[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 111 (Tuesday, June 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31676-31684]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-15032]



[[Page 31675]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part III





Department of Education





_______________________________________________________________________



Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services; Special 
Education and Rehabilitative Services; Notices

  Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 111 / Tuesday, June 10, 1997 / 
Notices  

[[Page 31676]]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services

AGENCY: Department of Education.

ACTION: Notice of final priorities.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Secretary announces final priorities for programs 
administered by the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative 
Services (OSERS) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 
(IDEA). The Secretary may use these priorities in Fiscal Year 1997 and 
subsequent years. The Secretary takes this action to focus Federal 
assistance on identified needs to improve results for children with 
disabilities. The final priorities are intended to ensure wide and 
effective use of program funds.

EFFECTIVE DATE: These priorities take effect on July 10, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on these final 
priorities contact the Grants and Contracts Services Team, 600 
Independence Avenue, SW., room 3317, Switzer Building, Washington, DC 
20202-2641. The preferred method for requesting information is to FAX 
your request to: (202) 205-8717. Telephone: (202) 260-9182.
    Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) 
may call the TDD number: (202) 205-9860. Individuals with disabilities 
may obtain a copy of this notice in an alternate format (e.g. Braille, 
large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) by contacting the 
Department as listed above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice contains five final priorities 
authorized by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. These 
final priorities support the National Education Goals by helping to 
improve results for children with disabilities.
    On March 24, 1997, the Secretary published a notice of proposed 
priorities in the Federal Register (62 FR 13972).
    The publication of these final priorities does not preclude the 
Secretary from proposing additional priorities, nor does it limit the 
Secretary to funding only these priorities, subject to meeting 
applicable rulemaking requirements. Funding of particular projects 
depends on the availability of funds, and the quality of the 
applications received.

    Note: This notice of final priorities does not solicit 
applications. A notice inviting applications under these 
competitions is published in a separate notice in this issue of the 
Federal Register.

Analysis of Comments and Changes

    In response to the Secretary's invitation in the notice of proposed 
priorities, forty-five parties submitted comments. An analysis of the 
comments and of the changes in the proposed priorities follows. 
Technical and other minor changes--as well as suggested changes the 
Secretary is not legally authorized to make under the applicable 
statutory authority--are not addressed.

Priority--Center on Implementing Inclusive Education for Children With 
Disabilities in Urban Districts, Particularly Students With Severe 
Disabilities, as Part of Systemic Education Reform Efforts

    Comment: One commenter recommended that the priority require the 
center to collect and disseminate information on best practices in 
special education in areas other than inclusion. The commenter stated 
that collecting and disseminating information on inclusion practices, 
as required in the proposed priority, promoted one special education 
setting over another.
    Discussion: The Secretary agrees that collecting and disseminating 
information on best practices in special education is important, and 
notes that there are several ongoing Departmental initiatives to do 
just that. The Secretary prefers not to duplicate those ongoing 
efforts, and believes that there is a compelling need for the timely 
dissemination of information on inclusion practices to urban districts 
confronted with increasingly complex issues.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the governance of the 
school district as well as the governance of schools be added to the 
priority.
    Discussion: The Secretary agrees with the commenter that the 
governance of the school district affects the success of inclusion and 
systemic education reform initiatives.
    Changes: The priority has been revised to add language on the 
governance of the school district. Under (f)(3), the language of the 
priority has been revised to include evaluation data at the building 
and district levels. Also, governance has been added to the language 
under (f)(7), and the priority now requires the analysis of policies, 
procedures, governance, and fiscal implications at the urban district 
level.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that the Center should 
specifically look at how children with disabilities in urban districts 
are included in the State's accountability system with special emphasis 
on how students with severe disabilities are assessed and 
accountability for student progress is ensured.
    Discussion: The Secretary agrees that the Center's activities could 
complement other projects on accountability supported by the 
Department.
    Changes: Language has been added to include State assessment and 
public accountability systems in the (f)(6) requirement for the Center 
to produce a variety of evaluation data including information about how 
project activities are integrated in broader school reform efforts.
    Comment: One commenter requested clarification on whether or not 
the 60-month project is one single award for the Nation and if it is 
considered a pilot project.
    Discussion: As stated in the priority, the Department plans to make 
one award, national in scope, the intent of which is to be a capacity 
building project to implement what we have learned thus far in urban 
settings.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter implied that the priority should also 
include a rural and suburban focus.
    Discussion: The Secretary notes that there are many examples of 
inclusive practices occurring in suburban (e.g., Minnesota, Maryland) 
and rural (e.g., Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Kansas, Oregon) 
environments, but the issues around implementing integrated, inclusive 
practices in urban settings have been far more complex and problematic. 
Given that forty percent of our Nation's students attend four percent 
of the country's school districts, the need is compelling to focus on 
urban districts.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Department staff received several comments indicating 
confusion between the title of the proposed priority and the 
requirements of the priority. Some individuals thought the Center was 
required to be located in an urban district, while others questioned 
whether or not the Center's activities were exclusively focused on 
students with severe disabilities.
    Discussion: The Secretary agrees the title of the proposed priority 
could be confusing with regard to the location of the Center and the 
focus on students with severe disabilities. The Center is not required 
to be physically located in an urban district; however, the focus of 
the priority is inclusive education for students with disabilities in 
urban districts. In addition, although the priority includes all 
students with

[[Page 31677]]

disabilities, the primary emphasis is on students with severe 
disabilities.
    Changes: The title has been changed to ``Center on Implementing 
Inclusive Education for Children with Disabilities in Urban Districts, 
Particularly Students with Severe Disabilities, as Part of Systemic 
Education Reform Efforts.''

Priority--Center to Promote the Access to and Participation by Minority 
Institutions in Discretionary Programs Authorized Under the Individuals 
With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)

    Comment: One commenter stated that if the Regional Resource Centers 
are already conducting technical assistance (TA) activities on a 
national basis, then it may be less essential for the Center funded 
under this priority to provide TA to eligible institutions.
    Discussion: The technical assistance activities of the Regional 
Resource Centers are much broader in scope and, unlike the activities 
identified in this priority, are not specifically designed to improve 
the capacity of Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), 
other minority institutions (OMIs), and other eligible institutions 
(OEIs) to prepare personnel to work with children with disabilities. 
The TA activities under this priority must be based on the personnel 
preparation needs of HBCUs, OMIs, and OEIs and address those needs in 
the most effective and cost efficient way. To the extent that other 
technical assistance providers may be involved in related activities, 
the Secretary believes that the required coordination between the 
Center funded under this priority and other providers of technical 
assistance will enhance, not duplicate, the purposes of this grant.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter stated that this priority should require 
that plans for technical assistance, dissemination of materials on 
personnel preparation competitions under IDEA, and related analyses 
concerning HBCUs, OMIs, and OEIs take into account the findings and 
plan developed under Priority 4--Focus 2, Developing a National Plan 
for Training Personnel to Teach Children with Blindness and Low Vision.
    Discussion: The Minority Center will provide technical assistance 
(TA) to HBCUs, OMIs, and OEIs based on the specific TA needs of each 
particular entity. If training personnel to teach children with 
blindness and low-vision is a specific TA need of a minority 
institution, as determined by the institution's particular needs 
assessment, then the Minority Center would provide that TA. It would be 
appropriate for the Minority Center, in providing TA for the 
preparation of personnel to teach children with blindness and low 
vision, to consider the findings under Priority 4--Focus 2. However, 
given the variety of potential TA needs of those minority entities that 
will receive assistance from the Center, the Secretary prefers not to 
specify the particular areas of personnel preparation on which the 
Center must focus.
    Changes: None.

Priority--Technical Assistance to Parent Projects

    Comment: Four commenters suggested that the requirement in this 
priority to provide technical assistance (TA) and dissemination should 
be expanded to cover certain specific issues, including educational 
reform, assessment, alternative conflict resolution, and transition 
issues.
    Discussion: The priority requires that direct TA and dissemination 
activities on relevant content areas (as identified through the needs 
assessment) be provided to individual parent training and information 
projects (PTIs) and authorizes the Technical Assistance to Parent 
Projects (TAPP) to provide TA and dissemination, as appropriate, on the 
specific topics identified by the commenter. The Secretary agrees, 
however, that educational reform and alternative conflict resolution 
are particularly important issues, and has added specific references to 
these issues within the priority.
    Changes: The priority has been amended to identify educational 
reform and alternative conflict resolution as examples of content areas 
that may be addressed.
    Comment: Twenty-nine (29) commenters wrote in support of including 
community-based parent resource centers that are not funded under IDEA, 
but are successfully serving traditionally underrepresented or 
underserved parents of children in urban and rural settings, as 
eligible recipients of all TA activities. Commenters suggested that 
these community-based parent resource programs, in addition to the PTIs 
currently supported under IDEA, should be able to receive assistance 
from the TAPP. Some of the commenters recommended that the purpose 
section of the priority specifically refer to these community-based 
parent resource centers, while others suggested that these centers be 
identified in each of the required activities listed in paragraphs (a) 
through (f) of the priority. In addition, some commenters recommended 
that regional leadership retreats for parent leaders of the community-
based parent resource centers be a required TA activity.
    Discussion: The Secretary agrees that the community-based parent 
resource centers that do not currently receive funding under IDEA are 
providing important support to communities confronted with a host of 
societal challenges. The Secretary also agrees that including these 
projects in current TAPP activities has been beneficial to parents in 
many communities. Accordingly, the Secretary has amended the priority 
to clarify that non-IDEA parent resource centers are not necessarily 
precluded from participating in TAPP activities. In particular, the 
Secretary has revised the priority to enable community-based parent 
centers that are not funded under IDEA to receive TA in order to better 
serve underserved and underrepresented populations. However, the 
Secretary emphasizes that the primary purpose of the priority is to 
provide TA for establishing, developing, and coordinating parent 
training and information projects (PTIs) supported under IDEA and 
encourages community-based centers to compete for IDEA funding. Given 
the requirement that the TAPP focus on coordination between, and 
improvement of, IDEA parent projects, it is largely within the TAPP's 
discretion to determine the extent to which it can address the needs of 
other centers.
    Changes: The proposed priority has been amended to authorize the 
TAPP to provide TA to parent resource organizations that are not funded 
under IDEA in order to improve services to underserved and 
underrepresented populations.
    Comment: Seventeen commenters recommended that the TAPP be required 
to conduct a leadership retreat similar to the cross-regional retreat 
previously conducted by the current TAPP. Another commenter did not 
believe it necessary or beneficial for separate leadership retreats to 
be funded for community-based or experimental parent programs. The 
commenter believed that it was important for all parent training 
entities to be trained together and to receive and benefit from the 
information provided at each event. This commenter also suggested 
several content areas (e.g., transition, early intervention, and best 
practices in inclusive settings for various disabilities) that should 
be addressed at the national and regional conferences.
    Discussion: The Secretary believes it is important to allow 
applicants the opportunity to propose what they believe to be the most 
effective approach for planning and conducting

[[Page 31678]]

the national and regional conferences, and any additional meetings or 
retreats they deem beneficial. The Secretary expects applicants to 
propose a management strategy or strategies for conducting the 
conferences, and to justify implementation of their particular plans.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Four commenters expressed support for a regional approach 
toward delivering TA. One commenter stated that the regional 
conferences are essential, and that they should be conducted by 
personnel from each specific region and address issues pertinent to 
that particular region. Another commenter recommended that TAPP be 
organized on a regional basis. This commenter stressed that each region 
has it own unique characteristics, issues and problems that can be 
addressed most effectively by a regional unit. One commenter suggested 
that the TAPP include a full-time regional director in each of the four 
regions.
    Discussion: The Secretary agrees that a regional approach to 
providing TA is often beneficial, but believes that other approaches 
may be equally appropriate and beneficial. The Secretary believes it is 
the responsibility of the applicant to determine how best to provide TA 
in order to fulfill the purposes of the priority, and declines to 
impose more specific limitations on available TA approaches.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that the TAPP assist the PTIs to 
technologically link to information produced by specialized centers on 
transition, inclusion, and assistive technology, and by other centers 
funded under IDEA. This commenter also stated that the TAPP should help 
PTIs to link electronically to sources other than National Information 
Center for Children and Youth with Disabilities (NICHCY), such as 
Educational Resources Information Center Clearinghouse on Disabilities 
and Gifted Education (ERIC), sources on genetic information, and other 
information resources that provide data on specific disability areas 
and identify the best practices for achieving educational success in 
relation to disability area, age level, and severity of disability.
    Discussion: The priority requires the TAPP to electronically link 
the PTIs to each other, to NICHCY, and to other information sources and 
also requires the project to implement additional strategies for 
maximizing the computer and technological capabilities of the PTIs. The 
Secretary supports each of the suggestions recommended by the commenter 
and emphasizes that each is authorized under the priority. The 
Secretary prefers, however, that applicants be given the opportunity to 
propose and justify their own approach toward linking PTIs 
electronically within the limited parameters outlined in the priority.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that both the National TAPP 
director and the Regional TAPP directors be parents. The commenter 
pointed to the growth of the parent movement and the strength of 
parental leadership to support the position that parents assume these 
positions.
    Discussion: The Secretary cannot direct that the TAPP appoint 
particular classes of people to director positions. The Secretary 
agrees, however, that parent leadership development and mentoring 
should come largely from other parents. This position is supported by 
the authorizing legislation for the PTI program which provides for 
extensive involvement of parents of infants, toddlers, children, and 
youth with disabilities in the operation of PTIs.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Three commenters noted that evaluation was not 
specifically identified as a required activity of the TAPP project. The 
commenters recommended that TAPP be required to evaluate regularly the 
results of its technical assistance system.
    Discussion: The Secretary acknowledges the importance of evaluating 
the technical assistance system and of seeking feedback from users of 
the system. The Secretary notes, however, that the commenters' concerns 
are addressed by the application review process. The selection criteria 
for this competition require the reviewers to determine the quality of 
the evaluation plan for the project described in each application, 
including the extent to which the applicant's methods of evaluation are 
appropriate for the project, are objective and produce data that are 
quantifiable. The information on selection criteria is included in the 
application package each applicant receives rather than in the priority 
itself.
    Changes: None.

Priority--Special Projects--National Initiatives

Focus 1--An Academy: Linking Teacher Education to Advances in Research
    Comment: One commenter suggested that the Academy use computer-
assisted instruction and select appropriate software as part of its 
responsibility to enhance educational results for children with 
disabilities through the use of technology.
    Discussion: The Secretary agrees that the use of computer-assisted 
instruction and the selection of appropriate software can be effective 
strategies in improving results for children with disabilities. The 
Secretary emphasized that the priority does not preclude an applicant 
from proposing either of these methods. Nevertheless, the Secretary 
prefers to retain the broad authority in the priority that affords 
applicants the discretion to propose and justify those technological 
strategies that they consider appropriate.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the Academy address a 
broader range of research that has demonstrated positive results for 
children with disabilities (i.e., empirically validated methods). The 
commenter suggested that applicants could then put together their 
``best package'' of methods to be covered, and supply the data to 
support that package.
    Discussion: While there exists a broader range of research-based 
designs that identify validated approaches, the Academy must focus its 
resources on addressing national needs through advances in research. At 
this time, the Secretary believes that the selected topics are the most 
critical national needs for which there is sufficient research to 
inform practice.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter requested clarification as to whether the 
Academy must address all three focus areas: (a) Teaching reading to 
children with learning disabilities; (b) using technology to enhance 
educational results for children with disabilities; and (c) using 
positive behavioral supports to teach children with disabilities who 
exhibit challenging behaviors.
    Discussion: The priority requires the Academy to focus its staff 
and resources on all three of the identified focus areas.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter requested clarification as to how 
researchers will benefit from the Academy's activities and asked 
whether only original researchers can apply for the Academy.
    Discussion: The priority states the teacher education programs will 
benefit by integrating research advances into their respective 
preservice preparation programs, and that researchers will benefit from 
learning how the findings of their research impact and may be used to 
improve personnel preparation programs. Both statements were intended 
as examples of the potential benefits of bridging the gap between 
research and practice, and were not

[[Page 31679]]

intended to impose any restrictions on the pool of eligible applicants.
    Changes: None.
Focus 2--Developing a National Plan for Training Personnel to Serve 
Blind and Low-Vision Children
    Comment: One commenter requested that Focus 2 of the priority use 
``person-first language'' (e.g., ``children with blindness'') as 
opposed to ``blind children.''
    Discussion: The Secretary agrees with commenter and has amended the 
priority accordingly.
    Changes: The Secretary has changed all references to ``blind and 
low-vision children'' in the proposed priority to ``children with 
blindness and low-vision.''
    Comment: Two commenters recommended that the needs of students with 
multiple and severe disabilities (including vision loss) be addressed 
by the priority. One of the commenters stated that the curricula at the 
institutions of higher education should support the development of 
knowledge and skills related to the education of children who are blind 
and have multiple disabilities, including those with deaf-blindness.
    Discussion: The intent of the priority is to understand the 
systemic nature of the problem of preparing personnel to teach children 
with blindness and low-vision. The project, based on a systemic and 
systematic needs assessment, shall design a comprehensive approach that 
includes strategies for solving the shortage problem of personnel in 
this area. While curricula at institutions of higher education might 
address the needs of children who are blind and have multiple 
disabilities, it would be premature to require that such issues be part 
of an eventual strategy. The Secretary prefers to retain the broad 
language of the priority, and allow the project to identify and address 
critical issues (including, if appropriate, severe and multiple 
disabilities such as deaf-blindness) and to recommend a solution in the 
National Plan.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Three commenters recommended that the National Plan for 
training personnel to meet the needs of children with blindness and 
low-vision include training of both orientation and mobility 
specialists and teachers of children with deaf-blindness. One commenter 
noted that students often enter dual certification programs for 
orientation and mobility instructors and teachers of children with 
deaf-blindness or other visual impairments. One commenter recommended 
requiring early childhood, adolescence, and technology issues, and 
collaboration techniques as part of the plan developed under Focus 2.
    Discussion: The Secretary agrees with the commenters that personnel 
with a wide range of skills and knowledge are necessary to address the 
various needs of children with visual impairments. At the same time, 
however, the Secretary believes that it is particularly important to 
address the need for teachers.
    Changes: The priority has been revised in its title and in the text 
to refer to personnel to ``serve'' rather than ``teach'' or ``educate'' 
children with blindness and visual impairments. However, language has 
also been added to the priority to emphasize the importance of 
addressing the need for qualified personnel ``particularly in the area 
of teaching''.
    Comment: Two commenters recommended that the National Plan under 
Focus 2 be developed as quickly as possible. One commenter suggested 
that the Department require the project to be completed in 2 years 
given the immediate need for personnel to teach children with blindness 
and low-vision. Specifically, the commenter proposed a 5-6 month period 
to conduct the needs assessment, and one and a half years to develop 
the National Plan.
    Discussion: The Secretary is committed to developing a 
comprehensive National Plan as quickly as possible, and believes a two-
year time frame is adequate. The project period (up to 24 months) is 
identified in the application notice for this competition.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Two commenters made suggestions concerning the funding 
level needed to develop a National Plan for training personnel to teach 
children with blindness and low vision. One commenter stated that a 
total allocation of $300,000 would be sufficient, while another 
commenter recommended that funding be sufficient to allow all 
interested parties (e.g., parents, teachers, universities, consumers, 
State and local educational agencies, professional organizations, 
national service agencies, national accreditation agencies) to 
participate in the development of the plan by traveling to meetings 
and/or utilizing distance technologies (e.g., video conferencing). The 
latter commenter stated that if all such parties collaborate during the 
development of the National Plan, the plan is more likely to be 
implemented successfully.
    Discussion: The Secretary agrees that a funding level of $300,000 
for up to two years should be sufficient to develop a national strategy 
that includes appropriate collaboration of interested parties. This 
maximum award level is reflected in the application notice for this 
competition.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the project under Focus 2 
identify and utilize the most accurate data regarding the numbers of 
children served in connection with the needs assessment. The commenter 
noted various discrepancies in counts and stated that the discrepancies 
exist because the annual count provisions under IDEA require State 
departments of education to categorize children by a primary 
disability. The commenter asserted that the project's analysis of the 
personnel shortage will be faulty without identifying all children with 
blindness and low-vision and their service needs, and that the analysis 
must account for the numbers of children underserved or not currently 
served.
    Discussion: The Secretary agrees that the accuracy of the number of 
children with blindness and low-vision, types of services needed, and 
the personnel needed to provide necessary services are important issues 
that may be considered in determining the extent of the personnel 
shortage and in developing the National Plan. The commenter has raised 
a few of the many potential issues that applicants may address in 
describing their plan for conducting the needs assessment. 
Nevertheless, the Secretary prefers to retain the broad authority in 
the priority that affords applicants the discretion to propose and 
justify the needs assessment plan that they consider most appropriate.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Two commenters recommended that the National Plan ensure 
that programs preparing personnel to teach children with blindness and 
visual impairments meet nationally-recognized personnel standards. One 
commenter specifically recommended that: (1) University programs be 
required to adhere to the ``Standards for University Personnel 
Preparation Programs in Education of Students with Visual Impairments'' 
recently developed by the Association for Education and Rehabilitation 
of the Blind and Visually Impaired (AER); (2) the curriculum of 
university teacher preparation programs recognize and address teacher 
competencies related to the ``Core Curriculum for Students With Visual 
Impairments: Developed in Conjunction with Goal #8 of the National 
Agenda for Education of Children and Youths with Visual Impairments, 
Including Those with Multiple Disabilities''; and (3) the curriculum of 
each university program address teacher competencies relative to 
meeting the cultural, racial, and ethnic

[[Page 31680]]

diversities of students, and to the extent possible, assure that those 
diversities are reflected in the personnel preparing to enter the 
field.
    Discussion: The Secretary expects that the National Plan will 
address standards and curriculum for preparing capable and qualified 
personnel to educate children with blindness and low-vision. Given the 
variety of approaches to preparing personnel who are capable and 
qualified to teach children with varying levels of visual disabilities, 
the Secretary prefers to afford applicants the discretion to propose, 
as appropriate, curricula or personnel standards based on the needs of 
children with blindness and visual impairments.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter identified the age ranges of students with 
blindness or low-vision as a major cause behind the shortages of 
personnel to teach children with visual impairments. The commenter 
stated that approaches and strategies for addressing educational and 
developmental needs of visually-impaired infants and pre-schoolers are 
far different from those used to teach high-school age students with 
visual impairments. Consequently, the commenter recommended that the 
required needs assessment under Focus 2 reflect the need for personnel 
to teach students of different ages.
    Discussion: The Secretary agrees that the needs of children with 
blindness and low-vision vary according to their developmental and 
academic progress, and has revised the priority accordingly.
    Changes: The priority has been revised to clarify the National Plan 
must address the need for qualified personnel to teach blind and low-
vision children across all age ranges.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the needs assessment and 
the comprehensive approach under Focus 2 specifically address the 
underrepresentation of minorities among personnel working with children 
with low-vision and that the project develop strategies to address this 
problem.
    Discussion: The Secretary agrees that the project should address 
the participation level of underrepresented populations in the field of 
teaching children with blindness and low-vision and has revised the 
priority accordingly.
    Changes: The priority has been amended to require that the 
comprehensive approach for preparing personnel under Focus 2 address 
the level of participation among underrepresented populations in the 
applicable field.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that Focus 2 of the priority 
include more specificity about the source of public input in the 
development of the needs assessment and in the design of a 
comprehensive teacher preparation strategy. Specifically, the commenter 
recommended that the project be required to: (1) Obtain input from 
State departments of education, visually impaired professionals, 
university personnel, and other special education personnel; and (2) 
consider successful models in preparing personnel to teach children 
with blindness and low-vision.
    Discussion: The Secretary expects applicants to obtain input from 
relevant sources in developing the needs assessment and recommended 
strategy. The approach recommended by the commenter is a permissible 
data gathering technique that applicants may consider. The Secretary 
prefers, however, to allow applicants the opportunity to propose and 
justify the particular approach for obtaining information that they 
believe is most useful.
    Changes: None.

Priority--Research Institute on Secondary Education Services for 
Children and Youth With Disabilities

    Comment: One commenter recommended adding to the priority 
requirements to study: (1) The inclusion of students in the National 
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and their progress on the 
various areas of assessment; (2) strategies that are being used to 
assist students to access the general education curriculum; (3) the 
extent to which students with disabilities are progressing toward 
standards established by States and districts; and (4) the rates of 
graduation with a regular diploma, special diploma, and GED.
    Discussion: The Secretary agrees that the NAEP, State, and district 
standards, and rates of graduation are important issues for secondary 
students with disabilities, and notes that the Department is currently 
funding projects that address those concerns. The Secretary also notes 
that the priority, as written, does not preclude an applicant from 
proposing to include those issues in its application for funding. The 
recommendation to include the study of strategies that assist students 
with disabilities in accessing the general education curriculum would 
be included under the requirement for the study of effective strategies 
for restructuring academic and vocational courses to accommodate 
students with disabilities. The Secretary concurs that adding language 
to the priority would clarify that accessing the general education 
curriculum is included under the requirement.
    Changes: Language has been added to the priority to clarify that 
the institute requirements include the study of strategies to assist 
students with disabilities in accessing the general education 
curriculum.
    Comment: One commenter expressed the concern that the priority 
addresses only macro-type factors such as classroom restructuring and 
more effective use of counseling services, while ignoring important 
micro-type factors such as skill acquisition routines or practice 
strategies for insuring student mastery of critical concepts. The 
commenter recommended that the priority be revised to require 
applicants to address questions surrounding effective instructional 
conditions that result in successful skill acquisition and 
generalization as well as successful understanding and mastery of 
critical content.
    Discussion: The priority, as written, requires the study of 
effective support strategies, supplementary aids, and services aimed at 
improving educational results for secondary students with disabilities. 
It was intended that the reference in the priority to ``support 
strategies, supplementary aids and services'' included instruction. The 
Secretary concurs that the priority should be clarified to include the 
study of effective instructional practices that result in successful 
skill acquisition and generalization as well as successful 
understanding and mastery of critical content.
    Change: The priority has been amended to clarify that the study of 
effective instructional practices aimed at improving educational 
results for secondary students with disabilities is included in the 
requirements.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that successful transition to 
postsecondary settings be the major focus of a separate priority.
    Discussion: The priority, as written, requires the research 
institute to study issues surrounding transition to postsecondary 
education and employment. The Secretary agrees that successful 
transition to postsecondary settings is critical for improving results 
for secondary students with disabilities, and notes that a number of 
the Department's funded projects address this issue. Also, projects 
proposing to address this issue in more depth are eligible to submit an 
application under this priority and are encouraged to apply.
    Changes: None.

[[Page 31681]]

General Comments
    Comment: One commenter recommended that all Department of Education 
grants should be capped at some reasonable indirect rate, such as 8 
percent, regardless of whether the grant category is personnel 
preparation, model demonstration, outreach, or research.
    Discussion: The subject of indirect cost rates is a Department-wide 
issue, and is addressed in the Education Department General 
Administrative Regulations (EDGAR). It is not an issue that can be 
addressed in individual priority announcements. The Department will 
consider the indirect cost rate issue in its review of the EDGAR 
regulations.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter stated that collaboration with other 
important service providers such as Mental Retardation/Developmental 
Disabilities agencies or programs, mental health and health care 
providers, and University Affiliated Programs, etc. should be required 
elements in all of the proposed priorities.
    Discussion: The Secretary acknowledges that collaboration with 
other service providers is often an important element in improving 
results for children with disabilities. As written, the various 
priorities include language on evaluating, coordinating, and 
collaborating with other stakeholders, other technical assistance 
providers, other information sources, other experts and researchers in 
related subject matter and methodological fields, etc; and none of the 
priorities preclude an applicant from proposing collaboration with the 
agencies and programs recommended by the commenter. Given the variety 
of potential collaboration strategies applicants could propose, the 
Secretary believes it would be impossible to provide a comprehensive 
list in any priority. The Secretary prefers to maintain the broad 
language of the priorities, and allow applicants to propose and justify 
their particular strategy.
    Changes: None.

Priorities

    Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), the Secretary gives an absolute 
preference to applications that meet one of the following priorities. 
The Secretary will fund under these competitions only applications that 
meet one of these absolute priorities:

Absolute Priority 1--Center on Implementing Inclusive Education for 
Children With Disabilities in Urban Districts, Particularly Students 
With Severe Disabilities, as Part of Systemic Education Reform Efforts

Background
    During the past ten years research and demonstration activities 
related to inclusive education have expanded dramatically. Increasing 
numbers of State and local education agencies are involved in school 
reform and inclusion efforts to ensure that all students, including 
those with severe disabilities, are provided with equal educational 
opportunities, meaningful access to the general curriculum, and 
effective educational and related services in their neighborhood 
schools.
    However, in the midst of multiple social and economic problems, 
urban districts are confronted with increasingly complex issues that 
have made the pursuit of inclusion and systemic education reform 
initiatives difficult. The need is compelling, considering that forty 
percent of our Nation's students attend four percent of the country's 
school districts.
    Priority: This priority is national in scope and is designed to 
help bridge the gap between the knowledge base and the state of 
practice in urban districts by: (a) Incorporating extant theory and 
research findings about the inclusion of students with disabilities, 
particularly students with severe disabilities, into systemic 
educational reform efforts, including efforts to improve education in 
multicultural environments; (b) increasing the capacity of urban school 
districts to provide high quality inclusive educational opportunities 
for students with disabilities, particularly students with severe 
disabilities; and (c) creating a national network of parents, education 
professionals (including teacher's organizations and unions), and 
advocacy groups interested in pursuing inclusion of students with 
disabilities, particularly students with severe disabilities, as a 
component of systemic education reform in urban districts in order to 
facilitate increased exchange of information and collaborative problem 
solving among these stakeholders.
    The Center must--
    (a) Prepare a synthesis of the relevant extant systemic reform, 
systems change, and inclusion theory and research with emphasis on 
urban schools with diverse populations to serve as the conceptual and 
empirical basis for center activities;
    (b) Translate this knowledge base into educational practices and 
materials that promote the inclusion of children with disabilities in 
regular education programs, and can be used by program implementers and 
policy makers in urban areas at district, building, and classroom 
levels;
    (c) Provide training and technical assistance via direct technical 
assistance as well distance learning and other innovative methods in 
the adoption, use, and maintenance of inclusive educational practices 
involving access to the general education curriculum in urban settings;
    (d) Evaluate the effectiveness of the center's activities in 
promoting inclusive educational practices in multiple urban settings by 
assessing: (1) The number of school sites where activities are 
conducted; (2) the number of people trained; (3) the types of follow-up 
activities that appear most valuable; and (4) the number of children 
with disabilities who are served in inclusive educational programs;
    (e) Evaluate the effect of the Center's activities on results for 
children with disabilities;
    (f) Produce a variety of evaluation data, including: (1) Factors 
that contribute to the successful adoption, use, and maintenance of 
inclusive educational efforts in urban districts; (2) descriptions of 
the instructional contexts and settings, and classroom instructional 
supports; (3) school governance, organizational, and administrative 
patterns at the building and district levels; (4) the attitudes and 
involvement of school administrators, school personnel, union 
membership, families, students, and other stakeholders; (5) information 
about student results and the social validity of project activities; 
(6) information about how project activities are integrated in broader 
school reform efforts including State assessment and public 
accountability systems; and (7) analysis of policies, procedures, 
governance, and fiscal implications at the urban district level;
    (g) Develop linkages with U.S. Department of Education technical 
assistance providers and disseminators to communicate findings and 
distribute products;
    (h) Coordinate activities on an on-going basis with other relevant 
efforts sponsored by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), 
including the Consortium for Inclusive Schooling Practices, and State-
wide Systems Change projects;
    (i) Provide training and experience in translating research to 
practice, materials development, technical assistance, dissemination, 
and program evaluation for a limited number of graduate students 
including students

[[Page 31682]]

who are from traditionally underrepresented groups;
    (j) Conduct topical meetings and other activities on issues and 
emerging or promising inclusion practices in urban education; and
    (k) Collect and ensure timely dissemination of information on 
inclusion to urban policymakers and program implementers.
    Under this priority, the Secretary anticipates making one award for 
a cooperative agreement with a project period of up to 60 months 
subject to the requirements of 34 CFR 75.253(a) for continuation 
awards. In determining whether to continue the Urban Center for the 
fourth and fifth years of the project, the Secretary, in addition to 
considering factors in 34 CFR 75.253(a), will consider--
    (a) The recommendation of a review team consisting of three experts 
selected by the Secretary. The services of the review team, including a 
two-day site visit to the project are to be performed during the last 
half of the Center's second year and may be included in that year's 
evaluation required under 34 CFR 75.590. Costs associated with the 
services to be performed by the review team must also be included in 
the Center's budget for year two. These costs are estimated to be 
approximately $4,000;
    (b) The timeliness and effectiveness with which all requirements of 
the negotiated cooperative agreement have been or are being met by the 
Center; and
    (c) The degree to which the Center's technical assistance, 
evaluation, and dissemination activities demonstrate the potential for 
significantly increasing the capacity of urban schools to serve 
children with disabilities in inclusive school and community settings.
    This award will be jointly funded under two statutory authorities: 
(1) The Research in Education of Individuals with Disabilities Program; 
and (2) the Program for Children with Severe Disabilities. The 
Secretary has determined that this joint award is necessary to address 
not only the needs of children with severe disabilities in urban 
settings, but also the broader needs of all children with disabilities 
in urban settings.

    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1441 and 1424.

Absolute Priority 2--Center to Promote the Access To and Participation 
By Minority Institutions in Discretionary Programs Authorized Under the 
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)

Background
    The Congress has found that the Federal Government must be 
responsive to the growing needs of an increasingly diverse society and 
that a more equitable distribution of resources is essential for the 
Federal Government to meet its responsibility to provide an equal 
educational opportunity for all individuals, including children with 
disabilities. Specifically, the Congress has concluded that increasing 
the participation in awards for IDEA grants, cooperative agreements and 
contracts by Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), 
other institutions of higher education whose minority enrollment is at 
least 25 percent (OMIs), and other eligible institutions as defined 
under section 312 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (OEIs) can 
greatly improve our success in educating children with disabilities 
from diverse backgrounds.
    Priority: This priority is part of the Secretary's plan for 
increasing participation of minority entities in grant competitions. 
The purpose of this priority is to improve educational results for 
children with disabilities from diverse backgrounds by supporting a 
national center to: (a) Promote the participation of HBCUs, OMIs, and 
OEIs in personnel preparation competitions authorized by IDEA; and (b) 
increase the capacity of HBCUs, OMIs, and OEIs to prepare personnel to 
work with children with disabilities. The Center must--
    (1) Identify the universe of HBCUs, OMIs, and OEIs;
    (2) Establish and maintain contacts with the minority entities;
    (3) Conduct needs assessments and negotiate technical assistance 
agreements on an annual basis with each HBCU, OMI, or OEI requesting 
assistance. The Center may propose cross-institutional activities if 
similar objectives are established in several agencies and if combining 
activities could create cost savings or extend benefits to minority 
entities requesting assistance. In developing these activities, the 
Center must analyze the needs of each entity and determine the most 
effective and cost efficient means of addressing those needs. In 
developing each specific technical assistance agreement, the Center 
must--
    (i) Reconcile the needs identified by the entity with the Center's 
resources and its ability to respond;
    (ii) Describe the strategies and mechanisms it will use to respond 
to the technical assistance and professional development needs;
    (iii) Identify the persons involved in the technical assistance 
activity;
    (iv) Specify the beginning and end date of the activity;
    (v) Describe how the technical assistance activity will contribute 
to promoting the immediate and long-term goals of the project, 
including improved educational results for children with disabilities; 
and
    (vi) Describe a plan for coordinating with other technical 
assistance providers (e.g., the Regional Resource Centers) that may be 
involved in related activities;
    (4) Analyze the performance of grantees to serve as a basis for 
providing technical assistance, especially in the areas of recruitment 
and retention of students in personnel preparation programs, improving 
the quality of those programs, placement of students after graduation, 
and other areas that contribute to improved results for children with 
disabilities;
    (5) Develop materials and implement strategies that are necessary 
to carry out the center's activities.
    (6) Prepare and disseminate materials explaining personnel 
preparation competitions under IDEA to the HBCUs, OMIs, and OEIs;
    (7) Analyze the results of each competition in terms of the degree 
to which the HBCUs, OMIs, and OEIs applied, and the degree to which 
they were successful, and submit this analysis to the Department and 
the HBCUs, OMIs, and OEIs served by the project;
    (8) Provide advice as requested by the Department on strategies to 
further the purposes of section 610(j) of IDEA; and,
    (9) Disseminate state-of-the-art practices in personnel 
preparation, recruitment, and retention through linkages with U.S. 
Department of Education dissemination and technical assistance 
providers, in particular those technical assistance providers supported 
under IDEA.
    The Secretary anticipates making one award for a grant with project 
period of up to 60 months subject to the requirements of 34 CFR 
75.253(a) for continuation awards. In determining whether to continue 
the Center for the fourth and fifth years of the project period, the 
Secretary, in addition to the requirements of 34 CFR 75.253(a), will 
consider--
    (a) The timeliness and effectiveness with which all requirements of 
the negotiated scope of work have been or are being met by the Center; 
and

[[Page 31683]]

    (b) The degree to which minority entities applied and were 
successful in participating in personnel preparation programs under 
IDEA.

    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1409(j) and 1431.

Absolute Priority 3--Technical Assistance to Parent Projects

    This priority is issued under the Program for Training Personnel 
for the Education of Individuals with Disabilities--Parent Training and 
Information Centers. This priority focuses primarily on the provision 
of technical assistance for establishing, developing, and coordinating 
parent training and information projects supported under the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (hereinafter referred to as 
PTIs). The project must:
    (a) Plan and conduct one national and four regional conferences 
each year;
    (b) Conduct an assessment of the training and information needs of 
the PTIs;
    (c) Provide direct technical assistance and disseminate information 
through a variety of mechanisms to individual parent training and 
information projects on management processes or content areas (e.g., 
special education and related services issues, educational reform, laws 
and regulations, alternative dispute resolution, networking) as 
identified through the needs assessment;
    (d) Maximize the computer and technological capabilities of the 
PTIs by: (1) Systematizing data collection to conduct needs assessments 
(e.g., of who is and is not being served, where and what kinds of 
problems or successes exist in States, tracking effects of Federal and 
State initiatives), (2) linking the PTIs together electronically using 
a web page and bulletin boards that are user-friendly, enable PTIs to 
access and communicate with each other, and link PTIs directly to the 
National Information Center for Children and Youth with Disabilities 
(NICHCY) and other information sources, and (3) implementing other 
appropriate strategies.
    (e) Identify effective strategies for working with parents, 
families, and schools, and incorporate these strategies into training 
materials, technical assistance activities, and conferences; and
    (f) Provide direct technical assistance to PTIs and other parent 
centers (including, as appropriate, non-IDEA funded community-based 
centers) that serve underserved and underrepresented populations.

    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1431(e).

Absolute Priority 4--Special Projects--National Initiatives

    This priority is issued under the Program for Training Personnel 
for the Education of Individuals with Disabilities. The purpose of this 
priority is to support projects of national significance related to the 
preparation of personnel needed to serve infants, toddlers, children, 
and youth with disabilities. Projects funded under this priority must 
address one of the following focus areas:
Focus 1--An Academy: Linking Teacher Education to Advances in Research
    The purpose of this project will be to link teacher education 
programs with recent advances in research that have documented 
successful methods and strategies for assisting children with 
disabilities to achieve better results. The teacher education programs 
will benefit by integrating these research advances into their 
respective preservice preparation programs for preparing personnel to 
work with children with disabilities, including special education, 
early intervention, related services personnel, and regular educators. 
The researchers will benefit from understanding how the findings of 
their research impact and improve the personnel preparation programs. A 
preservice program is defined as one that leads toward a degree, 
certification, or professional license or standard, and may be 
supported at the associate, baccalaureate, master's or specialist 
level.
    The Academy must focus its staff and resources on research 
advancements that improve results for children with disabilities in: 
(a) Teaching reading to children with learning disabilities; (b) using 
technology to enhance educational results for children with 
disabilities; and (c) using positive behavioral supports to teach 
children with disabilities who exhibit challenging behaviors.
    Activities: The Academy must--
    (a) Design an approach, consistent with principles of effective 
professional development, for linking teacher education programs to the 
recent advances in research listed above. The professional development 
approach must consider a range of strategies for facilitating the 
exchange of knowledge between researchers and individuals who prepare 
personnel to work with children with disabilities. Strategies may 
include, for example, face to face meetings, electronic networks, 
seminars, retreats, mentoring agreements, and building local resource 
banks;
    (b) Design a comprehensive approach for reaching out to teacher 
education programs across the country in each of the three research 
areas identified above;
    (c) Design innovative tools to facilitate the exchange of 
knowledge, such as experiential activities, videos, course syllabi, 
interactive media, etc.; and
    (d) Evaluate the progress of linking research advances to teacher 
education programs.
Focus 2--Developing A National Plan for Training Personnel to Serve 
Children With Blindness and Low-Vision
    In recent years, the number of institutions of higher education 
that offer teacher training programs for teachers of children with 
blindness and low-vision has significantly diminished. Today, very few 
vision training programs for teachers of individuals with visual 
impairments exist across the country. In some geographic areas, no such 
program exists. There has also been a concurrent reduction in the 
number of personnel available to meet the needs of children who are 
blind or have low-vision. Institutions currently respond to this 
shortage by offering abbreviated courses, off-campus courses, and 
distance learning. Both individual institutions and regional 
organizations are seeking more effective responses to this problem.
    These problems are significant. Thus, immediate attention must be 
devoted to developing a national strategy for addressing the need for 
qualified personnel to serve children with blindness and low-vision 
across all age ranges, particularly in the area of teaching.
    Activities: The project must--
    (a) Conduct a systemic and systematic needs assessment of the 
personnel shortage identified above; and
    (b) Design a comprehensive approach for preparing capable and 
qualified personnel to serve students with blindness and low-vision 
across all age ranges, including strategies for solving this shortage 
problem, consideration and comparisons of the merits of each 
alternative strategy, and a recommended solution. The comprehensive 
approach shall also address the level of participation in the 
profession by underrepresented populations.

    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C 1431.

Absolute Priority 5--Research Institute on Secondary Education Services 
for Children and Youth With Disabilities

    This priority is issued under the Secondary Education and 
Transitional Services for Youth with Disabilities Program. This 
institute supports a strategic program of research to study a variety 
of strategies to improve

[[Page 31684]]

educational results for students with disabilities in secondary 
education settings (including urban, rural, and suburban community 
settings), and promote their successful transition to postsecondary 
settings.
    The secondary research institute must design and conduct a 
strategic program of research to study--
    (a) The range of effective support strategies, supplementary aids, 
and services (e.g., instructional practices, counseling, tutoring, 
assistive technology) aimed at improving educational results for 
students with disabilities in a wide range of typical secondary 
education experiences (e.g., academic, vocational, extracurricular) as 
well as their retention in school and their engagement in the 
educational process. This includes the study of strategies to assist 
students in accessing the general education curriculum;
    (b) Effective strategies that secondary school personnel can use to 
restructure academic and vocational courses to accommodate students 
with disabilities with diverse learning needs and styles;
    (c) The extent to which secondary schools are effectively 
implementing the transition services requirement of IDEA;
    (d) The extent to which secondary academic and vocational curricula 
promote postsecondary education and employment; and
    (e) Standards and models for developing instructional and 
transition plans for students who are entering or enrolled in secondary 
school programs.
    The program of research must include, but need not be limited to, 
studying school based exemplars, or designing and implementing 
interventions using a rich array of research methods to reach the 
intended goals of this priority as articulated by the proposed research 
hypotheses. In addition, the research must be designed in a manner that 
is likely to lead to improved services and results for children and 
youth with disabilities, including those who are members of cultural, 
linguistic, or racial minority groups.
    The institute must--
    (a) Design and conduct a strategic program of research across 
multiple sites to represent organizational and demographic diversity;
    (b) Collect, analyze, and communicate student results data and 
supporting context data; and multiple results data for teachers, 
parents, and administrators, as appropriate;
    (c) Collaborate with other research institutes supported under the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and experts and researchers 
in related subject matter and methodological fields, to design and 
conduct the activities of the institute;
    (d) Carry out the research within a conceptual framework, based on 
previous research or theory, that provides a basis for the issues that 
will be studied, the research methods and instrumentation that will be 
used, and the specific target populations and settings that will be 
studied;
    (e) Collaborate with communication specialists and professional and 
advocacy organizations to ensure that findings are prepared in formats 
that are useable for specific audiences such as teachers, 
administrators, and other service providers;
    (f) Develop linkages with U.S. Department of Education 
dissemination and technical assistance providers, in particular those 
supported under IDEA, to communicate research findings and distribute 
products;
    (g) Provide training and research opportunities for a limited 
number of graduate students, including students who are from 
traditionally underrepresented groups;
    (h) Coordinate research and dissemination activities with other 
relevant efforts sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education and with 
the U.S. Department of Labor, including other research institutes, and 
information clearinghouses; and
    (i) Meet with the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) 
project officer in the first four months of the project to review the 
program of research and communication approaches.
    The Institute must budget for two trips annually to Washington, DC. 
for: (1) A two-day Research Project Directors' meeting; and (2) another 
meeting to collaborate with the OSEP project officer.
    Under this priority, the Secretary anticipates making one award for 
a cooperative agreement with a project period of up to 60 months 
subject to the requirements of 34 CFR 75.253(a) for continuation 
awards. In determining whether to continue the Institute for the fourth 
and fifth years of the project period, the Secretary, in addition to 
the requirements of 34 CFR 75.253(a), will consider--
    (a) The recommendation of a review team consisting of three experts 
selected by the Secretary. The services of the review team, including a 
two-day site visit to the project, are to be performed during the last 
half of the Institute's second year and may be included in that year's 
evaluation required under 34 CFR 75.590. Costs associated with the 
services to be performed by the review team must also be included in 
the Institute's budget for year two. These costs are estimated to be 
approximately $4,000;
    (b) The timeliness and effectiveness with which all requirements of 
the negotiated cooperative agreement have been or are being met by the 
Institute; and
    (c) The degree to which the Institute's research designs, 
methodologies, and activities demonstrate the potential for advancing 
significant new knowledge.

    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1425.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers: Research in 
Education of Individuals with Disabilities Program, 84.023; Training 
Personnel for the Education of Individuals with Disabilities 
Program--Grants for Personnel Training and Parent Training and 
Information Centers, 84.029; Program for Children with Severe 
Disabilities, 84.086; and Secondary Education and Transitional 
Services for Youth with Disabilities Program, 84.158)

    Dated: June 4, 1997.
Judith E. Heumann,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 97-15032 Filed 6-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P