PKG00262494-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 ON STATE DATA COLLECTION

(CFDA 84.373)

APPLICATIONS FOR NEW AWARDS;

IDEA DATA MANAGEMENT CENTER

(CFDA 84.373M)

DATED MATERIAL: OPEN IMMEDIATELY

CLOSING DATE: AUGUST 24, 2020

FORM APPROVED—OMB NO. 1894-0006, EXP. DATE: 1/31/2021

http://www.ed.gov/

GRANT APPLICATION PACKAGE CFDA 84.373M

CONTENTS

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

Federal Register Notices ....................................................................................................... B1

Notice of Final Priority ........................................................................................................ B2

Notice Inviting Applications ............................................................................................... B27

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

IDEA Data Management Center (CFDA 84.373M) .............................................................. C2

Selection Criteria and Format for the Applications for New Awards— IDEA Data Management Center (CFDA 84.373M) Competition ......................................................... C16

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: Assurances and Certifications .............................................................................. G28

Certification Regarding Lobbying .......................................................................... G28

Disclosure of Lobbying Activities ........................................................................... G29

Part V: Additional Information ........................................................................................... G30

DUNS Number Instructions ................................................................................... G30

Grant Application Receipt Acknowledgement ........................................................ G30

Grant and Contract Funding Information ............................................................... G30

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 collection is 1894-0006. 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. 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.

A1

APPLICANT LETTER

A2

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 on State Data Collection (CFDA 84.373) program—Applications for New Awards; Technical Assistance on State Data Collection—IDEA Data Management Center (CFDA No. 84.373M).

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-55, 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.

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

http://www.sam.gov/

A3

• MAXIMUM AWARD AMOUNT.

The competition included in this package has a maximum award amount. 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, 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.

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

Prior to the peer review, Department staff will determine if an application has met the absolute priority and is eligible for peer review. An application that has not met the absolute priority will not be considered for funding and may not be reviewed.

https://www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/osep/new-osep-grants.html

A4

• 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. Projects funded under this competition are required to submit data on GPRA performance measures as directed by OSEP. See Performance Measures included in the Priority Description section of this application package. Applicants are encouraged to consider this information when preparing their applications.

• COPIES OF THE APPLICATION.

Unless you qualify for an exception in accordance with the instructions found in the Notice inviting applications, you must submit your application electronically. Therefore, you do not need to submit paper copies of the application. If you are granted an exception, current Government-wide policy requires that an original and two paper copies need to be submitted. Please note: If an application is recommended for funding and a grant award is issued, we will contact the applicant to request an electronic copy of the application in MS Word or a PDF file. The Department is moving toward an electronic grant filing system and an electronic copy of all applications that are being funded will facilitate this effort.

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

A5

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

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

B-2

NOTICE OF FINAL PRIORITY

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter III

[Docket ID ED-2019-OSERS-0025]

Final priority and requirements--Technical Assistance on State Data Collection--IDEA Data Management Center

[Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number 84.373M.]

AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final priority and requirements.

SUMMARY:

The Department of Education (Department) announces a priority and requirements under the Technical Assistance on State Data Collection Program. The Department may use this priority and these requirements for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2020 and later years. We take this action to focus attention on an identified national need to provide technical assistance (TA) to improve the capacity of States to meet the data collection requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The IDEA Data Management Center (Data Management Center) will assist States in collecting, reporting, and determining how to best analyze and use their data to establish and meet high expectations for each child with a disability by enhancing, streamlining, and integrating their IDEA Part B data into their State longitudinal data systems and will customize its TA to meet each State’s specific needs.

EFFECTIVE DATE:

This priority and these requirements are effective August 10, 2020.

B-3

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Amy Bae, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, room 5016C, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-5076. Telephone: (202) 245-8272. Email:

Amy.Bae@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:

Purpose of Program:

The purpose of the Technical Assistance on State Data Collection program is to improve the capacity of States to meet IDEA data collection and reporting requirements. Funding for the program is authorized under section 611(c)(1) of IDEA, which gives the Secretary the authority to reserve not more than 1/2 of 1 percent of the amounts appropriated under Part B for each fiscal year to provide TA activities authorized under section 616(i), where needed, to improve the capacity of States to meet the data collection and reporting requirements under Parts B and C of IDEA. The maximum amount the Secretary may reserve under this set-aside for any fiscal year is $25,000,000, cumulatively adjusted by the rate of inflation. Section 616(i) of IDEA requires the Secretary to review the data collection and analysis capacity of States to ensure that data and information determined necessary for implementation of section 616 of IDEA are collected, analyzed, and accurately reported to the Secretary. It also requires the Secretary to provide TA (from funds reserved under section 611(c)), where needed, to improve the capacity of States to meet the data collection requirements, which include the data collection and reporting requirements in sections 616 and 618 of IDEA. Additionally, the Department of Defense and Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act, 2019 and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2019; and the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 give the Secretary authority to use funds reserved under section 611(c) to “administer and carry out other services and activities to improve data collection, coordination, quality, and use under parts B and C of the IDEA.” Department of Defense and Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act, 2019 and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2019; Div. B, Title III of Public Law 115–245; 132 Stat. 3100 (2018). Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020;

Div. A, Title III of Public Law 116-94; 133 Stat. 2590 (2019).

mailto:Amy.Bae@ed.gov

B-4

Program Authority:

20 U.S.C. 1411(c), 1416(i), 1418(c), 1442; the Department of Defense and Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act, 2019 and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2019, Div. B, Title III of Public Law 115–245, 132 Stat. 3100 (2018); and Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, Div. A, Title III of Public Law 116-94, 133 Stat. 2590 (2019).

Applicable Program Regulations:

34 CFR 300.702.

We published a notice of proposed priority and requirements (NPP) for this program in the Federal Register on November 13, 2019 (84 FR 61585). The NPP contained background information and our reasons for proposing the particular priority and requirements.

There are differences between the NPP and this notice of final priority and requirements (NFP) as discussed in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section of this document. The only substantive changes provide examples of potential stakeholders.

Public Comment:

In response to our invitation to comment in the NPP, 18 parties submitted comments on the proposed priority and requirements.

Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes. In addition, we do not address comments that raised concerns not directly related to the proposed priority and requirements.

Analysis of Comments and Changes:

An analysis of the comments and changes in the priority and requirements since publication of the NPP follows. OSERS received comments on several specific topics, including whether the establishment of two centers (i.e., one center addressing the needs of Developed Capacity States, and another center addressing the needs of Developing Capacity States) would be an efficient and effective approach to meeting the diverse needs of States in integrating, reporting, analyzing, and using high-quality IDEA Part B data. Each topic is addressed below.

GENERAL COMMENTS

Comments: All commenters expressed overall support for the proposed Data Management Center, and a number of commenters noted the positive impact of the valuable TA they received from centers previously funded under this program.

B-5

Discussion: The Department appreciates the comments and agrees with the commenters.

Centers funded under this program provide necessary and valuable TA to the States.

Changes: None.

Providing TA to Developing and Developed Capacity States

Comments: In response to our directed question about whether to establish two centers, the majority of the commenters did not support establishing two data management centers (i.e., one center addressing the needs of Developed Capacity States, and another center addressing the needs of Developing Capacity States). These commenters noted that creating two data management centers would (1) generate unnecessary redundancies and result in inefficient use of Federal TA resources; (2) make it difficult for States to learn valuable lessons regarding the integration of IDEA data into State longitudinal data systems from their colleagues; and (3) create confusion regarding the scope of the centers and which States would be served by which of the two data management centers. The commenters noted that one data management center would be able to support both the Developed Capacity States and Developing Capacity States through systematic planning.

Discussion: The Department agrees that establishing two data management centers would generate unnecessary redundancies, be an inefficient use of resources, make it difficult for States to learn from each other, and create confusion over the individual scopes of the centers and which States would be served by which of the two data management centers. Therefore, we have not incorporated the two-center structure into the final priority and requirements.

Changes: None.

Comments: One commenter was supportive of establishing two data management centers and suggested that one center focus on the technical capacity of States to collect, access, and appropriately share high-quality, timely data and the other center focus on the human capacity to more effectively analyze, access, and apply data in efforts to improve policy, programs, placement, and instructional practice.

Discussion: The Department believes that building a State’s technical capacity and human capacity to integrate IDEA data into State longitudinal data systems are both necessary components to achieving the outcomes of this priority. However, we believe that the TA on these components needs to be provided in a coordinated fashion that allows data governance principles to guide the data integration work. We have concluded that separating the TA provided on these components between two centers would result in a disjointed and fragmented approach to data integration and a less efficient and effective manner to achieving the outcomes of this priority. Therefore, we have not incorporated the two-center structure into the final priority and requirements.

B-6

Changes: None.

Comments: Another commenter was supportive of establishing two data management centers and argued that the Department should provide examples of the types of TA that each of the data management centers would provide in order to delineate the distinct roles and responsibilities of each center and help States identify their needs and capacity in this area.

Discussion: The Department appreciates the comment; however, we have concluded that establishing two data management centers to meet the needs of States in integrating, reporting, analyzing, and using high-quality IDEA Part B data would result in overlapping scopes, redundancy of TA products and services, and an inability for States to learn from their colleagues in the areas of data management and integration. The Department believes that one data management center will be an efficient and effective approach to meeting the needs of Developing Capacity States and Developed Capacity States.

Changes: None.

Comments: Some commenters noted that States cannot easily be categorized into Developed or Developing Capacity States. They argued that data management and integration activities exist on a dynamic and ever-changing continuum and that States may have some of their IDEA data linked or integrated into the State longitudinal data system while other IDEA data are not linked or integrated. Additionally, they argued States may move back and forth between these two groups as situations and support for data management and integration work within States changes over time.

Discussion: The Department agrees that data management and integration activities exist on a continuum; however, we believe it is important to focus intensive, sustained TA on Developing Capacity States. We recognize that a State’s status as a Developing Capacity State may change, and that the intensive, sustained TA will shift along with a State’s status, including whether that status is based on a portion of a State’s data linkages. We continue to believe that the Data Management Center should prioritize those States that present as Developing Capacity States.

Changes: None.

Including IDEA Part C Early Intervention and Part B Preschool Special Education Data

Comments: A number of commenters supported including IDEA Part C early intervention and Part B preschool special education data in the scope of the Data Management Center. These commenters noted that States are currently using these data to enhance their ability to answer critical questions that help evaluate and improve early childhood programs and services.

Additionally, they discussed the value of linking data across sources both vertically (birth to 21 years and beyond) as well as horizontally (across programs such as IDEA, Head Start, pre-

B-7 kindergarten (pre-k), child care, child welfare, health, Title I, etc.) to provide powerful information about the value of these programs as they work to improve outcomes for children and families.

Discussion: The Department agrees that the Data Management Center should support building State capacity to integrate IDEA Part B data, including the Part B preschool special education data, as required under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA, within their longitudinal data systems.

All references to IDEA Part B data throughout the priority are inclusive of the Part B preschool special education data.

Additionally, the Department agrees with the value of linking IDEA Part C early intervention data vertically and horizontally to data and data systems used to support other early childhood and school age programs (e.g., IDEA, Head Start, pre-k, child care, child welfare, health, Title I).

Such linkages must appropriately address the applicable privacy and confidentiality requirements under IDEA Part C, Head Start, and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).

The Department currently funds the Center for IDEA Early Childhood Data Systems (CFDA number 84.373Z). That center focuses on early childhood data issues, including the unique privacy and confidentiality requirements applicable to IDEA Part C, which are not the focus of this center. By contrast, the preschool special education data are subject to the same requirements as the school-aged special education data under both IDEA Part B and FERPA.

Therefore, the Department believes that including the IDEA Part C early intervention data in this priority would create unnecessary overlap in the scope of the two centers and potential duplication of TA products and services, specifically as it relates to issues of privacy and confidentiality.

Changes: None.

Expanding the Types and Roles of Stakeholders

Comments: A few commenters recommended specifying the following stakeholders in outcome (b): parents, advocates, policymakers, school personnel, local and State school boards, researchers, charter school authorizers, and Indian Tribes and Tribal organizations.

Discussion: The Department agrees that broad stakeholder involvement is very important to the success of a center. We are revising the priority to include examples of potential stakeholders for States to consider when developing products to report their special education data.

Changes: We have revised outcome (b) to include the following examples of stakeholders:

policymakers, school personnel, local and State school boards, local educational agency (LEA) administrators, researchers, charter school authorizers, parents and advocates, and Indian Tribes and Tribal organizations.

B-8

Comments: A few commenters requested that we require the Data Management Center to establish an advisory group comprised primarily of State data managers who can help determine needs and focus priorities of the Data Management Center.

Discussion: The Department appreciates the comment; however, we do not believe an advisory board is necessary and anticipate that the Data Management Center will engage established data groups, made up, for example, of State data managers, to determine the needs and focus priorities of the Data Management Center. Further, this center will be required to support a user group of States that are using an open source electronic tool for reporting IDEA Part B data required under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA, as noted in paragraph (g) of the TA requirements.

We anticipate that this user group will provide additional feedback and direction on the functionality of the center’s open source electronic tool.

Changes: None.

TA Needs of States

Comments: Some commenters argued that we should require the Data Management Center to offer differing levels of expertise and services based on the various needs of the States.

Discussion: The Department agrees. The Data Management Center will provide three levels of TA associated with improving States’ capacity to report high-quality IDEA Part B data required under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA through their State longitudinal data systems: (1) intensive, sustained TA; (2) targeted, specialized TA; and (3) universal, general TA. Because this requirement is already incorporated into requirement (b)(5)(iii)(C), no changes are necessary.

Changes: None.

Comments: Some commenters requested that we clarify how the TA needs of States are identified and the center will meet the needs of charter schools that are public schools within an LEA and charter schools that operate as their own LEA.

Discussion: Applicants under this priority will be required to describe how they will identify the TA needs of States. This priority does not require a specific approach to identifying the State TA needs. However, the Department agrees that charter schools should be identified as a stakeholder group when the center is identifying outputs (e.g., reports, Application Programming Interface, new innovations) of an open source electronic tool.

Changes: We have revised TA requirement (e) pertaining to targeted and general TA products and services to include charter schools as an example of stakeholders States should consider when identifying outputs generated by the Data Management Center’s open source electronic tool.

B-9

Comments: A few commenters requested that we incorporate additional requirements into the “Significance” section. Generally, these commenters suggested that applicants present information about best practice strategies on data integration that result in reduced administrative burdens for multiple users and increase the potential relevant IDEA Part B and longitudinal data for use outside of IDEA oversight.

Discussion: The Department appreciates the comment; however, we believe these requirements are outside the scope of this Data Management Center, though the center will support States in their efforts to implement data integration strategies to meet the needs of their stakeholder groups, which we have further identified as a way to better address the data use needs of schools.

Changes: As discussed above, we have revised outcome (b) to include the following examples of stakeholders: policymakers, school personnel, local and State school boards, LEA administrators, researchers, charter school authorizers, parents and advocates, and Indian Tribes and Tribal organizations.

Comments: One commenter requested that we clarify that the TA provided by the center will meet the needs of any applying entity regardless of size, including Indian Tribes and Tribal organizations.

Discussion: The purpose of the Technical Assistance on State Data Collection program is to improve the capacity of States to meet IDEA data collection and reporting requirements, which apply to all of the entities that receive an IDEA Part B grant (i.e., the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, each of the outlying areas and the freely associated States, and the Bureau of Indian Education). While the Data Management Center would not directly provide intensive, targeted, and universal TA to entities other than those that receive IDEA Part B grants, it would support those grantees’ reporting of IDEA Part B data to different stakeholder groups including LEAs, charter schools, and Indian Tribes and Tribal organizations.

Changes: None.

Comments: One commenter requested that the references to Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), in outcome (e) be revised to “all titles” of ESEA.

Discussion: The Department appreciates the concern but did not intend the list of examples provided in outcome (e) to be exhaustive. The Data Management Center will support States in their efforts to identify the Federal programs to analyze.

Changes: None.

B-10

Comments: A commenter requested that we revise requirement (1) under “Quality of project services” to prioritize the treatment for members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability, rather than ensure their equal access and treatment.

Discussion: The Department appreciates the comment. Requirement (1) under “Quality of project services” mirrors the language in the related selection criteria in the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (34 CFR 75.210). Under this requirement, applicants must demonstrate how the proposed project will ensure equal access and treatment for members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability. We believe that the proposed requirement adequately addresses our interest in ensuring that project services are designed to ensure equal access to traditionally underrepresented groups.

Changes: None.

Intended Outcomes of Integrated State Longitudinal Data Systems

Comments: A commenter requested the Department clarify that the end result of an integrated State longitudinal data system should be to inform State and district decision-making in regard to targeting needed resources to protect civil rights and to improving the outcomes of students with disabilities.

Discussion: The Department agrees that States should use their State longitudinal data systems to analyze high-quality data on the participation and outcomes of children with disabilities across various Federal programs in order to improve IDEA programs and the outcomes of children with disabilities. We believe outcome (e) addresses the requested clarification. Outcome (e) states, “The Data Management Center must be designed to achieve, at a minimum ... [i]ncreased capacity of States to use their State longitudinal data systems to analyze high-quality data on the participation and outcomes of children with disabilities across various Federal programs (e.g., IDEA, Title I of the ESEA) in order to improve IDEA programs and the outcomes of children with disabilities.”

Changes: None.

Comments: A commenter requested that the Department add language that States must work to ensure they utilize charter school and traditional public school data to protect civil rights and improve the outcomes of students with disabilities.

Discussion: The Department appreciates the comment; however, we believe specifying how States utilize data in their analyses is beyond the scope of this priority. The Data Management Center will support States in their efforts to integrate their IDEA Part B data required under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA within their longitudinal data systems and use their State

B-11 longitudinal data systems to analyze high-quality data on the participation and outcomes of children with disabilities across various Federal programs.

Changes: None.

Data Collection under IDEA

Comments: A commenter recommended that State IDEA data collections capture the following data elements:

• Whether the student has a speech or language disorder;

• If the student is receiving IDEA services, the disability category and whether it is the primary or secondary impairment;

• If the student is receiving services under section 504, the disability category and whether it is the primary or secondary impairment;

• Whether the student is receiving hearing or speech and language services; and

• If the student has hearing loss, whether it is in one or both ears; the degree of hearing loss in each ear; and the type of hearing instruments used in the classroom setting.

Discussion: The Department appreciates the comment; however, this priority does not address the data collection and reporting requirements for States under IDEA. The EDFacts information collection package (OMB control number 1850–0925), which would more appropriately address these issues, was published in the Federal Register on April 8, 2019 (84 FR 13913). It addressed the IDEA Section 618 Part B data collection requirements and was open for public comment from April 8, 2019, to May 8, 2019.

Changes: None.

FINAL PRIORITY:

IDEA Data Management Center.

The purpose of this priority is to fund a cooperative agreement to establish and operate an IDEA Data Management Center (Data Management Center). The Data Management Center will respond to State needs as States integrate their IDEA Part B data required to meet the data collection requirements in section 616 and section 618 of IDEA, including information collected through the IDEA State Supplemental Survey, into their longitudinal data systems. This will improve the capacity of States to collect, report, analyze, and use high-quality IDEA Part B data to establish and meet high expectations for each child with a disability. The Data Management Center will help States address challenges with data management procedures and data

B-12 systems architecture and better meet current and future IDEA Part B data collection and reporting requirements. The Data Management Center’s work will comply with the privacy and confidentiality protections in the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and IDEA.

The Data Management Center will not provide the Department with access to child-level data and will further ensure that such data is de-identified, as defined in 34 CFR 99.31(b)(1).

The Data Management Center must be designed to achieve, at a minimum, the following expected outcomes:

(a) Increased capacity of States to integrate IDEA Part B data required under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA within their longitudinal data systems;

(b) Increased use of IDEA Part B data within States by developing products to allow States to report their special education data to various stakeholders (e.g., policymakers, school personnel, local and State school boards, LEA administrators, researchers, charter school authorizers, parents and advocates, Indian Tribes and Tribal organizations) through their longitudinal data systems;

(c) Increased number of States that use data governance and data management procedures to increase their capacity to meet the IDEA Part B reporting requirements under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA;

(d) Increased capacity of States to utilize their State longitudinal data systems to collect, report, analyze, and use high-quality IDEA Part B data (including data required under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA); and

(e) Increased capacity of States to use their State longitudinal data systems to analyze high-quality data on the participation and outcomes of children with disabilities across various Federal programs (e.g., IDEA, Title I of the ESEA) in order to improve IDEA programs and the outcomes of children with disabilities.

In addition, the Data Management Center must provide a range of targeted and general TA products and services for improving States’ capacity to report high-quality IDEA Part B data required under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA through their State longitudinal data systems.

Such TA should include, at a minimum--

(a) In partnership with the Department, supporting, as needed, the implementation of an existing open source electronic tool to assist States in building EDFacts data files and reports that can be submitted to the Department and made available to the public. The tool must utilize Common Education Data Standards (CEDS) and meet all States’ needs associated with reporting the IDEA Part B data required under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA;

B-13

(b) Developing and implementing a plan to maintain the appropriate functionality of the open source electronic tool described in paragraph (a) as changes are made to data collections, reporting requirements, file specifications, and CEDS (such as links within the system to include TA products developed by other Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP)/Department-funded centers or contractors);

(c) Conducting TA on data governance to facilitate the use of the open source electronic tool and providing training to State staff to implement the open source electronic tool;

(d) Revising CEDS “Connections”1 to calculate metrics needed to report the IDEA Part B data required under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA;

(e) Identifying other outputs (e.g., reports, Application Programming Interface, new innovations) of an open source electronic tool that can support reporting by States of IDEA Part B data to different stakeholder groups (e.g., LEAs, charter schools, legislative branch, parents);

(f) Supporting the inclusion of other OSEP/Department-funded TA centers’ products within the open source electronic tool or building connections that allow the SEAs to pull IDEA Part B data efficiently into the other TA products;

(g) Supporting a user group of States that are using an open source electronic tool for reporting IDEA Part B data required under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA; and

(h) Developing products and presentations that include tools and solutions to challenges in data management procedures and data system architecture for reporting the IDEA Part B data required under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA.

Types of Priorities:

When inviting applications for a competition using one or more priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:

1 A Connection is a way of showing which CEDS data elements might be necessary for answering a data question. For users who have aligned their data systems to CEDS, States will be able to utilize these Connections via the Connect tool to see which data elements, in their own systems, would be needed to answer any data question.

B-14

Absolute priority:

Under an absolute priority, we consider only applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).

Competitive preference priority:

Under a competitive preference priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1) awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)).

Invitational priority:

Under an invitational priority, we are particularly interested in applications that meet the priority.

However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).

FINAL REQUIREMENTS

The Assistant Secretary establishes the following requirements for this program. We may apply one or more of these requirements in any year in which this program is in effect.

Requirements:

Applicants must--

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

(1) Address State challenges associated with State data management procedures, data systems architecture, and building EDFacts data files and reports for timely reporting of the IDEA Part B data to the Department and the public. To meet this requirement the applicant must--

(i) Present applicable national, State, or local data demonstrating the difficulties that States have encountered in the collection and submission of valid and reliable IDEA Part B data;

(ii) Demonstrate knowledge of current educational and technical issues and policy initiatives relating to IDEA Part B data collections and EDFacts file specifications for the IDEA Part B data collections; and

B-15

(iii) Present information about the current level of implementation of integrating IDEA Part B data within State longitudinal data systems and the reporting of high-quality IDEA Part B data to the Department and the public.

(b) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of project services,” how the proposed project will--

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

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

(ii) Ensure that services and products meet the needs of the intended recipients for TA and information;

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

(i) Measurable intended project outcomes; and

(ii) In Appendix A, the logic model (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) by which the proposed project will achieve its intended outcomes that depicts, at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and intended outcomes of the proposed project;

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

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

(4) Be based on current research and make use of evidence-based practices (EBPs).2 To meet this requirement, the applicant must describe--

2 For purposes of these requirements, “evidence-based practices” means practices that, at a minimum, demonstrate a rationale (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1), where a key project component included in the project's logic model is informed by research or evaluation findings that suggest the project component is likely to improve relevant outcomes.

B-16

(i) The current research on data collection strategies, data management procedures, and data systems architecture; and

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

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

(i) How it proposes to identify or develop the knowledge base on States’ data management processes and data systems architecture;

(ii) Its proposed approach to universal, general TA,3 which must identify the intended recipients, including the type and number of recipients, that will receive the products and services under this approach;

(iii) Its proposed approach to targeted, specialized TA,4 which must identify--

(A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of recipients, that will receive the products and services under this approach;

(B) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of potential TA recipients to work with the project, assessing, at a minimum, their current infrastructure, available resources, and ability to build capacity at the State and local levels;

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

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

B-17

(C) Its proposed approach to prioritizing TA recipients with a primary focus on meeting the needs of Developing Capacity States;5 and

(D) The process by which the proposed project will collaborate with other OSEP-funded centers and other federally funded TA centers to develop and implement a coordinated TA plan when they are involved in a State; and

(iv) Its proposed approach to intensive, sustained TA,6 which must identify--

(A) The intended recipients, which must be Developing Capacity States, including the type and number of recipients, that will receive the products and services under this approach;

(B) Its proposed approach to address States’ challenges associated with integrating IDEA Part B data within State longitudinal data systems and to report high-quality IDEA Part B data to the Department and the public, which should, at a minimum, include providing on-site consultants to SEAs to--

(1) Model and document data management and data system integration policies, procedures, processes, and activities within the State;

(2) Support the State’s use of an open source electronic tool and provide technical solutions to meet State-specific data needs;

(3) Develop a sustainability plan for the State to maintain the data management and data system integration work in the future; and

5 “Developed Capacity States” are defined as States…