[Federal Register: May 4, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 85)]
[Notices]
[Page 24723-24731]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr04my98-149]
[[Page 24723]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part VIII
Department of Education
_______________________________________________________________________
Office of Special Education and Office of Rehabilitative Services;
Notice of Final Priorities and Notice Inviting Applications for New
Awards for Fiscal Year 1998; Notice
[[Page 24724]]
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services; Notice
of Final Priorities
SUMMARY: The Secretary announces final priorities for two programs
administered by the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services (OSERS) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA), as amended. The Secretary may use these priorities to support
grants in Fiscal Year 1998 and subsequent years. The Secretary takes
this action to focus Federal assistance on identified needs to improve
results for children with disabilities. These final priorities are
intended to ensure wide and effective use of program funds.
EFFECTIVE DATE: These priorities take effect on June 3, 1998.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Department address and telephone
number to contact for information on each final priority is listed
under the appropriate priority.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice contains three final priorities
under two Special Education programs authorized by the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act: Technical Assistance and Dissemination to
Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities (two
proposed priorities); and Research and Innovation to Improve Services
and Results for Children with Disabilities (one proposed priority).
On February 19, 1998, the Secretary published a notice of proposed
priorities for these programs in the Federal Register (63 FR 8530).
These final priorities support the National Education Goals by
improving understanding of how to enable children and youth with
disabilities to reach higher levels of academic achievement.
The publication of these priorities does not preclude the Secretary
from proposing additional priorities, nor does it limit the Secretary
to funding only these priorities, subject to meeting applicable
rulemaking requirements. Funding of particular projects depends on the
availability of funds, and the quality of the applications received.
Note: This notice of final priorities does not solicit
applications. A notice inviting applications under these
competitions is published in a separate notice in this issue of the
Federal Register.
Analysis of Comments and Changes
In response to the Secretary's invitation in the notice of proposed
priorities, six parties submitted comments. An analysis of the comments
and of the changes in the proposed priorities follows. Technical and
other minor changes--as well as suggested changes the Secretary is not
legally authorized to make under the applicable statutory authority--
are not addressed.
Priority 1--Center for Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports
Comment: One commenter recommended that the priority use the exact,
broad, language of IDEA, i.e. ``strategies, including positive
behavioral interventions and supports'', rather than the term
``positive behavioral support'', which the commenter believed would
narrow the scope of interventions, strategies and supports that can be
studied by the Center.
Discussion: It is the Secretary's intent to support a broad view of
possible interventions. The language in the priority has been changed
to be consistent with this intent.
Changes: The priority has been revised to refer to positive
behavioral interventions and supports throughout.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the State policies, which the
Center must evaluate, should include policies that support family
involvement in the provision of services.
Discussion: The Secretary agrees with the commenter that family
participation in the development and implementation of behavioral
supports is important. The proposed priority would not have precluded
projects from addressing this issue. Paragraph (a) purposely does not
delineate the specific areas of State and local policy on school-wide
positive behavioral supports and interventions that the Center must
address. Applicants have the discretion to identify and evaluate the
critical areas.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the coordinated network under
paragraph (b) be broadened to include, ``related services and other
mental health professionals'', to ensure that the priority did not
exclude contributions made to the mental health of children by school
psychologists, school social workers, and other related services
personnel.
Discussion: The term mental health professional as used in the
proposed priority was not intended to exclude related services
personnel who provide mental health services. The Secretary agrees that
referring to ``related services professionals'' as part of the
coordinated network would add further clarity.
Changes: The proposed priority has been revised to include related
services professionals under paragraph (b).
Comment: One commenter suggested that the list of agencies with
which the Center may conduct outreach activities under paragraph (b)
include Child Mental Health Services and Maternal and Child Health at
the Department of Health and Human Services since both programs fund
demonstration projects and sponsor school health clinics.
Discussion: The priority lists some of the relevant agencies and
federally supported technical assistance and information agencies and
projects with which the Center may conduct outreach activities. While
the list is not meant to be exhaustive, and applicants may identify
additional collaborative agencies, the Secretary agrees that the two
agencies identified by the commenter should be included among those
listed in the priority.
Changes: The proposed priority has been revised to include OHS''
Child Mental Health Services, and Maternal and Child Health.
Comment: One commenter recommended that information exchanges under
paragraph (c) involve an array or menu of methods for reporting
positive behavioral interventions, strategies, and supports.
Discussion: It is the Secretary's intent to provide for a range of
methods for exchanging information. While the proposed priority did not
preclude such a range, the Secretary agrees that an array of methods
should be required.
Changes: Paragraph (c) of the proposed priority has been revised to
require that informational exchanges include an array of methods for
sharing information.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the information
dissemination efforts described in paragraph (e) include steps toward
implementation, methods to sustain efforts, and mechanisms for ensuring
increased replication and effective dissemination.
Discussion: The priority is intended to promote awareness of the
value of school-wide positive behavioral supports and interventions and
to build the necessary knowledge base, momentum, and resource network
to encourage their widespread application. To the extent the Center
acquires information regarding replication of supports and
interventions, it may share that information with the field. However,
requiring the Center to develop guidelines for replication are beyond
the work scope of the priority. Implementation, on the other hand, will
be conducted by the coordinated network under paragraph (b).
Changes: None.
[[Page 24725]]
Comment: One commenter suggested that the blueprint described in
paragraph (f) include underlying components necessary to institute an
effective program.
Discussion: Paragraph (f) is intended to support the development of
a blueprint that the Secretary may use to provide future technical
assistance to LEAs and SEAs in implementing positive behavioral
interventions and support programs. The components of the blueprint are
left to the discretion and expertise of the Center.
Changes: The priority has been modified to clarify that the
blueprint developed under paragraph (f) shall be submitted to the
Secretary for purposes of providing future technical assistance on
positive behavioral interventions and supports.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the focus of the results-
based evaluation under paragraph (h) be clarified.
Discussion: The Secretary agrees that the proposed priority did not
sufficiently identify the focus of the results-based evaluation and has
clarified the language.
Changes: Paragraph (h) has been revised to clarify that the
results-based evaluation must be supported by evaluation data gathered
from the project of the technical assistance provided under paragraphs
(b), (c), (d), and (e) of the proposed priority.
Priority 2--National Center on Dispute Resolution
Comment: One commenter suggested that the priority include
additional clarification regarding expectations associated with
specific tasks, especially those with fiscal implications.
Discussion: The Secretary prefers to afford applicants the
discretion to determine how best to accomplish the activities specified
in the priority, including how (or if) to budget for certain tasks.
Moreover, the Secretary believes it would be inappropriate to specify
additional estimated costs in the priority.
Change: None.
Priority--Directed Research Projects
Focus 1--Beacons of Excellence
Comment: One commenter suggested that Focus 1--Beacons of
Excellence under the proposed Directed Research Projects priority be
changed to make explicit that the prime criterion for a beacon school
is student performance measured in a valid and reliable manner.
Discussion: The priority as proposed required that projects
``identify and study schools or programs achieving exemplary results
for students with disabilities.'' The commenter's suggested change may
strengthen the emphasis on student results that are measured in a
rigorous manner.
Changes: The priority has been changed to require that schools or
programs be identified on the basis of valid and reliable measures of
student results.
Focus 2--The Sustainability of Promising Innovations
Comment: One commenter suggested that Focus 2 be broadened to
include research documenting the effectiveness of applying assistive
technology to help students benefit from their educational experience.
Discussion: The Secretary agrees with the commenter that research
documenting the extent to which assistive technology benefits students
with disabilities is important, however, Focus 2 is primarily
interested in issues of sustainability of innovations that hold
positive results for children with disabilities within a school
restructuring/reform context. OSEP supports research related to
assistive technology under the Special Education--Technology and Media
Services for Individuals with Disabilities program. The closing date
for applications under that program for the fiscal year 1998
competition for the Steppingstones of Technology Innovations for
Students with Disabilities priority, is May 8, 1998.
Changes: None.
Focus 6--Synthesize and Communicate a Professional Knowledge Base:
Contributions to Research and Practice
Comment: One commenter suggested that the syntheses areas included
in paragraphs (a)-(f) be rewritten to address the ``Method and effects
of interventions on * * *'', so that the syntheses projects will not
only identify and synthesize positive outcomes, but will also identify
and synthesize those ``things'' which lead to positive outcomes. The
commenter further suggested that the project assess what the field
currently knows regarding self-determination and develop an agenda of
future research questions.
Discussion: The Secretary believes that the concerns of the
commenter are taken into account when rigorous research methods are
applied in the design and execution of the meta-analysis for the
synthesis project. With regard to the commenter's suggestion that the
project assess what the field currently knows regarding self-
determination and develop an agenda of future research questions, the
Secretary emphasizes that it is the purpose of the synthesis project to
assess what is known from research and report the findings. However, it
is not the intent of this priority to develop an agenda of future
research questions.
Change: None.
Focus 8--Educating Children with Disabilities in Inclusive Settings
Comment: One commenter suggested that assistive technology be
listed as a systems change strategy worthy of investigation under Focus
8.
Discussion: The Secretary agrees with the commenter that assistive
technology is a strategy worthy of investigation under this priority.
As Focus 8 is written, there is nothing that precludes an applicant
from using assistive technology as a strategy to promote access and
inclusion of students with disabilities in regular classrooms.
Change: None.
Special Education--Technical Assistance and Dissemination To
Improve Services and Results For Children With Disabilities
Purpose of Program
The purpose of this program is to provide technical assistance and
information through such mechanisms as institutes, regional resource
centers, clearinghouses, and programs that support States and local
entities in building capacity, to improve early intervention,
educational, and transitional services and results for children with
disabilities and their families, and to address systemic-change goals
and priorities.
Priorities
Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), the Secretary gives an absolute
preference to applications that meet one of the following priorities.
The Secretary will fund under these competitions only applications that
meet one of these absolute priorities:
Absolute Priority 1--Center for Positive Behavioral Interventions and
Supports
Background
Problem behaviors are one of the most common reasons children with
disabilities are excluded from school, community, and work. Research on
positive behavioral interventions and supports is rapidly developing
and demonstrates how school-wide approaches to these interventions and
supports can enable students with disabilities who exhibit problem
behaviors to achieve independence and become participants and
contributing
[[Page 24726]]
members in school, community, and work.
Despite this growing body of knowledge, however, awareness of the
value of these approaches and their use in the educational environment
remains limited. There is clearly a need to develop a greater awareness
on the part of educators and others of the important contribution that
positive behavioral interventions and supports can make in achieving
successful results for children with disabilities who exhibit
challenging problem behaviors and for improving the overall climate of
schools.
Part B of IDEA includes provisions intended to guide and assist
schools in cases in which the behavior of a child with a disability
impedes learning. For example, the Act specifies that teams developing
individualized education programs (IEPs) consider, when appropriate,
positive behavioral interventions and supports and other strategies to
address behavior problems. The following priority is intended to assist
schools in designing and implementing effective school-wide positive
behavioral intervention and support programs by creating a greater
awareness of these research-based approaches, including identifying
effective State and local policies which support the approaches, and by
building the necessary knowledge base, momentum, and resource network
to encourage their widespread application.
Priority
The Secretary establishes an absolute priority for the purpose of
supporting a Center for Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports
that builds awareness and motivation for schools to design and
implement school-wide support for children with disabilities who
exhibit challenging problem behaviors. The Center must, at a minimum:
(a) Evaluate the state of policy and practice regarding school-wide
positive behavioral interventions and supports, including relevant
State and local policies and guidelines, and financing and cross-agency
coordination strategies for supporting behavioral intervention and
support services. Develop and apply criteria for identifying exemplary
programs of school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports.
Identify and publicize schools implementing such programs.
(b) Establish a coordinated network of researchers, educators,
parents, related services, and mental health professionals, and policy
makers who will serve as resources to schools and each other in
designing and implementing school-wide positive behavioral intervention
and support programs. Conduct outreach activities with relevant
federally supported technical assistance and information activities and
projects (e.g., the National Institute of Disability and Rehabilitation
Research programs, the Federal Resource Center, Regional Resource
Centers, the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), the
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education's Safe and Drug Free
Schools program, the Department of Justice's Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention, the Department of Health and Human
Services' Child Mental Health Services and Maternal and Child Health
programs), State and local organizations, and other relevant
organizations and projects to promote public awareness of positive
behavioral intervention and support practices and the availability of
information, supports, and services.
(c) Provide for information exchanges between researchers and
practitioners who direct exemplary behavioral intervention and support
programs and educators who seek to design and implement effective
school-wide programs. Information must be exchanged through an array of
methods, including, but not limited to, two regional forums during each
of the first four years of the project, and a national forum in the
fifth year. The forums must be designed to expand the coordinated
network, develop awareness of research-based practices, and create a
dialogue about school-wide positive behavioral intervention and support
programs. The forums must include examples and descriptions of
exemplary school-wide programs and effective State and local policies,
and may include other appropriate activities such as visits to
exemplary sites.
(d) Provide information to the national information center for
children with disabilities. Collaborate with the national information
center for children with disabilities on the development and
dissemination of materials on positive behavioral interventions and
supports. Establish linkages with the national information center for
children with disabilities to ensure timely and accurate dissemination
of information to customers.
(e) Organize, synthesize, and report information to teachers,
administrators, parents, and other interested parties regarding
research, policy, and practice advances on positive behavioral
interventions and supports. Develop and disseminate products that are
easy to use and accessible (e.g., print and electronic formats).
Respond to written and telephone inquiries with research-based
information.
(f) Develop, and submit to the Secretary, a blueprint for providing
further technical assistance to local educational agencies (LEAs) and
State educational agencies (SEAs), which includes alternative designs
of effective school-wide positive behavioral intervention and support
programs and alternative approaches to delivering technical assistance
in their implementation. Identify barriers to assisting school
districts across the country in developing and implementing school-wide
positive behavioral interventions and support programs and develop
strategies for overcoming these barriers.
(g) Budget for two trips annually to Washington, D.C., for: (1) A
two-day Research to Practice Division Project Directors' meeting; and
(2) a meeting to collaborate with the Research to Practice Division
project officer and the other related projects, and to share
information and discuss findings and methods of dissemination.
(h) Conduct, every two years, a results-based evaluation supported
by evaluation data gathered from the project of the technical
assistance provided under activities (b), (c), (d), and (e). Such an
evaluation must be conducted by a review team consisting of three
experts approved by the Secretary, and must measure elements such as--
(1) The type of technical assistance provided and the perception of
its quality by the target audience;
(2) The changes that occurred as a result of the technical
assistance provided; and
(3) The review team will examine the progress that the Center has
made with respect to the objectives in its application.
The services of the review team, including a two-day site visit to
the Center is to be performed during the last half of the Center's
second and fourth years and may be included in that year's evaluation
required under 34 CFR 75.590. Costs associated with the services to be
performed by the review team must also be included in the Center's
budget for years two and four. These costs are estimated to be
approximately $4,000 for each evaluation cycle.
Under this priority, the Secretary will make one award for
cooperative agreements with a project period of up to 60 months subject
to the requirements of 34 CFR 75.253(a) for continuation awards. In
determining whether to continue the center for the fourth and fifth
years of the project
[[Page 24727]]
period, the Secretary, in addition to the requirements of 34 CFR
75.253(a), will consider--
(a) The timeliness and effectiveness with which all requirements of
the negotiated cooperative agreement have been or are being met by the
Center; and
(b) The degree to which the Center's design and methodology
demonstrates the potential for advancing significant new knowledge.
Absolute Priority 2--National Center on Dispute Resolution
Background
Disputes within the education community affect systemic change and
results for children with disabilities. An alternative dispute
resolution process such as mediation is less costly to schools and
families, can help to minimize adverse effects on a child's progress in
school, and is more apt to foster positive relationships between
families and educators than would litigation. Technical assistance that
focuses primarily on alternative dispute resolution procedures would
assist State educational agencies (SEAs), local educational agencies
(LEAs), and families to resolve their differences in a less adversarial
and more responsive manner than through standard due process hearing
procedures, while enabling State and local entities to achieve systemic
change and promoting improved early intervention, educational, and
transitional results for children with disabilities. This priority
would support a national center to provide technical assistance to
SEAs, LEAs, and families on resolving their differences. The center
would provide technical assistance on mediation and other effective
dispute resolution procedures that do not impede parental rights under
IDEA or otherwise conflict with the statute. As such, the center would
provide technical assistance as needed in order to facilitate the
effective use of due process procedures. The chief aim of the center,
however, would be to provide needed technical assistance to enable
parties to effectively resolve their disputes through more expedient
and less confrontational means, including mediation.
Priority
The Secretary establishes an absolute priority to support a
national technical assistance center on dispute resolution procedures,
including mediation. The center must--
(a) Provide technical assistance on dispute resolution procedures
(with an emphasis on procedures other than due process hearings) to all
States, outlying areas, and the freely associated States (to the extent
such States participate in Parts B or C of IDEA), and the Bureau of
Indian Affairs. At a minimum, the center must--
(1) Conduct annual needs assessments;
(2) Develop technical assistance agreements with each entity; and
(3) Provide technical assistance, training, and on-going
consultation based on the technical assistance agreements (including
technical assistance, training, and on-going consultation at the local
level, as appropriate).
(b) Coordinate with the existing technical assistance to parent
project to provide technical assistance to all parent training and
information centers and community parent resource centers on dispute
resolution procedures;
(c) Develop informational exchanges about dispute resolution
procedures between the center and other technical assistance and
information dissemination systems;
(d) Establish an advisory group of persons with complementary
expertise on dispute resolution procedures to advise the center on its
technical assistance activities;
(e) Collect information on the use and effectiveness of mediation
and other dispute resolution procedures. The effectiveness of any such
procedure would be based on the degree to which all parties feel
satisfied with the result and agree that an efficient and expeditious
process has been followed;
(f) Identify, and disseminate information on, best practices in
dispute resolution;
(g) Maintain an information data base that includes: (1) State
practices on dispute resolution, including information on mediator
training and the implementation of the mediation requirements in Parts
B and C of IDEA; and (2) research, literature, and products about
dispute resolution procedures.
(h) Examine the effectiveness of State efforts regarding mediation
and other dispute resolution proceedings. Analyze information on the
number of due process hearings, mediation sessions, and other dispute
resolution proceedings conducted and on the outcome of each such
hearing, session, or proceeding;
(i) Collaborate with the national information center on children
with disabilities regarding the dissemination of information to respond
to information needs. Establish linkages with the national information
center on children with disabilities to ensure timely and accurate
dissemination of information to customers;
(j) Serve as a clearinghouse for information on dispute resolution
procedures;
(k) Conduct an annual forum each year of the project that
identifies the unique features of dispute resolution procedures, the
strengths of the procedures, and the potential for adopting the
procedures. At least one forum must address the specific needs of
underrepresented and underserved populations; another must address
dispute resolution procedures (including mediator training issues) in
the context of general education reform;
(l) Evaluate the impact of the center's technical assistance system
and its components relative to the--
(1) Assessed needs of States and jurisdictions;
(2) Needs of parents; and
(3) Linkages with other technical assistance and information
dissemination systems; and
(m) Budget for two trips annually to Washington, D.C., for: (1) a
two-day Research to Practice Division Project Directors' meeting; and
(2) a meeting to collaborate with the Research to Practice Division
project officer and the other related projects to share information,
and to discuss findings and methods of dissemination.
(n) Conduct, every two years, a results-based evaluation of the
technical assistance provided. Such an evaluation must be conducted by
a review team consisting of three experts approved by the Secretary and
must measure elements such as--
(1) The type of technical assistance provided and the perception of
its quality by the target audience; and
(2) The changes that occurred as a result of the technical
assistance provided; and
(3) The progress that the center has made with respect to the
objectives in its application.
The services of the review team, including a two-day site visit to
the center, are to be performed during the last half of the center's
second year and may be included in that year's evaluation required
under 34 CFR 75.590. Costs associated with the services to be performed
by the review team must also be included in the center's budget for
year two. These costs are estimated to be approximately $4,000.
Under this priority, the Secretary will make one award for a
cooperative agreement with a project period of up to 60 months subject
to the requirements of 34 CFR 75.253(a) for continuation awards. In
determining whether to
[[Page 24728]]
continue the center for the fourth and fifth years of the project
period, the Secretary, in addition to the requirements of 34 CFR
75.253(a), will consider--
(a) The timeliness and effectiveness with which all requirements of
the negotiated cooperative agreement have been or are being met by the
center.
(b) The degree to which the center's design and methodology
demonstrates the potential for advancing significant new knowledge.
For Further Information Contact: For further information on the
priorities under the Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve
Services and Results for Children with Disabilities Program contact the
U.S. Department of Education, 600 Independence Avenue, SW., room 3527,
Switzer Building, Washington, DC 20202-2641. Telephone: (202) 205-8038.
FAX: (202) 205-8105. Internet: Debra__Sturdivant@ed.gov
Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD)
may call the TDD number: (202) 205-8953.
Program Authority: Section 685 of IDEA.
Special Education--Research and Innovation To Improve Services and
Results For Children With Disabilities
Purpose of Program
To produce, and advance the use of, knowledge to: (1) Improve
services provided under IDEA, including the practices of professionals
and others involved in providing those services to children with
disabilities; and (2) improve educational and early intervention
results for infants, toddlers, and children with disabilities.
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
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 and natural
environments, to provide those children effective instruction and
interventions that enable them to learn and develop successfully. Under
this priority, projects must support innovation, development, exchange
of information, and use of advancements in knowledge and practice
designed to contribute to the improvement of early intervention,
instruction, and learning of infants, toddlers, and children with
disabilities.
A research project must address one of the following focus areas,
and the Secretary intends to award at least one project in each focus
area:
Focus 1--Beacons of Excellence
Research projects supported under Focus 1 must identify and study
schools or programs 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 these schools or programs on the basis of valid and
reliable measures of student results. Projects must also identify
factors contributing to exemplary learning or developmental results,
and examine how those factors and other factors relate to achieving
exemplary learning or developmental results for children with
disabilities. Projects may focus on early intervention, preschool,
elementary, or secondary levels, or a combination of levels. Following
the second year of the project, the Secretary may fund an optional six-
month period for additional dissemination activities.
Focus 2--The Sustainability of Promising Innovations
A growing body of practice-based research and model demonstration
work in schools, local districts, and early intervention programs,
including projects supported by the Office of Special Education
Programs (OSEP), has focused on meeting the needs of, and improving
results for, children with disabilities in schools, districts, or early
intervention programs involved in reform and restructuring initiatives.
Some of this work is yielding promising positive results for children
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 2 supports projects to study the implementation of practices
that have been found to be effective in meeting the needs of children
with disabilities by reform and restructuring initiatives in local and
district schools, or early intervention programs. The study must
address: (a) The extent to which practices that have been shown to be
effective have been sustained beyond the existence of the projects; and
(b) factors that influence the 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 agency, school organizational or
structural contexts, or both; (d) the level of penetration of the
innovation; (e) the actual or perceived, or both, cost and benefit for
participants; (f) constancy of site leadership, staff, and policy
requirements; (g) the extent of consonance or dissonance between
critical features of the innovations and existing (and emerging) school
and district or agency practices and policies; and (h) resource access
and allocation. Projects must provide comprehensive descriptions of the
targeted effective practices to be studied, and evidence of positive
results for children with disabilities. In addition, projects must
dedicate the bulk of support requested to research on the issues of
sustainability including the ability to sustain the project results
beyond the life of the project. The Secretary particularly encourages
an in-depth case study research design where the site or sites to be
studied is the case (unit of analysis).
Focus 3--Research on Improving Reading Comprehension Results for
Children with Learning Disabilities
In recent years, research has advanced our understanding of how
skilled readers comprehend and instructional strategies that support
children with learning disabilities to comprehend text. Comprehension
is not merely a text-based process where meaning resides in the text
and the role of the reader is to get the meaning. Meaning comes from
both the text and the reader. Many children with learning disabilities
need an instructional program that: (a) Teaches them how to access
prior knowledge (e.g., strategies such as story grammar elements,
semantic mapping, or think aloud sheets); (b) motivates and supports
persistence on a task (e.g., including expressions of a student's own
thoughts when reading and writing, questioning the expert or inquiry,
or using technology or grouping practices); and (c) teaches them
cognitive and metacognitive strategies for reading with understanding,
including how to monitor one's own progress (e.g., summarizing,
generating questions, mnemonics, or imagery).
[[Page 24729]]
Therefore, becoming a skilled reader is not automatic. Teachers
need to teach reading comprehension, and, in particular, children with
learning disabilities need effective instructional approaches.
Under Focus 3, a research project must pursue a systematic program
of applied research that focuses on one or more issues related to
improving reading comprehension results of children with learning
disabilities related to reading. These issues include, but are not
limited to:
(a) The extent to which children with learning disabilities need
differential strategies to comprehend narrative and expository text;
(b) The types of effective comprehension instruction for children
with learning disabilities in grades K-2, 3-5, and 6-8 inclusive; the
components of particularly effective programs for children with
learning disabilities; the basal materials, supplemental materials, and
instructional strategies used by teachers; and how families support the
instructional program;
(c) The types of effective questioning strategies used by teachers,
peers, and experts affecting comprehension; and
(d) The kind of contexts that promote critical analysis and
evaluation for comprehension and learning, and the grouping practices,
instructional strategies, and curricula that promote comprehension and
problem solving.
Focus 4--Studying Models That Bridge the Gap Between Research and
Practice
Educational research most often includes the following phases: (1)
Planning and preparation; (2) information gathering; (3) analysis and
interpretation; (4) reporting and dissemination; and (5) use of
findings. In traditional research models, the researcher is solely or
primarily responsible for all phases but the last. Using research
findings is seen as a job for the practitioner. However, it has been
observed that research knowledge rarely translates directly into
practice.
In recent years, a variety of promising models have been developed
to bridge the gap between research and practice by altering the roles
of researchers and practitioners for one or more phases of the
research. In some models (e.g., interactive research and development,
practitioner-researcher, partnership research) researchers and
practitioners collaborate in all phases of the research process. Some
of these models include parents on their site-based research teams. In
other models, practitioners, working individually (e.g., practitioner-
research linkers), in groups (e.g., practitioner study groups), or in
pairs (e.g., peer coaching) interpret extant research to understand how
to integrate research into practice. In some models, teachers conduct
research (e.g., action research, or collegial experimentation). To date
there have been few systematic examinations of the effectiveness of the
various models to improve practice in special education or early
intervention.
Under Focus 4, research projects must implement and examine a model
or models for using research knowledge to improve educational practice
and results for children with disabilities.
In studying a model or models, projects must apply methodologies
with the capacity to determine the effectiveness of the model or models
as implemented in practice settings. The projects must identify the
knowledge utilization model or models to be studied, specify the
components of the knowledge utilization model or models selected or
created, the supports and policies necessary to support the model or
models, both alterable and unalterable factors affecting practice
improvement, and the effect of the model or models to improve
organizational culture, practitioner attitudes and practices, and child
results. In judging effectiveness, the projects must address
improvements for researchers, practitioners, and children with
disabilities.
The projects must report their findings in a manner which can serve
as a ``blueprint'' so that practitioners in other school districts or
agencies can implement the model using research knowledge to improve
practice in special education or early intervention.
Focus 5--Inclusion of Students With Disabilities in Large-Scale
Assessment Programs
IDEA includes a number of provisions to ensure the participation of
students with disabilities in general State and district-wide
assessment programs. Students with disabilities must participate in
large-scale assessment programs if they are to benefit from the
educational accountability and reforms that are linked to these
assessments. While much information has been gained from prior efforts
to include disabled students in assessments such as the National
Assessment of Educational Progress, applied research is needed to build
on this base of information in order to provide technical and
implementation information to guide the effective inclusion of students
with disabilities in large-scale assessment programs.
Focus 5 supports projects that pursue systematic programs of
applied research to determine how State and local educational programs
can best meet one or more of the following requirements: (a) Including
students with disabilities in either general State or district-wide
assessment programs or both;
(b) Developing and using appropriate accommodations for students
with disabilities on general State or district-wide assessments, or
both;
(c) Developing and using alternate assessments for students with
disabilities who cannot participate in State and district-wide
assessment programs;
(d) Reporting on the participation or performance or both of
students with disabilities in either general assessment programs, or on
alternate assessments, or both; and
(e) Making decisions during the development of individualized
education programs concerning individual modifications in the
administration of State or district-wide assessments, or individual
participation in alternate assessments.
Focus 6--Synthesize and Communicate a Professional Knowledge Base:
Contributions to Research and Practice
Traditionally researchers have communicated their findings from
individual research projects and systematic lines of research through
journal publications and conference presentations. These findings are
communicated to other researchers and engage researchers in dialogues.
These dialogues contribute to innovation and development in special
education and early intervention. In recent years the OSEP has sought
to expand these traditional approaches. While continuing to support
innovation and development, OSEP has established a goal to foster the
use of a professional knowledge base by professionals who serve
children with disabilities and parents who are involved in the
education and development of their children with disabilities.
Focus 6 supports projects that synthesize and communicate an extant
professional knowledge base on curricular, instructional, early
intervention, or organizational strategies and approaches that would
contribute to professional practice as a means for achieving better
results for children with disabilities. In past years, the Department
has supported syntheses on positive behavioral supports of children who
exhibit challenging behaviors, grouping practices in reading,
differences between children with learning disabilities and low
achieving students, instructional approaches for special education
students who speak English as a second language,
[[Page 24730]]
generalization strategies for using augmentative communication devices,
interventions for children with learning disabilities, and effects of
setting on social and academic outcomes. Building upon these previous
efforts, the Secretary intends to support and fund a limited number of
new syntheses in other areas such as--
(a) Effects of self-determination and self-advocacy interventions
on children with disabilities;
(b) Effects of interventions on children with disabilities that
promote generalization of academic or developmental skills;
(c) Effects of teacher or practitioner efficacy on children with
disabilities' achievement or development;
(d) Effects of technology for improving literacy results for
children with disabilities;
(e) Effects of school-wide approaches for improving reading results
of children with disabilities; or
(f) Effects of school-wide approaches for improving math results of
children with disabilities.
Under Focus 6, a synthesis project must--
(a) Identify the topical focus and the relevant and irrelevant
concepts under review, and pose hypotheses around which the synthesis
would be conducted;
(b) Identify and implement rigorous social science methods for
synthesizing the professional knowledge base (e.g., integrative reviews
(Cooper, 1982), best-evidence synthesis (Slavin, 1989), meta-analysis
(Glass, 1977), multi-vocal approach (Ogawa & Malen, 1991), and National
Institute of Mental Health consensus development program (Huberman,
1977));
(c) Develop hypotheses with input from potential consumers of the
synthesis to enhance the usability and validity of project efforts.
Consumers include researchers, technical assistance providers, policy
makers, educators, other relevant practitioners, individuals with
disabilities, and parents;
(d) Develop linkage of synthesis with technical assistance
providers and disseminators and prepare products for use by
practitioners, technical assistance providers, and disseminators;
(e) Implement procedures for locating and organizing the extant
literature and ensure that these procedures address and guard against
potential threats to the integrity, including generalization of
findings;
(f) Establish criteria and procedures for judging the
appropriateness of studies;
(g) Meet with the Office of Special Education Programs to review
the project's topical focus and methodological approach for conducting
the synthesis prior to the start of its synthesis;
(h) Analyze and interpret the professional knowledge base,
including identification of general trends in the literature, points of
consensus and conflict among the findings, and areas of evidence where
the literature base is lacking. The interpretation of the literature
base must address the contributions of the findings for improving the
practice of professionals serving children with disabilities; and
(i) Submit a draft report in the 21st month of the project and,
based on peer reviews, revise and submit a final report of the
synthesis in the 24th month. During the second year of the project, the
Secretary may fund an optional six-month period for additional
dissemination activities.
Focus 7--Improving the Delivery of Special Education and Related
Services or Early Intervention Services to Children who are English
Language Learners
Appropriate instruction and intervention for children with
disabilities who are limited in their English language proficiency can
be achieved in a variety of ways. Ultimately, the responsibility for
assuring that the English language learner is receiving appropriate
access to the curriculum or intervention rests with the school district
or agency in its provision of necessary training and ongoing support to
the teachers or practitioners. Providing native speakers of the child's
language in the classroom or intervention program, including parents,
may not be sufficient to assure delivery of appropriate education or
interventions. Limitations of resources and availability of qualified
bilingual personnel to provide special education, related services, or
early intervention services throughout the Nation suggest that other
approaches should be investigated that will enhance the availability
and assurance of the provision of meaningful education.
Under Focus 7 projects must pursue a systematic program of applied
research that focuses on one or more areas related to improved
approaches to the delivery of special education and related services or
early intervention services to children who are English language
learners. These areas may include, for example--
(a) Examination of early reading practices (K-3) for children with
learning and behavior issues who are limited in their English
proficiency;
(b) Improvement of reading comprehension in content area
instruction in grades 4-8;
(c) Examination of alternatives in the delivery of services to
children with disabilities who are English language learners (e.g., is
placement optimal in regular classes or programs with support from
special education resources or is the child better served in placements
with other children with similar disabilities with support from
bilingual resources?);
(d) The role cultural issues play in the provision of services
(e.g., how do the perceptions of families regarding disabilities and
services affect delivery of services?);
(e) The preferred strategies to support the transition from
bilingual to mainstream English speaking classes or programs (e.g.,
what teaching or intervention strategies are most effective?);
(f) Examination of specific instructional approaches that promote
problem solving and comprehension in reading, science, math, and social
studies;
(g) Examination of instructional or intervention approaches for
growth in English language learning for these children;
(h) Factors that improve the effectiveness of cooperative learning
and classwide peer tutoring for English language learners;
(i) The techniques that improve the transfer of proven practices to
practitioner; and
(j) The qualitative differences that exist in implementation of
proven practices with practitioner and children who are English
language learners who are located in inner-city schools or served
through inner-city agencies (e.g., what is the involvement of
families?).
Focus 8--Educating Children With Disabilities in Inclusive Settings
Focus 8 supports research projects to (a) identify new or improved
systems change strategies that provide all children with disabilities,
including children with severe disabilities, effective access to the
general curriculum in regular classrooms as well as to nonsegregated
extracurricular activities, and (b) describe how these school inclusion
efforts as identified in (a) are aligned with systemic reform and
school improvement strategies for all students.
Each project will identify, describe, and examine: (1) The efficacy
and linkages of existing systemic reform and school inclusion
strategies; (2) how school systems provide administrative and other
supports in general education
[[Page 24731]]
settings to meet the needs of students with disabilities and other
diverse learners; (3) how standards established for all children and
authentic assessment practices are implemented for students with
disabilities, and (4) social support strategies, including peer
mediated strategies, that promote positive interactions among students
with disabilities and their same-aged peers to foster cohesive school
and classroom communities.
To be considered for funding under Focus 8, 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 and demonstrate the benefits to
students including the reciprocal benefits of inclusive schooling for
all students.
Program Authority: Section 672 of IDEA.
Requirements for All Directed Research Projects:
In addition to addressing one of the above mentioned focus areas,
projects must--
(a) Apply rigorous research methods (qualitative or quantitative,
or both) 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.
For Further Information Contact: For further information on the
priority under the Research and Innovation to Improve Services and
Results for Children with Disabilities Program contact the U.S.
Department of Education, 600 Independence Avenue, SW., room 3527,
Switzer Building, Washington, DC 20202-4641. Telephone: (202) 205-8038.
FAX: (202) 205-8105. Internet: Debra __ Sturdivant@ed.gov
Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD)
may call the TDD number: (202) 205-8953. Individuals with disabilities
may obtain a copy of this notice in an alternate format (e.g. Braille,
large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) by calling (202) 205-
8113.
Electronic Access to This Document
Anyone may view this document, as well as all other Department of
Education documents published in the Federal Register, in text or
portable document format (pdf) on the World Wide Web at either of the
following sites:
http://ocfo.ed.gov/fedreg.htm
http://www.ed.gov/news.html
To use the pdf you must have the Adobe Acrobat Reader Program with
Search, which is available free at either of the previous sites. If you
have questions about using the pdf, call the U.S. Government Printing
Office toll free at 1-888-293-6498.
Anyone may also view these documents in text copy only on an
electronic bulletin board of the Department. Telephone: (202) 219-1511
or, toll free, 1-800-222-4922. The documents are located under Option
G--Files/Announcements, Bulletins, and Press Releases.
Note: The official version of a document is the document
published in the Federal Register.
Intergovernmental Review
The programs (except for the Research and Innovation Projects)
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
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.
Dated: April 28, 1998.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers: Research and
Innovation to Improve Services and Results for Children with
Disabilities, 84.324; and Technical Assistance and Dissemination to
Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities, 84.326)
Judith E. Heumann,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 98-11720 Filed 5-1-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P