[Federal Register: June 30, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 125)]
[Notices]
[Page 35321-35326]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr30jn97-118]
[[Page 35321]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part IV
Department of Education
_______________________________________________________________________
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services; Final Priority
and FY 1997 New Awards Applications; Notices
[[Page 35322]]
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services; Notice
of Final Priority
AGENCY: Department of Education.
SUMMARY: The Secretary announces a final priority for programs
administered by the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services (OSERS) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA). The Secretary may use this priority in Fiscal Year 1997 and
subsequent years. The Secretary takes this action to focus Federal
assistance on identified needs to improve results for children with
disabilities. This final priority is intended to ensure wide and
effective use of program funds.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This priority takes effect on July 30, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on this final
priority contact the Grants and Contracts Services Team, 600
Independence Avenue, S.W., room 3317, Switzer Building, Washington,
D.C. 20202-2641. The preferred method for requesting information is to
FAX your request to: (202) 205-8717. Telephone: (202) 260-9182.
Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD)
may call the TDD number: (202) 205-9860. Individuals with disabilities
may obtain a copy of this notice in an alternate format (e.g. Braille,
large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) by contacting the
Department as listed above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice contains one final priority
authorized by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. This
final priority supports the National Education Goals by helping to
improve results for children with disabilities.
On March 24, 1997, the Secretary published a notice of proposed
priorities in the Federal Register (62 FR 13972).
The publication of this final priority does not preclude the
Secretary from proposing additional priorities, nor does it limit the
Secretary to funding only this priority, subject to meeting applicable
rulemaking requirements. Funding of particular projects depends on the
availability of funds, and the quality of the applications received.
Note: This notice of final priority does not solicit
applications. A notice inviting applications under this competition
is published in a separate notice in this issue of the Federal
Register.
Analysis of Comments and Changes
In response to the Secretary's invitation in the notice of proposed
priorities, twelve parties submitted comments. An analysis of the
comments and of the changes in the proposed priority follows. Technical
and other minor changes--as well as suggested changes the Secretary is
not legally authorized to make under the applicable statutory
authority--are not addressed.
Priority--Directed Research Projects
Focus 1--Beacons of Excellence.
Comment: One commenter recommended that Focus 1 be operated as a
five-year institute with sufficient funding to investigate both general
education and special education change.
Discussion: The Secretary notes that Focus 1 requires projects to
study schools achieving exemplary results for students with
disabilities in the context of efforts to achieve exemplary results for
all students. The Secretary anticipates that applicants would need to
investigate both the general education and special education practices
associated with achieving exemplary results for students with
disabilities. Decisions concerning the number of projects to fund,
project funding levels, and project durations are based on a
determination of the time and funding needed to carry out the intent of
a particular focus. The Secretary believes it is possible that some,
but not necessarily all, applicants may need more than three years to
complete project activities. However, the Secretary prefers, given the
diversity of approaches and of schools achieving exemplary results, to
fund multiple projects, rather than extend the project's duration in
this focus.
Changes: The phrase ``During the third year'' in the last sentence
of Focus 1 has been replaced with ``During the final year'' to allow
project periods to exceed three years if the extended time period is
justified.
Comment: One commenter recommended that Focus 1 support one project
to study reform at middle and high school levels, asserting that the
need for information is greater at these levels than at the elementary
level, where greater progress in reform has been made.
Discussion: The Secretary agrees that middle and high school levels
should be studied, and notes that Focus 1 allows projects to focus on
either secondary or elementary levels, or both. Further, the Secretary
believes it would be beneficial to support at least one project at both
the elementary and secondary school level. However, the Secretary does
not believe that it is necessary to have one project that includes both
levels.
Changes: The priority has been revised to reflect the Secretary's
plan to support at least one project at the elementary level and at
least one project at the secondary level.
Comment: One commenter asked if projects were required to study
multiple schools, or if a project could propose to study only one
school.
Discussion: It may be possible for an applicant to propose a
technically sound project involving the study of just one exemplary
school.
Changes: The phrase ``one or more'' has been added to the first
sentence to indicate that a project may propose to study just one
exemplary school.
Comment: One commenter suggested that Focus 1 require applicants to
identify in their proposals the exemplary schools they will study so
that reviewers can assess school quality as part of the proposal
evaluation focus and so that OSEP is assured that exemplary schools
agree to participate in the project.
Discussion: The Secretary is confident that researchers will
include criteria in their applications that will result in the
identification of exemplary schools, but that it is unlikely that many
applicants will be able to identify exemplary schools with sufficient
rigor prior to receiving funding. The commenter's suggested approach
could potentially weaken the competition and reduce the overall quality
of the projects funded under this focus.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that OSEP clarify whether Focus 1
includes ``promising'' practices as well as practices that have been
proven effective. The commenter further suggested that promising and
proven practices should be reported as separate categories.
Discussion: The distinction between ``promising'' and ``proven'' is
a relatively complex issue, as is the exact definition of ``practice,''
and the Secretary believes these issues go beyond the central purpose
of Focus 1. The projects must identify and study factors contributing
to exemplary learning results, not necessarily promising or proven
practices.
Changes: None.
Focus 2--Prevention and Early Intervention Services for Children With
Emotional and Behavioral Problems
Comment: One commenter expressed confusion as to the purpose of
Focus 2, and recommended that projects be required to identify factors
that prevent children from developing emotional and
[[Page 35323]]
behavioral problems, identify program factors designed to prevent the
problems, and describe the results of the intervention in terms of
outcomes for children.
Discussion: Focus 2 is broadly stated, intentionally, to welcome a
diversity of research foci that examine specific factors that
contribute to effectiveness. The only specific requirement for every
research project is that, in some way, each research project must
include an evaluation of the collaboration and coordination of
prevention and early intervention services. The areas of investigation
recommended by the commenter are permissible under Focus 2, as long as
the proposed research also includes an evaluation of collaboration and
coordination of prevention and early intervention services.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that Focus 2 specifically
identify the child's primary health care provider or medical home
provider as one of the service providers to be included in evaluating
the effectiveness of collaborative, community-based services.
Discussion: Focus 2 states that primary care and mental health
programs, where available, are additional programs appropriate for
study. Given the vast array of service providers applicants could
propose to study, the Secretary does not believe it is possible to
provide an all inclusive list and prefers to retain the broad language
of Focus 2.
Changes: None.
Focus 4--The Sustainability of Promising Innovations
Comment: Two commenters wrote in support of the importance of
allowing, as an integral component of Focus 4, the development of
approaches to build internal site capacity for maintaining effective
innovations beyond the term of external implementation support.
Discussion: The Secretary agrees that the development of site-based
approaches to build internal capacity to sustain promising and
effective innovations is a desirable outcome. However, the Secretary
emphasizes that the primary purpose of Focus 4 is to study the
sustainability of promising innovations and that, as such, any proposed
approach to site based capacity building should be an integral part of
the research design.
Change: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested expanding Focus 4 to include the
study of sustaining innovations designed to prevent inappropriate
referrals to and placement in special education.
Discussion: The Secretary agrees with the commenter on the
importance of effective approaches for preventing inappropriate
referrals to and placement in special education. The Secretary notes
that Focus 4 is primarily interested in issues of sustainability of
innovations that hold positive results for children with disabilities
within a school restructuring/reform context. This broad focus does not
preclude projects from including the study of inappropriate referrals
and placement as a component of a research plan.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that Focus 4 should consider the
interrelationships between the innovations being studied and the
overall educational system where they are used.
Discussion: The Secretary agrees with the importance of studying
the interrelationships among a variety of factors across different
levels of the system. The Secretary notes, however, that Focus 4 does
not preclude the study of interrelationships among factors, in fact
Focus 4 encourages that study. For example, Focus 4 projects may
address the extent of consonance or dissonance between critical
features of the innovations and existing (and emerging) school and
district practices and policies.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended Focus 4 specify that promising
innovations may include policy implementation research as well as
practice-based research and model demonstrations.
Discussion: The Secretary agrees that policy implementation
research is important, but believes that Focus 4 does not preclude
those studies. The Secretary notes that, among the factors that may be
studied, item (f) includes school policy requirements and item (g)
includes school and district practices and policies.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters expressed concerns regarding the
documentation of ongoing program effectiveness. One commenter asked if
the sustainability of programs or the effectiveness of programs is the
area of concentration. Another commenter recommended including
sustained changes in student results as part of the research design.
Discussion: The purpose of Focus 4 is to study the sustainability
of innovations that have documented positive results for children with
disabilities and, in doing so, requires the ongoing documentation of
results for children with disabilities as a component of the research
plan.
Changes: Focus 4 has been revised to clarify that sustained changes
in student results is part of the research design.
Comment: One commenter suggested the phrase ``results for students
with disabilities'' as used in Focus 4 be expanded to include factors
such as more substantial and ongoing parent involvement in individual
education plan (IEP) development that are important aspects of
providing an appropriate education for students with disabilities.
Discussion: The Secretary agrees that innovative approaches to
improving interactions among professionals and families and
facilitating least restrictive environment (LRE) placements are
important aspects of providing an appropriate education for children
with disabilities. The Secretary believes, however, that the ultimate
measure of the effectiveness of these approaches is the extent to which
they lead to positive results for children with disabilities. The
Secretary believes that the phrase ``positive results for students with
disabilities'' is inclusive of a wide range of possible important
results for students with disabilities including the attainment of
relevant and appropriate academic, social, behavioral, and functional
goals and objectives.
Changes: None.
General Comments
Comment: One commenter requested that all research focus areas
include the need for research in early intervention and school based
therapeutic interventions to meet the educational needs of children
with disabilities.
Discussion: The Secretary acknowledges that early intervention and
school based therapeutic interventions are often important elements in
improving results for children with disabilities. However, these
interventions are not pertinent to all of the focus areas. The various
focus areas do not preclude an applicant from proposing early
intervention and school based therapeutic interventions, where
appropriate. The Secretary believes it would be impossible to provide a
comprehensive list of potential intervention strategies in any focus
area. The Secretary prefers to maintain the broad language of the focus
areas, and allow applicants to propose and justify their particular
strategy.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that all research projects
should be capped at some reasonable indirect rate, and stated that an
indirect
[[Page 35324]]
cost rate between 8 to 12 percent is more than adequate.
Discussion: The subject of indirect cost rates for research
projects is beyond the scope of comments sought in the notice of
proposed priorities. Indirect cost rates are addressed in the Education
Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR), which are
currently under review.
Changes: None.
Priority
Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), the Secretary gives an absolute
preference to applications that meet the following priority. The
Secretary will fund under this competition only applications that meet
this absolute priority:
Absolute Priority--Directed Research Projects
Background
The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) has, in prior
years, announced priorities for the support of research projects under
several of the programs authorized by the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act. Separate research priorities (competitions) have been
announced under the Early Education Program for Children with
Disabilities, Program for Children with Severe Disabilities, Secondary
Education and Transitional Services for Youth with Disabilities
Program, Program for Children and Youth with Serious Emotional
Disturbance, and the Research in Education of Individuals with
Disabilities Program. The purpose of this priority is to group all
priorities for directed research and apply a single set of requirements
among the various competitions. By consolidating multiple priorities
and announcements into one priority, OSEP endeavors to avoid
unnecessary duplication and provide consistent information for all
research competitions. The program authority for each focus is listed
following each focus statement.
Priority
This priority provides support for projects that advance and
improve the knowledge base and improve the practice of professionals,
parents, and others providing early intervention, special education,
and related services, including professionals who work with children
with disabilities in regular education environments, to provide such
children effective instruction and enable them to learn successfully.
Under this priority, projects must support innovation, development,
exchange, and use of advancements in knowledge and practice designed to
contribute to the improvement of early intervention, instruction, and
learning of infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities.
A research project must address one of the following focus areas:
Focus 1--Beacons of excellence. Research projects supported under
focus 1 must identify and study one or more schools achieving exemplary
results for students with disabilities in the context of efforts to
achieve exemplary results for all students. Projects must develop and
apply procedures and criteria to identify such schools, and to identify
factors contributing to exemplary learning results, and examine how
those factors and other factors relate to achieving exemplary learning
results for students with disabilities. Projects may focus on either
secondary or elementary levels, or both. The Secretary intends to award
at least one project at the elementary level and at least one project
at the secondary level. During the final year of the project, the
Secretary will determine whether or not to fund an optional six-month
period for extended dissemination activities arranged with OSEP.
Program Authority: Research in Education of Individuals with
Disabilities Program, 20 U.S.C. 1441.
Focus 2--Prevention and early intervention services for children
with emotional and behavioral problems. Many young children with
emotional and behavioral problems experience years of repeated
preschool and school failure, permanent damage to their self-esteem,
and escalation of their problems, before they receive appropriate
services. Research projects supported under this focus must identify,
examine, and document information about the specific factors that
contribute to effectiveness in collaborative, community-based,
prevention and early intervention services to prevent children with
emotional and behavioral problems from developing serious emotional
disturbance. The target population for these projects includes children
in preschool, kindergarten, and the primary grades (1-4), and their
families.
The research may focus, for example, on child find, screening,
early identification, assessment, pre-referral strategies, child and
family intervention and prevention services, and results. Research must
include but is not limited to services and programs funded under the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Additional programs with
collaborative, community-based services appropriate for study may
include, where available, Head Start and Early Head Start programs,
other early childhood service programs, primary care and mental health
programs, child care center programs, and public and private preschools
and elementary school programs. Each research project must include an
evaluation of the collaboration and coordination of prevention and
early intervention services across multiple service providers and
agencies working with these children and their families.
Program Authority: Program for Children and Youth with Serious
Emotional Disturbance, 20 U.S.C. 1426.
Focus 3--Students approaching graduation and the supplemental
security income program. Many children and youth with disabilities
receiving special education services also receive Supplemental Security
Income (SSI). Administered by the Social Security Administration, the
SSI program provides cash assistance, Medicaid eligibility, and work
incentives such as the Impairment-Related Work Expense incentive and
the Plan for Achieving Self-Support. National data indicate that these
work incentives are under-utilized and that most working-age SSI
recipients are unemployed. To address this problem, the National
Academy of Social Insurance (1996) recommended that information about
the SSI work incentives should be incorporated in the transition
planning process required by the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act. The SSI work incentives may therefore enhance the
employment results of transitioning youth with disabilities.
The purpose of focus 3 is to develop and test innovative strategies
for increasing the utilization of the SSI work incentives. Projects
must: (a) Examine the barriers to employment for young adults with
disabilities who are receiving SSI benefits; (b) develop innovative
strategies and materials for promoting the utilization of work
incentives through the transition planning process; and (c) apply
qualitative and quantitative research methods to determine the relative
efficacy of technical assistance strategies, toward improving work
incentive utilization developed under (b).
Program Authority: Secondary Education and Transitional Services
for Youth with Disabilities Program, 20 U.S.C. 1425.
Focus 4--The sustainability of promising innovations. A growing
body of practice-based research and model demonstration work in schools
and local districts, including projects
[[Page 35325]]
supported by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), has
focussed on meeting the needs of, and improving the results for,
students with disabilities in schools and districts involved in reform
and restructuring initiatives. Some of this work is yielding promising
positive results for students with disabilities. However, little is
known about the extent to which the innovations developed and
implemented in these efforts are sustained in project sites beyond the
term of time-limited external support and assistance.
Focus 4 is designed to study the implementation of practices that
have been found to be effective in meeting the needs of students with
disabilities in reform/restructuring initiatives in local and district
schools. The practices must have been included as part of projects
designed to implement such practices. The study must address: (1) The
extent to which such practices have been sustained beyond the term of
the projects; and (2) factors that influence the determined level of
sustainability. Factors to be studied may include, but are not limited
to: (a) The nature of the innovations and the extent to which the
innovations have undergone adaptation or alteration over time; (b) the
type and extent of support strategies employed during initial
implementation stages and over time; (c) planned and unplanned changes
in school organizational and/or structural contexts; (d) the level of
penetration of the innovation; (e) the actual and perceived costs and
benefits for participants; (f) constancy of site leadership, school
staff, and school policy requirements; (g) the extent of consonance or
dissonance between critical features of the innovations and existing
(and emerging) school and district practices and policies; and (h)
resource access and allocation. Within focus 4, projects must provide
comprehensive descriptions of the targeted effective practices to be
studied, and convincing documentation of resulting positive results for
students with disabilities. Projects must focus research on issues of
sustainability and must incorporate in their research design the
continuing documentation of results for students with disabilities.
Within focus 4, the Secretary particularly encourages an in-depth case
study research design where the sites to be studied are the cases.
Program Authority: Research in Education of Individuals with
Disabilities Program, 20 U.S.C. 1441.
Focus 5--Educating children with severe disabilities in inclusive
settings. Focus 5 supports research projects to (a) identify new or
improved strategies to address the educational and related service
needs of children and youth with severe disabilities in inclusive
general education settings and extracurricular activities, and (b)
describe how the school inclusion strategies as identified in (a) are
aligned with systemic reform and school improvement strategies for all
students.
Additional research is needed to identify, describe, and examine:
(1) The efficacy and linkages of existing systemic reform and school
inclusion strategies, (2) how school systems provide supports and
collaborative teaming to meet the needs of students with severe
disabilities, and other diverse learners; (3) how standards and
authentic assessment practices are implemented for students with severe
disabilities and their impact on inclusive and systemic reform efforts,
(4) social support strategies that promote positive interactions among
students with severe disabilities and other students, and their same-
aged peers to foster cohesive school and classroom communities; and (5)
the types of peer-mediated strategies that actively involve all
students, including students with severe disabilities, in inclusive
educational programs.
To be considered for funding under focus 5, a research project
must--
(a) Identify specific interventions or strategies to be
investigated;
(b) Design the research activities in a manner that is likely to
improve services for all students in inclusive classrooms, including
students with severe disabilities;
(c) Conduct the research in schools pursuing systemic education
reform and school inclusion; and
(d) Use methodological procedures designed to produce findings
useful to program implementers and policy makers regarding the impact
and interaction effects of systemic reform and school inclusion
strategies in State and local contexts.
All projects funded under focus 5 must identify and describe how
these inclusion efforts benefit students with severe disabilities
including the reciprocal benefits of inclusive schooling for all
students.
Program Authority: Program for Children with Severe
Disabilities, 20 U.S.C. 1424.
Requirements for All Directed Research Projects
In addition to addressing focus (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) above,
projects must:
(a) Apply rigorous research methods (qualitative and/or
quantitative) to identify approaches contributing to improved results
for children with disabilities;
(b) Provide a conceptual framework, based on extant research and
theory to serve as a basis for the issues to be studied, the research
design, and the target population;
(c) Prepare dissemination materials for both researcher and
practitioner audiences and develop linkages with U.S. Department of
Education dissemination and technical assistance providers, in
particular those supported under the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, to communicate research findings and distribute
products; and
(d) Budget for two trips annually to Washington, D.C., for: (1) a
two-day Research to Practice Division Project Directors' meeting; and
(2) another meeting to collaborate with the Research to Practice
Division project officer and the other projects funded under this
priority, and to share information and discuss findings and methods of
dissemination.
Selection Criteria for Evaluating Applications Under the Absolute
Priority--Directed Research Projects
The Secretary will use the following criteria to evaluate
applications under the absolute priority--Directed Research Projects.
The maximum score for all the criteria is 100 points.
(a) Importance (10 points). The Secretary reviews each application
to determine the importance of the project in leading to the
understanding of, remediation of, or compensation for, the problem or
issue that relates to the early intervention with or special education
of infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities.
(b) Technical soundness (40 points). The Secretary reviews each
application to determine the technical soundness of the research,
including--
(1) The design;
(2) The proposed sample;
(3) Instrumentation; and
(4) Data analysis procedures.
(c) Plan of operation (10 points).
(1) The Secretary reviews each application to determine the quality
of the plan of operation for the project.
(2) The Secretary looks for--
(i) High quality in the design of the project;
(ii) An effective plan of management that insures proper and
efficient administration of the project;
(iii) A clear description of how the objectives of the project
relate to the purpose of the program; and
(iv) The way the applicant plans to use its resources and personnel
to achieve each objective.
(3) The quality of the evaluation plan for the project including
the extent to
[[Page 35326]]
which the methods of evaluation are appropriate for the project and, to
the extent possible, are objective and produce data that are
quantifiable.
(Cross Reference: 34 CFR 75.590, Evaluation by the grantee.)
(d) Quality of key personnel (10 points).
(1) The Secretary reviews each application to determine the
qualifications of the key personnel that the applicant plans to use on
the project.
(2) The Secretary considers--
(i) The qualifications of the project director (if one is to be
used); and,
(ii) The qualifications of each of the other key personnel to be
used in the project; and
(iii) The time that each person referred to in paragraphs (d)(2)(i)
and (ii) of this section will commit to the project.
(3) To determine personnel qualifications, the Secretary considers
experience and training in fields related to the objectives of the
project, as well as other evidence that the applicant provides.
(e) Underrepresented populations (10 points). The Secretary reviews
each application for information that shows the extent to which the
applicant, as part of its nondiscriminatory employment practices,
employs members of underrepresented populations as project staff. The
Secretary looks for--
(1) Employees who are members of underrepresented populations,
including members of racial or ethnic minority groups and individuals
with disabilities; and
(2) Procedures to provide training and other necessary support to
retain and advance qualified personnel from underrepresented
populations.
(f) Adequacy of resources (5 points).
(1) The Secretary reviews each application to determine if the
applicant plans to devote adequate resources to the project.
(2) The Secretary considers the extent to which--
(i) The facilities that the applicant plans to use are adequate;
and
(ii) The equipment and supplies that the applicant plans to use are
adequate.
(g) Impact (5 points). The Secretary reviews each application to
determine the probable impact of the proposed research and development
products and the extent to which those products can be expected to have
a direct influence on infants, toddlers, children, and youth with
disabilities or personnel responsible for their education or early
intervention services.
(h) Organizational capability (5 points). The Secretary considers--
(1) The applicant's experience in special education or early
intervention services; and
(2) The ability of the applicant to disseminate the findings of the
project to appropriate groups to ensure that they can be used
effectively.
(i) Budget and cost effectiveness. (5 points)
(1) The Secretary reviews each application to determine if the
project has an adequate budget and is cost effective.
(2) The Secretary considers the extent to which--
(i) The budget for the project is adequate to support the project
activities; and
(ii) Costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives of the
project.
Intergovernmental Review
Except for Focus areas 1 and 4 in this priority, all other focus
areas included in this notice are subject to the requirements of
Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR Part 79. The
objective of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental
partnership and a strengthened federalism by relying on processes
developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of
proposed Federal financial assistance.
In accordance with the order, this document is intended to provide
early notification of the Department's specific plans and actions for
this program.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers: Research in
Education of Individuals with Disabilities Program, 84.023; Program
for Children with Severe Disabilities, 84.086; Program for Children
and Youth with Serious Emotional Disturbance, 84.238; and Secondary
Education and Transitional Services for Youth with Disabilities
Program, 84.158)
Dated: June 24, 1997.
Judith E. Heumann,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 97-17059 Filed 6-27-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P