```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 151 (Monday, August 6, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46658-46664]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19162]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter III

[CFDA Number: 84.373Y.]

Proposed Priority; Technical Assistance To Improve State Data 
Capacity--National Technical Assistance Center To Improve State 
Capacity To Accurately Collect and Report IDEA Data

AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, 
Department of Education.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and 
Rehabilitative Services proposes a funding priority under the Technical 
Assistance (TA) on State Data Capacity program. The Assistant Secretary 
may use this proposed priority for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 
2012 and later years. We take this action to focus attention on an 
identified national need to provide TA to improve the capacity of 
States to meet the data collection requirements of the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before October 22, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Address all comments about this notice to Kelly Worthington, 
U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4072, 
Potomac Center Plaza (PCP), Washington, DC 20202-2600.
    If you prefer to send your comments by email, use the following 
address: Kelly.Worthington@ed.gov. You must include the term ``State 
Data Capacity Priority'' in the subject line of your electronic 
message.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly Worthington. Telephone: (202) 
245-7581.
    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-
800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding 
the proposed priority in this notice. To ensure that your comments have 
maximum effect in developing the notice of final priority, we urge you 
to clearly identify the specific topic that each comment addresses.
    We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific 
requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and their overall 
requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from this 
proposed priority. 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 all public 
comments about this notice in Room 4072, 550 12th Street SW., Potomac 
Center Plaza, Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4 
p.m., Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week except 
Federal holidays.
    Assistance to Individuals With Disabilities in Reviewing the 
Rulemaking Record: On request, we will provide an appropriate 
accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who 
needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the 
public rulemaking record for this notice. If you want to schedule an 
appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please 
contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Technical Assistance on 
State Data Collection program is to improve the capacity of States to 
meet IDEA data collection and reporting requirements. Funding for the 
program is authorized under section 611(c)(1) of the IDEA, which gives 
the Secretary the authority to reserve funds appropriated under section 
611 of the IDEA to provide TA authorized under section 616(i) of the 
IDEA. Section 616(i) 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 and 
618 of the IDEA are collected, analyzed, and accurately reported. It 
also requires the Secretary to provide TA, where needed, to improve the 
capacity of States to meet the data collection requirements under the 
IDEA.

    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1411(c), 1416(i), and 1418(c).

[[Page 46659]]

Proposed Priority

    This notice contains one proposed priority. The priority is:

National Technical Assistance Center To Improve State Capacity To 
Accurately Collect and Report IDEA Data

Background

    Sections 616 and 618 of the IDEA require States to collect data and 
report that data to the U.S. Department of Education (Department) and 
to the public (generally, ``IDEA data requirements''). These data 
requirements apply to State agencies that administer the IDEA Part B 
program, under which the State must make a free appropriate public 
education available to children with disabilities ages 3 through 21, 
and the IDEA Part C program, under which the State must make early 
intervention services available to infants and toddlers with 
disabilities (birth to age 3) and their families.
    Under section 618 of the IDEA, States are required to collect and 
report annually to the Secretary and the public primarily quantitative 
data on infants, toddlers, children, and students with disabilities. 
States must report a number of data elements, including the number of 
children served, the service settings or educational environments in 
which children with disabilities are served, the use of dispute 
resolution processes, assessment participation and performance for 
children with disabilities, reasons for children with disabilities 
exiting special education programs, disciplinary incidences and counts 
for children with and without disabilities (section 618(a) of the 
IDEA).\1\ Data provided to the public must be reported in a manner that 
does not result in the disclosure of data identifiable to individual 
children (section 618(b) of the IDEA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The following Web links provide more information on IDEA 618 
data elements: www.ideadata.org/PartCForms.asp and www.ideadata.org/PartBForms.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under section 616 of the IDEA, each State must submit a State 
Performance Plan (SPP) and an Annual Performance Report (APR) to the 
Department for Part B and for Part C. In its APR, a State must report 
to the Secretary and the public on its progress in meeting the 
measurable and rigorous targets for each of the indicators established 
by the Secretary, currently 14 IDEA Part C indicators and 20 IDEA Part 
B indicators (section 616(b)(2)(C)(ii)(II) of the IDEA).\2\ In 
addition, each State must report on its efforts to improve 
implementation of the requirements and purposes of the IDEA and 
describe how they will improve that implementation (section 
616(b)(1)(A) of the IDEA). Each State's SPPs and APRs must include both 
quantitative information (e.g., under Part B's Indicator 1, the percent 
of youth with individualized education programs (IEPs) graduating with 
a regular high school diploma) and qualitative information about the 
State's efforts to improve the State's performance regarding each of 
the State's targets in its SPP (e.g., based on an analysis of the data 
available to the State, the State's explanation of, and plans to 
address, any progress or slippage in meeting graduation targets). 
Finally, each State must report to the public on implementation of the 
requirements and purposes of the IDEA at the local level by posting on 
the State agency's Web site the performance of each local educational 
agency (LEA) in meeting the State's targets for the Part B indicators 
and of each early intervention service (EIS) program in meeting the 
State's targets for the Part C indicators (section 616(b)(2)(C)(ii)(I) 
of the IDEA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The following Web sites provide more information on the 616 
SPP/APR Indicators: www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/capr/index.html and www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/bapr/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Secretary is required to review the data collection and 
analysis capacity of States to ensure that data and information 
determined necessary for implementation of sections 616 and 618 of the 
IDEA are collected and accurately reported by States to the Department, 
and to provide TA, where needed, to improve the capacity of States to 
meet the data collection requirements (section 616(i) of the IDEA). See 
also section 618(c) of the IDEA regarding the Secretary's authority to 
provide TA to States to ensure compliance with the data collection and 
reporting requirements of the IDEA.
    The Department has reviewed the data collection and analysis 
capacity of States to ensure that IDEA data are being collected and 
accurately reported to the Department and the public. As explained in 
more detail in the following paragraphs, the Department's assessment is 
that States need TA to improve their data collection capacity and their 
ability to analyze that data to ensure that the data are accurate and 
can be reported to the Department and the public, as applicable. States 
also need TA to help them analyze the data available to them so that 
they can each provide, in their SPPs and APRs, more accurate 
qualitative information about their efforts to improve implementation 
of the requirements and purposes of the IDEA, and to more accurately 
target future improvement activities.
    Improve data infrastructures. In order to meet IDEA data 
requirements, States must have the capacity to collect and analyze data 
on a variety of data elements, including but not limited to: Child and 
student background characteristics (e.g., race, ethnicity, limited 
English proficient status, gender, disability category); early 
intervention service setting; percentage of time in the general 
education classroom; student performance on statewide assessments, 
including the name of each assessment; personnel serving students with 
disabilities and their qualifications; the use of dispute resolution 
processes to resolve differences between parents and program providers; 
the incidence of disciplinary actions; and financial data. Under IDEA, 
collecting and reporting accurate and timely IDEA data is the 
responsibility of the State agencies responsible for implementing IDEA, 
but, in practice, multiple offices collect and report IDEA data, and 
they often do not effectively share data with one another or govern the 
quality of the data. This reduces the accuracy and timeliness of the 
data ultimately reported to the Department. For example, the EDFacts 
Coordinator in each State educational agency submits IDEA child count, 
educational environments, personnel, exiting, discipline, and 
assessment data for children with disabilities to the Department, as 
well as required data about children with disabilities for other 
educational program offices. A description of EDFacts can be found at 
www.ed.gov/edfacts. State general education authorities, specifically 
State assessment offices, are responsible for collecting accurate 
participation and performance assessment data about students with and 
without disabilities for multiple State data submissions to the 
Department, including IDEA. State special education program offices, 
however, do not always have access to the IDEA data collected and 
submitted by other State offices, which can compromise data validity 
and reliability.
    The Department's review of all the quantitative IDEA data revealed 
that IDEA assessment and IDEA discipline data have the most frequent 
data errors. Data elements for both of these required IDEA data 
collections often are in data systems that are generally not accessible 
to or managed by State special education offices, which points to the 
need to develop a coordinated IDEA data infrastructure. For example, 
IDEA requires that States report annually to the Secretary and the 
public the number

[[Page 46660]]

and percentage of children with disabilities who are expelled as 
compared to children without disabilities who are expelled. Yet 
expulsion data for students without disabilities is not consistently 
collected by States, which means that required comparisons cannot be 
accurately reported. Improving the accuracy of IDEA discipline data 
about students with and without disabilities requires coordination with 
non-special education offices and personnel. States, therefore, need TA 
to build data collection and reporting capacity within the context of 
multiple data systems and program offices, particularly when State 
special education offices do not manage the operating procedures or 
have direct access to the data needed for IDEA reporting. States also 
need TA to enhance their capacity to use data systems to collect valid 
and reliable data; analyze data to ensure their validity and 
reliability; submit accurate and timely data; adjust to constantly 
changing technology; protect privacy, confidentiality, and security of 
the data; and enhance data governance strategies to resolve data issues 
that involve multiple State program offices. In our experience, TA 
provided to States is most effective when it is provided on a 
coordinated basis across relevant Department offices, State offices, 
and data TA providers (e.g., State Support Teams working with Statewide 
Longitudinal Data Systems that include IDEA data).
    Strengthen data validation procedures. After data collection occurs 
at the local level and prior to the submission of IDEA data to the 
Department, States must have effective systematic data validation 
procedures to ensure the accuracy of data submitted to the Department.
    Many States do not have effective data validation procedures in 
place. The Department has found that States frequently submit IDEA data 
with preventable errors such as missing data values or data that 
conflict with State policies (e.g., reporting 15-year-old students as 
exiting special education due to graduating with a regular high school 
diploma when the State minimum age of graduation is 17). To ensure that 
data are valid and reliable, it is important to build the capacity of 
States by providing TA prior to and immediately following their data 
submission to the Department. TA should be provided on matters such as 
(a) ensuring that State special education program staff have 
appropriate access to data before the data are submitted to the 
Department so that special education program staff can conduct thorough 
data validation procedures on IDEA data, (b) improving reliability 
across data collectors, and (c) enhancing automated validation 
procedures (e.g., business rules in the data system and correction of 
identified errors).
    Ensure data are collected and reported from all relevant programs. 
States need TA to ensure that data from all State and local programs, 
districts, and schools that are providing IDEA services to children 
with disabilities are appropriately included in relevant data 
collections and that the State is reporting data at all appropriate 
levels (e.g., State, district, school, early intervention program) for 
every APR indicator and for all data required in section 618(a) of the 
IDEA. In its review of IDEA data, the Department found, for example, 
that not all State Operated Programs for children who are deaf or 
blind,\3\ juvenile justice centers, or charter schools are included in 
the IDEA data reports submitted via EDFacts. The Department has also 
identified instances of State-level data omissions and duplicate 
reporting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For IDEA purposes, State Operated Programs include 
elementary/secondary programs operated by the State for children who 
are deaf or blind. '' State Operated'' is defined by the National 
Center for Education Statistics for the Common Core of Data 
collection. See http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/pesagencies09/glossary.asp. Procedures for reporting IDEA data from State Operated 
Programs are described in the data reporting hierarchy on page 58, 
Section 9.1 of www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/edfacts/eden/11-12-workbook-8-0.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Problems with collecting and reporting data from all relevant 
programs has become even more evident in recent years. In 2007, the 
Department issued regulations \4\ requiring that States submit reports 
in the manner prescribed by the Secretary and at the quality level 
(e.g., level of data accuracy and completeness) specified in the data 
collection instrument. The reporting system prescribed by the Secretary 
was EDFacts, and this regulation resulted in changes to the State data 
reporting procedures for data required in section 618 of the IDEA about 
children and students ages 3 through 21 (school-age). Further, in order 
to continue improving the quality of the IDEA data submissions, data 
collected by States at LEA and school levels are also reported through 
EDFacts. In 2011, data required in section 618 of the IDEA for school-
age children were reported by States for nearly 15,000 LEAs and almost 
100,000 schools through EDFacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Education Department General Administrative Regulations 
(EDGAR), 34 CFR 76.720.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given this increase in reporting, the associated challenges of 
managing the submissions, and the increased use of the LEA- and school-
level data by the Department for reviewing data and understanding IDEA 
implementation within States, it has become even more important for 
States to ensure that all programs, agencies, and schools serving 
children with disabilities collect and accurately report the required 
IDEA data.
    Address personnel training needs. States need TA to address the 
diverse training needs of personnel who collect and report data about 
students with disabilities in all of their programs, agencies, and 
schools. School-, LEA-, and State-level IDEA data, as well as non-IDEA 
data about school-age students with disabilities, are collected and 
used to meet data collection requirements for multiple Department 
programs (e.g., Consolidated State Performance Report under the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965; Civil Rights Data 
Collection). In its review of the data collection and analysis capacity 
of States, the Department found that States need TA to help them ensure 
that local data collectors understand the similarities and the 
differences between the data requirements for IDEA and non-IDEA data 
collections that include data elements about students with disabilities 
and special education personnel. For example, the Department found 
errors in IDEA data about special education teachers because personnel 
collecting and reporting local data were not clear about the 
differences between the number of core content classes taught by highly 
qualified teachers under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
1965, and the IDEA data about the number of special education teachers 
hired to provide services to students with disabilities. The Department 
found that some States submitted the same counts for both data 
collections. That is, some States reported the same number of core 
content classes taught by highly qualified teachers (as submitted for 
the Consolidated State Performance Report) as they did for the number 
of special education teachers who were highly qualified (as submitted 
for the IDEA personnel data collection). The data elements appear 
similar because both measure some aspect of teacher qualifications, but 
one is about reporting a count of core content classrooms and the other 
is about reporting the number of special education teachers hired. 
Through TA to the State, differences in reporting requirements can be 
clarified and corrected so that local personnel who collect, and State 
personnel who report, IDEA data understand and

[[Page 46661]]

accurately report the data to the Department.
    In annual meetings with State IDEA Data Managers and EDFacts 
Coordinators, State personnel have identified an urgent need for user-
friendly instructional materials about IDEA data collections that can 
be used within and across States to enhance the capacity of staff in 
agencies, programs, schools, and districts to support accurate data 
collection at the local level. Examples of TA products and services 
about IDEA data that are needed by every State include training modules 
and webinars that are targeted to local staff who collect data 
regarding children with disabilities.
    Support transition of data into EDFacts. States need continued TA 
to accurately report all IDEA data required in section 618(a) of the 
IDEA in the manner prescribed by the Secretary. This includes moving 
Part C data reporting into EDFacts from a legacy data collection system 
that was formerly used by the Department to collect IDEA data. EDFacts 
relies on the Education Data Exchange Network (EDEN) Submission System, 
a centralized portal through which States submit their education data, 
including IDEA data, to the Department. The EDFacts submission 
procedures must be understood by the grantee who is funded so that the 
grantee can provide TA that enhances State capacity to collect and 
report timely and accurate IDEA data.
    Increase State communication with local data collectors about data 
validation results. States need TA to strengthen the validity of data 
through targeted analyses of data and communication of results to local 
data collectors and data consumers (e.g., school boards; EIS programs 
and providers; parents of infants, toddlers, and children with 
disabilities; and the public). Currently, limited information from the 
State goes back to local data collectors after data have been compiled 
by the State. State IDEA Data Managers and EDFacts Coordinators note 
the importance of communicating results back to schools, LEAs, 
agencies, and EIS programs and providers in a format that is 
understandable to the local programs. State EDFacts Coordinators and 
IDEA Data Managers have asked for TA on ways to expand opportunities 
for local program staff to actively participate in data validation 
processes and create local processes to correct the data before it is 
submitted to the Department by building tools for organizing data in a 
meaningful way for data consumers (e.g., data dashboards for 
Superintendents).
    Improve accuracy of qualitative information in the APRs and 
strengthen improvement activities. States need TA to improve the 
accuracy of qualitative information provided in the APR and to more 
clearly target future improvement activities that are based on the 
qualitative and quantitative IDEA data available to the State. Examples 
of data quality issues (e.g., States did not use the source data 
specified in the instructions) are included in APR summary documents 
that are publicly available. The 2010 Part B SPP/APR Analysis Document 
is available at http://therightidea.tadnet.org/assets/1684 and the 2010 
Part C SPP/APR Analysis Document is available at http://therightidea.tadnet.org/assets/746. Data quality issues with 
accompanying improvement activities are posted in individual State 
response letters publicly posted at www2.ed.gov/fund/data/report/idea/partbspap/index.html.
    To meet the array of complex challenges regarding the collection, 
analysis, and reporting of data by States, the Office of Special 
Education Programs (OSEP) proposes to support the establishment and 
operation of a National Technical Assistance Center to Improve State 
Capacity to Accurately Collect and Report IDEA Data.

Proposed Priority

    The Assistant Secretary proposes to fund a cooperative agreement to 
support the establishment and operation of a National Technical 
Assistance Center to Improve State Capacity to Accurately Collect and 
Report IDEA Data (Data Center). The Data Center will provide TA to 
improve the capacity of States to meet the IDEA data collection and 
reporting requirements by:
    (a) Improving data infrastructure by coordinating and facilitating 
communication and effective data governance strategies among relevant 
State offices, LEAs, schools, EIS programs, and TA providers to improve 
the quality of the IDEA data;
    (b) Using results from the Department's auto-generated error 
reports to communicate with State IDEA Data Managers and other relevant 
offices in the State (e.g., EDFacts Coordinator) about data that appear 
to be inaccurate and provide support to the State (as needed) to 
enhance current State validation procedures to prevent future errors in 
State-reported IDEA data;
    (c) Using the results of the Department's review of State-reported 
data to help States ensure that data are collected and reported from 
all programs providing special education and related services within 
the State;
    (d) Addressing personnel training needs by developing effective 
informational tools (e.g., training modules) and resources (e.g., 
cross-walk documents about IDEA and non-IDEA data elements) about data 
collecting and reporting requirements that States can use to train 
personnel in schools, programs, agencies, and districts;
    (e) Supporting States in submitting data into EDFacts by 
coordinating with EDFacts TA providers (i.e., Partner Support Center; 
see www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/edfacts/support.html) about IDEA-
specific data reporting requirements and providing EDFacts reports and 
TA to States to help them improve the accuracy of their IDEA data 
submissions;
    (f) Improving IDEA data validation by using results from data 
reviews conducted by the Department to work with States to generate 
tools (e.g., templates of data dashboards) that can be used by States 
to accurately communicate data to local data-consumer groups (e.g., 
school boards, the general public) and lead to improvements in the 
validity and reliability of data required by IDEA; and
    (g) Using results from the Department's review of State-reported 
APR data to provide intensive and individualized TA to improve the 
accuracy of qualitative information provided in the APR about the 
State's efforts to improve its implementation of the requirements and 
purposes of IDEA, and to more accurately target its future improvement 
activities.
    The TA provided by the Data Center must be directed at all relevant 
parties within a State that can affect the quality of IDEA data and 
must not be limited to State special education or early intervention 
offices. The Data Center's TA must primarily target data issues 
identified through the Department's review of IDEA data. TA needs can 
also be identified by a State's review of IDEA data or other relevant 
means, but TA must be based on an identified need related to improving 
IDEA data accuracy or timeliness. Effectiveness of the Data Center's TA 
will be demonstrated through changes in a State's capacity to collect 
and report valid and reliable IDEA data and resolve identified data 
issues.
    To be considered for funding under this absolute priority, 
applicants must meet the application requirements contained in this 
priority. Any projects funded under this priority also must meet the 
programmatic and administrative requirements specified in the priority.

[[Page 46662]]

    Application Requirements. An applicant must include in its 
application--
    (a) A logic model that depicts, at a minimum, the goals, 
activities, outputs, and outcomes of the proposed project. A logic 
model communicates how a project will achieve its outcomes and provides 
a framework for both the formative and summative evaluations of the 
project;

    Note: The following Web site provides more information on logic 
models and lists multiple online resources: www.cdc.gov/eval/resources/index.htm;

    (b) A plan to implement the activities described in the Project 
Activities section of this priority;
    (c) A plan, linked to the proposed project's logic model, for a 
formative evaluation of the proposed project's activities. The plan 
must describe how the formative evaluation will use clear performance 
objectives to ensure continuous improvement in the operation of the 
proposed project, including objective measures of progress in 
implementing the project and ensuring the quality of products and 
services;
    (d) A budget for a summative evaluation to be conducted by an 
independent third party;
    (e) A budget for attendance at the following:
    (1) A one and one-half day kick-off meeting to be held in 
Washington, DC, after receipt of the award, and an annual planning 
meeting held in Washington, DC, with the OSEP Project Officer and other 
relevant staff during each subsequent year of the project period.

    Note: Within 30 days of receipt of the award, a post-award 
teleconference must be held between the OSEP Project Officer and the 
grantee's project director or other authorized representative;

    (2) A three-day Project Directors' Conference in Washington, DC, 
during each year of the project period;
    (3) A two-day Leveraging Resources Conference in Washington, DC, 
during each year of the project;
    (4) A two-day EDFacts Coordinators Meeting each year held in 
various locations;
    (5) Up to 36 days per year on-site at the Department to participate 
in meetings about IDEA data; attend EDFacts Data Governance Board 
(EDGB) monthly meetings; conduct conference sessions with program staff 
from States, LEAs, schools, EIS programs, or other local programs who 
contribute to the State data system to meet IDEA data collection 
requirements (e.g., National Center on Education Statistics 
conferences); coordinate TA activities with other Department TA 
initiatives including, but not limited to, the Privacy TA Center (see 
www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/ptac/index.html), Statewide Longitudinal 
Database Systems TA (see http://nces.ed.gov/programs/slds/), 
Implementation and Support Unit TA (see www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/implementation-support-unit/index.html), and EDFacts Partner Support 
Center (see www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/edfacts/support.html); and 
attend other meetings requested by OSEP; and
    (f) A line item in the proposed budget for an annual set-aside of 
four percent of the grant amount to support emerging needs that are 
consistent with the proposed project's activities, as those needs are 
identified in consultation with OSEP.

    Note: With approval from the OSEP Project Officer, the Center 
must reallocate any remaining funds from this annual set-aside no 
later than the end of the third quarter of each budget period.

    Project Activities. To meet the requirements of this priority, the 
Center, at a minimum, must conduct the following activities:

Technology and Tools

    (a) Assist relevant parties in the State in the development of data 
validation procedures and tools; and
    (b) Assist States in creating or enhancing TA tools for local 
entities to accurately collect and report data required in section 618 
of the IDEA (e.g., data reporting instructions targeted to local 
service providers and data collectors) and section 616 of the IDEA to 
accurately complete APR indicators each year; tools must be designed to 
improve the capacity of States to meet IDEA data requirements.

TA and Dissemination Activities

    (a) Provide technical assistance to State data submitters and local 
data collectors on various data quality issues; topics must include 
summaries of data quality issues evident from data reviews that will be 
primarily conducted by the Department; as appropriate, technology 
should be used to convey information efficiently and effectively (e.g., 
webinars);
    (b) Develop an agenda for information sessions, which can be 
conducted at conferences or through webinars, specific to required IDEA 
data and submit the agenda for approval by OSEP. The purpose of the 
sessions is to ensure that State IDEA Data Managers have current 
knowledge and tools to collect, analyze, and accurately report IDEA 
data to the Department and gain new knowledge and tools that can be 
used to build data capacity at the local level;
    (c) Provide ongoing, timely TA about IDEA data requirements (e.g., 
how to account for students' time in school during non-academic time, 
such as during lunchtime, when determining how much time each student 
with a disability spends in the general education setting) using a 
toll-free number and electronic communication that is coordinated with 
other relevant TA providers; all TA inquiries and responses must be 
logged using standardized procedures that will be developed by the 
grantee and be accessible to the OSEP Project Officer;
    (d) Provide a range of general and targeted TA products and 
services \5\ on evidence-based practices that promote valid and 
reliable data and build the capacity of data collectors to collect 
valid and reliable data; all TA must improve the capacity of States to 
meet IDEA data requirements;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For information about universal/general, targeted/
specialized, and intensive/sustained TA, see http://tadnet.org/uploads/File/TAD%20concept%20framework%2011-18-09.swf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (e) Conduct approximately eight intensive on-site TA visits each 
year that will improve the capacity of States to meet IDEA data 
requirements. Visits should be distributed among Part C and Part B 
programs based on need and consultation with OSEP. On-site TA visits 
should be coordinated with other Department on-site visits (e.g., 
EDFacts, OSEP monitoring), to the extent that coordination will lead to 
improvements in the collection, analysis, and accurate reporting of 
IDEA Part B data at the school, LEA, and State levels and of IDEA Part 
C data by EIS providers and at the program and State levels. All 
intensive TA visits should include State Data Managers, EDFacts 
Coordinators (as appropriate), and other relevant State parties. The TA 
visits may include local data collectors or reporters, such as 
representatives from local early intervention programs and focus on: 
(1) An identified data validity issue or system capacity issue; (2) 
measurable outcomes; and (3) ``mapping'' the relationship of the data 
validity issue or system capacity issue with other IDEA data elements 
(i.e., identifying all IDEA data elements that are affected by the data 
validity issue or system capacity issue);
    (f) Plan and conduct local-level data analytic workshops, which can 
be conducted at conferences or through webinars, to improve the 
capacity of States to meet IDEA data collection requirements. The 
workshops must target interdisciplinary teams of

[[Page 46663]]

professionals from a small group of LEAs or EIS programs and providers 
from each participating State to analyze the validity of data about a 
targeted issue relevant to infants, toddlers, children, or students 
with disabilities (e.g., equity in disciplinary practices) and lead to 
plans with improvement activities that can be used by the programs or 
LEAs to meet IDEA data requirements, as well as inform State-level data 
quality initiatives;
    (g) Maintain a Web site that meets government or industry-
recognized standards for accessibility that is targeted to local and 
State data collectors. TA material developed by the Data Center must be 
posted on the site;
    (h) Support States in verifying the accuracy and completeness of 
IDEA data submissions, including ensuring that data are consistent with 
data about students with disabilities reported in other data 
collections (e.g., ensure counts of students with disabilities that are 
reported for IDEA purposes align appropriately with counts reported for 
other Federal programs);
    (i) Compile recommendations from States about automated data 
validation procedures that can be built into EDFacts to support States 
in submitting accurate data. Examples include business rules that would 
prevent States from submitting invalid data (e.g., greater than 100 
percent of assessment participants scoring proficient) and alerts that 
would ask the State to verify the accuracy of improbable data prior to 
completion of the submission (e.g., no data where non-zero counts are 
expected);
    (j) Quickly respond to inquiries related to correcting data 
validation errors, clarifying submission procedures, or identifying 
specific data reporting instructions. The Department estimates 
approximately 400 individual inquiries (e.g., phone or email) will be 
received each year; many of these inquiries will be immediately before 
the deadline for States to make a data submission;
    (k) Prepare and disseminate reports, documents, and other materials 
on topics deemed beneficial for supporting States in accurately meeting 
IDEA data collection and reporting requirements;
    (l) Develop guidance documents and tools to be used by States to 
communicate with local data collectors about new or changing data 
requirements using current technology;
    (m) Support States in meeting APR submission requirements, 
including--
    (1) As needed, evaluate sampling plans developed by States to 
report APR data based on a sample of districts, schools, or EIS 
programs;
    (2) Evaluating the quality, accuracy, and validity of SPP and APR 
quantitative data and developing and providing a summary report for 
OSEP's annual APR Indicator Analyses report so that it can identify 
State TA needs for accurate collection, analysis, and reporting of IDEA 
data; and
    (3) Using results from the Department's review of APR data to 
support States in their analysis of available data so that States can 
provide more accurate qualitative information to the Department about 
its efforts to improve its implementation of the requirements and 
purposes of the IDEA, and to more accurately target its future 
improvement activities.

Leadership and Coordination Activities

    (a) Consult with a group of persons, including representatives from 
State and local educational agencies and State Part C Lead Agencies and 
local programs; school or district administrators; IDEA data 
collectors; data-system staff responsible for IDEA data quality; data 
system management or data governance staff; and other consumers of 
State-reported IDEA data, as appropriate, on the activities and 
outcomes of the Center and solicit programmatic support and advice from 
various participants in the group, as appropriate. The Center may 
convene meetings, whether in person, by phone or other means, for this 
purpose, or may consult with group participants individually. The 
Center must identify the members of the group to OSEP within eight 
weeks after receipt of the award;
    (b) Communicate and coordinate, on an ongoing basis, with other 
Department-funded projects, including those using data to support 
States, to: (1) Develop products to improve data collection capacity 
(e.g., Doing What Works Clearinghouse); (2) support State monitoring of 
IDEA implementation through data use; or (3) develop and disseminate 
resources about privacy issues (e.g., Privacy TA Center (PTAC); see 
www.ed.gov/ptac); and
    (c) Maintain ongoing communication with the OSEP Project Officer.

Types of Priorities

    When inviting applications we designate the priority as absolute, 
competitive preference, or invitational. 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 either 
(1) awarding additional points, depending on how well or the extent to 
which the application meets the competitive preference priority (34 CFR 
75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an application that meets the 
competitive preference priority over an application of comparable merit 
that does not meet the competitive preference priority (34 CFR 
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
    Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are 
particularly interested in applications that meet the invitational 
priority. However, we do not give an application that meets the 
invitational priority a competitive or absolute preference over other 
applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).

Final Priority

    We will announce the final priority in a notice in the Federal 
Register. We will determine the final priority after considering 
responses to this notice and other information available to the 
Department. This notice does not preclude us from proposing or funding 
additional priorities, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking 
requirements.

    Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in 
which we choose to use this proposed priority, we invite 
applications through a notice in the Federal Register.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether 
this regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject to 
the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 
12866 defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely 
to result in a rule that may--
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, 
or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, 
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or 
Tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to 
as an ``economically significant'' rule);
    (2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the 
Executive order.

[[Page 46664]]

    This proposed regulatory action is not a significant regulatory 
action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 
12866.
    We have also reviewed this regulatory action under Executive Order 
13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, 
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in 
Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 
13563 requires that an agency--
    (1) Propose or adopt regulations only on a reasoned determination 
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits 
and costs are difficult to quantify);
    (2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, 
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into 
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of 
cumulative regulations;
    (3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select 
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential 
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other 
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
    (4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather 
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must 
adopt; and
    (5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct 
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or 
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide 
information that enables the public to make choices.
    Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best 
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future 
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these 
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs 
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated 
behavioral changes.''
    We are taking this regulatory action only on a reasoned 
determination that its benefits justify its costs. In choosing among 
alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that 
maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the 
Department believes that this regulatory action is consistent with the 
principles in Executive Order 13563.
    In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has 
assessed the potential costs and benefits of this regulatory action. 
The potential costs associated with this regulatory action are those 
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as 
necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.
    We have also determined that this regulatory action does not unduly 
interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of 
their governmental functions.
    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: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this 
document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, 
audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the contact person listed 
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this 
document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free 
Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the 
Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System 
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well 
as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal 
Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF 
you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the 
site.
    You may also access documents of the Department published in the 
Federal Register by using the article search feature at: 
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search 
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published 
by the Department.

    Dated: August 1, 2012.
Alexa Posny,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2012-19162 Filed 8-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
```