SPECIAL EDUCATION RESEARCH GRANTS

**CFDA NUMBER: 84.324**

**RELEASE DATE: April 7, 2006**

**REQUEST FOR APPLICATIONS NUMBER: IES-NCSER-2007-01**

**INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION SCIENCES**

[http://ies.ed.gov](http://ies.ed.gov/)

#### **LETTER OF INTENT TRANSMITTAL DATE: June 1, 2006 and September 14, 2006**

**APPLICATION TRANSMITTAL DATE: July 27, 2006 and November 16, 2006**

**THIS REQUEST FOR APPLICATIONS CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION:**

##### Section Page

**PART I [GUIDE TO THE RFA](#Guide)** 3

**PART II GENERAL OVERVIEW**

1\. [Request for Applications](#reqforapps) 5

2\. [Overview of the Institute\'s Research Programs](#Overview) 5

> A. [Outcomes](#outcomes) 6
>
> B. [Conditions](#conditions) 7
>
> C. [Grade Levels](#Grades) 7
>
> D. [Research Goals](#ResearchGoals) 8

**PART III RESEARCH GRANT TOPICS**

3\. Topics with July 27, 2006 Transmittal Deadline 10

A.  [Early Intervention, Early Childhood Special Education, and
    Assessment](#EarlyChildhood)

> [for Young Children with Disabilities](#EarlyChildhood) 10
>
> B. [Mathematics and Science Education](#MathScience) 11
>
> C. [Reading, Writing, and Language Development](#ReadWrite) 13
>
> D. [Serious Behavior Disorders](#SBDs) 15
>
> E. [Assessment for Accountability](#Assessment) 17

4\. Topics with November 16, 2006 Transmittal Deadline 19

> A. [Individualized Education Programs and Individualized Family
> Service Plans](#IEPs) 19
>
> B. [Secondary and Transition Services](#Transition) 21
>
> C. [Quality of Teachers and Other Service Providers](#Teachers) 22
>
> D. [Autism Spectrum Disorders](#Autism) 25
>
> E. [Response to Intervention](#section) 27

**PART IV REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPOSED RESEARCH**

5\. [General Requirements of the Proposed Research](#GenReqs) 30

> A. [Basic Requirements](#BasicReqs) 30
>
> B. [Requirements for Goal One](#Goal1Reqs) (Identification Projects)
> 33
>
> C. [Requirements for Goal Two](#Goal2Reqs) (Development Projects) 35
>
> D. [Requirements for Goal Three](#Goal3Reqs) (Efficacy and Replication
> Projects) 42
>
> E. [Requirements for Goal Four](#Goal4Requirements) (Effectiveness
> Evaluations) 51
>
> F. [Requirements for Goal Five](#Goal5Reqs) (Assessment and
> Measurement Projects) 54

**PART V GENERAL SUBMISSION AND REVIEW INFORMATION**

6\. [Applications Available](#AppsAvailable) 56

7\. [Mechanism of Support](#Mechanism) 56

8\. [Funding Available](#Funding) 56

9\. [Eligible Applicants](#EligibleApps) 56

10\. [Special Requirements](#SpecialReqs) 56

11\. [Letter of Intent](#Letter) 57

12\. [Submitting an Application](#SubmitApp) 57

13\. [Contents of Application](#AppContents) 57

14\. [Application Processing](#Processing) 62

15\. [Peer Review Process](#PeerReview) 62

16\. [Review Criteria for Scientific Merit](#ReviewCriteria) 62

17\. [Receipt and Start Date Schedule](#Schedule) 63

18\. [Award Decisions](#AwardDecisions) 63

19\. [Inquiries May Be Sent To](#Inquiries) 63

20\. [Program Authority](#Authority) 65

21\. [Applicable Regulations](#Regulations) 66

22\. [References](#References) 66

[]{#Guide .anchor}**PART I GUIDE TO THE RFA**

*IES is presenting grant opportunities in a new format this year. To
make it as easy as possible and less time consuming for the
reader/applicant, this section identifies the major differences from
last year's format and describes the consequent organization of
information in this year's three (3) Requests For Applications (RFA's).*

In FY2006, the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) held a larger
number of formal grant competitions, each one addressing a distinct
topic area and each with its own RFA. For example, there were separate
RFA's for Reading and Writing, Mathematics and Science Education, etc.
Both the National Center for Education Research (NCER) and the National
Center for Special Education Research (NCSER) offered multiple,
single-topic competitions. The National Center for Education Statistics
(NCES) also offered a National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
secondary analyses grant competition last year.

In FY2007, IES is holding fewer formal grant competitions but addressing
more topics. There are three competitions: one addressing education
research (through NCER); one addressing special education research
(through NCSER); and one addressing NAEP secondary analyses (through
NCES). The education and special education competitions each encompass
multiple, specific topic areas.

Last year each topic-specific RFA was self-contained. This year the NCER
and NCSER RFA's are organized into sections that contain information
that is common to all topics and sections that contain topic-specific
information. The NAEP RFA remains self-contained.

This RFA (IES-NCSER-2007-01) describes the special education research
competition. There are eleven (10) separate topics described in this
RFA. Applications for five (5) of these topics have an application
transmittal deadline of July 27, 2006, and will be reviewed in the fall
of 2006. Applications for five (5) topics have an application
transmittal deadline of November 16, 2006, and will be reviewed in the
late winter (February or March) of 2007.

Also new this year are the forms for submitting applications
electronically.
[Highlights](http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ies/highlights.doc) of
the forms will available on the web no later than April 11, 2006.

Information on education research topics may be found in the
IES-NCER-2007-01 RFA, and information on NAEP secondary analyses may be
found in the IES-NCES-2007-01 RFA. Topic-specific application
transmittal deadlines are specified within these RFA's as well (note,
there is only one "topic" and transmittal date for the NAEP RFA).

**[Suggested options for reading this RFA:]{.underline}**

You may download the entire RFA as a .PDF file or you can navigate to
particular sections of the RFA on line.

We suggest that prospective applicants begin by reading Parts I & II
(introductory sections), followed by Part IV (common information on all
five research goals for all topics); then read Part III (topic-specific
information), and finally Part V (common application and submission
information for all topics). Again, notice the differing application
transmittal deadlines by topic. Also, pay careful attention to the
differing requirements for the five research goals in general. There is
a [decision tree](#Decision) provided in Part IV to help confirm which
goal is appropriate for your application. In addition, in this RFA,
detailed goal-related requirements are included in the topic-specific
sections.

Of course, this RFA may be read start to finish, or you may want to
start with a specific topic of interest (topic-specific sections are
shown in the RFA table of contents that precedes this guide).

###### PART II GENERAL OVERVIEW

**[1. REQUEST FOR APPLICATIONS]{.underline}**

[]{#reqforapps .anchor}In this announcement, the Institute of Education
Sciences (Institute) describes the research programs that are funded
through its National Center for Special Education Research. Separate
announcements are available on the Institute\'s website that pertain to
discretionary grant competitions funded through the Institute\'s
National Center for Education Research (<http://ies.ed.gov/ncer>) and
National Center for Education Statistics (<http://nces.ed.gov/>).

The Institute of Education Sciences (Institute) invites applications for
research projects that will contribute to its Special Education Research
Grants Programs on Early Intervention, Early Childhood Special Education
and Assessment; Mathematics and Science; Reading, Writing, and Language
Development; Serious Behavior Disorders; Assessment for Accountability;
Individualized Education Programs and Individualized Family Service
Plans; Secondary and Transition Services; the Quality of Teachers and
Other Service Providers for Students with Disabilities; Autism Spectrum
Disorders; and Response to Intervention. For the FY 2007 competition,
the Institute will consider only applications that meet the requirements
outlined below under the sections on Topics with July 27, 2006
Transmittal Deadline; Topics with November 16, 2006 Transmittal
Deadline; and Requirements of the Proposed Research.

For the purpose of this Request for Applications (RFA), a student with
disabilities is defined in Public Law 108-446, the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act of 2004 (IDEA), as a child "(i) with mental
retardation, hearing impairments (including deafness), speech or
language impairments, visual impairments (including blindness), serious
emotional disturbance (referred to in this title as 'emotional
disturbance'), orthopedic impairments, autism, traumatic brain injury,
other health impairments, or specific learning disabilities; and (ii)
who, by reason thereof, needs special education and related services"
(Part A, Sec. 602). An infant or toddler with a disability is also
defined in IDEA as, "an individual under 3 years of age who needs early
intervention services because the individual (i) is experiencing
developmental delays, as measured by appropriate diagnostic instruments
and procedures in 1 or more of the areas of cognitive development,
physical development, communication development, social or emotional
development, and adaptive development; or (ii) has a diagnosed physical
or mental condition that has a high probability of resulting in
developmental delay" (Part C, Sec. 632).

[]{#Overview .anchor}2. OVERVIEW OF THE INSTITUTE\'S RESEARCH GRANTS
PROGRAMS

The Institute's over-arching priority is research that contributes to
improved academic achievement for all students, and particularly for
those whose education prospects are hindered by inadequate education
services and conditions associated with poverty, race/ethnicity, limited
English proficiency, disability, and family circumstance.

With academic achievement as the major priority, the Institute focuses
on outcomes that differ by periods of education. In the infancy and
preschool period, the outcomes of interest are those that enhance
readiness for schooling, for example, language skills, and for infants
and toddlers with disabilities, developmental outcomes. In kindergarten
through 12th grade, the core academic outcomes of reading and writing
(including reading and writing in the disciplines), mathematics, and
science are emphasized, as well as the behaviors and social skills that
support learning in school and successful transitions to employment,
independent living, and post-secondary education. At the post-secondary
level, the focus is on enrollment in and completion of programs that
prepare students for successful careers and lives. The same outcomes are
emphasized for students with disabilities across each of these periods,
and include the functional outcomes that improve educational and
transitional results. The acquisition of basic skills by adults with low
levels of education is also a priority.

In conducting research on academic outcomes, the Institute concentrates
on conditions within the control of the education system, with the aim
of identifying, developing, and validating effective education programs,
practices, policies, and approaches as well as understanding the factors
that influence variation in their effectiveness, such as implementation.
Conditions that are of highest priority to the Institute are in the
areas of curriculum, instruction, assessment (including the
identification of students with disabilities), the quality of the
education workforce, and the systems and policies that affect these
conditions and their interrelationships (for example, accountability
systems, delivery mechanisms including technology, and policies that
support the ability of parents to improve educational results for their
children through such means as choice of education services and
provision of school-related learning opportunities in the home).

In this section, the Institute describes the overall framework for its
research grant programs. Specific information on the research topics
described in this announcement may be found in the sections pertaining
to each special education research program:

-   [Early Intervention, Early Childhood Special Education, and
    Assessment for Young Children with Disabilities](#EarlyChildhood)

-   [Individualized Education Programs and Individualized Family Service
    Plans](#IEPs)

-   [Mathematics and Science Education](#MathScience)

-   [Reading, Writing, and Language Development](#ReadWrite)

-   [Secondary and Transition Services](#Transition)

-   [Serious Behavior Disorders](#SBDs)

-   [Quality of Teachers and Other Service Providers for Students with
    Disabilities](#Teachers)

-   [Autism Spectrum Disorders](#Autism)

-   [Response to Intervention](#section)

-   [Assessment for Accountability](#Assessment)

The Institute addresses the educational needs of typically developing
students through its Education Research Grants Programs and the needs of
students with disabilities through its Special Education Research Grants
Programs. Both the Education Research and the Special Education Research
Grants Programs are organized by outcomes (e.g., reading, mathematics),
type of education condition (e.g., curriculum and instruction; teacher
quality; administration, systems, and policy), grade level, and research
goals.

######## Outcomes 

The Institute\'s research grants programs focus on improvement of the
following education outcomes: (a) readiness for schooling (pre-reading,
pre-writing, early mathematics and science knowledge and skills, and
social development); (b) academic outcomes in reading, writing,
mathematics, and science; (c) student behavior and social interactions
within schools that affect the learning of academic content; (d)
academic and functional outcomes, as well as skills that support
independent living for students with significant disabilities; and (e)
educational attainment (high school graduation, enrollment in and
completion of post-secondary education).

######## Conditions

In general, each of the Institute\'s research grants programs focuses on
a particular type of condition (e.g., curriculum and instruction) that
may affect one or more of the outcomes listed previously (e.g.,
reading). The Institute\'s research programs are listed below according
to the primary condition that is the focus of the program.

**a. *Curriculum and instruction*.** Several of the Institute\'s
programs focus on the development and evaluation of curricula and
instructional approaches. These programs include: (a) Early
Intervention, Early Childhood Special Education, and Assessment for
Young Children with Disabilities, (b) Mathematics and Science Special
Education Research, (c) Reading, Writing, and Language Development
Special Education Research, (d) Serious Behavior Disorders Special
Education Research, (e) Secondary and Transition Services Special
Education Research, (f) Autism Spectrum Disorders, and (g) Response to
Intervention.

**b. *Quality of the education workforce*.** A second condition that
affects student learning and achievement is the quality of teachers and
education leaders (e.g., principals, superintendents). The Institute
funds research on how to improve teacher quality through programs such
as Quality of Teachers and Other Service Providers for Students with
Disabilities.

**c. *Administration, systems, and policy*.** A third approach to
improving student outcomes is to identify systemic changes in the ways
in which schools and districts are led, organized, managed, and operated
that may be directly or indirectly linked to student outcomes. The
Institute takes this approach in programs including (a) Assessment for
Accountability, and (b) Individualized Education Programs and
Individualized Family Service Plans Special Education Research.

Applicants should be aware that some of the Institute\'s programs cover
multiple conditions. Of the programs listed above, these include (a)
Early Intervention, Early Childhood Special Education, and Assessment
for Young Children with Disabilities, (b) Individualized Education
Programs and Individualized Family Service Plans Special Education
Research, (c) Secondary and Transition Services Special Education
Research, (d) Research Program on the Quality of Teachers and Other
Service Providers for Students with Disabilities, (e) Autism Spectrum
Disorders, and (f) Response to Intervention.

[]{#Grades .anchor}

######## Grade Levels 

The Institute\'s research programs also specify the ages or grade levels
covered in the research program. The specific grades vary across
research programs and within each research program, and grades may vary
across the research goals. In general, the Institute supports research
for (a) pre-kindergarten and kindergarten, (b) elementary school, (c)
middle school, (d) high school, (e) post-secondary education, (f)
vocational education, and (g) adult education. In addition, the
Institute supports research on infants with disabilities.

[]{#ResearchGoals .anchor}

######## Research Goals

The Institute has established five research goals for its research
programs. Within each research program one or more of the goals may
apply: (a) Goal One -- identify existing programs, practices, and
policies that may have an impact on student outcomes, and the factors
that may mediate or moderate the effects of these programs, practices,
and policies; (b) Goal Two -- develop programs, practices, and policies
that are theoretically and empirically based and obtain preliminary
(pilot) data on the relations (associations) between implementation of
these programs, practices, or policies and the intended education
outcomes; (c) Goal Three -- establish the efficacy of fully developed
programs, practices, or policies that either have evidence of a positive
correlation between implementation of the intervention and education
outcomes *or* are widely used but have not been rigorously evaluated;
(d) Goal Four -- provide evidence on the effectiveness of programs,
practices, and policies implemented at scale; and (e) Goal Five --
develop or validate data and measurement systems and tools.

For a list of the Institute\'s FY 2007 research grant topics---including
research grant competitions through the Institute's National Center for
Special Education Research, National Center for Education Research, and
National Center for Education Statistics, please see Table 1 below.
Funding announcements for these competitions may be downloaded from the
Institute\'s website at [http://ies.ed.gov](http://ies.ed.gov/).

**[Table 1: FY 2007 Research Grant Topics:]{.underline}**

# [Special Education Research on]{.underline}

1.  Early Intervention, Early Childhood Special Education, and
    Assessment for Young Children with Disabilities

2.  Individualized Education Programs and Individualized Family Service
    Plans

3.  Mathematics and Science Education

4.  Reading, Writing, and Language Development

5.  Secondary and Transition Services

6.  Serious Behavior Disorders

7.  Quality of Teachers and Other Service Providers for Students with
    Disabilities

8.  Autism Spectrum Disorders

9.  Response to Intervention

10. Assessment for Accountability

**[Education Research on]{.underline}**

11. Reading and Writing

12. Interventions for Struggling Adolescent and Adult Readers

13. Mathematics and Science Education

14. Teacher Quality -- Reading and Writing

15. Teacher Quality -- Mathematics and Science Education

16. Education Leadership

17. Education Policy, Finance, and Systems

18. Cognition and Student Learning

19. High School Reform

20. Postsecondary Education

21. Research Training Grants

**[National Assessment of Education Progress]{.underline}**

22 Secondary Analysis of Data from the National Assessment of
Educational Progress

######### PART III RESEARCH GRANT TOPICS

For the Institute's FY 2007 special education research grant programs,
there are two sets of topics; one set has a transmittal deadline of July
27, 2006, and the other has a transmittal deadline of November 16, 2006.
In this section, the Institute first describes the topics for the July
2006, transmittal deadline, followed by the topics for the November,
2006 transmittal deadline.

**[3. TOPICS WITH JULY 27, 2007 TRANSMITTAL DEADLINE]{.underline}**

[]{#EarlyChildhood .anchor}

**A. Early Intervention, Early Childhood, and Assessment for Young
Children with Disabilities**

***a. Purpose.*** Through its Early Intervention, Early Childhood
Special Education, and Assessment for Young Children with Disabilities
Research Grants Program, the Institute intends to contribute to the
improvement of cognitive, linguistic, social, emotional, adaptive, and
physical outcomes of infants, toddlers, and young children (from birth
through 5) with disabilities or to prevent the development of
disabilities by: (a) identifying interventions, curriculum, and
instructional practices that are potentially effective for improving
cognitive, linguistic, social, emotional, adaptive, and physical needs
of infants, toddlers, and young children with disabilities and their
families; (b) developing new, or modifying existing, interventions,
programs and curricula, including research on appropriate personnel
preparation and professional development, to address the cognitive,
linguistic, social, emotional, adaptive, and physical needs of infants,
toddlers, and young children with disabilities or at risk for
disabilities and their families; (c) establishing the efficacy of
existing interventions, programs, curricula, personnel preparation, and
professional development to address the cognitive, linguistic, social,
emotional, adaptive, and physical needs of infants, toddlers, and young
children with disabilities or at risk for disabilities and their
families; (d) providing evidence on the effectiveness of interventions,
programs, curricula, personnel preparation, or professional development
that are implemented at scale and designed to address the cognitive,
linguistic, social, emotional, adaptive, and physical needs of young
children with disabilities or at risk for disabilities and their
families; and (e) developing and validating assessment tools that can be
used by practitioners to identify, monitor, or assess the progress and
outcomes of infants, toddlers, and young children with disabilities or
at risk for disabilities and their families or assess the performance of
early intervention and early childhood special education practitioners.
Interventions appropriate for development and/or evaluations under this
program are interventions intended to improve cognitive, linguistic,
social, emotional, adaptive, and physical outcomes of children (birth
through five) with disabilities or at risk for disabilities.
Interventions may be school-based interventions or occur in natural
settings (e.g., home-based, child care settings, family focused
interventions). The long-term outcome of this program will be an array
of tools and strategies (e.g., assessment tools, curricula, programs,
services, interventions) that have been documented to be effective for
cognitive, linguistic, social, emotional, adaptive, and physical needs
of infants, toddlers, and young children with disabilities or at risk
for disabilities and their families.

***b. Background.*** Research on early intervention for young children
with or at risk for disabilities conducted prior to 1986 (Guralnick,
1988) revealed an unremarkable but important finding: Children and
families who received early intervention services and supports were
better off than children and families who received essentially no early
intervention services and supports. Subsequent research has focused more
strategically on the design and implementation of early intervention
programs, practices, and techniques for young children with or at risk
for disabilities (Guralnick, 1997) and employed more mature research
methodology designed to address a more complex set of questions across a
broader array of developmental, familial, social, cognitive, curricular,
and pedagogical dimensions. However, as the National Research Council's
Committee on Integrating the Science of Early Childhood Development
noted, even this research has suffered from important methodological
limitations: "...the empirical knowledge base on the efficacy of early
childhood intervention is relatively uneven...Most important in this
regard is the extent to which a large proportion of studies that address
questions of causality have suffered from inappropriate research
designs, inadequate analytic approaches, or both..." (Shonkoff &
Phillips, 2000, p. 342).

In the context of this limited research base, the Institute is
interested in expanding its special education research program on early
intervention, early childhood special education, and assessment of
infants, toddlers, and young children with disabilities. This program
will support the development and evaluation of interventions, programs,
and curricula intended to address the cognitive, linguistic, social,
emotional, adaptive, and physical needs of infants, toddlers, and young
children with disabilities, or at risk for disabilities, and their
families. The Institute encourages researchers to modify or adapt
existing interventions, programs, or curricula (including family focused
interventions) to meet the needs of infants, toddlers, and young
children with disabilities, or at risk for disabilities, and their
families and support the development of children's school readiness
skills. Researchers may consider, for example, what levels of
*intensity* (e.g., high intensity includes daily levels of frequent and
distributed practice on selected concepts or topics), *specificity*
(e.g., highly specified instruction includes explicit teacher
scaffolding of verbal support and prompting), or *content emphasis*
(e.g., basic language concepts, basic gross and fine motor skills,) are
necessary to ensure high threshold levels of progress and performance on
a range of cognitive, social, functional or developmental outcome
measures. Other questions that require attention include, for example:
What is the differential effectiveness of selected intervention programs
or models delivered in classroom, home, or other natural settings within
or across the full range of infants, toddlers, and young children with
or at risk for disabilities on a range of cognitive, language,
developmental or social measures at different points in children's
growth and development? What features and levels of personnel
preparation or professional development (e.g., high and continuous
professional development support versus low and incidental professional
development support) on what specific pedagogical (e.g., structured and
teacher directed vs. unstructured and child-centered), curricular (e.g.,
vertical coverage vs. horizontal coverage of content), and instructional
dimensions (e.g., number of modeled examples; small group vs. 1-to-1),
at what points in the year, and for what children are most effective in
promoting the high quality implementation of curriculum programs for
infants, toddlers, and young children with or at risk for disabilities?

In addition, the Institute encourages researchers to develop and/or
validate early screening and progress monitoring instruments that can be
used by practitioners to identify and monitor infants, toddlers, and
young children who are in need of early intervention. Finally,
researchers are encouraged to develop and/or validate outcome measures
that can be used not only for measuring infants', toddlers', and young
children's development and achievement but also for determining program
areas that need improvement and for providing data for Federal
accountability purposes.

[]{#MathScience .anchor}

**B. Mathematics and Science Special Education Research**

***a. Purpose.*** The Institute intends for the Mathematics and Science
Research Grants Program to fulfill five goals: (1) identifying
curriculum and instructional practices that are potentially effective
for improving mathematics or science outcomes for students with
identified disabilities and students at risk for disabilities, as well
as mediators and moderators of the effects of these practices; (2)
developing new effective interventions and approaches to mathematics and
science education for students with identified disabilities and students
at risk for disabilities that will eventually result in improving
mathematics and science achievement; (3) establishing the efficacy of
existing interventions and approaches to mathematics and science
education for students with identified disabilities and students at risk
for disabilities; (4) providing evidence on the effectiveness of
mathematics and science interventions implemented at scale; and (5)
developing and validating assessments of mathematics and science
learning for students with identified disabilities and students at risk
for disabilities. Mathematics and science interventions may be for
students from preschool through high school. The long-term outcome of
this program will be an array of tools and strategies (e.g., curricula,
programs) that have been demonstrated to be effective for improving
mathematics and science learning and achievement.

***b. Background.*** Students with disabilities lag behind their peers
without disabilities in both math and science achievement. For example,
in the 2003 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
mathematics assessment, 49 percent of Grade 4 students with disabilities
and 20 percent of Grade 4 students without disabilities scored below the
basic level. Among Grade 8 students, 71 percent of students with
disabilities and 27 percent of students without disabilities scored
below the basic level. In the 2000 NAEP science assessment, 65 percent
of the Grade 4 students with disabilities and 35 percent of the Grade 4
students without disabilities scored below basic. At Grade 8, 74 percent
of the students with disabilities and 38 percent of the students without
disabilities scored below basic in the science assessment.

The NAEP results and the findings of the National Research Council
(1998) reveal that students with disabilities are not gaining access to
the content in mathematics and science when compared with students
without disabilities. However, students with disabilities can be taught
academic content if provided with appropriate and effective
instructional interventions, and research is needed to expand the range
of available interventions. Research is also needed to develop
assessments of math and science learning for students with disabilities.

Yet, teaching math and science to students with disabilities is complex,
because it sits at the intersection of numerous varied systems, each
unforgiving in complexity, including, for example: (a) a complex
symbolic system (i.e., Arabic numeration system), (b) an all-inclusive
administrative system (i.e., preschool, elementary, middle, and high
schools), (c) an elaborate expert knowledge system (i.e., teacher
knowledge about how to teach math and science skills), (d) a
multi-faceted measurement system (i.e., assessing math and science), (e)
an intricate neurological and biological system that is naturally
invoked in the act of engaging in math and science content (i.e., the
human brain), (f) content knowledge comprised of highly specialized
information and vocabulary unique to science and mathematics, and (g) a
group of learners who have unique instructional design and delivery
needs (i.e., students with disabilities or at risk for disabilities).

To improve the math and science skills of students with disabilities and
those at risk for disabilities, an ambitious and comprehensive program
of research is required to examine the efficacy of interventions,
curriculum programs, instructional practices and assessment tools in
math and science in the context of these selected systems. Questions to
be addressed in this program of research include, for example, what
levels of *instructional intensity* (e.g., high intensity includes daily
levels of frequent and distributed practice on specific math skills or
science concepts), *specificity* (highly specified instruction includes
explicit teacher scaffolding of verbal support and prompting), or
*emphasis* (e.g., basic vocabulary, concepts and facts vs. word problem
solving activities) are necessary for improving the math and science
skills of students with cognitive disability? What are the critical math
or science concepts and the particular routines that should be taught
and learned, at what particular points in a student's individual growth
and development beginning in preschool through high school, for what
specific social, developmental, and academic purposes and contexts, and
to what criterion levels of performance? Which interventions,
strategies, instructional practices are most effective for increasing
the math problem solving skills of students with disabilities or at risk
for a disability and closing the achievement gap between students with
disabilities and their peers?

[]{#ReadWrite .anchor}**C. Reading, Writing, and Language Development
Special Education Research**

***a. Purpose.*** Through its Special Education Reading, Writing, and
Language Development Research Grants Program, the Institute intends to
contribute to the improvement of reading, writing, and language skills
for students with identified disabilities and to prevent the development
of disabilities among students at risk for disabilities by (1)
identifying curriculum and instructional practices that are potentially
effective for improving reading, writing, or language outcomes for
students with identified disabilities and students at risk for
disabilities as well as mediators and moderators of the effects of these
practices; (2) developing interventions for teaching reading, writing,
or language skills to students with identified disabilities or students
at risk for disabilities; (3) establishing the efficacy of existing
interventions and approaches for teaching reading, writing, or language
skills to students with identified disabilities or students at risk for
disabilities; (4) providing evidence on the effectiveness of reading,
writing, or language interventions implemented at scale; and (5)
developing and validating reading, writing, or language assessments that
can be used in instructional settings. Interventions appropriate for
development and/or evaluation under this program are interventions
intended to improve reading/pre-reading, writing/pre-writing, or
language outcomes of students with disabilities and students at risk for
disabilities. Interventions may be for students from kindergarten
through grade 12. The long-term outcome of this program will be an array
of tools and strategies (e.g., assessments, instructional approaches)
that have been documented to be effective for improving reading,
writing, or language outcomes for students with identified disabilities
and students at risk for disabilities.

***b. Background.*** Students with disabilities do not attain the same
performance thresholds as their peers on a range of language, reading,
writing, and state outcome measures. For example, the 2005 National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) report indicates that, in
fourth grade, 66 percent of students with disabilities who participated
scored below basic level in reading achievement in contrast to 33
percent of students without disabilities. Reading below the basic level
means that when reading grade appropriate text, these students cannot
extract the general meaning of text, make obvious connections between
the text and their own experiences, or make simple inferences from the
text. In other words, approximately two-thirds of fourth grade students
with disabilities who take the NAEP cannot understand what they have
read. In writing, a similar picture emerges. The 2002 NAEP writing
assessment report indicated that, in fourth grade, 43 percent of
students with disabilities who participated scored below the basic level
in contrast to 11 percent of students without disabilities. The NAEP
results make it very clear that students with disabilities are not
gaining comparable access to symbolic systems (e.g., alphabetic writing
system) as students without disabilities

Several noteworthy and comprehensive reading research reviews conducted
in the last fifteen years (Adams, 1990; National Research Council, 1998;
National Reading Panel, 2000) now make conspicuously apparent the role
of oral language (e.g., oral vocabulary) in reading and writing. In the
early preschool and primary years, oral language "far outstrips written
language" (Kamil & Hiebert, 2005). However, written language quickly
takes on an increasingly larger role in literacy than does oral language
(Kamil & Hiebert, 2005) as children move from "learning to read" to
"reading to learn" (Chall, 1983; Kame'enui, Adams, & Lyon, 1990). The
demands of unfamiliar language in both oral and written form exact a
range of consequences on the productive (speaking or writing) and
receptive language knowledge (listening or reading) of students with
disabilities.

Equally important is the simple and well-established empirical
proposition that students with disabilities can be taught the essential
skills for gaining access to words, the world of ideas, and life-long
literacy opportunities. Yet, teaching reading, writing, and language
skills to students with disabilities is complex, because it sits at the
intersection of numerous varied systems, each unforgiving in complexity,
including, for example: (a) a complex symbolic system (i.e., alphabetic
writing system), (b) an all-inclusive administrative system (i.e.,
elementary schools), (c) an elaborate expert knowledge system (i.e.,
teacher knowledge about how to teach reading, writing, and language
skills), (d) a multi-faceted measurement system (i.e., assessing
reading, writing, and language), (e) an intricate neurological and
biological system that is naturally invoked in the act of reading,
writing, and language (i.e., the human brain), and (f) a group of
learners who have unique instructional design and delivery needs (i.e.,
students with disabilities or at risk for disabilities).

To improve the reading, writing, and language skills of students with
disabilities and those at risk for disabilities, an ambitious and
comprehensive program of research is required to examine the efficacy of
interventions, curriculum programs, instructional practices and
assessment tools in reading, writing, and language in the context of
these selected systems. Questions to be addressed in this program of
research include, for example, what levels of *instructional intensity*
(e.g., high intensity includes daily levels of frequent and distributed
practice on specific reading skills), *specificity* (highly specified
instruction includes explicit teacher scaffolding of verbal support and
prompting), or *emphasis* (e.g. phonics vs. vocabulary instruction) are
necessary for improving the reading, writing, or language skills of
students with cognitive disability? What are the number of words and the
particular words that should be taught and learned, at what particular
points in a student's vocabulary growth and reading development
beginning in kindergarten through high school, for what specific social
and academic purposes and contexts, and to what criterion levels of
performance? Which interventions, strategies, instructional practices
are most effective for increasing the reading skills of students with
disabilities or at risk for a disability that are also English Language
Learners? Which interventions, strategies, or instructional practices
are most effective for increasing the reading comprehension skills of
students with disabilities or at risk for a disability and closing the
achievement gap between students with disabilities and their peers?

Through the Reading, Writing, and Language Development Special Education
Research Grants Program, the Institute intends to address the range of
problems contributing to reading, writing, and language difficulties
through the development and evaluation of reading, writing, or language
interventions that target the needs of students with identified
disabilities and students at risk for developing disabilities and the
development and validation of reading, writing, and language assessments
for students with disabilities.

[]{#SBDs .anchor}**D. Serious Behavior Disorders Special Education
Research**

***a. Purpose.*** The purpose of the Serious Behavior Disorders Research
Grants Program is to contribute to the improvement of the behavioral and
social skills and concomitantly, the developmental and academic outcomes
of infants, toddlers, children and youth with disabilities (hence
referred to as "children") by: (a) either identifying interventions that
target the behavior and social difficulties of children with
disabilities and the conditions that mediate and moderate the effects of
such interventions, or identifying practices that have an impact on
student discipline or special education referrals for behavior problems
and the factors that may mediate or moderate the effects of these
practices; (b) developing positive behavioral interventions that target
the behavior and social difficulties of children with disabilities; (c)
establishing the efficacy of existing positive behavioral interventions
that address the behavior and social difficulties of children with
disabilities while examining the moderating variables that interact with
the intervention; (d) evaluating the effectiveness of positive
behavioral interventions implemented at scale and under a variety of
conditions; and (e) developing and validating assessment tools and
procedures, including the "functional behavioral assessments" stipulated
in IDEA \[Sec. 615 (k) (1)\], for use in home, instructional, and
non-instructional settings to identify or diagnose social skill deficits
or behavior problems, and to monitor the behavior of children with
disabilities. Interventions appropriate for development and/or
evaluation under this program are interventions intended to improve
social and behavioral outcomes of children with disabilities or children
at risk for disabilities. Interventions may be school-based
interventions or home-based interventions. School-based interventions
should be integrated with a system of positive behavioral support
intended to enable children\'s success in school. The long-term outcome
of this program will be an array of tools and strategies (e.g.,
assessment tools and behavioral interventions) that have been documented
to be effective for improving the behavioral and social skills, and
likewise, the developmental trajectory and academic performance of
children with disabilities ages 0-21.

***b. Background.*** Research on the efficacy of positive behavioral
interventions and supports designed to manage, control, and prevent a
range of behavior and antisocial problems (e.g., violence toward peers
or adults, self-injury, noncompliance, bullying, withdrawal, truancy) in
a range of settings (e.g., school, general and special education
classrooms, home, work, community) is historically robust (Baer, Wolf, &
Risley, 1968; Becker, Madson, Arnold, & Thomas, 1967; Itard, 1962;
Safran & Oswald, 2003; Sugai, et al., 2000). The extant research on
positive behavioral interventions and support provides practitioners
with a reasonable set of tenets derived from applied behavior analysis
to guide the selection, application, and extension of positive behavior
interventions and supports for students with disabilities, including,
for example: (a) the clear and incontrovertible proposition that
punishment and exclusion are ineffective when used singularly and in the
absence of a proactive positive behavioral support system (Sugai &
Horner, 2002); (b) an emerging but steady convergence of empirical
support for the proposition that problem behaviors can be reduced with
the high quality implementation of explicit and systematic instruction
designed and delivered to meet the needs of students with disabilities
(Colvin, Kame'enui, & Sugai, 1993; Kame'enui & Darch, 1995); (c) the
well established reliance on functional assessment strategies that
emphasize ongoing, direct measurement of socially important behavior
(Carr, et al., 2002); (d) the comprehensive development, adoption, and
promotion of a systemic, proactive approach to managing problem
behaviors marking a significant departure from traditional use of
aversive, reactive, crisis-response strategies as the primary
intervention to problem behaviors (Carr, Robinson, Taylor, & Carlson,
1990). Moreover, there appears to be general agreement among advocates,
policymakers, stakeholders, researchers, and practitioners alike on the
importance and need for the development and implementation of a
"comprehensive research agenda" that emphasizes prevention of problem
behavior and the "development of the emotional and coping competencies
that minimize problem behaviors," while also promoting a "commitment to
improved quality of life" and the "reduction of dangerous, destructive,
and harmful behaviors" (Horner, Dunlap, Beasley et al., in press, p. 5).

Although current research literature appears to provide the field with
important and promising guidance on positive behavioral interventions
and support, much "mopping up" (Kuhn, 1962) remains to be done in order
to understand and advance the application, scalability, and
sustainability of a range of behavioral interventions and supports. For
example, the gaps in research on positive behavioral interventions and
supports for children with disabilities suggest the need for a rigorous,
developmental program of research that, for example, documents the
nature and essential elements of behavioral interventions and supports
that address a range of (a) ages and disabling conditions among children
with or at risk of behavior problems, (b) settings (e.g., home, school,
community) and contexts (e.g., classroom, school building, playground),
(c) demand conditions (e.g., social, familial, academic), and (d)
intervention agents. Research funded through this program must account
for a range of technically sound criterion performance measures (e.g.,
developmental milestones, academic achievement outcomes, prosocial
behavior outcomes, progress monitoring of academic performance,
proactive communication protocols) employing multiple response forms
(e.g., choice, production, physical responses) across multiple levels of
implementation (e.g., high vs. low implementation models) and tiers of
prevention (i.e., primary, secondary, tertiary) with an explicit and
systematic focus on evaluating the maintenance and generalization of
outcomes to scalable levels and systems (e.g., school-wide vs.
district-wide vs. state-wide). In addition, such a program of research
must describe patterns of strengths and weaknesses in positive
behavioral interventions and supports for selected groups of children
with disabilities.

The Institute encourages researchers to consider, for example, what
levels of *intervention intensity* (e.g., high intensity includes daily
levels of frequent and distributed behavioral interventions in a range
of problem contexts), *specificity* (e.g., highly specified behavioral
interventions includes explicit and precise delineation of
stimulus-response-reinforcing contingencies), or *emphasis* (e.g.,
developmental or academic objectives and outcomes vs. social
objectives/outcomes vs. developmental, academic and social
objectives/outcomes) are necessary to ensure high threshold levels of
performance on a range of academic, social, behavioral or developmental
measures. What components, elements, or "active ingredients" of positive
behavioral intervention and supports when implemented as part of a
comprehensive system of prevention (e.g., primary, secondary, tertiary)
in a range of complex but typical settings (e.g., home, school) by a
variety of intervention agents are experimentally linked to enhancing,
promoting, and sustaining positive social and academic outcomes for
school-aged students with disabilities? How can functional behavioral
assessments be designed, conducted and used to develop and monitor the
effectiveness of positive behavioral interventions? What are appropriate
positive behavioral interventions for infants and what are the
conditions for their use? What are the critical social skills that
function as mediators or moderators for negative in-school outcomes such
as disciplinary actions, restrictive placement decisions, or grade
retention? How can these skills best be taught in school?

[]{#Assessment .anchor}

**E. Assessment for Accountability**

***a. Purpose.*** Through its program of Special Education Research on
Assessment for Accountability, the Institute intends to address
questions of how assessments for accountability can best be designed and
used to capture and represent proficiency and growth for children with
disabilities. The long-term outcome of this program will be an array of
assessment instruments, tools, programs, practices, and systems for
accountability that are documented to be reliable and valid for students
with disabilities.

For the FY 2007 Special Education Research Grants Program on Assessment
for Accountability, applicants must submit under Goal Five,
"Measurement" and must focus on outcome assessments used for large-scale
accountability purposes, such as meeting the assessment and
accountability requirements of NCLB. Research projects on assessments
used for other purposes to the exclusion of accountability (e.g.
screening, identification and placement, diagnosis) are not eligible for
funding under this program. Research on assessments to monitor student
progress toward proficiency on state accountability tests may be funded,
provided there is a clear link to academic standards and assessments for
accountability and outcome goals.

Intervention research using accountability assessments as outcome
measures, or research intended to demonstrate improved performance on
outcome assessments is not eligible for funding under this program,
unless there is a clear and methodologically sound design for studying
and/or improving the valid use of assessments for accountability with
students with disabilities.

Applicants may propose to: (a) develop and validate new regular or
alternate assessments, (b) modify and validate existing regular or
alternate assessments, (c) determine the effects on the reliability and
validity of different test accommodations for students with
disabilities, (d) determine the validity of accountability assessments
for students with disabilities, (e) investigate approaches for designing
accountability assessments to be more accessible to students with
disabilities, or (f) conduct other activities relevant to the purposes
of this program.

Applications that focus on development, refinement or validation of a
specific state assessment program are not appropriate for this
competition unless the findings have clear and compelling benefits for
other states. Other federal and state funds may be available to support
individual states in enhancing or improving their state assessments, and
the purpose of the Special Education Research Grants Program on
Assessment for Accountability is to support research and innovation of
general relevance and benefit.

The Institute is also interested in applications to conduct research on
the use of individual student growth models for accountability purposes
with students with disabilities. The Institute is particularly
interested in research related to inclusion of students with
disabilities in growth models that might be used for NCLB
accountability.

***b. Background.*** Recent educational policies emphasize high
expectations and accountability for results for all students, including
students with disabilities. Special education programs that are based on
individualized services to meet unique student needs must now provide
these services within a framework of challenging general education
standards and expectations. For school-aged children, this process is
largely governed by the statutes and regulations of the No Child Left
Behind Act (NCLB) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA). Given the range of individual student needs, these laws and
regulations provide a variety of options for students with disabilities
to participate in assessments for accountability. Students with
disabilities can participate in regular assessments, with or without
accommodations, in alternate assessments based on grade-level
achievement standards, alternate assessments based on alternate
achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive
disabilities, and (pending the finalization of recently-proposed
regulations) in assessments based on modified achievement standards.

For preschool children with disabilities, birth through age five, there
is no consistent structure for assessments and accountability that
parallels the system NCLB requires for school-aged children. However,
there is a recognized need to hold preschool programs for children with
disabilities accountable for results and to maintain challenging
standards and expectations.

Research is needed to determine the best programs, practices,
instruments, tools, and systems for using assessments for accountability
with students with disabilities. Historically, research on this topic
has focused on assessment accommodations and alternate assessments, two
approaches that are mentioned specifically in federal statutes.

Research on accommodations has studied such topics as the effects of
assessment accommodations on validity, the selection of appropriate
accommodations for individual students with disabilities, and logistical
factors in the delivery of accommodations. This research has produced
significant findings, such as the importance of preparing teachers to
select appropriate accommodations, the need for safeguards to ensure
that the correct accommodations are delivered in an appropriate manner,
and specific techniques for guiding the selection of accommodations
(Shriner & DeStefano, 2003; Fuchs, Fuchs, Eaton, Hamlett, Binkley, &
Crouch 2000; Clapper, Morse, Thompson, & Thurlow, M. L., 2005). However,
there have been relatively few conclusive findings on the effects of
accommodations on validity (Hollenbeck, 2005; Sireci, Scarpati, &
Shuhong, 2005).

Recent efforts have focused on developing assessments that are more
accessible for students with disabilities, thus minimizing the need for
accommodations and reducing validity threats when accommodations are
used (Thompson, Johnstone, & Thurlow, 2002). Two National Accessible
Reading Assessment Projects (NARAP) are currently conducting research on
accessible reading assessments. Information on these projects is
available on their website (http://www.narap.info).

Research on alternate assessments has focused on a variety of issues
such as the development of assessment techniques for students who
present special assessment challenges, the reliability and validity of
alternate assessments, the alignment of alternate assessments with
regular academic content standards through the mechanism of alternate
achievement standards, and the effects of alternate assessments on
students' access to and progress in the general curriculum. This
research has uncovered a number of challenges. For example, there is a
general absence of information on the technical quality of alternate
assessments; alignment with regular academic standards is undocumented
and inconsistent, and the benefits of alternate assessments have not
been established (Browder, Spooner, Algozzine, Ahlgrim-Delzell, Flowers,
& Karvonen, 2003). However, current research is developing approaches
for ensuring and documenting technical quality and alignment. For
example, the National Alternate Assessment Center (NAAC) is conducting a
program of research on these issues and information is available on its
website (http://naacpartners.org).

Recently proposed federal regulations have introduced a new variation on
accountability assessments for students with disabilities, namely
assessments based on modified achievement standards. Depending on the
final form these regulations take, research will be needed on a variety
of topics. If final regulations are published in time, applicants for
the FY 2007 Special Education Research Grants Program on Assessment for
Accountability may propose research on assessments based on modified
achievement standards.

The U. S. Department of Education has announced a program whereby a
limited number of qualified states may develop and pilot growth-based
accountability models for use in determining AYP. Growth models give
schools accountability credit for student improvement over time, but
must conform to the basic provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act.
Growth models hold particular promise for students with disabilities,
but considerable research is needed on such topics as methods for
establishing growth standards, vertical scaling, analyzing and
interpreting growth data, validating growth models, aligning individual
growth models with standards and accountability, maintaining technical
adequacy for individual or system accountability, etc.

**[4. TOPICS WITH NOVEMBER 16, 2006 TRANSMITTAL DEADLINE]{.underline}**

[]{.mark}

[]{#IEPs .anchor}**A. Individualized Education Programs and
Individualized Family Service Plans**

***a. Purpose.*** Through its program of Special Education Research on
Individualized Education Programs and Individualized Family Service
Plans (IEP/IFSP Research), the Institute intends to contribute to the
improvement of education for infants, toddlers, children, and students
with disabilities by (1) identifying practices, programs, or systems
designed to improve the creation, implementation, and monitoring of
appropriate and effective individualized education programs (IEPs) and
individualized family service plans (IFSPs) for infants, toddlers,
children, and students with disabilities; (2) developing practices,
programs, or systems designed to enhance the abilities of education
practitioners, administrators, and service providers to create,
implement, and monitor appropriate and effective IEPs and IFSPs for
infants, toddlers, children, and students with disabilities (3)
determining the efficacy of practices, programs, or systems designed to
improve the use of IEPs and IFSPs through efficacy or replication
trials; and (4) providing evidence on the effectiveness of practices,
programs, or systems designed to improve the use of IEPs and IFSPs when
implemented at scale. The long-term outcome of this program will be an
array of programs, practices, and systems that have been documented to
be effective for providing services for infants, toddlers, and children
in natural environments (including the home) and community settings in
which children without disabilities participate as well as ensuring that
students with disabilities access, participate in, and progress in the
general education curriculum in the least restrictive environment.

For the purpose of this research program, an "individualized education
program" is defined and fully specified in Part B, Section 614(d) of the
"Individuals with Disabilities Education Act," and an "individualized
family service plan" is defined and fully specified in Part C, Section
636 of the "Individuals with Disabilities Education Act."

***b. Background.*** The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
requires that IEPs and IFSPs be developed by education practitioners and
service providers, in collaboration with parents (and older students),
for each infant, toddler, child, or student with a disability in order
to meet the child's unique needs, or, in the case of an IFSP, the child
and family's unique needs. IEPs and IFSPs are viewed as the foundation
for ensuring that the particular needs of infants, toddlers, children,
and students with disabilities who require special education or early
intervention services are met in the classroom (for IEPs) or natural
settings (for IFSPs) through a range of evidence-based instructional,
curricular, social, and behavioral strategies, interventions, and
programs. While the concept of IEPs and IFSPs is simple and
straightforward -- to ensure that infants', toddlers'; children's,
students\' and families' (for IFSPs) unique needs are met on a daily
basis \-- the development and implementation of appropriate and
meaningful IEPs and IFSPs for infants, toddlers, children, and students
with disabilities in classrooms, schools, and natural settings are
extraordinarily complex. Meaningful IEPs are based on (a) accurate
assessments of the child\'s present levels of academic achievement and
functional performance; (b) measurable academic and functional goals
that are linked to state and local academic standards; (c) clear
descriptions of how and when the child\'s progress toward meeting the
annual goals will be measured; and (d) an informed understanding, based
on the best available information, of the special education and related
services and supplementary aids that will enable the child to reach
those goals. IFSPs contain content similar to that of IEPs; however,
they includes statements regarding: (a) the infant or toddler's present
levels of development in multiple domains; (b) the family's resources,
priorities, and concerns related to enhancing the development of the
infant or toddler; (c) measurable results and outcomes for the infant or
toddler and his or her family; (d) the features of the natural
environments in which services will be provided; (e) timelines for
providing services; (f) the identification of the service coordinator;
and (g) steps to support transition to preschool or other appropriate
services. Given the complexity of IEP and IFSP content, the full range
of disabilities and developmental delays, and the unique needs of each
child and/or family, the enormity of the task faced by IEP and IFSP
teams is clear.

Although the challenges to the development, implementation, and
evaluation of appropriate and effective IEPs and IFSPs for infants,
toddlers, children, and students with disabilities are substantial, the
research base to support the development and implementation of IEPs and
IFSPs is relatively thin. It is in this context that the Institute has
launched its IEP/IFSP Research program. The Institute encourages
proposals to develop and evaluate practices, programs, or systems to
improve IEP and IFSP development, implementation, and evaluation;
include meaningful family and student involvement in this process; and
facilitate collaboration among school leadership and personnel (e.g.,
general educators, special educators, school psychologists, etc.). For
example, applicants might consider professional development that focuses
on assessment, curriculum and service planning, intervention strategies,
and goal setting that target specific disabilities and developmental
delays, promote skill acquisition, and bring to bear the best evidence
in these areas. Such professional development might address issues such
as: (a) the type of instruction and interventions required to meet the
infant's, toddler's, child's, or student's unique needs and ensure that
services to infants, toddlers, and children are provided natural
environments and community settings and that students with disabilities
access and participate and progress in the general education curriculum
in the least restrictive environment; (b) strategies for addressing
specific academic and functional goals that are linked to state and
local academic standards; and (c) the frequency with which progress
should be monitored. In-service training might also help members of the
IEP or IFSP team to better understand research on intervention, the
current research literature on a targeted disability, and the unique
needs of the infant, toddler, child, or student and his or her family.
In addition, applicants might develop and test systems for managing and
monitoring the IEP and IFSP processes. Such systems might include (a)
strategies for improving the decision-making process in the development
and specification of components of the IFSP or IEP, including
standards-based or standards-referenced goals; (b) approaches for
promoting the active and meaningful engagement of parents in the
development and implementation of IEPs and IFSPs; and (c) ways to assess
the fidelity of the implementation of the IEP or IFSP. Applicants might
examine the extent to which frequent monitoring of infant, toddler,
child or student progress (e.g., once a week, twice a month) and the
reporting of results to parents or guardians on an equally frequent
basis improves performance and progress on state outcome measures and
the overall development and validation of the IEP and IFSP.

[]{.mark}

The Institute also encourages proposals to develop and validate
templates for IEPs and IFSPs that are appropriate for specific
disabilities and developmental delays yet flexible for individualizing
the IEP or IFSP according to the unique needs of each infant, toddler,
child, or student with a disability. The templates would provide
prototypical IEPs and IFSPs for infants, toddlers, children, and
students with specific disabilities or developmental delays and who test
within a specified range on relevant assessments. For example, a
template for a third grade student with a learning disability who is
greater than 2 years behind grade level standards in reading may
identify: (a) appropriate goals, including those that are tied to state
achievement standards under No Child Left Behind, and from which users
could select those most relevant to the target child, (b) short-term
objectives or benchmarks for each goal, including suggestions for
measures for monitoring progress and for the timing and frequency of
such assessments, and (c) strategies or services for enabling the child
to reach each goal, including suggestions for how those services will be
provided (e.g., settings in which such services could be provided). The
goal would be to provide IEP and IFSP teams with clear guidelines that
are based on the most current special education and early intervention
research and that would serve as the foundation for developing tailored
IEPs and IFSPs for individual children.

For all interventions, applicants should bear in mind that the ultimate
purpose is to determine whether or not implementation of the
intervention leads to improved infant, toddler, child, and student
outcomes.

[]{#Transition .anchor}**B. Secondary and Transition Services**

***a. Purpose.*** The overarching purpose of the Special Education
Research Grants Program on Secondary and Transition Services is to
contribute to the improvement of secondary and transition programs and
outcomes for secondary (middle school and high school) students with
disabilities. These outcomes include the behavioral, social,
communicative, functional, occupational, and academic skills that enable
young adults with disabilities to obtain and hold meaningful employment,
live independently, and obtain further education and training. Through
the Secondary and Transition Services Research Grants Program, the
Institute intends to support research to: (a) identify curricula,
instructional approaches, transition services, programs, or systems that
are potentially effective for improving the academic or functional
skills of students with disabilities in secondary (middle school and
high school) settings as well as mediators and moderators of the effects
of these practices; (b) develop interventions that improve the education
and transition outcomes of students with disabilities in secondary
settings; (c) establish the efficacy of existing interventions for
improving the education and transition outcomes of students with
disabilities in secondary settings; (d) provide evidence on the
effectiveness of interventions for improving the education and
transition outcomes of students with disabilities in secondary settings;
and (e) develop and validate measures that assess skills predictive of
successful education and transition outcomes for students with
disabilities in secondary settings. Interventions appropriate for
research under this program are secondary-school-based interventions and
home-based or community-based interventions that are integrated and
intended to support adolescents\' abilities to hold competitive
employment, obtain further education and training, and successfully
transition to independent living. The long-term outcome of this program
will be an array of tools and strategies (e.g., intervention programs,
strategies, approaches) that have been documented to be effective in
improving the secondary education and transition outcomes for students
with disabilities.

***b. Background*.** Education practitioners and policymakers face
considerable challenges in improving secondary and transition outcomes
for students with disabilities. According to recent reports from the
National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (Wagner, Marder, et al., 2003;
Wagner, Newman, et al., 2005), a study of a nationally representative
sample of adolescents with disabilities, students\' grade-level
equivalent performance on standardized achievement tests was on average
about 3.6 years behind grade level in reading and mathematics. Among
those individuals who were no longer in school, about 28 percent had
dropped out prior to receiving a diploma. In addition, a significant
minority experienced social and behavioral problems (e.g., about 17
percent were reported to have difficulty controlling their behavior in
class; about 13 percent had been arrested). In the first years after
high school, individuals with disabilities were much less likely to
attend postsecondary education than were individuals without
disabilities. About 21 percent of youth with disabilities were not
engaged in their community either through postsecondary education, job
training, or work in the first years after high school.

The Institute's Secondary and Transition Services Research Grants
Program is intended to address the challenges for improving the
secondary and transition outcomes of students with disabilities. This
program of research includes research targeted in middle and high
schools designed to determine the effectiveness of education
interventions or programs for students with disabilities as well as
efforts to support and promote the effective transition from high school
to the world of work, independent living, and further education and
training. Within middle and high schools, the Institute is interested in
research that addresses topics such as, but not limited to (a) the use
of assistive, electronic, and information technologies to improve
instruction; (b) the design and implementation of differentiated
instruction; and (c) the adoption and implementation of secondary
education curricula and materials that feature universal designs and
architectures which permit meaningful access to the rigorous and
challenging academic and vocational content. Within the topic of
transitions, the Institute is interested in research that addresses
topics such as, but not limited to (a) the development and evaluation of
secondary-school-based interventions that promote functional skills that
would allow young adults with disabilities to obtain and hold jobs and
to live independently; (b) systemic interventions to improve transitions
for students with disabilities that increase collaboration between
school and community agencies, provide professional development for
both, and implement a range of strategies to facilitate the transition
for youth with disabilities to the world of work or to post-secondary
education and training; (c) the development and evaluation of effective
community-based programs that promote daily living and employment skills
for students with disabilities; and (d) the development and validation
of measures of social, behavioral, functional, and cognitive skills that
are predictive of successful post-secondary transitions for secondary
students with disabilities. Of particular interest is the study of
effective transition strategies and programs for low incidence
disabilities, as well as the explicit focus on transition as a goal for
high incidence disabilities.

[]{#Teachers .anchor}**C. Quality of Teachers and Other Service
Providers for Students with Disabilities**

***a. Purpose.*** The general purpose of the Research Grants Program on
the Quality of Teachers and Other Service Providers for Students with
Disabilities is to identify effective strategies for preparing future
teachers and other service providers of students with disabilities, or
for improving the performance of current teachers and service providers
of students with disabilities, in ways that increase student learning
and school achievement. In this Request for Applications, the term
*personnel preparation* refers to pre-service training, and the term
*professional development* refers to in-service training. Teachers and
other service providers include special education teachers, regular
education teachers who work with students with disabilities, and related
service providers. Applicants proposing research on personnel
preparation or professional development for early interventionists or
preschool personnel working with children with disabilities aged birth
through 5 should apply under the [Early Intervention, Early Childhood
Special Education, and Assessment for Young Children with
Disabilities](#EarlyChildhood) topic.

For the purposes of this grant competition, related services are as
defined in IDEA as "transportation, and such developmental, corrective,
and other supportive services (including speech-language pathology and
audiology services, interpreting services, psychological services,
physical and occupational therapy, recreation, including therapeutic
recreation, social work services, school nurse services designed to
enable a child with a disability to receive a free appropriate public
education as described in the individualized education program of the
child, counseling services, including rehabilitation counseling,
orientation and mobility services, and medical services, except that
such medical services shall be for diagnostic and evaluation purposes
only) as may be required to assist a child with a disability to benefit
from special education, and includes the early identification and
assessment of disabling conditions in children. The term does not
include a medical device that is surgically implanted, or the
replacement of such device." (Part A, Sec. 602). (Adaptive physical
education is considered a special education service and not a related
service under IDEA.)

The Institute intends for the Research Grants Program on the Quality of
Teachers and Other Service Providers for Students with Disabilities to
fulfill five goals: (a) identifying programs and practices for personnel
preparation or professional development that are potentially effective
for improving learning and school achievement of students with
disabilities, as well as mediators and moderators of the effects of
these programs and practices; (b) developing new effective programs and
practices for personnel preparation or professional development that
will improve professional practices and thereby improve student learning
and achievement for students with disabilities; (c) establishing the
efficacy of programs and practices for personnel preparation or
professional development for improving professional practices and
thereby improving student learning and achievement for students with
disabilities; (d) providing evidence of the effectiveness of personnel
preparation or professional development programs that are implemented at
scale and intended for improving professional practices and thereby
improving student learning and achievement for students with
disabilities; and (e) developing and validating new assessments, or
validating existing assessments of the quality of teachers and other
service providers for students with disabilities.

Long term outcomes of the Research Grants Program on the Quality of
Teachers and Other Service Providers for Students with Disabilities will
be an array of tools and strategies (e.g., pre-service and in-service
programs, policies, assessments) that have been demonstrated to be
effective for improving and assessing the performance of special
education teachers, regular education teachers who work with students
with disabilities, and other service providers in ways that are linked
to increases in academic achievement for students with disabilities.

*b. Background.* The Institute\'s Research Grants Program on the Quality
of Teachers and Other Service Providers for Students with Disabilities
is intended to improve the learning and achievement of students with
disabilities by improving the knowledge and skills of the professionals
who work with them. Students with disabilities are served by
professionals from a wide range of disciplines, including special
educators, regular educators, and related service providers. The roles
of these professionals in serving students with disabilities are
challenging and frequently reshaped by changes in policies, new research
findings, and shifts in student populations.

Special educators must now help prepare students with disabilities to
attain challenging academic standards and succeed in the general
curriculum, as well as to make successful transitions to adult life. The
increased expectations for students have likewise increased the
expectations for special educators, but special educators are not alone
in facing these challenges. Most students with disabilities
(approximately 96%) attend regular schools; around 75% of these students
spend 40% or more of their time in regular classrooms, and almost half
are in regular classrooms for most or all of the school day (U.S.
Department of Education, 2003). Despite the important role of regular
educators, a national survey of teachers in regular public schools (U.S.
Department of Education, 2001) found that only 32 percent of teachers
whose classes included students with disabilities felt very well
prepared to address the needs of students with disabilities. Related
services professionals also play a key role in the learning and
achievement of students with disabilities, and the expectations placed
upon them vary widely in content and scope. For example, a recent study
found that 40% or more of the schools reported providing one or more of
the following services to students with disabilities: speech or language
therapy, occupational therapy; family training, counseling and other
support; nursing service/health service; psychological service; physical
therapy; special transportation; social work services; one-to-one
paraeducator/assistant; assistive technology service/device; tutoring;
adaptive physical education; and service coordination/case management
(U.S. Department of Education, 2003).

Research is needed to determine the most effective preservice and
inservice strategies for preparing, equipping, and mobilizing
professionals to meet the needs of students with disabilities, including
rigorous research evidence to determine *what content* should be
delivered, and *how to deliver* the content in order to improve learning
and achievement of students with disabilities. Also needed is research
evidence on *how to assess* the appropriate professional knowledge and
skills that are predictive of student achievement.

\(i\) *What the content should be.* A major criticism of current
personnel preparation and professional development programs is that many
of their required courses do not teach practices and strategies that are
evidence-based and link to state academic standards. Another criticism
is that content and pedagogy taught in required courses are inadequate,
in that content courses do not prepare future professionals how to teach
specific content, and pedagogy courses typically focus on generic,
rather than content-specific instructional strategies. The Institute is
interested in examining personnel preparation and professional
development programs that are designed to develop different types of
knowledge and skills. These include, but are not limited to, programs
designed to develop knowledge about teaching a specific academic content
area (e.g., mathematics, reading) to students with disabilities, and
programs designed around a specific, evidence-based curriculum or
program, where the intent is to provide teachers with specific skills,
strategies, and perhaps lesson plans for delivering this specific
program.

\(ii\) *How content should be delivered.* We have little reliable
evidence about how to improve personnel preparation and professional
development programs; how to appropriately balance content, pedagogy,
and clinical training experiences; who should deliver the content or
courses (e.g., discipline-based departments, like mathematics, or
departments of teacher education); and what the most effective delivery
vehicles are for building, promoting, enhancing, and sustaining the
capacity of personnel preparation and professional development that has
a reliable impact on improving student achievement (e.g. collaborative
teaching and co-teaching). Furthermore, it is unclear if certain
programs of preparation (e.g., separate or discrete general education
and special education programs, dual programs, merged programs) produce
teacher candidates that are not only highly qualified under NCLB, but
are also effective at increasing academic outcomes for students with
disabilities. Similarly, although experts commonly believe that most
current professional development offerings are not very effective, very
little reliable research exists that allows for clear causal
interpretations of the impact of specific professional development
programs on student achievement, or for knowing which elements of
professional development programs (e.g., mentoring or coaching) are
critical or relatively more important than others.

\(iii\) *How teacher knowledge should be assessed.* Also needed is
reliable research to guide the development of practical assessments of
content, pedagogical, or clinical knowledge and skills, and research to
validate these assessments (or existing assessments) against measures of
student learning and achievement. Understanding which skills and
knowledge make a teacher or other service provider effective and methods
for identifying potential practitioners who have these skills and
knowledge is critical to developing a highly qualified professional
workforce.

Ideally such assessments would not only predict student learning and
achievement but also be practical and cost-effective to administer.
Although some existing tests of pedagogical knowledge and subject matter
knowledge have been correlated with the test takers\' SAT or ACT scores
(e.g., Gitomer, Latham, & Ziomek, 1999), validation of existing tests
against measures of student learning and achievement remains to be
accomplished. Hence, the Institute is interested in proposals to
validate existing assessments against measures of student learning and
achievement, as well as proposals to develop and validate new measures.

[]{#Autism .anchor}**D. Autism Spectrum Disorders**

***a. Purpose.*** The purpose of the Autism Spectrum Disorders Research
Grants Program is to contribute to the improvement of cognitive,
communicative, academic, social, and behavioral outcomes of children
identified with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in preschool through
middle school by (a) identifying comprehensive pre-school and
school-based interventions that improve cognitive, communicative,
academic, social, and behavioral outcomes of children identified with
ASD in preschool through middle school and the factors that mediate and
moderate the effects of such interventions; (b) developing new, or
modifying existing comprehensive pre-school and school-based
interventions to address the cognitive, communicative, academic, social,
and behavioral needs of children identified with ASD in preschool
through middle school; (c) establishing the efficacy of existing
comprehensive pre-school and school-based interventions for children
identified with ASD in preschool through middle school; and (d)
developing and validating measures in cognitive, communicative,
academic, social, and behavioral skills that can be used in
instructional and non-instructional settings to monitor progress and
evaluate outcomes for children identified with ASD in preschool through
middle school.

Interventions appropriate for development and/or evaluation under this
program are comprehensive pre-school and school-based interventions
intended to improve the cognitive, communicative, academic, social, and
behavioral outcomes of children identified with ASD in preschool through
middle school. Interventions appropriate for research under this
research program are comprehensive pre-school and school-based
interventions and home-based or clinic-based interventions that are
integrated with comprehensive pre-school and school-based interventions
and intended to enable and promote children\'s success in academic and
non-academic settings. The long-term outcome of this program will be an
array of tools and strategies (e.g., intervention programs, strategies,
approaches) that have been documented to be effective for improving the
cognitive, communicative, academic, social, and behavioral needs of
children identified with ASD in preschool through middle school.

***b. Background.*** The prevalence rate of children identified with an
ASD has increased dramatically over the last decade. In 1992,
approximately 15,302 children between the ages of 6 and 21 were
identified with autism. In 2004, approximately 165,662 children between
the ages of 6 and 21 were identified with autism (U.S Department of
Education, n.d.). The unprecedented increase in reported incidence rates
within the past decade has created an extraordinary demand on schools to
provide interventions that meet the unique educational needs of children
identified with ASD. However, the highly variable cognitive and
behavioral phenotype associated with ASD creates a significant challenge
in developing and implementing effective interventions in a pre-school
and school-based setting. For example, research has demonstrated that
children identified with ASD have markedly different outcomes and
response profiles to different intervention programs (Bryson, Rogers, &
Fombonne, 2003; Lord & McGee, 2001; Sherer & Schreibman, 2005). To date,
there is not a clear understanding of how child, family, and other
environmental variables mediate and moderate the effects of an
intervention. Such information is critical in order to "match" a child
to an appropriate and effective intervention designed to maximize a
child's academic and functional outcomes. To add to the complexity of
developing and implementing interventions to address the unique needs
associated with ASD, secondary diagnoses are usually present such as
mental retardation or a speech and language disability.

Components of an intervention that facilitate the development of skills
in children identified with ASD (e.g., opportunities to interact with
peers without disabilities to promote social learning) have advanced
over the last decade, yet a significant amount of work remains. From the
extant research literature, several conclusions can be drawn about
interventions for children identified with ASD. First, interventions
have not been rigorously evaluated (Bryson et al., 2003; Lord & McGee,
2001; Wolery, 2000; Volkmar, Lord, Bailey, Schultz, & Klin, 2004).
Methodological issues such as ambiguous inclusion and exclusion
criteria, lack of outcome measures for generalized treatment effects,
and inadequate information regarding fidelity of implementation have
made prior intervention studies difficult to evaluate, replicate, and
synthesize. Therefore, it is difficult to determine from the existing
research what intervention works for whom, at what levels of intensity,
for how long, and under what kinds of instructional or organizational
conditions. Second, despite the methodological issues with prior
research, there is consensus among experts that intervention programs
implemented as early as possible can lead to significantly improved
outcomes, both short and long term, in a variety of academic and
functional domains (Bryson et al., 2003; Dawson, & Osterling, 1997; Lord
& McGee, 2001; Volkmar et al., 2004). Third, the effectiveness of a
particular intervention cannot be ascribed to a particular pedagogical
or theoretical perspective or orientation. Rather, effective
intervention programs all appear to have common "key" elements, such as
standardized curriculum, transition planning, and highly supportive
teaching environments with generalization strategies (Dawson, &
Osterling, 1997; Lord & McGee, 2001; Sherer & Schreibman, 2005; Volkmar
et al., 2004). However, further research is needed to identify, define,
and evaluate these "key" elements across development of children with
ASD. Finally, and perhaps most critical, is that many interventions that
have demonstrated promise in improving outcomes for children with ASD
have been developed and implemented in specialized settings. It is not
known whether such interventions can be translated and demonstrate
similar improved outcomes for children with ASD in a non-specialized
setting (e.g., public school).

In the context of this limited research base, the Institute initiates
its ASD Special Education Research Grants Program. This program will
support the development and evaluation of comprehensive school-based
interventions intended to address the cognitive, communicative,
academic, social, and behavioral needs of children identified with ASD
in preschool through middle school. The Institute encourages researchers
to develop or adapt existing interventions to meet the needs of children
identified with ASD in preschool through middle school. Researchers may
consider, for example, what levels of *intensity* (e.g., number of
functional and developmentally relevant opportunities for active
response), *specificity* (e.g., highly specified instruction includes
explicit teacher scaffolding of support and prompting), or *emphasis*
(e.g., academic outcomes vs. academic/functional outcomes) are necessary
to ensure high threshold levels of performance on a range of cognitive,
academic, social, behavioral, or developmental outcome measures. Other
questions that require attention include, for example: What child (e.g.,
developmental age, language skills), family (e.g., perceived support),
and/or environmental (e.g., structured, natural) variables mediate and
moderate an intervention? What are the key components or elements of an
intervention program in a range of complex but typical settings (e.g.,
home, school) that are experimentally linked to enhancing, promoting,
and sustaining functional and academic outcomes for children with ASD?
In addition, the Institute encourages researchers to develop and/or
validate cognitive, communicative, academic, social, and behavioral
measures or measurement systems designed to monitor progress and/or
evaluate outcomes, particularly generalization and maintenance, for
children identified with ASD in preschool through middle school.

# 

# E. Response to Intervention

***a. Purpose***. The purpose of the Response to Intervention (RTI)
Research Grants Program is to contribute to the improvement of
instruction for students with disabilities and to the prevention of
inappropriate identification of specific learning disabilities by: (1)
identifying RTI practices, programs, or systems that are potentially
effective for improving instruction for students with disabilities and
preventing the inappropriate identification of students with specific
learning disabilities as well as mediators and moderators of the effects
of these practices, programs, or systems; (2) developing RTI practices,
programs, or systems for improving instruction for students with
disabilities and preventing the inappropriate identification of students
with specific learning disabilities; (3) determining the efficacy of RTI
practices, programs, or systems designed to improve instruction for
students with disabilities and prevent the inappropriate identification
of students with specific learning disabilities through efficacy or
replication trials; (4) providing evidence on the effectiveness of RTI
practices, programs, or systems designed to improve instruction for
students with disabilities and prevent the inappropriate identification
of students with specific learning disabilities when implemented at
scale; and (5) developing and validating RTI assessment tools and
procedures that can be used to evaluate instruction, measure student
initial and ongoing performance and progress, and accurately identify
students eligible for special education. Proposed practices, programs,
and systems may involve students from preschool (ages 3-5) through high
school. The long-term outcome of this program will be an array of RTI
practices, programs, and systems that have been documented to improve
instruction for students with disabilities and to prevent the
inappropriate identification of students with specific learning
disabilities.

# *b. Background.* **Recent Federal initiatives, such as the** President\'s Commission on Excellence in Special Education report **and the Office of Special Education Programs' (OSEP) Learning Disabilities Initiative, have articulated the growing** dissatisfaction with the ability-achievement discrepancy method for identifying **students with specific learning disabilities and have recommended the use of a Response to Intervention (RTI) approach. Moreover, the recent reauthorization of** the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004) contains authority that allows local education agencies to discontinue use of the ability-achievement discrepancy method and to use RTI as part of the evaluation procedure for identifying students with specific learning disabilities \[PL 108-446, Part B, Sec 614(b)(6)(b)\]. In contrast to the ability-achievement discrepancy method, RTI has the potential to (1) identify students with specific learning disabilities earlier and more reliably, (2) reduce the number of students who are referred inappropriately to special education, and (3) reduce the overidentification of minority students placed in special education (National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities, 2005). 

RTI holds significant promise when it is conceptualized as a
multi-tiered (typically three-tiers) systems approach that integrates
general and special education. The tiers are typically designed to
improve instruction for all students in the classroom and provide
interventions and supports to students who are struggling in schools. In
recognition of prevention goals and priorities to promote the health,
education, and well being of children, Caplan and Grunebaum (1967) first
advanced the formulation of levels of prevention by differentiating
between primary, secondary, and tertiary levels of prevention
(Simeonsson, 1994). When adapted and applied to children's well being in
school systems and the prevention of school failure, Tier 1, primary
level, is conceived of as including a scientifically based core
curriculum that is provided to all students in general education. It
also involves an initial screening of academic skills and ongoing
progress monitoring of all students to determine whether students are
reaching critical benchmarks that are predictive of future success in a
particular domain and whether instructional modifications are needed.
Tier II, secondary level, is designed to addresses the needs of students
who are not making adequate progress in the general education classroom
but are experiencing some success, as indicated through frequent (i.e.,
weekly or biweekly) progress monitoring, and require more targeted and
differentiated supplemental instruction and support that enhance the
Tier 1 core curriculum. Tier III, tertiary level, targets individual
students who require intervention that is more intensive than the
support provided in Tier II (i.e., more opportunities to respond that
may require small group instruction outside of the classroom, often 5
days per week). In addition to reducing the number of new cases
(incidence) of students with specific learning disabilities, the
multi-tiered model reduces the duration (prevalence) of and
complications associated with existing cases (Simeonsson, 1994).

Despite the preference for RTI, the empirical research to support its
application to district and school practices and systems is very
limited, particularly in areas other than beginning reading. Therefore,
many questions concerning the application of RTI in a three-tiered
systems model at the classroom, school building, and district levels
including key issues regarding its operationalization and implementation
require a systematic program of research. It is in this context that the
Institute launches its' RTI Special Education Research Grants Program.
The Institute encourages applicants to consider which features of
instruction are most effective for improving students' learning
trajectories and determining whether a student is unresponsive and
requires further evaluation. Examples of instructional features include
the systematic and experimental application of RTI: (a) across the full
range of school curricula and content areas at the preschool, primary,
elementary and secondary schooling levels; (b) in which empirically
established interventions are implemented with high fidelity in various
combinations under a range of task and performance conditions within a
three-tiered framework across the full range of grade levels or age
groups; (c) across all levels of *instructional intensity*, *frequency*,
and *duration (e.g., high, moderate, or low levels of intensity,
frequency, and duration in the presentation of stimuli and opportunities
to respond within fixed or varied amounts of instructional time)*; and
(d) across a range of measures designed for initial screening and
progress monitoring.

Additionally, applicants may wish to conduct research on the
implementation of RTI as a system at the district and/or school levels
that invokes a range of variables (e.g., administration, management,
accountability systems). In particular, applicants may wish to examine
the district and/or school's approach to (a) allocating resources
aligned with a three-tier system and prioritized according to student
outcomes and results; (b) defining district or school leadership and
personnel (e.g., general educators, special educators, school
psychologists) roles and facilitating collaboration, communication, and
cooperation among staff within an RTI system; (c) providing ongoing
staff support and effective professional development opportunities as
defined within a three-tiered system; (d) integrating general and
special education that permits the clear delivery of services to meet
well-defined instructional goals and objectives; (e) defining
flexibility of the tiers that enhances student performance and efficient
use of resources; and (f) establishing procedures for implementing fluid
and successful movement across tiers, grade levels, and schools.

Finally, the Institute encourages applicants to conduct research on
measures that assess the fidelity of implementation of tiers of
instruction or intervention and the RTI system as a whole. In addition,
applicants may wish to conduct longitudinal research on measurement
strategies that, when utilized within an RTI framework, accurately
predict students' risk for specific learning disabilities. Applicants
may wish to give special attention to how the accuracy of risk
prediction is affected by (a) the assessment approaches (i.e., static,
dynamic, progress monitoring) or combination of assessment approaches
implemented within a classroom or school; (b) the measures administered
and skills assessed within a specified domain at particular grade levels
and times of the school year; and (c) decision rules for defining
cut-scores and statistical techniques for analyzing student performance
data that determine "nonresponsiveness," predict future difficulties,
and result in acceptable levels of *sensitivity* (e.g. indicates percent
of children who will be identified as having a specific learning
disability out of all the children who actually have one), *specificity*
(e.g. indicates percent of children who will be identified as not having
a specific learning disability out of all of the children who do not
have one), *false positive rates* (e.g., indicates percent of students
who will be identified as having a specific learning disability out of
all the children who actually do not have one), and *false negative
rates* (e.g. indicates the percent of children who will be identified as
not having a specific learning disability out of all of the children who
actually do have a specific learning disability).

###### PART IV. REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROPOSED RESEARCH

[]{#GenReqs .anchor}**[5. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROPOSED
RESEARCH]{.underline}**

[]{#BasicReqs .anchor}**A. Basic Requirements**

**a. *Focus on services for students with disabilities*.** This
competition is restricted to special education research for students
with disabilities, as previously defined (see p. 4, [Request for
Applications](#reqforapps)).

**b. *Resubmissions***. Applicants who intend to revise and resubmit a
proposal that was submitted to one of the Institute\'s FY 2006
competitions but that was not funded must indicate on the application
form that their FY 2007 proposal is a revised proposal. Their FY 2006
reviews will be sent to this year\'s reviewers along with their
proposal. Applicants should indicate the revisions that were made to the
proposal on the basis of the prior reviews using no more than 3 pages of
Appendix A.

**c. *Applying to multiple topics****.* Applicants may submit proposals
to more than one of the Institute\'s FY 2007 competitions or topics. In
addition, within a particular competition or topic, applicants may
submit multiple proposals. However, applicants may submit a given
proposal only once (i.e., applicants may not submit the same proposal or
very similar proposals to multiple topics, to multiple goals in the same
topic, or to multiple competitions). If the Institute determines prior
to panel review that an applicant has submitted the same proposal or
very similar proposals to multiple topics within or across competitions
and the proposal is judged to be compliant and responsive to the
submission rules and requirements described in the Request for
Applications, the Institute will select one version of the application
to be reviewed by the appropriate scientific review panel. If the
Institute determines after panel review that an applicant has submitted
the same proposal or very similar proposals to multiple topics within or
across competitions and if the proposal is determined to be worthy of
funding, the Institute will select the topic under which the proposal
will be funded.

***d. Applying to a particular goal within a topic***. To submit an
application to one of the Institute\'s education research programs,
applicants must choose the specific goal under which they are applying.
Each goal has specific requirements.

***e. Inclusions and restrictions on the Special Education Research
Grants Programs.*** For the FY 2007 Special Education Research Grants
Programs, applicants must submit under *either* Goal One *or* Goal Two
*or* Goal Three *or* Goal Four *or* Goal Five. The numbering of goals is
consistent across the Institute\'s research programs. Each goal has
specific requirements that are described in the following section.
Briefly,

\(i\) Goal One incorporates efforts to identify conditions that are
associated with and are potential determinants of improved learning and
school achievement for students with disabilities. The understanding
developed through Goal One awards is expected to be relevant to the
design and implementation of future interventions. The typical
methodology for Goal One will be the analysis of existing databases,
including state longitudinal databases, using statistical approaches
that allow for testing models of the relationships among variables in
ways that strengthen hypotheses about paths of influence; small scale,
descriptive longitudinal studies are also acceptable.

\(ii\) Applicants proposing to develop new interventions should apply
under Goal Two. Also allowable under Goal Two are applications to obtain
preliminary data on the correlation between exposure to an intervention
and student outcomes for fully developed interventions that are not
widely used and that have not previously been evaluated with student
outcome data. Under Goal Three, the Institute will accept proposals to
conduct efficacy or replication trials of interventions. Goal Four
targets evaluations of the effectiveness of interventions implemented at
scale. The second through fourth goals can be seen as a progression from
development (Goal Two) to efficacy (Goal Three), to effectiveness at
scale (Goal Four).

> []{.mark}

\(iii\) Goal Five is to develop and validate measurement tools for
students with and at risk for disabilities from pre-kindergarten through
adult education. For the FY 2007 Special Education Research Grants
Program on Assessment for Accountability, applicants must submit under
Goal Five.

Note: Applicants proposing to study students at risk for developing
disabilities must present research-based evidence of the documented
risks in their study population and the specific disabilities that may
result. In addition, applicants proposing to study personnel preparation
and professional development interventions around specific student-level
programs or curricula must maintain a clear focus on studying the
content, methods, and outcomes of the professional development and must
not simply study the effectiveness of the student-level programs or
curricula.

***f. Determining which goal is most appropriate for the proposed
project***. Applicants should read carefully the requirements for each
Goal and the examples of appropriate projects under each Goal. The
Institute strongly encourages potential applicants to contact the
relevant program officer listed in [Section 19](#Inquiries) if they have
any questions regarding the appropriateness of a particular project for
submission under a specific goal. In the past, many applicants have had
questions deciding between Goal Two (Development) and Goal Three
(Efficacy and Replication Trials) and between Goal Three and Goal Four
(Effectiveness Evaluations). Applicants may find the following decision
tree useful for guiding their thinking.

[]{#Decision .anchor}**Deciding Among Goals One, Two, Three, Four, and
Five**

[]{#Goal1Reqs .anchor}**B. Requirements for Goal One (Identification
Projects)**

*Because the requirements for Goals One through Four are essentially the
same across the Institute\'s competitions and topics, a generic
description is used in all of the relevant funding announcements.
Consequently, the examples provided may not apply to a particular
competition or topic.*

***a. Purpose of identification studies.*** Through all of its research
programs that include the Identification goal (Goal One), the Institute
is primarily interested in analyses of multivariate data, such as
longitudinal individual student data that exist in a number of federal-,
state-, and district-level databases, to identify existing programs,
practices, and policies that may be associated with better academic
outcomes, and to examine factors and conditions that may mediate or
moderate the relations between student outcomes and these programs,
practices, and policies.

For Goal One, the Institute expects investigators typically to use
existing longitudinal data sets to capitalize on natural variation or
discontinuities in education practices or policies. For example, in a
particular year, a large district might have implemented a policy to
hire master reading teachers for elementary schools. An investigator
might propose interrupted time series analyses of the district\'s
longitudinal datasets to examine changes in student outcomes that follow
the implementation of the new policy. As a second example, a state may
have implemented a new policy for early intervention for children with
disabilities that provides financial incentives for existing daycare and
preschool providers to include children with disabilities within their
programs. A researcher might utilize the state's administrative database
on preschool programs funded through the state's pre-kindergarten
initiative to determine the degree to which the new policy changed the
rate of inclusion, the conditions that were correlated with the
variations in the uptake of the new policy by individual preschool
providers, and the performance of children with disabilities on
assessments. These quantitative data might be augmented by interviews
with administrators and teachers to garner impressions on barriers and
challenges to implementing the new policy. The aim would be to develop a
quantitative description of how the new policy is working, and
hypotheses derived from both quantitative and qualitative data about how
it could be made to work more effectively.

As an alternative to analyzing existing longitudinal databases,
applicants who are interested in investigating programs, practices, and
policies that may be associated with better academic outcomes could
propose to conduct a small scale descriptive longitudinal study with
primary data collection. In such cases, applicants would collect and
analyze their own data, rather than analyze already existing data.
However, applicants should keep in mind the limited timeframe and budget
of typical Goal One projects (see section d below).

Value-added analyses can often strengthen the conclusions drawn from
traditional multivariate analyses. Value-added analyses use gain scores
for individual students to control for student characteristics when
estimating the effects of other variables. For example, the analysis of
the relationship between teacher professional development and reading
outcomes described previously would be more persuasive if individual
student outcomes in a particular year were adjusted for student scores
on the same or a similar assessment at the end of the previous school
year.

The strongest approaches to statistical modeling of multivariate data
involve testing two or more models of relationships using the same data.
Because multivariate analyses cannot fully adjust for selection biases
and the effects of variables that were not measured or were not measured
well, they are seldom if ever sufficient to support strong causal
conclusions about what works. However, when two or more models of
relationships among variables are tested with the same data, it may be
possible to determine that one is more plausible than another, thus
providing information relevant to understanding what does not work, as
well as what does work. That, in turn, can direct future efforts in
avenues that are more likely to be productive.

Evidence obtained through a Goal One project of the association between
exposure to a program, practice, or policy and better student outcomes
has the possibility of being used to support a subsequent application
for a Goal Two (Development) or Goal Three (Efficacy) project.

*By addressing the theoretical and empirical rationale for the study and
the practical importance of the intervention (e.g., policy, program)
that will be examined,* []{#G1Significance .anchor}*Goal One applicants
are addressing aspects of the significance of their proposal.*

***b. Methodological requirements*. For all applications, including
those submitted under Goal One, the proposed research design must be
appropriate for answering the research questions or hypotheses that are
posed.**

[]{.mark}

\(i\) *Database*. The applicant should describe clearly the database(s)
to be used in the investigation including information on sample
characteristics, variables to be used, and ability to ensure access to
the database if the applicant does not already have access to it. The
database should be described in sufficient detail so that reviewers will
be able to judge whether or not the proposed analyses may be conducted
with the database. If multiple databases will be linked to conduct
analyses, applicants should provide sufficient detail for reviewers to
be able to judge the feasibility of the plan. If the applicant does not
currently have access to the databases needed for the study, the
applicant should provide sufficient documentation (e.g., letters of
agreement) to assure reviewers that access can be obtained and the
project can be carried out in a timely fashion.

The applicant should describe the primary outcome measures to be used,
including reliability and validity. In particular, applicants should
provide sufficient information on the construct validity of the proposed
measures. For example, if the applicant proposes to use a state database
from which the primary outcome measure will be high school dropout
rates, the applicant should detail how the high school dropout rates are
derived.

\(ii\) *Primary data collection (optional)*. For some projects,
applicants may need to collect original data; these data will generally
be used to supplement an existing longitudinal database in order to
answer the question of interest. In such cases, the application must
detail the methodology and procedures proposed for the primary data
collection. Applicants should describe the sample and how the sample is
related to or links to the proposed secondary database, the measures to
be used (including information on the reliability and validity of the
proposed instruments), and data collection procedures.

\(iii\) *Data analysis*. The applicant must include detailed
descriptions of data analysis procedures. Because predictor variables
relevant to education outcomes (e.g., student characteristics, teacher
characteristics, school and district characteristics) often covary, the
Institute expects investigators to utilize the most appropriate
state-of-the-art analytic techniques to isolate the possible effects of
variables of interest. Analytic strategies should allow investigators to
examine mediators and moderators of programs and practices. The relation
between hypotheses, measures, independent and dependent variables should
be well specified. Strong applications will include an explicit
discussion of how exclusion from testing, or missing data, will be
handled within the statistical analyses. Strong applications will
propose an approach for comparing hypotheses or models of relationships
among variables.

***c. Personnel and resources.*** Competitive applicants will have
research teams that collectively demonstrate expertise in (a) the
relevant academic content area (e.g., reading, mathematics), including
where applicable, teacher education; and (b) implementation of, and
analysis of results from, the research design that will be employed.
Competitive applicants will have access to institutional resources that
adequately support research.

***d. Awards.*** Typical awards for projects at this level are \$100,000
to \$250,000 (total cost = direct + indirect costs) per year for a
maximum of 2 years. The size of the award depends on the scope of the
project.

[]{#Goal2Reqs .anchor}**C. Requirements for Goal Two (Development
Projects)**

***a. Purpose of Goal Two (Development).*** Through all of its research
programs that include the Development goal (Goal Two), the Institute
intends to support the development of interventions -- curricula,
instructional approaches, programs, and policies. From the Institute\'s
standpoint, a funded development project would be successful if at the
end of the 2 to 4 year development award, the investigators had a fully
developed version of the proposed intervention, including for example,
materials for students and teachers and pilot data showing a positive
correlation between exposure to the intervention and student outcomes.
The Institute anticipates that investigators with successful development
projects would submit proposals to subsequent competitions for Goal
Three (Efficacy) awards. Thus, Goal Two applicants should be aware that
the type of data (e.g., measures of student learning and achievement)
they propose to collect under Goal Two awards should prepare them to
apply for Goal Three awards. That is, for most interventions to qualify
for Goal Three projects, they must have student outcome data such that
exposure to the intervention is associated with better student outcomes.
One exception is under []{#TQandEdLeaderStdData .anchor}the Quality of
Teachers and Other Service Providers for Students with Disabilities
topic and pertains to interventions administered as part of preservice
training (see the [methodological requirements for Goal
Two](#G2MethReqs) projects below.

The Institute recognizes that research on children with disabilities
often utilizes alternative research designs due to low incidence of
specific disabilities. In such cases, single subject designs are
appropriate. Requirements for single subject designs are detailed in
sub-section [4.D.d Requirements for single subject designs](#SSReqs).

***b. Requirements for the proposed intervention.*** Under Goal Two, the
Institute considers two types of projects: Type A projects and Type B
projects. First, the Institute will consider applications to develop new
interventions or further develop interventions that are in the early
stages of development (e.g., those that do not have an entire curriculum
ready to evaluate). Such projects are referred to **as Type A** projects
under Goal Two. For **Type B** projects, applicants must have a fully
developed intervention and propose to collect pilot data that includes
student outcome measures. Type B projects are further described at the
end of this subsection.

Under Goal Two, it is important for applicants to provide a strong
rationale to support the development of the proposed intervention (e.g.,
curriculum, instructional practice, teacher professional development
program, professional development delivery model). Reviewers will
consider whether there is a strong theoretical foundation for the
proposed intervention and whether the proposed intervention is grounded
in empirical research. For example, applicants might have already
developed some components of the intervention and have pilot data
showing the potential efficacy of those components. In such cases, the
proposed project might be to complete the development of the
intervention and obtain pilot data on the relation between exposure to
the intervention and student outcomes. Alternatively one could imagine a
proposal to develop and implement an intervention for struggling high
school readers that is based on an intervention developed for upper
elementary school students. Part of the empirical justification for
developing this particular intervention for struggling adolescent
readers might be that the original intervention for elementary school
students had been evaluated through a study that employed random
assignment and was found to be efficacious for improving reading
comprehension among elementary school students. In this case, the
applicant would be proposing to modify this existing intervention to
make it appropriate for high school students who are struggling readers,
and to collect data on the relation between exposure to the modified
intervention and student outcomes. Applicants should clearly and
concisely articulate why the proposed intervention, as opposed to some
other type of intervention, should be developed.

In the rationale to support the proposed intervention, applicants should
address the *practical* importance of the proposed intervention. For
example, when the proposed intervention is fully developed, will it form
a set of math instructional strategies that has the potential to improve
students\' mathematics test scores in educationally meaningful
increments, if it were implemented over the course of a semester or
school year? Is the planned intervention sufficiently comprehensive, for
instance, to address multiple types of difficulties that students
encounter in mastering algebra and to lead to improvements in students\'
grades or mathematics achievement test scores? If the proposed
intervention focuses on academic content, how does the academic content
(e.g., high school physics) proposed in the intervention relate to state
standards for that domain? In addition, would the proposed intervention
be both affordable for schools and easily implemented by schools (e.g.,
not involve major adjustments to normal school schedules)? Appropriate
applications for Goal Two may include, for example, proposals to develop
and test curriculum materials that ultimately could be combined to form
a complete stand-alone curriculum for a grade. Also appropriate would be
proposals to develop supplementary materials that would be used in
conjunction with existing curricula.

Applicants should clearly describe the components of the intervention
and how they relate to each other temporally (or operationally),
pedagogically (e.g., in a scope and sequence), and theoretically (e.g.,
why does X lead to Y). When applicants clearly describe the model that
guides the intervention and the specific components making up the
intervention, reviewers are better able to evaluate the relation between
the theoretical and empirical foundation for the intervention and the
intervention (e.g., is the proposed intervention a reasonable
operationalization of the theory?). Reviewers are also better able to
evaluate the relation between the intervention and the outcome measures
(e.g., do the proposed measures tap the constructs that the intervention
is intended to address?). Because it is rare for students in comparison
conditions to receive no educational program, strong applications should
include data on, or review research describing, the attributes of
typical, existing practices. Understanding the shortcomings of current
practice contributes to the rationale for the proposed intervention. By
clearly describing the components of the intervention -- particularly,
the unique features of the intervention -- as well as the instruction
that students in the comparison group will receive, reviewers are better
able to judge whether the proposed intervention is sufficiently
different from what students typically receive to potentially generate
differential outcomes.

The Institute recognizes there are some fully developed interventions
that would not qualify for investigation under Goal Three because there
are no student outcome data demonstrating the association between
exposure to the intervention and better student outcomes nor is there
wide-spread use of the intervention. In such cases, applicants may apply
under Goal Two for support to conduct a small study to obtain pilot data
on the association between exposure to the intervention and student
outcomes. These projects are referred to as **Type B** projects under
Goal Two. **Such projects are limited to a maximum of 2 years of support
because the Institute expects the investigator to be ready to implement
the intervention in schools or other education delivery settings at the
beginning of the award period**. The applicant should clearly state in
the beginning of the research narrative that he or she is applying under
Goal Two with a fully developed intervention that has not been
previously evaluated using student outcome measures. As with all Goal
Two applications, the applicant should describe the empirical and
theoretical rationale that indicates why the proposed intervention is
likely to be successful for improving student learning and achievement.
The applicant should articulate the practical importance of the
intervention. That is, applicants proposing Type B projects should
articulate the theoretical, empirical, and practical reasons that
justify investing research dollars to study the proposed intervention.
In addition, because of the short timeframe, Type B applicants should be
aware that strong applications show a proper balance of effort across
implementation, data collection, data analysis, and
documentation/write-up of the study.

*By addressing the theoretical and empirical support for the proposed
intervention and the practical importance of the intervention,*
[]{#G2Significance .anchor}*Goal Two applicants are addressing aspects
of the significance of their proposal.* Projects can be costly because
of the type of intervention being developed (e.g., intelligent tutors),
and because of the data collection and research methods used. In all
cases, the significance of the proposal should justify this expense
(e.g., does the theoretical and empirical support for the proposed
intervention suggest that substantively important effects will be
obtained if the intervention is implemented?).

[]{.mark}

Applicants deciding whether their proposal is more appropriate for Goal
Two or Goal Three or Goal Four may find [the decision tree](#Decision)
to be useful.

[]{#G2MethReqs .anchor}***c. Methodological requirements.*** **For all
applications, including those submitted under Goal Two, the proposed
research design must be appropriate for answering the research questions
or hypotheses that are posed. For Type A projects under Goal Two, the
proposed research must also be appropriate for providing empirical data
to guide the development and refinement of the intervention.**

For Goal Two projects involving the development of an intervention (Type
A projects), there are two aspects of the research methodology that
applicants must clearly address: (a) the proposed methods for developing
the intervention and (b) the proposed research methods for obtaining
evidence of the *relation between exposure to* the proposed intervention
and student outcomes. Goal Two applicants whose intervention is already
developed (Type B projects) should present the proposed methods for
obtaining evidence of the relation between exposure to the proposed
intervention and student outcomes.

[]{.mark}

For Type A Development projects, investigators are proposing to develop
a new intervention (e.g., curriculum, instructional approach,
professional development program). In such cases, applicants should
describe the process they will use to collect empirical (but not
necessarily experimental) data that will provide feedback for refining
specific components of the intervention. What data will be collected to
determine the feasibility of the components of the intervention and how
the components work? Are some components harder to implement than
others? As an example, suppose an applicant proposes to develop a
reading comprehension curriculum in which a number of comprehension
strategies are presented to middle school students. Some components
might initially be pilot tested with small groups of students outside of
a classroom context. Some components might be implemented in the
classroom with the researcher conducting detailed observations on
students and teachers as the components are implemented in the context
of actual lessons. The researchers could propose to interview or conduct
focus groups with teachers who pilot the initial and revised version of
each unit to obtain feedback on feasibility of implementation, the
amount of time required for teaching each lesson, and difficulties
encountered during instruction, as well as obtaining suggestions for
improving the materials. A variety of methodological strategies might be
employed during this phase. *Applicants should describe the iterative
development process to be used in the design and refinement of the
proposed intervention and plans for acquiring evidence about the
operation of the components in the model that they described.*

[]{.mark}

By the end of a Goal Two project (Type A and Type B), the Institute
expects investigators to have obtained and analyzed student outcome data
testing whether exposure to the intervention is positively, negatively,
or not correlated with student performance, and to have obtained an
estimate of the size of the effect. For Goal Two projects, acceptable
designs include nonequivalent comparison group quasi-experiments and
experimental designs. While designs that include some type of comparison
group are desirable, they are not necessary for Goal Two Projects. For
example, an applicant could propose a simple one-group pre-post design
in which change in the outcome from pretest to posttest for students who
received the intervention is compared to normative change in the outcome
over a similar time period.

[]{.mark}

An example of an acceptable design for obtaining evidence of the
relation between exposure to the proposed intervention and student
outcomes is one in which the applicant (a) has 8 to 10 teachers
implement a new reading curriculum designed to improve reading
comprehension, and (b) obtains scores on the district\'s standardized
reading achievement test for students who received the intervention and
for students in comparable classrooms in the same district who did not
receive the intervention. This example is a nonequivalent comparison
group post-test only quasi-experimental design. In this example, a
strong application would match the intervention and comparison groups on
demographic and outcome variables. If the *prior* year\'s district
end-of-year reading achievement test scores are available for both the
treatment group students and the matched nonequivalent comparison group
students, the investigator could improve on the basic design by using
the prior year\'s scores as a pre-test. The investigator could calculate
an effect size measuring the difference in the district\'s end-of-year
reading achievement test scores for the treatment group versus the
matched non-experimental comparison group. An applicant following this
example might include other reading comprehension measures that may be
more sensitive to the proposed intervention. In order to keep the scope
of the project appropriate to a Development award, the applicant would
only collect these additional data on students in the intervention
group.

[]{.mark}

This research design has the advantage of allowing the investigator to
observe the implementation of the intervention in several classrooms
while keeping the scope (and costs) of the project appropriate for
awards for a development project. This design also capitalizes on those
situations in which data for a non-experimental comparison group are
available from assessment data collected by the district. This design
does *not* involve random assignment of students or classrooms to
different treatment conditions. The Institute recognizes that such data
do *not* provide causal evidence of the impact of the intervention on
student outcomes. However, the purpose of the Development goal is to
provide funds to develop interventions that on the basis of the
theoretical rationale and relevant prior empirical evidence appear to
have the potential to improve student learning and to collect pilot data
that would permit a reasonable evaluation of whether or not the
intervention has sufficient potential for improving student outcomes to
merit further investment -- that is, to determine if there are
*potentially positive outcomes* associated with exposure to the
intervention.

[]{.mark}

An example of an alternative design for testing a newly developed
intervention (e.g., a new instructional approach) that is also
acceptable is one in which the applicant randomly assigns 4 to 5
classrooms to the new intervention and 4 to 5 classrooms to the
comparison condition in which teachers teach their class as they have in
the past; pretest and posttest data are collected for students in both
groups. This design has some advantages over the previous example and
some disadvantages. This design takes advantage of the benefits of
random assignment experimental designs for making causal inferences. One
disadvantage to this design is that the small number of classrooms
assigned to each condition is not likely to be sufficient for obtaining
statistical significance for appropriate tests of the effect of the
intervention.

[]{.mark}

Through Goal Two projects, the Institute will fund projects to develop
interventions and to obtain pilot data to determine whether or not the
intervention as initially developed warrants the substantial investment
required to conduct an efficacy study under Goal Three. By providing
these two examples -- one non-experimental study involving primary data
collection in 8 to 10 classrooms and one experimental study involving
primary data collection in 8 to 10 classrooms -- the Institute is
providing guidance to applicants on the scope of projects that the
Institute intends to support under Goal Two as Development projects.
Goal Two projects are *not* intended to provide evidence on the
*efficacy* of the proposed interventions (see the Institute\'s
definition of [efficacy](#Efficacy) under Goal Three). Goal Two studies,
unlike efficacy studies, are intended to show that an intervention is
promising. That means that results are in the expected direction. The
Institute expects these research designs to be as strong as possible,
including appropriate matching of students and statistical analyses.
However, the Institute also understands and expects that, within the
limited budget of Goal 2 projects, many such designs will be
underpowered (i.e., unable to detect an effect as statistically
significant using traditional probability levels and random effects
assumptions). This may be particularly true when applicants choose to
demonstrate the promise of an intervention with an experimental or
quasi-experimental design that involves treatments at the classroom or
building level. The Institute recommends that applicants first describe
their research design, detail their analysis plan, and indicate what the
power would be if they calculated it appropriately (e.g., taking
clustering into account, using the appropriate unit of analysis).
Second, applicants may describe (a) an analysis plan that treats the
clusters (i.e., classroom or school) as fixed effects and what the power
would be under these conditions or (b) an analysis plan that treats the
clusters as random effects, but uses a more liberal significance level
than the conventional α = .05 (e.g., α = .25). In doing so, applicants
should also indicate the limitations to their ability to draw
conclusions based on this analysis. Strong applications will include
confidence intervals for treatment effects (or treatment effect sizes)
computed considering clusters as random effects**.**

[]{.mark}

The Institute anticipates that the data obtained through some Goal Two
projects will show sufficiently strong associations between exposure to
the developed intervention and student outcomes to support a subsequent
application for a Goal Three (Efficacy) award. Data from other projects
might lead researchers to apply for a second Goal Two award to further
develop or refine their intervention. Data from still other projects
might indicate that the overall approach should be changed; that is, the
intervention does *not* appear to be promising. In such cases, the
researchers might use that knowledge to develop a different
intervention. In addition, there may be instances in which researchers
successfully complete a Development project to create, for example,
curriculum modules to cover one semester of a science curriculum and
have obtained data demonstrating a positive correlation between exposure
to the curriculum and student outcomes with empirical evidence. Over the
course of the project the investigators may decide that before they
apply for an Efficacy project they want to develop enough modules to
complete a science curriculum for the entire academic year, rather than
for just one semester. The Institute considers it appropriate for such
researchers to apply for a second Development project.

[]{.mark}

[]{#TQandEdLeaderStdData1 .anchor}Finally, the Institute recognizes that
for some of its topics improving student outcomes is a more distal
outcome. For example, in the Quality of Teachers and Other Service
Providers program, changing the behaviors of teachers or other service
providers is a proximal outcome and student outcomes are distal
outcomes. For applicants who are proposing to develop and obtain pilot
data for professional development interventions, both data on observed
behaviors of teachers and their students must be obtained. However, the
Institute recognizes that for pre-service interventions, there may not
be sufficient time and resources to follow, for example, pre-service
teachers into their subsequent jobs and obtain follow-up data on their
students. When it is not possible under the time constraints of the
award (i.e., 4-year limit for Type A awards, 2-year limit for Type B
awards) to obtain student outcome data because the intervention targets
pre-service teachers, the Institute encourages applicants to include
measures of teacher behaviors that have been associated with student
outcomes in the research literature, in addition to other teacher
behaviors that are selected for other theoretical and empirical reasons.
Applicants choosing this option should provide sufficient information to
convince reviewers that demonstrating change on such measures is likely
to be associated with change in student outcomes.

\(i\) *Sample*. The applicant should define, as completely as possible,
the sample to be selected and sampling procedures to be employed for the
proposed study. Additionally, if the applicant proposes a longitudinal
study, the applicant should show how the long-term participation of
those sampled would be assured.

\(ii\) *Design*. The applicant must provide a detailed research design.
For Goal Two projects involving the development of an intervention (Type
A projects), applicants should clearly describe: (a) the proposed
methods for developing the intervention and (b) the proposed research
methods for obtaining evidence of the *relation between exposure to* the
proposed intervention and student outcomes. Goal Two applicants whose
intervention is already developed (Type B projects) should present the
proposed methods for obtaining evidence of the relation between exposure
to the proposed intervention and student outcomes.

[]{.mark}

> Applicants should describe how potential threats to internal and
> external validity will be addressed. Although procedures differ
> between group evaluations and single subject evaluations, regardless
> of approach, these issues should be addressed. For example, in single
> subject designs, applicants should consider the anticipated size of
> the intervention effect and how they would handle within-subject
> variability in the outcome measure in the baseline or comparison
> condition, variability in response to treatment within participants
> across time and variability in response to treatment between subjects.
> Applicants should indicate the number of replications anticipated to
> establish external validity. In essence, what criteria will the
> applicant use to determine if the response to the treatment is
> sufficiently large and sufficiently replicated to be generalizable
> beyond the participants included in the study?

\(iii\) *Measures*. For all proposals under Goal Two, investigators must
include measures of relevant student outcomes (e.g., measures of reading
or mathematics achievement). Applicants to the Quality of Teachers and
Other Service Providers topic must include behavioral measures of the
teachers who are the target of the intervention, as well as measures of
student learning and achievement. As [noted
above](#TQandEdLeaderStdData1), the Institute recognizes that applicants
under this topic who are proposing to develop and assess interventions
that are administered as part of *preservice* training for future
teachers or other service providers may not have sufficient time within
the constraints of the award period to follow the preservice teachers
into their first positions and obtain data on their students. In such
instances, applicants should include measures of teacher behaviors that
have been associated with student outcomes and provide sufficient
justification to assert that demonstrating change on these proximal
measures is likely to be associated with change in student outcomes.

> The applicant should provide information on the reliability and
> validity of the selected measures and justify the appropriateness of
> the proposed measures.

All applicants should note that data that only describe *process* (e.g.,
observations of student behavior during planned lessons, case study of
the implementation of the curriculum, a discourse analysis of classroom
discussions) or data only on teacher or student perception of
improvement or ease of use will *not* be considered as sufficient
evidence of the potential efficacy of the intervention.

\(iv\) *Process data*. Although the applicant must include relevant
student outcome data to address the question of potential efficacy, this
requirement does *not* preclude the collection of process data. In fact,
the Institute encourages the collection of such data, which can help the
researcher refine the intervention and provide insight into why an
intervention does or does not work, and is or is not well implemented.
Observational, survey, or qualitative methodologies are encouraged as a
complement to quantitative measures of student outcomes to assist in the
identification of factors that may, for example, explain the
effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the intervention or identify
conditions that hinder implementation of the intervention.

\(v\) *Data analysis*. The applicant must include detailed descriptions
of data analysis procedures. For quantitative data, specific statistical
procedures should be cited. The relation between hypotheses, measures,
independent and dependent variables should be clear. For qualitative
data, the specific methods used to index, summarize, and interpret data
should be delineated. For single subject studies, where applicable, the
Institute expects applicants to describe what statistical methods (e.g.,
time series analyses) will be conducted to determine if the size of the
effect is significant.

***d. Personnel and resources.*** Competitive applicants will have
research teams that collectively demonstrate expertise in (a) specific
academic domain (e.g., vocabulary development, or reading, mathematics,
and if applicable, teacher education); (b) implementation of, and
analysis of results from, the research design that will be employed; and
(c) working with teachers, schools, or other education delivery settings
that will be employed. Competitive applicants will have access to
institutional resources that adequately support research activities and
access to education delivery settings in which to conduct the research.

An applicant may involve *for-profit entities* in the project.
Involvement of the commercial developer or distributor must not
jeopardize the objectivity of the evaluation. *Collaborations including
for-profit developers or distributors of education products must justify
the need for Federal assistance to undertake the evaluation of programs
that are marketed to consumers and consider cost-sharing part of the
cost of the evaluation.*

***e. Awards.*** Typical awards for projects at this level are \$150,000
to \$500,000 (total cost = direct + indirect costs) per year. Type A
projects are for a maximum of 4 years; Type B projects are for a maximum
of 2 years. In all cases, the size of the award depends on the scope of
the project.

[]{#Goal3Reqs .anchor}**D. Requirements for Goal Three (Efficacy and
Replication Trials)**

Under Goal Three, the Institute requests proposals to test the efficacy
of fully developed interventions that already have evidence of potential
efficacy. By []{#Efficacy .anchor}*efficacy*, the Institute means the
degree to which an intervention has a net positive impact on the
outcomes of interest in relation to the program or practice to which it
is being compared.

***a. Purpose of efficacy and replication trials.*** Through all of its
research programs that include the Efficacy and Replication goal (Goal
Three), the Institute intends to fund efficacy trials to determine
whether or not fully-developed interventions -- programs, practices,
policies -- are effective under specified conditions (e.g., large urban
high schools with large class sizes and high turnover rate among
teachers) and with specific types of students (e.g., low income or high
proportion of English language learners). Results from efficacy projects
have less generalizability than results from effectiveness trials under
Goal Four. The limited generalizability can arise both from the lack of
a full range of types of settings and participants in the study, as well
as through the intensive involvement of the developers and researchers
in the implementation of the intervention. A well-designed efficacy
trial provides evidence on whether an intervention **can** work, but not
whether it would work if deployed widely. Under Goal Three, applicants
may propose an efficacy trial to determine if an intervention will work
under specific conditions or a replication trial to determine if an
intervention shown to produce a net positive impact in one setting will
produce a net positive impact in a different setting or with a different
population of students.

Under Goal Three, an applicant might propose to examine the efficacy of
the intervention in an experimental study in which half of the
classrooms are randomly assigned to the intervention condition and half
of the classrooms are assigned to continue to use the district\'s
standard curriculum. If the research team hypothesized that level of
teacher professional development would meaningfully affect
implementation and student outcomes, the team might propose instead to
randomly assign one-third of the classrooms to an intervention condition
in which teachers receive a training workshop for implementing the
treatment curriculum at the beginning of the year, one-third of the
classrooms to an intervention condition in which teachers receive the
training workshop on implementation of the treatment curriculum with
follow-up coaching sessions during the year, and one-third of classrooms
to continue to use the district\'s standard curriculum. *Applicants
should use the efficacy and replication trials to determine the
conditions, if any, under which an intervention produces meaningful
improvement on academic outcomes.*

Also of interest to the Institute are proposals to compare the impact of
two interventions that are based on different theoretical models. In
such cases, the purpose might be to compare the efficacy of two
well-developed approaches to improving student learning. One advantage
to this approach is that, relative to designs in which the comparison
group experiences whatever the school or district currently provides
(but see the discussion of [\"business-as-usual\"](#BusinessUsual)
treatments below), the investigator should have better knowledge of the
critical components of each intervention and can attempt to create two
conditions in which, for example, students receive instruction that
differs on a number of critical instructional components.

Efficacy projects that involve random assignment at the school-level are
likely to be quite costly. When schools are the unit of assignment, it
is acceptable for applicants to increase the power of their design and
reduce the requisite number of schools by conducting an analysis that
treats schools as a fixed effect. Applicants should first describe their
design, detail their analysis plan, and indicate what the power would be
if schools were treated as a random effect. Applicants should then
describe an analysis plan that treats schools as fixed effects and
indicate what the power would be under these conditions. Treating
schools as fixed effects limits the generalizability of the findings. In
cases in which research finds significant effects using a fixed effects
model but there is insufficient power to obtain effects using a random
effects model, the Institute encourages investigators to apply for
subsequent funding to replicate their efficacy studies to build the
generalizability of the findings.

From the Institute\'s standpoint, a funded Efficacy/Replication project
would be *methodologically successful* if at the end of the grant
period, the investigators had rigorously evaluated the impact of a
clearly specified intervention on relevant student outcomes and under
clearly described conditions using a research design that meets the
Institute\'s What Works Clearinghouse standards
([http://whatworks.ed.gov](http://whatworks.ed.gov/)) whether or not the
intervention is found to improve student outcomes relative to the
comparison condition. The Institute would consider methodologically
successful projects to be *pragmatically successful* if the rigorous
evaluation determined that the intervention has a net positive impact on
student outcomes in relation to the program or practice to which it is
being compared.

The Institute recognizes that research on children with disabilities
often utilizes alternative research designs for determining the causal
impact of an intervention due to small populations of children with
specific disabilities. In such cases, rigorous single subject designs
are appropriate. Requirements for single subject designs are detailed in
sub-section [4.D.d. *Requirements for single subject designs*](#SSReqs).

[]{#IntReqs .anchor}***b. Requirements for the proposed intervention.***
Interventions appropriate for study under Goal Three may be (i)
interventions that are fully developed and have evidence of the
potential efficacy of the intervention or (ii) interventions that are
already widely used within one or more states but have not been
rigorously evaluated.

\(i\) For interventions that are *not* already in wide use, applicants
must have an intervention that is fully developed and ready to be
evaluated. Applicants who intend to devote a significant part of the
project period to developing new components or materials for the
intervention (e.g., additional curriculum modules, materials to train
teachers to use the intervention curriculum) or new delivery approaches
(e.g., material that was delivered by a teacher is proposed to be
delivered via computer) should apply to [Goal Two](#Goal2Reqs). Goal
Three projects are limited to those interventions that are fully
developed and have all materials (including teacher training programs)
ready for implementation.

For interventions that are *not* already in wide use, applicants must
provide a compelling rationale for the use of the intervention that
includes (1) a strong theoretical foundation and (2) empirical evidence
of the association between exposure to the intervention and better
student outcomes. As part of the description of the theoretical basis
for the intervention, the applicant should detail how the components of
the intervention operationalize the tenets of the theory. A strong
theoretical rationale will make clear which features of the intervention
are the critical features that need to be well-implemented in order to
obtain improvement in student outcomes.

Applicants should clearly detail the empirical evidence in support of
the intervention. For example, empirical evidence to justify an
evaluation of the intervention could consist of data based on a
single-group, pre-test/post-test study showing an increase in scores on
a standardized measure for which there are existing data on typical
gains in scores over a comparable period of time. As another example,
the preliminary evidence could be a small quasi-experimental study in
which the intervention was implemented in a few classrooms and
students\' end-of-year achievement test scores are compared to the
scores of other classrooms in the same district. Such a study would be
under-powered for most interventions and outcomes, so it is the effect
size rather than statistical significance of the difference that would
be most informative. Furthermore, information on effect sizes is more
useful to reviewers when sufficient context for interpreting the effect
sizes is provided. For example, how does the size of the obtained effect
compare to the amount of growth one would expect over an academic year
for students at that grade-level and in that domain?

> As noted above under [Goal Two](#TQandEdLeaderStdData), the Institute
> recognizes that applicants under Quality of Teachers and Other Service
> Providers who are proposing to evaluate interventions that are
> administered as part of *preservice* training for future teachers may
> not have student outcome data to show an association between exposure
> to the preservice training intervention and outcomes of students of
> those teachers who participated in that preservice training. In such
> instances, applicants should demonstrate associations between exposure
> to the preservice intervention and measures of teacher behaviors that
> have been associated with student outcomes. Strong applications would
> include, for example, measures of instructional practices that have
> been shown to be effective for improving student learning in previous
> research.

Also appropriate for Goal Three applications are proposals to replicate
the efficacy of an intervention in a different setting. For instance, in
a previous study, the applicant could have demonstrated the efficacy of
an intervention in a small random assignment trial in an urban school
district, and a reasonable next step would be to *replicate* these
findings in a poor rural school district.

\(ii\) To propose evaluations of interventions that are already widely
used in one or more states but have not been rigorously evaluated (e.g.,
a commercially distributed curriculum), applicants must provide
documentation of the widespread use of the program to justify the
proposed efficacy evaluation. In such cases, applicants do not need to
provide evidence of the relation between exposure to the intervention
and student outcomes. Of course, if such evidence is available,
applicants should include it.

\(iii\) All Goal Three applicants should address the *practical*
importance of the proposed intervention. For example, is the
professional development on reading for middle school teachers
sufficiently comprehensive that it includes strategies for teaching
reading across academic content areas and appropriate for teachers of
students from Grades 6 to 8? Does the preliminary data show that the
components of the curriculum are sufficiently different from existing
curricula that comparison of the proposed curriculum to an existing
curriculum could potentially yield a positive effect and does the
preliminary outcome data support the thesis that the proposed curriculum
has the potential to improve students\' test scores in educationally
meaningful increments?

[]{.mark}

\(iv\) Applicants should clearly describe the components of the
intervention and how they relate to each other both temporally (or
operationally) and theoretically (e.g., why does X lead to Y). When
applicants clearly describe the model that guides the intervention and
the specific components making up the intervention, reviewers are better
able to evaluate the relation between the theoretical and empirical
foundation for the intervention and the intervention (e.g., is the
proposed intervention a reasonable operationalization of the theory?).
Reviewers are also better able to evaluate the relation between the
intervention and the outcome measures (e.g., do the proposed measures
tap the constructs that the intervention is intended to address?).
Strong applications will also include detailed descriptions of what the
comparison group experiences. By clearly describing the components of
the intervention and the comparable treatment (e.g., curriculum,
instructional approach, professional development) that the comparison
group will receive, reviewers are better able to judge whether (a) the
intervention is sufficiently different from the comparison treatment so
that one might reasonably expect a difference in student outcomes, and
(b) fidelity measures and observations of the comparison group are
sufficiently comprehensive and sensitive to identify and document
critical differences between what the intervention and comparison groups
receive.

[]{.mark}

*By addressing the theoretical and empirical support for the proposed
intervention and the practical importance of the intervention, and by
clearly describing the components of the intervention,*
[]{#G3Significance .anchor}*Goal Three applicants are addressing aspects
of the significance of their proposal.*

Applicants deciding whether their proposal is more appropriate for Goal
Two or Goal Three or Goal Four may find [the decision tree](#Decision)
to be useful.

***c. Methodological requirements.* Under Goal Three, the proposed
research design must be appropriate for answering the research questions
or hypotheses that are posed.**

\(i\) *Sample*. The applicant should define, as completely as possible,
the sample to be selected and sampling procedures to be employed for the
proposed study. Additionally, the applicant should describe strategies
to insure that participants will remain in the study over the course of
the evaluation.

\(ii\) *Design*. The applicant must provide a detailed research design.
Applicants should describe how potential threats to internal and
external validity will be addressed. Studies using randomized assignment
to treatment and comparison conditions are strongly preferred. When a
randomized trial is used, the applicant should clearly state the unit of
randomization (e.g., students, classroom, teacher, or school). Choice of
randomizing unit or units should be grounded in a theoretical framework.
Applicants should explain the procedures for assignment of groups (e.g.,
schools, classrooms) or participants to treatment and comparison
conditions.

*Only in circumstances in which a randomized trial is not possible* may
alternatives that substantially minimize selection bias or allow it to
be modeled be employed. Applicants proposing to use a design other than
a randomized design must make a compelling case that randomization is
not possible. Acceptable alternatives include appropriately structured
regression-discontinuity designs or other well-designed
quasi-experimental designs that come close to true experiments in
minimizing the effects of selection bias on estimates of effect size. A
well-designed quasi-experiment is one that reduces substantially the
potential influence of selection bias on membership in the intervention
or comparison group. This involves demonstrating equivalence between the
intervention and comparison groups at program entry on the variables
that are to be measured as program outcomes (e.g., reading achievement
test scores), or obtaining such equivalence through statistical
procedures such as propensity score balancing or regression. It also
involves demonstrating equivalence or removing statistically the effects
of other variables on which the groups may differ and that may affect
intended outcomes of the program being evaluated (e.g., demographic
variables, experience and level of training of teachers, motivation of
parents or students). Finally, it involves a design for the initial
selection of the intervention and comparison groups that minimizes
selection bias or allows it to be modeled. For example, a very weak
quasi-experimental design that would *not* be acceptable as evidence of
program efficacy would populate the intervention condition with students
who volunteered for the program to be evaluated, and would select
comparison students who had the opportunity to volunteer but did not. In
contrast, an acceptable design would select students in one particular
geographical area of a city to be in the intervention; whereas students
in another geographical area, known to be demographically similar, would
be selected to be in the comparison condition. In the former case,
self-selection into the intervention is very likely to reflect
motivation and other factors that will affect outcomes of interest and
that will be impossible to equate across the two groups. In the latter
case, the geographical differences between the participants in the two
groups would ideally be unrelated to outcomes of interest, and in any
case, could be measured and controlled for statistically.

> For instances in which small populations of children with specific
> disabilities restricts the possibilities for conducting group
> evaluations, rigorous single subject designs are appropriate for
> demonstrating the efficacy of an intervention. See [4.D.d.
> *Requirements for single subject designs*](#SSReqs) for details.

(iii) *Power*. Applicants should clearly address the power of the
      evaluation design to detect a reasonably expected and minimally
      important effect. When applicants justify what constitutes a
      reasonably expected effect, applicants should indicate clearly
      (e.g., including the statistical formula) how the effect size was
      calculated.

> Many evaluations of education interventions are designed so that
> clusters or groups of students, rather than individual students, are
> randomly assigned to treatment and comparison conditions. In such
> cases, the power of the design depends in part on the degree to which
> the observations of individuals within groups are correlated with each
> other on the outcomes of interest. For determining the sample size,
> applicants need to consider the number of clusters, the number of
> individuals within clusters, the potential adjustment from covariates,
> the desired effect, the intraclass correlation (i.e., the variance
> between clusters relative to the total variance between and within
> clusters), and the desired power of the design (note, other factors
> may also affect the determination of sample size, such as using
> one-tailed vs two-tailed tests, repeated observations, attrition of
> participants, etc.; see Donner & Klar, 2000; Murray, 1998; W.T. Grant
> Foundation & University of Michigan,
> <http://sitemaker.umich.edu/group-based/optimal_design_software>).
> Strong applications will include empirical justification for the
> intraclass correlation and anticipated effect size used in the power
> analysis. When calculating the power of the design, applicants should
> anticipate the degree to which the magnitude of the expected effect
> may vary across the primary outcomes of interest.

(iv) *Measures*. Investigators should include relevant standardized
     measures of student achievement (e.g., standardized measures of
     mathematics achievement or reading achievement) in addition to
     other measures of student learning and achievement (e.g.,
     researcher-developed measures). For [Quality of Teachers and Other
     Service Providers](#Teachers) applications, applicants must also
     include measures of teacher practices. The Institute recognizes
     that applicants under Quality of Teachers and Other Service
     Providers who are proposing to develop and assess interventions
     that are administered as part of *preservice* training for future
     teachers may not have sufficient time within the constraints of the
     award period to follow the preservice teachers into their first
     positions and obtain data on their students. In such instances,
     applicants should include measures of teacher behaviors that have
     been associated with student outcomes and provide sufficient
     justification to assert that demonstrating change on these proximal
     measures is likely to be associated with change in student
     outcomes.

> The applicant should provide information on the reliability, validity,
> and appropriateness of proposed measures. In strong applications,
> investigators will make clear that the skills or content the
> intervention is designed to address are captured in the various
> measures that are proposed.

\(v\) *Fidelity of implementation of the intervention*. Researchers
should attend to questions of implementation and how best to train and
support teachers in the use of these interventions. The applicant should
specify how the implementation of the intervention will be documented
and measured. In strong applications, investigators will make clear how
the fidelity measures capture the critical features of the intervention.
The proposal should either indicate how the intervention will be
maintained consistently across multiple groups (e.g., classrooms and
schools) over time or describe the parameters under which variations in
the implementation may occur. Investigators should propose research
designs that permit the identification and assessment of factors
impacting the fidelity of implementation.

\(vi\) *Comparison group, where applicable*. Comparisons of
interventions against other conditions are only meaningful to the extent
that one can tell what students in the comparison settings receive or
experience. Applicants should include procedures for describing
practices in the comparison groups. Applicants should be able to compare
intervention and comparison groups on the implementation of critical
features of the intervention so that, for example, if there is no
observed difference in student performance between intervention and
comparison students, they can determine if key elements of the
intervention were also practiced and implemented in the comparison
groups.

> []{#BusinessUsual .anchor}In evaluations of education interventions,
> students in the comparison group typically receive some kind of
> treatment; rarely is the comparison group a \"no-treatment\" control.
> Students in the comparison group are still in school experiencing the
> school\'s curriculum and instruction. For some evaluations, the
> primary question is whether the treatment is more effective than a
> particular alternative treatment. In such instances, the comparison
> group receives a well-defined treatment that is usually an important
> comparison to the target intervention for theoretical or pragmatic
> reasons. In other cases, the primary question is whether the treatment
> is more effective than what is generally available and utilized in
> schools. In such cases, the comparison group might receive what is
> sometimes called \"business-as-usual.\" That is, the comparison group
> receives whatever the school or district is currently using or doing
> in a particular area. Business-as-usual generally refers to situations
> in which the standard or frequent practice across the nation is a
> relatively undefined education treatment. However, business-as-usual
> may also refer to situations in which a branded intervention (e.g., a
> published curriculum) is implemented with no more support from the
> developers of the program than would be available under normal
> conditions. In either case, *using a business-as-usual comparison
> group is acceptable.* When business-as-usual is one or another branded
> intervention, applicants should specify the treatment or treatments
> received in the comparison group. In all cases, applicants should
> account for the ways in which what happens in the comparison group are
> important to understanding the net impact of the experimental
> treatment. As noted in the preceding paragraph, in strong
> applications, investigators should propose strategies and measures for
> comparing the intervention and comparison groups on key features of
> the intervention.
>
> The purpose here is to obtain information useful for *post hoc*
> explanations of why the experimental treatment does or does not
> improve student learning relative to the counterfactual.
>
> Finally, the applicant should describe strategies they intend to use
> to avoid contamination between treatment and comparison groups.

\(vii\) *Mediating and moderating variables*. Observational, survey, or
qualitative methodologies are encouraged as a complement to experimental
methodologies to assist in the identification of factors that may
explain the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the intervention.
Mediating and moderating variables that are measured in the intervention
condition that are also likely to affect outcomes in the comparison
condition should be measured in the comparison condition (e.g., student
time-on-task, teacher experience/time in position).

> The evaluation should be designed to account for sources of variation
> in outcomes across settings (i.e., to account for what might otherwise
> be part of the error variance). Applicants should provide a
> theoretical rationale to justify the inclusion (or exclusion) of
> factors/variables in the design of the evaluation that have been found
> to affect the success of education programs (e.g., teacher experience,
> fidelity of implementation, characteristics of the student
> population). The research should demonstrate the conditions and
> critical variables that affect the success of a given intervention.
> The most scalable interventions are those that can produce the desired
> effects across a range of education contexts.

\(viii\) *Cost of the intervention*. Strong applications will include a
Cost-Feasibility analysis to assess the financial costs of program
implementation and assist schools in understanding whether
implementation of the program is practicable given their available
resources. Data should be collected on the monetary expenditures for the
resources, or \"ingredients,\" that are required to implement the
program. Financial costs for personnel, facilities, equipment,
materials, and other relevant inputs should be included. Annual costs
should be assessed to adequately reflect expenditures across the
lifespan of the program. For Goal Three applications, the Institute is
*not* asking applicants to conduct an economic evaluation of the program
(e.g., cost-benefit, cost-utility, or cost-effectiveness analyses),
although applicants may propose such evaluation activities if desired.
However, for [Goal Four](#Goal4Requirements) applications, the Institute
does encourage applicants to conduct an economic evaluation. For
additional information on how to calculate the costs of a program or
conduct an economic evaluation, applicants might refer to Levin and
McEwan (2001).

\(ix\) *Data analysis*. All proposals must include detailed descriptions
of data analysis procedures. For quantitative data, specific statistical
procedures should be described. The relation between hypotheses,
measures, independent and dependent variables should be clear. For
qualitative data, the specific methods used to index, summarize, and
interpret data should be delineated.

> Most evaluations of education interventions involve clustering of
> students in classes and schools and require the effects of such
> clustering to be accounted for in the analyses, even when individuals
> are randomly assigned to condition. Such circumstances generally
> require specialized multilevel statistical analyses using computer
> programs designed for such purposes. Strong applications will provide
> sufficient detail for reviewers to judge the appropriateness of the
> data analysis strategy. For random assignment studies, applicants need
> to be aware that typically the primary unit of analysis is the unit of
> random assignment.

***d.*** []{#SSReqs .anchor}***Requirements for single subject
designs.*** By single-subject designs, the Institute refers to
experimental studies using reversal or multiple baseline or interrupted
time series designs intended to demonstrate a causal relationship
between two variables using a small number of participants or cases. We
are not referring to descriptive case studies.

\(i\) *Sample*. Applicants must define the criteria used for selecting
participants and the setting from which participants are recruited with
sufficient detail to allow other researchers to identify similar
individuals from similar settings. Defining selection criteria typically
requires specifying a particular disability, the measurement instrument,
and criterion used to identify the disability.

\(ii\) *Intervention*. In addition to meeting the requirements for
interventions listed above in subsection [4.D.b. *Requirements for
proposed intervention*](#IntReqs), applicants must describe the
intervention in sufficient detail to allow other researchers to reliably
replicate the intervention. Applicants must clearly specify how, when,
and under what conditions the intervention will be implemented.

\(iii\) *Fidelity of implementation*. Applicants must describe how
treatment fidelity will be measured, frequency of assessments, and what
degree of variation in treatment fidelity will be accepted over the
course of the study.

\(iv\) *Comparison condition*. Applicants must describe the baseline or
comparison condition in sufficient detail to allow other researchers to
replicate the baseline condition.

\(v\) *Measures*. Applicants must identify and describe the dependent
variables (DVs) or outcome measures, provide technical information on
the reliability and validity of the measures, detail procedures for
collecting observations, and where applicable, specify procedures for
determining inter-observer reliability and monitoring inter-observer
reliability during the study and over both baseline and treatment
conditions.

\(vi\) *Design and analysis*. Applicants must provide a detailed
research design and describe how potential threats to internal and
external validity will be addressed. Applicants should consider the
anticipated size of the intervention effect, variability in response to
treatment within participants across time, variability in response to
treatment between subjects, and the number of replications. In essence,
what criteria will the applicant use to determine if the response to the
treatment is large enough and sufficiently replicated to support a
causal conclusion and to show promise that the effects would be
generalizable. Applicants are expected to describe what statistical
procedures (e.g., time series analyses), if any, will be employed to
determine if the change is significant.

***e. Personnel and resources.*** Competitive applicants will have
research teams that collectively demonstrate expertise in (a) the
relevant academic content areas (e.g., reading, science, and where
applicable, teacher education), (b) implementation of and analysis of
results from the research design that will be employed, and (c) working
with teachers, schools, or other education delivery settings that will
be employed.

An applicant may involve curriculum developers or distributors
(*including for-profit entities*) in the project, from having the
curriculum developers as full partners in its proposal to using
off-the-shelf curriculum materials without involvement of the developer
or publisher. Involvement of the curriculum developer or distributor
must not jeopardize the objectivity of the evaluation. *Collaborations
including for-profit distributors of curriculum materials should justify
the need for Federal assistance to undertake the evaluation of programs
that are marketed to consumers and consider sharing the cost of the
evaluation.*

Competitive applicants will have access to institutional resources that
adequately support research activities and access to schools in which to
conduct the research. Strong applicants will document the availability
and cooperation of the schools or other education delivery settings that
will be required to carry out the research proposed in the application
via a letter of support from the education organization.

***f. Awards***. Typical awards for projects at this level will be
\$250,000 to \$750,000 (total cost = direct + indirect costs) per year
for a maximum of 4 years. Larger budgets will be considered if a
compelling case can be made for such support. The size of the award
depends on the scope of the project.

[]{#Goal4Requirements .anchor}**E. Requirements for Goal Four
(Effectiveness Evaluations of Interventions Implemented at Scale)**

[]{.mark}

***a. Purpose of effectiveness evaluations.*** Through all of its
research programs that include the Effectiveness Evaluations goal (Goal
Four), the Institute intends to support impact evaluations of
interventions -- programs, practices, policies to determine whether or
not fully developed interventions are effective when they are
implemented under conditions that would be typical if a school district
or other education delivery setting were to implement them (i.e.,
without special support from the developer or the research team) across
a variety of conditions (e.g., different student populations, different
types of schools). The key differences between Effectiveness Evaluations
(Goal Four) and Efficacy Evaluations (Goal Three), as the Institute uses
these terms, have to do with the delivery of the intervention and the
diversity of the sample. Effectiveness Evaluations require the
intervention to be implemented at a distance from the
researcher/developer of the intervention. That is, the researchers must
not be heavily involved in making the intervention work. The
intervention must be implemented in the school or other authentic
education setting as it would be if the school, or entity, had purchased
and implemented the intervention on its own without any involvement in a
research study. Second, Effectiveness Evaluations require sufficient
diversity in the sample of schools, classrooms, or students to ensure
appropriate generalizability. The latter typically requires a larger
sample than an Efficacy Evaluation. As is true for Goal Three studies,
for Goal Four studies, depending on the research question of interest,
the control group may receive a well-defined alternative treatment, or
may receive whatever programs and practices are already currently
available and utilized in the treatment setting (business-as-usual
control group). Finally, the Institute invests in Effectiveness
Evaluations for interventions that have strong prior evidence of the
efficacy of the intervention.

b.  ***Requirements for proposed intervention.*** To be considered for
    Goal Four awards, applicants must provide a clear rationale for the
    *practical* importance of the intervention. Applicants should
    address three questions related to practical importance. (i) Is the
    intervention likely to produce educationally meaningful effects on
    outcomes that are important to educational achievement (e.g.,
    grades, achievement test scores) and, therefore, are of interest to
    parents, teachers, and education decision makers? (ii) Is the
    intervention reasonably affordable to schools and other education
    delivery entities? (iii) Is the intervention designed so that it is
    feasible for schools and other education delivery entities to
    implement the intervention? In addition, applicants should clearly
    describe the components of the intervention. Interventions
    appropriate for study under Goal Four are interventions that have
    not yet been implemented at scale but have evidence of the efficacy
    of the program on a limited scale.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
(i) *Educationally meaningful effects*. Applicants must provide *strong*
    evidence of the efficacy of the program as implemented on a small
    scale to justify the proposal to conduct a large-scale evaluation of
    the effectiveness of the intervention. As an example of strong
    evidence of efficacy, an applicant might describe the results of two
    or more small scale, rigorously conducted evaluations using random
    assignment to intervention and comparison conditions in which the
    efficacy of the intervention is demonstrated with different
    populations of students (e.g., students from middle income families
    in a suburban school district and students from low income families
    in a poor rural school district). Alternatively, a single efficacy
    evaluation might have involved schools from more than one district
    and included a diverse population of students and alone could
    constitute sufficient evidence of the efficacy of the intervention.
    Importantly, the evidence of efficacy must be based on the results
    of randomized field trials, or well-designed quasi-experimental
    evaluations.

> Evidence for efficacy from single-subject experimental designs would
> involve multiple studies in different settings that demonstrate causal
> effects.
>
> Strong applications will include information on the size and
> statistical significance of the effects that were obtained through
> efficacy trials. Effect sizes and confidence limits should typically
> be calculated based on a unit of analysis that is the same as the unit
> of assignment. For example, the results of an efficacy trial in which
> classrooms were assigned to conditions should be analyzed based on
> classroom means rather than results from individual students.
> Applicants should indicate clearly (e.g., including the statistical
> formula) how the effect size was calculated when they use effect sizes
> as part of the rationale for justifying their intervention.
> Furthermore, information on effect sizes is more useful to reviewers
> when sufficient context for interpreting the effect sizes is provided.

\(ii\) *Affordable for schools*. Strong applications will provide
documentation of the per-pupil or per-school cost for the intervention
and provide reviewers with sufficient context for evaluating the
affordability of the intervention.

\(iii\) *Feasible implementation*. The materials, training procedures,
organizational arrangements, and all other aspects of the intervention
must be developed to the point where the intervention is ready to be
implemented under real-world circumstances in a real-world way. Strong
applications will provide reviewers with sufficient information to
evaluate whether implementation of the intervention is feasible for
schools and other education entities under normal conditions (i.e.,
without any support from the researchers or developers of the
intervention that would not typically be available to entities wanting
to implement the intervention outside of a research study). For example,
applicants might include results from prior efficacy trials indicating
the level of support provided to teachers implementing the intervention
and the level of fidelity attained.

\(iv\) *Components of the intervention*. All applicants should clearly
describe the components of the intervention. When applicants clearly
describe the components of the intervention, reviewers are better able
to evaluate the relation between the intervention and the outcome
measures (e.g., do the proposed measures tap the constructs that the
intervention is intended to address?). Strong applications will also
include detailed descriptions of what the comparison group experiences.
By clearly describing the components of the intervention and the
comparable treatment (e.g., curriculum, instructional approach,
professional development) that the comparison group will receive,
reviewers are better able to judge whether (a) the intervention is
sufficiently different from the comparison treatment so that one might
reasonably expect a difference in student outcomes, and (b) fidelity
measures and observations of the comparison group are sufficiently
comprehensive and sensitive to identify and document critical
differences between what the intervention and comparison groups receive.

***c. Implementation of the intervention.*** One goal of effectiveness
evaluations of interventions is to determine if programs are effective
when the developers of the program do not provide any more support than
would be available under normal conditions. That is, the program should
be implemented as it would be if the schools or other entities that are
delivering the program were to obtain the program on their own and
decide to use it apart from participation in any research and evaluation
study. A second goal is to determine if programs implemented under these
conditions are effective in a variety of settings. Interventions that
are effective at scale are those that can produce the desired effects
across a range of education contexts. For Goal Four, the applicant
should detail the conditions under which the intervention will be
implemented -- including explicitly detailing what involvement the
researcher/developer will have in the implementation of the intervention
and justifying this level of involvement -- and provide procedures that
will capture the conditions and critical variables that affect the
success of a given intervention.

*By addressing the implementation of the intervention and the
requirements for the intervention in section 5.E.b,* []{#G4Significance
.anchor}*Goal Four applicants are addressing the significance of their
proposal.*

Applicants deciding whether their proposal is more appropriate for Goal
Two or Goal Three or Goal Four may find the [decision tree](#Decision)
to be useful.

***d. Methodological requirements.*** **Under Goal Four, the proposed
research design must be appropriate for answering the research questions
of hypotheses that are posed.** For the methodological requirements for
Goal Four projects, please refer to the methodological requirements
listed under Goal Three.

***e. Personnel and resources.*** Competitive applicants will have
research teams that collectively demonstrate expertise in (a) the
relevant academic content areas (e.g., reading, science, and where
applicable, teacher education); (b) implementation of, and analysis of
results from, the research design that will be employed; and (c) working
with teachers, schools, or other education delivery settings that will
be employed.

Competitive applicants will have access to institutional resources that
adequately support research activities and access to schools in which to
conduct the research. Strong applicants will document the availability
and cooperation of the schools or other education delivery settings that
will be required to carry out the research proposed in the application
via a letter of support from the education organization.

An applicant may involve developers or distributors (*including
for-profit entities*) of the intervention in the project, from having
the developers as full partners in its proposal to using off-the-shelf
curriculum materials without involvement of the developer or publisher.
However, involvement of the curriculum developer or distributor must not
jeopardize the objectivity of the evaluation. Strong applications will
carefully describe the role, if any, of the developer/distributor of the
intervention. Developers may not provide any training or support for the
implementation that is not normally available to users of the
intervention. Strong applications will describe how objectivity in the
evaluation will be maintained; for example, if the applicant is the
developer of the intervention, the applicant might propose to have data
collection and data analyses conducted by individuals who are *not* part
of the organization that developed or distributes the intervention.

*Collaborations including for-profit distributors of curriculum
materials should justify the need for Federal assistance to undertake
the evaluation of programs that are marketed to consumers and consider
sharing the cost of the evaluation.*

**f. *Awards*.** The scope of Goal Four projects may vary. A smaller
project might involve several schools within a large urban school
district in which student populations vary in terms of SES, race, and
ethnicity. A larger project might involve large numbers of students in
several school districts in different geographical areas.

Awards for Goal Four projects may go up to a limit of \$6,000,000 (total
cost = direct + indirect costs) over a 5 year period. Typical awards are
less. Awards depend in part on the number of sites, cost of data
collection, and cost of implementation. The size of the award depends on
the scope of the project.

[]{#Goal5Reqs .anchor}**F. Requirements for Goal Five (Measurement)**

Across the Institute\'s research programs, the Measurement goals differ
in purpose. Requirements described below apply to topics in the Special
Education Research Grants Program.

[]{.mark}

***a. Purpose of measurement proposals***. Through Goal Five, the
Institute intends to support the development of assessment tools for
four purposes including screening, diagnosis, progress monitoring, and
outcome evaluation.

Screening involves brief assessments conducted with all children at the
beginning of the school year and targets skills that are strongly
predictive of important future outcomes. The goal of screening is to
identify children who are at risk of failure and likely to need
additional or alternative forms of instruction either to supplement or
supplant conventional instruction.

Diagnosis refers to more in-depth assessment of strengths and weaknesses
in a particular domain, and should not be confused with assessment for
the purpose of labeling children with disabilities. The goal of
diagnostic assessment is to provide teachers with a profile of skills
and deficits to guide instruction.

Progress monitoring is assessment of students\' performance on critical
criterion performance skills a minimum of three times a year but
typically more frequently (e.g., weekly, monthly, or quarterly) using
alternate forms of a test. The purpose of progress monitoring is to
estimate rates of improvement, to identify children who are not
demonstrating adequate progress and, therefore, require supplementary
instruction. Progress monitoring assessment provides information on a
student\'s performance on an ongoing basis (e.g., weekly data on whether
students are benefiting from a particular type of instruction). This
information can be used to compare different types of instruction for a
particular child on a frequent basis. Such monitoring provides a means
for designing or redesigning instructional programs to accommodate the
instructional needs of students with disabilities.

Outcome assessment is designed to determine if students have achieved or
not achieved grade-level performance or if their performance has
improved or not improved.

***b. Requirements for measurement proposals in the Special Education
Research Grants Programs***. Applicants under Goal Five should propose
to develop assessments that can be used in education delivery settings
for students with disabilities from pre-kindergarten through grade 12.
Applications that would be appropriate for consideration under Goal Five
include, but are not limited to: (a) proposals to develop new
assessments; (b) proposals to modify or adapt existing assessments; and
(c) proposals to adapt assessments originally designed and used for
research purposes for broader use in instructional settings.

Applicants must provide a compelling rationale to support the
development of the proposed assessment. Reviewers will consider the
strength of theoretical foundation for the proposed assessment, the
existing empirical evidence supporting the proposed assessment, and
whether the proposed assessment duplicates existing assessments. In
developing these assessments, researchers should keep in mind the
pragmatic constraints (e.g., number of students, limited class time,
time required to train teachers to use the assessments, costs) that
teachers and administrators will consider to determine whether the
instrument is a viable option for use in classrooms and other education
delivery settings. Applications should provide sufficient description of
the proposed assessment and how it could be utilized within education
delivery settings for reviewers to judge the practicality of the
proposed assessment for instructional purposes.

[]{#G5Significance .anchor}*By describing the theoretical and empirical
support for the proposed assessment, the practical utility of the
assessment, and the components of the assessment, applicants are
addressing aspects of the significance of their proposal*.

***c. Methodological requirements.*** Applicants should detail the
proposed procedures for developing the assessment instrument (e.g.,
procedures for establishing construct validity, for selecting items to
be used in the assessment, or for obtaining representative responses to
questions). Applicants must clearly describe the research plans for
assessing the validity and reliability of the instrument. Applicants
should describe the characteristics and size of samples to be used in
each study, procedures for collecting data, measures to be used, and
data analytic strategies.

***d. Personnel and resources.*** Competitive applicants will have
research teams that collectively demonstrate expertise in (a) content
area, (b) assessment, (c) implementation of, and analysis of results
from, the research design that will be employed, and (d) working with
teachers, schools, or other education delivery settings in which the
proposed assessment might be used. Competitive applicants will have
access to institutional resources that adequately support research
activities and access to schools in which to conduct the research.

***e. Awards.*** Typical awards under Goal Five will be \$150,000 to
\$400,000 (direct plus indirect cost) per year for up to 4 years. Larger
budgets will be considered if a compelling case can be made for such
support. The size of award depends on the scope of the project.

**PART V GENERAL SUBMISSION AND REVIEW INFORMATION**

[]{#AppsAvailable .anchor}**[6. APPLICATIONS AVAILABLE]{.underline}**

Application forms and instructions for the electronic submission of
applications will be available for the programs of research listed in
this RFA from the following web site:

[https://ies.constellagroup.com](https://ies.constellagroup.com/)

by the following dates:

Topics with July 27, 2006 Transmittal Deadline June 15, 2006

Topics with November 16, 2006 Transmittal Deadline October 5, 2006

[]{.mark}

The application form approved for use in the competitions specified in
this RFA is the new, government-wide SF424 Research and Related (R&R)
Form (OMB Number 4040-0001).

[]{#Mechanism .anchor}**[7. MECHANISM OF SUPPORT]{.underline}**

The Institute intends to award grants pursuant to this request for
applications. The maximum length of the award period varies by goal. The
maximum award length for each goal ranges from two to five years. Please
see details for each goal in the [General Requirements of the Proposed
Research](#part-iv.-requirements-of-the-proposed-research) section of
the announcement.

[]{#Funding .anchor}**[8. FUNDING AVAILABLE]{.underline}**

The size of the award depends on the scope of the project. Please see
specific details in the [Requirements of the Proposed
Research](#part-iv.-requirements-of-the-proposed-research) section of
the announcement. Although the plans of the Institute include the
research programs (topics) described in this announcement, awards
pursuant to this request for applications are contingent upon the
availability of funds and the receipt of a sufficient number of
meritorious applications. The number of projects funded under a specific
topic and goal depends upon the number of high quality applications
submitted to that topic and goal. The Institute does not have plans to
award a specific number of grants under each particular topic and goal.

[]{#EligibleApps .anchor}**[9. ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS]{.underline}**

Applicants that have the ability and capacity to conduct scientifically
valid research are eligible to apply. Eligible applicants include, but
are not limited to, non-profit and for-profit organizations and public
and private agencies and institutions, such as colleges and
universities.

[]{#SpecialReqs .anchor}**[10. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS]{.underline}**

Research supported through this program must be relevant to U.S.
schools.

Recipients of awards are expected to publish or otherwise make publicly
available the results of the work supported through this program. The
Institute asks IES-funded investigators to submit voluntarily to the
Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) an electronic version of
the author\'s final manuscript upon acceptance for publication in a
peer-reviewed journal, resulting from research supported in whole or in
part, with direct costs from the Institute. The author\'s final
manuscript is defined as the final version accepted for journal
publication, and includes all modifications from the peer review
process. Details of the Institute\'s policy are posted on the
Institute\'s website at [http://ies.ed.gov](http://ies.ed.gov/).

Applicants should budget for one meeting each year in Washington, DC,
with other grantees and Institute staff. At least one project
representative should attend the two-day meeting.

The Institute anticipates that the majority of the research funded under
this announcement will be conducted in field settings. Hence, the
applicant is reminded to apply its negotiated off-campus indirect cost
rate, as directed by the terms of the applicant\'s negotiated agreement.

Research applicants may collaborate with, or be, for-profit entities
that develop, distribute, or otherwise market products or services that
can be used as interventions or components of interventions in the
proposed research activities. Involvement of the developer or
distributor must not jeopardize the objectivity of the evaluation.
Applications from or collaborations including such organizations should
justify the need for Federal assistance to undertake the evaluation of
programs that are marketed to consumers and consider sharing the cost of
the evaluation, as well as sharing all or a substantial portion of the
cost of the implementation of the product being evaluated (e.g., sharing
the cost of textbooks for students).

[]{#Letter .anchor}**[11. LETTER OF INTENT]{.underline}**

A letter indicating a potential applicant's intent to submit an
application is optional, but encouraged, for each application. The
letter of intent must be submitted electronically by the date listed at
the beginning of this document, using the instructions provided at the
following web site:

<https://ies.constellagroup.com/>

The letter of intent should include a descriptive title, the topic and
goal which the application will address, and brief description of the
research project (about 3,500 characters including spaces, which is
approximately one page, single-spaced); the name, institutional
affiliation, address, telephone number and e-mail address of the
principal investigator(s); and the name and institutional affiliation of
any key collaborators. The letter of intent should indicate the duration
of the proposed project and provide an estimated budget request by year,
and a total budget request. Although the letter of intent is optional,
is not binding, and does not enter into the review of subsequent
applications, the information that it contains allows Institute staff to
estimate the potential workload to plan the review.

[]{#SubmitApp .anchor}**[12. SUBMITTING AN APPLICATION]{.underline}**

Applications must be submitted **electronically by 8:00 p.m**. **Eastern
time** on the application receipt date, using the ED standard forms and
the instructions provided at the following web site:

[https://ies.constellagroup.com](https://ies.constellagroup.com/)

Potential applicants should check this site for information about the
electronic submission procedures that must be followed and the software
that will be required.

[]{#AppContents .anchor}**[13. CONTENTS OF APPLICATION]{.underline}**

All applications and proposals for Institute funding must be
self-contained within specified page limitations. Internet Web site
addresses (URLs) may not be used to provide information necessary to the
review because reviewers are under no obligation to view the Internet
sites.

All of the instructions and requirements regarding (a) submission of the
application, (b) acceptable format of the application, (c) page
limitations, and (d) required forms will be provided on the application
submission website
([https://ies.constellagroup.com](https://ies.constellagroup.com/)).

In this section, the Institute provides instructions regarding the
content of the (a) project summary/abstract, (b) project narrative, (c)
bibliography and references cited, (d) biographical sketches of
senior/key project personnel, (e) narrative budget justification (f)
subaward budgets, (g) Appendix A, and (h) Appendix B, and (i) additional
forms.

**A. Project Summary/Abstract**

The project summary/abstract will be submitted as a .PDF attachment, is
limited to 1 single-spaced page and must adhere to the margin, format,
and font size requirements described in the project narrative section.
The project summary/abstract should include: (1) The title of the
project; (2) the RFA topic and goal under which the applicant is
applying (e.g., development, efficacy); and brief descriptions of (3)
the purpose (e.g., to develop and obtain preliminary (pilot) data on the
association between exposure to a reading comprehension intervention for
struggling high school readers and subsequent reading outcomes); (4) the
setting in which the research will be conducted (e.g., rural high
schools in Alabama); (5) the population(s) from which the participants
of the study(ies) will be sampled (age groups, race/ethnicity, SES, the
sampling scheme (e.g., simple random, systematic, purposive, clustered,
multi-stage)); (6) if applicable, the intervention or assessment to be
developed or evaluated or validated; (7) if applicable, the control or
comparison condition (e.g., what will participants in the control
condition experience); (8) the primary research method (e.g.,
experimental (including how and at what level randomization will be
applied), quasi-experimental, single-subject, correlational,
observational, descriptive); (9) measures of key outcomes; and (10) data
analytic strategy.

**B. Project Narrative**

The project narrative will be submitted as a .PDF attachment.
Incorporating the requirements outlined under the section on
[Requirements of the Proposed
Research,](#part-iv.-requirements-of-the-proposed-research) the *project
narrative* provides the majority of the information on which reviewers
will evaluate the proposal. The research narrative must include the four
sections described below (a. \"Significance\" through d. \"Resources\")
in the order listed and must conform to the format requirements
described on the application submission website.

The project narrative is limited to **25 single-spaced pages** for all
applicants.

The 25-page limit for the project narrative does not include any of the
SF 424 forms, the one-page summary/abstract, the appendices, research on
human subjects information, bibliography and references cited,
biographical sketches of senior/key personnel, narrative budget
justification, sub award budget information or certifications and
assurances. **Reviewers are able to conduct the highest quality review
when applications are concise and easy to read, with pages numbered
consecutively**.

For the purposes of applications submitted under this RFA, a "page" is
8.5 in. x 11 in., on one side only, with 1 inch margins at the top,
bottom, and both sides. Text must be single spaced in the narrative. To
ensure that the text is easy for reviewers to read and that all
applicants have the same amount of available space in which to describe
their projects, applicants must adhere to the type size and format
specifications for the entire narrative including footnotes. **It is
very important that applicants review carefully the "Application Format
Requirements" outlined in [*Fiscal Year 2007 Application Package
Highlights*](http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ies/highlights.doc).**

**a. *Significance****[.]{.underline}* In the [General Requirements of
the Proposed Research](#part-iv.-requirements-of-the-proposed-research)
section, the Institute details the information that the applicant should
include in order to address the significance of proposed [Goal
1](#G1Significance), [Goal 2](#G2Significance), [Goal
3](#G3Significance), [Goal 4](#G4Significance), and [Goal
5](#G5Significance) projects.

For projects in which an intervention or assessment is proposed (whether
to be developed or to be evaluated) may use Appendix B to include up to
10 pages of examples of materials to be used by participants (e.g.,
curriculum materials for students, professional development materials
for teachers or education leaders, computer screens depicting how
information is presented to students, examples of test items for a
proposed assessment). Applicants should be aware that all narrative text
describing the theoretical background, empirical support, components of
the assessment or intervention, or any other aspect of the proposal must
be included within the 25-page project narrative. The only materials
that are allowed in Appendix B are examples of the materials that are
used by or presented to participants in the intervention or assessment.

**b. *Methods****.* The Methods section of the application should
address all of the requirements detailed in the methodological
requirements sections for [Goal One](#Goal1Reqs), [Goal
Two](#Goal2Reqs), [Goal Three](#Goal3Reqs), [Goal
Four](#Goal4Requirements), and [Goal Five](#Goal5Reqs).

\(i\) Include clear, concise hypotheses or research questions;

\(ii\) Present a clear description of, and a rationale for, the sampling
design and procedures, and the sample or study participants, including
justification for exclusion and inclusion criteria and, where groups or
conditions are involved, strategies for assigning participants to
groups;

\(iii\) Provide clear descriptions of, and rationales for, data
collection procedures;

\(iv\) Provide clear descriptions of and justification for measures to
be used, including information on the reliability and validity of
measures; and

\(v\) Present a detailed data analysis plan that justifies and explains
the selected analysis strategy, shows clearly how the measures and
analyses relate to the hypotheses or research questions, and the study
design, and indicates how the results will be interpreted. Quantitative
studies should, where sufficient information is available, include an
appropriate power analysis with sufficient detail and context for
reviewers to understand the assumptions on which the power analysis was
based.

**c. *Personnel****.* Include brief descriptions of the qualifications
of key personnel (information on personnel should also be provided in
their curriculum vitae). For each of the key personnel, please describe
the roles, responsibilities, and percent of time devoted to the project.

**d. *Resources***. Provide a description of the resources available to
support the project at the applicant's institution and in the field
settings in which the research will be conducted.

**C. Bibliography and References Cited**

This section will be submitted as a .PDF attachment. Please include
complete citations, including titles and all authors, for literature
cited in the research narrative.

**D. Biographical Sketches of Senior/Key Personnel**

This section will be submitted as a .PDF attachment. Abbreviated
curriculum vitae should be provided for the principal investigator(s)
and other key personnel. *Each vita is limited to 4 pages and should
include information sufficient to demonstrate that personnel possess
training and expertise commensurate with their duties (e.g.,
publications, grants, relevant research experience) and have adequate
time devoted to the project to carry out their duties (e.g., list
current and pending grants with the proportion of the individual\'s time
allocated to each project).* The curriculum vita must adhere to the
margin, format, and font size requirements described in the project
narrative section.

# E. Narrative Budget Justification

This section will be submitted as a .PDF attachment and should provide
sufficient detail to allow reviewers to judge whether reasonable costs
have been attributed to the project. The budget justification should
correspond to the itemized breakdown of project costs that is provided
in the Research & Related Budget (SF 424) Sections A & B; C, D, &E; and
F-K. It should include the time commitments and brief descriptions of
the responsibilities of key personnel. For consultants, the narrative
should include the number of days of anticipated consultation, the
expected rate of compensation, travel, per diem, and other related
costs. A justification for equipment purchase, supplies, travel and
other related project costs should also be provided in the budget
narrative for each project year outlined in the Research & Related
Budget (SF 424).

For those applications that include a subaward(s) for work conducted at
collaborating institutions, the narrative should also provide the
details about the subaward(s). Include the actual subaward budgets as a
separate attachment. (See below "[Subaward Budget](#subawardbudget)".)

[]{.mark}

Applicants should use their institution's federal indirect cost rate and
use the off-campus indirect cost rate where appropriate (see
instructions under Section 9 Special Requirements). If less than 75
percent of total indirect costs are based on application of the
off-campus rate, the applicant should provide a detailed justification.

[]{#subawardbudget .anchor}**F. Subaward Budget**

This section will be submitted as a .PDF attachment. For applications
that include a subaward(s) for work conducted at collaborating
institutions, applicants must submit an itemized budget spreadsheet for
each subaward for each project year. As noted above, the details of the
subaward costs should be included in the Narrative Budget Justification.
An Excel spreadsheet will be provided in the electronic application
package to allow applicants to enter the subaward budget information in
accordance with the prescribed format. Applicants will complete the
spreadsheet in Excel format, convert it to a .PDF file, and then upload
it as an attachment.

**G. Appendix A**

Appendix A should be included at the end of the Project Narrative, and
will be submitted as part of the same .PDF attachment.

The purpose of A*ppendix A* is to allow the applicant to include any
figures, charts, or tables that supplement the research text, examples
of measures to be used in the project, and letters of agreement from
partners (e.g., schools) and consultants. In addition, in the case of a
resubmission, the applicant may use up to 3 pages of the appendix to
describe the ways in which the revised proposal is responsive to prior
reviewer feedback. These are the only materials that may be included in
Appendix A; all other materials will be removed prior to review of the
application. Narrative text related to any aspect of the project (e.g.,
descriptions of the proposed sample, the design of the study, or
previous research conducted by the applicant) must be included in the
research or postdoctoral training narrative. Letters of agreement should
include enough information to make it clear that the author of the
letter understands the nature of the commitment of time, space, and
resources to the research project that will be required if the
application is funded. The appendix is limited to 15 pages. The
Institute recognizes that some applicants may have more letters of
agreement will be accommodated by the 15-page limit. In such instances,
applicants should include the most important letters of agreement and
may list the letters of agreement that are not included in the
application due to page limitations.

**H. Appendix B (optional)**

If applicable, Appendix B should be included at the end of the Project
Narrative, following Appendix A, and will be submitted as part of the
same .PDF attachment.

Appendix B applies to applications under all topics in this RFA. The
purpose of Appendix B is to allow applicants who are proposing an
intervention or assessment to include examples of curriculum material,
computer screens, test items, or other materials used in the
intervention or assessment. These are the only materials that may be
included in Appendix B; all other materials will be removed prior to
review of the application. Appendix B is limited to 10 pages. Narrative
text related to the intervention (e.g., descriptions of research that
supports the use of the intervention/assessment, the theoretical
rationale for the intervention/assessment, or details regarding the
implementation or use of the intervention/assessment) must be included
in the 25-page research narrative.

**I. Additional Forms**

Please note that applicants selected for funding will be required to
submit the following certifications and assurances before a grant is
issued:

> \(1\) SF 424B-Assurances-Non-Construction Programs
>
> \(2\) ED-80-0013-Certification Regarding Lobbying, Debarment,
> Suspension and other Responsibility Matters; and Drug-Free Workplace
> Requirements
>
> \(3\) ED 80-0014 (if applicable)-Lower Tier Certification
>
> \(4\) SF-LLL (if applicable) - Disclosure of Lobbying Activities
>
> \(5\) Protection of Human Research Subjects assurance and/or
> Institutional Review Board certification, as appropriate

[]{#Processing .anchor}**[14. APPLICATION PROCESSING]{.underline}**

Applications must be received by **8:00 p.m. Eastern time** on the
application receipt date listed in the heading of this request for
applications. Upon receipt, each application will be reviewed for
completeness and for responsiveness to this request for applications.
Applications that do not address specific requirements of this request
will be returned to the applicants without further consideration.

[]{#PeerReview .anchor}**[15. PEER REVIEW PROCESS]{.underline}**

Applications that are complete and responsive to this request will be
evaluated for scientific and technical merit. Reviews will be conducted
in accordance with the review criteria stated below by a panel of
scientists who have substantive and methodological expertise appropriate
to the program of research and request for applications.

Each application will be assigned to one of the Institute\'s scientific
review panels. At least two primary reviewers will complete written
evaluations of the application, identifying strengths and weaknesses
related to each of the review criteria. Primary reviewers will
independently assign a score for each criterion, as well as an overall
score, for each application they review. Based on the overall scores
assigned by primary reviewers, an average overall score for each
application will be calculated and a preliminary rank order of
applications prepared before the full peer review panel convenes to
complete the review of applications.

The full panel will consider and score only those applications deemed to
be the most competitive and to have the highest merit, as reflected by
the preliminary rank order. A panel member may nominate for
consideration by the full panel any proposal that he or she believes
merits full panel review but would not have been included in the full
panel meeting based on its preliminary rank order.

[]{#ReviewCriteria .anchor}**[16. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR SCIENTIFIC
MERIT]{.underline}**

The goal of Institute-supported research is to contribute to the
solution of education problems and to provide reliable information about
the education practices that support learning and improve academic
achievement and access to education for all students. Reviewers will be
expected to assess the following aspects of an application in order to
judge the likelihood that the proposed research will have a substantial
impact on the pursuit of that goal. Information pertinent to each of
these criteria is also described above in the section on Requirements of
the Proposed Research and in the description of the research narrative,
which appears in the section on Contents and Page Limits of Application.

***a. Significance.*** Does the applicant present a compelling rationale
for the proposed project? Are there strong theoretical reasons,
empirical support, and practical reasons to justify the development
and/or evaluation of the proposed intervention or assessment? Does the
applicant make a compelling case for the potential contribution of the
project to the solution of an education problem? Does the applicant
clearly describe the components of the intervention or assessment and
the relations among the components? For cases in which the applicant
proposes to develop or evaluate an intervention, does the applicant
present a strong rationale justifying the need to evaluate the selected
intervention (e.g., does prior evidence suggest that the intervention is
likely to substantially improve student learning and achievement)?

***b. Research Plan.*** Does the applicant present (a) clear hypotheses
or research questions; (b) clear descriptions of and strong rationales
for the sample, the measures (including information on the reliability
and validity of measures), data collection procedures, and research
design; and (c) a detailed and well-justified data analysis plan? Does
the research plan meet the requirements described in the section on the
Requirements of the Proposed Research and in the description of the
research narrative in the section on Contents and Page Limits? Is the
research plan appropriate for answering the research questions or
testing the proposed hypotheses?

***c. Personnel.*** Does the description of the personnel make it
apparent that the principal investigator, project director, and other
key personnel possess the training and experience and will commit
sufficient time to competently implement the proposed research?

***d. Resources.*** Does the applicant have the facilities, equipment,
supplies, and other resources required to support the proposed
activities? Do the commitments of each partner show support for the
implementation and success of the project?

[]{#Schedule .anchor}**[17. RECEIPTS AND START DATE
SCHEDULE]{.underline}**

**A. Letter of Intent Receipt Dates:**

Topics with July 27, 2006 Transmittal Deadline June 1, 2006

Topics with November 16, 2006, Transmittal Deadline September 14, 2006

**B.** **Application Transmittal Deadlines:**

Topics with July 27, 2006 Transmittal Deadline July 27, 2006

Topics with November 16, 2006, Transmittal Deadline November 16, 2006

**C.** **Earliest Anticipated Start Date:**

Topics with July 27, 2006 Transmittal Deadline March 1, 2007

Topics with November 16, 2006, Transmittal Deadline July 1, 2007

[]{#AwardDecisions .anchor}

**[18. AWARD DECISIONS]{.underline}**

The following will be considered in making award decisions:

-   Scientific merit as determined by peer review

-   Responsiveness to the requirements of this request

-   Performance and use of funds under a previous Federal award

-   Contribution to the overall program of research described in this
    request

-   Availability of funds

[]{#Inquiries .anchor}**[19. INQUIRIES MAY BE SENT TO:]{.underline}**

A.  **Early Intervention, Early Childhood Special Education, and
    Assessment for Young Children with Disabilities Special Education
    Research Grants Program**

> Dr. Kristen Lauer
>
> Institute of Education Sciences
>
> 555 New Jersey Avenue, NW
>
> Washington, DC 20208
>
> Email: <Kristen.Lauer@ed.gov>

Telephone: (202) 219-0377

B.  **Mathematics and Science Special Education Research Grants
    Program**

> Dr. David Malouf
>
> Institute of Education Sciences
>
> 555 New Jersey Avenue, NW
>
> Washington, DC 20208
>
> Email: <David.Malouf@ed.gov>

Telephone: (202) 219-1309

C.  **Reading, Writing, and Language Development Special Education
    Research Grants Program**

> Dr. Celia Rosenquist
>
> Institute of Education Sciences
>
> 555 New Jersey Avenue, NW
>
> Washington, DC 20208
>
> Email: <Celia.Rosenquist@ed.gov>

Telephone: (202) 219-2024

D.  **Serious Behavior Disorders Special Education Research Grants
    Program**

> Dr. Patricia Gonzalez
>
> Institute of Education Sciences
>
> 555 New Jersey Avenue, NW
>
> Washington, DC 20208
>
> Email: <Patricia.Gonzalez@ed.gov>

Telephone: (202) 219-1011

E.  **Special Education Research Grants Program on Assessment for
    Accountability**

> Dr. David Malouf
>
> Institute of Education Sciences
>
> 555 New Jersey Avenue, NW
>
> Washington, DC 20208
>
> Email: <David.Malouf@ed.gov>

Telephone: (202) 219-1309

F.  **Special Education Research Grants Program on Individualized
    Education Programs and Individualized Family Service Plans**

> Dr. Kristen Lauer
>
> Institute of Education Sciences
>
> 555 New Jersey Avenue, NW
>
> Washington, DC 20208
>
> Email: <Kristen.Lauer@ed.gov>

Telephone: (202) 219-0377

G.  **Secondary and Transition Services Special Education Research
    Grants Program**

> Dr. David Malouf
>
> Institute of Education Sciences
>
> 555 New Jersey Avenue, NW
>
> Washington, DC 20208
>
> Email: <David.Malouf@ed.gov>

Telephone: (202) 219-1309

H.  **Research Grants Program on the Quality of Teacher and Other
    Service Providers for Students with Disabilities**

> Dr. David Malouf
>
> Institute of Education Sciences
>
> 555 New Jersey Avenue, NW
>
> Washington, DC 20208
>
> Email: <David.Malouf@ed.gov>

Telephone: (202) 219-1309

I.  **Autism Spectrum Disorders-- Special Education Research Grants
    Program**

> Dr. Celia Rosenquist
>
> Institute of Education Sciences
>
> 555 New Jersey Avenue, NW
>
> Washington, DC 20208
>
> Email: <Celia.Rosenquist@ed.gov>

Telephone: (202) 219-2024

J.  **Response to Intervention -- Special Education Research Grants
    Program**

> Dr. Kristen Lauer
>
> Institute of Education Sciences
>
> 555 New Jersey Avenue, NW
>
> Washington, DC 20208
>
> Email: <Kristen.Lauer@ed.gov>

Telephone: (202) 219-0377

[]{#Authority .anchor}**[20. PROGRAM AUTHORITY]{.underline}**

20 U.S.C. 9501 [et]{.underline} [seq]{.underline}., the "Education
Sciences Reform Act of 2002," Title I of Public Law 107-279, November 5,
2002. This program is not subject to the intergovernmental review
requirements of Executive Order 12372.

[]{#Regulations .anchor}**[21. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS]{.underline}**

The Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in
34 CFR parts 74, 77, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86 (part 86 applies only to
institutions of higher education), 97, 98, and 99. In addition 34 CFR
part 75 is applicable, except for the provisions in 34 CFR 75.100,
75.101(b), 75.102, 75.103, 75.105, 75.109(a), 75.200, 75.201, 75.209,
75.210, 75.211, 75.217, 75.219, 75.220, 75.221, 75.222, and 75.230.

[]{#References .anchor}**[22. REFERENCES]{.underline}**

### 

Browder, D. M., Spooner, F., Algozzine, R., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L.,
Flowers, C., & Karvonen, M. (2003) What we know and need to know about
alternate assessment. *Exceptional Children, 70*, 45-61.

Bryson, S. E., Rogers, S. J., & Fombonne, E. (2003). Autism spectrum
disorders: Early detection, intervention, Education, and
Psychopharmalogical Management. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 48,
506-516.

Clapper, A. T., Morse, A. B., Thompson, S. J., & Thurlow, M. L. (2005).
*Access assistants for state assessments: A study of state guidelines
for scribes, readers, and sign language interpreters* (Synthesis Report
58). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on
Educational Outcomes. Available from the World Wide Web:
http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis58.html

Dawson, G. & Osterling, J. (1997). Early intervention in autism:
Effectiveness and common elements of current approaches. In Guralnick
(Ed.) [The effectiveness of early intervention: Second generation
research. (pp. 307-326) Baltimore: Brookes.]{.underline}

Donner, A., & Klar, N. (2000). *Design and Analysis of Cluster
Randomization Trials in Health Research*. New York: Oxford University
Press.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Eaton, S. B., Hamlett, C., Binkley, E., &
Crouch, R. (2000). Using objective data sources to enhance teacher
judgments about test accommodations. *Exceptional Children, 67*, 67--81.

Hollenbeck, K. (2005). Validity issues and decisions about testing
accommodations. *Assessment for Effective Instruction*, *31(1),* 7-17.

Kamil, M. L. & Hiebert, E. H. (2005). The teaching and leaving of
vocabulary: Perspectives and persistent issues. In E. H. Hiebert & M. L.
Kamit (Eds). Teaching and learning vocabulary: Bringing research to
practice (pp. 1-37). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lord, C. & McGee, J. P. (Eds.). (2001). *Educating Children with
Autism.* Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Murray, D. M. (1998). *Design and Analysis of Group- Randomized Trials*.
New York: Oxford.

National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (2005).
*Responsiveness to*

*Intervention and Learning Disabilities.* Retrieved December 29, 2005,
from <http://www.ldonline.org/about/partners/njcld/>

Sherer, M. R. & Schreibman, L. (2005). Individual behavioral profiles
and predictors of treatment effectiveness for children with autism.
[Journal of Counseling and Clinical Psychology, 73,]{.underline}
525-538.

Simeonsson, R.J. (1994). [Risk, resilience, and prevention: Promoting
the well-being of all children. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing
Co.]{.underline}

Sireci, S.G., Scarpati, S.E., & Shuhong, L. (2005). Test accommodations
for students with disabilities: An analysis of the interaction
hypothesis. *Review of Educational Research, 75,* 457-490.

Shriner, J. G., & DeStefano, L. (2003). Participation and accommodation
in state assessment: The role of individualized education programs.
*Exceptional Children, 69,* 147-161.

Thompson, S. J., Johnstone, C. J., & Thurlow, M. L. (2002). *Universal
design applied to large scale assessments* (Synthesis Report 44).
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational
Outcomes. Available from the World Wide Web:
http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis44.html

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs,
Individuals with Developmental Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Data,
"Number, Percent of Population, and Disability Distribution, by
Disability and Age Year (6 through 21): 1992 through 2004", Retrieved
January 24, 2006, from
<https://www.ideadata.org/docs/PartBTrendData/B2C.html>.

Volkmar, F. R., Lord, C., Bailey, A., Schultz, R. T., & Klin, A. (2004).
Autism and pervasive developmental disorders. [Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry,]{.underline} 45, 135-170.

Wolery, M. (2000). Commentary: The environment as a source of
variability: Implications for research with individuals who have autism.
[Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders]{.underline},
30[,]{.underline} 379-381.