2023-373E application package - 508 FINAL.pdf

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION & REHABILITATIVE SERVICES

OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20202

FISCAL YEAR 2023

APPLICATION FOR NEW GRANTS UNDER THE

INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT (IDEA)

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ON STATE DATA COLLECTION

(ASSISTANCE LISTING NUMBER 84.373)

APPLICATIONS FOR NEW AWARDS;

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ON STATE DATA COLLECTION--

NATIONAL TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CENTER TO

IMPROVE STATE CAPACITY TO COLLECT, REPORT,

ANALYZE, AND USE ACCURATE IDEA DATA TO

ADDRESS SIGNIFICANT DISPROPORTIONALITY

(ASSISTANCE LISTING NUMBER 84.373E)

DATED MATERIAL: OPEN IMMEDIATELY

CLOSING DATE: September 11, 2023

FORM APPROVED—OMB NO. 1820-0028, EXP. DATE: 07/31/2025

http://www.ed.gov/

GRANT APPLICATION PACKAGE ASSISTANCE LISTING NUMBER 84.373E

CONTENTS

Applicant Letter ...................................................................................................................... A1

Notice Inviting Applications ................................................................................................... B19 Federal Register Notice ...................................................................................................... B1

Notice of Final Priority and Definitions ................................................................................ B2

Grants.gov Submission Procedures and Tips for Applicants .............................................. B45

Priority Description and Selection Criteria ........................................................................... C1 Technical Assistance on State Data Collection (Assistance Listing Number/CFDA 84.373E) ............................................................................................................................. C2

Selection Criteria and Format for the Applications for New Awards -- National Technical Assistance Center to Improve State Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Data to Address Significant Disproportionality (Assistance Listing Number 84.373E) Competition ........................................................................................................................ C17

General Information on Completing an Application ............................................................. D1

Application Transmittal Instructions and Requirements for Intergovernmental Review ..................................................................................................... E1

Application Transmittal Instructions ..................................................................................... E2

Appendix ................................................................................................................................. F1 Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs .................................................................. F2

State Single Points of Contact (SPOCs) .............................................................................. F3

Notice to All Applicants Ensuring Equitable Access and Application Forms and Instructions .......................................................................................................... G1

Part I: Application for Federal Assistance (SF-424) ............................................................. G6

Part II: Budget Information (Form 524) .............................................................................. G18

Part III: Application Narrative ............................................................................................ G27

Certification Regarding Lobbying ........................................................................... G28

Part IV: Additional Information ........................................................................................... G30

DUNS Number Instructions/Unique Entity Identifier ............................................... G30

Grant Application Receipt Acknowledgement ........................................................ G32

Grant and Contract Funding Information ............................................................... G32

PAPERWORK BURDEN STATEMENT

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless such collection displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 1820-0028. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 45 hours and 40 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. The obligation to respond to this collection is required to obtain or retain a benefit (P.L. 108-446, Sec. 650 and 682). If you have comments or concerns regarding the status of your individual submission of this form, please contact the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) Discretionary Grant Programs, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, U.S.

Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Potomac Center Plaza, room 5076, Washington D.C. 20202-5076 or by phone at 202-245-7542.

A-1

APPLICANT LETTER

A-2

Dear Applicant:

This application packet contains information and the required forms for you to use in submitting a new application for funding under one program authorized by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This packet covers one competition under Technical Assistance on State Data Collection (CFDA 84.373) program—Applications for New Awards; Technical Assistance on State Data Collection— National Technical Assistance Center to Improve State Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Data to Address Significant Disproportionality (Assistance Listing Number/CFDA 84.373E).

Please take the time to review all of the applicable requirements, definitions, selection criteria, and application instructions thoroughly. An application will not be evaluated for funding if the applicant does not comply with all of the procedural rules that govern the submission of the application or if the application does not contain the information required. (EDGAR §75.216 (b) and (c)).

Please note the following:

• GRANTS.GOV APPLICATION SUBMISSION AND SAM REGISTRATION.

Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (www.Grants.gov). Please read carefully the Grants.gov Submission Procedures and Tips for Applicants document included on page B-45, which includes helpful tips about submitting electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site. Grants.gov registration involves many steps including registration on SAM (www.sam.gov) which may take approximately one week to complete but could take as many as several weeks to complete. You may begin working on your application while completing the registration process, but you cannot submit an application until all of the Registration steps are complete. Please note that once your SAM registration is active, it will take 24-48 hours for the information to be available in Grants.gov. You cannot submit an application through Grants.gov until Grants.gov has received your SAM registration information. We strongly encourage you to familiarize yourself with SAM and Grants.gov, and strongly recommend that you register and submit early.

Applicants are required to upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in either Portable Document Format (PDF) or Microsoft Word.

However, it is recommended that applicants upload files as read-only flattened PDFs.

Information on computer and operating system compatibility with Adobe and links to download the latest version of Adobe are available on Grants.gov. Please note that you must follow the Application Procedures as described in the Federal Register notice announcing this grant competition. Information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically can also be found in section E of this application package, Application Transmittal Instructions and Requirements for Intergovernmental Review.

http://www.grants.gov/ http://www.sam.gov/

A-3

Additional instructions for sending applications electronically are provided on page G-4, Application Forms and Instructions for Grants.gov Applications.

• MAXIMUM AWARD AMOUNT.

The competition included in this package has a maximum award amount. Please refer to the specific information for the priority/competition to which you are submitting an application (i.e., Section B of this package) for detailed budget information for the total grant period requested.

Please be advised that for the priority in this package, the maximum award amount covers all project costs, including indirect costs.

• RECOMMENDED PAGE LIMITS AND LINE SPACING OF APPLICATION NARRATIVE.

The competition included in this package limits the Application Narrative to a recommended number of double-spaced pages. This recommended page limit and double-line spacing applies to all material presented in the application narrative. This recommended double-line spacing applies to all titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, reference citations, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, screen shots, and logic models included in the application narrative. (Please refer to the specific recommendations on page limits for the priority/competition to which you are submitting an application, Section B of this package).

• FORMAT FOR OTHER SECTIONS OF THE APPLICATION.

Additional information regarding formatting applications has been included on Pages D-4 of the “General Information on Completing an Application” section of this package.

Appendix A: Reviewers will be instructed to review the content of Appendix A as they do the application narrative. Reviewers will not be required to review any other appendices.

Charts, tables, figures, graphs, screen shots and logic models that provide information directly relating to the application requirements for the narrative should be the only items included in Appendix A. Appendix A should not be used for supplementary information. Please note that charts, tables, figures, graphs, screen shots, and logic models can be single-spaced when placed in an Appendix A.

Abstract: For the application Abstract, applicants should use the template located at:

https://www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/osep/new-osep-grants.html.

• ABSOLUTE PRIORITY.

This competition includes one absolute priority. This priority is from the notice of final priority and requirements published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register (NFP).

https://www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/osep/new-osep-grants.html

A-4

Prior to the peer review, Department staff will determine if an application has met the qualifications of the absolute priorities and is eligible for peer review. An application that has not met the absolute priorities will not be considered for funding and may not be reviewed.

PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS IN RESEARCH.

The discretionary grant Application Form SF-424 requires applicants to indicate whether they plan to conduct research involving human subjects at any time during the proposed project period. The Protection of Human Subjects in Research Attachment is an integral part of the SF-424 form. It includes information that applicants need to complete the protection of human subjects item and, as appropriate, to provide additional information to the Department regarding human subjects research projects. Additional information on completing the protection of human subjects item is also available and can be accessed on the internet at:

www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocfo/humansub.html

• REPORTING ON PERFORMANCE MEASURES.

For the purposes of Department reporting under 34 CFR 75.110, we have established a set of performance measures that are designed to yield information on various aspects of the effectiveness and quality of the Technical Assistance on State Data Collection program. See Performance Measures included in the Priority Description section of this application package.

Applicants are encouraged to consider this information when preparing their applications.

• COPIES OF THE APPLICATION.

Unless you qualify for an exception in accordance with the instructions found in the Notice inviting applications, you must submit your application electronically. Therefore, you do not need to submit paper copies of the application. If you are granted an exception, current Government-wide policy requires that an original and two paper copies need to be submitted. Please note: If an application is recommended for funding and a grant award is issued, we will contact the applicant to request an electronic copy of the application in MS Word or a PDF file. The Department is moving toward an electronic grant filing system and an electronic copy of all applications that are being funded will facilitate this effort.

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocfo/humansub.html

A-5

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

OSEP also provides information on developing performance measures and logic models at https://www.osepideasthatwork.org/logicModel to assist you in preparing a quality application.

For information about other U.S. Department of Education grant and contract opportunities, we encourage you to use the Department's grant information web page which can be accessed on the internet at http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocfo/grants/grants.html.

We appreciate your efforts to improve the provision of services for individuals with disabilities.

Sincerely, /s/ Lawrence J. Wexler, Ed.D.

Director Research to Practice Division Office of Special Education Programs https://www.osepideasthatwork.org/logicModel http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocfo/grants/grants.html

B-1

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

B-2

NOTICE OF FINAL PRIORITY AND REQUIREMENTS

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter III

[ED-2023-OSERS-0057]

Final priority and requirements--Technical Assistance on State Data Collection-- National Technical Assistance Center to Improve State Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Data to Address Significant Disproportionality

AGENCY:

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services), Department of Education.

ACTION:

Final priority and requirements.

SUMMARY:

The Department of Education (Department) announces a priority and requirements for the National Technical Assistance Center to Improve State Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Data to Address Significant Disproportionality (Center) under the Technical Assistance on State Data Collection program, Assistance Listing Number 84.373E. The Department may use this priority and one or more of these requirements in fiscal year (FY) 2023 and later years. We will use the priority to award a cooperative agreement for a Center to focus attention on an identified national need to provide technical assistance (TA) to improve the capacity of States to meet the data collection and reporting requirements under Part B and Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This Center will support States in collecting, reporting, and determining how to best analyze and use their data to address issues of significant disproportionality and will customize its TA to meet each State’s specific needs.

DATES:

The final priority and requirements are effective September 11, 2023.

B-3

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Richelle Davis, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, room 5076, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-5076. Telephone: (202) 245-7401. Email:

Richelle.Davis@ed.gov

If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Purpose of Program:

The purpose of the Technical Assistance on State Data Collection program is to improve the capacity of States to meet IDEA data collection and reporting requirements.

Funding for the program is authorized under section 611(c)(1) of IDEA, which gives the Secretary authority to reserve not more than 1/2 of 1 percent of the amounts appropriated under Part B for each fiscal year to provide TA activities, where needed, to improve the capacity of States to meet the data collection and reporting requirements under Parts B and C of IDEA. The maximum amount the Secretary may reserve under this set-aside for any fiscal year is $25,000,000, cumulatively adjusted by the rate of inflation. Section 616(i) of IDEA requires the Secretary to review the data collection and analysis capacity of States to ensure that data and information determined necessary for implementation of section 616 of IDEA are collected, analyzed, and accurately reported to the Secretary. It also requires the Secretary to provide TA, where needed, to improve the capacity of States to meet the data collection requirements, which include the data collection and reporting requirements in sections 616 and 618 of IDEA. In addition, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, Public Law 117-328, gives the Secretary authority to use funds reserved under section 611(c) of IDEA to “administer and carry out other services and activities to improve data collection, coordination, quality, and use under Parts B and C of the IDEA.” Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, P. L. 117-328, Div. H, Title III, 136 Stat. 4459, 4891 (2022).

Program Authority:

20 U.S.C. 1411(c), 1416(i), 1418(c), 1418(d), 1442; Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, P. L. 117-328, Div. H, Title III, 136 Stat. 4459, 4891 (2022).

B-4

Applicable Program Regulations:

34 CFR 300.646-300.647, 300.702; as well as IDEA Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) Indicators 9 and 10 regarding disproportionate representation resulting from inappropriate identification, under 20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(C) and 34 CFR 300.600(d)(3); and IDEA Part B SPP/APR Indicator 4 regarding significant discrepancy in suspensions and expulsion rates, under 20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A) and 1412(a)(22) and 34 CFR 300.600(d)(1) and 300.170.

We published a notice of proposed priority and requirements (NPP) for this program in the Federal Register on March 28, 2023 (88 FR 18280). That document contained background information and our reasons for proposing the priority and requirements.

There are differences between the NPP and this notice of final priority and requirements (NFP) as discussed in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section of this document. The most significant change, as discussed below, is the addition of two expected outcomes for the Center.

Public Comment:

In response to our invitation in the NPP, 20 parties submitted comments addressing the priority and requirements.

Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes, or suggested changes the law does not authorize us to make under the applicable statutory authority. In addition, we do not address general comments that raised concerns not directly related to the proposed priority and requirements.

Analysis of Comments and Changes:

An analysis of the comments and of any changes in the priority and requirements since publication of the NPP follows. We received comments on a number of specific topics, including the topics for TA. Each topic is addressed below.

GENERAL COMMENTS:

Comments: Several commenters specifically expressed support for the proposed center.

Discussion: The Department appreciates the comments and agrees with the commenters that the Center funded under this program will provide necessary and valuable TA to States.

Changes: None.

Comments: Multiple commenters suggested that the Department revise the Center’s expected

B-5 outcomes to include outcomes related to the engagement of parents in the use of data to address disparities and the provision of data in accessible and understandable formats.

Discussion: The Department agrees with commenters that improving State capacity to engage parents in the use of IDEA data will enhance the State’s ability to address disparities.

Additionally, it is vitally important to provide data to stakeholders in accessible and understandable formats to support the use of the data to address disparities revealed in the data collected. For this reason, the Department will include additional expected outcomes to address the commenters’ concerns.

Changes: The final priority includes two additional expected outcomes for the Center, expected outcome (h), focused on improved capacity of State educational agencies (SEAs) to assist local educational agencies (LEAs) to engage parents, families, advocates, and other stakeholders to use data to address disparities revealed in the data they collect and (i), related to improved capacity of SEAs, and LEAs through their work with SEAs, to provide data in timely, usable, accessible, and understandable formats for parents, families, advocates, and other stakeholders.

Comments: A number of commenters proposed that the Department expand the list of suggested Department-funded TA centers with which the Center may collaborate. Specifically, the commenters proposed including equity-related centers to the current list of data-related centers.

Discussion: The Department agrees with the commenters. The Center should collaborate with both equity- and data-related Department-funded TA centers, as appropriate.

Changes: We have revised paragraph (iv)(E) of the final requirements to require applicants to submit the proposed plan for collaborating and coordinating with Department-funded projects, including those providing data-related support to States (e.g., the IDEA Data Center, the Center for IDEA Fiscal Reporting, and the National Center for Systemic Improvement) and equity-related support to States (e.g., Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS), and Regional Equity Assistance Centers), where appropriate, in order to align complementary work and jointly develop and implement products and services to meet the purposes of this priority.

Comments: Several commenters expressed interest in ensuring that the Center will assist SEAs to specifically work with both rural districts and charter schools that are considered LEAs for the purposes of the identification of significant disproportionality.

Discussion: The Department agrees that SEAs need to support all of their LEAs related to the identification of significant disproportionality. The proposed priority would require the proposed Center to provide TA to SEAs to improve their capacity to support all of their LEAs, which includes rural LEAs and charter schools that are considered LEAs, around issues related to significant disproportionality. Therefore, the priority is consistent with the commenters’ suggestion and no change is necessary.

B-6

Comments: A number of commenters expressed concerns that the development of an additional data center focused on significant disproportionality would be duplicative of and overlap with the Department’s currently funded centers already providing TA related to significant disproportionality (e.g., the IDEA Data Center, the Center for IDEA Fiscal Reporting, and the National Center for Systemic Improvement). The commenters noted that numerous TA opportunities and products have been developed by those existing centers and are in use by States.

Discussion: While we appreciate the commenters’ concerns, the Center will not duplicate efforts of other centers, as it will focus on improving the data collection and analysis capacity of States to ensure that data and information determined necessary for implementation of IDEA section 618(d) are collected, analyzed, and accurately reported to the Department. Additionally, the Center will build TA efforts already undertaken by Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP)-funded centers. Existing centers have been tasked with assisting States in their initial implementation of the significant disproportionality regulations. While there has been progress, States still struggle with implementing a robust methodology and assisting LEAs as they review and, as necessary, revise their policies, practices, and procedures in the area of the identified significant disproportionality. Additionally, a recent Office of the Inspector General report1 noted concerns with the accuracy and reliability of State-reported data related to significant disproportionality. Therefore, there is a demonstrated need for a center with a singular focus on assisting States to collect, report, analyze, and use significant disproportionality data. The work of this Center is critical to meeting this Administration’s priority to ensure States and LEAs address significant disproportionality in the identification, placement, or incidence and duration of disciplinary actions, including suspensions and expulsions of children with disabilities based on race and ethnicity. Consistent with the Administration’s priorities, this Center will support SEAs, and LEAs through their work with SEAs, in conducting root cause analyses. With effective supports to identify the potential root causes and contributing factors of the significant disproportionality, LEAs can meaningfully address their identified significant disproportionality and set a path towards more equitable services for all students, regardless of their race and ethnicity. Finally, if there are any areas where there appears to be duplication or overlap, project officers for the currently funded centers will work together with the project officer for the new Center to develop a plan to ensure appropriate collaboration, rather than duplication, occurs across the impacted centers.

Changes: None.

Comments: One group of commenters provided responses to the Department’s directed question about the supports States require in reviewing policies, practices, and procedures and understanding the expenditure requirements for comprehensive coordinated early intervening services (CCEIS). The commenters suggested that States need TA to better understand the

1 Please see www.oversight.gov/sites/default/files/oig-reports/ED/equity-idea-final-inspection-report.pdf.

B-7 components of policies, practices, and procedures that lead to significant disproportionality, as well as TA on the requirements around the expenditure of funds for CCEIS.

Discussion: The Department appreciates and agrees with the commenters’ suggestions.

Understanding the potential interaction between significant disproportionality and the policies, practices, and procedures of an LEA and understanding the expenditure requirements for CCEIS are both important, as they are fundamental requirements of the significant disproportionality regulation. The Department believes that proposed expected outcome paragraphs (c) and (d) adequately address the commenters’ suggestions.

Changes: None.

Comments: One commenter responded to the first directed question about common challenges or barriers experienced by SEAs and LEAs when using IDEA data to address significant disproportionality and promote equity. The commenter identified the following State needs: addressing critical shortages of specialized instructional support personnel; reviewing and revising policies, practices, and procedures; and providing general guidance on best practices related to the evaluation of students with disabilities, the use of schoolwide approaches such as positive behavioral interventions and supports, and developing and enhancing a multi-tiered system of supports.

Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenter’s suggestions. In regard to the commenter’s first suggestion, while the Department agrees that securing highly skilled instructional staff is a critical need of LEAs, the Center’s focus is on improving data collection and analysis capacity of States to ensure that data and information determined necessary for implementation of IDEA are collected, analyzed, and accurately reported to the Department.

The Department agrees with the commenter’s second suggestion that SEAs require TA on reviewing and, as necessary, revising policies, practices, and procedures identified as contributing to significant disproportionality. The Department believes that proposed expected outcome paragraph (c) adequately addresses the commenter’s suggestion. Finally, the Department agrees with the commenter’s third suggestion that States would benefit from general guidance on best practices related to the evaluation of students with disabilities, the use of schoolwide approaches such as positive behavioral interventions and supports, and developing and enhancing a multi-tiered system of supports. To this end, OSEP funds other centers (e.g., National Center on Educational Outcomes, Center on PBIS, and National Center on Intensive Intervention) that provide TA on these topics.

Changes: None.

Comments: Another group of commenters responded to all of the Department’s directed questions by noting that existing OSEP centers have already developed resources to provide TA on the areas addressed in the directed questions. These commenters did, however, note that their biggest challenge was in understanding the differences in requirements between significant disproportionality and the IDEA Part B SPP/APR Indicators 4 (Suspension/Expulsion), and 9 and 10 (Disproportionate Representation).

B-8

Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenters’ support of OSEP’s currently funded centers. As stated in a response above, the Center will build upon the work that has already been completed. The Department believes that, through the implementation of proposed expected outcome paragraph (f), the Center will assist States and LEAs to improve capacity to distinguish SPP/APR Indicator 4 (Suspension/Expulsion) and SPP/APR Indicators 9 and 10 (Disproportionate Representation), which are collected under section 616 of IDEA, from significant disproportionality data, which are collected under section 618 of IDEA.

FINAL PRIORITY:

National Technical Assistance Center to Improve State Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Data to Address Significant Disproportionality.

Priority:

The purpose of the National Technical Assistance Center to Improve State Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Data to Address Significant Disproportionality (Center) is to promote equity by improving State capacity to accurately collect, report, analyze, and use section 618 data to address issues of significant disproportionality. The Center will also work to increase the capacity of SEAs, and LEAs through their work with SEAs, to use their data to conduct robust root cause analyses and identify evidence-based strategies for effectively using funds reserved for CCEIS.

The Center must achieve, at a minimum, the following expected outcomes:

(a) Increased capacity of SEAs to analyze and use their data collected and reported under section 618 of IDEA to accurately identify significant disproportionality in the State and the LEAs of the State;

(b) Increased capacity of SEAs, and LEAs through their work with SEAs, to use data collected and reported under section 618 of IDEA, as well as other available data, to conduct root cause analyses in order to identify the potential causes and contributing factors of an LEA’s significant disproportionality;

(c) Improved capacity of SEAs, and LEAs through their work with SEAs, to review and, as necessary, revise policies, practices, and procedures identified as contributing to significant disproportionality, and to address any other factors identified as contributing to the significant disproportionality;

(d) Improved capacity of SEAs to assist LEAs, as needed, in using data to drive decisions related to the use of funds reserved for CCEIS;

B-9

(e) Increased capacity of SEAs, and LEAs through their work with SEAs, to use data to address disparities revealed in the data they collect;

(f) Improved capacity of SEAs, and LEAs through their work with SEAs, to accurately collect, report, analyze, and use data related to significant disproportionality and apply the state methodology for identifying significant disproportionality, including distinguishing data collected under section 616 of IDEA (specifically, SPP/APR Indicator 4 (Suspension/Expulsion) and SPP/APR Indicators 9 and 10 (Disproportionate Representation));

(g) Increased capacity of SEAs to use data to evaluate their own methodology for identifying significant disproportionality;

(h) Improved capacity of SEAs to assist LEAs to engage parents, families, advocates, and other stakeholders to use data to address disparities revealed in the data they collect; and

(i) Improved capacity of SEAs, and LEAs through their work with SEAs, to provide data in timely, usable, accessible, and understandable formats for parents, families, advocates, and other stakeholders.

Types of Priorities:

When inviting applications for a competition using one or more priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:

Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).

Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1) awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)).

Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are particularly interested in applications that meet the priority. However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).

This document does not preclude us from proposing additional priorities or requirements, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.

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

FINAL REQUIREMENTS:

The Assistant Secretary establishes the following requirements for this program. We may apply these requirements in any year in which this program is in effect.

B-10

Requirements:

Applicants must--

(a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Significance,” how the proposed project will--

(1) Address State challenges in collecting, analyzing, reporting, and using their data collected under section 618 of IDEA to correctly identify and address significant disproportionality. To meet this requirement the applicant must--

(i) Demonstrate knowledge of IDEA data collections, including data required under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA, as well as the requirements related to significant disproportionality in section 618(d) of IDEA;

(ii) Present applicable national, State, and local data to demonstrate the capacity needs of SEAs, and LEAs through their work with SEAs, to analyze and use their data collected under section 618 of IDEA to identify and address significant disproportionality;

(iii) Describe how SEAs, and LEAs through their work with SEAs, are currently analyzing and using their data collected under section 618 of IDEA to identify and address significant disproportionality; and

(iv) Present information about the difficulties SEAs, and LEAs through their work with SEAs, including a variety of LEAs such as urban and rural LEAs and charter schools that are LEAs, have in collecting, reporting, analyzing, and using their IDEA section 618 data to address significant disproportionality; and

(2) Result in improved IDEA data collection, reporting, analysis, and use in identifying and addressing significant disproportionality.

(b) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of project services,” how the proposed project will--

(1) Ensure equal access and treatment for members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability. To meet this requirement, the applicant must describe how it will--

(i) Identify the needs of the intended recipients of TA and information; and

(ii) Ensure that products and services meet the needs of the intended recipients of the grant;

(2) Achieve its goals, objectives, and intended outcomes. To meet this requirement, the applicant must provide--

(i) Measurable intended project outcomes; and

(ii) In Appendix A, the logic model (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) by which the proposed project will achieve its intended outcomes that depicts, at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and intended outcomes of the proposed project;

B-11

(3) Use a conceptual framework (and provide a copy in Appendix A) to develop project plans and activities, describing any underlying concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, or theories, as well as the presumed relationships or linkages among these variables, and any empirical support for this framework;

Note: The following websites provide more information on logic models and conceptual frameworks: https://osepideasthatwork.org/sites/default/files/2021- 12/ConceptualFramework_Updated.pdf and www.osepideasthatwork.org/resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/tad-project-logic-model-and-conceptual-framework.

(4) Be based on current research and make use of evidence-based practices (EBPs).2 To meet this requirement, the applicant must describe--

(i) The current capacity of SEAs to use IDEA section 618 data to correctly identify significant disproportionality and assist LEAs as they conduct root cause analyses and review LEA policies, practices, and procedures;

(ii) Current research on effective practices to address significant disproportionality, particularly through the provision of CCEIS; and

(iii) How the proposed project will incorporate current research and EBPs in the development and delivery of its products and services;

(5) Develop products and provide services that are of high quality and sufficient intensity and duration to achieve the intended outcomes of the proposed project. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe--

(i) How it proposes to identify or develop the knowledge base on the capacity needs of SEAs, and LEAs through their work with SEAs, to collect, report, analyze, and use IDEA section 618 data in a manner that correctly identifies and addresses significant disproportionality in States and LEAs;

(ii) Its proposed approach to universal, general TA,3 which must identify the intended recipients, including the type and number of recipients, that will receive the products and services under this approach;

(iii) Its proposed approach to targeted, specialized TA,4 which must identify—-

2 For purposes of these requirements, “evidence-based practices” (EBPs) means, at a minimum, demonstrating a rationale (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) based on high-quality research findings or positive evaluation that such activity, strategy, or intervention is likely to improve student outcomes or other relevant outcomes.

3 “Universal, general TA” means TA and information provided to independent users through their own initiative, resulting in minimal interaction with TA center staff and including one-time, invited or offered conference presentations by TA center staff. This category of TA also includes information or products, such as newsletters, guidebooks, or research syntheses, downloaded from the TA center's website by independent users. Brief communications by TA center staff with recipients, either by telephone or email, are also considered universal, general TA.

4 “Targeted, specialized TA” means TA services based on needs common to multiple recipients and not extensively individualized. A relationship is established between the TA recipient and one or more TA center staff. This category of TA includes one-time, labor-intensive events, such as facilitating strategic planning or hosting regional or national conferences. It can also include episodic, less labor-intensive events that extend over a period of time, such as

B-12

(A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of recipients, that will receive the products and services under this approach; and

(B) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of potential TA recipients to work with the project, assessing, at a minimum, their current infrastructure, available resources, and ability to build capacity at the local level; and

(iv) Its proposed approach to intensive, sustained TA,5 which must identify—-

(A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of recipients, that will receive the products and services under this approach;

(B) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of SEA personnel to work with the project, including their commitment to the initiative, alignment of the initiative to their needs, current infrastructure, available resources, and ability to build capacity at the SEA level;

(C) Its proposed plan for assisting SEAs to build or enhance training systems related to the use of IDEA section 618 data to correctly identify and address significant disproportionality that include professional development based on adult learning principles and coaching;

(D) Its proposed plan for working with appropriate levels of the education system (e.g., SEAs, regional TA providers, LEAs, schools, and families) to ensure that there is communication between each level and that there are systems in place to support the capacity needs of SEAs, and LEAs through their work with SEAs, to collect, report, analyze, and use IDEA section 618 data to correctly identify and address significant disproportionality; and

(E) Its proposed plan for collaborating and coordinating with Department-funded projects, including those providing data-related support to States (e.g., the IDEA Data Center, the Center for IDEA Fiscal Reporting, and the National Center for Systemic Improvement) and equity-related support to States (e.g., Center on PBIS, and Regional Equity Assistance Centers), where appropriate, in order to align complementary work and jointly develop and implement products and services to meet the purposes of this priority;

(6) Develop products and implement services that maximize efficiency. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe--

(i) How the proposed project will use technology to achieve the intended project outcomes;

(ii) With whom the proposed project will collaborate and the intended outcomes of this collaboration; and

(iii) How the proposed project will use non-project resources to achieve the intended facilitating a series of conference calls on single or multiple topics that are designed around the needs of the recipients.

Facilitating communities of practice can also be considered targeted, specialized TA.

5 “Intensive, sustained TA” means TA services often provided on-site and requiring a stable, ongoing relationship between the TA center staff and the TA recipient. “TA services” are defined as negotiated series of activities designed to reach a valued outcome. This category of TA should result in changes to policy, program, practice, or operations that support increased recipient capacity or improved outcomes at one or more systems levels.

B-13 project outcomes.

(c) In the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the project evaluation,” include an evaluation plan for the project developed in consultation with and implemented by a third-party evaluator.6 The evaluation plan must--

(1) Articulate formative and summative evaluation questions, including important process and outcome evaluation questions. These questions should be related to the project’s proposed logic model required in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of these requirements;

(2) Describe how progress in and fidelity of implementation, as well as project outcomes, will be measured to answer the evaluation questions. Specify the measures and associated instruments or sources for data appropriate to the evaluation questions. Include information regarding reliability and validity of measures where appropriate;

(3) Describe strategies for analyzing data and how data collected as part of this plan will be used to inform and improve service delivery over the course of the project and to refine the proposed logic model and evaluation plan, including subsequent data collection;

(4) Provide a timeline for conducting the evaluation and include staff assignments for completing the plan. The timeline must indicate that the data will be available annually for the APR and at the end of Year 2 for the review process; and

(5) Dedicate sufficient funds in each budget year to cover the costs of developing or refining the evaluation plan in consultation with a third-party evaluator, as well as the costs associated with the implementation of the evaluation plan by the third-party evaluator.

(d) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Adequacy of resources,” how--

(1) The proposed project will encourage applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability, as appropriate;

(2) The proposed key project personnel, consultants, and subcontractors have the qualifications and experience to carry out the proposed activities and achieve the project’s intended outcomes;

(3) The applicant and any key partners have adequate resources to carry out the proposed activities; and

(4) The proposed costs are reasonable in relation to the anticipated results and benefits, and funds will be spent in a way that increases their efficiency and cost-effectiveness, including by reducing waste or achieving better outcomes.

(e) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the

6 A “third-party” evaluator is an independent and impartial program evaluator who is contracted by the grantee to conduct an objective evaluation of the project. This evaluator must not have participated in the development or implementation of any project activities, except for the evaluation activities, or have any financial interest in the outcome of the evaluation.

B-14 management plan,” how--

(1) The proposed management plan will ensure that the project’s intended outcomes will be achieved on time and within budget. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe--

(i) Clearly defined responsibilities for key project personnel, consultants, and subcontractors, as applicable; and

(ii) Timelines and milestones for accomplishing the project tasks;

(2) Key project personnel and any consultants and subcontractors will be allocated and how these allocations are appropriate and adequate to achieve the project’s intended outcomes;

(3) The proposed management plan will ensure that the products and services provided are of high quality, relevant, and useful to recipients; and

(4) The proposed project will benefit from a diversity of perspectives, including those of families, educators, TA providers, researchers, and policy makers, among others, in its development and operation.

(f) Address the following application requirements:

(1) Include, in Appendix A, personnel-loading charts and timelines, as applicable, to illustrate the management plan described in the narrative;

(2) Include, in the budget, attendance at the following:

(i) A one- and one-half day kick-off meeting in Washington, DC, or virtually, after receipt of the award, and an annual planning meeting in Washington, DC, or virtually, with the OSEP project officer and other relevant staff during each subsequent year of the project period.

Note: The project must reallocate unused travel funds no later than the end of the third quarter if the kick-off or planning meetings are conducted virtually.

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;

(ii) A two- and one-half day project directors’ conference in Washington, DC, or virtually, during each year of the project period; and

Note: The project must reallocate unused travel funds no later than the end of the third quarter of each budget period if the conference is conducted virtually.

(iii) Three annual two-day trips to attend Department briefings, Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by OSEP;

(3) Include, in the budget, a line item for an annual set-aside of 5 percent of the grant amount to support emerging needs that are consistent with the proposed project’s intended outcomes, as those needs are identified in consultation with, and approved by, the OSEP

B-15 project officer. With approval from the OSEP project officer, the project must reallocate any remaining funds from this annual set-aside no later than the end of the third quarter of each budget period;

(4) Maintain a high-quality website, with an easy-to-navigate design, that meets government or industry-recognized standards for accessibility; and

(5) Include, in Appendix A, an assurance to assist OSEP with the transfer of pertinent resources and products and to maintain the continuity of services to States during the transition to this new award period and at the end of this award period, as appropriate.

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094

Regulatory Impact Analysis

Under Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) must determine whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by OMB. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094, defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may--

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $200 million or more (adjusted every 3 years by the Administrator of Office of…