Proposed Rule2024-06656
State Personnel Development Grants
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
March 28, 2024
Issuing agencies
Education Department
Abstract
The Department of Education (Department) proposes priorities and requirements under the State Personnel Development Grants (SPDG) program, Assistance Listing Number 84.323A. The Department may use these priorities and requirements for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2024 and later years. We take this action to focus attention on assisting States in reforming and improving their systems for personnel preparation and personnel development in order to improve results for children with disabilities.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 61 (Thursday, March 28, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 61 (Thursday, March 28, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21469-21477]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-06656]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter III
[Docket ID ED-2024-OSERS-0012]
State Personnel Development Grants
AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services,
Department of Education.
ACTION: Proposed priorities and requirements.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) proposes priorities
and requirements under the State Personnel Development Grants (SPDG)
program, Assistance Listing Number 84.323A. The Department may use
these priorities and requirements for competitions in fiscal year (FY)
2024 and later years. We take this action to focus attention on
assisting States in reforming and improving their systems for personnel
preparation and personnel development in order to improve results for
children with disabilities.
DATES: We must receive your comments on or before April 29, 2024.
ADDRESSES: Comments must be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. However, if you require an accommodation
or cannot otherwise submit your comments via <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>,
please contact the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT. The Department will not accept comments submitted
by fax or by email, or comments submitted after the comment period
closes. To ensure the Department does not receive duplicate copies,
please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the
Docket ID at the top of your comments.
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
``FAQ.''
Note: The Department's policy is generally to make 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Coffey, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 4A10, Washington, DC 20202.
Telephone: (202) 987-0150. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0349666d6d6a6566712d406c6565667a4366672d646c75"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f7bd9299999e919285d9b4989191928eb79293d9909881">[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 priorities and requirements. To ensure that your comments
have maximum effect in developing the final priorities and
requirements, we urge you to clearly identify the specific section of
the proposed priorities and requirements that each comment addresses.
We are particularly interested in comments about whether the
proposed priorities or any of the proposed requirements would be
challenging for new applicants to meet and, if so, how the proposed
priorities or requirements could be revised to address potential
challenges. The Department is also
[[Page 21470]]
particularly interested in comments in response to the following
questions.
Directed Questions:
1. What are the common challenges or barriers experienced by State
educational agencies (SEAs) in developing and implementing career
pathways for those interested in becoming fully certified special
education teachers, including paraprofessionals, through residency,
grow your own (GYO), and registered apprenticeships programs?
2. What supports would help SEAs to develop and implement career
pathways for those interested in becoming fully certified special
education teachers, including paraprofessionals, through residency,
GYO, and registered apprenticeships programs?
3. What are the common challenges or barriers experienced by SEAs
in developing and implementing a system to address the professional
learning and certification needs of personnel with an emergency
certification who work with children with disabilities?
4. What supports would help SEAs to develop and implement a system
to address the professional learning and certification needs of
personnel with an emergency certification who work with children with
disabilities?
5. Which stakeholders should SEAs collaborate with to develop and
implement a system to address the professional learning and
certification needs of personnel with an emergency certification who
work with children with disabilities?
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094 and their
overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result
from these proposed priorities and requirements. Please let us know of
any further ways we could reduce potential costs or increase potential
benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of
the program.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect public
comments about the proposed priorities and requirements by accessing
<a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>. To inspect comments in person, please contact the
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
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 these proposed priorities 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 SPDG program is to assist
SEAs in reforming and improving their systems for personnel preparation
and professional development of individuals providing early
intervention, educational, and transition services to improve results
for children with disabilities.
``Raise the Bar: Lead the World'' (RTB) is the Department's call to
action to transform prekindergarten through postsecondary learning and
unite around what truly works by promoting academic excellence, boldly
improving learning conditions, and preparing our Nation's students for
global competitiveness (<a href="http://www.ed.gov/raisethebar/">www.ed.gov/raisethebar/</a>). A robust and
sustainable educator workforce available to educate and support all
children and youth, including children and youth with disabilities, is
essential to this call to action. These proposed priorities and
requirements support the Department's RTB goals. Specifically, we are
proposing priorities designed to:
<bullet> Mitigate the barriers to improved educational outcomes and
functional results for children with disabilities by increasing the
number of well-qualified, fully certified special education teachers,
including paraprofessionals;
<bullet> Increase collaborative and effective instruction and
services for children with disabilities;
<bullet> Expand the ability of principals to serve as instructional
leaders who create an equity-based, cooperative, and inclusive
environment; and
<bullet> Provide pre-service and in-service personnel with the
knowledge, attitudes, skills, and aspiration to engage effectively with
families.
The SPDG program, as a pre-service and in-service professional
development program, is uniquely positioned to support the Department's
RTB goals by helping to ensure that children with disabilities have
access to well-qualified educators and by growing the number of
teachers and administrators who can use data to develop and implement
standards-based individualized education programs (IEPs) and provide
effective instruction in inclusive environments. The proposed
priorities specified in this notice are designed to support pathways
and professional development for personnel to improve outcomes for
children with disabilities.
We intend for these proposed priorities to supplement Absolute
Priorities 1 and 2 published in the Federal Register on December 19,
2022 (87 FR 77566),\1\ as well as other relevant statutory and
regulatory priorities established by the Department. Specifically, as
part of any SPDG competition, all applicants would be required to meet
the statutory requirements in sections 651 through 655 of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1451-
1455.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See <a href="http://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/12/19/2022-27367/applications-for-new-awards-state-personnel-development-grants">www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/12/19/2022-27367/applications-for-new-awards-state-personnel-development-grants</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1451-1455.
Proposed Priorities
This document contains five proposed priorities. Proposed
Priorities 1 through 5 are based on allowable activities in sections
651 through 655 of IDEA. These proposed priorities would be applicable
to all eligible applicants. We may apply one or more of these
priorities in any year in which this program is in effect.
Proposed Priority 1: Providing Career Pathways for Those Interested in
Becoming Fully Certified Special Education Teachers, Including
Paraprofessionals, Through Residency, GYO, and Registered
Apprenticeships Programs
Background:
The purpose of this proposed priority is to assist SEAs in
developing and implementing or enhancing existing teacher residency,
grow your own (GYO), and registered apprenticeships programs that
provide additional pathways to becoming a special education teacher.
According to the October 2022 results of the National Center for
Education Statistics (NCES) School Pulse Panel on Staffing, 21 percent
of responding public schools reported that they were not fully staffed
in the area of special education for the 2022-2023 school year (U.S.
Department of Education, 2023). Ensuring all students have access to a
well-qualified, fully certified teacher must continue to be a priority
for all States. By reducing the cost of earning a license and offering
flexible scheduling, teacher residency, GYO, and registered
apprenticeships programs are designed to bring more people into the
profession. Teacher residency, GYO, and registered apprenticeships
programs may open doors to the profession for those who may otherwise
face barriers to entrance, including multilingual, racially and
ethnically diverse individuals, individuals who have disabilities, and
paraprofessionals who may already have decades of classroom
[[Page 21471]]
experience, but for numerous reasons, including cost, could not pursue
a teaching degree.
The Department has partnered with the Department of Labor and
leading education organizations to advance high-quality and affordable
teacher preparation through the expansion of registered apprenticeship
programs for K-12 teachers, which can be used to scale and strengthen
evidence-based teacher residency and GYO programs (see
<a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/08/31/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-announces-public-and-private-sector-actions-to-strengthen-teaching-profession-and-help-schools-fill-vacancies/">www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/08/31/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-announces-public-and-private-sector-actions-to-strengthen-teaching-profession-and-help-schools-fill-vacancies/</a> and <a href="http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/education-labor-departments-announce-new-efforts-to-advance-teacher-preparation-programs-and-expand-registered-apprenticeships-educators">www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/education-labor-departments-announce-new-efforts-to-advance-teacher-preparation-programs-and-expand-registered-apprenticeships-educators</a>).
Research shows that high-quality residency models can expand the
pool of well-prepared applicants entering the teaching profession,
promoting diversity of the workforce and bringing a wide range of
experiences into the classroom to support students. A 2014
implementation study published by the Institute of Education Sciences
shows that residents are more likely than nonresidents to report
feeling prepared to enter the classroom and that after program
completion, more than 90 percent of residents stayed in their school
district for three years (Silva et al., 2014).
When aligned to high-quality, evidence-based practices for
education preparation, such as those drafted by the Pathways Alliance
and approved by the Department of Labor, registered apprenticeship
programs have the potential to be an effective, high-quality ``earn and
learn'' model that allow candidates to earn their teaching credential
while earning a salary by combining coursework with structured, paid
on-the-job learning experiences with a mentor teacher (Pathways
Alliance, 2023). Registered apprenticeship programs for K-12 teachers
can be used to establish, scale, and build on existing high-quality
pathways into teaching that emphasize classroom-based experience, such
as teacher residencies.
GYO is an approach to developing a pipeline of educator candidates
to meet specific workforce needs that seeks to eliminate any barriers
that may prevent local candidates from entering or remaining in the
field. GYO programs are distinguished from other pipelines by whom they
target, focusing on recruitment of high school students, career
changers, paraprofessionals, non-teaching-school faculty, and community
members (Espinoza et al., 2018). Offering financial aid (e.g., loan
forgiveness and scholarships) to candidates completing GYO programs,
targeting communication to specific populations, and establishing
systems for candidates to receive continuous coaching and mentoring
from entrance into the GYO program through early service can all aid in
the success of these programs (Carver-Thomas, 2018; Professional
Educator Standards Board, 2018; Texas Comprehensive Center, 2018). GYO
programs can help address shortages in high-need areas and subjects,
such as in rural schools and in special education (Jessen et al.,
2020); it can also result in improved recruitment and retention of
teachers of color (Gist et al., 2019).
Proposed Priority 1:
Projects designed to increase the number of certified special
education teachers by establishing a new, or enhancing an existing,
teacher residency, GYO, or registered apprenticeship program that
minimizes or eliminates the cost of certification for special education
teacher candidates and provides opportunities for candidates to be
paid, including being provided with a stipend (which, for programs that
include paid experience for the duration of the certification program,
can be met through paragraph (i), below), to cover the time spent
gaining classroom experience during their certification program.
A project implementing a new or enhanced teacher residency, GYO, or
registered apprenticeship program must--
(a) Use data-driven strategies and evidence-based approaches to
increase recruitment, successful completion, and retention of the
special education teachers supported by the project;
(b) Provide standards for participants to enter into and complete
the program;
(c) Be aligned to evidence-based (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1)
practices for effective educator preparation;
(d) Have little to no financial burden for program participants, or
provide for loan forgiveness;
(e) Provide opportunities for candidates to be paid, including
being provided with a stipend, to cover time spent in clinical
experience during their certification program;
(f) Develop a plan to monitor program quality;
(g) Require completion of a bachelor's degree either before
entering or as a result of the residency, GYO, or apprenticeship
program;
(h) Result in the satisfaction of all requirements for full State
teacher licensure or certification, excluding emergency, temporary,
provisional, or other sub-standard licensure or certification;
(i) Provide increasing levels of responsibility for the resident/
GYO participant/apprentice during at least one year of paid on-the-job
learning/clinical experience, during which a mentor teacher is the
teacher of record; and
(j) Develop a plan to ensure the program has funding after the end
of the project period.
In their applications, States must describe how their projects will
meet these program requirements. In addition to these requirements, to
be considered for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the
application and administrative requirements under Common Elements.
Proposed Priority 2: Supporting Emergency Certified Special Education
Teachers To Become Fully Certified
Background:
Citing a Department of Education report, Wilkerson and colleagues
(2022) note that all States and the District of Columbia have reported
a shortage of special education teachers in at least one academic year
between 2014-2018. In fact, 48 States have authorized alternative
routes to fill special education positions (Myers et al., 2020).
For decades, school districts have relied on unlicensed special
education teachers to fill these vacancies, leaving students with
disabilities to receive educational services from insufficiently
trained individuals and resulting in inequitable educational
opportunities (Wilkerson et al., 2022). Under IDEA, teachers who are
not fully certified may provide special education instruction under an
emergency certification as long as they are participating in a program
that provides an alternate route to full special education teacher
certification and that certain additional criteria are met.\2\ Numerous
States across the country have filled teaching positions through such
emergency certifications
[[Page 21472]]
due to shortages of fully certified special education teachers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ IDEA section 612(a)(14)(C), as amended by ESSA, eliminates
the definition of ``highly qualified'' and specifies Federal
requirements for the employment of special education teachers. Under
Assurance 14, special education teachers must: have obtained full
certification by completing traditional or alternate preparation, or
by passing the State special education licensing examination; have
not had special education certification or licensure requirements
waived on an emergency, temporary, or provisional basis; and hold at
least a bachelor's degree.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
National test scores suggest students with disabilities are losing
ground in reading and are not improving in mathematics (Annie E. Casey
Foundation, 2023; U.S. Department of Education, 2022). It is critical
that special educators serving under an emergency certification become
fully certified via high-quality programs. A high-quality pathway to
certification can provide special education teachers with the knowledge
and skills to collaboratively develop, implement, and monitor the
progress of IEPs that lead to student success, while planning and
providing instruction alongside general education teachers. They
require the skills to effectively collaborate with administrators,
related service providers, and families to optimize instruction,
services, and supports for students with disabilities.
Proposed Priority 2:
Projects designed to increase the number of fully certified special
education teachers by implementing plans that address the emergency
certification needs of personnel who work with children with
disabilities. The plans must--
(a) Identify the barriers and challenges to full certification that
are experienced by special education personnel on emergency
certifications;
(b) Include evidence-based (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) strategies
to address those barriers and challenges and assist special education
personnel on emergency certifications to obtain full certification,
consistent with State-approved or State-recognized requirements, within
three years;
(c) Include training and coaching on, at a minimum--
(1) The skills needed to collaboratively develop, implement, and
monitor standards-based IEPs;
(2) High-leverage and evidence-based instructional and classroom
management practices; and
(3) The provision of wrap-around services (e.g., social, emotional,
and mental health supports), special education services, and other
supports for children with disabilities; and
(d) Provide participating special education personnel on emergency
certifications with opportunities to apply the evidence-based skills
and practices described in paragraph (c) in the classroom.
In their applications, States must describe how their projects will
meet these program requirements. In addition to these requirements, to
be considered for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the
application and administrative requirements under Common Elements.
Proposed Priority 3: Person-Centered IEPs That Support Instructional
Progress
Background:
A cornerstone of special education under IDEA is a free appropriate
public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE). It
is through high-quality person-centered \3\ individualized education
programs (IEPs) that local educational agencies (LEAs) and schools plan
and deliver evidence-based instruction, supports, and services to
students with disabilities to provide FAPE in the LRE. However, States,
LEAs, and schools continue to face significant challenges with
providing FAPE, including person-centered, rigorous, and specially
designed instruction and service delivery. Recent research indicates
that the majority of IEPs are incomplete and lack substantive
sufficiency of the statement of present levels of performance, which is
the crucial initial component of a person-centered IEP (e.g., Hott et
al., 2021; Lequia et al., 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Some States and organizations have defined ``person-
centered,'' as used in this notice, to reference when students and
their families are actively sought to participate in their
schooling, including IEP development and implementation, the course
of study, and related and transition services, however this term is
still developing in the field. The discussions and decisions leading
to a person-centered program are founded upon the unique school,
extracurricular, and postsecondary strengths, interests, and goals
of the student and their family.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective preparation and support can increase the opportunities
for, and ability of, leaders, educators, and families to participate in
the development, implementation, and progress monitoring of
academically meaningful and legally sound person-centered IEPs (Yell et
al., 2020). Under IDEA, an IEP team for a child with a disability must
include the child's parent(s), at least one general education teacher,
the child's special education teacher or, where appropriate, the
child's special education provider, a local educational agency
representative, the child, whenever appropriate, and others who have
knowledge or special expertise regarding the child. The
multidisciplinary nature of the IEP team presents collaborative
opportunities and challenges, especially between school professionals
and parents (Goldman & Mason, 2018; Mueller & Vick, 2019). Parents play
a critical role in the child's life. Parental input helps identify the
child's strengths and needs and aids the team identifying appropriate
services. This parental input adds significant value to the IEP and can
lead to improved educational results and functional outcomes. To best
support students, school and district personnel on IEP teams need the
skills to choose and use evidence-based practices for core instruction
and supplemental supports and services, such as those designed to
foster self-efficacy, as well as to increase the child's learning
opportunities with general education peers.
Proposed Priority 3:
Projects designed to provide pre-service and in-service training to
school and district personnel, including IEP team members (e.g.,
special education and general education teachers, related service
personnel who work with children with disabilities) and administrators,
to improve their skills in developing and implementing person-centered
IEPs that support instructional progress and improve functional
outcomes \4\ for children with disabilities. Projects must--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ An IEP that supports instructional progress is an IEP that
focuses on the academic, vocational, developmental, and social needs
of the child and allows the child to benefit from instruction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Provide training and coaching to administrators and IEP team
members to increase their ability to develop, implement, and monitor
person-centered IEPs that support instructional progress so that they
can--
(1) Use appropriate data to determine the child's instructional and
functional strengths and needs;
(2) Increase the child's learning time and opportunities with
general education peers, as appropriate, based on research;
(3) Choose and use evidence-based (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1)
practices for core instruction; and
(4) Supplement core instruction with special education services.
In their applications, States must describe how their projects will
meet these program requirements. In addition to these requirements, to
be considered for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the
application and administrative requirements under Common Elements.
Proposed Priority 4: Principals as Instructional Leaders Who Support
Collaborative Service Provision
Background:
When principals are strong instructional leaders who help create an
inclusive school environment and district leaders support those
principals, all students, including students with disabilities, can
thrive. School building administrators, including principals,
[[Page 21473]]
vice principals, and teacher leaders, are responsible for IDEA
implementation and ensuring children with disabilities are provided the
services and supports that they are eligible for under IDEA. School
building administrators help set high expectations for performance in
schools and ensure that the unique, individual needs of each child with
a disability are met, consistent with their IEP, and district
administrators give them the tools, training, and support they need to
do so.
Given that school building leaders have complex roles, it is not
surprising that administrators who receive high-quality training handle
the multi-faceted demands of the role better and stay in their jobs
longer (Herman et al., 2022). When that is the case, principals can be
instrumental in supporting teacher and provider practices, motivating
school staff, maintaining a positive school program climate, and
ensuring inclusive settings are offered. Access to professional
learning opportunities influences administrators' job satisfaction and
retention (Boyce & Bowers, 2016). In addition to covering essential,
research-based content on topics such as instructional leadership,
data-based decision making, and systems improvement, the structure of
continued professional development for administrators also matters
(Darling-Hammond et al., 2022). Especially important to building the
capacity of administrators is access to coordinated, continued
professional development with structured learning opportunities, such
as through a cohort model, mentoring, one-on-one coaching, networking
to build a professional community, applied learning opportunities, and
problem-solving related to the needs of individual children.
Proposed Priority 4:
Projects designed to provide professional development to improve
the instructional leadership provided by principals, district leaders,
and teacher leaders (administrators) to promote educational equity for
children with disabilities. Projects must provide training and coaching
to assist administrators to--
(a) Create and support equitable school schedules and other
operations that enable collaborative services from general and special
education staff;
(b) Support schoolwide inclusionary practices within a multi-tiered
systems of support (MTSS) framework;
(c) Support evidence-based (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) professional
development for their staff related to--
(1) Effective content instruction;
(2) Data for decision-making and continuous progress monitoring;
(3) IEP development and implementation; and
(4) Wrap-around services;
(d) Actively engage families and school communities to identify and
address concerns regarding, and barriers to, accessibility, equity, and
inclusiveness, using frameworks such as universal design; and
(e) Provide administrators structured learning opportunities, such
as through a cohort model, mentoring, one-on-one coaching, networking
to build a professional community, and applied learning opportunities,
such as problem-solving related to the needs of individual children.
In their applications, States must describe how their projects will
meet these program requirements. In addition to these requirements, to
be considered for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the
application and administrative requirements under Common Elements.
Proposed Priority 5: Improving Engagement Between Schools and Families
Background:
Family engagement is one of the most powerful predictors of a
child's development, educational attainment, and success in school and
life (Weiss et al., 2018). Research shows that increased family
involvement is related to improved child development and student
achievement, attendance, behavior, graduation rates, advanced course
enrollment, and college enrollment (Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Robinson et
al., 2018; Young et al., 2023). The perspective of family members at
the table is needed to create and advocate for the kinds of student-
centered learning experiences that will allow all students to: master
academic content aligned with the standards; gain future-ready
knowledge, skills, and dispositions; and succeed in postsecondary
learning and careers (Weiss et al., 2018). Research suggests that
collaboration between schools and families is an important support for
students with learning and behavioral challenges, including students
with disabilities (Sheridan & Wheeler, 2017). Further, children learn
anywhere, anytime, and not just in school. Families play a central role
in supporting learning and building learning pathways.
To bring families to the table and engender learning in the home
and community, commitments and support that foster mutual trust and
shared responsibility are necessary (Ogg et al., 2021). Educators who
understand how culture and community shape family engagement practices
can better work from families' strengths and create high-quality IEPs
that will lead to success in school, college, and career.
Family engagement is central to IDEA, which states that families
are equal members of the IEP team who must be provided the opportunity
to fully participate in all decisions concerning a child's evaluation,
placement, and services. When families contribute to IEP decisions,
educators may be more successful in planning and delivering productive
interventions and supports (Turnbull et al., 2018). Furthermore,
involving families in data-based decision making allows them to take a
more active role in supporting their children's learning and behavior
at home (Weingarten et al., 2020). Families can reinforce school
routines, expectations, and language, thereby creating alignment
between home and school that may, in turn, contribute to improved
student outcomes (Garbacz et al., 2016). Family-professional
partnerships and caregiver involvement are impacted by how educators
value caregivers' input, and school-home communication can have
positive effects on child behavioral outcomes (Li & Burke, 2023).
Proposed Priority 5:
Projects designed to develop the capacity of administrators and
educators to develop systems and use strategies that build trust and
engagement with families, while further strengthening the role families
play in their child's development and learning. Projects must--
(a) Provide training and coaching to assist administrators to--
(1) Develop and implement policies and programs that recognize
families' funds of knowledge, connect family engagement to student
learning, and create welcoming, inviting cultures; and
(2) Create systems that support staff and families in meaningful
engagement (i.e., Leading by Convening and the Dual-Capacity Framework.
For more information visit <a href="http://www.dualcapcity.org">www.dualcapcity.org</a> and <a href="http://www.ncsi.wested.org/resources/leading-by-convening">www.ncsi.wested.org/resources/leading-by-convening</a>);
(b) Provide training and coaching to assist educators and early
intervention providers to--
(1) Build their knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, aspirations, and
behaviors about effective strategies to engage families in their
child's learning;
(2) Work with families to make collaborative, data-based decisions
in the development and implementation of the child's IEP; and
[[Page 21474]]
(3) Provide information and resources to families that enable them
to support their children's learning and behavior at home; and
(c) Provide training and coaching to families so they can--
(1) Meaningfully participate in the development and implementation
of their child's IEP;
(2) Participate in data-based decision making related to their
child's education; and
(3) Further their child's learning at home.
In their applications, States must describe how their projects will
meet these program requirements. In addition to these requirements, to
be considered for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the
application and administrative requirements under Common Elements.
Common Elements:
In addition to the requirements contained in the proposed
priorities, to be considered for funding, applicants must meet the
following application and administrative requirements:
(a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under
``Significance,'' how the proposed project will--
(1) Align with and integrate other State initiatives and programs,
as well as district and local improvement plans, to leverage existing
professional development and data systems;
(2) Develop and implement plans to sustain the grant program after
the grant funding has ended; and
(3) Integrate family engagement into all project efforts by
supporting capacity building for personnel and families.
(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) Develop the knowledge and ability of personnel to be culturally
responsive and engage children and families with a strengths-based
approach;
(ii) Engage students, families, and community members to assess the
appropriateness and impact of the intervention, program, or strategies;
and
(iii) Review program procedures and resources to ensure a diversity
of perspectives are brought into the project; and
(2) Achieve the project's goals and objectives. To meet this
requirement, the applicant must provide--
(i) Either a logic model (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) or theory of
action (to be provided in Appendix A), which demonstrates how the
proposed project will achieve intended measurable outcomes;
(ii) A description of proposed in-State and national partners that
the project will work with to achieve the goals and objectives of the
grant and how the impact of these partnerships will be measured; and
(iii) A description of how the project will be based on current
research and make use of evidence-based (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1)
practices. To meet this requirement, the applicant must describe--
(A) The current research base for the chosen interventions;
(B) The evidence-based model or practices to be used in the
project's professional development activities; and
(C) How implementation science will be used to support full and
sustained use of evidence-based practices and result in sustained
systems of implementation support.
(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 \5\
evaluator. The evaluation plan must--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 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 or
theory of action required under paragraph (b)(2)(i) 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 or theory of action and evaluation plan, including
subsequent data collection;
(4) Provide a timeline for conducting the evaluation and include
staff assignments for completing the plan. The timeline must indicate
that the data will be available annually for the annual performance
report to the Department; 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 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--
(1) Clearly defined responsibilities for key project personnel,
consultants, and subcontractors, as applicable;
(2) Timelines and milestones for accomplishing the project tasks;
(3) How key project personnel and any consultants and
subcontractors will be allocated to the project and how these
allocations are appropriate and adequate to achieve the project's
intended outcomes; and
(4) How the proposed project will benefit from a diversity of
perspectives, including those of families, educators, technical
assistance providers, researchers, and policy makers, among others, in
its development and operation.
[[Page 21475]]
(f) Address the following application requirements. The applicant
must--
(1) Include, in Appendix A, personnel-loading charts and timelines,
as applicable, to illustrate the management plan described in the
narrative;
(2) Provide an assurance that any project website will include
relevant information and documents in a form that meets a government or
industry-recognized standard for accessibility;
(3) Include, in the budget, attendance at the following:
(i) An annual one and one-half day SPDG National Meeting in the
Washington, DC area during each year of the project period; and
(ii) A three-day project directors' conference in Washington, DC,
during each year of the project period, provided that, if the
conference is conducted virtually, the project must reallocate unused
travel funds no later than the end of the third quarter of each budget
period; and
(4) Budget $6,000 annually for support of the SPDG program network
and website currently administered by the University of Oregon
(<a href="http://www.signetwork.org">www.signetwork.org</a>).
References
Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2023). 2023 Kids Count[supreg] data
book. <a href="http://www.aecf.org/resources/2023-kids-count-data-book">www.aecf.org/resources/2023-kids-count-data-book</a>.
Boyce, J., & Bowers, A.J. (2016). Principal turnover: Are there
different types of principals who move from or leave their schools?
A latent class analysis of the 2007-2008 schools and staffing survey
and the 2008-2009 principal follow-up survey. Leadership and Policy
in Schools, 15(3), 237-272. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2015.1047033">https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2015.1047033</a>.
Carver-Thomas, D. (2018). Diversifying the teaching profession: How
to recruit and retain teachers of color. Learning Policy Institute.
<a href="https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/sites/default/files/product-files/Diversifying_Teaching_Profession_REPORT_0.pdf">https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/sites/default/files/product-files/Diversifying_Teaching_Profession_REPORT_0.pdf</a>.
Darling-Hammond, L., Wechsler, M.E., Levin, S., Leung-Gagn[eacute],
M., & Tozer, S. (2022). Developing effective principals: What kind
of learning matters? Learning Policy Institute. <a href="https://doi.org/10.54300/641.201">https://doi.org/10.54300/641.201</a>.
Espinoza, D., Saunders, R., Kini, T., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2018).
Taking the long view: State efforts to solve teacher shortages by
strengthening the profession. Learning Policy Institute. <a href="https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/long-view-report">https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/long-view-report</a>.
Garbacz, S.A., McIntosh, K., Eagle, J.W., Dowd-Eagle, S.E., Hirano,
K.A., & Ruppert, T. (2016). Family engagement within schoolwide
positive behavioral interventions and supports. Preventing School
Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 60(1), 60-69.
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2014.976809">https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2014.976809</a>.
Gist, C.D., Bianco, M., & Lynn, M. (2019). Examining grow your own
programs across the teacher development continuum: Mining research
on teachers of color and nontraditional educator pipelines. Journal
of Teacher Education, 70(1), 13-25. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487118787504">https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487118787504</a>.
Goldman, S.E., & Mason, C.Q. (2018). Predictors of participant
perceptions of facilitated individualized education program meeting
success. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 29(1), 43-53. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1044207317752125">https://doi.org/10.1177/1044207317752125</a>.
Henderson, A.T., & Mapp, K.L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The
impact of school, family and community connections on student
achievement. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. <a href="https://sedl.org/pubs/catalog/items/fam33.html">https://sedl.org/pubs/catalog/items/fam33.html</a>.
Herman, R., Woo, A., Wang, E.L., Gates, S.M., Berglund, T., Schweig,
J., Andrew, M., & Todd, I. (2022). Redesigning university principal
preparation programs: A systematic approach for change and
sustainability--Full Report (Volume 3, Part 1). RAND Corporation.
<a href="http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA413-3.html">www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA413-3.html</a>.
Hott, B.L., Jones, B.A., Randolph, K.M., Kuntz, E., McKenna, J.W., &
Brigham, F.J. (2021). Lessons learned from a descriptive review of
rural individualized education programs. The Journal of Special
Education, 55(3), 163-173. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466920972670">https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466920972670</a>.
Jessen, S., Fairman, J., Fallona, C., & Johnson, A. (2020). Consider
``Grow-Your-Own'' (GYO) models by examining existing teacher
preparation programs in Maine. Maine Education Policy Research
Institute. 121. <a href="https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mepri/121">https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mepri/121</a>.
Lequia, J.L., Vincent, L.B., Lyons, G.L., Asmus, J.M., & Carter,
E.W. (2023). Individualized education programs of high school
students with significant disabilities. Education and Training in
Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 58(1), 22-35.
<a href="http://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/individualized-education-programs-high-school/docview/2777274832/se-2">www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/individualized-education-programs-high-school/docview/2777274832/se-2</a>.
Li, C., & Burke, M.M. (2023). A systematic literature review of the
patterns of school-home communication among caregivers of children
with autism. Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders.
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s40489-023-00396-0">https://doi.org/10.1007/s40489-023-00396-0</a>.
Mueller, T.G., & Vick, A.M. (2019). An investigation of facilitated
individualized education program meeting practice: Promising
procedures that foster family-professional collaboration. Teacher
Education and Special Education, 42(1), 67-81. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406417739677">https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406417739677</a>.
Myers, J.A., Gilbert, K., & Sindelar, P. (2020). Does alternative
route preparation meet the requirements of IDEA assurance 14? A
policy analysis. Teacher Education and Special Education, 43(4),
332-342. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406420912374">https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406420912374</a>.
Ogg, J., Clark, K., Strissel, D., & Rogers, M. (2021). Parents' and
teachers' ratings of family engagement: Congruence and prediction of
outcomes. School Psychology, 36(3), 142-154. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000379">https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000379</a>.
Pathways Alliance. (2023). National guidelines for apprenticeship
standards for K-12 teacher apprenticeships.
<a href="http://www.thepathwaysalliance.org/reports">www.thepathwaysalliance.org/reports</a>.
Professional Educator Standards Board. (2016). Grow your own
teachers report: Enhancing educator pathways to address teacher
shortage and increase diversity. <a href="http://www.pesb.wa.gov/resources-and-reports/reports/grow-your-own-teachers-report/">www.pesb.wa.gov/resources-and-reports/reports/grow-your-own-teachers-report/</a>.
Robinson, C.D., Lee, M.G., Dearing, E., & Rogers, T. (2018).
Reducing student absenteeism in the early grades by targeting
parental beliefs. American Educational Research Journal, 55(6),
1163-1192. <a href="https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831218772274">https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831218772274</a>.
Sheridan, S.M., & Wheeler, L.A. (2017). Building strong family-
school partnerships: Transitioning from basic findings to possible
practices. Family Relations, 66(4), 670-683. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12271">https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12271</a>.
Silva, T., McKie, A., Knechtel, V., Gleason, P., & Makowsky, L.
(2014). Teaching residency programs: A multisite look at a new model
to prepare teachers for high-need schools (NCEE 2015-4002). National
Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute
of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Texas Comprehensive Center. (2018). Grow your own teachers
initiatives resources. American Institutes for Research. <a href="https://compcenternetwork.org/resources/resource/4290/grow-your-own-teachers-initiatives-resources">https://compcenternetwork.org/resources/resource/4290/grow-your-own-teachers-initiatives-resources</a>.
Turnbull, H.R., Turnbull, A.P., & Cooper, D.H. (2018). The Supreme
Court, Endrew, and the appropriate education of students with
disabilities. Exceptional Children, 84(2), 124-140. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402917734150">https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402917734150</a>.
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences,
National Center for Education Statistics. (2023). School Pulse
Panel. <a href="https://ies.ed.gov/schoolsurvey/spp/">https://ies.ed.gov/schoolsurvey/spp/</a>.
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences,
National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP). (2022). Largest score declines in NAEP
mathematics at grades 4 and 8 since initial assessments in 1990.
<a href="http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/highlights/mathematics/2022/">www.nationsreportcard.gov/highlights/mathematics/2022/</a>.
Weingarten, Z., Zumeta Edmonds, R., & Arden, S. (2020). Better
together: Using MTSS as a structure for building school-family
partnerships. Teaching Exceptional Children, 53(2), 122-130. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059920937733">https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059920937733</a>.
[[Page 21476]]
Weiss, H., Lopez, M.E., & Caspe, M. (2018). Joining together to
create a bold vision for next generation family engagement. Global
Family Research Project. <a href="https://media.carnegie.org/filer_public/f8/78/f8784565-4bd6-4aa3-bd80-2b98fd43380e/parent-engagement-2018.pdf">https://media.carnegie.org/filer_public/f8/78/f8784565-4bd6-4aa3-bd80-2b98fd43380e/parent-engagement-2018.pdf</a>.
Wilkerson, K.L., Sikora, E.E., & Leko, M.M. (2022). Complicating the
narrative about emergency certified special educators.
Exceptionality, 30(5), 366-375. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2021.1938061">https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2021.1938061</a>.
Yell, M.L., Collins, J., Kumpiene, G., & Bateman, D. (2020). The
individualized education program: Procedural and substantive
requirements. Teaching Exceptional Children, 52(5), 304-318. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059920906592">https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059920906592</a>.
Young, J.M., Reed, K.E., Rosenberg, H., & Kook, J.F. (2023). Adding
family math to the equation: Promoting Head Start preschoolers'
mathematics learning at home and school. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 63, 43-58. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2022.11.002">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2022.11.002</a>.
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 Priorities and Requirements:
We will announce the final priorities and requirements in a
document in the Federal Register. We will determine the final
priorities and requirements after considering public comments on the
proposed priorities and requirements and other information available to
the Department. This document does not preclude us from proposing
additional priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection
criteria, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.
Note: This document does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use one or more of these proposed priorities and
these requirements, we invite applications through a notice in the
Federal Register.
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) determines whether this regulatory action is ``significant'' and,
therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and
subject to review by OMB. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, 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 three 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 entitlement grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues for which centralized review
would meaningfully further the President's priorities, or the
principles set forth in this Executive order, as specifically
authorized in a timely manner by the Administrator of OIRA in each
case.
This proposed 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.
We have also reviewed this proposed regulatory action under
Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the
principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review
established in Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order
14094. 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.'' OIRA 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 these proposed priorities and requirements only on a
reasoned determination that their benefits would justify their costs.
In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those
approaches that would maximize net benefits. Based on 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 would 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.
Clarity of the Regulations
Executive Order 12866 and the Presidential memorandum ``Plain
Language in Government Writing'' require each agency to write
regulations that are easy to understand.
The Secretary invites comments on how to make these proposed
priorities and requirements easier to understand,
[[Page 21477]]
including answers to questions such as the following:
<bullet> Are the requirements in the proposed priorities and
requirements clearly stated?
<bullet> Do the proposed priorities and requirements contain
technical terms or other wording that interferes with their clarity?
<bullet> Does the format of the proposed priorities and
requirements (grouping and order of sections, use of headings,
paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce their clarity?
<bullet> Would the proposed priorities and requirements be easier
to understand if we divided them into more (but shorter) sections?
<bullet> Could the description of the proposed priorities and
requirements in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this preamble
be more helpful in making the proposed priorities and requirements
easier to understand? If so, how?
<bullet> What else could we do to make the proposed priorities and
requirements easier to understand?
To send any comments about how the Department could make these
proposed priorities and requirements easier to understand, see the
instructions in the ADDRESSES section.
Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the
objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental
partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies
on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination
and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification: The Secretary certifies
that these proposed priorities and requirements would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Participation in the SPDG program is voluntary. In addition, the only
eligible entities for this program are SEAs, which do not meet the
definition of a small entity. For these reasons, the proposed
priorities and requirements would not impose any additional burden on
small entities. We expect that in determining whether to apply for SPDG
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 an SPDG 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 these proposed priorities and requirements 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.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
These proposed priorities and requirements contain information
collection requirements that are approved by OMB under OMB control
number 1820-0028. The proposed priorities and requirements do not
affect the currently approved data collection.
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. 2024-06656 Filed 3-27-24; 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, 2024.
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.