Special Studies Program; Notice of Final Priorities and Inviting Applications for New Awards for Fiscal Year 1995

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Special Studies Program

AGENCY: Department of Education.

ACTION: Notice of final priorities.

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

SUMMARY: The Secretary announces final priorities for the Special

Studies program. The Secretary may use these priorities in Fiscal Year

1995 and subsequent years. The Secretary takes this action to focus

Federal assistance on identified needs to improve outcomes for children

with disabilities. The final priorities are intended to ensure wide and

effective use of program funds.

EFFECTIVE DATE: These priorities take effect on January 20, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The name, address, and telephone

number of the person at the Department to contact for information on

each specific priority is listed under that priority.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Special Studies Program, authorized by

section 618 of Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education

Act (IDEA), as amended, supports studies to evaluate the impact of the

IDEA, including efforts to provide a free appropriate public education

and early intervention services to infants, toddlers, children and

youth with disabilities. The results of these studies must be included

in the annual report submitted to the Congress by the Department.

Section 618 also authorizes the Secretary to provide technical

assistance to participating State agencies in the implementation of the

study design, analysis, and reporting procedures.

On August 1, 1994, the Secretary published a notice of proposed

priorities for this program in the Federal Register (59 FR 39236-

39237).

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.

Further, FY 1995 priorities could be affected by enactment of

legislation reauthorizing these programs.

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.

Absolute Priority 1--Center To Support the Achievement of World Class

Outcomes for Students With Disabilities

Comment: One commenter suggested that the center be required to

study formative as well as summative evaluation.

Discussion: Applicants may or may not agree that formative

evaluation is a critical topic for the center to address, and it would

be overly prescriptive for the priority to require that it be studied.

The priority as written has sufficient latitude to allow applicants to

include this topic if they feel it is appropriate.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter suggested that ``World Class'' be dropped

from the title of the priority.

Discussion: The expression ``world class'' is commonly used to

connote high educational standards and outcomes relative to

international criteria. The Secretary believes this principle is

important in Goals 2000, and that it is appropriately reflected in the

title of the priority.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter suggested that the priority should require

the center to have the capacity for successful coordination with State

educational agencies.

Discussion: The priority as written explicitly requires that the

center must work directly with States in a number of activities. The

capacity to coordinate and work with States is therefore an attribute

upon which applicants will be evaluated during the review process.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter suggested that the center should address

questions related to culturally different students with disabilities.

Discussion: Cultural differences are among a large number of

factors that are likely to be highly relevant to the center's

activities. The priority does not attempt to identify all of these

factors nor to prescribe a focus on any one of them. The center is

intended to benefit the full range of students with disabilities.

Applicants may categorize this population and define important factors

as needed to facilitate the achievement of world class standards.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter suggested that studies are needed to

determine the extent to which children with disabilities are included

or excluded in regular classrooms.

Discussion: While educational placement is not a central focus in

the priority, it is one of the factors that may be relevant to the

center's activities. Applicants may propose to address it as

appropriate.

Changes: None.

Comment: Two commenters suggested that the priority should be

expanded in a number of ways. One commenter suggested expanding the

priority in the following ways: (1) require the development of training

materials on the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act

(ADA), Section 504, and IDEA; (2) place greater emphasis on content

standards and accommodations, such as assistive technology,

accessibility, and telecommunications; (3) strengthen the training of

Regional Resource Centers and other technical assistance providers ``to

ensure their knowledge and expertise in the application of ADA, Section

504, IDEA, and best practice assistive technology and other educational

supports * * *''; (4) add specified elements to activities (b), (c),

and (d); (5) expand activities (f) and (g) to include classroom

inclusion, supports, and accommodations; (6) expand activity (h) to

include direct participation of individuals with disabilities and their

families; and (7) expand activity (i) to include providing necessary

assistance to infuse disability related issues into activities. The

other commenter suggested that the priority be expanded to require that

the center document intended and unintended consequences of the

inclusion of students with disabilities in State activities.

Discussion: The Secretary believes that activities such as those

suggested by these commenters might be valuable components for the

proposed center, but a priority that enumerated all of the possible

valuable components would be excessively long and prescriptive. The

Secretary prefers that applicants propose activities on the basis of

the requirements of the priority and an analysis of the approaches most

likely to achieve the center's purposes.

Changes: None.

Absolute Priority 2--Longitudinal Study of the Impact of Early

Intervention Services on Infants and Toddlers With Disabilities

Comment: One commenter suggested the resources that different

participants and programs contribute to implementing the components of

Part H must be measured in order to evaluate the impact of Part H on

participants and stakeholders. The commenter further indicated that the

effects of different Part H programs would be very difficult to

interpret without cost information.

Discussion: The Secretary believes that the priority as written

allows applicants to collect cost data as justified or to construct

cost estimates from service data. The Secretary does not want to

specify a requirement but prefers to ask applicants to propose the

research methodology most appropriate to the project.

Changes: None.

Comment: Two commenters suggested that the study focus on family,

as well as child outcomes.

Discussion: The Secretary agrees that the family-centered nature of

the Act makes family outcomes of critical importance for the

longitudinal study.

Changes: Language has been added to the priority to incorporate

these suggestions.

Comment: Two commenters suggested that information be collected on

State and local administrative structures, because the implementation

of Part H varies across the Nation. This would allow for an evaluation

of how State and local variables influence outcomes.

Discussion: The Secretary believes that the priority as written

allows applicants to gather data on State and local administrative

structures as justified. The Secretary does not want to specify such

variables, but prefers to ask applicants to propose the particular

research variables most appropriate for evaluation.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter suggested that the priority must be more

tied to components of the Federal statute that it is undertaking to

evaluate. This would allow for an assessment of the impact of

particular statutory components on outcomes.

Discussion: The Secretary believes that the priority as written

allows applicants to organize the study along the lines of the

components of the Federal statute as justified. The Secretary does not

wish to be overly prescriptive, and prefers to allow applicants to

propose the particular organizational structure most appropriate for

conducting a longitudinal study.

Changes: None.

Priorities

Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), the Secretary gives an absolute

preference to applications that meet any one of the following

priorities. The Secretary will fund under these competitions only

applications that meet any one of these absolute priorities:

Absolute Priority 1--Center to Support the Achievement of World Class

Outcomes for Students With Disabilities

Background: The enactment of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act

(Pub. L. 103-227, March 31, 1994) will stimulate standards-based

assessment and reform in schools across the Nation. Most States already

conduct assessments of student achievement. However, surveys of States

conducted by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) funded

National Center for Educational Outcomes (NCEO) have revealed that most

States exclude large numbers of students with disabilities from

assessments. Typically, no accommodations have been provided to enable

students with disabilities to participate. In many States no policies

or guidelines exist to facilitate or encourage participation of

students with disabilities. NCEO has also observed that the development

of national and State content standards often do not explicitly

consider the needs of student with disabilities.

The new Federal law requires that students with disabilities be

included in the Goals 2000 reform efforts. Because so few students with

disabilities are currently included in assessments, States will need

considerable assistance to permit these students to participate. States

will need help developing accommodations for assessments and for

designing policies to cover the implementation of these accommodations.

States will also need assistance analyzing and reporting results of

these assessments. In addition, it is essential to document the

progress of the States in including students with disabilities in

assessments and other reform initiatives.

Priority: The Assistant Secretary establishes an absolute priority

for a center to assist States in implementing activities to improve

outcomes for students with disabilities and to assist in the

implementation of the requirements of Goals 2000 for students with

disabilities, and to document States' efforts in doing so.

The Center must--

(a) Work with Regional Resource Centers (RRCs), other technical

assistance providers, and directly with States;

(b) Develop and facilitate the use of appropriate accommodations

and adaptations of assessments in the States for students with

disabilities and advance and support the use of outcome related data

for these students;

(c) Document the extent to which students with disabilities are

included in State activities;

(d) Provide assistance in analyzing and reporting outcome data for

students with disabilities;

(e) Work with the Department to develop and report national level

data on the status of outcomes for students with disabilities and the

degree to which these students are achieving the National Education

Goals;

(f) Synthesize and report on technical advances in the

accommodation and participation of students with disabilities in State

activities, especially those related to Goals 2000, and ensure that

States are assisted in using such advances;

(g) Work with researchers and developers who are conducting related

work and facilitate the exchange of information among such projects,

including projects funded under the priority ``Examining Alternatives

for Outcome Assessment for Children with Disabilities'', and projects

funded under Goals 2000 authority;

(h) Assist States and the Department to ensure that standards-

setting and assessment processes and documents, as well as any other

Goals 2000 related activities, include the perspectives of the

disability community; and

(i) Conduct periodic examinations of the status of standards-

setting activities at the State and national level.

The center must budget for two trips annually to Washington, D.C.,

for (1) a two-day Research Project Directors' meeting; and (2) another

meeting, to meet with the project officer of the Office of Special

Education Programs to plan and review project activities and progress.

For Further Information Contact: David Malouf, U.S. Department of

Education, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Switzer Building, Room 3529,

Washington, D.C. 20202-2641. Telephone: (202) 205-8111. Individuals who

use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8

p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday.

Absolute Priority 2--Longitudinal Study of the Impact of Early

Intervention Services on Infants and Toddlers With Disabilities

Background: As Part H of the Individuals with Disabilities

Education Act moves into full implementation, there is a critical need

to discern the immediate and long-term effects of this program on

children, families, and service providers. Although federally mandated

data collection activities provide some information on the ages of

infants and toddlers served by the program and on the services received

and their settings, little is known on a national basis about the

developmental and behavioral characteristics of children served by the

program. Moreover, a national systematic evaluation of the impact of

the Part H program on children, families and other stakeholders within

the context of child development is clearly lacking.

PRIORITY: The Assistant Secretary establishes an absolute priority

for a project to design and conduct a five-year longitudinal study of

infants and toddlers and their families served under Part H. The

project must assess the effects of the program over a five-year period,

and include an evaluation of the Part H program impact on children,

families, and service providers. The study design must consider the

interaction of program variables with variables related to childhood

development. The project must conduct analyses that:

(1) Compare and evaluate different patterns of child development

related to long-term outcomes for children and their families;

(2) Assess the effects of socioeconomic, demographic and health-

related variables on long-term developmental and behavioral

characteristics of the children;

(3) Isolate and explain the long-term effects of intervention on

children and their families;

(4) Incorporate factors related to medical variables (e.g.,

psychological, physiological, and anatomical structure or function),

personal functioning variables, and the interaction of the environment

with these variables that could result in a disadvantage limiting or

preventing the fulfillment of an age-appropriate role;

(5) Incorporate family variables, including family background and

the need for service; and

(6) Provide information on services, service-providers, and the

appropriateness of particular service settings.

The project must budget for three trips annually to Washington, DC,

for (1) a two-day Research Project Directors' meeting; and (2) an

additional two meetings, to meet and collaborate with the project

officer of the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), and with

other relevant OSEP funded projects. The project must also coordinate

activities with the ongoing Policy Research Institute funded by OSEP.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Brown, U.S. Department of

Education, 600 Independence Avenue, SW., Switzer Building, Room 3522,

Washington, DC 20202-2641. Telephone: (202) 205-8117. Individuals who

use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8

p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday.

Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR Part 327.

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1418.

Dated: December 15, 1994.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 84.159, Special

Studies Program)

Judith E. Heuman,

Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.

[FR Doc. 94-31304 Filed 12-20-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000-01-P