Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/08/08/2019-17059/applications-for-new-awards-technical-assistance-and-dissemination-to-improve-services-and-results?utm_source=federalregister.gov&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=subscription+mailing+list
Timestamp: 2019-08-22 14:26:45
Document Index: 466022518

Matched Legal Cases: ['arts 75', 'art 180', 'art 3485', 'art 200', 'art 3474', 'art 79', 'art 86']

Federal Register :: Applications for New Awards; Technical Assistance and Dissemination To Improve Services and Results for Children With Disabilities-National Technical Assistance Center for Systemic Improvement
Applications Available: August 8, 2019.
38950-38958 (9 pages)
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2019-17059 https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2019-17059
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: September 9, 2019.
Pre-Application Webinar Information: No later than August 13, 2019, OSERS will post pre-recorded informational webinars designed to provide technical assistance (TA) to interested applicants. The webinars may be found at www2.ed.gov/​fund/​grant/​apply/​osep/​new-osep-grants.html.
Pre-Application Q & A Blog: No later than August 13, 2019, OSERS will open a blog where interested applicants may post questions about the application requirements for this competition and where OSERS will post answers to the questions received. OSERS will not respond to questions unrelated to the application requirements for this competition. The blog may be found at www2.ed.gov/​fund/​grant/​apply/​osep/​new-osep-grants.html and will remain open until August 27, 2019. After the blog closes, applicants should direct questions to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Perry Williams, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5131, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-5076. Telephone: (202) 245-7575. Email: Perry.Williams@ed.gov.
Priority: This competition includes one absolute priority.
In accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(v), this priority is from allowable activities specified in the statute (see sections 663 and 681(d) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA); 20 U.S.C. 1463 and 1481(d)).
National Technical Assistance and Dissemination Center for Systemic Improvement (Center).
The Department has worked extensively with States to ensure meaningful access to special education and related services for children with disabilities (CWD) and has noted significant improvements in compliance with the IDEA requirements over the last decade. However, educational outcomes in reading and math, as well Start Printed Page 38951as graduation rates, for CWD continue to lag those of children without disabilities. Results of the 2017 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in reading and mathematics show the performance of students with disabilities, excluding those with a 504 plan, to be significantly lower than the performance of students without disabilities. In fact, since 2009, performance of students with disabilities, excluding those with a 504 plan, has decreased in 4th and 8th grade mathematics and 4th grade reading. Even where performance improved on the 8th grade reading assessment, the gap between students with disabilities, excluding those with a 504 plan, and those without disabilities increased from 2009 to 2017. Recent data from 2016 to 2017 show that high school graduation rates for all children was 85 percent while the graduation rate for CWD was 66 percent (National Center for Education Statistics, 2019).
States have an important role to play in increasing equal opportunity and improving educational outcomes for CWD, and in reducing the persistent gaps in performance between children with and without disabilities (Tomasello & Brand, 2018). The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (ESSA), and the IDEA, reauthorized in 2004, provide States the opportunity to align State plans, priorities, support to local educational agencies (LEAs), and multiple existing efforts across general and special education programs to help close achievement gaps and improve educational outcomes for all children, including CWD.
ESSA contains several key provisions that align with IDEA. States can align ESSA and IDEA implementation efforts to ensure that they—
(1) Effectively support children with the most significant cognitive disabilities to increase access to the general education curriculum;
(2) Maintain inclusion of all CWD in accountability systems;
(3) Promote the use of evidence-based [1] practices (EBPs) to provide intervention and support to LEAs in need of improvement; and
(4) Include meaningful and authentic stakeholder engagement in all aspects of the planning and implementation process (National Council on Disability, 2018).
Additionally, ESSA and IDEA underscore the importance of a shared, integrated, and systemic approach to supporting LEAs and schools, and they provide States with a framework to design their accountability systems to improve outcomes for all children. In 2012, OSEP shifted its accountability framework from a predominant focus on compliance with Federal regulations toward an approach of monitoring and supporting States' implementation of both the results and compliance provisions of IDEA, termed Results-Driven Accountability (RDA).[2]
RDA has provided States with an increased opportunity to rethink, reshape, and refocus the components of their general supervision system [3] by incorporating and using child-level results data to inform decisions related to monitoring, local determinations, and other accountability efforts. One of the major components of RDA within the State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) that has garnered support and interest from States is the State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP). Each State was required to submit an SSIP as part of its SPP/APR beginning in Federal Fiscal Year 2013. Each State identified a State Identified Measurable Result (SIMR) under Part B of IDEA. The SSIP contains three phases: (1) Analysis of data and other information to provide a foundation for the SSIP; (2) development of the plan to improve results; and (3) implementation and evaluation of the plan. States are using the SSIP, a comprehensive, multiyear plan that is focused on improving a SIMR, to leverage resources and enhance their infrastructure and better implement IDEA with an emphasis on improving outcomes for CWD in State-selected areas such as reading, mathematics, or graduation. Each phase of the SSIP requires stakeholder engagement for decision-making and prioritizing outcomes.
All States have developed their SSIPs and are now heavily engaged in capacity-building efforts to implement and evaluate improvement efforts and report progress under four main elements of the SSIP Phase III report, which are: (1) Data collection, analysis, and use to inform decision-making; (2) development of infrastructure improvement strategies necessary to support, sustain, and scale-up system improvement efforts; (3) selection and use of EBPs that are implemented with fidelity; and (4) engagement of diverse stakeholders to implement key improvement strategies and inform decision-making within the State system. These elements also align with key capacity-building components of ESSA implementation.
OSEP's review of States' submitted SSIPs in 2018 and a National Center for Learning Disabilities (NCLD) report, Assessing ESSA: Missed Opportunities for Children with Disabilities, indicate there are still multiple challenges that affect States' abilities to successfully align and implement their ESSA State plans and establish strong comprehensive accountability systems to support schools that struggle to improve results for CWD (NCLD, 2018).
Specifically, those challenges include tracking implementation of EBPs and determining whether they have been implemented with fidelity, high turnover rates of staff at various levels across the State educational agency (SEA) and in LEAs, effective systems alignment with general education efforts, supporting LEAs in selecting and implementing EBPs to meet the needs of children with increasingly high intensity and complex needs (e.g., exposure to opioids), establishing multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS) to provide differentiated TA to LEAs, evaluation of their SSIPs' infrastructure improvement strategies, leveraging fiscal systems to achieve desired outcomes, designing and implementing professional development that meets the individual needs of teachers, and revising general supervision systems to include results as an integral component.
The Center will engage in collaborative TA activities with other Department-funded TA centers, and it will broaden, deepen, and facilitate systems alignment within State programs and engagement with existing State TA and PD systems. In addition, the Center will assist SEAs with ensuring stakeholder engagement and support to meet shared goals and identify and remove barriers for improving results for CWD. The Center must be operated in a manner consistent with nondiscrimination requirements contained in the U.S. Constitution and Federal civil rights laws.Start Printed Page 38952
Further, we acknowledge that States are in the best position to determine implementation of their programs, and as such, the Center will be required to customize its TA to meet each State's specific identified needs and leverage their resources to meet those needs.
The purpose of this priority is to fund a cooperative agreement to establish and operate a National Technical Assistance Center for Systemic Improvement (Center). The Center must achieve, at a minimum, the following expected outcomes:
(a) Increased capacity of SEAs to align with broader general education initiatives to ensure ESSA and IDEA implementation best supports the needs of CWD;
(b) Increased capacity of SEAs to effectively implement their general supervision systems that serve to improve results for CWD, while maintaining compliance with the IDEA;
(c) Increased capacity of SEAs to effectively implement, evaluate, and revise (as necessary) their SSIPs and ensure progress toward meeting their SIMR;
(d) Increased effectiveness of SEAs in meaningfully and authentically engaging diverse State (including State-level partnerships) [4] and local stakeholders in ways that will support the effective implementation of ESSA and IDEA;
(e) Increased capacity of SEAs to support LEAs in selecting and implementing EBPs within frameworks (e.g., MTSS such as positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS), response to intervention (RTI), and others);
(f) Increased capacity of SEAs to fully engage families, including partnerships with OSEP-funded parent centers and the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE) Statewide Family Engagement Centers in the implementation of systemic improvement efforts;
(g) Increased capacity of SEAs to deliver effective TA to LEAs using an aligned TA model grounded in implementation and improvement sciences through collaboration with OSEP-funded TA centers; and
(h) Improved access to objective information for families and youth with disabilities on the range of quality educational options [5] and supports.
Note: The OSEP-funded TA related to young children (ages birth through five) with disabilities, and the IDEA Part C and Part B section 619 programs, will primarily be provided by the centers funded under CFDA numbers 84.325B, 84.326B, 84.326P, and 84.373Z. This Center will focus on providing TA to SEAs to implement Part B of the IDEA, which serves children ages 3 through 21, and will develop products or provide TA to SEAs on issues that impact the entire Part B system, such as general supervision or SSIP implementation. Consequently, this Center generally will respond to a State request for products or TA on issues solely associated with CWD ages birth through 5, such as preschool least restrictive environments, early childhood outcomes, and early childhood transition, by referring the State to one or more other OSEP-funded centers that focus on such issues.
(1) Address the current and emerging needs of SEAs to meet ESSA and IDEA requirements by aligning structures and improving processes within and across levels of the system to support the implementation and evaluation of their State plans; appropriately apply coherent improvement strategies, based on thorough data analyses, that are aligned to current efforts to improve outcomes for all CWD; provide effective TA on how to implement EBPs with fidelity; meaningfully and authentically engage diverse stakeholders (including State-level partnerships); assist States in evaluating their implementation efforts and their impact; and ensure the effective implementation of their results-based general supervision systems to support effective implementation of the IDEA.
To meet this requirement the applicant must—
(i) Demonstrate knowledge of current educational issues and policy initiatives relating to ongoing challenges with implementing ESSA and IDEA alignment efforts by SEAs to target and support LEA improvement efforts;
(ii) Present information and data about the current capacity of SEAs to support systemic change, and how the Center will address this challenge to enhance SEA capacity to support LEAs to implement, scale-up, and sustain EBPs with fidelity;
(iii) Demonstrate knowledge of current educational issues and policy initiatives and the range of quality educational options that may be available in States to families of CWD and how the Center will provide TA and information dissemination to SEAs that increase opportunities and outcomes for CWD and their families;
(iv) Describe how the Center will engage diverse stakeholders (including State-level partnerships), local stakeholders, and Department-funded parent and statewide family engagement centers in the SEAs' decision-making processes to ensure effective implementation and evaluation of the SSIP and other State initiatives that establish high expectations and improved outcomes for CWD; and
(v) Identify and engage with existing State TA and dissemination systems to assist the Center with supporting statewide systemic improvement efforts.
(2) Improve SEA infrastructure (e.g., governance, fiscal systems, quality standards, PD, data sharing and analysis, TA, and accountability/monitoring) so SEAs can effectively implement the IDEA and their SSIPs. Applicants must indicate the likely magnitude or importance of the improvements.
(3) Collaborate and engage with other Department and OSEP-funded TA Centers (e.g., PBIS Center; Collaboration for Effective Educator Development, Accountability, and Reform (CEEDAR) Center; and the State Implementation and Scaling-up of Evidence-based Practices (SISEP) Center) to incorporate Start Printed Page 38953a problem-solving logic and multi-tiered approach in the TA provided to SEAs to address equity issues and effectively and efficiently support the implementation of SSIPs and improve States' general supervision systems.
(ii) In Appendix A, the logic model [6] by which the proposed project will achieve its intended outcomes that depicts, at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and intended outcomes of the proposed project;
(i) The current research on the assessment of infrastructure development that builds capacity in SEAs and LEAs to implement, scale-up, and sustain the use of EBPs;
(ii) The current research about adult learning principles, as well as implementation and improvement science, that will inform the proposed TA; and
(i) How it proposes to identify or develop the knowledge base on how to implement components of a comprehensive SSIP and effective general supervision and PD systems;
(ii) Its proposed approach to universal, general TA,[7] which must identify the intended recipients, including the type and number of recipients, that will receive the products and services, a description of the products and services that the Center proposes to make available, and the expected impact of those products and services under this approach;
(iii) Its proposed approach to targeted, specialized TA,[8] which must identify—
(iv) Its proposed approach to intensive, sustained TA,[9] which must identify—
(B) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of SEAs to work with the project, including their commitment to the initiative, alignment of the initiative to their needs, current infrastructure, available resources, and ability of the SEAs to build capacity at the local level;
(C) Its proposed plan to prioritize TA recipients whose most recent annual determination by the Secretary was that the State needs intervention under section 616(d)(2)(A)(iii) of IDEA or needs substantial intervention under section 616(d)(2)(A)(iv) of IDEA in implementing the requirements of Part B of IDEA.
(C) Its proposed plan for assisting SEAs to build or enhance PD systems based on adult learning principles and that include sustained coaching; and
(D) Its proposed plan for working with appropriate levels of the education system (e.g., SEAs, educational service agencies (ESAs), LEAs, other TA providers, parents and families) to ensure that there is communication between each level and that there are systems in place to support implementation of EBPs;
(ii) With whom the proposed project will collaborate and the intended outcomes of this collaboration, which must include—
(A) How the proposed project will collaborate with other Department and OSEP-funded TA centers working with SEAs to effectively support the implementation of SSIPs and improve States' general supervision; and
(B) How the proposed project will collaborate with OSEP-funded TA centers working in early childhood Start Printed Page 38954systems to align TA on infrastructure development and system improvement efforts between early childhood agencies and the SEA; and
In the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the evaluation plan,” include an evaluation plan for the project as described in the following paragraphs.
The evaluation plan must describe: Measures of progress in implementation, including the criteria for determining the extent to which the project's products and services have met the goals for reaching its target population; measures of intended outcomes or results of the project's activities in order to evaluate those activities; and how well the goals or objectives of the proposed project, as described in its logic model, have been met.
(1) Designate, with the approval of the OSEP project officer, a project liaison staff person with sufficient dedicated time, experience in evaluation, and knowledge of the project to work in collaboration with the Center to Improve Program and Project Performance (CIP3),[10] the project director, and the OSEP project officer on the following tasks:
(iii) Two annual trips to attend Department briefings, Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by OSEP; and
(4) Maintain a high-quality website, with an easy-to-navigate design, that meets government or industry-recognized standards for accessibility;Start Printed Page 38955
(6) Include, in Appendix A, an assurance to assist OSEP with the transfer of pertinent resources and products and to maintain the continuity of services to TA recipients during the transition to this new award period and at the end of this award period, as appropriate.
National Center for Learning Disabilities (NCLD). (2018). Accessing ESSA: Missed opportunities for children with disabilities. Retrieved from www.ncld.org/​archives/​action-center/​what-we-ve-done/​new-report-assessing-essa-missed-opportunities-for-children-with-disabilities.
National Council on Disabilities (NCD). (2018). (IDEA series) Every Student Succeeds Act and students with disabilities. Retrieved from https://ncd.gov/​sites/​default/​files/​NCD_​ESSA-SWD_​Accessible.pdf.
Snyder, T.D., de Brey, C., & Dillow, S.A. (2019). Digest of Education Statistics 2017 (NCES 2018-070). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/​pubs2018/​2018070.pdf.
Tomasello, J., & Brand, B. (2018). American Youth Policy Forum (AYPF). How ESSA and IDEA can support college and career readiness for children with disabilities: Considerations for States. Retrieved from www.aypf.org/​resource/​publication-essa-idea-ccr-2018/​. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. (2017). National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading assessments. Accessed through the NAEP Data Explorer at http://nces.ed.gov/​nationsreportcard/​naepdata/​.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1463 and 1481. Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The Office of Management and Budget Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3474. Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian Tribes. Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education (IHEs) only.
Estimated Available Funds: $6,250,000.
Maximum Award: We will not make an award exceeding $31,250,000 for a project period of 60 months.
3. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.Start Printed Page 38956
(iii) The extent to which the proposed project is supported by promising evidence (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)).
(iii) The adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality products and services from the proposed project.Start Printed Page 38957
Program Performance Measure #1: The percentage of Technical Assistance and Dissemination products and services deemed to be of high quality by an independent review panel of experts Start Printed Page 38958qualified to review the substantive content of the products and services.
Laurie VanderPloeg,
2. Results-Driven Accountability includes three components: (1) The State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR); (2) annual State determinations; and (3) differentiated monitoring and support.
3. “General supervision system” refers to a State's system for ensuring compliance and improving results and includes the SPP; policies, procedures, and effective implementation; integrated monitoring activities; fiscal management; data on processes and results; improvement, correction, incentives, and sanctions; effective dispute resolution; and targeted TA and professional development.
4. For the purposes of this priority, “State-level partnerships” refers to State affiliates of nationally recognized professional and family networks that form an infrastructure for policy development, dissemination of information, interaction, and learning.
5. For the purpose of this priority, “educational options” means the opportunity for a child or student (or a family member on their behalf) to create a high-quality personalized path for learning that is consistent with applicable Federal, State, and local laws; is in an educational setting that best meets the child's or student's needs; and, where possible, incorporates evidence-based activities, strategies, or interventions. Opportunities made available to a child or student through a grant program are those that supplement what is provided by a child's or student's geographically assigned school or the institution in which he or she is currently enrolled and may include one or more of the following options: (1) Public educational programs or courses, including those offered by traditional public schools, public charter schools, public magnet schools, public online education providers, or other public education providers; (2) Private or home-based educational programs or courses, including those offered by private schools, private online providers, private tutoring providers, community or faith-based organizations, or other private education providers; (3) Part-time coursework or career preparation, offered by a public or private provider in person or through the internet or another form of distance learning, that serves as a supplement to full-time enrollment at an educational institution, as a stand-alone program leading to a credential, or as a supplement to education received in a homeschool setting; and (4) Other educational services, including credit-recovery, accelerated learning, or tutoring.
6. Logic model (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) (also referred to as a theory of action) means a framework that identifies key project components of the proposed project (i.e., the active “ingredients” that are hypothesized to be critical to achieving the relevant outcomes) and describes the theoretical and operational relationships among the key project components and relevant outcomes.
7. “Universal, general TA” means TA and information provided to independent users through their own initiative, resulting in minimal interaction with TA center staff and including one-time, invited or offered conference presentations by TA center staff. This category of TA also includes information or products, such as newsletters, guidebooks, or research syntheses, downloaded from the TA center's website by independent users. Brief communications by TA center staff with recipients, either by telephone or email, are also considered universal, general TA.
8. “Targeted, specialized TA” means TA services based on needs common to multiple recipients and not extensively individualized. A relationship is established between the TA recipient and one or more TA center staff. This category of TA includes one-time, labor-intensive events, such as facilitating strategic planning or hosting regional or national conferences. It can also include episodic, less labor-intensive events that extend over a period of time, such as facilitating a series of conference calls on single or multiple topics that are designed around the needs of the recipients. Facilitating communities of practice can also be considered targeted, specialized TA.
9. “Intensive, sustained TA” means TA services often provided on-site and requiring a stable, ongoing relationship between the TA center staff and the TA recipient. “TA services” are defined as negotiated series of activities designed to reach a valued outcome. This category of TA should result in changes to policy, program, practice, or operations that support increased recipient capacity or improved outcomes at one or more systems levels.
10. The major tasks of CIP3 are to guide, coordinate, and oversee the design of formative evaluations for every large discretionary investment (i.e., those awarded $500,000 or more per year and required to participate in the 3+2 process) in OSEP's Technical Assistance and Dissemination; Personnel Development; Parent Training and Information Centers; and Educational Technology, Media, and Materials programs. The efforts of CIP3 are expected to enhance individual project evaluation plans by providing expert and unbiased TA in designing the evaluations with due consideration of the project's budget. CIP3 does not function as a third-party evaluator.
[FR Doc. 2019-17059 Filed 8-6-19; 4:15 pm]