oppED-GRANTS-073118-001-cfda84.326-cid84-326L2018-1-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;

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND DISSEMINATION

CENTER ON IMPROVING LITERACY THROUGH

SUPPORTING ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LEADERS

(CFDA 84.326L)

DATED MATERIAL: OPEN IMMEDIATELY

CLOSING DATE: AUGUST 30, 2018

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

http://www.ed.gov/

GRANT APPLICATION PACKAGE CFDA 84.326L

CONTENTS

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

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

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

Grants.gov Submission Procedures and Tips for Applicants ............................................. B34

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

Technical Assistance and Dissemination Center on Improving Literacy through

Supporting Elementary School Leaders, (CFDA 84.326L) ................................................. C2

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

Assistance and Dissemination Center on Improving Literacy through Supporting

Elementary School Leaders, (CFDA 84.326L) Competition .............................................. C23

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: Assurances and Certifications

Assurances—Non-Construction Programs

Certification Regarding Lobbying

Disclosure of Lobbying Activities

Part V: 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—Technical Assistance and Dissemination

Center on Improving Literacy through Supporting Elementary School Leaders, (CFDA No.

84.326L).

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-34, 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 PRIORITY.

This competition includes one absolute priority. The Department will use peer reviewers to review and score applications on the selection criteria.

https://www2.ed.gov/programs/oseptad/applicant.html

• 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 priority will not be considered for funding and may not be reviewed.

• PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS IN RESEARCH.

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

Department regarding human subjects research projects. Additional information on completing the protection of human subjects item is also available and can be accessed on the internet at:

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

• 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.

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocfo/gcsindex.html http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocfo/humansub.html https://www.osepideasthatwork.org/logicModel

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 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—Technical Assistance and

Dissemination Center on Improving Literacy through Supporting Elementary School

Leaders

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—Technical Assistance and Dissemination Center on Improving Literacy through Supporting Elementary School Leaders.

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

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

Dates:

Applications Available: July 31, 2018.

Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: August 30, 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.

Priority:

In accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(v), this priority is from allowable activities specified in the statute (see sections 663 and 681(d) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

(IDEA); 20 U.S.C. 1463 and 1481(d)).

Absolute Priority:

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

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

This priority is:

B-4

Technical Assistance and Dissemination Center on Improving Literacy through

Supporting Elementary School Leaders.

Background:

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

The National Reading Panel report (2000) and RAND report Reading for Understanding (Snow, 2001) have influenced reading instruction in the United States for the last two decades (Connor

& Al Otaiba, 2015). During this time, reading instruction in the primary grades has improved by targeting important literacy skills highlighted in the reports and becoming more systematic in how these skills are taught (S. Baker, Fien, & Baker, 2010).

Despite noted improvements in reading instruction, the gap between students with disabilities and their peers on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) has increased in both fourth and eighth grades since 2009 (U.S. Department of Education, 2017). In addition, less than 50 percent of teachers surveyed report that they adhere to their core reading curricula, and more than 60 percent of teachers report that they continue to use an “eclectic approach” combining different instructional methods for teaching reading (Kretlow & Helf, 2013). Kretlow and Helf also reported that most of the curricula teachers used had not been evaluated for impact on student learning. Also, according to the Schools and Staffing Survey (Rotermund, DeRoche, & Ottem, 2017), 43 percent of teachers reported receiving no professional development on reading instruction in the last 12 months. Further, in a separate survey, two-thirds of teachers reported receiving fewer than eight hours of professional development on reading instruction during the last year, an intensity unlikely to improve the quality of reading instruction that they provide or result in improved student outcomes (Wei, Darling-Hammond, &

Adamson, 2010; Yoon, Duncan, Lee, Scarloss, & Shapley, 2007).

School leaders (as defined in this notice) have the ability to affect these trends, and research has clearly demonstrated the effects that they can have on the academic performance of their schools (Herman et al., 2017; Horng, Kalogrides, & Loeb, 2009; Leithwood, Seashore-Louis, B-5

Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004). The Professional Standards for Educational Leaders,1 developed by the National Policy Board for Educational Administration (2015), illustrate the variety of activities under the purview of school leaders. School leaders’ responsibilities include managing school operations and resources, including managing budgets, resources, and hiring personnel; overseeing curriculum, instruction, and assessment; striving for equity in educational opportunity for each student; developing the professional capacity and practice of school personnel; and engaging in internal and external relations including fostering a professional community of school personnel and engaging families and the community (Horng, Klasik, &

Loeb, 2010; National Policy Board for Educational Administration, 2015).

School leaders’ organizational management activities, such as managing budget and resources and hiring staff, make the school organization work and provide support for teaching and learning (Grissom & Loeb, 2011). These types of activities, as well as school leaders spending more time on them, have shown consistent associations with positive student academic outcomes (Grissom & Loeb, 2011).

There have been mixed findings regarding the extent to which school leaders’ instruction-related activities, such as overseeing the curriculum and providing professional development for staff, are associated with improved student outcomes (Horng et al., 2010; Robinson, Lloyd, & Rowe, 2008). A number of possible explanations for this variation exist, including potential variation in the quantity of time spent on instructional management, the specific types of instruction-related activities school leaders engage in (Grissom, Loeb, & Master, 2013), and the quality of instructional management training received by school leaders. In particular, some researchers have argued that current training on instruction-related activities may be too narrow and may not include training in the organizational management skills that help school leaders target resources effectively in addressing the instructional needs of their students (Grissom & Loeb, 2011).

The Center on Improving Literacy through Supporting Elementary School Leaders (the Center) will provide TA for school leaders on instructional content and leadership skills to improve teacher implementation of evidence-based (as defined in this notice) literacy practices and literacy skills of students with, or at risk for, literacy-related disabilities. Specifically, the Center

1 For more information about the Professional Standards for Educational Leaders, please see http://npbea.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/PSEL-WebinarPowerPointSlides.pdf.

B-6 will provide TA for LEAs and their school leaders on a variety of topics, namely: providing professional development, including coaching, to their teachers and other instructional personnel on literacy; developing education programming related to literacy; allocating resources efficiently and effectively so that students with, or at risk for, literacy-related disabilities have access to literacy instruction and interventions that meet their individual needs;

and improving teacher implementation of evidence-based literacy instruction in their schools and, ultimately, literacy outcomes for their students with, or at risk for, literacy-related disabilities. The Center may build upon the work of, and collaborate with, other Department TA centers including the National Center on Improving Literacy, the National Center on Intensive

Intervention, and the Center on Great Teachers and Leaders. The work of this Center will not duplicate work being conducted by other Department TA Centers. This priority is consistent with the Secretary’s Final Supplemental Priorities and Definitions for Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal Register on March 2, 2018 (83 FR 9096) (Supplemental Priorities):

Supplemental Priority 5--Meeting the Unique Needs of Students and Children With Disabilities and/or Those With Unique Gifts and Talents; Supplemental Priority 7--Promoting Literacy; and

Supplemental Priority 8--Promoting Effective Instruction in Classrooms and Schools.

Priority:

The purpose of this priority is to fund a cooperative agreement to establish and operate a

Center on Improving Literacy through Supporting Elementary School Leaders (Literacy through

Leaders). The Center will provide targeted TA to school leaders on literacy skills and concepts

(e.g., phonemic awareness, comprehension) and leadership skills (e.g., coaching, instructional management and programming, organizational management) related to improving teachers’ implementation of evidence-based literacy practices and literacy outcomes for their students with, or at risk for, literacy-related disabilities. The Center will support school leaders in recognizing evidence-based literacy practices for students with, or at risk for, literacy-related disabilities and facilitating the implementation of these practices through developing education programming and professional development efforts, including coaching teachers. The Center must achieve, at a minimum, the following expected outcomes:

(a) Improved literacy achievement and skills of students with, or at risk for, literacy-related disabilities;

B-7

(b) Improved capacity of school leaders for identifying and supporting the implementation of evidence-based literacy practices, including assessments, that improve teachers’ practices as well as literacy achievement and skills of students with, or at risk for, literacy-related disabilities;

(c) Improved capacity of teachers and other instructional personnel to implement with fidelity evidence-based literacy practices, including assessments, that improve literacy achievement and skills of students with, or at risk for, literacy-related disabilities;

(d) Improved quality of literacy instruction throughout the school; and

(e) Reduction in the number of students inappropriately referred for special education and related services.

In addition to these programmatic requirements, to be considered for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the application and administrative requirements in this priority, which are:

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

(1) Address current and emerging needs of elementary school leaders to improve teacher implementation of evidence-based literacy practices and outcomes of their students with, or at risk for, literacy-related disabilities. To meet this requirement the applicant must--

(i) Present applicable national, State, regional, or local data demonstrating the need to address elementary school leaders’ knowledge of evidence-based literacy practices and leadership skills with the goal of improving teacher implementation of evidence-based literacy practices and, ultimately, the literacy outcomes of their students with, or at risk for, literacy-related disabilities;

(ii) Demonstrate knowledge of current educational issues and policy initiatives relating to implementing and sustaining professional learning practices and activities for elementary school leaders that have evidence for producing positive effects on teacher implementation of evidence-based literacy practices in their schools, students’ literacy achievement, or reducing the numbers of students inappropriately referred for needing special education and related services; and

(iii) Present information about the current level of implementation of:

B-8

(A) Practices and activities focused on improving leadership skills of elementary school leaders, including developing educational programming, allocating resources for instruction and intervention effectively and efficiently, and providing professional development to teachers in their schools; and

(B) Evidence-based literacy instruction, intervention, and assessment for students with, or at risk for, literacy-related disabilities in elementary schools;

(2) Improve elementary school leaders’ literacy-related knowledge and leadership skills; their schools’ literacy-related core instruction, supplemental intervention, and assessment; and literacy-related outcomes for students with, or at risk for, disabilities and indicate the likely magnitude or importance of the improvements.

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

Services,” how the proposed project will--

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

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

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

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

(i) Measurable intended project outcomes; and

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

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

B-9

Note: The following websites provide more information on logic models and conceptual frameworks: www.osepideasthatwork.org/logicModel and www.osepideasthatwork.org/resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/tad-project-logic-model-and-conceptual-framework.

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

(i) The current research on professional learning practices for school leaders, particularly elementary school leaders, and school leader behaviors or characteristics that are associated with improved classroom teaching practices and positive student literacy-related outcomes and on related EBPs that will inform the proposed TA;

(ii) The current research about adult learning principles and implementation science that will inform the proposed TA;

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

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

(i) How it proposes to identify or develop the knowledge base on effective practices for improving literacy knowledge and instructional and organizational management capacity of elementary school leaders;

(ii) Its proposed approaches to providing varying levels of intensity of TA (i.e., universal,2 targeted,3 intensive4) based on the needs of the field and available resources. The applicant

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

B-10 must identify the intended recipients (e.g., local educational agencies (LEAs) and school leaders in sites other than traditional public elementary school settings where students are supported under IDEA, including private schools), including the type and number of recipients, that will receive the products and services through each approach and how they plan to reach a variety of settings and populations (e.g., urban, rural, suburban); and

(A) For implementing targeted, specialized TA, its proposed approach to measure the readiness of potential TA recipients (e.g., LEAs) to work with the project, assessing, at a minimum, their current infrastructure, available resources, and ability to build capacity at the local level;

and

(B) For implementing intensive, sustained TA, its proposed approach to measure the readiness of the LEAs and elementary school leaders to work with the project, including their commitment to the initiative, alignment of the initiative to their needs, current infrastructure, available resources, and ability to build capacity at the local district and school level; and its proposed plan for working with appropriate levels of the education system (e.g., State education agencies (SEAs), regional TA providers, districts, schools, families) to ensure that there is communication between each level and that there are systems in place to support the use of evidence-based literacy practices;

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

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

3 “Targeted, specialized TA” means TA services based on needs common to multiple recipients and not extensively individualized. A relationship is established between the TA recipient and one or more TA center staff. This category of TA includes one-time, labor-intensive events, such as facilitating strategic planning or hosting regional or national conferences. It can also include episodic, less labor-intensive events that extend over a period of time, such as facilitating a series of conference calls on single or multiple topics that are designed around the needs of the recipients. Facilitating communities of practice can also be considered targeted, specialized TA.

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

B-11

(ii) With whom the proposed project will collaborate and not duplicate (e.g., The National Center on Improving Literacy, National Center on Intensive Intervention, State Implementation and

Scaling-up of Evidence-based Practices Center, and related professional organizations, including those that offer training programs targeting school leaders) and the intended outcomes of this collaboration; and

(iii) How the proposed project will use non-project resources to achieve the intended project outcomes.

(c) In the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the Evaluation Plan,” include an evaluation plan for the project developed in consultation with and implemented by a third-party evaluator.5 The evaluation plan must--

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

(2) Describe how progress in and fidelity of implementation, as well as project outcomes, including how successfully materials are disseminated to, and used by, relevant stakeholder groups and professional organizations, will be measured to answer the evaluation questions. Specify the measures and associated instruments or sources for data appropriate to the evaluation questions. Include information regarding reliability and validity of measures where appropriate;

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

(4) Provide a timeline for conducting the evaluation, and include staff assignments for completing the plan. The timeline must indicate that the data will be available annually for

5 A “third-party” evaluator is an independent and impartial program evaluator who is contracted by the grantee to conduct an objective evaluation of the project. This evaluator must not have participated in the development or implementation of any project activities, except for the evaluation activities, nor have any financial interest in the outcome of the evaluation.

B-12 the Annual Performance Report (APR) and at the end of Year 2 for the review process described under the heading, Fourth and Fifth Years of the Project;

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

(d) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Adequacy of Project

Resources,” how--

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

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

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

(4) The proposed costs are reasonable in relation to the anticipated results and benefits.

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

Plan,” how--

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

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

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

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

B-13

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

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

(f) Address the following application requirements. The applicant must--

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

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

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

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

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

(iii) One annual trip to attend Department briefings, Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by OSEP; and

(iv) A one-day intensive 3+2 review meeting in Washington, DC, during the last half of the second year of the project period;

(3) Include, in the budget, a line item for an annual set-aside of five percent of the grant amount to support emerging needs that are consistent with the proposed project’s intended outcomes, as those needs are identified in consultation with, and approved by, the OSEP project officer. With approval from the OSEP project officer, the project must reallocate any remaining funds from this annual set-aside no later than the end of the third quarter of each budget period;

B-14

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

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

Fourth and Fifth Years of the Project:

In deciding whether to continue funding the project for the fourth and fifth years, the Secretary will consider the requirements of 34 CFR 75.253(a), as well as--

(a) The recommendation of a 3+2 review team consisting of experts selected by the Secretary.

This review will be conducted during a one-day intensive meeting that will be held during the last half of the second year of the project period;

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

(c) The quality, relevance, and usefulness of the project’s products and services and the extent to which the project’s products and services are aligned with the project’s objectives and likely to result in the project achieving its intended outcomes.

References:

Baker, S. K., Fien, H., & Baker, D. L. (2010). Robust reading instruction in the early grades:

Conceptual and practical issues in the integration and evaluation of tier 1 and tier 2 instructional supports. Focus on Exceptional Children, 42(9), 1-20.

Connor, C. M., & Al Otaiba, S. (2015). Primary grade reading instruction in the United States.

In A. Pollatsek & R. Treiman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of reading (pp. 415-430).

New York: Oxford University Press.

Grissom, J. A., & Loeb, S. (2011). Triangulating principal effectiveness: How perspectives of parents, teachers, and assistant principals identify the central importance of managerial skills. American Educational Research Journal, 48(5), 1091-1123.

B-15

Grissom, J. A., Loeb, S., & Master, B. (2013). Effective instructional time use for school leaders: Longitudinal evidence from observations of principals. Educational

Researcher, 42(8), 433-444.

Herman, R., Gates, S. M., Arifkhanova, A., Bega, A., Chavez-Herrerias, E. R., Han, E., ... &

Wrabel, S. (2017). School leadership interventions under the Every Student Succeeds

Act: Evidence review. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

Horng, E. L., Kalogrides, D., & Loeb, S. (2009). Principal preferences and the uneven distribution of principals across schools. School Leadership Research Report No. 09-2.

Stanford, CA: Stanford University Institute for Research on Education Policy and

Practice.

Horng, E. L., Klasik, D., & Loeb, S. (2010). Principal's time use and school effectiveness.

American Journal of Education, 116(4), 491-523.

Kretlow, A. G., & Helf, S. S. (2013). Teacher implementation of evidence-based practices in tier

1: A national survey. Teacher Education and Special Education, 36(3), 167-185.

Leithwood, K., Seashore-Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences student learning. New York, NY: The Wallace Foundation. Retrieved from https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/2035/CAREI%20ReviewofResearc h%20How%20Leadership%20Influences.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction.

Washington, DC: National Institutes of Health.

Robinson, V. M., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational

Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635-674.

Rotermund, S., DeRoche, J., & Ottem, R. (2017). Teacher Professional Development By

Selected Teacher and School Characteristics: 2011-2012. Washington, DC: National

Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of

Education.

B-16

Snow, C. E. (2001). Reading for understanding. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Education and the

Science and Technology Policy Institute.

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education

Statistics. (2015). National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Reading

Assessments. Accessed through the NAEP Data Explorer at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/.

Wei, R. C., Darling-Hammond, L., & Adamson, F. (2010). Professional development in the

United States: Trends and challenges (Vol. 28). Dallas, TX: National Staff Development

Council.

Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W. Y., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. L. (2007). Reviewing the

Evidence on How Teacher Professional Development Affects Student Achievement.

Issues & Answers. REL 2007-No. 033. Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest

(NJ1).

Definitions:

The following definitions are from 34 CFR 77.1 and section 8101 of the Elementary and

Secondary Education Act, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESEA), as marked.

Demonstrates a rationale (34 CFR 77.1) 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 (34 CFR 77.1) 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 (34 CFR 77.1) 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-17 discontinuity design studies), can meet What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) standards without reservations as described in the WWC Handbook:

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

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

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

Logic model (34 CFR 77.1) (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 (34 CFR 77.1) 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;

(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

B-18

(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 (34 CFR 77.1) 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 (34 CFR 77.1) means that there is evidence of the effectiveness of a key project component in improving a relevant outcome, based on a relevant finding from one of the following:

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

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

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

(A) Is an experimental study, a quasi-experimental design study, or a well-designed and well-implemented correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias (e.g., a study using

B-19 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 (34 CFR 77.1) 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 (34 CFR 77.1) 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.

School leader (section 8101 of the ESEA) means a principal, assistant principal, or other individual who is--

(a) An employee or officer of an elementary school or secondary school, local educational agency, or other entity operating an elementary school or secondary school; and

(b) Responsible for…