[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 223 (Monday, November 21, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-28582]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 21, 1994]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Department of Education
_______________________________________________________________________
Research in Education of Individuals With Disabilities Program; Notice
Inviting Applications for New Awards for Fiscal Year (FY) 1995; Notices
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Research in Education of Individuals With Disabilities Program
AGENCY: Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of Final Priorities.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Secretary announces final priorities for the Research in
Education of Individuals with Disabilities 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 December 21, 1994.
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 Research in Education of Individuals
with Disabilities Program, authorized by Part E of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1441-1443), provides support: (1)
To advance and improve the knowledge base and improve the practice of
professionals, parents, and others providing early intervention,
special education, and related services--including professionals in
regular education environments--to provide children with disabilities
effective instruction and enable them to successfully learn; and (2)
for research and related purposes, surveys or demonstrations relating
to physical education or recreation, including therapeutic recreation,
for infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities.
On August 1, 1994, the Secretary published a notice of proposed
priorities for this program in the Federal Register (59 FR 39232-
39234).
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.
Priority--Examining Alternatives for Outcome Assessment for Children
With Disabilities
Comment: One commenter suggested that the development of new
assessment instruments should be accompanied by checks for reliability
and validity.
Discussion: The purpose of the priority is to support research
projects, not instrument development. The Secretary believes that the
priority as written allows applicants to address technical
characteristics such as reliability and validity among the possible
research issues to be studied.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern that old definitions of
technical adequacy might be inappropriate for alternative forms of
assessment.
Discussion: The priority as written does not specify what technical
criteria should be applied to alternative assessments, but raises this
question as one possible research issue. The Secretary prefers that
applicants be given flexibility to propose the technical criteria to be
applied to alternative assessments.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that Issue 4 ``Including students
with disabilities in general assessments'' be expanded to include other
forms of diversity such as cultural and racial backgrounds.
Discussion: As written, the priority's focus on students with
disabilities is consistent with the authorizing statute. Applicants may
add other forms of diversity to this focus as appropriate for their
particular research issues.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that encouragement be given to
collaboration of State and local educational agencies and universities.
Discussion: The organizations specified by the commenter are all
eligible applicants under this program. Collaboration may or may not be
appropriate for the type of research proposed. Applicants may develop
collaborative arrangements as appropriate for their proposed program of
research.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the research issues listed in
the priority be expanded to include issues focused specifically on
accountability and issues related to professional skill and knowledge.
Another commenter suggested that the list be expanded to include the
issue of comparability of measures across different patterns of age,
race, ethnicity, language, and migration status.
Discussion: The priority as written supports research on issues
related to ``outcome assessment and/or outcomes-based accountability
for students with disabilities'' that ``include, but are not limited
to'' the issues listed in the priority. The list is intended to be
illustrative and not exhaustive, and to include a range of assessment
and accountability issues without being excessively complex and
prescriptive. Applicants may certainly address important research
issues which are not included on this list.
Changes: None.
Priority--Studying Models That Bridge the Gap Between Research and
Practice
Comment: One commenter suggested that applicants should not be
limited to the specific models mentioned in the background section and
should be allowed to add or create models.
Discussion: The Secretary agrees that applicants should be allowed
to add or create models. The models mentioned in the background section
were meant only to serve as examples of the range of models. Applicants
may study other existing models, such as teacher networking models, or
use models they have created.
Changes: The Secretary has clarified the priority by revising the
first two paragraphs under the ``Priority'' section so as to give
applicants the option of creating models.
Comment: One commenter cited the priority as extremely important in
making the final step between research findings and practice if
research is to have meaning for students and teachers. The commenter
suggested that the model testing involve a teacher training component
in how to interpret and translate research findings into practice.
Discussion: The Secretary believes that the priority as written
provides the potential to bridge the gap between research and practice
and at the same time allows applicants the flexibility to select or
create a model with such a training component.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the Department require
applicants to develop approaches that use a broad body of content/
strategies that inform both special and regular education. The
commenter also suggested that the applicant be required to present the
research supporting the effectiveness of the content to be implemented
and the rationale for site selection. It was further suggested that the
term ``model'' was not appropriate because it suggested something
standardized rather than an approach that could be ``* * * adapted and
implemented to fit particular situations.''
Discussion: The Secretary agrees that the approaches should be
broad enough that they have potential implications for both special and
general education. In fact, some of the models used as examples in the
priority as written are based in regular education. The Secretary
agrees that applicants should present the research literature
supporting the effectiveness of the chosen approach and justify study
sites, and notes that the selection criteria included in the
application package address these issues. Further, judging the
effectiveness of the implemented model is already a requirement of the
priority. The Secretary believes that any further requirements would
make the priority unnecessarily prescriptive.
Regarding the commenters concern on the use of the term ``model'',
for the purpose of this priority, the term ``model'' is meant in its
more generic sense of a design or approach, thus allowing the applicant
flexibility in selecting and implementing a knowledge utilization
model.
Changes: None.
Priority--Student-Initiated Research Projects
Comment: One commenter stated that those working in classrooms are
asking questions of immediate importance and suggested that this
priority be modified to ``Teacher-Initiated Research Projects''.
Discussion: The Secretary agrees that teachers are deserving of
support, but notes that they are eligible to apply through their local
educational agencies for awards under the Research in Education of
Individuals with Disabilities Program. The Secretary believes that the
priority as written is an important vehicle for attracting, promoting,
and supporting potential new researchers on disability issues and is
consistent with the student-initiated priority in the regulations at 34
CFR 324.10(c).
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the competitive preference
for students who are members of groups that have been underrepresented
in the field of special education research be limited to a maximum of
25% of the awards made within the competition. The commenter
recommended a cap so that all eligible students believe the
probabilities for competing are sufficient to warrant the investment in
preparing a proposal.
Discussion: The Secretary believes that the priority as written,
while encouraging applications from members of underrepresented groups
in special education research, does not significantly discourage
applications from other applicants. There is no intent in this priority
to set aside a certain number or percentage of awards for applicants
meeting the competitive preference.
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--Examining Alternatives for Outcome Assessment for
Children with Disabilities
Background
Many students with disabilities are currently excluded from
national, State, and local outcome assessments and outcomes-based
accountability systems. This exclusion has the effect of weakening
educational accountability, limiting educational opportunities for
students with disabilities, and denying these students the potential
benefits of educational reforms.
This problem is addressed in new Federal legislation, ``The Goals
2000: Educate America Act.'' (Public Law 103-227, March 31, 1994).
Section 220 of this Act supports development and evaluation of State
assessments aligned with State educational standards, with a portion of
the funds reserved for developing assessments for students with
disabilities. Section 1015 calls for ``a comprehensive study of the
inclusion of children with disabilities in school reform activities
assisted under * * * [the Act].'' This study is to include ``* * * a
review of the adequacy of assessments and measures used to gauge
progress towards meeting * * * [education goals and standards], and an
examination of other methods or accommodations necessary or desirable
to collect data on the educational progress of children with
disabilities, and the costs of such methods and accommodations * * *''.
To support and complement such efforts, further research is needed on a
variety of technical and implementation issues.
Priority
The Assistant Secretary establishes an absolute priority for
research projects that--
(a) Pursue systematic programs of applied research focusing on one
or more issues related to outcome assessment and/or outcomes-based
accountability for students with disabilities. These issues include,
but are not limited to:
(1) Testing accommodations and adaptations. When adaptations and
accommodations are made to permit students with disabilities to
participate in outcome assessments, how are the technical
characteristics of the assessments affected? How can the results be
interpreted? To what degree can these scores be aggregated with
nonadapted assessments? What are the best methods for selecting
appropriate accommodations and adaptations? How can testing
accommodations be related to instructional accommodations?
(2) Alternative assessments. When alternative assessments (such as
performance assessments or portfolio assessments) are provided for
students with disabilities, how can these assessments be compared with
conventional assessments? What technical criteria can appropriately be
applied to these assessments when used with students with disabilities?
(3) Development of assessments. How can general educational
assessments be developed to be more inclusive for students with
disabilities? How can problematic items and item formats be identified?
How can students with disabilities be adequately represented in test
development and validation samples? What are the effects when tests
developed for general populations are administered to students with
disabilities?
(4) Including students with disabilities in general assessments.
How should decisions be made and documented to include or exclude
students with disabilities in general educational assessments or
alternative assessments? What factors influence these decisions?
(5) Standards and outcomes. How can standards and outcomes be
developed for diverse populations? How can their appropriateness be
judged?
(6) System development. How can assessment and accountability
systems be developed with the range and flexibility to accommodate
diverse student populations? How can accountability and
individualization both be maintained?
(7) Basic concepts and principles. How can basic concepts and
principles in assessment be revised to reflect new approaches to
assessment and new roles and challenges in outcome assessment for
diverse populations?
(b) Produce and disseminate information that can be applied in
educational programs, as well as in subsequent research; and
(c) Coordinate their activities, as appropriate, with the Center to
Support the Achievement of World Class Outcomes for Students with
Disabilities, and with other related projects funded under The Goals
2000: Educate America Act.
A project 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 and collaborate with the project officer of the Office
of Special Education Programs and the other projects funded under this
priority, to share information and to discuss findings and methods of
dissemination.
For Further Information Contact: David Malouf, U.S. Department
of Education, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Switzer Building, Room
3521, 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--Studying Models That Bridge the Gap Between
Research and Practice
Background
Educational research most often includes the following phases: (1)
planning and preparation; (2) information gathering; (3) analysis and
interpretation; (4) reporting and dissemination; and (5) use of
findings. In traditional research models, the researcher is solely or
primarily responsible for all phases but the last. Using research
findings is seen as a job for the practitioner. However, it has been
observed that research knowledge rarely translates directly into
practice.
In recent years, a variety of models have been developed to bridge
the gap between research and practice by altering the roles of
researchers and practitioners in the school district for one or more
phases of the research. In some models (e.g., interactive research and
development, teacher-researcher partnership research) researchers and
practitioners collaborate in all phases of the research process. Some
of these models include parents on their school-based teams. In other
models, practitioners, working individually (e.g., teacher research
linkers) or in groups (e.g., teacher study groups), or in pairs (e.g.,
peer coaching) interpret extant research to understand how to integrate
research into practice. In some models, teachers conduct research
(e.g., action research, collegial experimentation). To date there have
been few systematic examinations of the effectiveness of these models
to improve practice in special education.
Priority
The Assistant Secretary establishes an absolute priority for
research projects to implement and examine a model(s) for using
research knowledge to improve education practice and outcomes for
children with disabilities.
In studying a model(s), projects must apply methodologies with the
capacity to judge the effectiveness of the model(s) as implemented in
practice settings. The projects must identify the knowledge utilization
model(s) to be studied, specify the components of the knowledge
utilization model(s) selected or created, the supports and policies
necessary to support the model(s), both alterable and unalterable
factors affecting practice improvement, and the effect of the model(s)
to improve the school culture, teacher attitudes and practices, and
student outcomes. In judging effectiveness, the projects must address
improvements for researchers, practitioners, and children and youth
with disabilities.
The projects must report their findings in a manner which can serve
as a ``blueprint'' for practitioners and researchers in other school
districts to implement the model using research knowledge to improve
practice in special education.
A project 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 and collaborate with the project officer of the Office
of Special Education Programs and the other projects funded under this
priority, to share information and to discuss findings and methods of
dissemination.
For Further Information Contact: Jane Hauser, U.S. Department of
Education, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Switzer Building, Room 3521,
Washington, D.C. 20202-2641. Telephone: (202) 205-8126. 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 3--Student-Initiated Research Projects
This priority provides support for short-term (up to 12 months)
postsecondary student-initiated research projects focusing on special
education and related services for children and youth with disabilities
and early intervention services for infants and toddlers, consistent
with the purposes of the program, as described in 34 CFR 324.1.
Projects must--
(1) Develop research skills in postsecondary students; and
(2) Include a principal investigator who serves as a mentor to the
student/researcher while the project is carried out by the student.
A project must budget for a trip to Washington, D.C. for the annual
two-day Research Project Directors' meeting.
Competitive Priority: Within this absolute priority 3, the
Secretary, under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii), will give preference to
applications that meet the following competitive priority. An
application that meets this competitive priority would be selected by
the Secretary over applications of comparable merit that do not meet
the priority:
A project that would give a priority to providing support for
postsecondary students who are members of groups that have been
underrepresented in the field of special education research, such as
members of racial or ethnic minority groups (e.g. Black, Hispanic,
American Indian, Alaskan Native, Asian, or Pacific Islander), and
individuals with disabilities.
For Further Information Contact: Melville J. Appell, U.S.
Department of Education, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Switzer
Building, Room 3529, Washington, D.C. 20202-2641. Telephone: (202) 205-
8113. 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 324.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1441-1443.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 84.023, Research in
Education of Individuals with Disabilities Program).
Dated: November 15, 1994.
Judith E. Heumann,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 94-28582 Filed 11-18-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
