Draft_IDEA_Implementation_Study_PWS.pdf

DRAFT Performance Work Statement (May 1, 2017; Tracking Number IESE170053AP)

STATE AND LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INDIVIDUALS WITH

DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT (IDEA)

National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance

Institute of Education Sciences, U. S. Department of Education

I. INTRODUCTION

The National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE) of the U.S. Department of Education’s (the Department) Institute of Education Sciences (IES) requires a contract to plan, collect, and analyze survey data from states, school districts, and schools to evaluate the implementation of academic instruction, intervention, and supports for students with Individualized Education Programs

(IEPs) and other children who are eligible for services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education

Act (IDEA).

A. Legislative Authority

This implementation study is authorized in Section 664(b) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education

Act (20 USC 1400), which assigns to IES responsibility to conduct studies and evaluations of the implementation and impact of programs supported under the law.

B. Background

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-446), enacted by the

United States Congress on December 3, 2004, is the most recent reauthorization of IDEA, federal legislation which is specifically focused on the education of children and youth with disabilities. As of fall 2015, IDEA supported early intervention services and special education and related services for 7.5 million children ages 0 to 21 who had been identified as having a disability or a risk of substantial developmental delay. In Fiscal Year 2016, appropriations for IDEA were $12.9 billion for programs administered by the Department’s Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP).

Section 664(b) of IDEA requires that the Secretary of Education delegate to IES responsibility for conducting an assessment of national activities under the law, henceforth known as the “National

Assessment of IDEA.” The goals of the National Assessment of IDEA, as stated in the law, are threefold:

1. to determine the effectiveness of this title [IDEA] in achieving the purposes of this title;

2. to provide timely information to the President, Congress, the States, local educational agencies, and the public on how to implement this title more effectively; and

3. to provide the President and Congress with information that will be useful in developing legislation to achieve the purposes of this title more effectively.

Section 601(d) of IDEA states the following purposes of the law:

1. (A) to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living; (B) to ensure that the rights of children with disabilities and parents of such children are protected; and (C) to assist States, localities, educational service agencies, and Federal agencies to provide for the education of all children with disabilities;

2. to assist States in the implementation of a statewide, comprehensive, coordinated, multidisciplinary, interagency system of early intervention services for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families;

3. to ensure that educators and parents have the necessary tools to improve educational results for children with disabilities by supporting system improvement activities; coordinated research and personnel preparation; coordinated technical assistance, dissemination, and support; and technology development and media services; and

4. to assess, and ensure the effectiveness of, efforts to educate children with disabilities.

Special education and related services are supported by IDEA Part B, while early intervention services for infants and toddlers (ages 0-2) are supported by IDEA Part C.

Section 664(b) of IDEA lists the following topics for the National Assessment as a whole:

(A) the implementation of programs assisted under this title and the impact of such programs on addressing the developmental needs of, and improving the academic achievement of, children with disabilities to enable the children to reach challenging developmental goals and challenging

State academic content standards based on State academic assessments;

(B) the types of programs and services that have demonstrated the greatest likelihood of helping students reach the challenging State academic content standards and developmental goals;

(C) the implementation of the professional development activities assisted under this title and the impact on instruction, student academic achievement, and teacher qualifications to enhance the ability of special education teachers and regular education teachers to improve results for children with disabilities; and

(D) the effectiveness of schools, local educational agencies, States, other recipients of assistance under this title, and the Secretary in achieving the purposes of this title by--

i. improving the academic achievement of children with disabilities and their performance on regular statewide assessments as compared to nondisabled children, and the performance of children with disabilities on alternate assessments;

ii. improving the participation of children with disabilities in the general education curriculum;

iii. improving the transitions of children with disabilities at natural transition points;

iv. placing and serving children with disabilities, including minority children, in the least restrictive environment appropriate;

v. preventing children with disabilities, especially children with emotional disturbances and specific learning disabilities, from dropping out of school;

vi. addressing the reading and literacy needs of children with disabilities;

vii. reducing the inappropriate over-identification of children, especially minority and limited

English proficient children, as having a disability;

viii. improving the participation of parents of children with disabilities in the education of their children; and

ix. resolving disagreements between education personnel and parents through alternate dispute resolution activities, including mediation.

Given the broad scope of the National Assessment, IES has initiated several distinct evaluation studies

States have the option of using IDEA Part C funds to provide services for children ages 3-5 as well.

since 2006 to fulfill this requirement. These studies have included evaluations of: (1) the inclusion of students with disabilities in school accountability systems ; (2) the implementation of the IDEA Technical

Assistance and Dissemination Program ; (3) the implementation of the IDEA Personnel Development

Program;

and (4) the implementation and impacts of Response to Intervention (RtI) practices for elementary school reading.

Another IDEA National Assessment study for which a report has not yet been released by IES is focusing on the impacts of training schools in multi-tiered systems of support for behavior (MTSS-B).

While these multi-tiered programs are not focused exclusively on students identified for special education, RtI and MTSS-B may qualify as “Coordinated Early Intervening

Services” (CEIS) under IDEA, and can be supported with up to 15 percent of IDEA Part B funding. In some cases, CEIS can be required in order to address the overrepresentation of racial/ethnic minority students in special education. RtI, a range of practices for monitoring student academic and behavioral progress and providing targeted interventions, was added to IDEA in 2004 as a way to inform the identification of Specific Learning Disabilities and implement CEIS. Other ongoing IDEA-related studies sponsored by IES are focusing on youth with disabilities’ experiences in high school, and the implementation (and possibly impact) of interventions for preschool-age children with disabilities.

The broadest study of IDEA implementation to date is the IDEA National Assessment Implementation

Study (IDEA-NAIS), which gathered data in early 2009 from state agencies administering Part B or Part

C grants, as well as from a nationally representative sample of school district special education directors.

Findings from the IDEA-NAIS report, released in 2011, include the following:

State Part C agencies supported the transition of toddlers with disabilities to Part B preschool-age special education programs, but Part C had not expanded to serve children until kindergarten. At age 3, toddlers receiving Part C services transitioned to Part B services (if eligible), typically involving a change in lead agency and often a change in support staff, service settings, and services.

Most school districts (85 percent) did not use IDEA Part B funds to provide Coordinated Early

Intervening Services.

Most school districts report implementing Response to Intervention, use RtI data when determining Specific Learning Disability eligibility, and support RtI with school district general funds.

Since the IDEA-NAIS collection of survey data from state agencies and school districts in early 2009, several developments have occurred that relate to IDEA implementation, including the following:

The Great Recession (December 2007 to June 2009) was associated with many states and school districts reducing funding for public education, notwithstanding the resources made available http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/disabilities_students.asp .

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/disabilities_idea2004.asp.

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/disabilities_personnel.asp.

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/disabilities_rti.asp.

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/disabilities_MTSSB.asp.

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/disabilities_ideatrans.asp.

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/disabilities_preschool.asp.

Bradley, M.C., et al. (2011), IDEA National Assessment Implementation Study (NCEE 2011-4027). Washington, DC, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U. S.

Department of Education) [http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/disabilities_ideaimp.asp].

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/disabilities_students.asp http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/disabilities_idea2004.asp http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/disabilities_personnel.asp http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/disabilities_rti.asp http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/disabilities_MTSSB.asp http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/disabilities_ideatrans.asp http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/disabilities_preschool.asp http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/disabilities_ideaimp.asp through the Recovery Act of 2009. A 2014 study by Leachman and Mai reported that inflation-adjusted per-pupil spending was lower in 2014-15 than in 2007-8 for 30 states, and over 10 percent lower for 14 states. It is not clear how lower levels of funding for public education in have affected the implementation of special education and related services. Nor it is clear how states and school districts are allocating resources to schools to provide for the education of students with disabilities attending those schools.

The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in December 2015 through the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, P.L. 114-95) replaced the No Child Left Behind

Act of 2002, as well as the Department waivers of provisions of that law for certain states implementing reformed school accountability programs. ESSA offers a more flexible set of rules for states to address the needs of disadvantaged elementary and secondary school students, while still requiring the separate reporting of annual outcomes for students with disabilities as well as other key subgroups. ESSA also defines “evidence-based” practices for school improvement as practices supported by statistically findings from well-designed and well-implemented correlational, quasi-experimental, or experimental studies.

OSEP has reformed its system for monitoring state implementation of IDEA Part B and Part C programs to give greater attention to improvement in results for children with disabilities, and has emphasized providing technical assistance on the implementation of “evidence-based practices” for children and youth with disabilities.

Debate has continued on how to measure significant disproportionality in identification for special education by race/ethnicity and how to respond to such disproportionality. OSEP published final regulations in December 2016 for states to measure such disproportionality and determine where to implement CEIS as required by IDEA.

The Supreme Court case Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District has raised questions of the extent to which children with disabilities are placed in private schools at public expense in order to provide those children with a free appropriate public education.

A new study of IDEA implementation needs to take into account the changing context of IDEA implementation, while not duplicating the IES data collection and analysis occurring elsewhere.

C. Key Research Questions

The Department is interested in funding a nationally representative, descriptive implementation study to inform the future actions of Congress, the Department, school district and school administrators, teachers, and other stakeholders interested in the education of students with disabilities. This new study should address, at a minimum, the following research questions:

1. How do state and local agencies identify infants, toddlers, children, and youth for early

M. Leachman and C. Mai, “Most States Still Funding Schools Less Than Before Recession.” Washington, DC:

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, October 16, 2014 [ http://www.cbpp.org/files/10-16-14sfp.pdf ].

http://www2.ed.gov/documents/essa-act-of-1965.pdf.

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/monitor/index.html.

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/osep/rtp.html.

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/speced/2016/12/disproportionality_final_rule.html https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-827_0pm1.pdf http://www.cbpp.org/files/10-16-14sfp.pdf http://www2.ed.gov/documents/essa-act-of-1965.pdf http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/monitor/index.html http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/osep/rtp.html http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/speced/2016/12/disproportionality_final_rule.html https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-827_0pm1.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-827_0pm1.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-827_0pm1.pdf intervention and special education services? How do they prevent or address inappropriate identification for these services?

2. What policies and programs do states and local agencies have in place to support infants, toddlers, children, and youth identified for early intervention or special education services? How have these policies and programs changed over time?

3. What types of supports do schools provide to children and youth with disabilities to support their academic and behavioral learning, both within and outside of regular education classrooms, and how do these supports vary by school characteristics?

4. To what extent do states and local agencies rely on evidence from research on the effectiveness of policies, programs, and supports for infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities?

5. How do state and local agencies allocate resources—including funding and personnel— to support infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities?

D. Specific Design Issues

Discussed below are a number of factors that will affect the evaluation design or successful execution of the study. Other design issues may arise as the evaluation is carried out that will need to be resolved by the study team.

Clarifying Research Questions. The contractor shall address the desirability of adding to, or revising, the list of research questions described above, in order to evaluate the implementation of

IDEA-related academic supports for students with disabilities and address questions that would be of interest and importance to Congress, the Department, school district administrators, school principals, teachers, families of children with disabilities, and other relevant stakeholders.

Emerging Issues Related to IDEA. The contractor shall address, where appropriate, emerging policy relevant issues through the data collection instruments and/or through the design of the study sample. For example, these issues may include school choice for students with disabilities or the supports provided to students with disabilities transitioning to or from the preschool-age program and from high school to college or career.

Avoiding Duplication of Effort. When justifying new data collection and analysis to address the research questions for the study, the contractor shall not propose to gather or construct information that can be obtained satisfactorily from extant data. Note that extant data may be especially helpful for tracking trends over time to answer question (1).

Importance of State, School District, and School-Level Data Collection. To inform the

Department on the decision regarding whether to authorize data collection at particular levels, the contractor shall address the extent to which data collection needs to occur at the state level from

IDEA Part C and IDEA Part B administrators, at the school district level, and at the school level in order to address the research questions for the study. Data will not be collected from or on individual children, youth, or teachers, although a teacher or other school staff member may be designated as a respondent by a school administrator to answer questions for a school as a whole.

Most Knowledgeable Respondent(s). The contractor shall address the identification of the most knowledgeable respondent or respondents at each level (state, school district, or school) in order to complete survey items in order to answer research questions for the study.

Sample Stratification. The contractor shall describe a plan for categorizing districts and schools for the sake of stratification and to obtain sufficiently large samples for subgroups of interest.

Response Rates. The contractor shall propose methods of obtaining survey response rates of at least 90 percent for surveys of state staff, and at least 80 percent for surveys of school district staff or school staff. The contractor should note that, in general, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) does not support the use of respondent incentives for respondents who are answering on behalf of agencies (such as states and school districts) receiving IDEA funds, although incentives are permitted for practitioners with instructional responsibilities.

Sample Sizes and Statistical Precision. The contractor shall plan to conduct a census of state administrators in the 50 states, District of Columbia, and other territories receiving IDEA Part B or IDEA Part C funding. The contractor shall also propose a plan to sample enough school district- and school-level respondents to estimate proportions to within +/- 5.0 percentage points using a 95 percent confidence interval. NCEE assumes that a sample of at least 500 school districts and at least 2,000 schools (nested within those same 500 school districts) will needed in order to meet the precision standard for school districts as a whole, and for school subgroups of at least 400 respondents each. The contractor shall explain its own assumptions about the necessary size of these samples in order to achieve the desired levels of precision, and shall propose statistical methods to enhance precision.

E. Period of Performance

This contract will be for 78 months, inclusive of a base and two option periods. The base and option periods are as follows:

Months from Award Base Period Option Period I Option Period II

1-11

Months 1-18

12-18

Months 12-42

19-35

36-42

Months 36-78 43-78

The base contract (months 1-18 after award) includes the development of data collection plans for the first optional period of data collection and report preparation. Option Period I is for 31 months (months 12 to

42 after award, months 12 to 18 overlapping with the base period) and includes data collection during the first half of 2019 and completion of an IES-approved study report and restricted-use data file no later than early 2021. Option Period II is for 43 months (months 36 to 78 after award, months 36 to 42 overlapping with Option Period I) and includes data collection during the first half of 2022 as well as preparation of an

IES-approved study report and restricted-use data file no later than early 2024. Within Option Periods I and II, separate optional tasks would support data collection at the state level (tasks 6 and 16), school district level (tasks 7 and 17), and school level (tasks 8 and 18). The Department will decide which data collection and other tasks are being exercised for each option period no later than 12 months after contract

Incentives of approximately $20 per respondent may be permitted for school-level respondents asked to complete certain survey items on behalf of their school.

award for Option Period I, and no later than 36 months after contract award for Option Period II.

II. SCOPE OF WORK

This section specifies the tasks and subtasks that the contractor shall perform.

A. Base Phase – Design First Round of Data Collection (Months 1-18 after Award)

Task 1—Opening Meeting with the Department (Cost Reimbursement)

The contractor’s project director and up to two other project staff shall meet with the Contracting

Officer’s Representative (COR) and other appropriate Department staff within one month after the effective date of the contract award to discuss details regarding the tasks outlined in the proposal, study design, scheduling activities, and other issues related to the contract. This meeting shall be at the

Department’s offices in Washington, DC. The contractor shall provide an agenda for the meeting to the

COR within one week after the effective date of the contract, and the COR will provide comments within one week after receiving the contractor’s meeting agenda. The contractor shall revise the agenda before the meeting and come prepared to identify any areas of concern and to suggest ways of responding to these concerns. Within two weeks following the meeting, the contractor shall prepare a memo summarizing the key issues and concerns raised at the meeting, and how each will be addressed in the study.

Deliverables: (1.1) Opening meeting agenda

(1.2) Opening meeting summary

Task 2—Technical Working Group (TWG) for the Design Phase (Cost Reimbursement)

The role of the TWG will be to advise the contractor and the Department on the conduct of the study including, but not limited to: study design, instrumentation, data collection and analysis, and draft study reports. The TWG shall be comprised of at least eight, and up to ten individuals, and should include experts in IDEA policy, program administration, and implementation as well as experts in survey design and evaluation methodology. Particular consideration shall be given to TWG candidates having collective content knowledge covering the topic areas planned for the evaluation, and having collective experience as administrators and practitioners at the state, school district, and school levels. The contractor shall submit a list of proposed TWG members no later than two months after award. When preparing the list, the contractor shall evaluate the potential for conflicts of interest by assessing whether each potential

TWG nominee has a bias or financial interest in the outcome of the study. After the COR approves the proposed TWG members, the contractor shall contact each proposed member and, within four weeks of

COR approval, submit letters of commitment as well as documentation of consulting rates for the proposed panelists to the COR and Contract Specialist (CS) for approval by the Contracting Officer (CO) no later than three months after award.

The contractor shall convene one meeting of the TWG in the base contract. The meeting shall be held no later than six months after the contract award and shall focus on research questions for the evaluation, and plans to collect and analyze data to answer those research questions. This meeting shall inform the

Department on the decision whether to collect new data for the study and from what level or levels of respondents. Specifically, the purpose of the TWG meeting is to obtain feedback from the TWG members on the contractor’s plans for study design, instrumentation, and data collection and analysis, including what constructs they plan to assess to address the policy relevant research questions, and whether there are existing measures available to address those constructs. No later than five months after contract award, shall the contractor submit to the COR draft materials for the meeting, including an agenda, presentation materials, and other materials for the panel’s review. The COR will review and comment within one week. Final materials, due six months after contract award, shall be fully responsive to COR comments on the draft materials. After COR approval, and no later than one week before the meeting, the contractor shall send the approved agenda (but not the presentation materials) to the panel members.

After the meeting, the contractor shall submit a written summary of the meeting to the COR within two weeks, detailing suggestions and recommendations along with the contractor’s proposed actions.

Proposed actions cannot go forward unless approved by the COR. The meeting site shall be arranged to minimize travel of Federal government staff members, with preference given to meeting in U. S.

Department of Education facilities in Washington, DC. The contractor shall pay the travel, per diem, and honorarium expenses of the TWG members. For planning purposes, the contractor shall assume travel to the meeting by eight TWG members and four contractor staff members.

The contractor shall not make any significant changes in the study based solely upon the recommendation of TWG members without the written approval of the COR. The contractor may also use the TWG members to review study plans and draft reports, as appropriate, when group meetings are not required.

Deliverables: (2.1) List of proposed TWG members

(2.2) Letters of commitment and consulting rates

(2.3) Draft materials for first TWG meeting

(2.4) Final materials for first TWG meeting

(2.5) Summary of first TWG meeting

Task 3 – Issue Brief on Choice for Students with Disabilities (Cost Reimbursement)

The contractor shall prepare a short issue brief of approximately 15 pages which provides descriptive information on the prevalence of special education students and the availability of relevant resources in choice vs. traditional schools. The contractor shall use extant data from appropriate and large-scale source(s) to provide this information. The contractor shall ensure that the issue brief is written and organized to be accessible to the field, including policy makers and practitioners, rather than academic researchers.

The contractor shall send the COR a memo detailing the proposed analyses, extant data sources, policy relevant motivation, and table shells no later than three months after contract award. The COR will provide comments on this memo within two weeks. The contractor shall submit the draft issue brief within 8 months after contract award. The COR will review and provide comments within two weeks.

The contractor shall revise the issue brief based on the COR’s comments and submit a revised issue brief ready for peer review within ten months after contract award. The Department will submit for internal peer review. Internal peer review is appropriate for this type of brief because it will only contain simple cross-tabs and descriptive statistics. Within approximately three weeks, the Department will provide comments to the contractor from the IES internal peer review. The contractor shall make final revisions based on IES peer review comments and submit a revised final brief within four weeks. The contractor shall revise the brief until all peer review comments are addressed and the brief clears peer review

(current experience is two rounds of review comments). The contractor shall provide a web-ready version of the brief to the COR within two weeks after the brief is cleared by peer review.

Deliverables: (3.1) Issue brief memo

(3.2) Draft issue brief

(3.3) Revised issue brief

(3.4) Revised final issue brief

(3.5) Print and web-ready issue brief

Task 4– Develop Data Collection Forms and Prepare OMB Package for First Round of Data

Collection (Cost Reimbursement)

Sub-Task 4.1 Develop Data Collection Forms

The contractor shall prepare data collection instruments consisting of questionnaires to be completed by state-level, school district-level, and school-level administrators. The contractor shall design data collection forms to address the study’s key research questions. In developing the forms, the contractor shall make use of or refine existing instruments to the extent possible and applicable. Also, the contractor may make use of questions from existing instruments to understand trends over time.

The contractor shall pilot test each of the revised draft data collection instruments’ questions with no more than nine respondents per instrument in no fewer than five states, five school districts, and five schools to ensure that the questions can be answered in a reasonable amount of time, that the directions are easily followed, and that the contractor’s procedures and systems for administering the instruments are effective. The contractor shall ensure that instruments are revised as needed based on pilot test results.

The contractor shall coordinate its own Institutional Review Board (IRB) review of plans for data collection with any IRB review required by school districts for data collection from school district officials or schools. Specifically the contractor is responsible for ensuring that all aspects of data collection have been approved by the relevant IRBs, including its own IRB. The contractor shall provide documentation of such approval, together with final data collection forms revised on the basis of pilot testing and OMB review and in consultation with the COR, by 18 months after contract award.

Sub-Task 4.2 Prepare OMB Package

Informed by the discussions at the first TWG meeting, the contractor shall prepare all relevant forms and justification for an Information Collection Request (ICR) for public comment and review by the U. S.

Office of Management and Budget. This package shall include data collection instruments developed under Sub-Task 4.1 for all levels of data collection being considered for the study (state, school district, and school levels) as well as the justification for the ICR and description of statistical methods required by OMB.

The contractor shall prepare all relevant forms and justification for an ICR that describes the study design and includes the necessary forms required for OMB approval. The contractor shall ensure that the clearance package justifies the new data collection and comprehensively responds to each required item in the OMB instructions. In addition, the contractor shall ensure that the clearance package includes: (1) the study mandate and objectives, (2) the research questions, (3) the sources of extant and new data to be used, (4) description of and justification for incentives, (5) description of sampling procedures, (6) plans for analyzing the relevant data to answer each corresponding research question, and (7) limitations of the study and its potential use for policy decisions.

The contractor shall submit a draft data collection package and draft data collection instruments to the

COR no later than ten months after contract award. The COR will provide comments within two weeks, and the contractor shall submit a revised package and revised data collection instruments to the COR no later than 12 months after contract award. The COR will submit the accepted package for clearance.

Based on comments from internal and external clearance (after the first 60 day clearance process) the contractor shall make all needed revisions and submit a revised OMB ICR package and data collection instruments. The Department will then submit the accepted revised clearance package to OMB for the final 60 days.

The contractor shall submit the OMB forms while being mindful that clearance requires a minimum of

120 days and keeping in mind how this corresponds with the agreed schedule of deliverables. Any responses to questions and revisions to the instruments and forms will be submitted to OMB through the

Department. The COR will keep the contractor informed of any issues raised by the Department or OMB and will seek assistance in preparing responses.

Following the receipt of any comments from OMB on the data collection request, the contractor shall assist the Department by proposing responses and revisions to the ICR package to address OMB concerns about the planned data collection. The contractor shall submit revised ICR materials to the COR within two weeks of receiving OMB comments. For planning purposes, the contractor shall assume that OMB comments are received 17 months after contract award, and that OMB approval for the first round of data collection to begin is obtained by 18 months after contract award.

Deliverables: (5.1) Draft OMB ICR package for first round of data collection including draft data collection instruments

(5.2) Revised OMB ICR package for first round of data collection including revised data collection instruments

(5.3) Final OMB ICR package for first round of data collection including final data collection instruments with documentation of IRB approvals

Task 5 – Monthly Reports for Design Phase (Cost Reimbursement)

In addition to the deliverables that are required for each task described above, the contractor shall submit one copy of the following performance reports each month to the CO and one copy to the COR, simultaneously with the monthly invoice. The base phase reporting includes performance reports for all contract activities in months 1 through 18.

Monthly Progress Report/Exception Reports. The contractor shall prepare monthly progress reports due at the same time as the monthly invoice. The reports shall summarize the major activities and accomplishments for the reporting period. In addition, they shall provide information for each project task regarding significant findings and events, problems encountered, and staff use. The reports shall also specify the extent to which the project is on schedule, briefly describe the activities planned for the next month, identify and discuss significant deviations from the substantive and time factors in the management plan, and identify and discuss any decisions which may be needed from the Department. If there are no exceptions, the reports shall state that there are no exceptions. If there are exceptions to the management plan, the contractor shall describe the plan for resolving the problems.

Monthly Labor/Expenditure Reports. The contractor shall prepare monthly expenditure reports due at the same time as the monthly invoice. These reports, prepared and signed by the project director, shall summarize the actual personnel assignments for the month just completed, showing for each staff member the hours charged by task. The report shall project similar assignment information for the upcoming month. The reports shall also exhibit expenditures, segregating project costs by individual and by task, and specifying for all travel the locations, duration, and personnel for each trip.

List of Staff Designated as Requiring Security Screening. The contractor shall provide a complete and up-to-date list each month of any staff members working on the study who are in need of security screening by the Department, or who have already been screened for this purpose. This information shall include a list of all staff members assigned to the project, their personnel position as it relates to the

Department’s Contractor Employee Personnel Security Screening, the date each staff member was added to the contract, and the date the paperwork for the security screening was completed.

Deliverables: Monthly progress, labor/expenditure, and security screening reports for months 1-18 after award

B. Option Period I – First Round of Data Collection and Reporting (Months 12-42 after

Award)

Task 6— Issue Brief (Cost Reimbursement)

The contractor shall conduct extant data analyses and prepare a short issue brief of approximately 15 pages which provides descriptive information on a topic related to IDEA. The contractor shall use relevant existing data (e.g., a Department restricted-use dataset) to provide this information.

The contractor shall propose the topic of the analyses based on policy interest and developments in the field as well as the appropriate dataset(s) to use to address the topic of the analyses. Once the COR has approved the topic and the appropriate dataset(s), the contractor will have two months to conduct the analyses and prepare an issue brief addressing the topic. The brief shall be written so that it is accessible to policymakers and present results using tables and/or figures such that it could be submitted for the IES technical review process.

The contractor shall submit the draft issue brief two months after the topic and dataset(s) are approved by the COR, within approximately 18 months after contract award. The COR will review and provide comments within two weeks. The contractor shall revise the issue brief based on the COR’s comments and submit a revised issue brief ready for peer review within 20 months after contract award. The

Department will submit for internal peer review. Internal peer review is appropriate for this type of brief because it will only contain simple cross-tabs and descriptive statistics. Within approximately three weeks, the Department will provide comments to the contractor from the IES internal peer review. The contractor shall make final revisions based on IES peer review comments and submit a revised final brief within four weeks. The contractor shall revise the brief until all peer review comments are addressed and the brief clears peer review (current experience is two rounds of review comments).

Deliverables: (6.1) Draft issue brief

(6.2) Revised issue brief

(6.3) Revised final issue brief

Task 7—Literature Review (Cost Reimbursement)

The contractor shall prepare a literature review of approximately 10-15 pages on a topic related to IDEA.

The topic of the literature review shall be determined by the COR, based on policy interest. The review will provide an overview of the literature on a specific topic, using a scan of the research on a focused area.

Once the topic is determined by the COR, the contractor will have two months to prepare a literature review addressing the topic. The contractor shall submit the draft literature review two months after the topic is determined by the COR, within approximately 24 months after contract award. The COR will review and provide comments within two weeks. The contractor shall revise the literature review based on the COR’s comments and submit a revised literature review within 25 months after contract award.

Deliverables: (7.1) Draft literature review

(7.2) Revised literature review

Task 8—Advisory Meeting (Cost Reimbursement)

The purpose of this advisory meeting is to advise ED on emerging issues relevant to IDEA. The advisory panel shall be composed of up to 8 individuals with relevant expertise in IDEA or related, relevant topics.

The contractor shall provide a list of proposed advisory panel members to ED for approval, within 32 weeks after contract award. After the COR approves the proposed advisory panel members, the contractor shall contact each proposed member, and within four weeks of COR approval, submit letters of commitment as well as documentation of consulting rates for the proposed advisory panel members to the

COR and CS for approval by the CO no later than 34 months after award.

No later than 36 months after contract award, shall the contractor submit to the COR draft materials for the meeting, including an agenda, presentation materials, and other materials for the panel’s review. The

COR will review and comment within one week. Final materials, due 37 months after contract award, shall be fully responsive to COR comments on the draft materials. After COR approval, and no later than one week before the meeting, the contractor shall send the approved agenda (but not the presentation materials) to the panel members.

After the meeting, the contractor shall submit a written summary of the meeting to the COR within two weeks, detailing suggestions and recommendations. Proposed actions cannot go forward unless approved by the COR. The meeting site shall be arranged to minimize travel of Federal government staff members, with preference given to meeting in U. S. Department of Education facilities in Washington, DC. The contractor shall pay the travel, per diem, and honorarium expenses of the TWG members. For planning purposes, the contractor shall assume travel to the meeting by eight advisory panel members and four contractor staff members.

Deliverables: (8.1) List of proposed advisory panel members

(8.2) Letters of commitment and consulting rates

(8.3) Draft meeting materials

(8.4) Final meeting materials

(8.5) Summary of advisory panel meeting

Task 9— First Round of Data Collection: States (Cost Reimbursement)

The contractor shall use the state data collection instruments approved by OMB to collect data on policies and practices as reported by state special education administrators and any other relevant state-level respondents. The contractor shall utilize appropriate techniques to obtain response rates of at least 90 percent from a census of state administrators. Progress on all data collection activities shall be documented and sent to the COR on a weekly basis when data collection is ongoing.

To ensure that data collected are of high quality, the contractor shall quickly identify patterns of inaccuracies and anomalies in the data (such as out-of-range variables, missing data, and unusual distributions of scores), such that immediate corrective action can be initiated. All such problems and subsequent corrections must be carefully documented and compiled into a technical report that shall be included with the final archived data set.

Deliverables: Weekly progress reports on status of first round of state-level data collection

Task 10— First Round of Data Collection: School Districts (Cost Reimbursement)

The contractor shall use the school district data collection instruments approved by OMB to collect data on policies and practices as reported by school district special education administrators and any other relevant school district-level respondents. The contractor shall utilize appropriate techniques to obtain response rates of at least 80 percent from a nationally representative sample of school districts. Progress on all data collection activities shall be documented and sent to the COR on a weekly basis when data collection is ongoing.

distributions of scores), such that immediate corrective action can be initiated. All such problems and subsequent corrections must be carefully documented and compiled into a technical report that shall be

Deliverables: Weekly progress reports on status of first round of school district-level data

Task 11— First Round of Data Collection: Schools (Cost Reimbursement)

The contractor shall use the school data collection instruments approved by OMB, and letters of support for the study from the Department provided through the COR, to collect data on policies and practices as reported by school principals and any other relevant school-level respondents. The contractor shall utilize appropriate techniques to obtain response rates of at least 80 percent from a nationally representative sample of schools. Progress on all data collection activities shall be documented and sent to the COR on a weekly basis when data collection is ongoing.

distributions of scores), such that immediate corrective action can be initiated. All such problems and subsequent corrections must be carefully documented and compiled into a technical report that shall be

Deliverables: Weekly progress reports on status of first round of school-level data

Task 12—Convene TWG to Discuss Findings for Report #1 (Cost Reimbursement)

The contractor shall convene the second meeting of the TWG as part of Option Period I. This meeting, to be held within 28 months after contract award, will be to discuss preliminary findings from the first round of data collection. The contractor, in conjunction with the Department, shall decide upon the timing of the meeting.

By 26 months after contract award for the second TWG meeting, the contractor shall submit to the COR draft materials for the meeting, including an agenda, presentation materials, and other materials for the panel’s review. The COR will review and comment within one week. Final materials, due one month after the due date for the draft materials, shall be fully responsive to COR comments. After COR approval, and no later than one week before the meeting, the contractor shall send the approved agenda

(but not the presentation materials) to the panel members.

After the TWG meeting, the contractor shall submit a written summary of the meeting to the COR within two weeks, detailing suggestions and recommendations along with the contractor’s proposed actions.

Proposed actions cannot go forward unless approved by the COR. The meeting site shall be arranged to minimize travel of Federal government staff members, with preference given to meeting in U. S.

Department of Education facilities in Washington, DC. The contractor shall pay the travel, per diem, and honorarium expenses of the TWG members. For planning purposes, the contractor shall assume travel to the meeting by eight TWG members and four contractor staff members.

The contractor shall not make any significant changes in the study based solely upon the recommendation of TWG members without the written approval of the COR. The contractor also shall use the TWG members to review study plans and reports, as appropriate, when group meetings are not required.

Deliverables: (12.1) Draft materials for second TWG meeting

(12.2) Final materials for second TWG meeting

(12.3) Summary of second TWG meeting

Task 13—Analysis, Report Preparation, and Briefings for Report #1 (Cost Reimbursement)

The contractor shall conduct data analyses and prepare a report that clearly addresses the key research questions for the study using data from the first round of data collection. The contractor shall ensure that the study report is consistent with IES peer review standards.

Report #1 Analysis Plan. The contractor shall prepare a detailed analysis plan that documents the analyses to be included in the first study report and describes the structure of that report before data collection is complete. The contractor shall submit the draft report analysis plan within 17 months after contract award. The COR will review and provide comments within two weeks. The contractor shall revise the report analysis plan based on the COR’s comments and submit a revised analysis plan within 18 months after contract award.

Preliminary Findings for Report #1. The contractor shall send IES a memo and tables on the preliminary study findings from the first round of data collection no later than 25 months after contract award. In this memo, the contractor shall send IES a detailed outline of the full report. The findings chapter(s) should include, for each section, the headline(s) or conclusion(s) for that section, followed by the tables (with data) that are used to support the headline(s)/conclusion(s). The findings should be motivated by relevant legislation, literature, and/or policy. The COR will provide comments on this memo within two weeks, and the contractor will prepare a revised memo and tables no later than 26 months after contract award.

Between 26 and 27 months after contract award, prior to the TWG meeting planned to occur by Month 28 under Task 9, the contractor shall conduct a briefing for the IES leadership at NCEE’s offices in

Washington, DC, on the preliminary study findings from the first round of data collection, and shall use comments from this briefing to revise the TWG materials being planned for use at the TWG meeting. If the IES leadership is not satisfied with the contractor’s briefing on preliminary findings, the date of the second TWG meeting may need to be postponed beyond 28 months after contract award. For planning purposes, the contractor shall assume travel for two report authors participating in this briefing.

Report #1 Preparation. Following the second TWG meeting, the contractor shall prepared a first draft report on the study findings no later than 30 months after contract award, including an executive summary, body of the report, and appendices. The contractor shall ensure that the study report is written and organized to be accessible to policy makers and research-savvy practitioners rather than academic researchers. The contractor shall include a stand-alone executive summary of the study’s findings, no more than 20 pages in length, suitable for nontechnical readers. The body of the report, excluding the executive summary and any appendices, shall not exceed 100 pages. The COR will review and provide comments within two weeks, and the contractor shall respond to the issues raised by the COR within two weeks of receiving those comments.