oppED-GRANTS-071318-001-cfda84.326-cid84-326M2018-1-instructions.pdf

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION & REHABILITATIVE SERVICES

OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20202

FISCAL YEAR 2018

APPLICATION FOR NEW GRANTS UNDER THE

INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT (IDEA)

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND DISSEMINATION TO

IMPROVE SERVICES AND RESULTS FOR CHILDREN WITH

DISABILITIES

(CFDA 84.326)

APPLICATIONS FOR NEW AWARDS;

MODEL DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS TO IMPROVE

ACADEMIC OUTCOMES OF STUDENTS WITH

INTELLECTUAL DISABILITIES IN ELEMENTARY AND

MIDDLE SCHOOL

(CFDA 84.326M)

DATED MATERIAL: OPEN IMMEDIATELY

CLOSING DATE: AUGUST 13, 2018

FORM APPROVED —OMB NO. 1820-0028, EXP. DATE: 09/30/2019

http://www.ed.gov/

GRANT APPLICATION PACKAGE CFDA 84.326M

CONTENTS

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

Notice Inviting Applications .................................................................................................. B1

Federal Register Notice ...................................................................................................... B2

Grants.gov Submission Procedures and Tips for Applicants ............................................. B32

Priority Description and Selection Criteria........................................................................... C1

Model Demonstration Projects to Improve Academic Outcomes of Students with

Intellectual Disabilities in Elementary and Middle School, (CFDA 84.326M) ...................... C2

Selection Criteria and Format for the Applications for New Awards— Model

Demonstration Projects to Improve Academic Outcomes of Students with Intellectual

Disabilities in Elementary and Middle School, (CFDA 84.326M) Competition ................... C22

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

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

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)

Part II: Budget Information (Form 524)

Part III: Application Narrative

Part IV: Evidence of Effectiveness

Part V: Assurances and Certifications

Assurances—Non-Construction Programs

Certification Regarding Lobbying

Disclosure of Lobbying Activities

Part VI: Additional Information

DUNS Number Instructions

Grant Application Receipt Acknowledgement

Grant and Contract Funding Information

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. The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average 45 hours and 40 minutes per response, including the time to review instructions, search existing data resources, gather the data needed, and complete and review the information collection. If you have any comments concerning the accuracy of the time estimate(s) or suggestions for improving this form, please write to:

U.S. Department of Education

Washington, DC 20202-4651

If you have comments or concerns regarding the status of your individual submission of this form, write directly to:

Office of Special Education Programs

U.S. Department of Education

400 Maryland Ave. SW, PCP 5159

Washington, DC 20202-2600

APPLICANT LETTER

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 the Technical Assistance and

Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities (CFDA 84.326) program—Applications for New Awards; Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve

Services and Results for Children with Disabilities—Model Demonstration Projects to Improve

Academic Outcomes of Students with Intellectual Disabilities in Elementary and Middle School, (CFDA No. 84.326M).

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-32, 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 .PDF files only in a read only, flattened format.

Please be aware that applications submitted to Grants.gov for the Department of Education will now be posted using Adobe forms. 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 D-1 of this application package, Application Transmittal Instructions and Requirements for file:///C:/Users/Debra.Sturdivant/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/8WBIWOAI/www.Grants.gov http://www.sam.gov/

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

• MAXIMUM AWARD AMOUNT.

The competitions included in this package have maximum award amounts. 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 competitions included in this package limit the Part III Application Narrative to a recommended number of double-spaced pages. This recommended page limitation 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-3 and 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/programs/oseptad/applicant.html.

• ABSOLUTE PRIORITIES AND COMPETITIVE PREFERENCE PRIORITY.

This competition includes one absolute priority and one competitive preference priority. The

Department will use peer reviewers to review and score applications on the selection criteria.

• Prior to the peer review, Department staff will determine if an application has met the absolute priority and is eligible for peer review. An application that has not met the absolute https://www2.ed.gov/programs/oseptad/applicant.html priority will not be considered for funding and may not be reviewed. Department staff will assign competitive preference priority points to applications meeting the competitive preference priority, up to a total of two points.

• EVIDENCE OF EFFECTIVENESS FORM.

Applicants must complete the Evidence of Effectiveness Form for the proposed project. You must include this form in your application when submitting in Grants.gov. It is available on the Grants.gov website.

To complete the form, select the level of evidence (Promising Evidence, Moderate Evidence, or Strong Evidence) for which you are applying. Note that your project must meet the evidence requirements outlined in the NIA. Refer to the NIA for definitions of Moderate Evidence and Promising Evidence. You may submit up to two studies to meet the evidence requirements.

Next, complete the Citation and Relevance chart for each of the studies you are submitting to meet the evidence standards. For each study, you must provide the citation, the relevant findings, and the overlap of population and settings.

For additional guidance and examples, see Page 2 of the form.

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

• RESPONSE TO GPRA.

As required by the Government Performance and Results Modernization Act (GPRA) of 2010 the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) has developed a strategic plan for measuring GPRA performance. The program included in this announcement is authorized under Part D - National Activities to Improve Education of Children with Disabilities of the

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Projects funded under this competition are required to submit data on GPRA performance measures as directed by OSEP. See Performance

Measures included in the Priority Description section of this application package. Applicants are encouraged to consider this information when preparing their applications.

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

• 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.

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.

Directory

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

NOTICE INVITING APPLICATIONS

B-2

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE

4000-01-U

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Applications for New Awards; Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve

Services and Results for Children with Disabilities Program—Model Demonstration

Projects to Improve Academic Outcomes of Students with Intellectual Disabilities in

Elementary and Middle School

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

Education.

ACTION: Notice.

Overview Information:

Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for Children with

Disabilities Program—Model Demonstration Projects to Improve Academic Outcomes of

Students with Intellectual Disabilities in Elementary and Middle School

Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2018.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.326M.

Dates:

Applications Available: July 13, 2018.

Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: August 13, 2018.

Addresses:

For the addresses for obtaining and submitting an application, please refer to our Common

Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal Register on February 12, 2018 (83 FR 6003) and available at www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-02-12/pdf/2018-02558.pdf.

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

B-3

For Further Information Contact:

Kristen Rhoads

U.S. Department of Education

400 Maryland Avenue, SW

Room 5142, Potomac Center Plaza

Washington, DC 20202-5076.

Telephone: (202) 245-6715.

If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the

Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT

I. Funding Opportunity Description

Purpose of Program:

The purpose of the Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for

Children with Disabilities program is to promote academic achievement and to improve results for children with disabilities by providing technical assistance (TA), supporting model demonstration projects, disseminating useful information, and implementing activities that are supported by scientifically based research.

Priorities:

This notice includes one absolute priority. In accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(v), the absolute priority, and the competitive preference priority within this absolute priority, are from allowable activities specified in the statute or otherwise authorized in the statute (see sections

663 and 681(d) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA); 20 U.S.C. 1463, 1481(d)).

Absolute Priority:

For FY 2018 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, this priority is an absolute priority. Under 34 CFR

75.105(c)(3), we consider only applications that meet this priority.

B-4

This priority is:

Model Demonstration Projects to Improve Academic Outcomes of Students with

Intellectual Disabilities in Elementary and Middle School

Background:

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

Model demonstrations to improve early intervention, educational, or transitional results for students with disabilities have been authorized under the Individuals with Disabilities Education

Act (IDEA) since the law’s inception. For the purposes of this priority, a model is a set of existing evidence-based (as defined in this notice) interventions and implementation strategies

(i.e., core model components) that research suggests will improve outcomes for children, teachers, instructional personnel, school or district leaders, or systems, when implemented with fidelity. Model demonstrations involve investigating the degree to which a given model can be implemented and sustained in typical settings, by staff employed in those settings, while achieving outcomes similar to those attained under research conditions.

The purpose of this priority is to fund three cooperative agreements to establish and operate model demonstration projects that will assess how models can:

(a) Improve outcomes in English Language Arts, including literacy, and other academic subjects for students with intellectual disabilities1 in elementary or middle schools;

(b) Align instruction to grade-level, State-adopted content standards and provide access to the general education curriculum;

(c) Provide students with intellectual disabilities the opportunity to meet challenging objectives and receive an individualized education program (IEP) that is both meaningful and appropriately ambitious in light of each student’s circumstances; and

For this competition, having an IEP with intellectual disability as a primary or secondary disability category is not required to be a student with an intellectual disability.

B-5

(d) Be implemented and sustained by educators in both general and special education settings.

On March 22, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court (the Court) issued a unanimous opinion in Endrew

F. v. Douglas County School District Re-1, 137 S. Ct. 988 (2017). The Court interpreted the scope of the free appropriate public education (FAPE) requirements in IDEA and overturned the

Tenth Circuit’s decision that Endrew, a child with autism, was entitled to an educational benefit that was guaranteed to provide only “merely more than de minimis” progress. The Court determined that, “[t]o meet its substantive obligation under the IDEA, a school must offer an IEP reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.” The Court additionally emphasized the requirement that “every child should have the chance to meet challenging objectives.” This decision underlines the importance of exploring models focused on improving academic outcomes for students with intellectual disabilities, a population frequently subject to low expectations and held to low standards.

A growing research base indicates that students with intellectual disabilities demonstrate gains in reading at the same rate as their peers despite demonstrating significantly lower levels of overall performance (Schulte, Stevens, Elliott, Tindal, & Nese, 2016). Promising strategies, practices (e.g., embedded trial instruction with time delay, peer tutoring, direct instruction, systematic prompting with feedback, and more), and curricula exist that support academic instruction and improve student outcomes in literacy and other academic content areas

(Browder, Mims, Spooner, & Ahlgrim-Delzell, & Lee, 2008; Butler, Miller, Lee, & Pierce, 2001;

Jimenez, Browder, Spooner, & DiBiase, 2012; Hudson, Browder, & Wood, 2013; Lemons, Allor, Al Otaiba, & LeJune, 2016).

Instruction of students with intellectual disabilities, however, has not typically provided them with the chance to meet challenging objectives. Instead of teaching grade-level content that meets

State standards, instruction for students with intellectual disabilities has been typically limited to non-academic functional life skills. For example, literacy instruction for students with intellectual disabilities has historically focused on only one component of literacy development--recognition of sight words considered important for daily living (Browder, Wakeman, Spooner, Ahlgrim-

Delzell, & Algozzine, 2006).

Further, teachers have reported difficulties in aligning instruction to grade-level academic content standards for students with intellectual disabilities (Jimenez & Henderson, 2011). This is due, in part, to the reality that, when compared to their peers, these students may have

B-6 greatly divergent levels of functional and academic skill attainment, may require significant modifications and individualization of the curriculum, need differing modes of access to content and instruction, or need additional time for learning (Allor, Mathes, Roberts, Cheatham, &

Champlin, 2010).

To overcome this history and these challenges, to ensure that students with intellectual disabilities in elementary and middle schools receive appropriate access to challenging objectives and grade-level academic standards, and to ensure that these students progress in the general education curriculum, with accompanying services and supports as required under

IDEA, educators must have access to evidence-based practices on instruction in academic subjects, particularly English Language Arts, including literacy. This competition, therefore, aims to fund model demonstration projects that will demonstrate and refine methods of professional development that result in educators successfully implementing appropriate, evidence-based practices in English Language Arts, including literacy, and other academic subjects. The model demonstration projects proposed under this priority must make use of evidence-based practices.

This priority is consistent with two priorities from the Supplemental Priorities and Definitions for

Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal Register on March 2, 2018 (83 FR

9096) (Supplemental Priorities): Priority 5--Meeting the Unique Needs of Students and Children

With Disabilities and/or Those With Unique Gifts and Talents; and Supplemental Priority 8--

Promoting Effective Instruction in Classrooms and Schools. In particular, priority 5 from the

Supplemental Priorities emphasizes meeting the unique needs of students with disabilities, including their academic needs, through offering the opportunity to meet challenging objectives and receive an educational program that is both meaningful and appropriately ambitious in light of each student’s circumstances. Priority 8 from the Supplemental Priorities emphasizes promoting innovative strategies to increase the number of students who have access to effective educators and principals or other school leaders.

Priority:

(a) Improve outcomes in English Language Arts, including literacy, and other academic subjects for students with intellectual disabilities in elementary or middle schools;

(b) Align instruction to grade-level, State-adopted content standards and provide access to the general education curriculum;

B-7

(c) Provide students with intellectual disabilities the opportunity to meet challenging objectives and receive an IEP that is both meaningful and appropriately ambitious in light of each student’s circumstances; and

(d) Be implemented and sustained by educators in both general and special education settings.

Applicants must propose models that meet the following requirements:

(a) The model’s core intervention components must include:

(1) A framework that includes, at a minimum, assessment, incorporating approaches for measuring student progress, and the application of evidence-based core instructional practices;

(2) Evidence-based instructional practices for improving outcomes in English Language Arts, including literacy, or other academic subjects, as appropriate, for students with intellectual disabilities in elementary or middle school that are designed to--

(i) Help students meet challenging objectives; and

(ii) Support comprehensive, standards-aligned instruction in grade-level content.

(3) Valid and reliable measures of student-level, instructor-level, and system-level outcomes, using standardized measures when applicable;

(4) Procedures to refine the model based on the ongoing assessment of student-level, instructor-level, and system-level performance; and

(5) Measures of the model’s social validity, i.e., measures of educators’, parents’, and students’2 satisfaction with the model components, processes, and outcomes.

Applicants must ensure the confidentiality of individual student data, consistent with the Confidentiality of Information regulations under both Part B and Part C of IDEA, which incorporate requirements and exceptions under section 444 of the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g), commonly known as the “Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act” (FERPA), but also include several provisions that are specifically related to children with disabilities receiving services under IDEA and provide protections beyond the FERPA regulations. Therefore, examining the IDEA requirements first is the most effective and efficient way to meet the requirements of both IDEA and FERPA for children with disabilities. Applicants should also be aware of State laws or regulations concerning the confidentiality of

B-8

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

(1) Criteria and strategies for selecting3 and recruiting sites, including approaches to introducing the model to, and promoting the model among, site participants,4 with consideration given to the following criteria:

(i) Each project must include at least three elementary or at least three middle schools; and

(ii) In each of the schools, all of the students participating in the model demonstration project must have an intellectual disability, as defined in this notice. Across all implementation sites, the project must serve no fewer than 50 students with intellectual disabilities;

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

Note: When designing the project, applicants should consider project period length as well as relevant research indicating that learning may take longer for students with intellectual disabilities (Allor et al., 2010) and provide strong justification for timing of implementation for sites two and three;

(3) A professional development component that includes an evidence-based coaching strategy, to enable site-based staff to implement the interventions with fidelity; and

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

individual records. See https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/ptac/pdf/idea-ferpa.pdf and https://studentprivacy.ed.gov/resources/ferpaidea-cross-walk.Final FERPA regulatory changes became effective January 3, 2012, and include requirements for data sharing. Applicants are encouraged to review the final FERPA regulations published on December 2, 2011 (76 FR 75604). Questions can be sent to the Family Policy Compliance Office (www.ed.gov/fpco) at (202) 260-3887 or FERPA@ed.gov.

For factors to consider when selecting model demonstration sites, the applicant should refer to

Assessing Sites for Model Demonstration: Lessons Learned for OSEP Grantees at http://mdcc.sri.com/documents/MDCC_Site_Assessment_Brief_09-30-11.pdf. The document also contains a site assessment tool.

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

B-9

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

(1) Documentation that permits current and future site-based staff to replicate or appropriately tailor and sustain the model at any site;5 and

(2) Strategies for the grantee to disseminate or promote the use of the model, such as developing easily accessible online training materials, coordinating with TA providers who might serve as future trainers, or providing technical support (e.g., webinars, training sessions, or workshops) for users who may want to learn about and implement the model and its components.

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

Application Requirements

An applicant must include in its application--

(a) A detailed review of the literature addressing the proposed model or its intervention or implementation components and processes to improve access to challenging objectives and grade-level content, and improve outcomes, in English Language Arts, including literacy, and other academic subjects, as appropriate, for students with intellectual disabilities in elementary or middle school;

(b) A logic model (as defined in this notice) that depicts, at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and outcomes (described in paragraph (a) under the heading Priority) of the proposed model demonstration project.

Note: The following websites provide resources for constructing logic models:

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

(c) A description of the activities and measures to be incorporated into the proposed model demonstration project (i.e., the project design) to improve access to grade-level content and

For a guide on documenting model demonstration sustainment and replication, the applicant should refer to Planning for Replication and Dissemination From the Start: Guidelines for Model Demonstration Projects Revised at http://mdcc.sri.com/documents/MDCC_ReplicationBrief_SEP2015.pdf.

B-10 improve outcomes in English Language Arts, including literacy, and other academic subjects, as appropriate, for students with intellectual disabilities, including a timeline of how and when the components are introduced within the model. A detailed and complete description must include the following:

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

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

(3) All the implementation components, including, at a minimum, those listed under paragraph

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

(i) Demographics, including, at a minimum, the number of students with intellectual disabilities, their ages, and their grade levels (while ensuring confidentiality of individual data), at all implementation sites that have been identified and successfully recruited for the purposes of this application using the selection and recruitment strategies described in paragraph (b)(1) under the heading Priority;

(ii) Whether the implementation sites are located in rural, urban, or suburban local educational agencies (LEAs) or are schools identified for comprehensive support and improvement6 or schools implementing targeted support and improvement plans7 under title I of the

For the purposes of this priority, “schools identified for comprehensive support and improvement” means a statewide identified category of schools that includes (a) not less than the lowest-performing five percent of all schools receiving funds under this part in the State; (b) all public high schools in the State failing to graduate one-third or more of their students; (c) public schools in the State described under subsection 1111(d)(3)(A)(i)(II) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESEA); and (d) at the discretion of the State, additional statewide categories of schools, as defined in section 1111(c)(4)(D)(i) of the ESEA.

For the purposes of this priority, “schools implementing targeted support and improvement plans” means a school that has developed and is implementing a school-level targeted support and improvement plan

B-11

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the Every

Student Succeeds Act (ESSA); and

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

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

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

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

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

The plan must show how the outcome data (e.g., child, teacher, or systems measures, social validity) and implementation data (e.g., fidelity, effectiveness of professional development activities) will be used separately or in combination to improve the project during the performance period. These data will be reported in the Annual Performance

Report (APR). The plan also must outline how these data will be reviewed by project staff, when they will be reviewed, and how they will be used during the course of the project to adjust the model or its implementation to increase the model’s usefulness, generalizability, and potential for sustainability; and

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

to improve student outcomes based on the indicators in the statewide accountability system as defined in section 1111(d)(2) of the ESEA.

B-12

(e) A budget for attendance at the following:

(1) A one and one half-day kick-off meeting to be held in Washington, DC, after receipt of the award;

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

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

Other Project Activities:

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

(a) Communicate and collaborate on an ongoing basis with other Department-funded projects, including, at minimum, OSEP-funded TA centers that might disseminate information on the model or support the scale-up efforts of a promising model;

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

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

Competitive Preference Priority:

Within this absolute priority, we give competitive preference to applications that address the following priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), we award an additional two points to an application that meets this priority.

This competitive preference priority is:

Promising Evidence Supporting the Proposed Model (Two Points).

Projects that are supported by evidence that meets the conditions set out in the definition of

“promising evidence” (as defined in this notice). The application must include:

B-13

A literature review, as required under paragraph (a) under the heading Application

Requirements, that includes research that meets at least the promising evidence standard supporting the proposed model, its components, and processes to improve academic grade-level content, particularly English Language Arts, and academic outcomes for students with intellectual disabilities in elementary or middle school.

Note: An applicant addressing this competitive preference priority must identify at least one, but no more than two, study citations that meet this standard and must clearly mark them in the reference list of the proposal.

References:

Allor, J. H., Mathes, P. G., Roberts, J. K., Cheatham, J. P., & Champlin, T. M. (2010).

Comprehensive reading instruction for students with intellectual disabilities: Findings from the first three years of a longitudinal study. Psychology in the Schools, 47(5), 445-

466.

Browder, D. M., Mims, P. J., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., & Lee, A. (2008). Teaching elementary students with multiple disabilities to participate in shared stories. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 33(1-2), 3-12.

Browder, D. M., Wakeman, S. Y., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., & Algozzine, B. (2006).

Research on reading instruction for individuals with significant cognitive disabilities.

Exceptional Children, 72(4), 392-408.

Butler, F. M., Miller, S. P., Lee, K. H., & Pierce, T. (2001). Teaching mathematics to students with mild-to-moderate mental retardation: A review of the literature. Mental Retardation, 39(1), 20-31.

Hudson, M. E., Browder, D. M., & Wood, L. A. (2013). Review of experimental research on academic learning by students with moderate and severe intellectual disability in general education. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 38(1), 17-29.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Public Law 108-446. (2004).

20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.

B-14

Jimenez, B. A., Browder, D. M., Spooner, F., & DiBiase, W. (2012). Inclusive inquiry science using peer-mediated embedded instruction for students with moderate intellectual disability. Exceptional Children, 78(3), 301-317.

Jimenez, B. & Henderson, K. (2011). Math education: Students with significant cognitive disabilities--A PowerPoint presentation for professional development. Modules

Addressing Special Education and Teacher Education (MAST). Greenville, NC: East

Carolina University.

Lemons, C. J., Allor, J. H., Al Otaiba, S., & LeJeune, L. M. (2016). 10 Research-Based Tips for

Enhancing Literacy Instruction for Students With Intellectual Disability. TEACHING

Exceptional Children, 49(1), 18-30.

Schulte, A. C., Stevens, J. J., Elliott, S. N., Tindal, G., & Nese, J. F. (2016). Achievement gaps for students with disabilities: Stable, widening, or narrowing on a statewide reading comprehension test? Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(7), 925-942.

Definitions:

The following definitions are from 34 CFR 77.1 or 34 CFR 300.8(c)(6):

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

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

Experimental study means a study that is designed to compare outcomes between two groups of individuals (such as students) that are otherwise equivalent except for their assignment to either a treatment group receiving a project component or a control group that does not.

Randomized controlled trials, regression discontinuity design studies, and single-case design studies are the specific types of experimental studies that, depending on their design and implementation (e.g., sample attrition in randomized controlled trials and regression

B-15 discontinuity design studies), can meet What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) standards without reservations as described in the WWC Handbook:

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

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

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

Intellectual disability means significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning, existing concurrently with deficits in adaptive behavior and manifested during the developmental period, that adversely affects a child’s educational performance.

Logic model (also referred to as a theory of action) means a framework that identifies key project components of the proposed project (i.e., the active “ingredients” that are hypothesized to be critical to achieving the relevant outcomes) and describes the theoretical and operational relationships among the key project components and relevant outcomes.

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

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

B-16

(ii) An intervention report prepared by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook reporting a “positive effect” or “potentially positive effect” on a relevant outcome based on a

“medium to large” extent of evidence, with no reporting of a “negative effect” or “potentially negative effect” on a relevant outcome; or

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

Department using version 3.0 of the WWC Handbook, as appropriate, and that--

(A) Meets WWC standards with or without reservations;

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

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

2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook; and

(D) Is based on a sample from more than one site (e.g., State, county, city, school district, or postsecondary campus) and includes at least 350 students or other individuals across sites.

Multiple studies of the same project component that each meet requirements in paragraphs

(iii)(A), (B), and (C) of this definition may together satisfy this requirement.

Project component means an activity, strategy, intervention, process, product, practice, or policy included in a project. Evidence may pertain to an individual project component or to a combination of project components (e.g., training teachers on instructional practices for English learners and follow-on coaching for these teachers).

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

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

B-17

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

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

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

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

Quasi-experimental design study means a study using a design that attempts to approximate an experimental study by identifying a comparison group that is similar to the treatment group in important respects. This type of study, depending on design and implementation (e.g., establishment of baseline equivalence of the groups being compared), can meet WWC standards with reservations, but cannot meet WWC standards without reservations, as described in the WWC Handbook.

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

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

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

(ii) An intervention report prepared by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook reporting a “positive effect” on a relevant outcome based on a “medium to large” extent of

B-18 evidence, with no reporting of a “negative effect” or “potentially negative effect” on a relevant outcome; or

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

WWC Handbook, as appropriate, and that--

(A) Meets WWC standards without reservations;

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

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

2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook; and

(D) Is based on a sample from more than one site (e.g., State, county, city, school district, or postsecondary campus) and includes at least 350 students or other individuals across sites.

Multiple studies of the same project component that each meet requirements in paragraphs

(iii)(A), (B), and (C) of this definition may together satisfy this requirement.

What Works Clearinghouse Handbook (WWC Handbook) means the standards and procedures set forth in the WWC Procedures and Standards Handbook, Version 3.0 or Version 2.1

(incorporated by reference, see 34 CFR 77.2). Study findings eligible for review under WWC standards can meet WWC standards without reservations, meet WWC standards with reservations, or not meet WWC standards. WWC practice guides and intervention reports include findings from systematic reviews of evidence as described in the Handbook documentation.

Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking:

Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553) the Department generally offers interested parties…