Rule2023-15852
Final 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
July 26, 2023
Effective
August 25, 2023
Issuing agencies
Education Department
Abstract
The Department of Education (Department) announces a priority and requirements for the 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 one or more of these requirements in fiscal year (FY) 2023 and later years. We will use the priority to award a cooperative agreement for a Center to focus attention on an identified national need to provide technical assistance (TA) to improve the capacity of States to meet the data collection and reporting requirements under Part B and Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This Center will support States in collecting, reporting, and determining how to best analyze and use their data to address issues of significant disproportionality and will customize its TA to meet each State's specific needs.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 142 (Wednesday, July 26, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 142 (Wednesday, July 26, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48129-48135]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-15852]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter III
[Docket ID ED-2023-OSERS-0057]
Final 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: Final priority and requirements.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) announces a priority
and requirements for the 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 one or
more of these requirements in fiscal year (FY) 2023 and later years. We
will use the priority to award a cooperative agreement for a Center to
focus attention on an identified national need to provide technical
assistance (TA) to improve the capacity of States to meet the data
collection and reporting requirements under Part B and Part C of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This Center will
support States in collecting, reporting, and determining how to best
analyze and use their data to address issues of significant
disproportionality and will customize its TA to meet each State's
specific needs.
DATES: The priority and requirements are effective August 25, 2023.
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#8ad8e3e9e2efe6e6efa4ceebfce3f9caefeea4ede5fc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0e5c676d666b62626b204a6f78677d4e6b6a20696178">[email protected]</span></a>.
If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and
wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Purpose of Program: The purpose of the 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
[[Page 48130]]
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).
Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR 300.646-300.647, 300.702; as
well as IDEA Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance
Report (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.
We published a notice of proposed priority and requirements (NPP)
for this program in the Federal Register on March 28, 2023 (88 FR
18280). That document contained background information and our reasons
for proposing the priority and requirements.
There are differences between the NPP and this notice of final
priority and requirements (NFP) as discussed in the Analysis of
Comments and Changes section of this document. The most significant
change, as discussed below, is the addition of two expected outcomes
for the Center.
Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, 20
parties submitted comments addressing the priority and requirements.
Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes, or
suggested changes the law does not authorize us to make under the
applicable statutory authority. In addition, we do not address general
comments that raised concerns not directly related to the proposed
priority and requirements.
Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and
of any changes in the priority and requirements since publication of
the NPP follows. We received comments on a number of specific topics,
including the topics for TA. Each topic is addressed below.
General Comments
Comments: Several commenters specifically expressed support for the
proposed center.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the comments and agrees with
the commenters that the Center funded under this program will provide
necessary and valuable TA to States.
Changes: None.
Comments: Multiple commenters suggested that the Department revise
the Center's expected outcomes to include outcomes related to the
engagement of parents in the use of data to address disparities and the
provision of data in accessible and understandable formats.
Discussion: The Department agrees with commenters that improving
State capacity to engage parents in the use of IDEA data will enhance
the State's ability to address disparities. Additionally, it is vitally
important to provide data to stakeholders in accessible and
understandable formats to support the use of the data to address
disparities revealed in the data collected. For this reason, the
Department will include additional expected outcomes to address the
commenters' concerns.
Changes: The final priority includes two additional expected
outcomes for the Center, expected outcome (h), focused on improved
capacity of State educational agencies (SEAs) to assist local
educational agencies (LEAs) to engage parents, families, advocates, and
other stakeholders to use data to address disparities revealed in the
data they collect and (i), related to improved capacity of SEAs, and
LEAs through their work with SEAs, to provide data in timely, usable,
accessible, and understandable formats for parents, families,
advocates, and other stakeholders.
Comments: A number of commenters proposed that the Department
expand the list of suggested Department-funded TA centers with which
the Center may collaborate. Specifically, the commenters proposed
including equity-related centers to the current list of data-related
centers.
Discussion: The Department agrees with the commenters. The Center
should collaborate with both equity- and data-related Department-funded
TA centers, as appropriate.
Changes: We have revised paragraph (iv)(E) of the final
requirements to require applicants to submit the proposed plan for
collaborating and coordinating with Department-funded projects,
including those providing data-related support to States (e.g., the
IDEA Data Center, the Center for IDEA Fiscal Reporting, and the
National Center for Systemic Improvement) and equity-related support to
States (e.g., Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports
(PBIS), and Regional Equity Assistance Centers), where appropriate, in
order to align complementary work and jointly develop and implement
products and services to meet the purposes of this priority.
Comments: Several commenters expressed interest in ensuring that
the Center will assist SEAs to specifically work with both rural
districts and charter schools that are considered LEAs for the purposes
of the identification of significant disproportionality.
Discussion: The Department agrees that SEAs need to support all of
their LEAs related to the identification of significant
disproportionality. The proposed priority would require the proposed
Center to provide TA to SEAs to improve their capacity to support all
of their LEAs, which includes rural LEAs and charter schools that are
considered LEAs, around issues related to significant
disproportionality. Therefore, the priority is consistent with the
commenters' suggestion and no change is necessary.
Changes: None.
Comments: A number of commenters expressed concerns that the
development of an additional data center focused on significant
disproportionality would be duplicative of and overlap with the
Department's currently funded centers already providing TA related to
significant disproportionality (e.g., the IDEA Data Center, the Center
for IDEA Fiscal Reporting, and the National Center for Systemic
Improvement). The commenters noted that numerous TA opportunities and
products have been developed by those existing centers and are in use
by States.
Discussion: While we appreciate the commenters' concerns, the
Center will not duplicate efforts of other centers, as
[[Page 48131]]
it will focus on improving the data collection and analysis capacity of
States to ensure that data and information determined necessary for
implementation of IDEA section 618(d) are collected, analyzed, and
accurately reported to the Department. Additionally, the Center will
build TA efforts already undertaken by Office of Special Education
Programs (OSEP)-funded centers. Existing centers have been tasked with
assisting States in their initial implementation of the significant
disproportionality regulations. While there has been progress, States
still struggle with implementing a robust methodology and assisting
LEAs as they review and, as necessary, revise their policies,
practices, and procedures in the area of the identified significant
disproportionality. Additionally, a recent Office of the Inspector
General report \1\ noted concerns with the accuracy and reliability of
State-reported data related to significant disproportionality.
Therefore, there is a demonstrated need for a center with a singular
focus on assisting States to collect, report, analyze, and use
significant disproportionality data. The work of this Center is
critical to meeting this Administration's priority to ensure States and
LEAs address significant disproportionality in the identification,
placement, or incidence and duration of disciplinary actions, including
suspensions and expulsions of children with disabilities based on race
and ethnicity. Consistent with the Administration's priorities, this
Center will support SEAs, and LEAs through their work with SEAs, in
conducting root cause analyses. With effective supports to identify the
potential root causes and contributing factors of the significant
disproportionality, LEAs can meaningfully address their identified
significant disproportionality and set a path towards more equitable
services for all students, regardless of their race and ethnicity.
Finally, if there are any areas where there appears to be duplication
or overlap, project officers for the currently funded centers will work
together with the project officer for the new Center to develop a plan
to ensure appropriate collaboration, rather than duplication, occurs
across the impacted centers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Please see <a href="http://www.oversight.gov/sites/default/files/oig-reports/ED/equity-idea-final-inspection-report.pdf">www.oversight.gov/sites/default/files/oig-reports/ED/equity-idea-final-inspection-report.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: None.
Comments: One group of commenters provided responses to the
Department's directed question about the supports States require in
reviewing policies, practices, and procedures and understanding the
expenditure requirements for comprehensive coordinated early
intervening services (CCEIS). The commenters suggested that States need
TA to better understand the components of policies, practices, and
procedures that lead to significant disproportionality, as well as TA
on the requirements around the expenditure of funds for CCEIS.
Discussion: The Department appreciates and agrees with the
commenters' suggestions. Understanding the potential interaction
between significant disproportionality and the policies, practices, and
procedures of an LEA and understanding the expenditure requirements for
CCEIS are both important, as they are fundamental requirements of the
significant disproportionality regulation. The Department believes that
proposed expected outcome paragraphs (c) and (d) adequately address the
commenters' suggestions.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter responded to the first directed question
about common challenges or barriers experienced by SEAs and LEAs when
using IDEA data to address significant disproportionality and promote
equity. The commenter identified the following State needs: addressing
critical shortages of specialized instructional support personnel;
reviewing and revising policies, practices, and procedures; and
providing general guidance on best practices related to the evaluation
of students with disabilities, the use of schoolwide approaches such as
positive behavioral interventions and supports, and developing and
enhancing a multi-tiered system of supports.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenter's suggestions.
In regard to the commenter's first suggestion, while the Department
agrees that securing highly skilled instructional staff is a critical
need of LEAs, the Center's focus is on improving data collection and
analysis capacity of States to ensure that data and information
determined necessary for implementation of IDEA are collected,
analyzed, and accurately reported to the Department. The Department
agrees with the commenter's second suggestion that SEAs require TA on
reviewing and, as necessary, revising policies, practices, and
procedures identified as contributing to significant
disproportionality. The Department believes that proposed expected
outcome paragraph (c) adequately addresses the commenter's suggestion.
Finally, the Department agrees with the commenter's third suggestion
that States would benefit from general guidance on best practices
related to the evaluation of students with disabilities, the use of
schoolwide approaches such as positive behavioral interventions and
supports, and developing and enhancing a multi-tiered system of
supports. To this end, OSEP funds other centers (e.g., National Center
on Educational Outcomes, Center on PBIS, and National Center on
Intensive Intervention) that provide TA on these topics.
Changes: None.
Comments: Another group of commenters responded to all of the
Department's directed questions by noting that existing OSEP centers
have already developed resources to provide TA on the areas addressed
in the directed questions. These commenters did, however, note that
their biggest challenge was in understanding the differences in
requirements between significant disproportionality and the IDEA Part B
SPP/APR Indicators 4 (Suspension/Expulsion), and 9 and 10
(Disproportionate Representation).
Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenters' support of
OSEP's currently funded centers. As stated in a response above, the
Center will build upon the work that has already been completed. The
Department believes that, through the implementation of proposed
expected outcome paragraph (f), the Center will assist States and LEAs
to improve capacity to distinguish SPP/APR Indicator 4 (Suspension/
Expulsion) and SPP/APR Indicators 9 and 10 (Disproportionate
Representation), which are collected under section 616 of IDEA, from
significant disproportionality data, which are collected under section
618 of IDEA.
Changes: None.
Final Priority
National Technical Assistance Center To Improve State Capacity To
Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Data To Address
Significant Disproportionality
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 SEAs, and LEAs through their work with SEAs, to use their data to
conduct
[[Page 48132]]
robust root cause analyses and identify evidence-based strategies for
effectively using funds reserved for 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;
(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 IDEA (specifically, SPP/APR
Indicator 4 (Suspension/Expulsion) and SPP/APR Indicators 9 and 10
(Disproportionate Representation));
(g) Increased capacity of SEAs to use data to evaluate their own
methodology for identifying significant disproportionality;
(h) Improved capacity of SEAs to assist LEAs to engage parents,
families, advocates, and other stakeholders to use data to address
disparities revealed in the data they collect; and
(i) Improved capacity of SEAs, and LEAs through their work with
SEAs, to provide data in timely, usable, accessible, and understandable
formats for parents, families, advocates, and other stakeholders.
Types of Priorities: When inviting applications for a competition
using one or more priorities, we designate the type of each priority as
absolute, competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in
the Federal Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:
Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1)
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2)
selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority.
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
This document does not preclude us from proposing additional
priorities or requirements, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking
requirements.
Note: This document does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use this priority and these requirements, we invite
applications through a notice in the Federal Register.
Final Requirements
The Assistant Secretary establishes the following requirements for
this program. We may apply these requirements in any year in which this
program is in effect.
Requirements:
Applicants must--
(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, including a variety of LEAs such as urban
and rural LEAs and charter schools that are LEAs, 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 of 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
[[Page 48133]]
(EBPs).\2\ To meet this requirement, the applicant must describe--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 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 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 on effective practices to address significant
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,\3\ which must
identify the intended recipients, including the type and number of
recipients, that will receive the products and services under this
approach;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``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,\4\ which
must identify--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ``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,\5\ which
must identify---
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``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 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 (e.g., the IDEA Data Center, the Center for IDEA
Fiscal Reporting, and the National Center for Systemic Improvement) and
equity-related support to States (e.g., Center on PBIS, and Regional
Equity Assistance Centers), 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.\6\ The evaluation plan must--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 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, or 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--
[[Page 48134]]
(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 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.
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) must determine whether this regulatory action is ``significant''
and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and
subject to review by OMB. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as
amended by Executive Order 14094, 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 $200 million or more
(adjusted every 3 years by the Administrator of Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for changes in gross domestic product);
or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, territorial, or Tribal governments
or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise legal or policy issues for which centralized review would
meaningfully further the President's priorities or the principles
stated in the Executive order, as specifically authorized in a timely
manner by the Administrator of OIRA in each case.
This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866
(as amended by Executive Order 14094). Pursuant to the Congressional
Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs designated this rule as not a ``major rule,'' as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
We have also reviewed this final regulatory action under Executive
Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles,
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in
Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order
13563 requires that an agency--
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits
and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society,
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of
cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must
adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or
[[Page 48135]]
provide information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes.''
We are issuing the final priority and requirements only on a
reasoned determination that their benefits justify the 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.
We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly
interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the exercise of
their governmental functions.
In accordance with these Executive orders, the Department has
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and
qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as
necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.
Discussion of Potential Costs and Benefits
The Department believes that this regulatory action does not impose
significant costs on eligible entities, whose participation in this
program is voluntary. While this action does impose some requirements
on participating grantees that are cost-bearing, the Department expects
that applicants for this program will include in their proposed budgets
a request for funds to support compliance with such cost-bearing
requirements. Therefore, costs associated with meeting these
requirements are, in the Department's estimation, minimal.
The Department believes that these benefits to the Federal
government outweigh the costs associated with this action.
Regulatory Alternatives Considered
The Department believes that the priority and requirements are
needed to administer the program effectively.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The final priority, including requirements, contains information
collection requirements that are approved by OMB under OMB control
number 1820-0028; the final priority, including requirements, does not
affect the currently approved data collection.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification: The Secretary certifies
that this final regulatory action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The U.S. Small
Business Administration (SBA) Size Standards define proprietary
institutions as small businesses if they are independently owned and
operated, are not dominant in their field of operation, and have total
annual revenue below $7,000,000. Nonprofit institutions are defined as
small entities if they are independently owned and operated and not
dominant in their field of operation. Public institutions are defined
as small organizations if they are operated by a government overseeing
a population below 50,000.
The small entities that this final regulatory action will affect
are 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 this final priority,
including requirements, will be limited to paperwork burden related to
preparing an application and that the benefits of this final priority
will outweigh any costs incurred by the applicant.
Participation in the Technical Assistance on State Data Collection
program is voluntary. For this reason, the final priority and
requirements, imposes 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 will evaluate the requirements of preparing an
application and any associated costs and weigh them against the
benefits likely to be achieved by receiving a Technical Assistance on
State Data Collection program grant. An eligible entity will most
likely apply only if it determines that the likely benefits exceed the
costs of preparing an application.
We believe that the final priority and requirements will 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 this final regulatory action and the time needed to prepare an
application will likely be the same.
This final regulatory action will not have a significant economic
impact on a small entity once it receives a grant because it will be
able to meet the costs of compliance using the funds provided under
this program.
Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the
objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental
partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies
on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination
and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, individuals with disabilities
can obtain this document in an accessible format. The Department will
provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich
Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file,
Braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc, or other accessible
format.
Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this
document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may
access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of
Federal Regulations at <a href="http://www.govinfo.gov">www.govinfo.gov</a>. At this site you can view this
document, as well as all other documents of this Department published
in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To
use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at
the site.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Federal Register by using the article search feature at
<a href="http://www.federalregister.gov">www.federalregister.gov</a>. Specifically, through the advanced search
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published
by the Department.
Glenna Wright-Gallo,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2023-15852 Filed 7-24-23; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on July 26, 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.