PKG00258776-instructions.pdf

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION & REHABILITATIVE SERVICES

OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20202

FISCAL YEAR 2020

APPLICATION FOR NEW GRANTS UNDER THE

INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT (IDEA)

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND DISSEMINATION TO IMPROVE

SERVICES AND RESULTS FOR CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES

(CFDA 84.326)

APPLICATIONS FOR NEW AWARDS;

MODEL DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS TO

DEVELOP COACHING SYSTEMS

(CFDA 84.326M)

DATED MATERIAL: OPEN IMMEDIATELY

CLOSING DATE: MAY 4, 2020

FORM APPROVED—OMB NO. 1820-0028, EXP. DATE: 07/31/2022

http://www.ed.gov/

GRANT APPLICATION PACKAGE CFDA 84.326M

CONTENTS

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

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

Federal Register Notice

Grants.gov Submission Procedures and Tips for Applicants

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

Model Demonstration Projects to Develop Coaching Systems (CFDA 84.326M)

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

Demonstration Projects to Develop Coaching Systems (CFDA 84.326M) Competition

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

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

Application Transmittal Instructions

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

Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs

State Single Points of Contact (SPOCs)

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: U.S. Department of Education Evidence Form

Part V: Assurances and Certifications

Certification Regarding Lobbying

Disclosure of Lobbying Activities

Part VI: Additional Information

DUNS Number Instructions

Grant Application Receipt Acknowledgement

Grant and Contract Funding Information

PAPERWORK BURDEN STATEMENT

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless such collection displays a valid OMB control number. The valid

OMB control number for this information collection is 1820-0028. 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 to Develop

Coaching Systems (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-26, 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 has 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 limits 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, 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/fund/grant/apply/osep/new-osep-grants.html.

• ABSOLUTE PRIORITY, COMPETITIVE PREFERENCE PRIORITY, AND INVITATIONAL

PRIORITY.

This competition includes one absolute priority, one competitive preference priority, and one invitational 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. Department staff will assign competitive preference priority points to applications meeting the competitive preference priority.

• 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 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 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 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.

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 to

Develop Coaching Systems

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

Education.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY:

The Department of Education (Department) is issuing a notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2020 for Model Demonstration Projects to Develop Coaching

Systems, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number 84.326M. These projects will provide support to professionals to collaborate with early learning and early intervention programs, schools, districts, and State agencies to establish the infrastructure, personnel skills, and processes necessary for an effective and sustainable coaching system. This notice relates to the approved information collection under OMB control number 1820-0028.

DATES:

Applications Available: March 3, 2020.

Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: May 4, 2020.

Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: July 1, 2020.

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.

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

B-3

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jennifer Coffey

U.S. Department of Education

400 Maryland Avenue, SW

Room 5161, Potomac Center Plaza

Washington, DC 20202-5076

Telephone: (202) 245-6673

Email: Jennifer.Coffey@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

mailto:Jennifer.Coffey@ed.gov

B-4

I. FUNDING OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION

Purpose of Program:

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

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

Priorities:

This competition includes one absolute priority, one competitive preference priority, and one invitational priority. In accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(v), the absolute priority and competitive preference priority are 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)).

Absolute Priority:

For FY 2020 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 to Develop Coaching Systems.

Background:

Model demonstrations to improve early intervention, educational, or transitional results for children with disabilities and their families 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,1 including interventions and implementation strategies (i.e., core model components), that research suggests will improve outcomes for children, families, personnel,2 administrators, 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.

2 As defined by section 651(b) of IDEA, the term “personnel” means special education teachers, regular education teachers, principals, administrators, related services personnel, paraprofessionals, and early

B-5 or systems, when implemented with fidelity. Model demonstrations involve investigating the degree to which a given model can be implemented and sustained in real-world settings, by staff employed in those settings, while achieving outcomes similar to those attained under research conditions.

Researchers have identified practices that improve academic, functional, developmental, and behavioral outcomes for children with disabilities, yet such evidence-based practices are not implemented or scaled up in a systematic manner to maximize their potential to impact child outcomes (Sanetti & Collier-Meek, 2019). To bridge this research-to-practice gap, the field has responded by developing improved professional development models for supporting the implementation of evidence-based practices.

Coaching has been identified as a key implementation “driver” for implementing evidence-based practices (Metz & Bartley, 2012). Kraft et al.’s (2018) meta-analysis of the causal effects of coaching suggests coaching programs hold real promise for improving instructional practice and, as a result, child outcomes. This meta-analysis also found that virtual coaching can be as effective as in-person coaching and that there are many unknowns related to the amount of coaching needed and strategies that will be most effective.

Various coaching models show promising results for improving instructional practices and child outcomes. Examples of promising models include mentoring (Schmidt et al., 2017), data-driven instructional coaching (Glover et al., 2019), and practice-based coaching (Snyder et al., 2015), among others.

The field has also begun to articulate the challenges and solutions to implementing effective coaching models, specifically the infrastructure needed to support a comprehensive and sustainable coaching system. For example, Kraft et al. (2018) suggest that a primary implementation challenge is building a corps of capable coaches whose expertise is well matched to the diverse needs of the personnel being supported. In addition, the State

Implementation and Scaling up of Evidence-based Practices Technical Assistance Center

(SISEP) developed a resource that describes research-based components of coaching

(https://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/resources/coaching-practice-profile). These findings provide a basis for investing in efforts to expand the existing research base and to learn more about what it takes to scale up and sustain coaching models.

Model demonstration coaching projects could further refine the key components of effective coaching across various models and provide needed data on whether particular approaches to coaching are effective, how to differentiate coaching strategies based on personnel needs, the intervention personnel serving infants, toddlers, preschoolers, or children with disabilities, except where a particular category of personnel, such as related services personnel, is identified.

B-6 amount of coaching individuals need to successfully implement an evidence-based practice and how to select coaches.

Model demonstration coaching projects can identify the challenges to implementation and determine system supports to assist in meeting those challenges. Additionally, these model demonstrations can take the first steps to systematically scale up the critical features of effective coaching.

The projects must be awarded and 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 evidence-based model demonstration projects. The models will implement coaching systems in early intervention, early learning, elementary school, middle school, or high school settings.

The models will address the infrastructure (e.g., implementation teams) and ongoing supports needed to foster the development, implementation, and evaluation of coaches and a coaching system to support personnel who work with children with disabilities.

The models will demonstrate methods for identifying coaching strategies and the necessary intensity and frequency of those strategies to meet the needs of personnel being coached.

The models will capture information about challenges to implementation and determine what system supports may assist in meeting those challenges. Additionally, the models will use coaching data to provide information about how coaching services affect provider services and, accordingly, child outcomes (i.e., connecting coaching fidelity data to intervention fidelity data to child outcome data). The model demonstration projects will assess how models can--

• Support implementation of evidence-based practices that improve outcomes for children with disabilities;

• Improve the capacity of local coaches to support personnel who serve children with disabilities;

• Improve the capacity of sites and the central offices or programs that support them to build infrastructure that supports an effective coaching system; and

• Improve understanding of how State agencies could reduce barriers to, and support, implementation of coaching systems.

Applicants must propose models that meet the following requirements:

B-7

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

(1) Coaching services that are supported by evidence;

(2) Ongoing measures of coaching supports and the impact of those supports, specifically fidelity measures and child outcomes;3

(2) Professional development to support coaches’ appropriate and timely use of data to inform the need for differentiating coaching strategies, intensity, and frequency dependent on content and personnel needs;

(3) Procedures to refine the model based on the ongoing measures of fidelity of coaching services, fidelity of the implementation of evidence-based practices, and child outcomes;

(4) Procedures for coaches to share data at the site, central office or program, and State levels so that the data can be used to make decisions regarding, remove barriers to, and support, implementation and sustainability of the coaching system; and

(5) Measures of the model’s social validity, i.e., measures of personnel and administrator satisfaction with the model components, processes, and outcomes.

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

(1) Criteria and strategies for selecting4 and recruiting sites and coaches at those sites, including approaches to introducing the model to, and promoting the model among, site

3 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 www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/ptac/pdf/idea-ferpa.pdf and 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 Student Privacy Policy Office (SPPO) (https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/index.html) at 1-800-USA-LEARN (1-800-872-5327) or https://studentprivacy.ed.gov/contact.

4 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 mdcc.sri.com/documents/MDCC_Site_Assessment_Brief_09-30-11.pdf. The document also contains a site assessment tool.

B-8 participants.5 Applicants are encouraged to choose sites from a variety of settings (e.g., urban, rural, suburban, type of school such as elementary, charter, or early learning) and populations

(e.g., concentration of students receiving free or reduced-price lunch);

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

(3) A professional development component that includes a strategy to work with administrators and coaches, to enable site-based personnel to implement the coaching model with fidelity; and

(4) Measures of the results of the professional development required by paragraph (b)(3) of this section.

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

(1) Documentation that permits current and future site-based staff to replicate or appropriately tailor and sustain the model at any site;6

(2) Guidelines and procedures to--

(i) Help administrators support a coaching system;

(ii) Provide professional development to coaches;

(iii) Collect data on fidelity of coaching services and impact of coaching on intervention fidelity;

(iv) Match coaching strategies and intensity of the strategies based on content and personnel need;

(v) Determine the amount and frequency of coaching needed to improve intervention fidelity;

and

(vi) Collect data regarding the connection among coaching strategies used, the frequency and amount of coaching, and the fidelity of the implementation of the model coaching system and child outcomes and communicate regularly about the data at the local, regional (as appropriate), and State levels;

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

6 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 mdcc.sri.com/documents/MDCC_ReplicationBrief_SEP2015.pdf.

B-9

(3) 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

(4) Strategies for the grantee to assist State agencies (e.g., State educational agencies (SEAs) and State lead agencies (SLAs) and local early learning or early intervention agencies 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 evidence-based model or its implementation components and the proposed processes to improve coaching services for personnel who serve children with disabilities;

(b) A logic model7 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 develop coaching systems, 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 coaching system components.

7 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

(2) The existing and proposed measures of fidelity of coaching services, fidelity of the implementation of evidence-based practices, and child outcomes, as well as 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 settings of, and children participating in, all of the 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;

Note: Applicants are encouraged to identify, to the extent possible, the sites willing to participate in the applicant’s model demonstration. Final site selection will be determined in consultation with the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) project officer following the kick-off meeting described in paragraph (e)(1) of these application requirements, and if the project is working with elementary, middle, or high school sites, the final sites will include at least one school of choice such as a public magnet, public charter, or private school; and

(ii) 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, sources of data, a timeline for data collection, and analysis plans. The plan must show how the outcome data (e.g., child, personnel, 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

B-11

(2) A summative evaluation plan, including a timeline, to collect and analyze data on changes to child, teacher, service provider, or system outcomes over time or relative to comparison groups that can be reasonably attributable to project activities. The plan must show how the child, personnel, 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 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 a 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.

Competitive Preference Priority:

Within this absolute priority, we give competitive preference to applications that address the following competitive preference priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), we award up to an additional 5 points to an application that meets the competitive preference priority. This priority is:

Competitive Preference Priority 1 (0 or 5 points).

B-12

Projects proposed by applicants that have not had an active grant award under the Technical

Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for Children model demonstration grants (84.326M) at any point in the preceding five fiscal years (i.e., FY 2015-FY

2019).

Note: If an applicant has previously received a grant under the 84.326M program, the performance period for that grant must have ended on or before September 30, 2014 in order to receive points under this priority.

Invitational Priority:

For FY 2020 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, this priority is an invitational priority. Under 34 CFR

75.105(c)(1), we do not give an application that meets this invitational priority a competitive or absolute preference over other applications. This priority is:

Projects that include a virtual delivery method within their coaching system.

B-13

References:

Glover, T. A., Reddy, L. A., Kurz, A., & Elliott, S. N. (2019). Use of an online platform to facilitate and investigate data-driven instructional coaching. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 44(2), 95-103.

Kraft, M. A., Blazar, D., & Hogan, D. (2018). The effect of teacher coaching on instruction and achievement: A meta-analysis of the causal evidence. Review of Educational Research, 88(4), 547–588.

Metz, A., & Bartley, L. (2012). Active implementation frameworks for program success. Zero to

Three, 32(4), 11-18.

Sanetti, L. M. H., & Collier-Meek, M. A. (2019). Increasing implementation science literacy to address the research-to-practice gap in school psychology. Journal of School Psychology, 76, 33-47.

Schmidt, R., Young, V., Cassidy, L., Wang, H., & Laguarda, K. (2017). Impact of the New

Teacher Center’s new teacher induction model on teachers and students. SRI International.

Snyder, P. A., Hemmeter, M. L., & Fox, L. (2015). Supporting implementation of evidence-based practices through practice-based coaching. Topics in Early Childhood Special

Education, 35(3), 133-143.

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 other requirements.

Section 681(d) of IDEA, however, makes the public comment requirements of the APA inapplicable to the absolute priority and related definitions 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.

B-14

(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.

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-15

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 2021 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.

B-16

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-17

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.

Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this competition.

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.

B-18

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 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-19

(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 adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality products and services from the proposed project.

(d) Quality of the project evaluation (25 points).

(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be conducted of the proposed project.

(2) In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary considers the following factors:

B-20

(i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project;

(ii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes;

(iii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation provide for examining the effectiveness of project implementation strategies;

(iv) The extent to which the evaluation will provide guidance about effective strategies suitable for replication or testing in other settings; and

(v) The extent to which the methods of evaluation include the use of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project and will produce quantitative and qualitative data to the extent possible.

2. Review and Selection Process:

We remind potential applicants that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as the applicant’s use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or submitted a report of unacceptable quality.

In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

3. Additional Review and Selection Process Factors:

In the past, the Department has had difficulty finding peer reviewers for certain competitions because so many individuals who are eligible to serve as peer reviewers have conflicts of interest. The standing panel requirements under section 682(b) of IDEA also have placed additional constraints on the availability of reviewers. Therefore, the Department has determined that for some discretionary grant competitions, applications may be separated into two or more groups and ranked and selected for funding within specific groups. This procedure will make it easier for the Department to find peer reviewers by ensuring that greater numbers of individuals who are eligible to serve as reviewers for any particular group of applicants will not have conflicts of interest. It also will increase the quality, independence, and fairness of the review

B-21 process, while permitting panel members to review applications under discretionary grant competitions for which they also have submitted applications.

4. Risk Assessment and Specific Conditions:

Consistent with 2 CFR 200.205, before awarding grants under this competition the Department conducts a review of the risks posed by applicants.