[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 151 (Monday, August 6, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46658-46664]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19162]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter III
[CFDA Number: 84.373Y.]
Proposed Priority; Technical Assistance To Improve State Data
Capacity--National Technical Assistance Center To Improve State
Capacity To Accurately Collect and Report IDEA Data
AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services,
Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services proposes a funding priority under the Technical
Assistance (TA) on State Data Capacity program. The Assistant Secretary
may use this proposed priority for competitions in fiscal year (FY)
2012 and later years. We take this action to focus attention on an
identified national need to provide TA to improve the capacity of
States to meet the data collection requirements of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
DATES: We must receive your comments on or before October 22, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Address all comments about this notice to Kelly Worthington,
U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4072,
Potomac Center Plaza (PCP), Washington, DC 20202-2600.
If you prefer to send your comments by email, use the following
address: Kelly.Worthington@ed.gov. You must include the term ``State
Data Capacity Priority'' in the subject line of your electronic
message.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly Worthington. Telephone: (202)
245-7581.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-
800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding
the proposed priority in this notice. To ensure that your comments have
maximum effect in developing the notice of final priority, we urge you
to clearly identify the specific topic that each comment addresses.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and their overall
requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from this
proposed priority. Please let us know of any further ways we could
reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving
the effective and efficient administration of the program.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public
comments about this notice in Room 4072, 550 12th Street SW., Potomac
Center Plaza, Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4
p.m., Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week except
Federal holidays.
Assistance to Individuals With Disabilities in Reviewing the
Rulemaking Record: On request, we will provide an appropriate
accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who
needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the
public rulemaking record for this notice. If you want to schedule an
appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please
contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Technical Assistance on
State Data Collection program is to improve the capacity of States to
meet IDEA data collection and reporting requirements. Funding for the
program is authorized under section 611(c)(1) of the IDEA, which gives
the Secretary the authority to reserve funds appropriated under section
611 of the IDEA to provide TA authorized under section 616(i) of the
IDEA. Section 616(i) requires the Secretary to review the data
collection and analysis capacity of States to ensure that data and
information determined necessary for implementation of section 616 and
618 of the IDEA are collected, analyzed, and accurately reported. It
also requires the Secretary to provide TA, where needed, to improve the
capacity of States to meet the data collection requirements under the
IDEA.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1411(c), 1416(i), and 1418(c).
[[Page 46659]]
Proposed Priority
This notice contains one proposed priority. The priority is:
National Technical Assistance Center To Improve State Capacity To
Accurately Collect and Report IDEA Data
Background
Sections 616 and 618 of the IDEA require States to collect data and
report that data to the U.S. Department of Education (Department) and
to the public (generally, ``IDEA data requirements''). These data
requirements apply to State agencies that administer the IDEA Part B
program, under which the State must make a free appropriate public
education available to children with disabilities ages 3 through 21,
and the IDEA Part C program, under which the State must make early
intervention services available to infants and toddlers with
disabilities (birth to age 3) and their families.
Under section 618 of the IDEA, States are required to collect and
report annually to the Secretary and the public primarily quantitative
data on infants, toddlers, children, and students with disabilities.
States must report a number of data elements, including the number of
children served, the service settings or educational environments in
which children with disabilities are served, the use of dispute
resolution processes, assessment participation and performance for
children with disabilities, reasons for children with disabilities
exiting special education programs, disciplinary incidences and counts
for children with and without disabilities (section 618(a) of the
IDEA).\1\ Data provided to the public must be reported in a manner that
does not result in the disclosure of data identifiable to individual
children (section 618(b) of the IDEA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The following Web links provide more information on IDEA 618
data elements: www.ideadata.org/PartCForms.asp and www.ideadata.org/PartBForms.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under section 616 of the IDEA, each State must submit a State
Performance Plan (SPP) and an Annual Performance Report (APR) to the
Department for Part B and for Part C. In its APR, a State must report
to the Secretary and the public on its progress in meeting the
measurable and rigorous targets for each of the indicators established
by the Secretary, currently 14 IDEA Part C indicators and 20 IDEA Part
B indicators (section 616(b)(2)(C)(ii)(II) of the IDEA).\2\ In
addition, each State must report on its efforts to improve
implementation of the requirements and purposes of the IDEA and
describe how they will improve that implementation (section
616(b)(1)(A) of the IDEA). Each State's SPPs and APRs must include both
quantitative information (e.g., under Part B's Indicator 1, the percent
of youth with individualized education programs (IEPs) graduating with
a regular high school diploma) and qualitative information about the
State's efforts to improve the State's performance regarding each of
the State's targets in its SPP (e.g., based on an analysis of the data
available to the State, the State's explanation of, and plans to
address, any progress or slippage in meeting graduation targets).
Finally, each State must report to the public on implementation of the
requirements and purposes of the IDEA at the local level by posting on
the State agency's Web site the performance of each local educational
agency (LEA) in meeting the State's targets for the Part B indicators
and of each early intervention service (EIS) program in meeting the
State's targets for the Part C indicators (section 616(b)(2)(C)(ii)(I)
of the IDEA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The following Web sites provide more information on the 616
SPP/APR Indicators: www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/capr/index.html and www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/bapr/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Secretary is required to review the data collection and
analysis capacity of States to ensure that data and information
determined necessary for implementation of sections 616 and 618 of the
IDEA are collected and accurately reported by States to the Department,
and to provide TA, where needed, to improve the capacity of States to
meet the data collection requirements (section 616(i) of the IDEA). See
also section 618(c) of the IDEA regarding the Secretary's authority to
provide TA to States to ensure compliance with the data collection and
reporting requirements of the IDEA.
The Department has reviewed the data collection and analysis
capacity of States to ensure that IDEA data are being collected and
accurately reported to the Department and the public. As explained in
more detail in the following paragraphs, the Department's assessment is
that States need TA to improve their data collection capacity and their
ability to analyze that data to ensure that the data are accurate and
can be reported to the Department and the public, as applicable. States
also need TA to help them analyze the data available to them so that
they can each provide, in their SPPs and APRs, more accurate
qualitative information about their efforts to improve implementation
of the requirements and purposes of the IDEA, and to more accurately
target future improvement activities.
Improve data infrastructures. In order to meet IDEA data
requirements, States must have the capacity to collect and analyze data
on a variety of data elements, including but not limited to: Child and
student background characteristics (e.g., race, ethnicity, limited
English proficient status, gender, disability category); early
intervention service setting; percentage of time in the general
education classroom; student performance on statewide assessments,
including the name of each assessment; personnel serving students with
disabilities and their qualifications; the use of dispute resolution
processes to resolve differences between parents and program providers;
the incidence of disciplinary actions; and financial data. Under IDEA,
collecting and reporting accurate and timely IDEA data is the
responsibility of the State agencies responsible for implementing IDEA,
but, in practice, multiple offices collect and report IDEA data, and
they often do not effectively share data with one another or govern the
quality of the data. This reduces the accuracy and timeliness of the
data ultimately reported to the Department. For example, the EDFacts
Coordinator in each State educational agency submits IDEA child count,
educational environments, personnel, exiting, discipline, and
assessment data for children with disabilities to the Department, as
well as required data about children with disabilities for other
educational program offices. A description of EDFacts can be found at
www.ed.gov/edfacts. State general education authorities, specifically
State assessment offices, are responsible for collecting accurate
participation and performance assessment data about students with and
without disabilities for multiple State data submissions to the
Department, including IDEA. State special education program offices,
however, do not always have access to the IDEA data collected and
submitted by other State offices, which can compromise data validity
and reliability.
The Department's review of all the quantitative IDEA data revealed
that IDEA assessment and IDEA discipline data have the most frequent
data errors. Data elements for both of these required IDEA data
collections often are in data systems that are generally not accessible
to or managed by State special education offices, which points to the
need to develop a coordinated IDEA data infrastructure. For example,
IDEA requires that States report annually to the Secretary and the
public the number
[[Page 46660]]
and percentage of children with disabilities who are expelled as
compared to children without disabilities who are expelled. Yet
expulsion data for students without disabilities is not consistently
collected by States, which means that required comparisons cannot be
accurately reported. Improving the accuracy of IDEA discipline data
about students with and without disabilities requires coordination with
non-special education offices and personnel. States, therefore, need TA
to build data collection and reporting capacity within the context of
multiple data systems and program offices, particularly when State
special education offices do not manage the operating procedures or
have direct access to the data needed for IDEA reporting. States also
need TA to enhance their capacity to use data systems to collect valid
and reliable data; analyze data to ensure their validity and
reliability; submit accurate and timely data; adjust to constantly
changing technology; protect privacy, confidentiality, and security of
the data; and enhance data governance strategies to resolve data issues
that involve multiple State program offices. In our experience, TA
provided to States is most effective when it is provided on a
coordinated basis across relevant Department offices, State offices,
and data TA providers (e.g., State Support Teams working with Statewide
Longitudinal Data Systems that include IDEA data).
Strengthen data validation procedures. After data collection occurs
at the local level and prior to the submission of IDEA data to the
Department, States must have effective systematic data validation
procedures to ensure the accuracy of data submitted to the Department.
Many States do not have effective data validation procedures in
place. The Department has found that States frequently submit IDEA data
with preventable errors such as missing data values or data that
conflict with State policies (e.g., reporting 15-year-old students as
exiting special education due to graduating with a regular high school
diploma when the State minimum age of graduation is 17). To ensure that
data are valid and reliable, it is important to build the capacity of
States by providing TA prior to and immediately following their data
submission to the Department. TA should be provided on matters such as
(a) ensuring that State special education program staff have
appropriate access to data before the data are submitted to the
Department so that special education program staff can conduct thorough
data validation procedures on IDEA data, (b) improving reliability
across data collectors, and (c) enhancing automated validation
procedures (e.g., business rules in the data system and correction of
identified errors).
Ensure data are collected and reported from all relevant programs.
States need TA to ensure that data from all State and local programs,
districts, and schools that are providing IDEA services to children
with disabilities are appropriately included in relevant data
collections and that the State is reporting data at all appropriate
levels (e.g., State, district, school, early intervention program) for
every APR indicator and for all data required in section 618(a) of the
IDEA. In its review of IDEA data, the Department found, for example,
that not all State Operated Programs for children who are deaf or
blind,\3\ juvenile justice centers, or charter schools are included in
the IDEA data reports submitted via EDFacts. The Department has also
identified instances of State-level data omissions and duplicate
reporting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ For IDEA purposes, State Operated Programs include
elementary/secondary programs operated by the State for children who
are deaf or blind. '' State Operated'' is defined by the National
Center for Education Statistics for the Common Core of Data
collection. See http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/pesagencies09/glossary.asp. Procedures for reporting IDEA data from State Operated
Programs are described in the data reporting hierarchy on page 58,
Section 9.1 of www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/edfacts/eden/11-12-workbook-8-0.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Problems with collecting and reporting data from all relevant
programs has become even more evident in recent years. In 2007, the
Department issued regulations \4\ requiring that States submit reports
in the manner prescribed by the Secretary and at the quality level
(e.g., level of data accuracy and completeness) specified in the data
collection instrument. The reporting system prescribed by the Secretary
was EDFacts, and this regulation resulted in changes to the State data
reporting procedures for data required in section 618 of the IDEA about
children and students ages 3 through 21 (school-age). Further, in order
to continue improving the quality of the IDEA data submissions, data
collected by States at LEA and school levels are also reported through
EDFacts. In 2011, data required in section 618 of the IDEA for school-
age children were reported by States for nearly 15,000 LEAs and almost
100,000 schools through EDFacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Education Department General Administrative Regulations
(EDGAR), 34 CFR 76.720.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given this increase in reporting, the associated challenges of
managing the submissions, and the increased use of the LEA- and school-
level data by the Department for reviewing data and understanding IDEA
implementation within States, it has become even more important for
States to ensure that all programs, agencies, and schools serving
children with disabilities collect and accurately report the required
IDEA data.
Address personnel training needs. States need TA to address the
diverse training needs of personnel who collect and report data about
students with disabilities in all of their programs, agencies, and
schools. School-, LEA-, and State-level IDEA data, as well as non-IDEA
data about school-age students with disabilities, are collected and
used to meet data collection requirements for multiple Department
programs (e.g., Consolidated State Performance Report under the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965; Civil Rights Data
Collection). In its review of the data collection and analysis capacity
of States, the Department found that States need TA to help them ensure
that local data collectors understand the similarities and the
differences between the data requirements for IDEA and non-IDEA data
collections that include data elements about students with disabilities
and special education personnel. For example, the Department found
errors in IDEA data about special education teachers because personnel
collecting and reporting local data were not clear about the
differences between the number of core content classes taught by highly
qualified teachers under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965, and the IDEA data about the number of special education teachers
hired to provide services to students with disabilities. The Department
found that some States submitted the same counts for both data
collections. That is, some States reported the same number of core
content classes taught by highly qualified teachers (as submitted for
the Consolidated State Performance Report) as they did for the number
of special education teachers who were highly qualified (as submitted
for the IDEA personnel data collection). The data elements appear
similar because both measure some aspect of teacher qualifications, but
one is about reporting a count of core content classrooms and the other
is about reporting the number of special education teachers hired.
Through TA to the State, differences in reporting requirements can be
clarified and corrected so that local personnel who collect, and State
personnel who report, IDEA data understand and
[[Page 46661]]
accurately report the data to the Department.
In annual meetings with State IDEA Data Managers and EDFacts
Coordinators, State personnel have identified an urgent need for user-
friendly instructional materials about IDEA data collections that can
be used within and across States to enhance the capacity of staff in
agencies, programs, schools, and districts to support accurate data
collection at the local level. Examples of TA products and services
about IDEA data that are needed by every State include training modules
and webinars that are targeted to local staff who collect data
regarding children with disabilities.
Support transition of data into EDFacts. States need continued TA
to accurately report all IDEA data required in section 618(a) of the
IDEA in the manner prescribed by the Secretary. This includes moving
Part C data reporting into EDFacts from a legacy data collection system
that was formerly used by the Department to collect IDEA data. EDFacts
relies on the Education Data Exchange Network (EDEN) Submission System,
a centralized portal through which States submit their education data,
including IDEA data, to the Department. The EDFacts submission
procedures must be understood by the grantee who is funded so that the
grantee can provide TA that enhances State capacity to collect and
report timely and accurate IDEA data.
Increase State communication with local data collectors about data
validation results. States need TA to strengthen the validity of data
through targeted analyses of data and communication of results to local
data collectors and data consumers (e.g., school boards; EIS programs
and providers; parents of infants, toddlers, and children with
disabilities; and the public). Currently, limited information from the
State goes back to local data collectors after data have been compiled
by the State. State IDEA Data Managers and EDFacts Coordinators note
the importance of communicating results back to schools, LEAs,
agencies, and EIS programs and providers in a format that is
understandable to the local programs. State EDFacts Coordinators and
IDEA Data Managers have asked for TA on ways to expand opportunities
for local program staff to actively participate in data validation
processes and create local processes to correct the data before it is
submitted to the Department by building tools for organizing data in a
meaningful way for data consumers (e.g., data dashboards for
Superintendents).
Improve accuracy of qualitative information in the APRs and
strengthen improvement activities. States need TA to improve the
accuracy of qualitative information provided in the APR and to more
clearly target future improvement activities that are based on the
qualitative and quantitative IDEA data available to the State. Examples
of data quality issues (e.g., States did not use the source data
specified in the instructions) are included in APR summary documents
that are publicly available. The 2010 Part B SPP/APR Analysis Document
is available at http://therightidea.tadnet.org/assets/1684 and the 2010
Part C SPP/APR Analysis Document is available at http://therightidea.tadnet.org/assets/746. Data quality issues with
accompanying improvement activities are posted in individual State
response letters publicly posted at www2.ed.gov/fund/data/report/idea/partbspap/index.html.
To meet the array of complex challenges regarding the collection,
analysis, and reporting of data by States, the Office of Special
Education Programs (OSEP) proposes to support the establishment and
operation of a National Technical Assistance Center to Improve State
Capacity to Accurately Collect and Report IDEA Data.
Proposed Priority
The Assistant Secretary proposes to fund a cooperative agreement to
support the establishment and operation of a National Technical
Assistance Center to Improve State Capacity to Accurately Collect and
Report IDEA Data (Data Center). The Data Center will provide TA to
improve the capacity of States to meet the IDEA data collection and
reporting requirements by:
(a) Improving data infrastructure by coordinating and facilitating
communication and effective data governance strategies among relevant
State offices, LEAs, schools, EIS programs, and TA providers to improve
the quality of the IDEA data;
(b) Using results from the Department's auto-generated error
reports to communicate with State IDEA Data Managers and other relevant
offices in the State (e.g., EDFacts Coordinator) about data that appear
to be inaccurate and provide support to the State (as needed) to
enhance current State validation procedures to prevent future errors in
State-reported IDEA data;
(c) Using the results of the Department's review of State-reported
data to help States ensure that data are collected and reported from
all programs providing special education and related services within
the State;
(d) Addressing personnel training needs by developing effective
informational tools (e.g., training modules) and resources (e.g.,
cross-walk documents about IDEA and non-IDEA data elements) about data
collecting and reporting requirements that States can use to train
personnel in schools, programs, agencies, and districts;
(e) Supporting States in submitting data into EDFacts by
coordinating with EDFacts TA providers (i.e., Partner Support Center;
see www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/edfacts/support.html) about IDEA-
specific data reporting requirements and providing EDFacts reports and
TA to States to help them improve the accuracy of their IDEA data
submissions;
(f) Improving IDEA data validation by using results from data
reviews conducted by the Department to work with States to generate
tools (e.g., templates of data dashboards) that can be used by States
to accurately communicate data to local data-consumer groups (e.g.,
school boards, the general public) and lead to improvements in the
validity and reliability of data required by IDEA; and
(g) Using results from the Department's review of State-reported
APR data to provide intensive and individualized TA to improve the
accuracy of qualitative information provided in the APR about the
State's efforts to improve its implementation of the requirements and
purposes of IDEA, and to more accurately target its future improvement
activities.
The TA provided by the Data Center must be directed at all relevant
parties within a State that can affect the quality of IDEA data and
must not be limited to State special education or early intervention
offices. The Data Center's TA must primarily target data issues
identified through the Department's review of IDEA data. TA needs can
also be identified by a State's review of IDEA data or other relevant
means, but TA must be based on an identified need related to improving
IDEA data accuracy or timeliness. Effectiveness of the Data Center's TA
will be demonstrated through changes in a State's capacity to collect
and report valid and reliable IDEA data and resolve identified data
issues.
To be considered for funding under this absolute priority,
applicants must meet the application requirements contained in this
priority. Any projects funded under this priority also must meet the
programmatic and administrative requirements specified in the priority.
[[Page 46662]]
Application Requirements. An applicant must include in its
application--
(a) A logic model that depicts, at a minimum, the goals,
activities, outputs, and outcomes of the proposed project. A logic
model communicates how a project will achieve its outcomes and provides
a framework for both the formative and summative evaluations of the
project;
Note: The following Web site provides more information on logic
models and lists multiple online resources: www.cdc.gov/eval/resources/index.htm;
(b) A plan to implement the activities described in the Project
Activities section of this priority;
(c) A plan, linked to the proposed project's logic model, for a
formative evaluation of the proposed project's activities. The plan
must describe how the formative evaluation will use clear performance
objectives to ensure continuous improvement in the operation of the
proposed project, including objective measures of progress in
implementing the project and ensuring the quality of products and
services;
(d) A budget for a summative evaluation to be conducted by an
independent third party;
(e) A budget for attendance at the following:
(1) A one and one-half day kick-off meeting to be held in
Washington, DC, after receipt of the award, and an annual planning
meeting held in Washington, DC, with the OSEP Project Officer and other
relevant staff during each subsequent year of the project period.
Note: Within 30 days of receipt of the award, a post-award
teleconference must be held between the OSEP Project Officer and the
grantee's project director or other authorized representative;
(2) A three-day Project Directors' Conference in Washington, DC,
during each year of the project period;
(3) A two-day Leveraging Resources Conference in Washington, DC,
during each year of the project;
(4) A two-day EDFacts Coordinators Meeting each year held in
various locations;
(5) Up to 36 days per year on-site at the Department to participate
in meetings about IDEA data; attend EDFacts Data Governance Board
(EDGB) monthly meetings; conduct conference sessions with program staff
from States, LEAs, schools, EIS programs, or other local programs who
contribute to the State data system to meet IDEA data collection
requirements (e.g., National Center on Education Statistics
conferences); coordinate TA activities with other Department TA
initiatives including, but not limited to, the Privacy TA Center (see
www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/ptac/index.html), Statewide Longitudinal
Database Systems TA (see http://nces.ed.gov/programs/slds/),
Implementation and Support Unit TA (see www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/implementation-support-unit/index.html), and EDFacts Partner Support
Center (see www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/edfacts/support.html); and
attend other meetings requested by OSEP; and
(f) A line item in the proposed budget for an annual set-aside of
four percent of the grant amount to support emerging needs that are
consistent with the proposed project's activities, as those needs are
identified in consultation with OSEP.
Note: With approval from the OSEP Project Officer, the Center
must reallocate any remaining funds from this annual set-aside no
later than the end of the third quarter of each budget period.
Project Activities. To meet the requirements of this priority, the
Center, at a minimum, must conduct the following activities:
Technology and Tools
(a) Assist relevant parties in the State in the development of data
validation procedures and tools; and
(b) Assist States in creating or enhancing TA tools for local
entities to accurately collect and report data required in section 618
of the IDEA (e.g., data reporting instructions targeted to local
service providers and data collectors) and section 616 of the IDEA to
accurately complete APR indicators each year; tools must be designed to
improve the capacity of States to meet IDEA data requirements.
TA and Dissemination Activities
(a) Provide technical assistance to State data submitters and local
data collectors on various data quality issues; topics must include
summaries of data quality issues evident from data reviews that will be
primarily conducted by the Department; as appropriate, technology
should be used to convey information efficiently and effectively (e.g.,
webinars);
(b) Develop an agenda for information sessions, which can be
conducted at conferences or through webinars, specific to required IDEA
data and submit the agenda for approval by OSEP. The purpose of the
sessions is to ensure that State IDEA Data Managers have current
knowledge and tools to collect, analyze, and accurately report IDEA
data to the Department and gain new knowledge and tools that can be
used to build data capacity at the local level;
(c) Provide ongoing, timely TA about IDEA data requirements (e.g.,
how to account for students' time in school during non-academic time,
such as during lunchtime, when determining how much time each student
with a disability spends in the general education setting) using a
toll-free number and electronic communication that is coordinated with
other relevant TA providers; all TA inquiries and responses must be
logged using standardized procedures that will be developed by the
grantee and be accessible to the OSEP Project Officer;
(d) Provide a range of general and targeted TA products and
services \5\ on evidence-based practices that promote valid and
reliable data and build the capacity of data collectors to collect
valid and reliable data; all TA must improve the capacity of States to
meet IDEA data requirements;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ For information about universal/general, targeted/
specialized, and intensive/sustained TA, see http://tadnet.org/uploads/File/TAD%20concept%20framework%2011-18-09.swf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) Conduct approximately eight intensive on-site TA visits each
year that will improve the capacity of States to meet IDEA data
requirements. Visits should be distributed among Part C and Part B
programs based on need and consultation with OSEP. On-site TA visits
should be coordinated with other Department on-site visits (e.g.,
EDFacts, OSEP monitoring), to the extent that coordination will lead to
improvements in the collection, analysis, and accurate reporting of
IDEA Part B data at the school, LEA, and State levels and of IDEA Part
C data by EIS providers and at the program and State levels. All
intensive TA visits should include State Data Managers, EDFacts
Coordinators (as appropriate), and other relevant State parties. The TA
visits may include local data collectors or reporters, such as
representatives from local early intervention programs and focus on:
(1) An identified data validity issue or system capacity issue; (2)
measurable outcomes; and (3) ``mapping'' the relationship of the data
validity issue or system capacity issue with other IDEA data elements
(i.e., identifying all IDEA data elements that are affected by the data
validity issue or system capacity issue);
(f) Plan and conduct local-level data analytic workshops, which can
be conducted at conferences or through webinars, to improve the
capacity of States to meet IDEA data collection requirements. The
workshops must target interdisciplinary teams of
[[Page 46663]]
professionals from a small group of LEAs or EIS programs and providers
from each participating State to analyze the validity of data about a
targeted issue relevant to infants, toddlers, children, or students
with disabilities (e.g., equity in disciplinary practices) and lead to
plans with improvement activities that can be used by the programs or
LEAs to meet IDEA data requirements, as well as inform State-level data
quality initiatives;
(g) Maintain a Web site that meets government or industry-
recognized standards for accessibility that is targeted to local and
State data collectors. TA material developed by the Data Center must be
posted on the site;
(h) Support States in verifying the accuracy and completeness of
IDEA data submissions, including ensuring that data are consistent with
data about students with disabilities reported in other data
collections (e.g., ensure counts of students with disabilities that are
reported for IDEA purposes align appropriately with counts reported for
other Federal programs);
(i) Compile recommendations from States about automated data
validation procedures that can be built into EDFacts to support States
in submitting accurate data. Examples include business rules that would
prevent States from submitting invalid data (e.g., greater than 100
percent of assessment participants scoring proficient) and alerts that
would ask the State to verify the accuracy of improbable data prior to
completion of the submission (e.g., no data where non-zero counts are
expected);
(j) Quickly respond to inquiries related to correcting data
validation errors, clarifying submission procedures, or identifying
specific data reporting instructions. The Department estimates
approximately 400 individual inquiries (e.g., phone or email) will be
received each year; many of these inquiries will be immediately before
the deadline for States to make a data submission;
(k) Prepare and disseminate reports, documents, and other materials
on topics deemed beneficial for supporting States in accurately meeting
IDEA data collection and reporting requirements;
(l) Develop guidance documents and tools to be used by States to
communicate with local data collectors about new or changing data
requirements using current technology;
(m) Support States in meeting APR submission requirements,
including--
(1) As needed, evaluate sampling plans developed by States to
report APR data based on a sample of districts, schools, or EIS
programs;
(2) Evaluating the quality, accuracy, and validity of SPP and APR
quantitative data and developing and providing a summary report for
OSEP's annual APR Indicator Analyses report so that it can identify
State TA needs for accurate collection, analysis, and reporting of IDEA
data; and
(3) Using results from the Department's review of APR data to
support States in their analysis of available data so that States can
provide more accurate qualitative information to the Department about
its efforts to improve its implementation of the requirements and
purposes of the IDEA, and to more accurately target its future
improvement activities.
Leadership and Coordination Activities
(a) Consult with a group of persons, including representatives from
State and local educational agencies and State Part C Lead Agencies and
local programs; school or district administrators; IDEA data
collectors; data-system staff responsible for IDEA data quality; data
system management or data governance staff; and other consumers of
State-reported IDEA data, as appropriate, on the activities and
outcomes of the Center and solicit programmatic support and advice from
various participants in the group, as appropriate. The Center may
convene meetings, whether in person, by phone or other means, for this
purpose, or may consult with group participants individually. The
Center must identify the members of the group to OSEP within eight
weeks after receipt of the award;
(b) Communicate and coordinate, on an ongoing basis, with other
Department-funded projects, including those using data to support
States, to: (1) Develop products to improve data collection capacity
(e.g., Doing What Works Clearinghouse); (2) support State monitoring of
IDEA implementation through data use; or (3) develop and disseminate
resources about privacy issues (e.g., Privacy TA Center (PTAC); see
www.ed.gov/ptac); and
(c) Maintain ongoing communication with the OSEP Project Officer.
Types of Priorities
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 competitive preference 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)).
Final Priority
We will announce the final priority in a notice in the Federal
Register. We will determine the final priority after considering
responses to this notice and other information available to the
Department. This notice does not preclude us from proposing or funding
additional priorities, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking
requirements.
Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use this proposed priority, we invite
applications through a notice in the Federal Register.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether
this regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject to
the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely
to result in a rule that may--
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or
Tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to
as an ``economically significant'' rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the
Executive order.
[[Page 46664]]
This proposed regulatory action is not a significant regulatory
action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866.
We have also reviewed this regulatory action under Executive Order
13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles,
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in
Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order
13563 requires that an agency--
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only on a reasoned determination
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits
and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society,
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of
cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must
adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide
information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes.''
We are taking this regulatory action only on a reasoned
determination that its benefits justify its costs. In choosing among
alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that
maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the
Department believes that this regulatory action is consistent with the
principles in Executive Order 13563.
In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has
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 the Department's programs and activities.
We have also 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 proposed Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this
document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print,
audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the contact person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Electronic Access to This Document: 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 via the Federal Digital System
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well
as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal
Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF
you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the
site.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Federal Register by using the article search feature at:
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published
by the Department.
Dated: August 1, 2012.
Alexa Posny,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2012-19162 Filed 8-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P