[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