[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 56 (Thursday, March 21, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20184-20193]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-05979]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


Applications for New Awards; Technical Assistance and 
Dissemination To Improve Services and Results for Children With 
Disabilities--The National Center for Systemic Improvement

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

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) is issuing a notice 
inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2024 for the 
National Center for Systemic Improvement, Assistance Listing Number 
84.326R. This notice relates to the approved information collection 
under OMB control number 1820-0028.

DATES: 
    Applications Available: March 21, 2024.
    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: May 20, 2024.
    Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: July 19, 2024.
    Pre-Application Webinar Information: No later than March 26, 2024, 
the Office of Special Education Programs and Rehabilitative Services 
will post pre-recorded informational webinars designed to provide 
technical assistance (TA) to interested applicants. The webinars may be 
found at www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/osep/new-osep-grants.html.

ADDRESSES: For the addresses for obtaining and submitting an 
application, please refer to our Common Instructions for Applicants to 
Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the 
Federal Register on December 7, 2022 (87 FR 75045) and available at 
www.federalregister.gov/d/2022-26554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Perry Williams, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 4A10, Washington, DC 20202. 
Telephone: (202) 987-0138. Email: [email protected].
    If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and 
wish to

[[Page 20185]]

access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Full Text of Announcement

I. Funding Opportunity Description

    Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Technical Assistance and 
Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for Children with 
Disabilities program is to promote academic achievement and to improve 
results for children with disabilities by providing TA, supporting 
model demonstration projects, disseminating useful information, and 
implementing activities that are supported by scientifically based 
research.
    Priority: This competition includes one absolute priority. In 
accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(v), this priority is from allowable 
activities specified in the statute (see sections 663 and 681(d) of the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA); 20 U.S.C. 1463 and 
1481(d)).
    Absolute Priority: For FY 2024 and any subsequent year in which we 
make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this 
competition, this priority is an absolute priority. Under 34 CFR 
75.105(c)(3), we consider only applications that meet this priority.
    This priority is:
    The National Center for Systemic Improvement.

Background

    The cornerstone of IDEA is to ensure that all children, regardless 
of the nature or severity of their disability, have access to a free 
appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive 
environment (LRE). While States and local educational agencies (LEAs) 
are primarily responsible for providing FAPE in the LRE for all 
eligible children with disabilities (CWD), it is in the interest for 
the Department to ensure States and LEAs are in compliance with the 
IDEA and effectively serving CWD. 20 U.S.C. 1400(c)(6). Therefore, the 
Department proposes to fund the National Center for Systemic 
Improvement to provide State educational agencies (SEAs) with an array 
of tools, resources, and assistance to improve the educational results 
and functional outcomes for CWD.
    IDEA places the responsibility for ensuring access to FAPE in the 
LRE on the SEA. 34 CFR 300.101(b). As such, the SEA must monitor IDEA 
implementation by LEAs to ensure that LEAs meet IDEA requirements with 
particular emphasis on those requirements that are most closely related 
to improving educational results and functional outcomes for CWD. 20 
U.S.C. 1416(a)(2)(A).
    The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) scores for 
CWD have lagged behind those of their peers without disabilities for 
the past two decades. Although average NAEP score gaps narrowed between 
students with and without disabilities since 2019, results of the 2022 
NAEP show that CWD, including those with 504 plans, performed 40 points 
below children without disabilities in fourth grade reading, with 
average scores of 183 and 223, respectively and 28 points below their 
peers in math for the same grade with average scores of 212 and 240, 
respectively (U.S. Department of Education, 2022). Also, the National 
Center for Education Statistics (2023) recent data from the 2019-2020 
school year show that the high school graduation rate for all children 
was 86.5 percent while the graduation rate for CWD was 70.6 percent.
    As stated in IDEA, research and experience has demonstrated CWD are 
more effectively educated when there are high expectations and there is 
access to the general curriculum in the regular classroom, to the 
maximum extent possible. 20 U.S.C. 1400(c)(5)(A). One method SEAs use 
to ensure high expectations and access to the general curriculum in the 
regular classroom, to the maximum extent possible, is through 
implementing reasonably designed general supervision systems.\1\ 
Through a reasonably designed general supervision system, an SEA 
monitors IDEA implementation by LEAs to ensure that LEAs meet IDEA 
requirements with particular emphasis on those requirements that are 
most closely related to improving educational results and functional 
outcomes for CWD, like increased assessment proficiency and graduation 
rates. 20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A reasonably designed State general supervision system 
should include eight integrated components. These components include 
the following: Integrated monitoring activities; data on processes 
and results; the State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report; 
fiscal management; effective dispute resolution; targeted TA and 
professional development; policies, procedures, and practices 
resulting in effective implementation; and improvement, correction, 
incentives, and sanctions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Office of Special Education Programs' (OSEP's) most recent Part 
B findings from its Differentiated Monitoring and Supports (DMS) 2.0 
\2\ visits highlight ongoing concerns that States' general supervision 
systems are not designed to identify and correct noncompliance in LEAs 
related to monitoring and improvement, fiscal monitoring, dispute 
resolution, early childhood transition, and significant 
disproportionality as well as other general supervision requirements. 
Further, IDEA section 616(d) determinations \3\ show that between 2014 
and 2023, only seven Part B States consistently received the ``meets 
requirements'' determination in accordance with 20 U.S.C. 
1416(d)(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ https://sites.ed.gov/idea/files/DMS-2.0-Overview.pdf.
    \3\ Consistent with IDEA section 616(d), the Department must 
make an annual determination as to the extent to which each State's 
IDEA Part B program is meeting IDEA requirements. The Department can 
determine that a State meets the requirements and purposes of IDEA 
Part B, needs assistance in implementing Part B requirements, needs 
intervention in implementing Part B requirements, or needs 
substantial intervention in implementing Part B requirements. 20 
U.S.C. 1416(d)(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to these ongoing findings, in July 2023, OSEP released 
to the field, Guidance on State General Supervision Responsibilities 
under Parts B and C of the IDEA.\4\ This guidance is intended to 
support States as they implement, monitor progress, and continuously 
update, with fidelity, reasonably designed general supervision systems 
to ensure statewide accountability to identify and correct 
noncompliance in a timely manner; increase accountability through the 
collection of timely and accurate data; and ensure the full 
implementation of IDEA for CWD and their families.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ https://sites.ed.gov/idea/files/Guidance_on_State_General_Supervision_Responsibilities_under_Parts_B_and_C_of_IDEA-07-24-2023.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are several challenges that affect States' abilities to 
effectively meet the requirements of IDEA and lead successful systemic 
improvement efforts. Recently, the pandemic and its impact exacerbated 
the educational disparities between CWD and their peers without 
disabilities and also highlighted existing gaps in State 
infrastructures (Pier et al., 2021). Specifically, SEAs suffer from a 
``capacity gap'' that undermines their ability to monitor and enforce 
policy mandates, provide TA, and deliver professional development (PD) 
to LEAs that support continuous improvement efforts to ensure CWD 
achieve equitable outcomes. A major contributor to this ``capacity 
gap'' is the turnover rate of SEA administrators and leaders, which has 
created a lack of continuity in institutional knowledge and leadership. 
For example, States filled positions for 10 new directors of special 
education (17 percent) in 2021; 16 (27 percent) in 2022; and 12 (21 
percent) in 2023.
    In addition, a National Center for Learning Disabilities (NCLD) 
report, Assessing ESSA: Missed Opportunities

[[Page 20186]]

for Children with Disabilities and a review of State Systemic 
Improvement Plans (SSIPs) submitted by States in 2023, continue to 
expose States' capacity challenges, including (1) promotion of 
Universal Design for Learning as a natural connection for general and 
special education collaboration; (2) meaningful engagement of diverse 
perspectives to recognize that student and family voices are inherently 
important sources of data; (3) integration of State general supervision 
systems to allow components to connect, interact, and inform one 
another, avoiding silos across the system; (4) the ability to 
strategically allocate resources where there are weaknesses in meeting 
IDEA and their fiscal requirements; (5) robust mapping of systems of 
support to align with State priorities and initiatives, guidance to the 
field, and resources to support evidence-based practices (EBPs) 
selection, adoption, use, and scaling; (6) SSIP implementation and 
measuring State Identified Measurable Result impact; (7) effective 
systems alignment with general education efforts; and (8) conditions 
for continuous improvement to advance educational equity (NCLD, 2018).
    Successfully addressing these challenges and improving State 
complex systems involves changing actions and behaviors as well as the 
``hearts and minds'' of each partner (e.g., educators, administrators, 
community members, and families) in an ongoing way (Blase et al., 
2014). This continuous improvement approach requires a level of 
capacity that SEAs may not have, as it goes well beyond compliance 
monitoring and into sustained TA and support, and developing leadership 
and staff capacity to solve their unique challenges (Heifetz et al., 
2009). In response to these internal capacity limitations, SEAs tend to 
rely on an array of external support and assistance from consultants, 
coaches, and statewide TA providers.
    This Center will serve as a critical support to States working to 
address these and other capacity challenges and to improve the 
educational results and functional outcomes for CWD. This Center will 
advance the Secretary's priorities in promoting equity in student 
access to educational resources and opportunities. The Center will 
support States to use data to evaluate, analyze, refine, strengthen, 
and, if applicable, redesign their general supervision systems for 
effectiveness in improving educational results and functional outcomes 
for CWD as well as to address systemic inequities.

Priority

    The purpose of this priority is to fund a cooperative agreement to 
establish and operate the National Center for Systemic Improvement 
(project). This project will provide sustained TA to SEAs to support 
them to effectively implement IDEA, build the capacity of State 
directors and State-level staff to meet the requirements of IDEA and 
build statewide systems to advance educational equity, mitigate SEA 
turnover, and improve academic and functional outcomes for children and 
youth with disabilities.
    The project must achieve, at a minimum, the following expected 
outcomes:
    (a) Increased capacity of SEAs to support LEAs and schools in 
selecting and implementing evidence-based \5\ practices (EBPs) and 
high-leverage practices (HLPs) \6\ within frameworks supported by 
evidence that drive effective learning experiences, instruction, 
interventions, and services and supports to improve educational results 
and functional outcomes for CWD;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For the purposes of this priority, ``evidence-based'' means, 
at a minimum, evidence that demonstrates 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.
    \6\ For the purposes of this priority, ``high-leverage 
practices'' refers to a set of practices in special education that 
are essential to improving student learning and behavior and can be 
learned through coursework, deliberately practiced in clinical 
practice, and generalized in future field experiences. For more 
detailed information on high-leverage practices, see High-Leverage 
Practices in Special Education at https://highleveragepractices.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Increased capacity of SEAs to use data to evaluate, analyze, 
refine, strengthen, and if applicable, redesign their general 
supervision systems to ensure all components are reasonably designed 
and inform continuous improvement efforts;
    (c) Increased capacity of SEAs to implement their general 
supervision systems to support LEAs and schools to effectively 
implement IDEA and deliver equitable and effective IDEA services;
    (d) Increased capacity of SEAs to use data to engage in continuous 
improvement that builds more equitable, effective, and sustainable 
State systems to improve educational results and functional outcomes 
for children and youth with disabilities and their families; and
    (e) Increased capacity of SEAs to meaningfully engage diverse State 
and local administrators, educators, community members, and families, 
including those historically marginalized by the education system in 
decision making processes.
    In addition to these programmatic requirements, to be considered 
for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the application 
and administrative requirements in this priority, which are:
    (a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Significance,'' how the proposed project will--
    (1) Address the current and emerging capacity needs (especially 
post-pandemic) of SEAs to ensure the effective redesign, if applicable, 
implementation and evaluation of their general supervision systems to 
support both results focused implementation of the IDEA and compliance 
with IDEA requirements. To meet this requirement, the applicant must--
    (i) Demonstrate knowledge of current educational issues and policy 
initiatives relating to SEAs' effective systems alignment with general 
education and IDEA efforts that target and support LEA improvement;
    (ii) Present information and data about the current capacity of 
SEAs to support continuous improvement, and how the project will 
enhance SEA capacity to support LEAs and schools to implement, scale-
up, and sustain the use of EBPs and HLPs with fidelity; and
    (iii) Demonstrate knowledge of the current capacity of SEAs to 
implement and equitably apply policies and practices that support 
equitable outcomes for children and youth with disabilities and their 
families;
    (2) Increase SEA implementation of policies and practices that can 
improve SEA retention rates of special education leaders;
    (3) Use effective approaches to disseminate Department guidance, 
knowledge, tools, and resources to SEAs, LEAs, diverse recipients, and 
other Department-funded TA centers;
    (4) Implement effective TA strategies and deliver evidence-based 
PD; and
    (5) Result in improvements to SEA capacity to use data to evaluate, 
analyze, refine, strengthen, and, if applicable, redesign their general 
supervision systems. To meet this requirement, the applicant must 
describe the results that the project is expected to make and the 
likely magnitude or importance of these results.
    (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

[[Page 20187]]

based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability. To 
meet this requirement, the applicant must describe how it will--
    (i) Identify the needs of the intended recipients for TA and 
information; and
    (ii) Ensure that services and products meet the needs of the 
intended recipients of the project services;
    (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: https://osepideasthatwork.org/sites/default/files/2021-12/ConceptualFramework_Updated.pdf 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 EBPs. To meet this 
requirement, the applicant must describe--
    (i) The current research on capacity building, systems change, 
family engagement, IDEA general supervision systems, and continuous 
improvement in SEAs;
    (ii) The current research on racial and educational equity and how 
it will inform the TA;
    (iii) Best practices to build SEA leadership capacity and 
strategies to mitigate turnover;
    (iv) The current research about adult learning principles and 
implementation science that will inform the proposed TA; and
    (v) How the proposed project will incorporate current research and 
practices 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 SEA 
leaders need to--
    (A) Review current systems to identify the conditions to support 
continuous improvement, build SEA capacity to implement general 
supervision systems, which are reasonably designed to effectively 
support the implementation of IDEA requirements, and assist SEAs to 
engage in OSEP's DMS processes;
    (B) Ensure integrated monitoring activities are part of the SEAs' 
general supervision system and support the ability to review and 
evaluate an LEA's implementation of IDEA with a particular emphasis on 
improved educational results and functional outcomes, and compliance 
with IDEA requirements; and
    (C) Support advancing educational equity within State general 
supervision systems to include analyzing disaggregated data and 
examining policies and practices in the system to identify disparities 
and develop and implement an action plan to address identified 
disparities;
    (ii) The proposed approach to universal, general TA,\7\ which must 
describe--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ ``Universal, general TA'' means TA and information provided 
to independent users through their own initiative, resulting in 
minimal interaction with TA project staff and including one-time, 
invited or offered conference presentations by TA project staff. 
This category of TA also includes information or products, such as 
newsletters, guidebooks, or research syntheses, downloaded from the 
TA project's website by independent users. Brief communications by 
TA project staff with recipients, either by telephone or email, are 
also considered universal, general TA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of 
recipients, that will receive the products and services; the products 
and services that the project proposes to make available;
    (B) The development and maintenance of a high-quality website, with 
an easy-to-navigate design, that meets or exceeds government- or 
industry-recognized standards for accessibility; and
    (C) The expected reach and impact of universal, general TA;
    (iii) The proposed approach to targeted, specialized TA,\8\ which 
must describe--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ ``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 project 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of 
recipients, that will receive the products and services;
    (B) The products and services that the project proposes to make 
available;
    (C) The proposed approach to measure the readiness of potential TA 
recipients to work with the project, including, at a minimum, an 
assessment of potential recipients' current infrastructure, available 
resources, and ability to build capacity at the local level;
    (D) The project's proposed approach to assist SEAs with aligning 
general supervision components to current State initiatives, strategic 
planning, and priorities for alignment;
    (E) The project's proposed approach to establish and convene ad-hoc 
cohorts of States experiencing similar issues to assist with providing 
differentiated problem-solving and the sharing of innovative and 
promising approaches;
    (F) How to best support SEAs, with the understanding that each 
State is a unique complex system, with differing infrastructures, State 
priorities, capacity challenges, and political environments; and
    (G) The expected impact of targeted, specialized TA;
    (iv) The proposed approach to intensive, sustained TA,\9\ which 
must describe--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ ``Intensive, sustained TA'' means TA services often provided 
on-site and requiring a stable, ongoing relationship between the TA 
project staff and the TA recipient. ``TA services'' are defined as 
negotiated series of activities designed to reach a valued outcome. 
This category of TA should result in changes to policy, program, 
practice, or operations that support increased recipient capacity or 
improved outcomes at one or more systems levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of 
recipients, that will receive the products and services, a description 
of the products and services that the Center proposes to make 
available, and the expected impact of those products and services under 
this approach;
    (B) The proposed approach to measure the readiness of the SEAs to 
work with the project, including their commitment, alignment to their 
needs, current infrastructure, available resources, and ability to 
build capacity at the LEA level;
    (C) Its proposed plan to prioritize TA recipients whose most recent 
annual determination by the Secretary was that the State needs 
intervention under section 616(d)(2)(A)(iii) of IDEA or

[[Page 20188]]

needs substantial intervention under section 616(d)(2)(A)(iv) of IDEA 
in implementing the requirements of Part B of IDEA;
    (D) Its proposed plan for assisting SEAs to build or enhance PD 
systems based on adult learning principles and that include sustained 
coaching; and
    (E) Its proposed plan for working with appropriate levels of the 
education system (e.g., SEAs, educational service agencies, LEAs, 
institutions of higher education (IHEs), educator preparation programs, 
other TA providers, parents, and families) to ensure that there is 
communication between each level and that there are systems in place to 
support implementation of EBPs;
    (v) How the proposed project will intentionally engage families of 
children with disabilities and individuals with disabilities--including 
underserved families \10\ and individuals--in the development, 
implementation, and evaluation of its products and services across all 
levels of TA; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ For the purposes of this priority, ``underserved families'' 
refers to foster, kinship, migrant, technologically unconnected, and 
military- or veteran-connected families; and families of color, 
living in poverty, without documentation of immigration status, 
experiencing homelessness or housing insecurity, or impacted by the 
justice system, including the juvenile justice system. Underserved 
families also refers to families that include: members of a 
federally or State recognized Indian Tribe; English learners; adults 
who experience a disability; members who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, 
transgender, queer or questioning, or intersex (LGBTQI+); adults in 
need of improving their basic skills or with limited literacy; and 
disconnected adults.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (vi) How the proposed project will use non-project resources to 
achieve the intended project outcomes;
    (6) Develop products and implement services that maximize 
efficiency. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe--
    (i) How the proposed project will use technology to achieve the 
intended project outcomes;
    (ii) How the proposed project will collaborate with other federally 
funded TA centers, including, at a minimum, the Office of Elementary 
and Secondary Education (OESE) National and Regional Comprehensive 
Centers, OSEP Parent Centers and OESE Statewide Family Engagement 
Centers, the National Center for Supporting School Building and Early 
Intervention Program Administrators to Effectively Implement IDEA and 
Improve Systems Serving Children with Disabilities, the Center for IDEA 
Fiscal Reporting, and national organizations, as appropriate, to 
develop and implement targeted TA strategies, reduce duplication of 
effort, and assist with coordination of TA efforts across multiple TA 
Centers supporting States; and
    (iii) How the proposed project will use non-project resources to 
achieve the intended project outcomes;
    (7) Systematically disseminate information, products, and services 
to varied intended audiences. To address this requirement the applicant 
must describe--
    (i) The variety of dissemination strategies the project will use 
throughout the five years of the project to promote awareness and use 
of its products and services;
    (ii) How the project will tailor dissemination strategies across 
all planned levels of TA to ensure that products and services reach 
intended recipients, and those recipients can access and use those 
products and services;
    (iii) How the project's dissemination plan is connected to the 
proposed outcomes of the project; and
    (iv) How the project will evaluate and correct, as needed, all 
digital products and external communications to ensure they meet or 
exceed government or industry-recognized standards for accessibility.
    (c) In the narrative section of the application under ``Quality of 
the project evaluation,'' include an evaluation plan for the project as 
described in the following paragraphs. The evaluation plan must 
describe measures of progress in implementation, including the criteria 
for determining the extent to which the project's products and services 
have met the goals for reaching its target population; measures of 
intended outcomes or results of the project's activities in order to 
evaluate those activities; and how well the goals or objectives of the 
proposed project, as described in its logic model, have been met.
    The applicant must provide an assurance that, in designing the 
evaluation plan, it will--
    (1) Designate, with the approval of the OSEP project officer, a 
project liaison with sufficient dedicated time, experience in 
evaluation, and knowledge of the project to work in collaboration with 
the Center to Improve Program and Project Performance (CIPP),\11\ the 
project director, and the OSEP project officer on the following tasks:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The major tasks of CIPP are to guide, coordinate, and 
oversee the design of formative evaluations for every large 
discretionary investment (i.e., those awarded $500,000 or more per 
year and required to participate in the 3+2 process) in OSEP's 
Technical Assistance and Dissemination; Personnel Development; 
Parent Training and Information Centers; and Educational Technology, 
Media, and Materials programs. The efforts of CIPP are expected to 
enhance individual project evaluation plans by providing expert and 
unbiased TA in designing the evaluations with due consideration of 
the project's budget. CIPP does not function as a third-party 
evaluator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (i) Revise the logic model submitted in the application, as 
appropriate, to provide for a more comprehensive measurement of 
implementation and outcomes and to reflect any changes or 
clarifications to the model discussed at the kick-off meeting;
    (ii) Refine the evaluation design and instrumentation proposed in 
the application, as appropriate, to be consistent with the revised 
logic model and using the most rigorous design suitable (e.g., prepare 
evaluation questions about significant program processes and outcomes; 
develop quantitative or qualitative data collections that permit both 
the collection of progress data, including fidelity of implementation, 
as appropriate, and the assessment of project outcomes; and identify 
analytic strategies); and
    (iii) Revise the evaluation plan submitted in the application such 
that it clearly--
    (A) Specifies the evaluation questions, measures, and associated 
instruments or sources for data appropriate to answer these questions, 
suggests analytic strategies for those data, provides a timeline for 
conducting the evaluation, and includes staff assignments for 
completing the evaluation activities;
    (B) Delineates the data expected to be available by the end of the 
second project year for use during the project's evaluation (3+2 
review) for continued funding described under the heading Fourth and 
Fifth Years of the Project; and
    (C) Can be used to assist the project director and the OSEP project 
officer, with the assistance of CIPP, as needed, in specifying the 
project performance measures to be addressed in the project's annual 
performance report (APR);
    (2) Dedicate sufficient staff time and other resources during the 
first six months of the project to collaborate with CIPP staff, 
including regular meetings (e.g., weekly, biweekly, or monthly) with 
CIPP and the OSEP project officer, in order to accomplish the tasks 
described in paragraph (C)(1) of this section; and
    (3) Dedicate sufficient funds in each budget year to cover the 
costs of carrying out the tasks described in paragraphs (C)(1) and (2) 
of this section and revising and implementing the evaluation plan. 
Please note in your budget narrative the funds dedicated for this 
activity.

[[Page 20189]]

    (d) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Adequacy of resources and quality of project personnel,'' how--
    (1) The proposed project will encourage applications for employment 
from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been 
underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or 
disability, as appropriate;
    (2) The proposed key project personnel, consultants, and 
subcontractors have the qualifications and experience to carry out the 
proposed activities and achieve the project's intended outcomes;
    (3) The applicant and any key partners have adequate resources to 
carry out the proposed activities;
    (4) The proposed project will have processes, resources, and funds 
in place to provide equitable access for project staff, contractors, 
and partners, who require digital accessibility accommodations; \12\ 
and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For information about digital accessibility and 
accessibility standards from Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, 
visit https://osepideasthatwork.org/resources-grantees/508-resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (5) The proposed costs are reasonable in relation to the 
anticipated results and benefits.
    (e) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Quality of the management plan,'' how--
    (1) The proposed management plan will ensure that the project's 
intended outcomes will be achieved on time and within budget. To 
address this requirement, the applicant must describe--
    (i) Clearly defined responsibilities for key project personnel, 
consultants, and subcontractors, as applicable; and
    (ii) Timelines and milestones for accomplishing the project tasks;
    (2) Key project personnel and any consultants and subcontractors 
will be allocated and how these allocations are appropriate and 
adequate to achieve the project's intended outcomes;
    (3) The proposed management plan will ensure that the products and 
services provided are of high quality, relevant, and useful to 
recipients; and
    (4) The proposed project will benefit from a diversity of 
perspectives, including those of families, educators, TA providers, 
researchers, and policy makers, among others, in its development and 
operation.
    (f) Address the following application requirements. The applicant 
must--
    (1) Include, in Appendix A, personnel-loading charts and timelines, 
as applicable, to illustrate the management plan described in the 
narrative;
    (2) Include, in the budget, attendance at the following:
    (i) A one and one-half day kick-off meeting in Washington, DC, 
after receipt of the award, and an annual planning meeting in 
Washington, DC, with the OSEP project officer and other relevant staff 
during each subsequent year of the project period;

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

    (ii) A three-day project directors' conference in Washington, DC, 
during each year of the project period. The project must reallocate 
funds for travel to the project directors' conference no later than the 
end of the third quarter of each budget period if the meeting is 
conducted virtually;
    (iii) Two annual two-day trips to attend Department briefings, 
Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by 
OSEP; and
    (iv) A one-day intensive 3+2 review meeting in Washington, DC, 
during the second year of the project period;
    (3) Include, in the budget, a line item for an annual set-aside of 
5 percent of the grant amount to support emerging needs that are 
consistent with the proposed project's intended outcomes, as those 
needs are identified in consultation with, and approved by, the OSEP 
project officer. With approval from the OSEP project officer, the 
project must reallocate any remaining funds from this annual set-aside 
no later than the end of the third quarter of each budget period;
    (4) Engage a racially, ethnically, and culturally diverse group of 
doctoral students or post-doctoral fellows, including those with 
disabilities and those who are multilingual, in the project to increase 
the number of future leaders in the field who are knowledgeable about 
effective State systems designed to support equitable outcomes for 
children and youth with disabilities and their families at the local 
level;
    (5) Maintain a high-quality and language and disability accessible 
website;
    (6) Ensure that annual project progress toward meeting project 
goals is posted on the project website; and
    (7) Include, in Appendix A, an assurance to assist OSEP with the 
transfer of pertinent resources and products and to maintain the 
continuity of services to States during the transition to a new award 
at the end of this award period, as appropriate.

Fourth and Fifth Years of the Project

    In deciding whether to continue funding the project for the fourth 
and fifth years, the Secretary will consider the requirements of 34 CFR 
75.253(a), including--
    (a) The recommendations of a 3+2 review team consisting of experts 
with knowledge and experience in TA and dissemination, systems change 
to support SEAs, family engagement, and research and evaluation. This 
review will be conducted during a one-day intensive meeting that will 
be held during the last half of the second year of the project period;
    (b) The timeliness with which, and how well, the requirements of 
the negotiated cooperative agreement have been or are being met by the 
project; and
    (c) The quality, relevance, and usefulness of the project's 
products and services and the extent to which the project's products 
and services are aligned with the project's objectives and likely to 
result in the project achieving its intended outcomes.
    Under 34 CFR 75.253, the Secretary may reduce continuation awards 
or discontinue awards in any year of the project period for excessive 
carryover balances, a failure to make substantial progress, or has not 
maintained financial and administrative management systems that meet 
requirements in 2 CFR 200.302, Financial management, and Sec.  200.303, 
Internal controls. The Department intends to closely monitor 
unobligated balances and substantial progress under this program and 
may reduce or discontinue funding accordingly.

References

Blase, K., Fixsen, D., Sims, B., & Ward, C. (2014). Implementation 
science: Changing hearts, minds, behavior, and systems to improve 
educational outcomes. National Implementation Research Network, 
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. https://fpg.unc.edu/sites/fpg.unc.edu/files/resource-files/2014%20Wing%20Summit%20KB.pdf.
Heifetz, R.A., Linsky, M., & Grashow, A. (2009). The practice of 
adaptive leadership: Tools and tactics for changing your 
organization and the world. Harvard Business Press.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2023). Public high school 
graduation rates. Condition of education. U.S. Department of 
Education, Institute of Education Sciences. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/coi.
National Center for Learning Disabilities (NCLD). (2018). Accessing 
ESSA: Missed opportunities for children with

[[Page 20190]]

disabilities. https://hecse.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/18.-AssessingESSA_2018.pdf.
Pier, L., Hough, H., Christian, M., Bookman, N., Wilkenfeld, B., & 
Miller, R. (2021, January). COVID-19 and the educational equity 
crisis: Evidence on learning loss from the CORE Data Collaborative. 
Policy Analysis for California Education. https://edpolicyinca.org/newsroom/covid-19-and-educational-equity-crisis.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education 
Statistics. (2022). National assessment of educational progress 
[Data file]. www.nationsreportcard.gov/ndecore/xplore/nde.

    Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking: Under the Administrative Procedure 
Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553) the Department generally offers interested 
parties the opportunity to comment on proposed priorities. Section 
681(d) of IDEA, however, makes the public comment requirements of the 
APA inapplicable to the priority in this notice.
    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1463 and 1481.
    Note: Projects will be awarded and must be operated in a manner 
consistent with the nondiscrimination requirements contained in Federal 
civil rights laws.
    Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General 
Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86, 
97, 98, and 99. (b) The Office of Management and Budget Guidelines to 
Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 
2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department 
in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost 
Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 
200, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR 
part 3474.
    Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants 
except federally recognized Indian Tribes.
    Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to IHEs only.

II. Award Information

    Type of Award: Cooperative agreement.
    Estimated Available Funds: The Administration has requested 
$55,345,000 for the Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve 
Services and Results for Children with Disabilities program for FY 
2024, of which we intend to use an estimated $6,250,000 for this 
competition. The actual level of funding, if any, depends on final 
congressional action. However, we are inviting applications to allow 
enough time to complete the grant process if Congress appropriates 
funds for this program.
    Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of 
applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2025 from the list of 
unfunded applications from this competition.
    Maximum Award: We will not make an award exceeding $6,250,000 for a 
single budget period of 12 months.
    Estimated Number of Awards: 1.

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

    Project Period: Up to 60 months.

III. Eligibility Information

    1. Eligible Applicants: SEAs; LEAs, including public charter 
schools that operate as LEAs under State law; IHEs; other public 
agencies; private nonprofit organizations; freely associated States and 
outlying areas; Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations; and for-profit 
organizations.
    2. a. Cost Sharing or Matching: This competition does not require 
cost sharing or matching.
    b. Indirect Cost Rate Information: This program uses an 
unrestricted indirect cost rate. For more information regarding 
indirect costs, or to obtain a negotiated indirect cost rate, please 
see www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocfo/intro.html.
    c. Administrative Cost Limitation: This program does not include 
any program-specific limitation on administrative expenses. All 
administrative expenses must be reasonable and necessary and conform to 
Cost Principles described in 2 CFR part 200 subpart E of the Uniform 
Guidance.
    3. Subgrantees: Under 34 CFR 75.708(b) and (c), a grantee under 
this competition may award subgrants--to directly carry out project 
activities described in its application--to the following types of 
entities: IHEs, nonprofit organizations suitable to carry out the 
activities proposed in the application, and other public agencies. The 
grantee may award subgrants to entities it has identified in an 
approved application or that it selects through a competition under 
procedures established by the grantee, consistent with 34 CFR 
75.708(b)(2).
    4. Other General Requirements:
    (a) Recipients of funding under this competition must make positive 
efforts to employ and advance in employment qualified individuals with 
disabilities (see section 606 of IDEA).
    (b) Applicants for, and recipients of, funding must, with respect 
to the aspects of their proposed project relating to the absolute 
priority, involve individuals with disabilities, or parents of 
individuals with disabilities ages birth through 26, in planning, 
implementing, and evaluating the project (see section 682(a)(1)(A) of 
IDEA).

IV. Application and Submission Information

    1. Application Submission Instructions: Applicants are required to 
follow the Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of 
Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal 
Register on December 7, 2022 (87 FR 75045) and available at 
www.federalregister.gov/d/2022-26554, which contain requirements and 
information on how to submit an application.
    2. Intergovernmental Review: This competition is subject to 
Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. 
Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under 
Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this 
competition.
    3. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding 
restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.
    4. Recommended Page Limit: The application narrative is where you, 
the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to 
evaluate your application. We recommend that you (1) limit the 
application narrative to no more than 70 pages and (2) use the 
following standards:
     A ``page'' is 8.5'' x 11'', on one side only, with 1'' 
margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
     Double-space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) 
all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, 
footnotes, quotations, reference citations, and captions, as well as 
all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.
     Use a font that is 12 point or larger.
     Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, 
Courier New, or Arial.
    The recommended page limit does not apply to the cover sheet; the 
budget section, including the narrative budget justification; the 
assurances and certifications; or the abstract (follow the guidance 
provided in the application package for completing the abstract), the 
table of contents, the list of priority requirements, the resumes, the 
reference list, the letters of support, or the appendices. However, the 
recommended page limit does apply to all of the application narrative,

[[Page 20191]]

including all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen 
shots.

V. Application Review Information

    1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for this competition 
are from 34 CFR 75.210 and are listed below:
    (a) Significance (10 points).
    (1) The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed 
project.
    (2) In determining the significance of the proposed project, the 
Secretary considers the following factors:
    (i) The extent to which specific gaps or weaknesses in services, 
infrastructure, or opportunities have been identified and will be 
addressed by the proposed project, including the nature and magnitude 
of those gaps or weaknesses.
    (ii) The importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely 
to be attained by the proposed project.
    (b) Quality of project services (35 points).
    (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the services to be 
provided by the proposed project.
    (2) In determining the quality of the services to be provided by 
the proposed project, the Secretary considers the quality and 
sufficiency of strategies for ensuring equal access and treatment for 
eligible project participants who are members of groups that have 
traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national 
origin, gender, age, or disability.
    (3) In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:
    (i) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be 
achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable.
    (ii) The extent to which there is a conceptual framework underlying 
the proposed research or demonstration activities and the quality of 
that framework.
    (iii) The extent to which the services to be provided by the 
proposed project reflect up-to-date knowledge from research and 
effective practice.
    (iv) The extent to which the training or professional development 
services to be provided by the proposed project are of sufficient 
quality, intensity, and duration to lead to improvements in practice 
among the recipients of those services.
    (v) The extent to which the TA services to be provided by the 
proposed project involve the use of efficient strategies, including the 
use of technology, as appropriate, and the leveraging of non-project 
resources.
    (c) Quality of the project evaluation (20 points).
    (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be 
conducted of the proposed project.
    (2) In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary 
considers the following factors:
    (i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, 
feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the 
proposed project.
    (ii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation provide for 
examining the effectiveness of project implementation strategies.
    (iii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide 
performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward 
achieving intended outcomes.
    (iv) The extent to which the methods of evaluation include the use 
of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the 
intended outcomes of the project and will produce quantitative and 
qualitative data to the extent possible.
    (d) Adequacy of resources and quality of project personnel (15 
points).
    (1) The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the 
proposed project and the quality of the personnel who will carry out 
the proposed project.
    (2) In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary 
considers the extent to which the applicant encourages applications for 
employment from persons who are members of groups that have 
traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national 
origin, gender, age, or disability.
    (3) In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:
    (i) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, 
of the project director or principal investigator.
    (ii) The qualifications, including relevant training and 
experience, of key project personnel.
    (iii) The qualifications, including relevant training and 
experience, of project consultants or subcontractors.
    (iv) The qualifications, including relevant training, experience, 
and independence, of the evaluator.
    (v) The adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment, 
supplies, and other resources, from the applicant organization or the 
lead applicant organization.
    (vi) The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in 
the proposed project to the implementation and success of the project.
    (vii) The extent to which the budget is adequate to support the 
proposed project.
    (viii) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to 
the objectives, design, and potential significance of the proposed 
project.
    (e) Quality of the management plan (20 points).
    (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for 
the proposed project.
    (2) In determining the quality of the management plan for the 
proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
    (i) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives 
of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly 
defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing 
project tasks.
    (ii) The extent to which the time commitments of the project 
director and principal investigator and other key project personnel are 
appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed 
project.
    (iii) The adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality products 
and services from the proposed project.
    (iv) How the applicant will ensure that a diversity of perspectives 
are brought to bear in the operation of the proposed project, including 
those of parents, teachers, the business community, a variety of 
disciplinary and professional fields, recipients or beneficiaries of 
services, or others, as appropriate.
    2. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants 
that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, 
the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past 
performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as 
the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and 
compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider 
whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or 
submitted a report of unacceptable quality.
    In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary 
requires various assurances, including those applicable to Federal 
civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or 
activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department 
(34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
    3. Additional Review and Selection Process Factors: In the past, 
the Department has had difficulty finding peer reviewers for certain 
competitions because so many individuals who are eligible to serve as 
peer reviewers have conflicts of interest. The standing panel 
requirements under section 682(b) of IDEA also have placed additional 
constraints on the availability of

[[Page 20192]]

reviewers. Therefore, the Department has determined that for some 
discretionary grant competitions, applications may be separated into 
two or more groups and ranked and selected for funding within specific 
groups. This procedure will make it easier for the Department to find 
peer reviewers by ensuring that greater numbers of individuals who are 
eligible to serve as reviewers for any particular group of applicants 
will not have conflicts of interest. It also will increase the quality, 
independence, and fairness of the review process, while permitting 
panel members to review applications under discretionary grant 
competitions for which they also have submitted applications.
    4. Risk Assessment and Specific Conditions: Consistent with 2 CFR 
200.206, before awarding grants under this competition the Department 
conducts a review of the risks posed by applicants. Under 2 CFR 
200.208, the Secretary may impose specific conditions, and under 2 CFR 
3474.10, in appropriate circumstances, high-risk conditions on a grant 
if the applicant or grantee is not financially stable; has a history of 
unsatisfactory performance; has a financial or other management system 
that does not meet the standards in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D; has not 
fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not 
responsible.
    5. Integrity and Performance System: If you are selected under this 
competition to receive an award that over the course of the project 
period may exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (currently 
$250,000), under 2 CFR 200.206(a)(2) we must make a judgment about your 
integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal 
awards--that is, the risk posed by you as an applicant--before we make 
an award. In doing so, we must consider any information about you that 
is in the integrity and performance system (currently referred to as 
the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System 
(FAPIIS)), accessible through the System for Award Management. You may 
review and comment on any information about yourself that a Federal 
agency previously entered and that is currently in FAPIIS.
    Please note that, if the total value of your currently active 
grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the 
Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 
CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity 
information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 
CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal 
funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.
    6. In General: In accordance with the Office of Management and 
Budget's guidance located at 2 CFR part 200, all applicable Federal 
laws, and relevant Executive guidance, the Department will review and 
consider applications for funding pursuant to this notice inviting 
applications in accordance with:
    (a) Selecting recipients most likely to be successful in delivering 
results based on the program objectives through an objective process of 
evaluating Federal award applications (2 CFR 200.205);
    (b) Prohibiting the purchase of certain telecommunication and video 
surveillance services or equipment in alignment with section 889 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act of 2019 (Pub. L. 115-232) (2 CFR 
200.216);
    (c) Providing a preference, to the extent permitted by law, to 
maximize use of goods, products, and materials produced in the United 
States (2 CFR 200.322); and
    (d) Terminating agreements in whole or in part to the greatest 
extent authorized by law if an award no longer effectuates the program 
goals or agency priorities (2 CFR 200.340).

VI. Award Administration Information

    1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your 
U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award 
Notification (GAN); or we may send you an email containing a link to 
access an electronic version of your GAN. We may notify you informally, 
also.
    If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, 
we notify you.
    2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: We identify 
administrative and national policy requirements in the application 
package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable 
Regulations section of this notice.
    We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of 
an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and 
include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also 
incorporates your approved application as part of your binding 
commitments under the grant.
    3. Open Licensing Requirements: Unless an exception applies, if you 
are awarded a grant under this competition, you will be required to 
openly license to the public grant deliverables created in whole, or in 
part, with Department grant funds. When the deliverable consists of 
modifications to pre-existing works, the license extends only to those 
modifications that can be separately identified and only to the extent 
that open licensing is permitted under the terms of any licenses or 
other legal restrictions on the use of pre-existing works.
    Additionally, a grantee that is awarded competitive grant funds 
must have a plan to disseminate these public grant deliverables. This 
dissemination plan can be developed and submitted after your 
application has been reviewed and selected for funding. For additional 
information on the open licensing requirements please refer to 2 CFR 
3474.20.
    4. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this competition, 
you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and 
systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170 
should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply 
if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).
    (b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final 
performance report, including financial information, as directed by the 
Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an APR 
that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure 
information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The 
Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 
CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to 
www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.
    5. Performance Measures: For the purposes of Department reporting 
under 34 CFR 75.110, we have established a set of performance measures, 
including long-term measures, that are designed to yield information on 
various aspects of the effectiveness and quality of the Technical 
Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for 
Children with Disabilities program. These measures are:
     Program Performance Measure #1: The percentage of 
Technical Assistance and Dissemination products and services deemed to 
be of high quality by an independent review panel of experts qualified 
to review the substantive content of the products and services.
     Program Performance Measure #2: The percentage of Special 
Education Technical Assistance and Dissemination products and services 
deemed by an independent review panel of qualified experts to be of 
high relevance to educational and early intervention policy or 
practice.
     Program Performance Measure #3: The percentage of all 
Special Education Technical Assistance and Dissemination products and 
services deemed by an

[[Page 20193]]

independent review panel of qualified experts to be useful in improving 
educational or early intervention policy or practice.
     Program Performance Measure #4: The cost efficiency of the 
Technical Assistance and Dissemination Program includes the percentage 
of milestones achieved in the current APR period and the percentage of 
funds spent during the current fiscal year.
     Long-term Program Performance Measure: The percentage of 
States receiving Special Education Technical Assistance and 
Dissemination services regarding scientifically or evidence-based 
practices for infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities 
that successfully promote the implementation of those practices in 
school districts and service agencies.
    The measures apply to projects funded under this competition, and 
grantees are required to submit data on these measures as directed by 
OSEP.
    Grantees will be required to report information on their project's 
performance in annual and final performance reports to the Department 
(34 CFR 75.590).
    The Department will also closely monitor the extent to which the 
products and services provided by the project meet needs identified by 
stakeholders and may require the project to report on such alignment in 
its annual and final performance reports.
    6. Continuation Awards: In making a continuation award under 34 CFR 
75.253, the Secretary considers, among other things: whether a grantee 
has made substantial progress in achieving the goals and objectives of 
the project; whether the grantee has expended funds in a manner that is 
consistent with its approved application and budget; and, if the 
Secretary has established performance measurement requirements, whether 
the grantee has made substantial progress in achieving the performance 
targets in the grantee's approved application.
    In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers 
whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in 
its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil 
rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities 
receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 
100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

VII. Other Information

    Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed 
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, individuals with disabilities 
can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an 
accessible format. The Department will provide the requestor with an 
accessible format that may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or text 
format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, braille, large print, 
audiotape, or compact disc, or other accessible format.
    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this 
document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may 
access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of 
Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this 
document, as well as all other documents of this Department published 
in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To 
use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at 
the site.
    You may also access documents of the Department published in the 
Federal Register by using the article search feature at 
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search 
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published 
by the Department.

Glenna Wright-Gallo,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2024-05979 Filed 3-20-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P