PKG00252620-instructions.pdf

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION & REHABILITATIVE SERVICES

OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20202

FISCAL YEAR 2019

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 FOR

EARLY IDENTIFICATION OF STUDENTS WITH

DYSLEXIA IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

(CFDA 84.326M)

DATED MATERIAL: OPEN IMMEDIATELY

CLOSING DATE: AUGUST 5, 2019

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 ............................................. B25

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

Model Demonstration Projects for Early Identification of Students with Dyslexia in Elementary School (CFDA 84.326M) .................................................................................. C2

Selection Criteria and Format for the Applications for New Awards—Model Demonstration Projects for Early Identification of Students with Dyslexia in Elementary School (CFDA 84.326M) Competition ............................................................ C15

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

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

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

Appendix ................................................................................................................................ F1

Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs ................................................................. F2

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

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

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

Part II: Budget Information (Form 524) ............................................................................. G21

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

Part IV: U.S. Department of Education Evidence Form ..................................................... G28

Part V: Assurances and Certifications ............................................................................... G32

Assurances—Non-Construction Programs ........................................................... G32

Certification Regarding Lobbying .......................................................................... G35

Disclosure of Lobbying Activities ........................................................................... G36

Part VI: Additional Information .......................................................................................... G37

DUNS Number Instructions ................................................................................... G37

Grant Application Receipt Acknowledgement ........................................................ G37

Grant and Contract Funding Information ............................................................... G37

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 currently valid OMB control number.

The valid OMB control number for this collection is 1820-0028. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 45 hours and 40 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. The obligation to respond to this collection is required to obtain or retain a benefit (P.L. 108-446, Sec. 650 and 682). If you have comments or concerns regarding the status of your individual submission of this form, please contact the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) Discretionary Grant Programs, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, U.S.

Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Potomac Center Plaza, room 5008C, Washington D.C. 20202-5076 or by phone at 202-245-7542.

A-1

APPLICANT LETTER

A-2

Dear Applicant:

This application packet contains information and the required forms for you to use in submitting a new application for funding under one program authorized by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This packet covers one competition under 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 for Early Identification of Students with Dyslexia in Elementary 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-25, which includes helpful tips about submitting electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site. Grants.gov registration involves many steps including registration on SAM (www.sam.gov), which may take approximately one week to complete, but could take as many as several weeks to complete. You may begin working on your application while completing the registration process, but you cannot submit an application until all of the Registration steps are complete. Please note that once your SAM registration is active, it will take 24-48 hours for the information to be available in Grants.gov. You cannot submit an application through Grants.gov until Grants.gov has received your SAM registration information. We strongly encourage you to familiarize yourself with SAM and Grants.gov and strongly recommend that you register and submit early.

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

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

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

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

A-3

Additional instructions for sending applications electronically are provided on page E-2, Application Forms and Instructions for Grants.gov Applications.

• MAXIMUM AWARD AMOUNT.

The competition 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 competition included in this package limit the Part III Application Narrative to a recommended number of double-spaced pages. This recommended page limit and double-line spacing applies to all material presented in the application narrative. This recommended double-line spacing applies to all titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, reference citations, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots 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/fund/grant/apply/osep/new-osep-grants.html.

• ABSOLUTE PRIORITY AND COMPETITIVE PREFERENCE PRIORITIES.

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/fund/grant/apply/osep/new-osep-grants.html

A-4

Prior to the peer review, Department staff will determine if an application has met the 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.

• 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 more information related to defining the levels of 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 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

A-5

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.

For information about other U.S. Department of Education grant and contract opportunities, we encourage you to use the Department's grant information web page which can be accessed on the internet at:

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

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

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

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

B-1

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--Model Demonstration Projects for Early Identification of Students with Dyslexia in Elementary School

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

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY:

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. As such, the Department of Education (Department) is issuing a notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2019 for Model Demonstration Projects for Early Identification of Students with Dyslexia in Elementary School, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number 84.326M. These projects will provide support to professionals to collaborate with parents in establishing and meeting high expectations for each student with, or at risk for, dyslexia. This notice relates to the approved information collection under OMB control number 1820-0028.

DATES:

Applications Available: July 5, 2019.

Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: August 5, 2019.

Pre-Application Webinar Information: No later than July 10, 2019, OSERS will post pre-recorded informational webinars designed to provide technical assistance to interested applicants. The webinars may be found at www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/osep/new-osep-grants.html.

Pre-Application Q & A Blog: No later than July 10, 2019, OSERS will open a blog where interested applicants may post questions about the application requirements for this competition and where OSERS will post answers to the questions received. OSERS will not respond to questions unrelated to the application requirements for this competition. The blog may be found at www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/osep/new-osep-grants.html and will remain open until July 24, 2019. After the blog closes, applicants should direct questions to the person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B-3

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 13, 2019 (84 FR 3768), and available at www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-02-13/pdf/2019-02206.pdf.

For Further Information Contact:

Kristen Rhoads U.S. Department of Education 400 Maryland Avenue, SW Room 5175, Potomac Center Plaza Washington, DC 20202-5076

Telephone: (202) 245-6715

Email: Kristen.Rhoads@ed.gov

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 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 or otherwise authorized in sections 663 and 681(d) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. 1463, 1481(d)).

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-02-13/pdf/2019-02206.pdf mailto:Kristen.Rhoads@ed.gov

B-4

Absolute Priority:

For FY 2019 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:

Model Demonstration Projects for Early Identification of Students with Dyslexia in Elementary School.

Background:

Model demonstrations to improve early intervention, educational, or transitional results for students with disabilities have been authorized under the IDEA since the law’s inception. For the purposes of this priority, a model is a set of existing evidence-based practices, including 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.

Patterns of reading development and potential achievement are established early and can be stable over time. Frequent screening and progress monitoring of reading skills are recommended for identifying students whose early pattern suggests that they need intensive reading intervention and prevention (Gersten et al., 2009). The screening supports meeting an individual child’s needs by tailoring instructional activities and helping to identify students who may be at risk for dyslexia. These students may benefit from receiving intensive intervention in reading and potentially special education services, including evidence-based practices to address the individual needs of each student with dyslexia.

Dyslexia is neurobiological in origin and is typically characterized by difficulties with phonological processing (i.e., the manipulation of sounds), spelling, and/or rapid visual-verbal responding (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2018). It is possible to identify students with dyslexia in early elementary school, and it is critical that schools implement intensive interventions tailored to the individual needs of these students in early elementary school and beyond (Petscher et al., 2019). Phonological processing problems associated with dyslexia can be identified reliably in kindergarten and first grade (D. Fuchs et al., 2012; Sittner Bridges & Catts, 2011). Research suggests that difficulties associated with dyslexia can be remediated with intensive intervention in early elementary school; however, remediation

B-5 generally becomes less effective for students with dyslexia after second grade (Fletcher, 2017).

Over 40 States have adopted legislation, requirements, or initiatives related to identifying and educating students with dyslexia, with 21 States implementing universal screening for dyslexia (National Center on Improving Literacy, 2018). Recommended practices suggest that schools administer reading measures that screen and monitor student progress in learning foundational reading skills that reflect students’ acquisition of literacy skills across grade levels (Petchser, et al., 2019). In general, measures of phonological processing, rapid letter naming, and alphabetic understanding or spelling are recommended in the early elementary grades. Recommended practices also suggest that administration of screening measures should not be a one-time event for students; rather, screening should happen at least three times per year at each grade level during elementary school, with the first administration happening as early as possible in the school year, with more frequent administrations for students who show moderate or high risk of having dyslexia.

However, addressing dyslexia is a complex issue, and there are great variation and flexibility in how States and schools implement recommended practices related to screening for dyslexia.

Often, schools use a one-stage universal screening process, which may result in incorrect over-identification of students in the early grades when students are first exposed to formal reading instruction (D. Fuchs, Compton, Fuchs, Bryant & Davis, 2008). Researchers have suggested other approaches, including using a two-stage screening approach or dynamic assessment approaches, to maximize the likelihood of providing intensive interventions in reading to students who need it most and to prevent schools from using costly interventions for students who may not have dyslexia or need additional or different types of support (Cho et al., 2017). In conjunction with the screening practices, schools often monitor student learning in response to high-quality reading instruction or intervention as indicators of progress or persistent learning problems related to having dyslexia.

These model demonstration projects will highlight the importance of accurate identification of students with dyslexia, particularly in the early grades, and bring to bear the most recent research on frequent screening and progress monitoring and intervention for dyslexia.

The projects must be operated in a manner consistent with nondiscrimination requirements contained in the U.S. Constitution and the Federal civil rights laws.

Priority:

The purpose of this priority is to fund three cooperative agreements to establish and operate model demonstration projects. The models will implement frequent screening and progress monitoring measures at all elementary grades, with a particular focus on kindergarten and first grade. The models will demonstrate methods for accurate and efficient identification of and

B-6 evidence-based1 interventions for students with, or at risk for, dyslexia, as well as positive outcomes in reading achievement. The models will also address the infrastructure (i.e., professional development) needed to foster the development, implementation, and evaluation of a schoolwide process for identifying students with, or at risk for, dyslexia. The model demonstration projects will assess how models can--

• Improve the capacity of elementary schools to identify early, accurately, and efficiently students with, or at risk for, dyslexia;

• Improve the capacity of elementary schools to implement evidence-based screening and progress monitoring measures for students with, or at risk for, dyslexia;

• Improve the capacity of elementary schools to provide resources and evidence-based interventions that best meet the individual needs of students with, or at risk for, dyslexia and that lead to improved reading achievement of students with, or at risk for, dyslexia;

and

• Improve the capacity of elementary school personnel to clearly communicate assessment results to parents and to collaborate with parents to establish and meet high expectations for each student with, or at risk for, dyslexia.

Applicants must propose models that meet the following requirements:

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

(1) Ongoing measures of student reading skills and progress, including frequent (e.g., weekly or every two weeks) measures of reading skills of students with, or at risk for, dyslexia;

(2) Professional development to help ensure educators’ appropriate and timely use of data to inform the need for additional diagnostic measures or assessments for students demonstrating risk of dyslexia and to improve reading instruction and make informed decisions about how to help students build literacy skills;

(3) Evidence-based instructional practices tailored to individual needs of students, particularly to those with, or at risk for, dyslexia;

(4) Valid and reliable measures of student-level, instructor-level, and system-level outcomes, 1 For purposes of this priority, “evidence-based” means the proposed project component is supported by promising evidence, which is evidence of the effectiveness of a key project component in improving a “relevant outcome” (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1), based on a relevant finding from one of the sources identified under “promising evidence” in 34 CFR 77.1.

B-7 using standardized measures when applicable;

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

(6) Procedures for schools to share data with families as well as engage families in meaningful discussions and decision-making related to reading instruction tailored to meeting their child’s individual literacy needs; and

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

(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 Each project must include at least three elementary schools, at least one of which must be a school of choice such as a public magnet, public charter, or private school. Applicants are encouraged to choose sites from a variety of settings (e.g., urban, rural, suburban) and populations (e.g., type of school, concentration of students receiving free or reduced-price lunch, racial or ethnic groups);

(2) A lag site implementation design, which allows for model development and refinement at the

2 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 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 directed to the Family Policy Compliance Office (www.ed.gov/fpco) at (202) 260-3887 or FERPA@ed.gov.

3 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.

4 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-8 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;

(3) A professional development component that includes a 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’ or service providers’ knowledge) required by paragraph (b)(3) of this section, including measures of the fidelity of implementation.

(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 site5;

(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; and

(3) Strategies for the grantee to assist State educational agencies (SEAs) and local educational agencies (LEAs) within the State to scale up a 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 and implementation components and processes to improve identification and instruction for students with, or at risk for, dyslexia in elementary school, with a particular focus on kindergarten and first grade;

Note: The literature review must establish that the proposed model is evidence-based, as

5 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-9 defined elsewhere in this notice.

(b) A logic model6 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 identification of and instruction for students with, or at risk for, dyslexia, including a timeline of how and when the components are introduced within the model. A detailed and complete description must include the following:

(1) Each of 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) Each of 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 grade levels, classrooms, and students participating 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 LEAs; and

Note: Applicants are encouraged to identify, to the extent possible, the sites willing to

6 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.

B-10 participate in the applicant’s model demonstration. Applicants are encouraged to choose sites from a variety of settings (e.g., urban, rural, suburban) and populations (e.g., type of school, concentration of students receiving free or reduced-price lunch, racial or ethnic groups). Final site selection will be determined in consultation with the OSEP project officer following the kick-off meeting described in paragraph (e)(1) of these application requirements, and will include at least one school of choice such as a public magnet, public charter, or private school.

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

(4) Each of 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 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.

(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.

(3) Four travel days spread across years two through four of the project period to attend

B-11 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 model based on promising evidence;

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

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

(d) Ensure that annual progress toward meeting project goals is posted on the project website or university website.

References:

Cho, E., Compton, D. L., Gilbert, J. K., Steacy, L. M., Collins, A. A., & Lindström, E. R. (2017).

Development of first-graders’ word reading skills: For whom can dynamic assessment tell us more? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50(1), 95-112.

Fletcher, J. (2017, September). Understanding dyslexia: A scientific approach. Paper presented at the National Science Foundation Conference on STEM Education, Learning Disabilities, and the Science of Dyslexia, Arlington, VA.

Fuchs, D., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, L. S., Bryant, J., & Davis, G. N. (2008). Making “secondary intervention” work in a three-tier responsiveness-to-intervention model: Findings from the first-grade longitudinal reading study of the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities. Reading and Writing, 21(4), 413-436.

Fuchs, D., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, L. S., Bryant, V. J., Hamlett, C. L., & Lambert, W. (2012).

First-grade cognitive abilities as long-term predictors of reading comprehension and disability status. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(3), 217-231.

Gersten, R., Compton, D., Connor, C. M., Dimino, J., Santoro, L., Linan-Thompson, S., and Tilly, W. D. (2009). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to intervention and multi-tier intervention for reading in the primary grades. A practice guide. (NCEE 2009-

B-12

4045). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/rti_reading_pg_021809.pdf.

National Center on Improving Literacy. (2018). State of Dyslexia. Retrieved from https://improvingliteracy.org/state-of-dyslexia.

Petscher, Y., Fien, H., Stanley, C., Gearin, B., Gaab, N., Fletcher, J. M., & Johnson, E. (2019).

Screening for Dyslexia. Retrieved from https://improvingliteracy.org/sites/improvingliteracy1.uoregon.edu/files/whitepaper/screen ing-for-dyslexia.pdf.

Sittner Bridges, M., & Catts, H. W. (2011). The use of a dynamic screening of phonological awareness to predict risk for reading disabilities in kindergarten children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(4), 330-338.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Dyslexia Information Page. (2018, June 12). Retrieved from www.ninds.nih.gov/Disorders/All-Disorders/Dyslexia-Information-Page.

Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking:

Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553) the Department generally offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed priorities and requirements.

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

Program Authority:

20 U.S.C. 1463 and 1481.

Applicable Regulations:

(a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99.

(b) The Office of Management and Budget Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485.

(c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3474.

B-13

Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian Tribes.

Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education (IHEs) only.

B-14

II. AWARD INFORMATION

Type of Award:

Cooperative agreements.

Estimated Available Funds:

$1,200,000.

Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2020 from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.

Estimated Range of Awards:

$375,000 to $400,000 per year.

Estimated Average Size of Award:

$400,000 per year.

Maximum Award:

We will not make an award exceeding $400,000 for a single budget period of 12 months.

Estimated Number of Awards:

3.

Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.

Project Period:

Up to 48 months.

III. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION

1. Eligible Applicants:

SEAs; LEAs, including charter schools that are considered LEAs under State law; IHEs; other public agencies; private nonprofit organizations; outlying areas; freely associated States; Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations; and for-profit organizations.

2. Cost Sharing or Matching:

This program does not require cost sharing or matching.

3. Subgrantees:

A grantee under this competition may not award subgrants to entities to directly carry out project activities described in its application. Under 34 CFR 75.708(e), a grantee may contract for supplies, equipment, and other services in accordance with 2 CFR part 200.

4. Other: General Requirements:

(a) Recipients of funding under this competition must make positive efforts to employ and advance in employment qualified individuals with disabilities (see section 606 of IDEA).

(b) Applicants for, and recipients of, funding must, with respect to the aspects of their proposed project relating to the absolute priority, involve individuals with disabilities, or parents of individuals with disabilities ages birth through 26, in planning, implementing, and evaluating the project (see section 682(a)(1)(A) of IDEA).

B-16

IV. APPLICATION AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION

1. Application Submission Instructions:

Applicants are required to follow the Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal Register on February 13, 2019 (84 FR 3768), and available at www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-02-13/pdf/2019- 02206.pdf, which contain requirements and information on how to submit an application.

2. Intergovernmental Review:

This competition is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79.

However, under 34 CFR 79.8(a), we waive intergovernmental review in order to make an award by the end of FY 2019.

3. Funding Restrictions:

We reference regulations outlining funding restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

4. Recommended Page Limit:

The application narrative (Part III of the application) is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. We recommend that you

(1) limit the application narrative to no more than 50 pages and (2) use the following standards:

• A “page” is 8.5" x 11", on one side only, with 1" margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.

• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, reference citations, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.

• Use a font that is 12 point or larger.

• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.

The recommended page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the abstract (follow the guidance provided in the application package for completing the abstract), the table of contents, the list of priority requirements, the resumes, the reference list, the letters of support, or the appendices. However, the recommended page limit does apply to all of the application narrative, including all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.

http://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-02-13/pdf/2019-02206.pdf http://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-02-13/pdf/2019-02206.pdf

B-17

V. APPLICATION REVIEW INFORMATION

1. Selection Criteria:

The selection criteria for this competition are from 34 CFR 75.210 and are as follows:

(a) Significance (15 points).

(1) The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed project.

(2) In determining the significance of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(i) The potential contribution of the proposed project to increased knowledge or understanding of educational problems, issues, or effective strategies;

(ii) The extent to which the proposed project is likely to build local capacity to provide, improve, or expand services that address the needs of the target population;

(iii) The importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely to be attained by the proposed project, especially improvements in teaching and student achievement; and

(iv) The likely utility of the products (such as information, materials, processes, or techniques) that will result from the proposed project, including the potential for their being used effectively in a variety of other settings.

(b) Quality of the project design (35 points).

(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project.

(2) In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable;

(ii) The extent to which the design of the proposed project includes a thorough, high-quality review of the relevant literature, a high-quality plan for project implementation, and the use of appropriate methodological tools to ensure successful achievement of project objectives;

(iii) The quality of the proposed demonstration design and procedures for documenting project activities and results;

B-18

(iv) The extent to which the design for implementing and evaluating the proposed project will result in information to guide possible replication of project activities or strategies, including information about the effectiveness of the approach or strategies employed by the project;

and

(v) The extent to which performance feedback and continuous improvement are integral to the design of the proposed project.

(c) Adequacy of resources and quality of the management plan (25 points).

(1) The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources and the quality of the management plan for the proposed project.

(2) In determining the adequacy of resources and the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(i) The adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment, supplies, and other resources, from the applicant organization or the lead applicant organization;

(ii) The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in the proposed project to the implementation and success of the project;

(iii) The extent to which the time commitments of the project director and principal investigator and other key project personnel are appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed project;

(iv) How the applicant will ensure that a diversity of perspectives are brought to bear in the operation of the proposed project, including those of parents, teachers, the business community, a variety of disciplinary and professional fields, recipients or beneficiaries of services, or others, as appropriate;

(v) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks; and

(vi) The…