2017-10249.pdf

22975 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 96 / Friday, May 19, 2017 / Notices grant applications and/or subsequent work plans. In addition, the final report will enable the Department to evaluate each grant project’s fiscal operations for the entire grant performance period, and compare total expenditures relative to federal funds awarded, and actual cost-share/matching relative to the total amount in the approved grant application. This report is a means for grantees to share the overall experience of their projects and document achievements and concerns, and describe effects of their projects on participants being served; project barriers and major accomplishments;

and evidence of sustainability. The report will be GEAR UP’s primary method to collect/analyze data on students’ high school graduation and immediate college enrollment rates.

Dated: May 16, 2017.

Kate Mullan, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.

[FR Doc. 2017–10190 Filed 5–18–17; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Applications for New Awards;

Technical Assistance and Dissemination To Improve Services and Results for Children With Disabilities—Model Demonstration Projects To Improve Algebraic Reasoning for Students With Disabilities in Middle and High School

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

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Department of Education is issuing a notice inviting applications for a new award for fiscal year (FY) 2017 for Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities— Model Demonstration Projects to Improve Algebraic Reasoning for Students with Disabilities in Middle and High School.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number 84.326M.✖

DATES:

Applications Available: May 19, 2017.

Deadline for Transmittal of

Applications: July 3, 2017.

Deadline for Intergovernmental

Review: September 1, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Paula Maccini, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5142, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202–5108.

Telephone: (202) 245–8012.

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:

Full Text of Announcement

I. Funding Opportunity Description

Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities program is to promote academic achievement and to improve results for children with disabilities by providing technical assistance (TA), supporting model demonstration projects, disseminating useful information, and implementing activities that are supported by scientifically based research.

Priorities: This competition has one absolute priority. In accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(v), the absolute priority is from allowable activities specified in the statute or otherwise authorized in the statute (see sections 663 and 681(d) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1463, 1481(d)).

Absolute Priority: For FY 2017 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, this priority is an absolute priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), we consider only applications that meet this priority.

This priority is:

Model Demonstration Projects To Improve Algebraic Reasoning for Students With Disabilities in Middle and High School.

Background

Model demonstrations to improve early intervention, educational, or transitional results for students with disabilities have been authorized under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) since the mid- 1970s. For the purposes of this priority, a model is a set of existing interventions supported by evidence and implementation strategies (i.e., core model components) that research suggests will improve child, teacher, or system outcomes when implemented with fidelity (Hughes, Powell, Lembke, & Riley-Tillman, 2016). Model demonstrations involve investigating the degree to which a model can be implemented, and sustained in typical settings, by staff employed in those settings, while achieving outcomes similar to those attained under research conditions.

The purpose of this priority is to fund three cooperative agreements to establish and operate model demonstration projects that will assess how models can: (a) improve algebraic reasoning for students with disabilities in middle and high schools; and (b) be implemented and sustained by educators in general and special education settings. These proposed models will be the first to focus on mathematics for adolescents with disabilities, a critical area of need.

Algebraic reasoning (as defined in this notice) is a critical component of success in mathematics and is applied to topics within number operations, number systems, measurement and data, geometry, rational numbers, ratios and proportional relationships, expressions and equations, and functions (Van De Walle, Karp, & Bay-Williams, 2013).

Algebra is a gateway to advanced coursework, graduation, and future earnings (National Mathematics Advisory Panel (NMAP), 2008);

therefore, it is imperative to address the achievement gap in mathematics that exists between students with disabilities (SWD) and students without disabilities.

The most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress report (NAEP;

2015) indicates that more than 70 percent of 8th grade SWD, excluding those with a 504 plan, performed below the basic level on the mathematics assessment compared to 24 percent of students without disabilities (U.S.

Department of Education, 2015). For 12th graders, the disparity is greater, as 81 percent of SWD scored below basic level on the math assessment compared with 34 percent of students without disabilities (U.S. Department of Education, 2015).

The average algebra scaled score for 8th graders with disabilities was 247 in a range of 0–500 points, compared to 293 for 8th graders without disabilities.

For 12th graders with disabilities, the average scaled score was 117 in a range of 0–300 points, compared to 157 for 12th graders without disabilities. The discrepancies in algebra scores between SWD and those without disabilities in both 8th and 12th grade are statistically significant (NAEP; 2015).

There is a need to focus on meeting the specific needs of SWD in algebra (Witzel, 2016; Hughes, Witzel, Riccomini, Fries, & Kanyongo, 2014).

Certain learner characteristics of SWD may impede their performance in algebra (Allsopp, van Igen, Simsek, & Haley, 2016). Difficulties SWD experience in algebra include understanding algebraic representations, VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 May 18, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19MYN1.SGM 19MYN1as ab al ia us ka s on

D S

K 3S

P T

V N

1P R

O D w ith

N O

T

IC

E S

22976 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 96 / Friday, May 19, 2017 / Notices

1 Participants must have math goals on their Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) and can be classified under any of the IDEA disability categories.

2 The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) identifies a number of practices supported by evidence in the following two practice guides:

Assisting Students Struggling with Mathematics:

Response to Intervention (RtI) for Elementary and Middle Schools (Gersten et al., 2009); and Teaching Strategies for Improving Algebra Knowledge in Middle and High School (Star et al., 2015). Each practice guide was developed by a panel of researchers and practitioners with expertise in various dimensions of math and special education.

We mention the guides for information only; use of the practices contained in them is permitted, but not required, in this competition.

3 Applicants must ensure the confidentiality of individual data, consistent with the requirements of section 444 of the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g), commonly known as the ‘‘Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act’’ (FERPA), and State laws or regulations concerning the confidentiality of individual records. Final FERPA regulatory changes became effective January 3, 2012, and include requirements for data sharing.

Applicants are encouraged to review the final FERPA regulations published on December 2, 2011 (76 FR 75604). Questions can be sent to the Family Policy Compliance Office (www.ed.gov/fpco) at

(202) 260–3887 or FERPA@ed.gov.

4 For factors to consider when selecting model demonstration sites, the applicant should refer to Assessing Sites for Model Demonstration: Lessons Learned for OSEP Grantees at http://mdcc.sri.com/ documents/MDCC_Site_Assessment_Brief_09-30- 11.pdf. The document also contains a site assessment tool.

5 For factors to consider while preparing for model demonstration implementation, the applicant should refer to Preparing for Model Demonstration Implementation at http:// mdcc.sri.com/documents/ MDCC_PreparationStage_Brief_Apr2013.pdf.

6 For a guide on documenting model demonstration sustainment and replication, the applicant should refer to Planning for Replication and Dissemination From the Start: Guidelines for Model Demonstration Projects at http:// mdcc.sri.com/documents/ MDCC_ReplicationBrief_SEP2013.pdf.

which may be due to difficulties with cognitive processing; recalling multi-step procedures because of memory difficulties; and problem solving strategies due to metacognitive difficulties. These difficulties may cumulatively affect students in algebra and their subsequent performance in mathematics (Allsopp et al., 2016).

Students with mathematical learning disabilities (MLD) 1 comprise about seven percent of school-age learners (Geary, 2011). Students with MLD may exhibit difficulties with language-based tasks and struggle to conceptualize abstract algebraic concepts and solve problems involving algebraic reasoning.

To address these difficulties, and to ensure that students with MLD receive appropriate services and supports as guaranteed in IDEA, educators must be trained in using practices supported by evidence in teaching mathematics and algebraic reasoning. This competition aims to fund model demonstration projects that will investigate ways to train educators to successfully implement these practices. These three proposed model demonstration projects must be based on current research and make use of practices supported by evidence.2

Priority

The purpose of this priority is to fund three cooperative agreements to establish and operate model demonstration projects that will assess how models can: (a) Improve algebraic reasoning for SWD in middle and high schools and (b) be implemented and sustained by educators in general and special education settings. Applicants must propose models that meet the following requirements:

(a) The model’s core intervention components (e.g., services, assessments, processes, data collection instruments) must include:

(1) A framework that includes, at a minimum, universal screening, progress monitoring, and core instructional practices supported by evidence and based on current research;

(2) Core instructional practices for improving algebraic reasoning supported by evidence and based on current research that meet the needs of students with disabilities in middle and high school;

(3) Standardized measures of students’ algebraic reasoning, individual instructor (e.g., teacher, paraprofessional, specialist), and system-level outcomes, when appropriate;

(4) Procedures to refine the model based on the ongoing assessment of students’ performance on algebraic reasoning; and

(5) Measures of the model’s social validity, i.e., measures of educators’, parents’, and students’ 3 satisfaction with the model components, processes, and outcomes.

(b) The model’s core implementation components must include:

(1) Criteria and strategies for selecting 4 and recruiting sites, including approaches to introducing the model to, and promoting the model among, site participants,5 with consideration given to the following criteria:

(i) Each project must include at least three middle or at least three high schools.

(ii) In each of the schools, all of the identified SWD in middle and high school participating in the model demonstration projects must have math goals on their Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) and can be classified under any of the IDEA disability categories.

(2) A lag site implementation design, which allows for model development and refinement at the first site in year one of the project period, with sites two and three implementing a revised model based on data from the first site beginning in year two;

(3) A professional development component that includes a coaching strategy supported by evidence to enable staff (e.g., teacher, paraprofessional, specialist) to implement the interventions with fidelity; and

(4) Measures of the results of the professional development (e.g., improvements in teachers’/service providers’ instructional delivery and knowledge) required by paragraph (b)(3) of this section, including measures of the fidelity of implementation.

(c) The core strategies for sustaining the model must include:

(1) Documentation that permits current and future practitioners to replicate and tailor the model at other sites; 6 and

(2) A dissemination plan that includes strategies and measurable goals for the grantee to disseminate or sustain the model, such as developing easily accessible training materials or coordinating with TA providers who might serve as future trainers.

To be considered for funding under this absolute priority, applicants must meet the application requirements contained in this priority. Each project funded under this absolute priority also must meet the programmatic and administrative requirements specified in the priority.

Application Requirements

An applicant must include in its application—

(a) A detailed review of the literature indicating that the proposed model is supported by evidence meeting at least the conditions set out in the definition of strong theory (as defined in this notice) and that supports the promise of the proposed model, its components, and processes to improve algebraic reasoning for SWD in middle and high school;

(b) A logic model that depicts, at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and outcomes of the proposed model demonstration project. A logic model used in connection with this priority communicates how a project will achieve its outcomes and provides a framework for both the formative and summative evaluations of the project;

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 May 18, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19MYN1.SGM 19MYN1as ab al ia us ka s on

D S

K 3S

P T

V N

1P R

O D w ith

N O

T

IC

E S http://mdcc.sri.com/documents/MDCC_Site_Assessment_Brief_09-30-11.pdf http://mdcc.sri.com/documents/MDCC_Site_Assessment_Brief_09-30-11.pdf http://mdcc.sri.com/documents/MDCC_Site_Assessment_Brief_09-30-11.pdf http://mdcc.sri.com/documents/MDCC_PreparationStage_Brief_Apr2013.pdf http://mdcc.sri.com/documents/MDCC_PreparationStage_Brief_Apr2013.pdf http://mdcc.sri.com/documents/MDCC_PreparationStage_Brief_Apr2013.pdf http://mdcc.sri.com/documents/MDCC_ReplicationBrief_SEP2013.pdf http://mdcc.sri.com/documents/MDCC_ReplicationBrief_SEP2013.pdf http://mdcc.sri.com/documents/MDCC_ReplicationBrief_SEP2013.pdf http://www.ed.gov/fpco mailto:FERPA@ed.gov

22977 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 96 / Friday, May 19, 2017 / Notices

7 For the purposes of this priority, the term ‘‘high-need school’’ refers to a public elementary or secondary school that is a ‘‘high-poverty’’ or ‘‘low-performing’’ school as defined in footnotes 8 and 9, respectively.

8 For the purposes of this priority, the term ‘‘high-poverty school’’ means a school that is in the highest two quartiles of schools served by a local educational agency, based on the percentage of enrolled students from low-income families as defined in section 1113(a)(5) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended

(ESEA).

9 For the purpose of this priority, the term ‘‘low-performing school’’ means a school receiving assistance through Title I of the ESEA that, at the time of submission of an application under this competition, is (1) identified as a school in need of corrective action or restructuring under section 1116 of the ESEA, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB); or (2) identified as a priority or focus school in a State that implemented ESEA flexibility. The inclusion of these schools as ‘‘low-performing schools’’ reflects the fact that the 2016¥2017 school year is a year of transition between requirements of the ESEA as amended by NCLB and the ESEA as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act.

(c) Include, in Appendix A, a logic model, a conceptual framework for the project, and person-loading charts and timelines, as applicable, to illustrate the management plan described in the narrative.

Note: The following Web sites provide examples for constructing logic models:

www.osepideasthatwork.org/resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/tad-project-logic-model-and-conceptual-framework and www.osepideasthatwork.org/logicModel.

(d) A description of the activities and measures to be incorporated into the proposed model demonstration project to improve algebraic reasoning for SWD, including a timeline of how and when the components are introduced within the model. A detailed and complete description must include the following:

(1) All the intervention components, including, at a minimum, those components listed in paragraph (a) under the heading Priority.

(2) The existing and proposed child, teacher, and system outcome measures and social validity measures. The measures should be described as completely as possible, referenced as appropriate, and included, when available, in Appendix A.

(3) All the implementation components, including, at a minimum, those listed in paragraph (b) under the heading Priority. The existing or proposed implementation fidelity measures, including those measuring the fidelity of the professional development strategy, should be described as completely as possible, referenced as appropriate, and included, when available, in Appendix A. In addition, this description should include:

(i) Demographics, including, at a minimum, ethnicity, gender, grade level, and age for all SWD at all implementation sites that have been identified and successfully recruited for the purposes of this application using the selection and recruitment strategies described in paragraph (b)(1) under the heading Priority;

(ii) Whether the implementation sites are high-need,7 high-poverty,8 low-performing,9 rural, urban, or suburban local education agencies (LEAs) or schools; and

Note: Applicants are encouraged to identify, to the extent possible, the sites willing to participate in the applicant’s model demonstration. Final site selection will be determined in consultation with the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) project officer following the kick-off meeting described in paragraph (e)(1) of these application requirements.

(iii) The lag design for implementation consistent with the requirements in paragraph (b)(2) under the heading Priority.

(4) All the strategies to promote sustaining and replicating the model, including, at a minimum, those listed in paragraph (c) under the heading Priority.

(e) A description of the evaluation activities and measures to be incorporated into the proposed model demonstration project. A detailed and complete description must include:

(1) A formative evaluation plan, consistent with the project’s logic model, that includes evaluation questions, source(s) of data, a timeline for data collection, and analysis plans.

The plan must show how the outcome (e.g., child measures, social validity) and implementation data (e.g., fidelity) will be used separately or in combination to improve the project during the performance period. The plan also must outline how these data will be reviewed by project staff, when they will be reviewed, and how they will be used during the course of the project to adjust the model or its implementation to increase the model’s usefulness, generalizability, and potential for sustainability; and

(2) A summative evaluation plan, including a timeline, to collect and analyze data on changes to child, teacher, and systems outcome measures over time or relative to comparison groups that can be reasonably attributable to project activities. The plan must show how the child or system outcome and implementation data collected by the project will be used separately or in combination to demonstrate the promise of the model.

(f) 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;

(2) A three-day Project Directors’ Conference in Washington, DC, occurring each year during the project performance period; and

(3) Four travel days spread across years two through four of the project period to attend planning meetings, Department briefings, Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by OSEP, to be held in Washington, DC, with the OSEP project officer.

Other Project Activities To meet the requirements of this priority, each project, at a minimum, must:

(a) Communicate and collaborate on an ongoing basis with other relevant Department-funded projects, including, at minimum, OSEP-funded TA centers (see www.osepideasthatwork.org/find-center-or-grant/find-a-center) that might disseminate information on the model or support the scale-up efforts of a promising model;

(b) Maintain ongoing telephone and email communication with the OSEP project officer and the other model demonstration projects funded under this priority; and

(c) If the project maintains a Web site, include relevant information about the model, the intervention, and the demonstration activities that meets government- or industry-recognized standards for accessibility.

Competitive Preference Priority Within this absolute priority, we give competitive preference to applications that address the following priority.

Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), we award an additional two points to an application that meets this priority.

The priority is:

Evidence of Promise Supporting the

Proposed Model (Two Points).

Projects that are supported by evidence that meets the conditions set out in the definition of ‘‘evidence of promise’’ (as defined in this notice). The proposed project must include:

A literature review, as required under paragraph (a) under the heading Application Requirements, that includes research that meets at least the evidence of promise standard supporting the promise of the proposed model, its components, and processes to improve algebraic reasoning in middle and high schools.

Note: An applicant addressing this competitive preference priority must identify up to two study citations that meet this standard and clearly mark them in the reference list of the proposal.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 May 18, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19MYN1.SGM 19MYN1as ab al ia us ka s on

D S

K 3S

P T

V N

1P R

O D w ith

N O

T

IC

E S http://www.osepideasthatwork.org/find-center-or-grant/find-a-center http://www.osepideasthatwork.org/find-center-or-grant/find-a-center http://www.osepideasthatwork.org/logicModel www.osepideasthatwork.org/resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/tad-project-logic-model-and-conceptual-framework www.osepideasthatwork.org/resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/tad-project-logic-model-and-conceptual-framework www.osepideasthatwork.org/resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/tad-project-logic-model-and-conceptual-framework http://www.osepideasthatwork.org/logicModel

22978 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 96 / Friday, May 19, 2017 / Notices

References

Allsopp, D.H., van Ingen, S., Simsek, O., & Haley, K.C. (2016). Building to algebra:

Big ideas, barriers, and effective practices. In B.S. Witzel (Ed.), Bridging the gap between arithmetic & algebra (pp.21–50). Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

Geary, D.C. (2011). Consequences, characteristics, and causes of mathematical learning disabilities and persistent low achievement in mathematics. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 32(3), 250– 263.

Gersten, R., Beckmann, S., Clarke, B., Foegen, A., Marsh, L., Star, J.R., & Witzel, B.

(2009). Assisting students struggling with mathematics: Response to intervention (RtI) for elementary and middle schools (NCEE 2009–4060). Washington, DC:

National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http:// ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/ practiceguide/.

Hughes, E.M., Powell, S.R., Lembke, E.S., & Riley-Tillman, T.C. (2016). Taking the guesswork out of locating evidence-based mathematics practices for diverse learners. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 31(3), 130–141.

Hughes, E.M., Witzel, B.S., Riccomini, P.J., Fries, K.M., & Kanyongo, G.Y. (2014). A meta-analysis of algebra interventions for learners with disabilities and struggling learning. The Journal of the International Association of Special Education, 15(1), 36–47.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Public Law 108–446. (2004). 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.

National Mathematics Advisory Panel (NMAP). (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the national advisory panel. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Education.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2013). PISA 2012 Assessment and Analytical Framework:

Mathematics, Reading, Science, Problem Solving and Financial Literacy. Paris:

OECD Publishing.

Star, J.R., Caronongan, P., Foegen, A., Furgeson, J., Keating, B., Larson, M.R., & Zbiek, R.M. (2015). Teaching strategies for improving algebra knowledge in middle and high school students (NCEE 2014–4333). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from the NCEE Web site: http://whatworks.ed.gov.

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). National Assessment of Educational Progress Reading and Mathematics Assessments (NAEP), 2015, 2013, Mathematics Assessments. Accessed through the NAEP Data Explorer at http:// nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/ naepdata/.

Van De Walle, J.A., Karp, K.S., & Bay- Williams, J.M. (2013). Elementary and middle school mathematics: Teaching developmentally. Boston, MA: Pearson.

Witzel, B. (2016). Students with math difficulties and the arithmetic to algebra gap. In B.S. Witzel (Ed.), Bridging the gap between arithmetic & algebra (pp.7– 20). Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

Definitions The following definitions apply to the priority:

Algebraic reasoning means ‘‘forming generalizations from experiences with number and computation, formalizing these ideas with the use of a meaningful symbol system, and exploring the concepts of pattern and function’’ (Van De Walle, Karp, & Bay- Williams, 2013, p. 258).

The definitions of the following terms are from 34 CFR 77.1: ‘‘evidence of promise,’’ ‘‘logic model,’’ ‘‘quasi-experimental design study,’’ ‘‘randomized controlled trial’’, ‘‘relevant outcome,’’ ‘‘strong theory,’’ and ‘‘What Works Clearinghouse evidence standards.’’

Evidence of promise means there is empirical research to support the theoretical linkage(s) between at least one critical component and at least one relevant outcome presented in the logic model for the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice.

Specifically, evidence of promise means the conditions in both paragraphs (i) and (ii) of this definition are met:

(i) There is at least one study that is a—

(A) Correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias;

(B) Quasi-experimental design study that meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations; or

(C) Randomized controlled trial that meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with or without reservations.

(ii) The study referenced in paragraph (i) of this definition found a statistically significant or substantively important (defined as a difference of 0.25 standard deviations or larger) favorable association between at least one critical component and one relevant outcome presented in the logic model for the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice.

Logic model (also referred to as theory of action) means a well-specified conceptual framework that identifies key components of the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice (i.e., the active ‘‘ingredients’’ that are hypothesized to be critical to achieving the relevant outcomes) and describes the relationships among the key components and outcomes, theoretically and operationally.

Mathematical literacy refers to, ‘‘an individual’s capacity to formulate, employ, and interpret mathematics in a variety of contexts. It includes reasoning mathematically and using mathematical concepts, procedures, facts and tools to describe, explain and predict phenomena. It assists individuals to recognize the role that mathematics plays in the world and to make the well-founded judgments and decisions needed by constructive, engaged and reflective citizens’’ (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2013, p. 25).

Quasi-experimental design study means a study using a design that attempts to approximate an experimental design by identifying a comparison group that is similar to the treatment group in important respects. These studies, depending on design and implementation, can meet What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations (but not What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations).

Randomized controlled trial means a study that employs random assignment of, for example, students, teachers, classrooms, schools, or districts to receive the intervention being evaluated (the treatment group) or not to receive the intervention (the control group). The estimated effectiveness of the intervention is the difference between the average outcomes for the treatment group and for the control group. These studies, depending on design and implementation, can meet What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations.

Relevant outcome means the student outcome(s) (or the ultimate outcome if not related to students) the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice is designed to improve; consistent with the specific goals of a program.

Strong theory means a rationale for the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice that includes a logic model.

What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards means the standards set forth in the What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards Handbook (Version 3.0, March 2014), which can be found at the following link: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/ DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19.

Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking:

Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553) the Department generally offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed priorities and other requirements.

Section 681(d) of IDEA, however, makes the public comment requirements of the APA inapplicable to the absolute priority and related definitions in this notice.

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1463 and 1481.

Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) 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.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 May 18, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19MYN1.SGM 19MYN1as ab al ia us ka s on

D S

K 3S

P T

V N

1P R

O D w ith

N O

T

IC

E S http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguide/ http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguide/ http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguide/ http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19 http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19 http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/ http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/ http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/ http://whatworks.ed.gov

22979 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 96 / Friday, May 19, 2017 / Notices

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.

II. Award Information

Type of Award: Cooperative agreements.

Estimated Available Funds: The Further Continuing and Security Assistance Appropriations Act, 2017, would provide $54,345,000 for the Technical Assistance and Dissemination To Improve Services and Results for Children With Disabilities program for FY 2017, of which we intend to use an estimated $1,200,000 for this competition (per year divided between the three new projects). The actual level of funding, if any, depends on final congressional action. However, we are inviting applications to allow enough time to complete the grant process if Congress appropriates funds for this program.

Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2018 from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.

Estimated Range of Awards: $375,000 to $400,000 per year.

Estimated Average Size of Awards:

$400,000 per year.

Maximum Award: We will reject any application that proposes a budget exceeding $400,000 for a single budget period of 12 months.

Estimated Number of Awards: 3.

Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.

Project Period: Up to 48 months.

Evaluation Period: In August 2013, the Department amended the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) to authorize the awarding of an evaluation period after the end of the approved project period.

Under 34 CFR 75.250(b) the Secretary has the authority to make data collection/analysis awards. By the terms of that section, the awards can only go to current grantees, may only be used for data collection, analysis and reporting and do not have to go through a formal competitive process.

III. Eligibility Information

1. Eligible Applicants: State educational agencies (SEAs); LEAs, including public charter schools that are considered LEAs under State law; IHEs;

other public agencies; private nonprofit organizations; outlying areas; freely associated States; Indian Tribes or

Tribal organizations; and for-profit organizations.

2. Cost Sharing or Matching: This program does not require cost sharing or matching.

3. Eligible Subgrantees: (a) Under 34 CFR 75.708(b) and (c) a grantee may award subgrants—to directly carry out project activities described in its application—to the following types of entities: IHEs and private nonprofit organizations suitable to carry out the activities proposed in the application.

(b) The grantee may award subgrants to entities it has identified in an approved application.

4. Other General Requirements:

(a) Recipients of funding under this competition must make positive efforts to employ and advance in employment qualified individuals with disabilities (see section 606 of IDEA).

(b) Each applicant for, and recipient of, funding must, with respect to the aspects of their proposed project relating to the absolute priority, involve individuals with disabilities, or parents of individuals with disabilities ages birth through 26, in planning, implementing, and evaluating the project (see section 682(a)(1)(A) of

IDEA).

IV. Application and Submission Information

1. Address to Request Application Package: You can obtain an application package via the internet or from the Education Publications Center (ED Pubs). To obtain a copy via the internet, use the following address: www.ed.gov/ fund/grant/apply/grantapps/index.html.

To obtain a copy from ED Pubs, write, fax, or call: ED Pubs, U.S. Department of Education, P.O. Box 22207, Alexandria, VA 22304. Telephone, toll free: 1–877–433–7827. FAX: (703) 605– 6794. If you use a TDD or a TTY, call, toll free: 1–877–576–7734.

You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also: www.EDPubs.gov or at its email address: edpubs@inet.ed.gov.

If you request an application package from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this competition as follows: CFDA number 84.326M.

Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting the person or team listed under Accessible Format in section VII of this notice.

2. Content and Form of Application Submission: Requirements concerning the content and form of an application, together with the forms you must submit, are in the application package for this competition.

Page Limit: The application narrative (Part III of the application) is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. We recommend that you—(1) limit Part III to no more than 50 pages, and (2) use the following standards:

• A ‘‘page’’ is 8.5″ × 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.

• Double-space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, reference citations, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.

• Use a font that is 12 point or larger.

• Use one of the following fonts:

Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.

The recommended page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the abstract (follow the guidance provided in the application package for completing the abstract), the table of contents, the list of priority requirements, the resumes, the reference list, the letters of support, or the appendices. However, the recommended page limit does apply to all of Part III, the application narrative, including all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.

3. Submission Dates and Times:

Applications Available: May 19, 2017.

Deadline for Transmittal of

Applications: July 3, 2017.

Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, please refer to Other Submission Requirements in section IV of this notice.

We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.

Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. If the Department provides an accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability in connection with the application process, the individual’s application remains subject to all other

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 May 18, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19MYN1.SGM 19MYN1as ab al ia us ka s on

D S

K 3S

P T

V N

1P R

O D w ith

N O

T

IC

E S http://www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/grantapps/index.html http://www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/grantapps/index.html mailto:edpubs@inet.ed.gov http://www.EDPubs.gov

22980 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 96 / Friday, May 19, 2017 / Notices requirements and limitations in this notice.

Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: September 1, 2017.

4. Intergovernmental Review: This competition is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this competition.

5. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

6. Data Universal Numbering System Number, Taxpayer Identification Number, and System for Award Management: To do business with the Department of Education, you must—

a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);

b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM), the Government’s primary registrant database;

c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and

d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.

You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet at the following Web site: http://fedgov.dnb.com/ webform. A DUNS number can be created within one to two business days.

If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow two to five weeks for your TIN to become active.

The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data you enter into the SAM database. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number and TIN.

We strongly recommend that you register early.

Note: Once your SAM registration is active, it may be 24 to 48 hours before you can access the information in, and submit an application through, Grants.gov.

If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.

Information about SAM is available at www.SAM.gov. To further assist you with obtaining and registering your DUNS number and TIN in SAM or updating your existing SAM account, we have prepared a SAM.gov Tip Sheet, which you can find at: www2.ed.gov/ fund/grant/apply/sam-faqs.html.

In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the following Grants.gov Web page: www.grants.gov/ web/grants/register.html.

7. Other Submission Requirements:

Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically unless you qualify for an exception to this requirement in accordance with the instructions in this section.

a. Electronic Submission of Applications.

Applications for grants under the Model Demonstration Projects to Improve Algebraic Reasoning for Students with Disabilities in Middle and High School competition, CFDA number 84.326M, must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at www.Grants.gov. Through this site, you will be able to download a copy of the application package, complete it offline, and then upload and submit your application. You may not email an electronic copy of a grant application to us.

We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement and submit, no later than two weeks before the application deadline date, a written statement to the Department that you qualify for one of these exceptions.

Further information regarding calculation of the date that is two weeks before the application deadline date is provided later in this section under Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement.

You may access the electronic grant application for the Model Demonstration Projects to Improve Algebraic Reasoning for Students with Disabilities in Middle and High School competition at www.Grants.gov. You must search for the downloadable application package for this competition by the CFDA number. Do not include the CFDA number’s alpha suffix in your search (e.g., search for 84.326, not 84.326M).

Please note the following:

• When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.

• Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped.

Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.

• The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your internet connection.

Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.

• You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this competition to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov under News and Events on the Department’s G5 system home page at www.G5.gov. In addition, for specific guidance and procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov, please refer to the Grants.gov Web site at:

www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants/ apply-for-grants.html.

• You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 May 18, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19MYN1.SGM 19MYN1as ab al ia us ka s on

D S

K 3S

P T

V N

1P R

O D w ith

N O

T

IC

E S http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants/apply-for-grants.html http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants/apply-for-grants.html http://www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/sam-faqs.html http://www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/sam-faqs.html http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/register.html http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/register.html http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform http://www.Grants.gov http://www.Grants.gov http://www.SAM.gov http://www.G5.gov

22981 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 96 / Friday, May 19, 2017 / Notices

• You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: the Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non- Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.

• You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a read-only Portable Document Format (PDF). Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only PDF (e.g., Word, Excel, WordPerfect, etc.) or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material. Please note that this could result in your application not being considered for funding because the material in question—for example, the application narrative—is critical to a meaningful review of your proposal. For that reason it is important to allow yourself adequate time to upload all material as PDF files. The Department will not convert material from other formats to PDF. Additional, detailed information on how to attach files is in the application instructions.

• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department. Grants.gov will also notify you automatically by email if your application met all the Grants.gov validation requirements or if there were any errors (such as submission of your application by someone other than a registered Authorized Organization Representative, or inclusion of an attachment with a file name that contains special characters). You will be given an opportunity to correct any errors and resubmit, but you must still meet the deadline for submission of applications.

Once your application is successfully validated by Grants.gov, the Department will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send you an email with a unique PR/Award number for your application.

These emails do not mean that your application is without any disqualifying errors.