[Federal Register: July 9, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 130)]
[Notices]
[Page 37212-37216]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr09jy07-52]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Technical Assistance on Data Collection--General Supervision
Enhancement Grants
AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services,
Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of final priorities.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services announces three separate funding priorities
under the Technical Assistance on State Data Collection program
authorized under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA). The Assistant Secretary may use the priorities for competitions
in fiscal year (FY) 2007 and later years. We take this action to focus
attention on an identified national need to provide technical
assistance to improve the capacity of States to meet data collection
requirements.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This priority is effective August 8, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Wexler, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 4053, Potomac Center Plaza,
Washington, DC 20202-2700. Telephone: (202) 245-7571 or via Internet:
larry.wexler@ed.gov.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may
call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an
alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer
diskette) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Technical Assistance on State Data
Collection program established under section 616(i)(2) of the IDEA, we
make awards to provide technical assistance to improve the capacity of
States to meet the section 616 data collection requirements.
We published a notice of proposed priorities (NPP) for this program
in the Federal Register on March 30, 2007 (72 FR 15126). This notice of
final priorities contains four changes from the NPP. We fully explain
the changes in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section that
follows.
Analysis of Comments and Changes
In response to the Secretary's invitation in the NPP, four parties
submitted comments on the proposed priorities. An analysis of the
comments and the changes we have made follows.
[[Page 37213]]
We group major issues according to subject. Generally, we do not
address technical and other minor and suggested changes that we are not
allowed to make under the applicable statutory authority.
Priority A--Modified Academic Achievement Standards and Priority B--
Alternate Academic Achievement Standards Comment
Two commenters requested that Priorities A and B require the use of
universal design principles in developing alternate assessments based
on modified academic achievement standards and alternate assessments
based on alternate academic achievement standards.
Discussion: 34 CFR 300.160(g) of the IDEA regulations already
requires State educational agencies (SEAs) (or, in the case of a
district-wide assessment, local educational agencies (LEAs)), to use
universal design principles in developing and administering alternate
assessments for children with disabilities, to the extent possible. To
require the use of universal design principles in developing alternate
assessments under this priority, without consideration for the
feasibility, appropriateness, or practicality of their use, would be
inappropriate.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that training on universal
design principles be included in the training on modified academic
achievement standards for individualized education program teams (IEP
Teams) required in Priority A.
Discussion: The training required under Priority A focuses on
training IEP Teams to use State guidelines to determine the students to
be assessed based on modified academic achievement standards.
Determining whether universal design principles should be used in
developing and implementing alternate assessments is not a
responsibility of IEP Teams. Therefore, we believe it would be
inappropriate to include training on universal design for IEP Teams, as
recommended by the commenter.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter stated that projects funded under Priorities
A and B should work with an expert who has skills in applying
principles of universal design to large-scale assessments, in order to
ensure that alternate assessments are, to the extent possible,
universally designed.
Discussion: We agree that an expert with experience in applying
universal design principles to large-scale assessments would help
ensure that alternate assessments, to the extent possible, are
universally designed; we will change the list of expert skills in
Priorities A and B accordingly.
Changes: We have added, ``applying the principles of universal
design to large-scale assessments'' to the list of expert skills in
Priorities A and B.
Comment: One commenter recommended that Priorities A and B
emphasize placement in the least restrictive environment (LRE) because
children with Down syndrome, and many other children taking alternate
assessments based on alternate academic achievement standards, are not
provided opportunities to be educated in the LRE with their nondisabled
peers.
Discussion: We believe it is unnecessary to include the additional
language recommended by the commenter. The regulations on alternate
academic achievement standards under Title I of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), already require that alternate academic
achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive
disabilities developed by a State promote access to the general
curriculum (Sec. 200.1(d)(2)). Similarly, Sec. 200.1(f)(2)(iii) of
the ESEA regulations requires students who are assessed based on
modified academic achievement standards to have access to the
curriculum, including instruction, for the grade in which the students
are enrolled. In addition, Sec. 300.114(a)(2) of the IDEA regulations
requires children with disabilities to be educated with nondisabled
children, to the maximum extent appropriate.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter stated that an allowable activity under
Priority B should be the development of clear and appropriate
guidelines for IEP Teams to use in determining students to be assessed
based on alternate academic achievement standards. Another commenter
recommended that development and implementation of training for IEP
Teams on these State guidelines should be allowable activities under
Priority B.
Discussion: We agree that Priority B should support the development
of clear and appropriate guidelines for IEP Teams to apply in
determining students with the most significant cognitive disabilities
who should take an alternate assessment based on alternate academic
achievement standards, consistent with Sec. 200.1(f)(1)(i)(A) of the
ESEA regulations. We also agree that training for IEP Teams on these
guidelines is important to ensure that the guidelines are correctly
implemented.
Change: Priority B has been revised to include two additional
allowable activities: (1) The development of clear and appropriate
guidelines for IEP Teams to use in determining when a child's
significant cognitive disability justifies assessment based on
alternate academic achievement standards; and (2) the development and
implementation of training on guidelines for IEP Teams to use in
determining which students should be assessed based on alternate
academic achievement standards.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Secretary provide funds
to assist States with developing and implementing alternate assessments
based on grade-level academic achievement standards.
Discussion: Given the limited availability of funds, we believe
that focusing Priorities A and B on alternate assessments based on
alternate academic achievement standards and alternate assessments
based on modified academic achievement standards will address the needs
of the majority of States. Evidence provided by the Office of
Elementary and Secondary Education's peer review of Statewide
assessment systems is clear that many States need support to improve
their alternate assessments based on alternate academic achievement
standards. Additionally, States overwhelmingly expressed the need for
funds to support the development of alternate assessments based on
modified academic achievement standards when the regulations permitting
States to develop modified academic achievement standards were
published on April 9, 2007. We have not received similar requests for
funds to support the development of alternate assessments based on
grade-level academic achievement standards.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that Priorities A and B require
applicants to collect data on the characteristics of students who take
an alternate assessment based on alternate or modified academic
achievement standards, such as the disability category and minority
status of students, and whether students are economically disadvantaged
or have limited proficiency in English. The commenter also recommended
requiring data to be collected on instructional variables, such as
students' educational placements, the accommodations they received, and
whether instruction was provided by highly qualified teachers.
Discussion: We believe that implementing the commenter's
recommendations would require
[[Page 37214]]
significant resources and time and be a burden for States to report and
would not necessarily improve the use of funds under this program.
Therefore, we decline to make the changes requested by the commenter.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that Priorities A and B require
applicants to report the percentage of students with disabilities
taking either of the alternate assessments and the percentage of those
students whose advanced or proficient scores on those alternate
assessments are counted as proficient in calculating adequate yearly
progress (AYP).
Discussion: The information regarding participation requested by
the commenter is already required under the ESEA and the IDEA. Section
200.6(a)(4) of the ESEA regulations requires States and LEAs to report
on the number and percentage of students taking an alternate assessment
based on alternate or modified academic achievement standards.
Likewise, Sec. 300.160(f) of the IDEA regulations requires States to
report on the number of students with disabilities participating in
alternate assessments based on alternate or modified academic
achievement standards.
Neither the regulations under Title I of the ESEA nor the
regulations under Part B of the IDEA require reporting of the
percentage of advanced or proficient scores on alternate assessments
based on alternate and modified academic achievement standards that are
used in calculating AYP, and we do not believe it would be useful or
appropriate to impose such a requirement only on grantees under
Priorities A and B. As noted previously, these priorities are being
established under section 616(i)(2) of the IDEA to improve the capacity
of States to meet the section 616 data collection requirements. The
information requested is not a part of the section 616 data collection
requirements.
Changes: None.
Priority C--Outcome Measures
Comment: One commenter stated that an allowable activity under
Priority C should include comparing outcomes of children with
disabilities participating in regular preschool programs (defined as a
program that has a natural proportion of disabled and non disabled
children) with outcomes of children in special education preschool
programs.
Discussion: The purpose of this priority is to improve the capacity
of States to meet the section 616 data collection requirements under
the IDEA. The activity recommended by the commenter extends beyond this
purpose. Therefore, we decline to make the commenter's recommended
change.
Changes: None.
Comment: None.
Discussion: The NPP inadvertently included a requirement that
projects funded under Priority C provide an assurance from the State's
Assessment Office that it was given an opportunity to contribute to the
formulation of the application. Because Priority C does not involve
information related to assessments, this requirement was misplaced.
Changes: The requirement that projects funded under Priority C
provide an assurance from the State's Assessment Office that it was
given an opportunity to contribute to the formulation of the
application has been removed.
Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use one of these priorities, we invite
applications through a notice in the Federal Register. When inviting
applications, we designate the priority as absolute, competitive
preference, or invitational. 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 either
(1) Awarding additional points, depending on how well, or the extent
to which, the application meets the competitive preference priority
(34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an application that meets
the competitive preference 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 invitational
priority. However, we do not give an application that meets the
invitational priority a competitive or absolute preference over
other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
Note: The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services is establishing three separate funding
priorities addressing data collected under the IDEA. Although these
are being announced in one notice, these priorities will be funded
through separate competitions. Eligible entities must submit
separate applications under each of the priorities for which they
wish to apply.
Priorities
Background of Priority A--Modified Academic Achievement Standards
On April 9, 2007, the Secretary amended the regulations governing
programs administered under Title I of the ESEA, as amended by NCLB,
and the regulations governing programs under Part B of the IDEA. These
regulations provide States with additional flexibility regarding State,
LEA, and school accountability for the achievement of a small group of
students with disabilities whose progress is such that, even after
receiving appropriate instruction, including special education and
related services designed to address the students' individual needs,
the students' IEP Teams are reasonably certain that the students will
not achieve grade-level proficiency within the year covered by the
students' IEPs. These regulations became effective May 9, 2007.
The regulations permit States to develop modified academic
achievement standards (and assessments that measure achievement based
on those standards) that are aligned with grade-level content
standards. States and LEAs are permitted to include the proficient and
advanced scores from assessments based on modified academic achievement
standards in AYP determinations, subject to a cap of 2.0 percent at the
district and State levels based on the total number of students in the
grades assessed.
The Secretary anticipates that many States will need support in
developing, enhancing, or redesigning their assessment systems to
include assessments that are aligned with modified academic achievement
standards.
Priority A--Modified Academic Achievement Standards
The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services establishes a priority for grants to support States with one
or more of the following activities: (1) Development of modified
academic achievement standards based on the State's academic content
standards for the grade in which a student is enrolled; (2) development
of State assessments using universal design principles, to the extent
possible, based on modified academic achievement standards; and (3)
development of clear and appropriate guidelines for IEP Teams to use in
determining which students should be assessed based on modified
academic achievement standards, and the development and implementation
of training on those guidelines for IEP Teams.
Assessments based on modified academic achievement standards must
be designed to generate valid scores that can be used for AYP
accountability purposes under the ESEA. The scores of students with
disabilities participating in alternate assessments based on modified
academic achievement
[[Page 37215]]
standards also will be reflected in the data required by the Part B
State Performance Plans and Annual Performance Reports on the
performance and participation of children with disabilities on State
assessments under section 616 of the IDEA.
Applicants must include information in their applications on how
they will work with experts in large-scale assessment and special
education to ensure that they are designing modified academic
achievement standards, and assessments based on those standards, that:
(1) Address the needs of students with disabilities; (2) validly,
reliably, and accurately measure student performance; and (3) result in
high quality data for use in evaluating the performance of schools,
districts, and States. The experts selected should represent the range
of skills needed to develop assessments based on modified academic
achievement standards for students with disabilities that will meet the
peer review guidelines for assessments published by the Department in
the spring of 2004 that are available at http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/saaprguidance.pdf.
Skill sets for experts must include
experience with one or more of the following: (1) Large scale
assessment; (2) standards-setting techniques; (3) assessment and
measurement of children with disabilities; (4) accommodations and
supports to assess grade-level content; (5) working with States to
develop assessments; (6) development of criterion referenced tests and
instruments; (7) psychometric evaluation; (8) conducting studies of the
technical adequacy of assessment instruments; (9) research and
publishing in the area of assessment and psychometrics; and (10)
applying the principles of universal design to large-scale assessments.
Projects funded under this priority also must--
(a) Budget to attend a three-day Project Directors' meeting in
Washington, DC;
(b) If the project maintains a Web site, include relevant
information and documents in a format that meets a government or
industry-recognized standard for accessibility; and
(c) Provide a written assurance that the State's Assessment Office
(i.e., the office that addresses accountability under Title I of the
ESEA) was given the opportunity to contribute to the formulation of the
application.
Background of Priority B--Alternate Academic Achievement Standards
The Department's Title I regulations in 34 CFR part 200, regarding
children with the most significant cognitive disabilities, permit a
State to develop alternate academic achievement standards for students
with the most significant cognitive disabilities and to include those
students' proficient and advanced scores on alternate assessments based
on alternate academic achievement standards in measuring AYP at the
State and district levels, subject to a cap of 1.0 percent of the total
number of students in the grades assessed. Alternate assessments based
on alternate academic achievement standards, as permitted by the Title
I regulations, also are recognized as an appropriate assessment method
in section 612(a)(16) of the IDEA.
Alternate assessments that are used by States and LEAs under the
ESEA, as amended by NCLB, must be designed to generate valid data that
can be used for purposes of determining AYP. Alternate assessments also
must meet the requirements in 34 CFR 200.2 (State Responsibilities for
Assessment) and 34 CFR 200.3 (Designing State Academic Assessment
Systems), including the requirements relating to validity, reliability,
and high technical quality; and fit coherently in the State's overall
assessment system under 34 CFR 200.2. The alternate assessment must,
among other things, be: (1) Valid and reliable for the purposes for
which the assessment system is used; (2) consistent with relevant,
nationally-recognized professional and technical standards; and (3)
supported by evidence from test publishers or other relevant sources
that the assessment system is of adequate technical quality for each
purpose required under the ESEA, as amended by NCLB. States must
include alternate assessment data in their State Performance Plan and
Annual Performance Reports relative to performance and participation of
children with disabilities on State assessments under the IDEA.
The Department is establishing the following priority because many
States need assistance in: (1) Developing alternate academic
achievement standards aligned with the State's academic content
standards; (2) developing high-quality alternate assessments that
measure the achievement of students with the most significant cognitive
disabilities based on those standards; (3) reporting on the
participation and performance of students with disabilities on
alternate assessments based on alternate academic achievement
standards; and (4) developing clear and appropriate guidelines for IEP
Teams to use in determining which students should be assessed based on
alternate academic achievement standards, and the development and
implementation of training on those guidelines.
Priority B--Alternate Academic Achievement Standards
The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services establishes a priority for grants to support States with one
or more of the following activities: (1) Development of alternate
academic achievement standards aligned with the State's academic
content standards; (2) development of high-quality alternate
assessments using universal design principles, to the extent possible,
that measure the achievement of students with the most significant
cognitive disabilities based on those standards; (3) reporting on the
participation and performance of students with disabilities on
alternate assessments based on alternate academic achievement
standards; and (4) development of clear and appropriate guidelines for
IEP Teams to use in determining which students should be assessed based
on alternate academic achievement standards, and the development and
implementation of training on those guidelines for IEP Teams.
Applicants must include information in their applications on how
they will work with experts in large-scale assessment and special
education to ensure that they are designing alternate academic
achievement standards, and assessments based on those standards, that:
(1) Address the needs of students with the most significant cognitive
disabilities; (2) validly, reliably, and accurately measure student
performance; and (3) result in high quality data for use in evaluating
the performance of schools, districts, and States. The experts selected
should represent the range of skills needed to develop assessments
based on alternate academic achievement standards for students with the
most significant cognitive disabilities that will meet the peer review
guidelines for assessments published by the Department in the spring of
2004 that are available at http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/saaprguidance.pdf.
Skill sets for experts must include experience with
one or more of the following: (1) Large scale assessment; (2)
standards-setting techniques; (3) assessment and measurement of
children with
[[Page 37216]]
disabilities; (4) accommodations and supports to assess grade-level
content; (5) working with States to develop assessments; (6)
development of criterion-referenced tests and instruments; (7)
psychometric evaluation; (8) conducting studies of the technical
adequacy of assessment instruments; (9) research and publishing in the
area of assessment and psychometrics; and (10) applying the principles
of universal design to large-scale assessments.
Projects funded under this priority also must--
(a) Budget to attend a three-day Project Directors' meeting in
Washington, DC;
(b) If the project maintains a Web site, include relevant
information and documents in a format that meets a government or
industry-recognized standard for accessibility; and
(c) Provide a written assurance that the State's Assessment Office
(i.e., the office that addresses accountability under Title I of the
ESEA) was given the opportunity to contribute to the formulation of the
application.
Background of Proposed Priority C--Outcome Measures
The cornerstone of any accountability system is the development of
outcome indicators against which progress can be measured. State
performance reports, self-assessments, and other extant data show that
most States and Lead Agencies, as defined under Part C of the IDEA
(section 635(a)(10)), as well as their LEAs and Early Intervention
Service programs, do not have well developed systems for measuring the
progress of infants, toddlers, and young children with disabilities and
their families served under Part B and Part C of the IDEA or methods to
collect and analyze Part B and Part C outcome indicator data.
Therefore, most States lack the capacity to collect sufficient data to
determine the impact of early intervention and special education
services for these children.
Priority C--Outcome Measures
The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services establishes a priority for projects that address the needs of
States for technical assistance to improve their capacity to meet
Federal data collection requirements in one or both of two focus areas.
Focus Area One. Focus Area One supports the development or
enhancement of Part B State systems for collecting, analyzing, and
reporting preschool outcome indicator data. Projects funded under Focus
Area One must focus on improving the capacity of the State to provide
information that could be used to determine the following:
(a) The outcomes associated with preschool children with
disabilities participating in State Part B programs.
(b) If the State has standards for preschool disability outcomes,
whether preschool children with disabilities are meeting those
standards.
(c) Trend data on outcomes associated with preschool children with
disabilities and the extent to which preschool children with
disabilities are meeting State standards.
Focus Area Two. Focus Area Two supports the development or
enhancement of Part C systems for collecting, analyzing, and reporting
outcome indicator data. Projects funded under Focus Area Two must focus
on improving the capacity of the State to provide information that
could be used to determine the following:
(a) The outcomes associated with infants and toddlers with
disabilities and their families participating in State Part C programs.
(b) If the State has standards for early intervention outcomes,
whether infants and toddlers with disabilities are meeting those
standards.
(c) Trend data on outcomes associated with infants and toddlers
with disabilities and their families and the extent to which infants
and toddlers with disabilities are meeting State standards.
Projects funded under this priority also must--
(a) Budget to attend a three-day Project Directors' meeting in
Washington, DC; and
(b) If the project maintains a Web site, include relevant
information and documents in a format that meets a government or
industry-recognized standard for accessibility.
Executive Order 12866
This notice of final priorities has been reviewed in accordance
with Executive Order 12866. Under the terms of the order, we have
assessed the potential costs and benefits of this regulatory action.
The potential costs associated with this regulatory action are
those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have
determined as necessary for administering this program effectively and
efficiently.
In assessing the potential costs and benefits--both quantitative
and qualitative--of this regulatory action, we have determined that the
benefits of the regulatory action justify the costs.
We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly
interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of
their governmental functions.
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 Federal financial
assistance.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
Electronic Access to This Document
You may view this document, as well as all other Department of
Education documents published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe
Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site:
http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister.
To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available
free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S.
Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in
the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.
Note: The official version of this document is the document
published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the
official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal
Regulations is available on GPO Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.htm
.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 84.373X Technical
Assistance on Data Collection--General Supervision Enhancement
Grants)
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1411(c) and 1416(i)(2).
Dated: July 3, 2007.
Jennifer Sheehy,
Director of Policy and Planning for Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. E7-13229 Filed 7-6-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P