[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 61 (Thursday, March 28, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21469-21477]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-06656]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter III

[Docket ID ED-2024-OSERS-0012]


State Personnel Development Grants

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

ACTION: Proposed priorities and requirements.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) proposes priorities 
and requirements under the State Personnel Development Grants (SPDG) 
program, Assistance Listing Number 84.323A. The Department may use 
these priorities and requirements for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 
2024 and later years. We take this action to focus attention on 
assisting States in reforming and improving their systems for personnel 
preparation and personnel development in order to improve results for 
children with disabilities.

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before April 29, 2024.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking 
Portal at www.regulations.gov. However, if you require an accommodation 
or cannot otherwise submit your comments via www.regulations.gov, 
please contact the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT. The Department will not accept comments submitted 
by fax or by email, or comments submitted after the comment period 
closes. To ensure the Department does not receive duplicate copies, 
please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the 
Docket ID at the top of your comments.
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov to submit 
your comments electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, 
including instructions for accessing agency documents, submitting 
comments, and viewing the docket, is available on the site under 
``FAQ.''
    Note: The Department's policy is generally to make comments 
received from members of the public available for public viewing in 
their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 
www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters should be careful to include 
in their comments only information that they wish to make publicly 
available.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Coffey, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 4A10, Washington, DC 20202. 
Telephone: (202) 987-0150. Email: [email protected].
    If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and 
wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding 
the proposed priorities and requirements. To ensure that your comments 
have maximum effect in developing the final priorities and 
requirements, we urge you to clearly identify the specific section of 
the proposed priorities and requirements that each comment addresses.
    We are particularly interested in comments about whether the 
proposed priorities or any of the proposed requirements would be 
challenging for new applicants to meet and, if so, how the proposed 
priorities or requirements could be revised to address potential 
challenges. The Department is also

[[Page 21470]]

particularly interested in comments in response to the following 
questions.
    Directed Questions:
    1. What are the common challenges or barriers experienced by State 
educational agencies (SEAs) in developing and implementing career 
pathways for those interested in becoming fully certified special 
education teachers, including paraprofessionals, through residency, 
grow your own (GYO), and registered apprenticeships programs?
    2. What supports would help SEAs to develop and implement career 
pathways for those interested in becoming fully certified special 
education teachers, including paraprofessionals, through residency, 
GYO, and registered apprenticeships programs?
    3. What are the common challenges or barriers experienced by SEAs 
in developing and implementing a system to address the professional 
learning and certification needs of personnel with an emergency 
certification who work with children with disabilities?
    4. What supports would help SEAs to develop and implement a system 
to address the professional learning and certification needs of 
personnel with an emergency certification who work with children with 
disabilities?
    5. Which stakeholders should SEAs collaborate with to develop and 
implement a system to address the professional learning and 
certification needs of personnel with an emergency certification who 
work with children with disabilities?
    We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific 
requirements of Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094 and their 
overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result 
from these proposed priorities and requirements. Please let us know of 
any further ways we could reduce potential costs or increase potential 
benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of 
the program.
    During and after the comment period, you may inspect public 
comments about the proposed priorities and requirements by accessing 
Regulations.gov. To inspect comments in person, please contact the 
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the 
Rulemaking Record: On request we will provide an appropriate 
accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who 
needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the 
public rulemaking record for these proposed priorities and 
requirements. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of 
accommodation or auxiliary aid, please contact the person listed under 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Purpose of Program: The purpose of the SPDG program is to assist 
SEAs in reforming and improving their systems for personnel preparation 
and professional development of individuals providing early 
intervention, educational, and transition services to improve results 
for children with disabilities.
    ``Raise the Bar: Lead the World'' (RTB) is the Department's call to 
action to transform prekindergarten through postsecondary learning and 
unite around what truly works by promoting academic excellence, boldly 
improving learning conditions, and preparing our Nation's students for 
global competitiveness (www.ed.gov/raisethebar/). A robust and 
sustainable educator workforce available to educate and support all 
children and youth, including children and youth with disabilities, is 
essential to this call to action. These proposed priorities and 
requirements support the Department's RTB goals. Specifically, we are 
proposing priorities designed to:
     Mitigate the barriers to improved educational outcomes and 
functional results for children with disabilities by increasing the 
number of well-qualified, fully certified special education teachers, 
including paraprofessionals;
     Increase collaborative and effective instruction and 
services for children with disabilities;
     Expand the ability of principals to serve as instructional 
leaders who create an equity-based, cooperative, and inclusive 
environment; and
     Provide pre-service and in-service personnel with the 
knowledge, attitudes, skills, and aspiration to engage effectively with 
families.
    The SPDG program, as a pre-service and in-service professional 
development program, is uniquely positioned to support the Department's 
RTB goals by helping to ensure that children with disabilities have 
access to well-qualified educators and by growing the number of 
teachers and administrators who can use data to develop and implement 
standards-based individualized education programs (IEPs) and provide 
effective instruction in inclusive environments. The proposed 
priorities specified in this notice are designed to support pathways 
and professional development for personnel to improve outcomes for 
children with disabilities.
    We intend for these proposed priorities to supplement Absolute 
Priorities 1 and 2 published in the Federal Register on December 19, 
2022 (87 FR 77566),\1\ as well as other relevant statutory and 
regulatory priorities established by the Department. Specifically, as 
part of any SPDG competition, all applicants would be required to meet 
the statutory requirements in sections 651 through 655 of the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1451-
1455.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/12/19/2022-27367/applications-for-new-awards-state-personnel-development-grants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1451-1455.

Proposed Priorities

    This document contains five proposed priorities. Proposed 
Priorities 1 through 5 are based on allowable activities in sections 
651 through 655 of IDEA. These proposed priorities would be applicable 
to all eligible applicants. We may apply one or more of these 
priorities in any year in which this program is in effect.

Proposed Priority 1: Providing Career Pathways for Those Interested in 
Becoming Fully Certified Special Education Teachers, Including 
Paraprofessionals, Through Residency, GYO, and Registered 
Apprenticeships Programs

    Background:
    The purpose of this proposed priority is to assist SEAs in 
developing and implementing or enhancing existing teacher residency, 
grow your own (GYO), and registered apprenticeships programs that 
provide additional pathways to becoming a special education teacher.
    According to the October 2022 results of the National Center for 
Education Statistics (NCES) School Pulse Panel on Staffing, 21 percent 
of responding public schools reported that they were not fully staffed 
in the area of special education for the 2022-2023 school year (U.S. 
Department of Education, 2023). Ensuring all students have access to a 
well-qualified, fully certified teacher must continue to be a priority 
for all States. By reducing the cost of earning a license and offering 
flexible scheduling, teacher residency, GYO, and registered 
apprenticeships programs are designed to bring more people into the 
profession. Teacher residency, GYO, and registered apprenticeships 
programs may open doors to the profession for those who may otherwise 
face barriers to entrance, including multilingual, racially and 
ethnically diverse individuals, individuals who have disabilities, and 
paraprofessionals who may already have decades of classroom

[[Page 21471]]

experience, but for numerous reasons, including cost, could not pursue 
a teaching degree.
    The Department has partnered with the Department of Labor and 
leading education organizations to advance high-quality and affordable 
teacher preparation through the expansion of registered apprenticeship 
programs for K-12 teachers, which can be used to scale and strengthen 
evidence-based teacher residency and GYO programs (see 
www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/08/31/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-announces-public-and-private-sector-actions-to-strengthen-teaching-profession-and-help-schools-fill-vacancies/ and www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/education-labor-departments-announce-new-efforts-to-advance-teacher-preparation-programs-and-expand-registered-apprenticeships-educators).
    Research shows that high-quality residency models can expand the 
pool of well-prepared applicants entering the teaching profession, 
promoting diversity of the workforce and bringing a wide range of 
experiences into the classroom to support students. A 2014 
implementation study published by the Institute of Education Sciences 
shows that residents are more likely than nonresidents to report 
feeling prepared to enter the classroom and that after program 
completion, more than 90 percent of residents stayed in their school 
district for three years (Silva et al., 2014).
    When aligned to high-quality, evidence-based practices for 
education preparation, such as those drafted by the Pathways Alliance 
and approved by the Department of Labor, registered apprenticeship 
programs have the potential to be an effective, high-quality ``earn and 
learn'' model that allow candidates to earn their teaching credential 
while earning a salary by combining coursework with structured, paid 
on-the-job learning experiences with a mentor teacher (Pathways 
Alliance, 2023). Registered apprenticeship programs for K-12 teachers 
can be used to establish, scale, and build on existing high-quality 
pathways into teaching that emphasize classroom-based experience, such 
as teacher residencies.
    GYO is an approach to developing a pipeline of educator candidates 
to meet specific workforce needs that seeks to eliminate any barriers 
that may prevent local candidates from entering or remaining in the 
field. GYO programs are distinguished from other pipelines by whom they 
target, focusing on recruitment of high school students, career 
changers, paraprofessionals, non-teaching-school faculty, and community 
members (Espinoza et al., 2018). Offering financial aid (e.g., loan 
forgiveness and scholarships) to candidates completing GYO programs, 
targeting communication to specific populations, and establishing 
systems for candidates to receive continuous coaching and mentoring 
from entrance into the GYO program through early service can all aid in 
the success of these programs (Carver-Thomas, 2018; Professional 
Educator Standards Board, 2018; Texas Comprehensive Center, 2018). GYO 
programs can help address shortages in high-need areas and subjects, 
such as in rural schools and in special education (Jessen et al., 
2020); it can also result in improved recruitment and retention of 
teachers of color (Gist et al., 2019).
    Proposed Priority 1:
    Projects designed to increase the number of certified special 
education teachers by establishing a new, or enhancing an existing, 
teacher residency, GYO, or registered apprenticeship program that 
minimizes or eliminates the cost of certification for special education 
teacher candidates and provides opportunities for candidates to be 
paid, including being provided with a stipend (which, for programs that 
include paid experience for the duration of the certification program, 
can be met through paragraph (i), below), to cover the time spent 
gaining classroom experience during their certification program.
    A project implementing a new or enhanced teacher residency, GYO, or 
registered apprenticeship program must--
    (a) Use data-driven strategies and evidence-based approaches to 
increase recruitment, successful completion, and retention of the 
special education teachers supported by the project;
    (b) Provide standards for participants to enter into and complete 
the program;
    (c) Be aligned to evidence-based (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) 
practices for effective educator preparation;
    (d) Have little to no financial burden for program participants, or 
provide for loan forgiveness;
    (e) Provide opportunities for candidates to be paid, including 
being provided with a stipend, to cover time spent in clinical 
experience during their certification program;
    (f) Develop a plan to monitor program quality;
    (g) Require completion of a bachelor's degree either before 
entering or as a result of the residency, GYO, or apprenticeship 
program;
    (h) Result in the satisfaction of all requirements for full State 
teacher licensure or certification, excluding emergency, temporary, 
provisional, or other sub-standard licensure or certification;
    (i) Provide increasing levels of responsibility for the resident/
GYO participant/apprentice during at least one year of paid on-the-job 
learning/clinical experience, during which a mentor teacher is the 
teacher of record; and
    (j) Develop a plan to ensure the program has funding after the end 
of the project period.
    In their applications, States must describe how their projects will 
meet these program requirements. In addition to these requirements, to 
be considered for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the 
application and administrative requirements under Common Elements.

Proposed Priority 2: Supporting Emergency Certified Special Education 
Teachers To Become Fully Certified

    Background:
    Citing a Department of Education report, Wilkerson and colleagues 
(2022) note that all States and the District of Columbia have reported 
a shortage of special education teachers in at least one academic year 
between 2014-2018. In fact, 48 States have authorized alternative 
routes to fill special education positions (Myers et al., 2020).
    For decades, school districts have relied on unlicensed special 
education teachers to fill these vacancies, leaving students with 
disabilities to receive educational services from insufficiently 
trained individuals and resulting in inequitable educational 
opportunities (Wilkerson et al., 2022). Under IDEA, teachers who are 
not fully certified may provide special education instruction under an 
emergency certification as long as they are participating in a program 
that provides an alternate route to full special education teacher 
certification and that certain additional criteria are met.\2\ Numerous 
States across the country have filled teaching positions through such 
emergency certifications

[[Page 21472]]

due to shortages of fully certified special education teachers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ IDEA section 612(a)(14)(C), as amended by ESSA, eliminates 
the definition of ``highly qualified'' and specifies Federal 
requirements for the employment of special education teachers. Under 
Assurance 14, special education teachers must: have obtained full 
certification by completing traditional or alternate preparation, or 
by passing the State special education licensing examination; have 
not had special education certification or licensure requirements 
waived on an emergency, temporary, or provisional basis; and hold at 
least a bachelor's degree.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    National test scores suggest students with disabilities are losing 
ground in reading and are not improving in mathematics (Annie E. Casey 
Foundation, 2023; U.S. Department of Education, 2022). It is critical 
that special educators serving under an emergency certification become 
fully certified via high-quality programs. A high-quality pathway to 
certification can provide special education teachers with the knowledge 
and skills to collaboratively develop, implement, and monitor the 
progress of IEPs that lead to student success, while planning and 
providing instruction alongside general education teachers. They 
require the skills to effectively collaborate with administrators, 
related service providers, and families to optimize instruction, 
services, and supports for students with disabilities.
    Proposed Priority 2:
    Projects designed to increase the number of fully certified special 
education teachers by implementing plans that address the emergency 
certification needs of personnel who work with children with 
disabilities. The plans must--
    (a) Identify the barriers and challenges to full certification that 
are experienced by special education personnel on emergency 
certifications;
    (b) Include evidence-based (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) strategies 
to address those barriers and challenges and assist special education 
personnel on emergency certifications to obtain full certification, 
consistent with State-approved or State-recognized requirements, within 
three years;
    (c) Include training and coaching on, at a minimum--
    (1) The skills needed to collaboratively develop, implement, and 
monitor standards-based IEPs;
    (2) High-leverage and evidence-based instructional and classroom 
management practices; and
    (3) The provision of wrap-around services (e.g., social, emotional, 
and mental health supports), special education services, and other 
supports for children with disabilities; and
    (d) Provide participating special education personnel on emergency 
certifications with opportunities to apply the evidence-based skills 
and practices described in paragraph (c) in the classroom.
    In their applications, States must describe how their projects will 
meet these program requirements. In addition to these requirements, to 
be considered for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the 
application and administrative requirements under Common Elements.

Proposed Priority 3: Person-Centered IEPs That Support Instructional 
Progress

    Background:
    A cornerstone of special education under IDEA is a free appropriate 
public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE). It 
is through high-quality person-centered \3\ individualized education 
programs (IEPs) that local educational agencies (LEAs) and schools plan 
and deliver evidence-based instruction, supports, and services to 
students with disabilities to provide FAPE in the LRE. However, States, 
LEAs, and schools continue to face significant challenges with 
providing FAPE, including person-centered, rigorous, and specially 
designed instruction and service delivery. Recent research indicates 
that the majority of IEPs are incomplete and lack substantive 
sufficiency of the statement of present levels of performance, which is 
the crucial initial component of a person-centered IEP (e.g., Hott et 
al., 2021; Lequia et al., 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Some States and organizations have defined ``person-
centered,'' as used in this notice, to reference when students and 
their families are actively sought to participate in their 
schooling, including IEP development and implementation, the course 
of study, and related and transition services, however this term is 
still developing in the field. The discussions and decisions leading 
to a person-centered program are founded upon the unique school, 
extracurricular, and postsecondary strengths, interests, and goals 
of the student and their family.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Effective preparation and support can increase the opportunities 
for, and ability of, leaders, educators, and families to participate in 
the development, implementation, and progress monitoring of 
academically meaningful and legally sound person-centered IEPs (Yell et 
al., 2020). Under IDEA, an IEP team for a child with a disability must 
include the child's parent(s), at least one general education teacher, 
the child's special education teacher or, where appropriate, the 
child's special education provider, a local educational agency 
representative, the child, whenever appropriate, and others who have 
knowledge or special expertise regarding the child. The 
multidisciplinary nature of the IEP team presents collaborative 
opportunities and challenges, especially between school professionals 
and parents (Goldman & Mason, 2018; Mueller & Vick, 2019). Parents play 
a critical role in the child's life. Parental input helps identify the 
child's strengths and needs and aids the team identifying appropriate 
services. This parental input adds significant value to the IEP and can 
lead to improved educational results and functional outcomes. To best 
support students, school and district personnel on IEP teams need the 
skills to choose and use evidence-based practices for core instruction 
and supplemental supports and services, such as those designed to 
foster self-efficacy, as well as to increase the child's learning 
opportunities with general education peers.
    Proposed Priority 3:
    Projects designed to provide pre-service and in-service training to 
school and district personnel, including IEP team members (e.g., 
special education and general education teachers, related service 
personnel who work with children with disabilities) and administrators, 
to improve their skills in developing and implementing person-centered 
IEPs that support instructional progress and improve functional 
outcomes \4\ for children with disabilities. Projects must--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ An IEP that supports instructional progress is an IEP that 
focuses on the academic, vocational, developmental, and social needs 
of the child and allows the child to benefit from instruction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (a) Provide training and coaching to administrators and IEP team 
members to increase their ability to develop, implement, and monitor 
person-centered IEPs that support instructional progress so that they 
can--
    (1) Use appropriate data to determine the child's instructional and 
functional strengths and needs;
    (2) Increase the child's learning time and opportunities with 
general education peers, as appropriate, based on research;
    (3) Choose and use evidence-based (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) 
practices for core instruction; and
    (4) Supplement core instruction with special education services.
    In their applications, States must describe how their projects will 
meet these program requirements. In addition to these requirements, to 
be considered for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the 
application and administrative requirements under Common Elements.

Proposed Priority 4: Principals as Instructional Leaders Who Support 
Collaborative Service Provision

    Background:
    When principals are strong instructional leaders who help create an 
inclusive school environment and district leaders support those 
principals, all students, including students with disabilities, can 
thrive. School building administrators, including principals,

[[Page 21473]]

vice principals, and teacher leaders, are responsible for IDEA 
implementation and ensuring children with disabilities are provided the 
services and supports that they are eligible for under IDEA. School 
building administrators help set high expectations for performance in 
schools and ensure that the unique, individual needs of each child with 
a disability are met, consistent with their IEP, and district 
administrators give them the tools, training, and support they need to 
do so.
    Given that school building leaders have complex roles, it is not 
surprising that administrators who receive high-quality training handle 
the multi-faceted demands of the role better and stay in their jobs 
longer (Herman et al., 2022). When that is the case, principals can be 
instrumental in supporting teacher and provider practices, motivating 
school staff, maintaining a positive school program climate, and 
ensuring inclusive settings are offered. Access to professional 
learning opportunities influences administrators' job satisfaction and 
retention (Boyce & Bowers, 2016). In addition to covering essential, 
research-based content on topics such as instructional leadership, 
data-based decision making, and systems improvement, the structure of 
continued professional development for administrators also matters 
(Darling-Hammond et al., 2022). Especially important to building the 
capacity of administrators is access to coordinated, continued 
professional development with structured learning opportunities, such 
as through a cohort model, mentoring, one-on-one coaching, networking 
to build a professional community, applied learning opportunities, and 
problem-solving related to the needs of individual children.
    Proposed Priority 4:
    Projects designed to provide professional development to improve 
the instructional leadership provided by principals, district leaders, 
and teacher leaders (administrators) to promote educational equity for 
children with disabilities. Projects must provide training and coaching 
to assist administrators to--
    (a) Create and support equitable school schedules and other 
operations that enable collaborative services from general and special 
education staff;
    (b) Support schoolwide inclusionary practices within a multi-tiered 
systems of support (MTSS) framework;
    (c) Support evidence-based (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) professional 
development for their staff related to--
    (1) Effective content instruction;
    (2) Data for decision-making and continuous progress monitoring;
    (3) IEP development and implementation; and
    (4) Wrap-around services;
    (d) Actively engage families and school communities to identify and 
address concerns regarding, and barriers to, accessibility, equity, and 
inclusiveness, using frameworks such as universal design; and
    (e) Provide administrators structured learning opportunities, such 
as through a cohort model, mentoring, one-on-one coaching, networking 
to build a professional community, and applied learning opportunities, 
such as problem-solving related to the needs of individual children.
    In their applications, States must describe how their projects will 
meet these program requirements. In addition to these requirements, to 
be considered for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the 
application and administrative requirements under Common Elements.

Proposed Priority 5: Improving Engagement Between Schools and Families

    Background:
    Family engagement is one of the most powerful predictors of a 
child's development, educational attainment, and success in school and 
life (Weiss et al., 2018). Research shows that increased family 
involvement is related to improved child development and student 
achievement, attendance, behavior, graduation rates, advanced course 
enrollment, and college enrollment (Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Robinson et 
al., 2018; Young et al., 2023). The perspective of family members at 
the table is needed to create and advocate for the kinds of student-
centered learning experiences that will allow all students to: master 
academic content aligned with the standards; gain future-ready 
knowledge, skills, and dispositions; and succeed in postsecondary 
learning and careers (Weiss et al., 2018). Research suggests that 
collaboration between schools and families is an important support for 
students with learning and behavioral challenges, including students 
with disabilities (Sheridan & Wheeler, 2017). Further, children learn 
anywhere, anytime, and not just in school. Families play a central role 
in supporting learning and building learning pathways.
    To bring families to the table and engender learning in the home 
and community, commitments and support that foster mutual trust and 
shared responsibility are necessary (Ogg et al., 2021). Educators who 
understand how culture and community shape family engagement practices 
can better work from families' strengths and create high-quality IEPs 
that will lead to success in school, college, and career.
    Family engagement is central to IDEA, which states that families 
are equal members of the IEP team who must be provided the opportunity 
to fully participate in all decisions concerning a child's evaluation, 
placement, and services. When families contribute to IEP decisions, 
educators may be more successful in planning and delivering productive 
interventions and supports (Turnbull et al., 2018). Furthermore, 
involving families in data-based decision making allows them to take a 
more active role in supporting their children's learning and behavior 
at home (Weingarten et al., 2020). Families can reinforce school 
routines, expectations, and language, thereby creating alignment 
between home and school that may, in turn, contribute to improved 
student outcomes (Garbacz et al., 2016). Family-professional 
partnerships and caregiver involvement are impacted by how educators 
value caregivers' input, and school-home communication can have 
positive effects on child behavioral outcomes (Li & Burke, 2023).
    Proposed Priority 5:
    Projects designed to develop the capacity of administrators and 
educators to develop systems and use strategies that build trust and 
engagement with families, while further strengthening the role families 
play in their child's development and learning. Projects must--
    (a) Provide training and coaching to assist administrators to--
    (1) Develop and implement policies and programs that recognize 
families' funds of knowledge, connect family engagement to student 
learning, and create welcoming, inviting cultures; and
    (2) Create systems that support staff and families in meaningful 
engagement (i.e., Leading by Convening and the Dual-Capacity Framework. 
For more information visit www.dualcapcity.org and www.ncsi.wested.org/resources/leading-by-convening);
    (b) Provide training and coaching to assist educators and early 
intervention providers to--
    (1) Build their knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, aspirations, and 
behaviors about effective strategies to engage families in their 
child's learning;
    (2) Work with families to make collaborative, data-based decisions 
in the development and implementation of the child's IEP; and

[[Page 21474]]

    (3) Provide information and resources to families that enable them 
to support their children's learning and behavior at home; and
    (c) Provide training and coaching to families so they can--
    (1) Meaningfully participate in the development and implementation 
of their child's IEP;
    (2) Participate in data-based decision making related to their 
child's education; and
    (3) Further their child's learning at home.
    In their applications, States must describe how their projects will 
meet these program requirements. In addition to these requirements, to 
be considered for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the 
application and administrative requirements under Common Elements.
    Common Elements:
    In addition to the requirements contained in the proposed 
priorities, to be considered for funding, applicants must meet the 
following application and administrative requirements:
    (a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Significance,'' how the proposed project will--
    (1) Align with and integrate other State initiatives and programs, 
as well as district and local improvement plans, to leverage existing 
professional development and data systems;
    (2) Develop and implement plans to sustain the grant program after 
the grant funding has ended; and
    (3) Integrate family engagement into all project efforts by 
supporting capacity building for personnel and families.
    (b) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Quality of Project Services,'' how the proposed project will--
    (1) Ensure equal access and treatment for members of groups that 
have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national 
origin, gender, age, or disability. To meet this requirement, the 
applicant must describe how it will--
    (i) Develop the knowledge and ability of personnel to be culturally 
responsive and engage children and families with a strengths-based 
approach;
    (ii) Engage students, families, and community members to assess the 
appropriateness and impact of the intervention, program, or strategies; 
and
    (iii) Review program procedures and resources to ensure a diversity 
of perspectives are brought into the project; and
    (2) Achieve the project's goals and objectives. To meet this 
requirement, the applicant must provide--
    (i) Either a logic model (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) or theory of 
action (to be provided in Appendix A), which demonstrates how the 
proposed project will achieve intended measurable outcomes;
    (ii) A description of proposed in-State and national partners that 
the project will work with to achieve the goals and objectives of the 
grant and how the impact of these partnerships will be measured; and
    (iii) A description of how the project will be based on current 
research and make use of evidence-based (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) 
practices. To meet this requirement, the applicant must describe--
    (A) The current research base for the chosen interventions;
    (B) The evidence-based model or practices to be used in the 
project's professional development activities; and
    (C) How implementation science will be used to support full and 
sustained use of evidence-based practices and result in sustained 
systems of implementation support.
    (c) In the narrative section of the application under ``Quality of 
the project evaluation,'' include an evaluation plan for the project 
developed in consultation with and implemented by a third-party \5\ 
evaluator. The evaluation plan must--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A ``third-party'' evaluator is an independent and impartial 
program evaluator who is contracted by the grantee to conduct an 
objective evaluation of the project. This evaluator must not have 
participated in the development or implementation of any project 
activities, except for the evaluation activities, nor have any 
financial interest in the outcome of the evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Articulate formative and summative evaluation questions, 
including important process and outcome evaluation questions. These 
questions should be related to the project's proposed logic model or 
theory of action required under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of these 
requirements;
    (2) Describe how progress in and fidelity of implementation, as 
well as project outcomes, will be measured to answer the evaluation 
questions. Specify the measures and associated instruments or sources 
for data appropriate to the evaluation questions. Include information 
regarding reliability and validity of measures where appropriate;
    (3) Describe strategies for analyzing data and how data collected 
as part of this plan will be used to inform and improve service 
delivery over the course of the project and to refine the proposed 
logic model or theory of action and evaluation plan, including 
subsequent data collection;
    (4) Provide a timeline for conducting the evaluation and include 
staff assignments for completing the plan. The timeline must indicate 
that the data will be available annually for the annual performance 
report to the Department; and
    (5) Dedicate sufficient funds in each budget year to cover the 
costs of developing or refining the evaluation plan in consultation 
with a third-party evaluator, as well as the costs associated with the 
implementation of the evaluation plan by the third-party evaluator.
    (d) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Adequacy of resources,'' 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; and
    (4) The proposed costs are reasonable in relation to the 
anticipated results and benefits and funds will be spent in a way that 
increases their efficiency and cost-effectiveness, including by 
reducing waste or achieving better outcomes.
    (e) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Quality of the management plan,'' how 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--
    (1) Clearly defined responsibilities for key project personnel, 
consultants, and subcontractors, as applicable;
    (2) Timelines and milestones for accomplishing the project tasks;
    (3) How key project personnel and any consultants and 
subcontractors will be allocated to the project and how these 
allocations are appropriate and adequate to achieve the project's 
intended outcomes; and
    (4) How the proposed project will benefit from a diversity of 
perspectives, including those of families, educators, technical 
assistance providers, researchers, and policy makers, among others, in 
its development and operation.

[[Page 21475]]

    (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) Provide an assurance that any project website will include 
relevant information and documents in a form that meets a government or 
industry-recognized standard for accessibility;
    (3) Include, in the budget, attendance at the following:
    (i) An annual one and one-half day SPDG National Meeting in the 
Washington, DC area during each year of the project period; and
    (ii) A three-day project directors' conference in Washington, DC, 
during each year of the project period, provided that, if the 
conference is conducted virtually, the project must reallocate unused 
travel funds no later than the end of the third quarter of each budget 
period; and
    (4) Budget $6,000 annually for support of the SPDG program network 
and website currently administered by the University of Oregon 
(www.signetwork.org).

References

Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2023). 2023 Kids Count[supreg] data 
book. www.aecf.org/resources/2023-kids-count-data-book.
Boyce, J., & Bowers, A.J. (2016). Principal turnover: Are there 
different types of principals who move from or leave their schools? 
A latent class analysis of the 2007-2008 schools and staffing survey 
and the 2008-2009 principal follow-up survey. Leadership and Policy 
in Schools, 15(3), 237-272. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2015.1047033.
Carver-Thomas, D. (2018). Diversifying the teaching profession: How 
to recruit and retain teachers of color. Learning Policy Institute. 
https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/sites/default/files/product-files/Diversifying_Teaching_Profession_REPORT_0.pdf.
Darling-Hammond, L., Wechsler, M.E., Levin, S., Leung-Gagn[eacute], 
M., & Tozer, S. (2022). Developing effective principals: What kind 
of learning matters? Learning Policy Institute. https://doi.org/10.54300/641.201.
Espinoza, D., Saunders, R., Kini, T., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2018). 
Taking the long view: State efforts to solve teacher shortages by 
strengthening the profession. Learning Policy Institute. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/long-view-report.
Garbacz, S.A., McIntosh, K., Eagle, J.W., Dowd-Eagle, S.E., Hirano, 
K.A., & Ruppert, T. (2016). Family engagement within schoolwide 
positive behavioral interventions and supports. Preventing School 
Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 60(1), 60-69. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2014.976809.
Gist, C.D., Bianco, M., & Lynn, M. (2019). Examining grow your own 
programs across the teacher development continuum: Mining research 
on teachers of color and nontraditional educator pipelines. Journal 
of Teacher Education, 70(1), 13-25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487118787504.
Goldman, S.E., & Mason, C.Q. (2018). Predictors of participant 
perceptions of facilitated individualized education program meeting 
success. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 29(1), 43-53. https://doi.org/10.1177/1044207317752125.
Henderson, A.T., & Mapp, K.L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The 
impact of school, family and community connections on student 
achievement. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. https://sedl.org/pubs/catalog/items/fam33.html.
Herman, R., Woo, A., Wang, E.L., Gates, S.M., Berglund, T., Schweig, 
J., Andrew, M., & Todd, I. (2022). Redesigning university principal 
preparation programs: A systematic approach for change and 
sustainability--Full Report (Volume 3, Part 1). RAND Corporation. 
www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA413-3.html.
Hott, B.L., Jones, B.A., Randolph, K.M., Kuntz, E., McKenna, J.W., & 
Brigham, F.J. (2021). Lessons learned from a descriptive review of 
rural individualized education programs. The Journal of Special 
Education, 55(3), 163-173. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466920972670.
Jessen, S., Fairman, J., Fallona, C., & Johnson, A. (2020). Consider 
``Grow-Your-Own'' (GYO) models by examining existing teacher 
preparation programs in Maine. Maine Education Policy Research 
Institute. 121. https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mepri/121.
Lequia, J.L., Vincent, L.B., Lyons, G.L., Asmus, J.M., & Carter, 
E.W. (2023). Individualized education programs of high school 
students with significant disabilities. Education and Training in 
Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 58(1), 22-35. 
www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/individualized-education-programs-high-school/docview/2777274832/se-2.
Li, C., & Burke, M.M. (2023). A systematic literature review of the 
patterns of school-home communication among caregivers of children 
with autism. Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40489-023-00396-0.
Mueller, T.G., & Vick, A.M. (2019). An investigation of facilitated 
individualized education program meeting practice: Promising 
procedures that foster family-professional collaboration. Teacher 
Education and Special Education, 42(1), 67-81. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406417739677.
Myers, J.A., Gilbert, K., & Sindelar, P. (2020). Does alternative 
route preparation meet the requirements of IDEA assurance 14? A 
policy analysis. Teacher Education and Special Education, 43(4), 
332-342. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406420912374.
Ogg, J., Clark, K., Strissel, D., & Rogers, M. (2021). Parents' and 
teachers' ratings of family engagement: Congruence and prediction of 
outcomes. School Psychology, 36(3), 142-154. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000379.
Pathways Alliance. (2023). National guidelines for apprenticeship 
standards for K-12 teacher apprenticeships. 
www.thepathwaysalliance.org/reports.
Professional Educator Standards Board. (2016). Grow your own 
teachers report: Enhancing educator pathways to address teacher 
shortage and increase diversity. www.pesb.wa.gov/resources-and-reports/reports/grow-your-own-teachers-report/.
Robinson, C.D., Lee, M.G., Dearing, E., & Rogers, T. (2018). 
Reducing student absenteeism in the early grades by targeting 
parental beliefs. American Educational Research Journal, 55(6), 
1163-1192. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831218772274.
Sheridan, S.M., & Wheeler, L.A. (2017). Building strong family-
school partnerships: Transitioning from basic findings to possible 
practices. Family Relations, 66(4), 670-683. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12271.
Silva, T., McKie, A., Knechtel, V., Gleason, P., & Makowsky, L. 
(2014). Teaching residency programs: A multisite look at a new model 
to prepare teachers for high-need schools (NCEE 2015-4002). National 
Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute 
of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Texas Comprehensive Center. (2018). Grow your own teachers 
initiatives resources. American Institutes for Research. https://compcenternetwork.org/resources/resource/4290/grow-your-own-teachers-initiatives-resources.
Turnbull, H.R., Turnbull, A.P., & Cooper, D.H. (2018). The Supreme 
Court, Endrew, and the appropriate education of students with 
disabilities. Exceptional Children, 84(2), 124-140. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402917734150.
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, 
National Center for Education Statistics. (2023). School Pulse 
Panel. https://ies.ed.gov/schoolsurvey/spp/.
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, 
National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of 
Educational Progress (NAEP). (2022). Largest score declines in NAEP 
mathematics at grades 4 and 8 since initial assessments in 1990. 
www.nationsreportcard.gov/highlights/mathematics/2022/.
Weingarten, Z., Zumeta Edmonds, R., & Arden, S. (2020). Better 
together: Using MTSS as a structure for building school-family 
partnerships. Teaching Exceptional Children, 53(2), 122-130. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059920937733.

[[Page 21476]]

Weiss, H., Lopez, M.E., & Caspe, M. (2018). Joining together to 
create a bold vision for next generation family engagement. Global 
Family Research Project. https://media.carnegie.org/filer_public/f8/78/f8784565-4bd6-4aa3-bd80-2b98fd43380e/parent-engagement-2018.pdf.
Wilkerson, K.L., Sikora, E.E., & Leko, M.M. (2022). Complicating the 
narrative about emergency certified special educators. 
Exceptionality, 30(5), 366-375. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2021.1938061.
Yell, M.L., Collins, J., Kumpiene, G., & Bateman, D. (2020). The 
individualized education program: Procedural and substantive 
requirements. Teaching Exceptional Children, 52(5), 304-318. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059920906592.
Young, J.M., Reed, K.E., Rosenberg, H., & Kook, J.F. (2023). Adding 
family math to the equation: Promoting Head Start preschoolers' 
mathematics learning at home and school. Early Childhood Research 
Quarterly, 63, 43-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2022.11.002.

    Types of Priorities:
    When inviting applications for a competition using one or more 
priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, 
competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal 
Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:
    Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only 
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
    Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference 
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1) 
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the 
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) 
selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of 
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
    Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are 
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority. 
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a 
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
    Final Priorities and Requirements:
    We will announce the final priorities and requirements in a 
document in the Federal Register. We will determine the final 
priorities and requirements after considering public comments on the 
proposed priorities and requirements and other information available to 
the Department. This document does not preclude us from proposing 
additional priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection 
criteria, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.
    Note: This document does not solicit applications. In any year in 
which we choose to use one or more of these proposed priorities and 
these requirements, we invite applications through a notice in the 
Federal Register.

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094

Regulatory Impact Analysis

    Under Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) determines whether this regulatory action is ``significant'' and, 
therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and 
subject to review by OMB. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as 
amended by Executive Order 14094, defines a ``significant regulatory 
action'' as an action likely to result in a rule that may--
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $200 million or more 
(adjusted every three years by the Administrator of Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for changes in gross domestic 
product); or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector 
of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, 
public health or safety, or State, local, territorial, or Tribal 
governments or communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues for which centralized review 
would meaningfully further the President's priorities, or the 
principles set forth in this Executive order, as specifically 
authorized in a timely manner by the Administrator of OIRA in each 
case.
    This proposed regulatory action is not a significant regulatory 
action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 
12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094.
    We have also reviewed this proposed regulatory action under 
Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the 
principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review 
established in Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 
14094. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires 
that an agency--
    (1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination 
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits 
and costs are difficult to quantify);
    (2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, 
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into 
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of 
cumulative regulations;
    (3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select 
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential 
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other 
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
    (4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather 
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must 
adopt; and
    (5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct 
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or 
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide 
information that enables the public to make choices.
    Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best 
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future 
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' OIRA has emphasized 
that these techniques may include ``identifying changing future 
compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or 
anticipated behavioral changes.''
    We are issuing these proposed priorities and requirements only on a 
reasoned determination that their benefits would justify their costs. 
In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those 
approaches that would maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that 
follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is 
consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
    We also have determined that this regulatory action would not 
unduly interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the 
exercise of their governmental functions.
    In accordance with these Executive orders, the Department has 
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and 
qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those 
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as 
necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.

Clarity of the Regulations

    Executive Order 12866 and the Presidential memorandum ``Plain 
Language in Government Writing'' require each agency to write 
regulations that are easy to understand.
    The Secretary invites comments on how to make these proposed 
priorities and requirements easier to understand,

[[Page 21477]]

including answers to questions such as the following:
     Are the requirements in the proposed priorities and 
requirements clearly stated?
     Do the proposed priorities and requirements contain 
technical terms or other wording that interferes with their clarity?
     Does the format of the proposed priorities and 
requirements (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, 
paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce their clarity?
     Would the proposed priorities and requirements be easier 
to understand if we divided them into more (but shorter) sections?
     Could the description of the proposed priorities and 
requirements in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this preamble 
be more helpful in making the proposed priorities and requirements 
easier to understand? If so, how?
     What else could we do to make the proposed priorities and 
requirements easier to understand?
    To send any comments about how the Department could make these 
proposed priorities and requirements easier to understand, see the 
instructions in the ADDRESSES section.
    Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive 
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the 
objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental 
partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies 
on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination 
and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
    This document provides early notification of our specific plans and 
actions for this program.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification: The Secretary certifies 
that these proposed priorities and requirements would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Participation in the SPDG program is voluntary. In addition, the only 
eligible entities for this program are SEAs, which do not meet the 
definition of a small entity. For these reasons, the proposed 
priorities and requirements would not impose any additional burden on 
small entities. We expect that in determining whether to apply for SPDG 
program funds, an eligible entity would evaluate the requirements of 
preparing an application and any associated costs and weigh them 
against the benefits likely to be achieved by receiving an SPDG program 
grant. An eligible entity probably would apply only if it determines 
that the likely benefits exceed the costs of preparing an application.
    We believe that these proposed priorities and requirements would 
not impose any additional burden on a small entity applying for a grant 
than the entity would face in the absence of the proposed action. That 
is, the length of the applications those entities would submit in the 
absence of the proposed regulatory action and the time needed to 
prepare an application would likely be the same.
    This proposed regulatory action would not have a significant 
economic impact on a small entity once it receives a grant because it 
would be able to meet the costs of compliance using the funds provided 
under this program. We invite comments from eligible small entities as 
to whether they believe this proposed regulatory action would have a 
significant economic impact on them and, if so, request evidence to 
support that belief.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    These proposed priorities and requirements contain information 
collection requirements that are approved by OMB under OMB control 
number 1820-0028. The proposed priorities and requirements do not 
affect the currently approved data collection.
    Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed 
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, individuals with disabilities 
can obtain this document 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. 2024-06656 Filed 3-27-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P