2018-14338.pdf

31125 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2018 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

Office of the Secretary

Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting

AGENCY: General Counsel of the Department of Defense, Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice of federal advisory committee meeting.

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces will take place.

DATES: Open to the public, Friday, July 20, 2018 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: One Liberty Center, 875 N.

Randolph Street, Suite 1432, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dwight Sullivan, 703–695–1055 (Voice), dwight.h.sullivan.civ@mail.mil (Email).

Mailing address is DACIPAD, One Liberty Center, 875 N. Randolph Street, Suite 150, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

Website: http://dacipad.whs.mil/. The most up-to-date changes to the meeting agenda can be found on the website.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102–3.140 and 102–3.150.

Purpose of the Meeting: In section 546 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Pub. L. 113– 291), as modified by section 537 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Pub. L. 114–92), Congress tasked the DAC–IPAD to advise the Secretary of Defense on the investigation, prosecution, and defense of allegations of rape, forcible sodomy, sexual assault, and other sexual misconduct involving members of the Armed Forces. This will be the eighth public meeting held by the DAC–IPAD.

The purpose of the meeting is to gather information for the Committee to make an assessment and recommendations to the Secretary of Defense regarding the military justice data collection standards and criteria required by Article 140a, UCMJ. The Committee will receive testimony from each of the Military Services regarding their perspectives on best practices for implementing Article 140a, followed by Committee deliberations on its findings and recommendations with respect to Article 140a implementation. The Committee will also receive status update briefings from the DAC–IPAD Director, Data Working Group, and Case Review Working Group.

Agenda: 9:00 a.m.–9:15 a.m. Public Meeting Begins—Welcome and Introduction; 9:15 a.m.–10:15 a.m.

Military Services’ Perspectives on Best Practices for Implementing Article 140a, UCMJ, Case management; data collection and accessibility; 10:15 a.m.– 10:30 a.m. Break; 10:30 a.m.–12:30 p.m.

Presentation by DAC–IPAD Policy Working Group Members and Deliberations on Best Practices for Implementing Article 140a, UCMJ, Case management; data collection and accessibility; 12:30 p.m.–1:30 p.m.

Lunch; 1:30 p.m.–4:00 p.m.

Deliberations on Best Practices for Implementing Article 140a, UCMJ, Case management; data collection and accessibility; 4:00 p.m.–4:40 p.m.

Updates from the Staff Director, Data Working Group and the Case Review Working Group; 4:40 p.m.–5:00 p.m.

Public Comment; 5:00 p.m. Public Meeting Adjourned.

Meeting Accessibility: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b and 41 CFR 102–3.140 through 102–3.165, and the availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. Seating is limited and is on a first-come basis. Visitors are required to sign in at the One Liberty Center security desk and must leave government-issued photo identification on file and wear a visitor badge while in the building. Department of Defense Common Access Card (CAC) holders who do not have authorized access to One Liberty Center must provide an alternate form of government-issued photo identification to leave on file with security while in the building. All visitors must pass through a metal detection security screening.

Individuals requiring special accommodations to access the public meeting should contact the DAC–IPAD at whs.pentagon.em.mbx.dacipad@ mail.mil at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made. In the event the Office of Personnel Management closes the government due to inclement weather or for any other reason, please consult the website for any changes to the public meeting date or time.

Written Statements: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102–3.140 and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the public or interested organizations may submit written comments to the Committee about its mission and topics pertaining to this public session. Written comments must be received by the DAC–IPAD at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting date so that they may be made available to the Committee members for their consideration prior to the meeting.

Written comments should be submitted via email to the DAC–IPAD at whs.pentagon.em.mbx.dacipad@ mail.mil in the following formats:

Adobe Acrobat or Microsoft Word.

Please note that since the DAC–IPAD operates under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, all written comments will be treated as public documents and will be made available for public inspection.

Oral statements from the public will be permitted, though the number and length of such oral statements may be limited based on the time available and the number of such requests. Oral presentations by members of the public will be permitted from 4:40 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. on July 20, 2018, in front of the Committee members.

Dated: June 27, 2018.

Shelly E. Finke, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 2018–14257 Filed 7–2–18; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Applications for New Awards;

Educational Technology, Media, and Materials for Individuals With Disabilities—Stepping-up Technology Implementation

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 new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2018 for Educational Technology, Media, and Materials for Individuals with Disabilities—Stepping-up Technology Implementation, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number 84.327S.

DATES:

Applications Available: July 3, 2018.

Deadline for Transmittal of

Applications: August 2, 2018.

ADDRESSES: For the addresses for obtaining and submitting an application, please refer to our Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 02, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03JYN1.SGM 03JYN1sr ad ov ic h on

D S

K 3G

M Q

2P

R O

D w ith N

O T

IC

E

S mailto:whs.pentagon.em.mbx.dacipad@mail.mil mailto:whs.pentagon.em.mbx.dacipad@mail.mil mailto:whs.pentagon.em.mbx.dacipad@mail.mil mailto:whs.pentagon.em.mbx.dacipad@mail.mil mailto:dwight.h.sullivan.civ@mail.mil http://dacipad.whs.mil/

31126 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2018 / Notices

1 Applicants should note that other laws, including the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.; 28 CFR part 35) and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794; 34 CFR part 104), may require that State educational agencies and local educational agencies provide captioning, video description, and other accessible educational materials to students with disabilities when such materials are necessary to provide students with disabilities with equally integrated and equally effective access to the benefits of the educational program or activity, or as part of a ‘‘free appropriate public education’’ as defined in the Department of Education’s Section 504 regulation.

2 For the purposes of this priority, ‘‘technology tools’’ may include, but are not limited to, digital math text readers for students with visual impairments, reading software to improve literacy and communication development, and text-to-speech software to improve reading performance.

These tools must assist or otherwise benefit students with disabilities.

3 For the purposes of this priority, ‘‘children or students with high needs’’ means children or students at risk of educational failure or otherwise in need of special assistance or support, such as children and students who are living in poverty, who are English Learners, who are academically far below grade level, who have left school before receiving a regular high school diploma, who are at risk of not graduating with a regular high school diploma on time, who are homeless, who are in foster care, who have been incarcerated, or are children or students with disabilities.

4 For the purposes of this priority, ‘‘products’’ may include, but are not limited to, instruction manuals, lesson plans, demonstration videos, ancillary instructional materials, and professional development modules such as collaborative groups, coaching, mentoring, or online supports.

5 The Secretary’s Final Supplemental Priorities and Definitions for Discretionary Grant Programs was published in the Federal Register on March 2, 2018 (83 FR 9096) and can be found at www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-03-02/pdf/2018- 04291.pdf.

Federal Register on February 12, 2018 (83 FR 6003) and available at www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-02-12/ pdf/2018-02558.pdf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Terry Jackson, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5158, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202–5076.

Telephone: (202) 245–6039.

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 purposes of the Educational Technology, Media, and Materials for Individuals with Disabilities Program are to: (1) Improve results for students with disabilities by promoting the development, demonstration, and use of technology;

(2) support educational activities designed to be of educational value in the classroom for students with disabilities; (3) provide support for captioning and video description that is appropriate for use in the classroom;

and (4) provide accessible educational materials to students with disabilities in a timely manner.1

Priority: In accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(v), the absolute priority and the competitive preference priority within this priority are from allowable activities specified in sections 674(c)(1)(D) and 681(d) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1474(c)(1)(D) and 1481(d).

Absolute Priority: For FY 2018 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: Stepping-up Technology Implementation.

Background:

The mission of the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) is to improve early childhood, educational, and employment outcomes and raise expectations for all people with disabilities, their families, their communities, and the Nation.

The purpose of this priority is to fund three cooperative agreements to:

identify strategies needed to effectively implement evidence-based (as defined in this notice) technology tools 2 that benefit students with disabilities and children or students with high needs,3 and develop and disseminate products 4 that will help a broad range of sites to effectively implement these technology tools. This priority is consistent with Priority 5 of the Secretary’s Final Supplemental Priorities and Definitions for Discretionary Grant Programs (Supplemental Priorities) 5—Meeting the Unique Needs of Students and Children With Disabilities and/or Those With Unique Gifts and Talents; and Priority 2 of the Supplemental Priorities— Promoting Innovation and Efficiency, Streamlining Education With an Increased Focus on Improving Student Outcomes, and Providing Increased Value to Students and Taxpayers.

Priority 5 emphasizes meeting the unique needs of students with disabilities, including their academic needs, by offering students the opportunity to meet challenging objectives and receive an educational program that is both meaningful and appropriately ambitious in light of each student’s circumstances. Priority 2 emphasizes supporting innovative strategies or research that has the potential to lead to significant and wide-reaching improvements in the delivery of educational services or other significant and tangible educational benefits to students, educators, or other Department stakeholders.

Congress recognized in IDEA that ‘‘almost 30 years of research and experience has demonstrated that the education of children with disabilities can be made more effective by . . .

supporting the development and use of technology, including assistive technology devices and assistive technology services, to maximize accessibility for children with disabilities’’ (section 601(c)(5) of IDEA).

The use of technology, including assistive technology devices and assistive technology services, enhances instruction and access to the general education curriculum. ‘‘Innovative technology tools, programs, and software can be used to promote engagement and enhance the learning experience’’ (Brunvand & Byrd, 2011).

Innovative technology tools and programs are especially helpful as educators work to engage and motivate students who struggle with the general education curriculum. However, having access alone does not translate to outcomes. Judge et al. (2004) argued that there is a rapid expansion in technology in early childhood settings, and teachers need support in understanding its usage and value to ensure quality learning experiences for young students. When teachers receive the necessary professional development supports to use technology effectively, technology integration in early childhood settings has been demonstrated to increase social awareness and collaborative behaviors, improve abstract reasoning and problem solving abilities, and enhance visual-motor coordination (McManis & Gunnewig, 2012).

Technologies (e.g., online career-readiness tools, computer-based writing tools to support literacy, web-based curriculum to support 21st-century learning) can support State educational agencies (SEAs) and local educational agencies (LEAs) by: (a) Improving student learning and engagement; (b) accommodating the special needs of students; (c) facilitating student and teacher access to digital content and resources; and (d) improving the quality of instruction through personalized learning and data (Duffey & Fox, 2012;

Fletcher, Schaffhauser, & Levi, 2012;

U.S. Department of Education, 2010). As stipulated in section 4109 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), technologies can be used to support

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 02, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03JYN1.SGM 03JYN1sr ad ov ic h on

D S

K 3G

M Q

2P

R O

D w ith N

O T

IC

E

S http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-03-02/pdf/2018-04291.pdf http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-03-02/pdf/2018-04291.pdf http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-02-12/pdf/2018-02558.pdf

31127 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2018 / Notices

6 In this context, ‘‘effective implementation’’ means ‘‘making better use of research findings in typical service settings through the use of processes and activities (such as accountable implementation teams) that are purposeful and described in sufficient detail such that independent observers can detect the presence and strength of these processes and activities’’ (Fixsen, Naoom, Blase, Friedman, & Wallace, 2005).

7 For the purposes of this priority, ‘‘settings’’ include: General education classrooms; special education classrooms; high-quality early childhood programs; private schools; home education; after school programs; juvenile justice facilities; and settings other than those listed above in which students may receive services under IDEA.

8 Open educational resources (OER) are teaching and learning materials that the public may freely use and reuse at no cost. Unlike fixed, copyrighted resources, OER have been authored or created by an individual or organization that chooses to retain few, if any, ownership rights. Retrieved from www.oercommons.org/about.

9 A technology that is ‘‘fully developed’’ is a completed, existing technology that is ready to be implemented. Any enhancements or additions to the existing technology should be minor and time-limited, and must be completed before the end of year two.

10 For more information on the principles of universal design, see www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/ whatisudl/3principles.

11 For more information on recruiting and selecting sites, refer to Assessing Sites for Model Demonstration: Lessons Learned from OSEP Grantees at http://mdcc.sri.com/documents/MDCC_ Site_Assessment_Brief_09-30-11.pdf.

12 For the purposes of this priority, ‘‘iterative development’’ refers to a process of testing, systematically securing feedback, and then revising the educational intervention to increase the likelihood that it will be implemented with fidelity (Diamond & Powell, 2011).

LEAs and SEAs to increase student access to personalized, rigorous learning experiences.

Notwithstanding the potential benefits of using technology to improve learning outcomes, research suggests that implementation can be a significant challenge. For example, data from a survey of more than 1,000 kindergarten through grade 12 (K–12) teachers, principals, and assistant principals indicated that more than half of teachers who did not use technology identified issues of implementation (e.g., necessity, applicability to lessons) rather than availability as reasons for their non-use (Grunwald & Associates, 2010). Additionally, ‘‘research indicates that technology must be used in ways that align with curricular and teacher goals, and offer students opportunities to use these tools in their learning’’ (Center on Innovation and Improvement, 2011). Even as schools have started to deliver coursework online, and the number of students involved in online learning has grown, many of these online learning technologies are not readily accessible to students with disabilities (Center on Online Learning and Students with Disabilities, 2012). These findings demonstrate a need for products and resources that can assist educators to readily implement technology tools for students with disabilities.

In response to this need, Stepping-up Technology Implementation projects have built on technology development efforts by identifying, developing, and disseminating products and resources that promote the effective implementation 6 of instructional and assistive technology tools in early childhood programs or K–12 settings.7

Priority:

The purpose of this priority is to fund three cooperative agreements to: (a) Identify strategies needed to readily implement existing evidence-based technology tools that benefit students with disabilities and children or students with high needs; and (b) develop and disseminate products (See footnote 3; e.g., instruction manuals, lesson plans, demonstration videos, ancillary instructional materials) that will assist personnel in early childhood programs or K–12 settings to readily use, understand, and implement these technology tools.

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

Application Requirements

An applicant must include in its application—

(a) A project design that is evidence-based;

(b) A logic model (as defined in this notice) or conceptual framework that depicts at a minimum, the goals, activities, project evaluation, methods, performance measures, outputs, and outcomes of the proposed project.

Note: The following websites provide more information on logic models and conceptual frameworks: www.osepideasthatwork.org/ logicModel; www.osepideasthatwork.org/ resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/tad-project-logic-model-and-conceptual-framework; www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/ essa/guidanceuseseinvestment.pdf; and http://ies.ed.gov/pubsearch/ pubsinfo.asp?pubid=REL2015057.

(c) A plan to implement the activities described in the Project Activities section of this priority;

(d) A plan, linked to the proposed project’s logic model, for a formative evaluation of the proposed project’s activities. The plan must describe how the formative evaluation will use clear performance objectives to ensure continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project, including objective measures of progress in implementing the project and ensuring the quality of products and services;

(e) Documentation ensuring that the final products disseminated to help sites effectively implement technology tools will be both open educational resources (OER) 8 and licensed through an open access licensing authority;

(f) Documentation that the technology tool used by the project is fully developed,9 evidence-based, and addresses, at a minimum, the following principles of universal design for learning:

(1) Multiple means of presentation so that students can approach information in more than one way (e.g., specialized software and websites, screen readers that include features such as text-to-speech, changeable color contrast, alterable text size, or selection of different reading levels);

(2) Multiple means of expression so that all students can demonstrate knowledge through options such as writing, online concept mapping, or speech-to-text programs, where appropriate; and

(3) Multiple means of engagement to stimulate interest in and motivation for learning (e.g., options among several different learning activities or content for a particular competency or skill and providing opportunities for increased collaboration or scaffolding); 10

(g) A plan for how the project will sustain project activities after funding ends;

(h) A plan, which includes appropriate consideration of sites other than traditional public elementary and secondary school settings, including private schools, after school programs, juvenile justice facilities, early childhood programs, and settings where students are supported under IDEA, for recruiting and selecting 11 the following:

(1) Three development sites.

Development sites are the sites in which iterative development 12 of the products and resources intended to support the implementation of technology tools will occur. The project must start implementing the technology tool with one development site in year one of the project period and two additional development sites in year two;

(2) Four pilot sites. Pilot sites are the sites in which try-out, formative evaluation, and refinement of the products and resources will occur. The project must work with the four pilot sites during years three and four of the project period; and

(3) Ten dissemination sites.

Dissemination sites will be selected if

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 02, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03JYN1.SGM 03JYN1sr ad ov ic h on

D S

K 3G

M Q

2P

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://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/guidanceuseseinvestment.pdf http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/guidanceuseseinvestment.pdf http://ies.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=REL2015057 http://ies.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=REL2015057 http://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/whatisudl/3principles http://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/whatisudl/3principles http://www.osepideasthatwork.org/logicModel http://www.osepideasthatwork.org/logicModel http://www.oercommons.org/about 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;

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

31128 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2018 / Notices the project is extended for a fifth year.

Dissemination sites will be used to (a) refine the products for use by teachers and (b) evaluate the performance of the tool. Dissemination sites will receive less technical assistance (TA) from the project than development or pilot sites.

Also, at this stage (i.e., the fifth year), dissemination sites will extend the benefits of the technology tool to additional students. To be selected as a dissemination site, eligible sites must commit to working with the project to implement the evidence-based technology tool.

Note: A site may not serve in more than one category (i.e., development, pilot, dissemination).

Note: A minimum of two of the seven development and pilot sites must be in settings other than traditional public elementary and secondary schools. A minimum of three of the 10 dissemination sites must be in settings other than traditional public elementary and secondary schools. These non-traditional sites must otherwise meet the requirements of each category listed earlier.

(i) School site information (e.g., elementary, middle, high school, or early childhood programs, high-quality early childhood programs, private schools, after school programs, juvenile justice facilities, and settings where students are supported under IDEA;

schools identified for comprehensive or targeted support and improvement (in accordance with section 1111(c)(4)(C)(iii), (c)(4)(D), or (d)(2)(C)–

(D) of the ESEA) about the development, pilot, and dissemination sites, including student demographics (e.g., race or ethnicity, percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch) and other pertinent data; and

(j) A budget for attendance at the following:

(1) A one and one-half day kick-off meeting to be held in Washington, DC, after receipt of the award, and an annual planning meeting held in Washington, DC, with the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) project officer and other relevant staff during each subsequent year of the project period.

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

(2) A three-day project directors’ conference in Washington, DC, during each year of the project period.

(3) Two annual two-day trips to attend Department briefings, Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by OSEP.

Project Activities:

To meet the requirements of this priority, the project, at a minimum, must conduct the following activities:

(a) Recruit a minimum of three development sites and four pilot sites in accordance with the plan proposed under paragraphs (h) and (i) of the Application Requirements section of this notice.

Note: Final site selection will be determined in consultation with the OSEP project officer following the kick-off meeting.

(b) Identify and develop resources and products that, when used to support the implementation of the technology tool, create accessible learning opportunities for all children, including children with disabilities, and children or students with high needs and support the sustained implementation of the selected technology tool. Development of the products must be an iterative process beginning in a single development school and continuing through repeated cycles of development and refinement in the other development sites, followed by a formative evaluation and refinement in the pilot sites. To support implementation of the technology tool the products and resources must, at a minimum, include:

(1) An instrument or method for assessing—

(i) The school staff’s current technology uses and needs, current technology investments, firewall issues, and the knowledge and availability of dedicated on-site technology personnel;

(ii) The readiness of development and pilot sites to implement the technology tool. Any instruments and methods for assessing readiness may include resource inventory checklists, school self-study guides, and surveys of teachers’ interests; and

(iii) Whether the technology tool has achieved its intended outcomes.

(c) Provide ongoing professional development activities necessary for teachers to implement the technology tool with fidelity and to integrate it into the curriculum.

(d) Collect and analyze data on whether the technology tool has achieved its intended outcomes for early childhood development, K–12, or college- and career-readiness.

(e) Collect formative and summative data from the development and pilot sites to refine and evaluate the products.

(f) If the project is extended to a fifth year—

(1) Provide the products and the technology tool to no fewer than 10 dissemination sites that are not the same used as development or pilot sites; and

(2) Collect summative data about the success of the project’s products and services in supporting implementation of the technology tool in the dissemination sites.

(g) By the end of the project period, provide—

(1) Information on the products and resources, as supported by the project evaluation, including any accessibility features, that will enable other sites to implement and sustain implementation of the technology tool;

(2) Information on the technology implementation report, including data on how teachers used the technology, data on how technology impacted student outcomes, how technology was implemented with fidelity, and features of universal design for learning;

(3) Information on how the technology tool contributed to changed practices and improved early childhood outcomes, academic achievement, or college- and career-readiness for children with disabilities, as well as children or students with high needs (e.g., data to assess how well the project addressed the goals of the project as described in the logic model); and

(4) A plan for disseminating the technology tool and accompanying products beyond the sites directly involved in the project.

Cohort Collaboration and Support

OSEP project officer(s) will provide coordination support among the projects. Each project funded under this priority must:

(a) Participate in monthly conference-call discussions to share and collaborate on implementation and specific project issues; and

(b) Provide information annually using a template that captures descriptive data on project site selection, processes for installation of technology, and the use of technology and sustainability (i.e., the process of technology implementation).

Note: The following website provides more information about implementation research:

http://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/learn-implementation.

Fifth Year of Project

The Secretary may extend a project one year beyond 48 months to work with dissemination sites if the grantee is achieving the intended outcomes of the project (as demonstrated by data gathered as part of the project evaluation) and making a positive contribution to the implementation of an evidence-based technology tool with fidelity in the development and pilot sites. Each applicant must include in its application a plan for the full 60-month period. In deciding whether to continue

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 02, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03JYN1.SGM 03JYN1sr ad ov ic h on

D S

K 3G

M Q

2P

R O

D w ith N

O T

IC

E

S http://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/learn-implementation.

http://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/learn-implementation.

31129 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2018 / Notices

13 Culturally responsive teaching practices can be defined as ‘‘using the cultural knowledge, prior experiences, frames of reference, and performance styles of ethnically diverse students to make learning encounters more relevant to and effective for them’’ (Gay, 2010).

funding the project for the fifth year, the Secretary will consider the requirements of 34 CFR 75.253(a), and will consider:

(a) The recommendation of a review team consisting of the OSEP project officer and other experts selected by the Secretary. This review will be held during the last half of the third year of the project period;

(b) The success and timeliness with which the requirements of the negotiated cooperative agreement have been or are being met by the project; and

(c) The degree to which the project’s activities have contributed to changed practices and improved early childhood outcomes, academic achievement, or college- and career-readiness for students with disabilities.

Competitive Preference Priority:

Within this absolute priority, we give competitive preference to applications that address the following priority. The competitive preference priority is from allowable activities in sections 674(c)(1)(D) and 681(d) of IDEA. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), we award an additional two points to an application that meets the competitive preference priority. Applicants should indicate in the abstract if the competitive preference priority is addressed and must address the priority in the narrative section.

This competitive preference priority is:

Projects that Support English Learners in Reading (Two Points).

To meet this competitive preference priority, projects must implement an evidence-based technology tool designed to help teachers use culturally responsive teaching practices 13 to meet the cultural and linguistic needs of English Learners (ELs) and improve their language acquisition, language development, and reading. To meet the competitive preference priority, a project must:

(a) Implement a culturally responsive reading curriculum that provides learning opportunities through a variety of media; and

(b) Develop and disseminate products and resources (e.g., instruction manuals, lesson plans, demonstration videos, ancillary instructional materials) that will assist teachers in K–12 settings to implement the technology.

References:

Brunvand, S., & Byrd, S. (2011). Using

VoiceThread to promote learning engagement and success for all students.

Teaching Exceptional Children, 43(4), 28–37.

Center on Online Learning and Students with Disabilities (COLSD). (2012). The foundation of online learning for students with disabilities (COLSD White Paper). Lawrence, KS: Author. Retrieved from www.centerononlinelearning.res.ku.edu/ wp-content/uploads/2017/04/ Foundation_7_2012.pdf.

Diamond, K.E., & Powell, D.R. (2011). An iterative approach to the development of a professional development intervention for Head Start teachers. Journal of Early Intervention, 33(1), 75–93.

Duffey, D., & Fox, C. (2012). National educational technology trends 2012:

State leadership empowers educators, transforms teaching and learning.

Washington, DC: State Educational Technology Directors Association.

Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ ED536746.pdf.

Fixsen, D.L., Naoom, S.F., Blase, K.A., Friedman, R.M., & Wallace, F. (2005).

Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature (FMHI Publication #231).

Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network.

Fletcher, G., Schaffhauser, D. & Levi, D.

(2012). Out of print: Reimagining the K– 12 textbook in a digital age. Washington, DC: State Educational Technology Directors Association. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ ED536747.pdf.

Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Grunwald & Associates. (2010). Educators, technology, and 21st century skills:

Dispelling five myths. Minneapolis, MN:

Walden University, Richard W. Riley College of Education. Retrieved from www.waldenu.edu/-/media/Walden/ general-media/about-walden/colleges-and-schools/riley-college-of-education/ educational-research/full-report-dispelling-five-myths.pdf?la=en.

Judge, S., Puckett, K., & Cabuck, B. (2004).

Digital equity: New findings from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study.

Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(4), 383–396.

McManis, L.D., & Gunnewig, S.B. (2012).

Finding the education in educational technology with early learners. Young Children, 67(3), 14–24.

Perlman, C.L., & Redding, S. (Eds.). (2011).

Handbook on effective implementation of school improvement grants. Lincoln, IL: Center on Innovation and Improvement. Retrieved from www.centerii.org/handbook.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2010).

Transforming American education:

Learning powered by technology.

Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/ netp2010.pdf.

Definitions: The following definitions are from 34 CFR 77.1:

Demonstrates a rationale means a key project component included in the project’s logic model is informed by research or evaluation findings that suggest the project component is likely to improve relevant outcomes.

Evidence-based means the proposed project component is supported by one or more of strong evidence, moderate evidence, promising evidence, or evidence that demonstrates a rationale.

Experimental study means a study that is designed to compare outcomes between two groups of individuals (such as students) that are otherwise equivalent except for their assignment to either a treatment group receiving a project component or a control group that does not. Randomized controlled trials, regression discontinuity design studies, and single-case design studies are the specific types of experimental studies that, depending on their design and implementation (e.g., sample attrition in randomized controlled trials and regression discontinuity design studies), can meet What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) standards without reservations as described in the WWC Handbook:

(i) A randomized controlled trial employs random assignment of, for example, students, teachers, classrooms, or schools to receive the project component being evaluated (the treatment group) or not to receive the project component (the control group).

(ii) A regression discontinuity design study assigns the project component being evaluated using a measured variable (e.g., assigning students reading below a cutoff score to tutoring or developmental education classes) and controls for that variable in the analysis of outcomes.

(iii) A single-case design study uses observations of a single case (e.g., a student eligible for a behavioral intervention) over time in the absence and presence of a controlled treatment manipulation to determine whether the outcome is systematically related to the treatment.

Logic model (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.

Moderate evidence means that there is evidence of effectiveness of a key project component in improving a relevant outcome for a sample that

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 02, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03JYN1.SGM 03JYN1sr ad ov ic h on

D S

K 3G

M Q

2P

R O

D w ith N

O T

IC

E

S http://www.centerononlinelearning.res.ku.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Foundation_7_2012.pdf http://www.centerononlinelearning.res.ku.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Foundation_7_2012.pdf http://www.centerononlinelearning.res.ku.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Foundation_7_2012.pdf http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED536747.pdf http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED536747.pdf http://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/netp2010.pdf http://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/netp2010.pdf https://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED536746.pdf https://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED536746.pdf http://www.centerii.org/handbook www.waldenu.edu/-/media/Walden/general-media/about-walden/colleges-and-schools/riley-college-of-education/educational-research/full-report-dispelling-five-myths.pdf?la=en www.waldenu.edu/-/media/Walden/general-media/about-walden/colleges-and-schools/riley-college-of-education/educational-research/full-report-dispelling-five-myths.pdf?la=en www.waldenu.edu/-/media/Walden/general-media/about-walden/colleges-and-schools/riley-college-of-education/educational-research/full-report-dispelling-five-myths.pdf?la=en www.waldenu.edu/-/media/Walden/general-media/about-walden/colleges-and-schools/riley-college-of-education/educational-research/full-report-dispelling-five-myths.pdf?la=en www.waldenu.edu/-/media/Walden/general-media/about-walden/colleges-and-schools/riley-college-of-education/educational-research/full-report-dispelling-five-myths.pdf?la=en

31130 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2018 / Notices overlaps with the populations or settings proposed to receive that component, based on a relevant finding from one of the following:

(i) A practice guide prepared by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook reporting a ‘‘strong evidence base’’ or ‘‘moderate evidence base’’ for the corresponding practice guide recommendation;

(ii) An intervention report prepared by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook reporting a ‘‘positive effect’’ or ‘‘potentially positive effect’’ on a relevant outcome based on a ‘‘medium to large’’ extent of evidence, with no reporting of a ‘‘negative effect’’ or ‘‘potentially negative effect’’ on a relevant outcome; or

(iii) A single experimental study or quasi-experimental design study reviewed and reported by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook, or otherwise assessed by the Department using version 3.0 of the WWC Handbook, as appropriate, and that—

(A) Meets WWC standards with or without reservations;

(B) Includes at least one statistically significant and positive (i.e., favorable) effect on a relevant outcome;

(C) Includes no overriding statistically significant and negative effects on relevant outcomes reported in the study or in a corresponding WWC intervention report prepared under version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook; and

(D) Is based on a sample from more than one site (e.g., State, county, city, school district, or postsecondary campus) and includes at least 350 students or other individuals across sites. Multiple studies of the same project component that each meet requirements in paragraphs (iii)(A), (B), and (C) of this definition may together satisfy this requirement.

Project component means an activity, strategy, intervention, process, product, practice, or policy included in a project.

Evidence may pertain to an individual project component or to a combination of project components (e.g., training teachers on instructional practices for English learners and follow-on coaching for these teachers).

Promising evidence means that there is evidence of the effectiveness of a key project component in improving a relevant outcome, based on a relevant finding from one of the following:

(i) A practice guide prepared by WWC reporting a ‘‘strong evidence base’’ or ‘‘moderate evidence base’’ for the corresponding practice guide recommendation;

(ii) An intervention report prepared by the WWC reporting a ‘‘positive effect’’ or ‘‘potentially positive effect’’ on a relevant outcome with no reporting of a ‘‘negative effect’’ or ‘‘potentially negative effect’’ on a relevant outcome;

or

(iii) A single study assessed by the Department, as appropriate, that—

(A) Is an experimental study, a quasi-experimental design study, or a well-designed and well-implemented correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias (e.g., a study using regression methods to account for differences between a treatment group and a comparison group); and

(B) Includes at least one statistically significant and positive (i.e., favorable) effect on a relevant outcome.

Quasi-experimental design study means a study using a design that attempts to approximate an experimental study by identifying a comparison group that is similar to the treatment group in important respects.

This type of study, depending on design and implementation (e.g., establishment of baseline equivalence of the groups being compared), can meet WWC standards with reservations, but cannot meet WWC standards without reservations, as described in the WWC Handbook.

Relevant outcome means the student outcome(s) or other outcome(s) the key project component is designed to improve, consistent with the specific goals of the program.

Strong evidence means that there is evidence of the effectiveness of a key project component in improving a relevant outcome for a sample that overlaps with the populations and settings proposed to receive that component, based on a relevant finding from one of the following:

(i) A practice guide prepared by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook reporting a ‘‘strong evidence base’’ for the corresponding practice guide recommendation;

(ii) An intervention report prepared by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook reporting a ‘‘positive effect’’ on a relevant outcome based on a ‘‘medium to large’’ extent of evidence, with no reporting of a ‘‘negative effect’’ or ‘‘potentially negative effect’’ on a relevant outcome;

or

(iii) A single experimental study reviewed and reported by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook, or otherwise assessed by the Department using version 3.0 of the WWC Handbook, as appropriate, and that—

(A) Meets WWC standards without reservations;

(B) Includes at least one statistically significant and positive (i.e., favorable) effect on a relevant outcome;

(C) Includes no overriding statistically significant and negative effects on relevant outcomes reported in the study or in a corresponding WWC intervention report prepared under version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook; and

(D) Is based on a sample from more than one site (e.g., State, county, city, school district, or postsecondary campus) and includes at least 350 students or other individuals across sites. Multiple studies of the same project component that each meet requirements in paragraphs (iii)(A), (B), and (C) of this definition may together satisfy this requirement.

What Works Clearinghouse Handbook (WWC Handbook) means the standards and procedures set forth in the WWC Procedures and Standards Handbook, Version 3.0 or Version 2.1 (incorporated by reference, see 34 CFR 77.2). Study findings eligible for review under WWC standards can meet WWC standards without reservations, meet WWC standards with reservations, or not meet WWC standards. WWC practice guides and intervention reports include findings from systematic reviews of evidence as described in the Handbook documentation.

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

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1474 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.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 02, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03JYN1.SGM 03JYN1sr ad ov ic h on

D S

K 3G

M Q

2P

R O

D w ith N

O T

IC

E

S

31131 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2018 / Notices

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:

$1,500,000.

Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2019 from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.

Estimated Range of Awards: $450,000 to $500,000 per year.

Estimated Average Size of Awards:

$475,000 per year.

Maximum Award: We will not make an award exceeding $500,000 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.

III. Eligibility Information

1. Eligible Applicants: SEAs; LEAs, including public charter schools that operate as LEAs under State law; IHEs;

other public agencies; private nonprofit organizations; freely associated States and outlying areas; Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations; and for-profit organizations.

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

3. Subgrantees: Under 34 CFR 75.708(b) and (c) a grantee under this competition 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. The grantee may award subgrants to entities it has identified in an approved application.

4.…