and funds will be spent in a way that
increases their efficiency and cost-effectiveness, including by
reducing waste or achieving better outcomes.
(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:
(1) Include, in Appendix A, personnel-loading charts and timelines,
as applicable, to illustrate the management plan described in the
narrative;
(2) Include, in the budget, attendance at the following:
(i) A one and one-half day kick-off meeting in Washington, DC, or
virtually, after receipt of the award, and an annual planning meeting
in Washington, DC, or virtually, with the OSEP project officer and
other relevant staff during each subsequent year of the project period.
Note: The project must reallocate unused travel funds no later than
the end of the third quarter if the kick-off or planning meetings are
conducted virtually.
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;
and
Note: The project must reallocate unused travel funds no later than
the end of the third quarter of each budget period if the conference is
conducted virtually.
(iii) Three annual two-day trips to attend Department briefings,
Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by
OSEP;
(3) Include, in the budget, a line item for an annual set-aside of
5 percent of the grant amount to support emerging needs that are
consistent with the proposed project's intended outcomes, as those
needs are identified in consultation with, and approved by, the OSEP
project officer. With approval from the OSEP project officer, the
project must reallocate any remaining funds from this annual set-aside
no later than the end of the third quarter of each budget period;
(4) Maintain a high-quality website, with an easy-to-navigate
design, that
[[Page 18285]]
meets government or industry-recognized standards for accessibility;
and
(5) Include, in Appendix A, 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 this new
award period and at the end of this award period, as appropriate.
Types of Priorities:
When inviting applications for a competition using one or more
priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute,
competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal
Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:
Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1)
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2)
selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority.
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
Final Priority and Requirements
We will announce the final priority and requirements in a document
in the Federal Register. We will determine the final priority and
requirements after considering responses to this document 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 this proposed priority and one or more of these
requirements, we invite applications through a notice 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.
OMB has determined that this proposed regulatory action is not a
significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
We also have 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 upon a reasoned determination
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits
and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society,
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of
cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must
adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide
information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes.''
We are issuing the proposed priority and requirements only on a
reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs. In
choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those
approaches that maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that
follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is
consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563. In summary,
the potential costs associated with this priority would 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 potential
benefits of implementing the program would outweigh the costs incurred
by applicants, and the costs of carrying out activities associated with
the application will be paid for with program funds. For these reasons,
we have determined that the costs of implementation will not be
excessively burdensome for eligible applicants, including small
entities.
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 both 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.
In addition, we have considered the potential benefits of this
regulatory action and have noted these benefits in the background
section of this document.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The proposed priority contains information collection requirements
that are approved by OMB under OMB control number 1820-0028; the
proposed priority does not affect the currently approved data
collection.
Clarity of the Regulations
[[Page 18286]]
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
easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the
following:
[ssquf] Are the requirements in the proposed regulations clearly
stated?
[ssquf] Do the proposed regulations contain technical terms or
other wording that interferes with their clarity?
[ssquf] Does the format of the proposed regulations (grouping and
order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce
their clarity?
[ssquf] Would the proposed regulations be easier to understand if
we divided them into more (but shorter) sections?
[ssquf] Could the description of the proposed regulations in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this preamble be more helpful in
making the proposed regulations easier to understand? If so, how?
[ssquf] What else could we do to make the proposed regulations
easier to understand?
To send any comments about how the Department could make these
proposed regulations easier to understand, see the instructions in the
ADDRESSES section.
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 (SBA) 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.
The small entities that this proposed regulatory action would
affect are LEAs, including charter schools that operate as 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. We believe that the costs imposed on an applicant by the
proposed priority would be limited to paperwork burden related to
preparing an application and that the benefits of the proposed priority
would outweigh any costs incurred by the applicant.
Participation in the Technical Assistance on State Data Collection
program is voluntary. For this reason, the proposed priority would
impose no burden on small entities unless they applied for funding
under the program. We expect that in determining whether to apply for
Technical Assistance on State Data Collection program funds, an
eligible entity would evaluate the requirements of preparing an
application and any associated costs and weigh them against the
benefits likely to be achieved by receiving a Technical Assistance on
State Data Collection program grant. An eligible entity probably would
apply only if it determines that the likely benefits exceed the costs
of preparing an application.
We believe that the proposed priority would not impose any
additional burden on a small entity applying for a grant than the
entity would face in the absence of the proposed action. That is, the
length of the applications those entities would submit in the absence
of the proposed regulatory action and the time needed to prepare an
application would likely be the same.
This proposed regulatory action would not have a significant
economic impact on a small entity once it receives a grant because it
would be able to meet the costs of compliance using the funds provided
under this program. We invite comments from eligible small entities as
to whether they believe this proposed regulatory action would have a
significant economic impact on them and, if so, request evidence to
support that belief.
Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the
objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental
partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies
on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination
and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, individuals with disabilities
can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an
accessible format. The Department will provide the requestor with an
accessible format that may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or text
format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, braille, large print,
audiotape, or compact disc, or other accessible format.
Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this
document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may
access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of
Federal Regulations at: <a href="http://www.govinfo.gov">www.govinfo.gov</a>. At this site you can view this
document, as well as all other documents of this Department published
in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe 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 Special Education
and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2023-06417 Filed 3-24-23; 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 28, 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.