24724 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 85 / Monday, May 4, 1998 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Office of Special Education and

Rehabilitative Services; Notice of Final

Priorities

SUMMARY: The Secretary announces final

priorities for two programs administered

by the Office of Special Education and

Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) under

the Individuals with Disabilities

Education Act (IDEA), as amended. The

Secretary may use these priorities to

support grants in Fiscal Year 1998 and

subsequent years. The Secretary takes

this action to focus Federal assistance

on identified needs to improve results

for children with disabilities. These

final priorities are intended to ensure

wide and effective use of program

funds.

EFFECTIVE DATE: These priorities take

effect on June 3, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The

Department address and telephone

number to contact for information on

each final priority is listed under the

appropriate priority.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

notice contains three final priorities

under two Special Education programs

authorized by the Individuals with

Disabilities Education Act: Technical

Assistance and Dissemination to

Improve Services and Results for

Children with Disabilities (two

proposed priorities); and Research and

Innovation to Improve Services and

Results for Children with Disabilities

(one proposed priority).

On February 19, 1998, the Secretary

published a notice of proposed

priorities for these programs in the

Federal Register (63 FR 8530).

These final priorities support the

National Education Goals by improving

understanding of how to enable

children and youth with disabilities to

reach higher levels of academic

achievement.

The publication of these priorities

does not preclude the Secretary from

proposing additional priorities, nor does

it limit the Secretary to funding only

these priorities, subject to meeting

applicable rulemaking requirements.

Funding of particular projects depends

on the availability of funds, and the

quality of the applications received.

Note: This notice of final priorities does

not solicit applications. A notice inviting

applications under these competitions is

published in a separate notice in this issue

of the Federal Register.

Analysis of Comments and Changes

In response to the Secretary’s

invitation in the notice of proposed

priorities, six parties submitted

comments. An analysis of the comments

and of the changes in the proposed

priorities follows. Technical and other

minor changes—as well as suggested

changes the Secretary is not legally

authorized to make under the applicable

statutory authority—are not addressed.

Priority 1—Center for Positive

Behavioral Interventions and Supports

Comment: One commenter

recommended that the priority use the

exact, broad, language of IDEA, i.e.

‘‘strategies, including positive

behavioral interventions and supports’’,

rather than the term ‘‘positive

behavioral support’’, which the

commenter believed would narrow the

scope of interventions, strategies and

supports that can be studied by the

Center.

Discussion: It is the Secretary’s intent

to support a broad view of possible

interventions. The language in the

priority has been changed to be

consistent with this intent.

Changes: The priority has been

revised to refer to positive behavioral

interventions and supports throughout.

Comment: One commenter suggested

that the State policies, which the Center

must evaluate, should include policies

that support family involvement in the

provision of services.

Discussion: The Secretary agrees with

the commenter that family participation

in the development and implementation

of behavioral supports is important. The

proposed priority would not have

precluded projects from addressing this

issue. Paragraph (a) purposely does not

delineate the specific areas of State and

local policy on school-wide positive

behavioral supports and interventions

that the Center must address.

Applicants have the discretion to

identify and evaluate the critical areas.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter suggested

that the coordinated network under

paragraph (b) be broadened to include,

‘‘related services and other mental

health professionals’’, to ensure that the

priority did not exclude contributions

made to the mental health of children

by school psychologists, school social

workers, and other related services

personnel.

Discussion: The term mental health

professional as used in the proposed

priority was not intended to exclude

related services personnel who provide

mental health services. The Secretary

agrees that referring to ‘‘related services

professionals’’ as part of the coordinated

network would add further clarity.

Changes: The proposed priority has

been revised to include related services

professionals under paragraph (b).

Comment: One commenter suggested

that the list of agencies with which the

Center may conduct outreach activities

under paragraph (b) include Child

Mental Health Services and Maternal

and Child Health at the Department of

Health and Human Services since both

programs fund demonstration projects

and sponsor school health clinics.

Discussion: The priority lists some of

the relevant agencies and federally

supported technical assistance and

information agencies and projects with

which the Center may conduct outreach

activities. While the list is not meant to

be exhaustive, and applicants may

identify additional collaborative

agencies, the Secretary agrees that the

two agencies identified by the

commenter should be included among

those listed in the priority.

Changes: The proposed priority has

been revised to include OHS’’ Child

Mental Health Services, and Maternal

and Child Health.

Comment: One commenter

recommended that information

exchanges under paragraph (c) involve

an array or menu of methods for

reporting positive behavioral

interventions, strategies, and supports.

Discussion: It is the Secretary’s intent

to provide for a range of methods for

exchanging information. While the

proposed priority did not preclude such

a range, the Secretary agrees that an

array of methods should be required.

Changes: Paragraph (c) of the

proposed priority has been revised to

require that informational exchanges

include an array of methods for sharing

information.

Comment: One commenter

recommended that the information

dissemination efforts described in

paragraph (e) include steps toward

implementation, methods to sustain

efforts, and mechanisms for ensuring

increased replication and effective

dissemination.

Discussion: The priority is intended to

promote awareness of the value of

school-wide positive behavioral

supports and interventions and to build

the necessary knowledge base,

momentum, and resource network to

encourage their widespread application.

To the extent the Center acquires

information regarding replication of

supports and interventions, it may share

that information with the field.

However, requiring the Center to

develop guidelines for replication are

beyond the work scope of the priority.

Implementation, on the other hand, will

be conducted by the coordinated

network under paragraph (b).

Changes: None.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 85 / Monday, May 4, 1998 / Notices 24725

Comment: One commenter suggested

that the blueprint described in

paragraph (f) include underlying

components necessary to institute an

effective program.

Discussion: Paragraph (f) is intended

to support the development of a

blueprint that the Secretary may use to

provide future technical assistance to

LEAs and SEAs in implementing

positive behavioral interventions and

support programs. The components of

the blueprint are left to the discretion

and expertise of the Center.

Changes: The priority has been

modified to clarify that the blueprint

developed under paragraph (f) shall be

submitted to the Secretary for purposes

of providing future technical assistance

on positive behavioral interventions and

supports.

Comment: One commenter suggested

that the focus of the results-based

evaluation under paragraph (h) be

clarified.

Discussion: The Secretary agrees that

the proposed priority did not

sufficiently identify the focus of the

results-based evaluation and has

clarified the language.

Changes: Paragraph (h) has been

revised to clarify that the results-based

evaluation must be supported by

evaluation data gathered from the

project of the technical assistance

provided under paragraphs (b), (c), (d),

and (e) of the proposed priority.

Priority 2—National Center on Dispute

Resolution

Comment: One commenter suggested

that the priority include additional

clarification regarding expectations

associated with specific tasks, especially

those with fiscal implications.

Discussion: The Secretary prefers to

afford applicants the discretion to

determine how best to accomplish the

activities specified in the priority,

including how (or if) to budget for

certain tasks. Moreover, the Secretary

believes it would be inappropriate to

specify additional estimated costs in the

priority.

Change: None.

Priority—Directed Research Projects

Focus 1—Beacons of Excellence

Comment: One commenter suggested

that Focus 1—Beacons of Excellence

under the proposed Directed Research

Projects priority be changed to make

explicit that the prime criterion for a

beacon school is student performance

measured in a valid and reliable

manner.

Discussion: The priority as proposed

required that projects ‘‘identify and

study schools or programs achieving

exemplary results for students with

disabilities.’’ The commenter’s

suggested change may strengthen the

emphasis on student results that are

measured in a rigorous manner.

Changes: The priority has been

changed to require that schools or

programs be identified on the basis of

valid and reliable measures of student

results.

Focus 2—The Sustainability of

Promising Innovations

Comment: One commenter suggested

that Focus 2 be broadened to include

research documenting the effectiveness

of applying assistive technology to help

students benefit from their educational

experience.

Discussion: The Secretary agrees with

the commenter that research

documenting the extent to which

assistive technology benefits students

with disabilities is important, however,

Focus 2 is primarily interested in issues

of sustainability of innovations that

hold positive results for children with

disabilities within a school

restructuring/reform context. OSEP

supports research related to assistive

technology under the Special

Education—Technology and Media

Services for Individuals with

Disabilities program. The closing date

for applications under that program for

the fiscal year 1998 competition for the

Steppingstones of Technology

Innovations for Students with

Disabilities priority, is May 8, 1998.

Changes: None.

Focus 6—Synthesize and Communicate

a Professional Knowledge Base:

Contributions to Research and Practice

Comment: One commenter suggested

that the syntheses areas included in

paragraphs (a)-(f) be rewritten to address

the ‘‘Method and effects of interventions

on * * *’’, so that the syntheses

projects will not only identify and

synthesize positive outcomes, but will

also identify and synthesize those

‘‘things’’ which lead to positive

outcomes. The commenter further

suggested that the project assess what

the field currently knows regarding selfdetermination and develop an agenda of

future research questions.

Discussion: The Secretary believes

that the concerns of the commenter are

taken into account when rigorous

research methods are applied in the

design and execution of the metaanalysis for the synthesis project. With

regard to the commenter’s suggestion

that the project assess what the field

currently knows regarding selfdetermination and develop an agenda of

future research questions, the Secretary

emphasizes that it is the purpose of the

synthesis project to assess what is

known from research and report the

findings. However, it is not the intent of

this priority to develop an agenda of

future research questions.

Change: None.

Focus 8—Educating Children with

Disabilities in Inclusive Settings

Comment: One commenter suggested

that assistive technology be listed as a

systems change strategy worthy of

investigation under Focus 8.

Discussion: The Secretary agrees with

the commenter that assistive technology

is a strategy worthy of investigation

under this priority. As Focus 8 is

written, there is nothing that precludes

an applicant from using assistive

technology as a strategy to promote

access and inclusion of students with

disabilities in regular classrooms.

Change: None.

Special Education—Technical

Assistance and Dissemination To

Improve Services and Results For

Children With Disabilities

Purpose of Program

The purpose of this program is to

provide technical assistance and

information through such mechanisms

as institutes, regional resource centers,

clearinghouses, and programs that

support States and local entities in

building capacity, to improve early

intervention, educational, and

transitional services and results for

children with disabilities and their

families, and to address systemicchange goals and priorities.

Priorities

Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), the

Secretary gives an absolute preference to

applications that meet one of the

following priorities. The Secretary will

fund under these competitions only

applications that meet one of these

absolute priorities:

Absolute Priority 1—Center for Positive

Behavioral Interventions and Supports

Background

Problem behaviors are one of the most

common reasons children with

disabilities are excluded from school,

community, and work. Research on

positive behavioral interventions and

supports is rapidly developing and

demonstrates how school-wide

approaches to these interventions and

supports can enable students with

disabilities who exhibit problem

behaviors to achieve independence and

become participants and contributing
24726 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 85 / Monday, May 4, 1998 / Notices

members in school, community, and

work.

Despite this growing body of

knowledge, however, awareness of the

value of these approaches and their use

in the educational environment remains

limited. There is clearly a need to

develop a greater awareness on the part

of educators and others of the important

contribution that positive behavioral

interventions and supports can make in

achieving successful results for children

with disabilities who exhibit

challenging problem behaviors and for

improving the overall climate of

schools.

Part B of IDEA includes provisions

intended to guide and assist schools in

cases in which the behavior of a child

with a disability impedes learning. For

example, the Act specifies that teams

developing individualized education

programs (IEPs) consider, when

appropriate, positive behavioral

interventions and supports and other

strategies to address behavior problems.

The following priority is intended to

assist schools in designing and

implementing effective school-wide

positive behavioral intervention and

support programs by creating a greater

awareness of these research-based

approaches, including identifying

effective State and local policies which

support the approaches, and by building

the necessary knowledge base,

momentum, and resource network to

encourage their widespread application.

Priority

The Secretary establishes an absolute

priority for the purpose of supporting a

Center for Positive Behavioral

Interventions and Supports that builds

awareness and motivation for schools to

design and implement school-wide

support for children with disabilities

who exhibit challenging problem

behaviors. The Center must, at a

minimum:

(a) Evaluate the state of policy and

practice regarding school-wide positive

behavioral interventions and supports,

including relevant State and local

policies and guidelines, and financing

and cross-agency coordination strategies

for supporting behavioral intervention

and support services. Develop and

apply criteria for identifying exemplary

programs of school-wide positive

behavioral interventions and supports.

Identify and publicize schools

implementing such programs.

(b) Establish a coordinated network of

researchers, educators, parents, related

services, and mental health

professionals, and policy makers who

will serve as resources to schools and

each other in designing and

implementing school-wide positive

behavioral intervention and support

programs. Conduct outreach activities

with relevant federally supported

technical assistance and information

activities and projects (e.g., the National

Institute of Disability and Rehabilitation

Research programs, the Federal

Resource Center, Regional Resource

Centers, the Office of Educational

Research and Improvement (OERI), the

Office of Elementary and Secondary

Education’s Safe and Drug Free Schools

program, the Department of Justice’s

Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention, the

Department of Health and Human

Services’ Child Mental Health Services

and Maternal and Child Health

programs), State and local organizations,

and other relevant organizations and

projects to promote public awareness of

positive behavioral intervention and

support practices and the availability of

information, supports, and services.

(c) Provide for information exchanges

between researchers and practitioners

who direct exemplary behavioral

intervention and support programs and

educators who seek to design and

implement effective school-wide

programs. Information must be

exchanged through an array of methods,

including, but not limited to, two

regional forums during each of the first

four years of the project, and a national

forum in the fifth year. The forums must

be designed to expand the coordinated

network, develop awareness of researchbased practices, and create a dialogue

about school-wide positive behavioral

intervention and support programs. The

forums must include examples and

descriptions of exemplary school-wide

programs and effective State and local

policies, and may include other

appropriate activities such as visits to

exemplary sites.

(d) Provide information to the

national information center for children

with disabilities. Collaborate with the

national information center for children

with disabilities on the development

and dissemination of materials on

positive behavioral interventions and

supports. Establish linkages with the

national information center for children

with disabilities to ensure timely and

accurate dissemination of information to

customers.

(e) Organize, synthesize, and report

information to teachers, administrators,

parents, and other interested parties

regarding research, policy, and practice

advances on positive behavioral

interventions and supports. Develop

and disseminate products that are easy

to use and accessible (e.g., print and

electronic formats). Respond to written

and telephone inquiries with researchbased information.

(f) Develop, and submit to the

Secretary, a blueprint for providing

further technical assistance to local

educational agencies (LEAs) and State

educational agencies (SEAs), which

includes alternative designs of effective

school-wide positive behavioral

intervention and support programs and

alternative approaches to delivering

technical assistance in their

implementation. Identify barriers to

assisting school districts across the

country in developing and

implementing school-wide positive

behavioral interventions and support

programs and develop strategies for

overcoming these barriers.

(g) Budget for two trips annually to

Washington, D.C., for: (1) A two-day

Research to Practice Division Project

Directors’ meeting; and (2) a meeting to

collaborate with the Research to Practice

Division project officer and the other

related projects, and to share

information and discuss findings and

methods of dissemination.

(h) Conduct, every two years, a

results-based evaluation supported by

evaluation data gathered from the

project of the technical assistance

provided under activities (b), (c), (d),

and (e). Such an evaluation must be

conducted by a review team consisting

of three experts approved by the

Secretary, and must measure elements

such as—

(1) The type of technical assistance

provided and the perception of its

quality by the target audience;

(2) The changes that occurred as a

result of the technical assistance

provided; and

(3) The review team will examine the

progress that the Center has made with

respect to the objectives in its

application.

The services of the review team,

including a two-day site visit to the

Center is to be performed during the last

half of the Center’s second and fourth

years and may be included in that year’s

evaluation required under 34 CFR

75.590. Costs associated with the

services to be performed by the review

team must also be included in the

Center’s budget for years two and four.

These costs are estimated to be

approximately $4,000 for each

evaluation cycle.

Under this priority, the Secretary will

make one award for cooperative

agreements with a project period of up

to 60 months subject to the

requirements of 34 CFR 75.253(a) for

continuation awards. In determining

whether to continue the center for the

fourth and fifth years of the project
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 85 / Monday, May 4, 1998 / Notices 24727

period, the Secretary, in addition to the

requirements of 34 CFR 75.253(a), will

consider—

(a) The timeliness and effectiveness

with which all requirements of the

negotiated cooperative agreement have

been or are being met by the Center; and

(b) The degree to which the Center’s

design and methodology demonstrates

the potential for advancing significant

new knowledge.

Absolute Priority 2—National Center on

Dispute Resolution

Background

Disputes within the education

community affect systemic change and

results for children with disabilities. An

alternative dispute resolution process

such as mediation is less costly to

schools and families, can help to

minimize adverse effects on a child’s

progress in school, and is more apt to

foster positive relationships between

families and educators than would

litigation. Technical assistance that

focuses primarily on alternative dispute

resolution procedures would assist State

educational agencies (SEAs), local

educational agencies (LEAs), and

families to resolve their differences in a

less adversarial and more responsive

manner than through standard due

process hearing procedures, while

enabling State and local entities to

achieve systemic change and promoting

improved early intervention,

educational, and transitional results for

children with disabilities. This priority

would support a national center to

provide technical assistance to SEAs,

LEAs, and families on resolving their

differences. The center would provide

technical assistance on mediation and

other effective dispute resolution

procedures that do not impede parental

rights under IDEA or otherwise conflict

with the statute. As such, the center

would provide technical assistance as

needed in order to facilitate the effective

use of due process procedures. The

chief aim of the center, however, would

be to provide needed technical

assistance to enable parties to effectively

resolve their disputes through more

expedient and less confrontational

means, including mediation.

Priority

The Secretary establishes an absolute

priority to support a national technical

assistance center on dispute resolution

procedures, including mediation. The

center must—

(a) Provide technical assistance on

dispute resolution procedures (with an

emphasis on procedures other than due

process hearings) to all States, outlying

areas, and the freely associated States

(to the extent such States participate in

Parts B or C of IDEA), and the Bureau

of Indian Affairs. At a minimum, the

center must—

(1) Conduct annual needs

assessments;

(2) Develop technical assistance

agreements with each entity; and

(3) Provide technical assistance,

training, and on-going consultation

based on the technical assistance

agreements (including technical

assistance, training, and on-going

consultation at the local level, as

appropriate).

(b) Coordinate with the existing

technical assistance to parent project to

provide technical assistance to all

parent training and information centers

and community parent resource centers

on dispute resolution procedures;

(c) Develop informational exchanges

about dispute resolution procedures

between the center and other technical

assistance and information

dissemination systems;

(d) Establish an advisory group of

persons with complementary expertise

on dispute resolution procedures to

advise the center on its technical

assistance activities;

(e) Collect information on the use and

effectiveness of mediation and other

dispute resolution procedures. The

effectiveness of any such procedure

would be based on the degree to which

all parties feel satisfied with the result

and agree that an efficient and

expeditious process has been followed;

(f) Identify, and disseminate

information on, best practices in dispute

resolution;

(g) Maintain an information data base

that includes: (1) State practices on

dispute resolution, including

information on mediator training and

the implementation of the mediation

requirements in Parts B and C of IDEA;

and (2) research, literature, and

products about dispute resolution

procedures.

(h) Examine the effectiveness of State

efforts regarding mediation and other

dispute resolution proceedings. Analyze

information on the number of due

process hearings, mediation sessions,

and other dispute resolution

proceedings conducted and on the

outcome of each such hearing, session,

or proceeding;

(i) Collaborate with the national

information center on children with

disabilities regarding the dissemination

of information to respond to information

needs. Establish linkages with the

national information center on children

with disabilities to ensure timely and

accurate dissemination of information to

customers;

(j) Serve as a clearinghouse for

information on dispute resolution

procedures;

(k) Conduct an annual forum each

year of the project that identifies the

unique features of dispute resolution

procedures, the strengths of the

procedures, and the potential for

adopting the procedures. At least one

forum must address the specific needs

of underrepresented and underserved

populations; another must address

dispute resolution procedures

(including mediator training issues) in

the context of general education reform;

(l) Evaluate the impact of the center’s

technical assistance system and its

components relative to the—

(1) Assessed needs of States and

jurisdictions;

(2) Needs of parents; and

(3) Linkages with other technical

assistance and information

dissemination systems; and

(m) Budget for two trips annually to

Washington, D.C., for: (1) a two-day

Research to Practice Division Project

Directors’ meeting; and (2) a meeting to

collaborate with the Research to Practice

Division project officer and the other

related projects to share information,

and to discuss findings and methods of

dissemination.

(n) Conduct, every two years, a

results-based evaluation of the technical

assistance provided. Such an evaluation

must be conducted by a review team

consisting of three experts approved by

the Secretary and must measure

elements such as—

(1) The type of technical assistance

provided and the perception of its

quality by the target audience; and

(2) The changes that occurred as a

result of the technical assistance

provided; and

(3) The progress that the center has

made with respect to the objectives in

its application.

The services of the review team,

including a two-day site visit to the

center, are to be performed during the

last half of the center’s second year and

may be included in that year’s

evaluation required under 34 CFR

75.590. Costs associated with the

services to be performed by the review

team must also be included in the

center’s budget for year two. These costs

are estimated to be approximately

$4,000.

Under this priority, the Secretary will

make one award for a cooperative

agreement with a project period of up to

60 months subject to the requirements

of 34 CFR 75.253(a) for continuation

awards. In determining whether to
24728 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 85 / Monday, May 4, 1998 / Notices

continue the center for the fourth and

fifth years of the project period, the

Secretary, in addition to the

requirements of 34 CFR 75.253(a), will

consider—

(a) The timeliness and effectiveness

with which all requirements of the

negotiated cooperative agreement have

been or are being met by the center.

(b) The degree to which the center’s

design and methodology demonstrates

the potential for advancing significant

new knowledge.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

further information on the priorities

under the Technical Assistance and

Dissemination to Improve Services and

Results for Children with Disabilities

Program contact the U.S. Department of

Education, 600 Independence Avenue,

SW., room 3527, Switzer Building,

Washington, DC 20202–2641.

Telephone: (202) 205–8038. FAX: (202)

205–8105. Internet:

DebralSturdivant@ed.gov

Individuals who use a

telecommunications device for the deaf

(TDD) may call the TDD number: (202)

205–8953.

Program Authority: Section 685 of

IDEA.

Special Education—Research and

Innovation To Improve Services and

Results For Children With Disabilities

Purpose of Program

To produce, and advance the use of,

knowledge to: (1) Improve services

provided under IDEA, including the

practices of professionals and others

involved in providing those services to

children with disabilities; and (2)

improve educational and early

intervention results for infants, toddlers,

and children with disabilities.

Priority

Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), the

Secretary gives an absolute preference to

applications that meet the following

priority. The Secretary will fund under

this competition only applications that

meet this absolute priority.

Absolute Priority—Directed Research

Projects

This priority provides support for

projects that advance and improve the

knowledge base and improve the

practice of professionals, parents, and

others providing early intervention,

special education, and related services,

including professionals who work with

children with disabilities in regular

education environments and natural

environments, to provide those children

effective instruction and interventions

that enable them to learn and develop

successfully. Under this priority,

projects must support innovation,

development, exchange of information,

and use of advancements in knowledge

and practice designed to contribute to

the improvement of early intervention,

instruction, and learning of infants,

toddlers, and children with disabilities.

A research project must address one

of the following focus areas, and the

Secretary intends to award at least one

project in each focus area:

Focus 1—Beacons of Excellence

Research projects supported under

Focus 1 must identify and study schools

or programs achieving exemplary results

for students with disabilities in the

context of efforts to achieve exemplary

results for all students. Projects must

develop and apply procedures and

criteria to identify these schools or

programs on the basis of valid and

reliable measures of student results.

Projects must also identify factors

contributing to exemplary learning or

developmental results, and examine

how those factors and other factors

relate to achieving exemplary learning

or developmental results for children

with disabilities. Projects may focus on

early intervention, preschool,

elementary, or secondary levels, or a

combination of levels. Following the

second year of the project, the Secretary

may fund an optional six-month period

for additional dissemination activities.

Focus 2—The Sustainability of

Promising Innovations

A growing body of practice-based

research and model demonstration work

in schools, local districts, and early

intervention programs, including

projects supported by the Office of

Special Education Programs (OSEP), has

focused on meeting the needs of, and

improving results for, children with

disabilities in schools, districts, or early

intervention programs involved in

reform and restructuring initiatives.

Some of this work is yielding promising

positive results for children with

disabilities. However, little is known

about the extent to which the

innovations developed and

implemented in these efforts are

sustained in project sites beyond the

term of time-limited external support

and assistance.

Focus 2 supports projects to study the

implementation of practices that have

been found to be effective in meeting

the needs of children with disabilities

by reform and restructuring initiatives

in local and district schools, or early

intervention programs. The study must

address: (a) The extent to which

practices that have been shown to be

effective have been sustained beyond

the existence of the projects; and (b)

factors that influence the level of

sustainability. Factors to be studied may

include, but are not limited to: (a) The

nature of the innovations and the extent

to which the innovations have

undergone adaptation or alteration over

time; (b) the type and extent of support

strategies employed during initial

implementation stages and over time; (c)

planned and unplanned changes in

agency, school organizational or

structural contexts, or both; (d) the level

of penetration of the innovation; (e) the

actual or perceived, or both, cost and

benefit for participants; (f) constancy of

site leadership, staff, and policy

requirements; (g) the extent of

consonance or dissonance between

critical features of the innovations and

existing (and emerging) school and

district or agency practices and policies;

and (h) resource access and allocation.

Projects must provide comprehensive

descriptions of the targeted effective

practices to be studied, and evidence of

positive results for children with

disabilities. In addition, projects must

dedicate the bulk of support requested

to research on the issues of

sustainability including the ability to

sustain the project results beyond the

life of the project. The Secretary

particularly encourages an in-depth case

study research design where the site or

sites to be studied is the case (unit of

analysis).

Focus 3—Research on Improving

Reading Comprehension Results for

Children with Learning Disabilities

In recent years, research has advanced

our understanding of how skilled

readers comprehend and instructional

strategies that support children with

learning disabilities to comprehend text.

Comprehension is not merely a textbased process where meaning resides in

the text and the role of the reader is to

get the meaning. Meaning comes from

both the text and the reader. Many

children with learning disabilities need

an instructional program that: (a)

Teaches them how to access prior

knowledge (e.g., strategies such as story

grammar elements, semantic mapping,

or think aloud sheets); (b) motivates and

supports persistence on a task (e.g.,

including expressions of a student’s

own thoughts when reading and

writing, questioning the expert or

inquiry, or using technology or grouping

practices); and (c) teaches them

cognitive and metacognitive strategies

for reading with understanding,

including how to monitor one’s own

progress (e.g., summarizing, generating

questions, mnemonics, or imagery).
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 85 / Monday, May 4, 1998 / Notices 24729

Therefore, becoming a skilled reader

is not automatic. Teachers need to teach

reading comprehension, and, in

particular, children with learning

disabilities need effective instructional

approaches.

Under Focus 3, a research project

must pursue a systematic program of

applied research that focuses on one or

more issues related to improving

reading comprehension results of

children with learning disabilities

related to reading. These issues include,

but are not limited to:

(a) The extent to which children with

learning disabilities need differential

strategies to comprehend narrative and

expository text;

(b) The types of effective

comprehension instruction for children

with learning disabilities in grades K–2,

3–5, and 6–8 inclusive; the components

of particularly effective programs for

children with learning disabilities; the

basal materials, supplemental materials,

and instructional strategies used by

teachers; and how families support the

instructional program;

(c) The types of effective questioning

strategies used by teachers, peers, and

experts affecting comprehension; and

(d) The kind of contexts that promote

critical analysis and evaluation for

comprehension and learning, and the

grouping practices, instructional

strategies, and curricula that promote

comprehension and problem solving.

Focus 4—Studying Models That Bridge

the Gap Between Research and Practice

Educational research most often

includes the following phases: (1)

Planning and preparation; (2)

information gathering; (3) analysis and

interpretation; (4) reporting and

dissemination; and (5) use of findings.

In traditional research models, the

researcher is solely or primarily

responsible for all phases but the last.

Using research findings is seen as a job

for the practitioner. However, it has

been observed that research knowledge

rarely translates directly into practice.

In recent years, a variety of promising

models have been developed to bridge

the gap between research and practice

by altering the roles of researchers and

practitioners for one or more phases of

the research. In some models (e.g.,

interactive research and development,

practitioner-researcher, partnership

research) researchers and practitioners

collaborate in all phases of the research

process. Some of these models include

parents on their site-based research

teams. In other models, practitioners,

working individually (e.g., practitionerresearch linkers), in groups (e.g.,

practitioner study groups), or in pairs

(e.g., peer coaching) interpret extant

research to understand how to integrate

research into practice. In some models,

teachers conduct research (e.g., action

research, or collegial experimentation).

To date there have been few systematic

examinations of the effectiveness of the

various models to improve practice in

special education or early intervention.

Under Focus 4, research projects must

implement and examine a model or

models for using research knowledge to

improve educational practice and

results for children with disabilities.

In studying a model or models,

projects must apply methodologies with

the capacity to determine the

effectiveness of the model or models as

implemented in practice settings. The

projects must identify the knowledge

utilization model or models to be

studied, specify the components of the

knowledge utilization model or models

selected or created, the supports and

policies necessary to support the model

or models, both alterable and

unalterable factors affecting practice

improvement, and the effect of the

model or models to improve

organizational culture, practitioner

attitudes and practices, and child

results. In judging effectiveness, the

projects must address improvements for

researchers, practitioners, and children

with disabilities.

The projects must report their

findings in a manner which can serve as

a ‘‘blueprint’’ so that practitioners in

other school districts or agencies can

implement the model using research

knowledge to improve practice in

special education or early intervention.

Focus 5—Inclusion of Students With

Disabilities in Large-Scale Assessment

Programs

IDEA includes a number of provisions

to ensure the participation of students

with disabilities in general State and

district-wide assessment programs.

Students with disabilities must

participate in large-scale assessment

programs if they are to benefit from the

educational accountability and reforms

that are linked to these assessments.

While much information has been

gained from prior efforts to include

disabled students in assessments such

as the National Assessment of

Educational Progress, applied research

is needed to build on this base of

information in order to provide

technical and implementation

information to guide the effective

inclusion of students with disabilities in

large-scale assessment programs.

Focus 5 supports projects that pursue

systematic programs of applied research

to determine how State and local

educational programs can best meet one

or more of the following requirements:

(a) Including students with disabilities

in either general State or district-wide

assessment programs or both;

(b) Developing and using appropriate

accommodations for students with

disabilities on general State or districtwide assessments, or both;

(c) Developing and using alternate

assessments for students with

disabilities who cannot participate in

State and district-wide assessment

programs;

(d) Reporting on the participation or

performance or both of students with

disabilities in either general assessment

programs, or on alternate assessments,

or both; and

(e) Making decisions during the

development of individualized

education programs concerning

individual modifications in the

administration of State or district-wide

assessments, or individual participation

in alternate assessments.

Focus 6—Synthesize and Communicate

a Professional Knowledge Base:

Contributions to Research and Practice

Traditionally researchers have

communicated their findings from

individual research projects and

systematic lines of research through

journal publications and conference

presentations. These findings are

communicated to other researchers and

engage researchers in dialogues. These

dialogues contribute to innovation and

development in special education and

early intervention. In recent years the

OSEP has sought to expand these

traditional approaches. While

continuing to support innovation and

development, OSEP has established a

goal to foster the use of a professional

knowledge base by professionals who

serve children with disabilities and

parents who are involved in the

education and development of their

children with disabilities.

Focus 6 supports projects that

synthesize and communicate an extant

professional knowledge base on

curricular, instructional, early

intervention, or organizational strategies

and approaches that would contribute to

professional practice as a means for

achieving better results for children

with disabilities. In past years, the

Department has supported syntheses on

positive behavioral supports of children

who exhibit challenging behaviors,

grouping practices in reading,

differences between children with

learning disabilities and low achieving

students, instructional approaches for

special education students who speak

English as a second language,
24730 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 85 / Monday, May 4, 1998 / Notices

generalization strategies for using

augmentative communication devices,

interventions for children with learning

disabilities, and effects of setting on

social and academic outcomes. Building

upon these previous efforts, the

Secretary intends to support and fund a

limited number of new syntheses in

other areas such as—

(a) Effects of self-determination and

self-advocacy interventions on children

with disabilities;

(b) Effects of interventions on

children with disabilities that promote

generalization of academic or

developmental skills;

(c) Effects of teacher or practitioner

efficacy on children with disabilities’

achievement or development;

(d) Effects of technology for

improving literacy results for children

with disabilities;

(e) Effects of school-wide approaches

for improving reading results of

children with disabilities; or

(f) Effects of school-wide approaches

for improving math results of children

with disabilities.

Under Focus 6, a synthesis project

must—

(a) Identify the topical focus and the

relevant and irrelevant concepts under

review, and pose hypotheses around

which the synthesis would be

conducted;

(b) Identify and implement rigorous

social science methods for synthesizing

the professional knowledge base (e.g.,

integrative reviews (Cooper, 1982), bestevidence synthesis (Slavin, 1989), metaanalysis (Glass, 1977), multi-vocal

approach (Ogawa & Malen, 1991), and

National Institute of Mental Health

consensus development program

(Huberman, 1977));

(c) Develop hypotheses with input

from potential consumers of the

synthesis to enhance the usability and

validity of project efforts. Consumers

include researchers, technical assistance

providers, policy makers, educators,

other relevant practitioners, individuals

with disabilities, and parents;

(d) Develop linkage of synthesis with

technical assistance providers and

disseminators and prepare products for

use by practitioners, technical

assistance providers, and disseminators;

(e) Implement procedures for locating

and organizing the extant literature and

ensure that these procedures address

and guard against potential threats to

the integrity, including generalization of

findings;

(f) Establish criteria and procedures

for judging the appropriateness of

studies;

(g) Meet with the Office of Special

Education Programs to review the

project’s topical focus and

methodological approach for conducting

the synthesis prior to the start of its

synthesis;

(h) Analyze and interpret the

professional knowledge base, including

identification of general trends in the

literature, points of consensus and

conflict among the findings, and areas of

evidence where the literature base is

lacking. The interpretation of the

literature base must address the

contributions of the findings for

improving the practice of professionals

serving children with disabilities; and

(i) Submit a draft report in the 21st

month of the project and, based on peer

reviews, revise and submit a final report

of the synthesis in the 24th month.

During the second year of the project,

the Secretary may fund an optional sixmonth period for additional

dissemination activities.

Focus 7—Improving the Delivery of

Special Education and Related Services

or Early Intervention Services to

Children who are English Language

Learners

Appropriate instruction and

intervention for children with

disabilities who are limited in their

English language proficiency can be

achieved in a variety of ways.

Ultimately, the responsibility for

assuring that the English language

learner is receiving appropriate access

to the curriculum or intervention rests

with the school district or agency in its

provision of necessary training and

ongoing support to the teachers or

practitioners. Providing native speakers

of the child’s language in the classroom

or intervention program, including

parents, may not be sufficient to assure

delivery of appropriate education or

interventions. Limitations of resources

and availability of qualified bilingual

personnel to provide special education,

related services, or early intervention

services throughout the Nation suggest

that other approaches should be

investigated that will enhance the

availability and assurance of the

provision of meaningful education.

Under Focus 7 projects must pursue

a systematic program of applied

research that focuses on one or more

areas related to improved approaches to

the delivery of special education and

related services or early intervention

services to children who are English

language learners. These areas may

include, for example—

(a) Examination of early reading

practices (K–3) for children with

learning and behavior issues who are

limited in their English proficiency;

(b) Improvement of reading

comprehension in content area

instruction in grades 4–8;

(c) Examination of alternatives in the

delivery of services to children with

disabilities who are English language

learners (e.g., is placement optimal in

regular classes or programs with support

from special education resources or is

the child better served in placements

with other children with similar

disabilities with support from bilingual

resources?);

(d) The role cultural issues play in the

provision of services (e.g., how do the

perceptions of families regarding

disabilities and services affect delivery

of services?);

(e) The preferred strategies to support

the transition from bilingual to

mainstream English speaking classes or

programs (e.g., what teaching or

intervention strategies are most

effective?);

(f) Examination of specific

instructional approaches that promote

problem solving and comprehension in

reading, science, math, and social

studies;

(g) Examination of instructional or

intervention approaches for growth in

English language learning for these

children;

(h) Factors that improve the

effectiveness of cooperative learning

and classwide peer tutoring for English

language learners;

(i) The techniques that improve the

transfer of proven practices to

practitioner; and

(j) The qualitative differences that

exist in implementation of proven

practices with practitioner and children

who are English language learners who

are located in inner-city schools or

served through inner-city agencies (e.g.,

what is the involvement of families?).

Focus 8—Educating Children With

Disabilities in Inclusive Settings

Focus 8 supports research projects to

(a) identify new or improved systems

change strategies that provide all

children with disabilities, including

children with severe disabilities,

effective access to the general

curriculum in regular classrooms as

well as to nonsegregated extracurricular

activities, and (b) describe how these

school inclusion efforts as identified in

(a) are aligned with systemic reform and

school improvement strategies for all

students.

Each project will identify, describe,

and examine: (1) The efficacy and

linkages of existing systemic reform and

school inclusion strategies; (2) how

school systems provide administrative

and other supports in general education
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 85 / Monday, May 4, 1998 / Notices 24731

settings to meet the needs of students

with disabilities and other diverse

learners; (3) how standards established

for all children and authentic

assessment practices are implemented

for students with disabilities, and (4)

social support strategies, including peer

mediated strategies, that promote

positive interactions among students

with disabilities and their same-aged

peers to foster cohesive school and

classroom communities.

To be considered for funding under

Focus 8, a research project must—

(a) Identify specific interventions or

strategies to be investigated;

(b) Design the research activities in a

manner that is likely to improve

services for all students in inclusive

classrooms, including students with

severe disabilities;

(c) Conduct the research in schools

pursuing systemic education reform and

school inclusion; and

(d) Use methodological procedures

designed to produce findings useful to

program implementers and policy

makers regarding the impact and

interaction effects of systemic reform

and school inclusion strategies in State

and local contexts and demonstrate the

benefits to students including the

reciprocal benefits of inclusive

schooling for all students.

Program Authority: Section 672 of

IDEA.

Requirements for All Directed

Research Projects:

In addition to addressing one of the

above mentioned focus areas, projects

must—

(a) Apply rigorous research methods

(qualitative or quantitative, or both) to

identify approaches contributing to

improved results for children with

disabilities;

(b) Provide a conceptual framework,

based on extant research and theory to

serve as a basis for the issues to be

studied, the research design, and the

target population;

(c) Prepare dissemination materials

for both researcher and practitioner

audiences and develop linkages with

U.S. Department of Education

dissemination and technical assistance

providers, in particular those supported

under the Individuals with Disabilities

Education Act, to communicate research

findings and distribute products; and

(d) Budget for two trips annually to

Washington, D.C., for: (1) a two-day

Research to Practice Division Project

Directors’ meeting; and (2) another

meeting to collaborate with the Research

to Practice Division project officer and

the other projects funded under this

priority, and to share information and

discuss findings and methods of

dissemination.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For further information on the priority

under the Research and Innovation to

Improve Services and Results for

Children with Disabilities Program

contact the U.S. Department of

Education, 600 Independence Avenue,

SW., room 3527, Switzer Building,

Washington, DC 20202–4641.

Telephone: (202) 205–8038. FAX: (202)

205–8105. Internet: Debra l

Sturdivant@ed.gov

Individuals who use a

telecommunications device for the deaf

(TDD) may call the TDD number: (202)

205–8953. Individuals with disabilities

may obtain a copy of this notice in an

alternate format (e.g. Braille, large print,

audiotape, or computer diskette) by

calling (202) 205–8113.

Electronic Access to This Document

Anyone may view this document, as

well as all other Department of

Education documents published in the

Federal Register, in text or portable

document format (pdf) on the World

Wide Web at either of the following

sites:

http://ocfo.ed.gov/fedreg.htm

http://www.ed.gov/news.html

To use the pdf you must have the

Adobe Acrobat Reader Program with

Search, which is available free at either

of the previous sites. If you have

questions about using the pdf, call the

U.S. Government Printing Office toll

free at 1–888–293–6498.

Anyone may also view these

documents in text copy only on an

electronic bulletin board of the

Department. Telephone: (202) 219–1511

or, toll free, 1–800–222–4922. The

documents are located under Option

G—Files/Announcements, Bulletins,

and Press Releases.

Note: The official version of a document is

the document published in the Federal

Register.

Intergovernmental Review

The programs (except for the Research

and Innovation Projects) included in

this notice are subject to the

requirements of Executive Order 12372

and the regulations in 34 CFR Part 79.

The objective of the Executive Order is

to foster an intergovernmental

partnership and a strengthened

federalism by relying on processes

developed by State and local

governments for coordination and

review of proposed Federal assistance.

In accordance with the order, this

document is intended to provide early

notification of the Department’s specific

plans and actions for this program.

Dated: April 28, 1998.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Numbers: Research and Innovation to

Improve Services and Results for Children

with Disabilities, 84.324; and Technical

Assistance and Dissemination to Improve

Services and Results for Children with

Disabilities, 84.326)

Judith E. Heumann,

Assistant Secretary for Special Education and

Rehabilitative Services.

[FR Doc. 98–11720 Filed 5–1–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Office of Special Education and

Rehabilitative Services; Notice Inviting

Applications for New Awards for Fiscal

Year 1998

SUMMARY: This notice provides closing

dates and other information regarding

the transmittal of applications for fiscal

year 1998 competitions under two

programs authorized by the Individuals

with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA),

as amended. This notice supports the

National Education Goals by improving

understanding of how to enable

children and youth with disabilities to

reach higher levels of academic

achievement.

Note: The Department of Education is not

bound by any estimates in this notice.

Special Education—Technical

Assistance and Dissemination to

Improve Services and Results for

Children With Disabilities [CFDA No.

84.326]

Purpose of Program

The purpose of this program is to

provide technical assistance and

information through such mechanisms

as institutes, regional resource centers,

clearinghouses, and programs that

support States and local entities in

building capacity, to improve early

intervention, educational, and

transitional services and results for

children with disabilities and their

families, and to address systemicchange goals and priorities.

Eligible Applicants: State and local

educational agencies; institutions of

higher education; other public agencies;

private nonprofit organizations; outlying

areas; freely associated States; Indian

tribes or tribal organizations; and forprofit organizations.

Applicable Regulations: (a) The

Education Department General

Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in

34 CFR parts 74, 75, 76, 77, 79, 80, 81,

82, 85, and 86; and (b) the selection

criteria included in regulations for these

programs in 34 CFR 320.30.