SPECIAL EDUCATION RESEARCH GRANTS

**CFDA NUMBER: 84.324**

**RELEASE DATE: April 6, 2007**

# REQUEST FOR APPLICATIONS NUMBER: IES-NCSER-2008-01

**INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION SCIENCES**

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

#### **LETTER OF INTENT RECEIPT DATE: May 24, 2007**

**APPLICATION DEADLINE DATE: July 26, 2007**

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

##### Section Page

**PART I GENERAL OVERVIEW**

1\. [Request for Applications](#ReqForApps) 3

2\. [Overview of the Institute\'s Research
Programs](#overview-of-the-institutes-research-grants-programs) 3

> A. [Outcomes](#a.-outcomes) 4
>
> B. [Conditions](#b.-conditions) 5
>
> C. [Grade Levels](#Grades) 5
>
> D. [Research Goals](#d.-research-goals) 6

**PART II RESEARCH GRANT TOPICS**

3\. Topics with July 26, 2007 Application Deadline Date 8

C.  [Reading, Writing, and Language Development Special Education
    Research](#Read_Write_Lang) 8

**PART III REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPOSED RESEARCH**

5\. [General Requirements of the Proposed
Research](#general-requirements-of-the-proposed-research) 11

> A. [Basic Requirements](#a.-basic-requirements) 11
>
> B. [Requirements for Goal
> One](#b.-requirements-for-goal-one-identification-projects)
> (Identification Projects) 12
>
> C. [Requirements for Goal
> Two](#c.-requirements-for-goal-two-development-projects) (Development
> Projects) 14
>
> D. [Requirements for Goal
> Three](#d.-requirements-for-goal-three-efficacy-and-replication-trials)
> (Efficacy and Replication Projects) 17
>
> E. [Requirements for Goal
> Four](#e.-requirements-for-goal-four-scale-up-evaluations) (Scale-Up
> Evaluations) 25
>
> F. [Requirements for Goal
> Five](#f.-requirements-for-goal-five-measurement) (Assessment and
> Measurement Projects) 29

**PART IV GENERAL SUBMISSION AND REVIEW INFORMATION**

6\. [Applications Available](#applications-available) 32

7\. [Mechanism of Support](#mechanism-of-support) 32

8\. [Funding Available](#funding-available) 32

9\. [Eligible Applicants](#eligible-applicants) 32

10\. [Special Requirements](#special-requirements) 32

11\. [Letter of Intent](#letter-of-intent) 33

12\. [Submitting an Application](#submitting-an-application) 34

13\. [Contents of Application](#contents-of-application) 34

14\. [Application Processing](#application-processing) 38

15\. [Peer Review Process](#peer-review-process) 38

16\. [Review Criteria for Scientific
Merit](#review-criteria-for-scientific-merit) 38

17\. [Receipt and Start Date Schedule](#receipt-and-start-date-schedule)
39

18\. [Award Decisions](#award-decisions) 40

19\. [Inquiries May Be Sent To](#inquiries-may-be-sent-to) 40

20\. [Program Authority](#program-authority) 40

21\. [Applicable Regulations](#applicable-regulations) 40

22\. [References](#references) 40

# PART I GENERAL OVERVIEW

## 1. REQUEST FOR APPLICATIONS

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

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 Research; Mathematics and Science Special Education
Research; Reading, Writing, and Language Development Special Education
Research; Serious Behavior Disorders Special Education Research;
Individualized Education Programs and Individualized Family Service
Plans Research; Secondary and Transition Services Research; Autism
Spectrum Disorders Research; Response to Intervention Research; and
Related Services Special Education Research. For the FY 2008
competition, the Institute will consider only applications that meet the
requirements outlined below under the sections on Topics with July 26,
2007 Application Deadline Date; Topics with November 1, 2007 Application
Deadline Date; 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).

## 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 Research

-   Mathematics and Science Special Education Research

-   [Reading, Writing, and Language Development Special Education
    Research]{.underline}

-   Serious Behavior Disorders Special Education Research

-   Individualized Education Programs and Individualized Family Service
    Plans Research

-   Secondary and Transition Services Research

-   Autism Spectrum Disorders Research

-   Response to Intervention Research

-   Related Services Special Education Research

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.

### A. 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).

### B. 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 Research, (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
Research, (f) Autism Spectrum Disorders Research, (g) Response to
Intervention Research, and (h) Related Services Special Education
Research.

**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 that includes approaches, practices, and programs for
pre-service or in-service training of teachers or other service
providers to deliver instruction or services.

**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) Early
Intervention, Early Childhood Special Education and Assessment for Young
Children with Disabilities Research, (b) Individualized Education
Programs and Individualized Family Service Plans Research, (c) Response
to Intervention Research, and (d) Related Services 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 Research, (b) Individualized
Education Programs and Individualized Family Service Plans Research, (c)
Secondary and Transition Services Research, (d) Related Services Special
Education Research, (e) Autism Spectrum Disorders Research, and (f)
Response to Intervention Research.

[]{#Grades .anchor}

### C. 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.

### D. 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; (c) Goal Three - establish
the efficacy of fully developed programs, practices, and policies; (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 2008 research grant topics---including
research grant competitions through the Institute's National Center for
Special Education Research and National Center for Education Research,
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/).

**Please Note**: Two research topics that have been offered in previous
years---Quality of Teachers and Other Service Providers, and Assessment
for Accountability---are not offered as separate topics this year.
However, applicants may still propose projects in these areas. Projects
on the quality of teachers and other service providers may be proposed
under the other research topics offered in this Request for
Applications. These topics allow interventions involving pre-service or
in-service training of teachers or other service providers to be
investigated under any of the goals. Projects on assessment for
accountability may be proposed as Goal 5 projects under appropriate
research topics, as discussed in the section entitled "Requirements for
Goal Five (Measurement)." Questions concerning the appropriateness of
applications can be directed to the federal contacts listed in the
section entitled "Inquiries May Be Sent To."

**[Table 1: FY 2008 Research Grant Topics:]{.underline}**

# [National Center for Special Education Research]{.underline}

1.  Research Grant Topics

-   Early Intervention, Early Childhood Special Education, and
    Assessment for Young Children with Disabilities Research

-   Mathematics and Science Special Education Research

-   Reading, Writing, and Language Development Special Education
    Research

-   Serious Behavior Disorders Special Education Research

-   Individualized Education Programs and Individualized Family Service
    Plans Research

-   Secondary and Transition Services Research

-   Autism Spectrum Disorders Research

-   Response to Intervention Research

-   Related Services Special Education Research

2\. Research Training Grant Topics

-   Postdoctoral Special Education Research Training

3\. National Research and Development Center Topics

-   Center on Serious Behavior Disorders at the Secondary Level

-   Center on Response to Intervention in Early Childhood Special
    Education

**[National Center for Education Research]{.underline}**

1\. Research Grant Topics

-   Reading and Writing

-   Mathematics and Science Education

-   Cognition and Student Learning

-   Teacher Quality -- Reading and Writing

-   Teacher Quality -- Mathematics and Science Education

-   Social and Behavioral Context for Academic Learning

-   Education Leadership

-   Education Policy, Finance, and Systems

-   Early Childhood Programs and Practices

-   High School Reform

-   Interventions for Struggling Adolescent and Adult Readers and
    Writers

-   Postsecondary Education

-   Education Technology

2\. Research Training Grant Topics

-   Postdoctoral Research Training Program

-   Predoctoral Research Training Program

3\. National Research and Development Center Topics

-   Cognition and Science Instruction

-   Instructional Technology

# PART II RESEARCH GRANT TOPICS

For the Institute's FY 2008 special education research grant programs,
there are two sets of topics; one set has an Application Deadline Date
of July 26, 2007, and the other has an Application Deadline Date of
November 1, 2007. In this section, the Institute first describes the
topics for the July 2007, Application Deadline Date, followed by the
topics for the November, 2007 Application Deadline Date.

## 3. TOPICS WITH JULY 26, 2007 APPLICATION DEADLINE DATE

### C. Reading, Writing, and Language Development Special Education Research 

***a. Purpose.*** Through its Special Education Reading, Writing, and
Language Development Special Education 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 or
instructional approaches and strategies 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 or instructional approaches and strategies 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 interventions or instructional
approaches and strategies for teaching reading, writing, or language
skills 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.
Interventions may include programs and practices for pre-service or
in-service training of teachers or other service providers to deliver
instruction in reading and writing for students with disabilities. 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.

Applicants must submit under *either* Goal One *or* Goal Two *or* Goal
Three *or* Goal Four *or* Goal Five.

***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 the 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 do not 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 or
approaches 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,
instructional practices are most effective for increasing the reading
skills of students with multiple disabilities? Which interventions,
strategies, or instructional practices or approaches 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?

Applicants may also be interested in examining professional development
programs that are designed to develop a teacher's knowledge about
teaching reading to students with disabilities and professional
development programs designed around a specific curriculum for students
with disabilities, in which the intent is to provide teachers with
specific skills, strategies, and perhaps lesson plans for delivering a
specific curriculum or intervention. Topics may include what
professional development content should be delivered, how it should be
delivered, and how teacher knowledge should be assessed.

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.

# PART III. REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROPOSED RESEARCH

## 5. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROPOSED RESEARCH

### 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. 3, [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 2007
competitions but that was not funded must indicate on the application
form that their FY 2008 proposal is a revised proposal. Their FY 2007
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 2008 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 2008 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.

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-may-be-sent-to) if they have any questions regarding the
appropriateness of a particular project for submission under a specific
goal.

### 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 interested in the identification of existing programs and practices
that may be associated with better academic outcomes and examination of
factors and conditions that may mediate or moderate the relations
between student outcomes and these programs and practices.

For Goal One, the Institute invites applications to conduct analyses of
multivariate data, such as longitudinal individual student data that
exist in a number of federal-, state-, and district-level databases.
Using existing longitudinal data sets, investigators are able to
capitalize on natural variation or discontinuities in education
practices. For example, in a particular year, a large district might
have implemented an intervention (e.g., curriculum, program, policy) at
the beginning of a specific year. 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 intervention. As a second example, a state may
have implemented a new policy for early intervention for children with
disabilities that provide 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.

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.

As an alternative to analyzing existing longitudinal databases,
applicants may propose to conduct a small scale descriptive longitudinal
study with primary data collection in which they attempt to predict
student outcomes based on differences in observed education practices.
For example, a researcher might propose to conduct detailed,
quantifiable observational measures of instructional practices (types of
instruction, frequency, duration, under what circumstances), and then
use the instructional data in conjunction with child characteristics to
predict subsequent student performance. The objective here is to
identify what type or combinations of instructional activities are
associated with better student outcomes and for which students.

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., program, practice)
that will be examined, Goal One applicants are addressing 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}

\(i\) *Research questions*. Applicants should pose clear, concise
hypotheses or research questions.

\(ii\) *Database*. Applicants proposing secondary data analyses 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 performance on a reading
or mathematics achievement measure, the applicant should detail the
standardized measure from which the reading or mathematics scores are
derived.

\(iii\) *Primary data collection*. Applicants may propose a Goal One
project in which the primary focus is on the collection and analysis of
original data. The applicant should carefully describe the sample,
measures (including reliability and validity), and procedures proposed
for the primary data collection. Because Goal One projects must be
designed to predict student outcomes, if observational data are
collected, applicants should describe how the data would be collected
(e.g., procedures for maintaining inter-observer reliability), coded,
and quantified to allow quantitative analyses predicting the relation
between what was observed and student outcomes.

Applicants may also propose to collect original data as a supplement to
be used with an existing longitudinal database in order to answer the
question of interest. In such cases, 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.

\(iv\) *Data analysis*. The applicant must include detailed descriptions
of data analysis procedures. Because predictor variables relevant to
education outcomes (e.g., student, teacher, or 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 student outcome (e.g., reading, mathematics, student
behaviors); (b) the type of intervention under investigation (e.g.,
curriculum, program, policy); (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 that will
be employed if original data will be collected. 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 \$350,000 (total cost = direct + indirect costs) per year. For
applicants proposing to do primarily secondary data analysis, the
maximum duration of the award is 2 years. Applicants proposing to do
short-term longitudinal studies may request up to 2 additional years
(i.e., the maximum duration of the award is 4 years) and additional
funds, but must justify the need for the additional time and funding.
The size of the award depends on the scope of the project.

### 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 education interventions --
curricula, instructional approaches and programs. The Institute stresses
that Goal Two applications are about development, rather than
demonstrations of the efficacy of an intervention. Under Goal Two, the
Institute does not intend to support applications that propose to
allocate substantial resources for testing the effect of the proposed
intervention. For example, the Institute does not intend to support
under Goal Two applications in which the researcher proposes to spend
one year developing the intervention and the second and third years on
testing the effect of the intervention in a significant number of
classrooms or schools. Applicants who have an intervention that could be
tested for efficacy should apply to Goal Three.

From the Institute\'s standpoint, a funded development project would be
successful if at the end of a 1- to 3-year development award, the
investigators had a fully developed version of the proposed
intervention, including prototypes of all materials and products
necessary for implementation of the intervention in authentic education
delivery settings, and evidence demonstrating the feasibility of its
implementation in an authentic education delivery setting. The Institute
anticipates that investigators with successful development projects
would submit proposals to subsequent competitions for Goal Three
(Efficacy) awards.

***b. Requirements for proposed intervention***. Under Goal Two, the
Institute invites 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 program or product ready to evaluate).
It is important for applicants to provide a strong rationale to support
the development of the proposed intervention. In essence, applicants are
answering the question: *Why is the proposed intervention likely to
produce better student outcomes relative to current education
practices?*

In strong applications, researchers provide context for the proposed
intervention by including data on, or reviewing research describing, the
attributes of typical existing practices. Understanding the shortcomings
of current practice contributes to the rationale for the proposed
intervention.

Applicants should clearly describe the intervention and the logic model
for the intervention. For example, how do the features or components of
the intervention relate to each other temporally (or operationally),
pedagogically, and theoretically (e.g., why does A lead to B)?
Applicants should provide a strong theoretical and empirical
justification for the design and sequencing of the features or
components of the intervention. When applicants clearly describe the
logic model that guides the intervention and the specific features
making up the intervention, reviewers are better able to evaluate (a)
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?) and (b) 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?).

Applicants should explain why the proposed intervention is likely to
produce substantially better student outcomes relative to current
practice. By clearly describing the intervention -- particularly, the
unique features of the intervention (\"active ingredients\") that are
hypothesized to produce the desired improvement in student outcomes --
as well as the typical existing practices, reviewers are better able to
judge whether the proposed intervention has the potential to produce
substantially better student outcomes because it is sufficiently
different from current practices and has \"active ingredients\" that
appear on the basis of theoretical or empirical reasons to be powerful
agents for improving student learning.

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 have
the potential to improve students\' achievement scores in educationally
meaningful increments, if it were implemented over the course of a
semester or school year? 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)?

*By describing (a) the intervention (e.g., features, components) and the
logic model for the intervention, (b) the theoretical and empirical
support for the proposed intervention, and (c) the practical importance
of the intervention,* *Goal Two applicants are addressing aspects of the
significance of their proposal.*

***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 Goal Two projects, applicants must clearly address the proposed
methods for developing the intervention and testing the feasibility of
implementation of the prototype in an authentic education delivery
setting. Applicants should describe the systematic process they will use
to collect empirical data that will provide feedback for refining the
intervention. A major objective of Goal Two projects is to refine and
improve the initial version of the intervention by implementing it, or
components of it, observing its functioning, and making necessary
adjustments in the design of the intervention so that it functions more
as intended.

Strong applications include clear descriptions of the development
activities so that reviewers will understand (a) what will be developed,
(b) how it will be developed, and (c) when the development will take
place. Applicants should describe what they would measure or observe to
determine whether the intervention is working as intended when they are
testing the feasibility of successive versions of the intervention. A
useful by-product of such testing is a set of fidelity of intervention
measures that could be used if the intervention were evaluated in an
efficacy trial (see Goal Three).

A timeline that delineates the iterative process of drafting and
revising the intervention (e.g., features or components of the
intervention, procedures, training activities, and materials) is often a
simple way of showing reviewers how research activities will feed into
subsequent development (refinement) activities, so that information can
be used to make decisions and improvements. A variety of methodological
strategies may be employed during this phase. *For Development projects,
reviewers need to understand* *the iterative development process to be
used in the design and refinement of the proposed intervention.*

By the end of a Goal Two project, the Institute expects investigators to
have a fully developed intervention and demonstrated that the
intervention can be implemented in an authentic education delivery
setting.

\(i\) *Sample*. The applicant should define, as completely as possible,
the samples and settings that will be used to assess the feasibility and
usability of the intervention.

\(ii\) *Research plan*. The applicant must provide a detailed research
plan in which they detail the proposed procedures for developing the
intervention. Strong applications will include clear descriptions of:
(a) what needs to be developed; (b) the procedures for developing the
intervention; and (c) the procedures (including sample, measures, and
procedures for analyzing data) for determining if the intervention is
functioning as intended (e.g., Does the software program crash when
students use it? Are the activities planned for a particular lesson
do-able within the allotted time?). *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 intervention according to the logic model that they
describe.*

\(iii\) *Measures*. Goal Two projects typically rely on the collection
of process data that can help the researcher refine the intervention and
provide insight into the feasibility and usability of the proposed
intervention in authentic education delivery settings. Applicants should
clearly describe (a) what needs to be observed in order to determine if
the intervention is operating as intended and (b) how those observations
will be collected. Observational, survey, or qualitative methodologies
are encouraged to identify conditions that hinder implementation of the
intervention.

***d. Personnel and resources***. Competitive applicants will have
research teams that collectively demonstrate expertise in: (a) the
relevant content area (e.g., reading, mathematics, student behaviors);
(b) type of intervention to be developed; (c) implementation of, and
analysis of results from, the research design that will be employed; and
(d) working with schools and other education delivery settings.
Competitive applicants will have access to institutional resources that
adequately support research.

An applicant may be or may involve *for-profit entities* in the project.
Involvement of the commercial developer or distributor must not
jeopardize the objectivity of the research. *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.*

Applicants who previously or currently hold development grants with the
Institute should describe the results and outcomes of those grants to
date. They should indicate whether what was developed has been (or is
being) evaluated for efficacy (Goal Three) and if results are available,
what the results of those efficacy evaluations have been. The Institute
intends to support researchers under Goal Two who can demonstrate their
ability to develop interventions that can be used in the field and
tested for efficacy.

***e. Awards***. Typical awards for projects at this level are \$150,000
to \$500,000 (total cost = direct + indirect costs) per year.
Development projects are for a maximum of 3 years. Development costs
vary according to the type of intervention that is proposed. Larger
awards will be considered. In all cases, the size of the award depends
on the scope of the project.

### D. Requirements for Goal Three (Efficacy and Replication Trials) 

*Because the requirements for Goal Three are essentially the same across
the Institute\'s research grant topics, a generic description is used in
the funding announcement. Consequently, the examples provided may not
apply to a particular topic.*

Under Goal Three, the Institute requests proposals to test the efficacy
of fully developed interventions. By *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 --
are effective under specified conditions (e.g., urban schools with a
high turnover rate among teachers), and with specific types of students
(e.g., English language learners). Results from efficacy projects have
less generalizability than results from effectiveness (scale-up)
evaluations 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 under
different conditions (e.g., 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, for example, half of
the classrooms are randomly assigned to the intervention program and
half are assigned to continue using standard district practices.
Alternatively, if the research team hypothesized that a variation in the
delivery of the program might improve the impact of the intervention,
the team might propose instead to randomly assign: (a) one-third of the
classrooms to the basic intervention; (b) one third of the classrooms to
the variation; and (c) one-third of the classrooms to continue with
standard district practices. *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\" 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, instruction varies on a number of critical components.

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 [5.D.d. *Requirements for single subject designs*](#SSReqs).

[]{#IntReqs .anchor}***b. Requirements for the proposed intervention.***
Interventions appropriate for study under Goal Three are interventions
that are fully developed and have evidence of their feasibility for use
in authentic education delivery settings.

\(i\) 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 or new delivery approaches should apply to Goal Two.
Goal Three projects are limited to those interventions that are fully
developed.

Applicants must provide evidence that the intervention can be
implemented in authentic education delivery settings -- that is,
evidence of the feasibility and usability of the proposed intervention
in authentic education delivery settings. The interventions may already
be in wide use in education setting or may be newly (but fully)
developed interventions.

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 rural school district.

\(ii\) Applicants must provide a compelling rationale that justifies the
Institute\'s investment in the evaluation of the proposed intervention.
As justification for the evaluation of an intervention, the Institute
will accept conceptual arguments of the importance of evaluating the
proposed intervention because of its relevance to public policy or
current education practice as would be judged by practitioners and
policymakers. For example, the proposed intervention may already be
widely used but have not been rigorously evaluated (e.g., a commercially
distributed program, a specific education policy). To support this
argument, applicants might include documentation of the widespread use
(e.g., across multiple states, or a single large state) of the program
to justify the proposed efficacy evaluation.

[]{.mark}

> Alternatively, applicants could provide a strong rationale justifying
> the investment in the evaluation of the proposed intervention based on
> (a) the theoretical foundation on which the intervention was
> developed; (b) research on related interventions or components of the
> proposed interventions; and/or (c) empirical evidence of the effect or
> potential effect of the proposed intervention based on smaller scale
> studies. In such cases, the applicant needs to address the question:
> Why is this intervention likely to produce better student outcomes
> relative to current practice? In addition, such applicants should
> address the *practical* importance of the proposed intervention. For
> example, is the intervention sufficiently comprehensive to improve
> student outcomes on end-of-year assessments? Is there evidence
> indicating that the proposed intervention is sufficiently different
> from current practices to potentially improve student outcomes
> relative to current practices?

\(iii\) Applicants should clearly describe a logic model for the
proposed intervention (e.g., describing the features or components of
the intervention and how they relate to each other and to the intended
outcomes both temporally (or operationally) and theoretically (e.g., why
A leads to B)). When applicants clearly describe the model that guides
the intervention and the intervention itself (e.g., specific features or
components of 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?).

[]{.mark}

> Some interventions are designed to affect the teaching and learning
> environment and indirectly affect student outcomes. In such cases, it
> is important for applicants to be clear in their logic model of the
> mediators that the intervention is designed to affect and through
> which student outcomes are intended to be improved.

[]{.mark}

> Strong applications will also include detailed descriptions of what
> the comparison group experiences. By clearly describing the
> intervention and the comparable treatment 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.

*By describing (a) the intervention (e.g., features, components) and the
logic model for the intervention, (b) the theoretical and empirical
support for the proposed intervention, and (c) the practical importance
of the intervention, Goal Three applicants are addressing aspects of the
significance of their proposal.*

[]{#PIII_D_Goal3_c .anchor}***c. Methodological requirements*.** **Under
Goal Three, the proposed research design must be appropriate for
answering the research questions or hypotheses that are posed.**

\(i\) *Research questions*. Applicants should pose clear, concise
hypotheses or research questions.

\(ii\) *Sample*. The applicant should define, as completely as possible,
the sample to be selected and sampling procedures to be employed for the
proposed study, including justification for exclusion and inclusion
criteria. Additionally, the applicant should describe strategies to
increase the likelihood that participants will remain in the study over
the course of the evaluation (i.e., reduce attrition).

\(iii\) *Research design*. The applicant must provide a detailed
research design. Applicants should describe how potential threats to
internal and external validity would 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) or participants
to treatment and comparison conditions.[^1]

*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., student achievement
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 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 teachers who volunteered
for the program to be evaluated, and would select comparison teachers
who had the opportunity to volunteer but did not. In contrast, an
acceptable design would select teachers in one particular geographical
area of a city to be in the intervention, whereas teachers 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 [5.D.d.
> *Requirements for single subject designs*](#SSReqs) for details.

\(iv\) *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.).[^2] Strong applications will include empirical
> justification for the intraclass correlation and anticipated effect
> size used in the power analysis.

\(v\) *Measures*. Measures of student outcomes should include relevant
standardized measures of student achievement in addition to other
measures of student learning and achievement that are more closely
aligned with the proposed intervention (e.g., researcher-developed
measures). 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.

> Some interventions are designed to change directly the teaching and
> learning environment and indirectly affect student outcomes. In such
> cases, applicants should provide measures of the primary mediators
> (i.e., proximal outcomes), as well as measures of student outcomes.

\(vi\) *Fidelity of implementation of the intervention*. The applicant
should specify how the implementation of the intervention would be
documented and measured. In strong applications, investigators will make
clear how the fidelity measures capture the critical features of the
intervention. Investigators should propose research designs that permit
the identification and assessment of factors impacting the fidelity of
implementation.

\(vii\) *Comparison group, where applicable*. Comparisons of
interventions against other conditions are only meaningful to the extent
that one can tell what comparison group receives or experiences.
Applicants should compare intervention and comparison groups on the
implementation of critical features of the intervention so that, for
example, if there is no observed difference between intervention and
comparison student outcomes, they can determine if key elements of the
intervention were also provided in the comparison condition (i.e., a
lack of distinction between the intervention treatment and the
comparison treatment).

> In evaluations of education interventions, individuals in the
> comparison group typically receive some kind of treatment; rarely is
> the comparison group a \"no-treatment\" control. 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 or program) 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 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.
> Applicants do not necessarily need to randomize at the school level to
> avoid contamination between groups. Applicants should explain and
> justify their strategies for reducing contamination.

\(viii\) *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.

\(ix\) *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, the process for selecting participants, and the critical
features of the physical 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 [5.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 to
demonstrate how the intervention was systematically manipulated and
under the control of the researcher.

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

\(iv\) *Baseline and* *Comparison conditions*. The majority of
single-subject research studies are likely to compare the effects of an
intervention with performance during the baseline or comparison
condition. Applicants must describe the baseline or comparison
conditions in sufficient detail to document what can be characterized as
a stable pattern of behavior and to allow other researchers to replicate
the baseline condition.

\(v\) *Measures*. Applicants must identify and operationally describe
the dependent variables (DVs) and 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 or agreement
(e.g., Kappa) associated with each DV 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 the research design demonstrates
experimental control and addresses common threats to internal and
external validity. 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 demonstrate a functional relationship between
manipulation of the intervention and the change in the outcomes, and to
determine if the response to the treatment is large enough and
sufficiently replicated to support a causal conclusion. Furthermore,
applicants must address how intervention 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 content area (e.g., reading, mathematics, student behaviors);
(b) the type of intervention being evaluated (e.g., curriculum, teacher
professional development, policy); (c) implementation of, and analysis
of results from, the research design that will be employed; and (d)
working with schools and other education delivery settings. Competitive
applicants will have access to institutional resources that adequately
support research.

For Goal Three projects, an applicant may be or may involve developers
or distributors (*including for-profit entities*) in the project, from
having them as full partners in its proposal to using off-the-shelf
training materials without involvement of the developer or distributor.
Involvement of the 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 applications 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.

### E. Requirements for Goal Four (Scale-Up Evaluations) 

[]{.mark}

***a.* *Purpose of scale-up evaluations***. Through all of its research
programs that include the Scale-up Evaluations goal (Goal Four), the
Institute intends to support effectiveness evaluations of
interventions - programs, practices - 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 Scale-up 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.
Scale-up Evaluations require that intervention 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, Scale-up Evaluations require
sufficient diversity in the sample of schools, classrooms, or students
to ensure appropriate generalizability. Scale-up Evaluations typically
require a larger sample than an Efficacy Evaluation. For Scale-up
Evaluations, the primary question of interest is, \"Does this
intervention produce a net positive increase in student learning and
achievement relative to the control group?\" 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 by schools (business-as-usual control
group). Finally, the Institute invests in Scale-up 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 are
    fully developed and have strong 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 (e.g., urban and rural school districts). Alternatively,
    a single efficacy evaluation might have involved schools from more
    than one district and included a diverse population of teachers and
    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 random 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.

\(ii\) *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 degree of support provided for the implementation of the
intervention and the level of fidelity attained across classrooms or
schools.

\(iii\) *Description of the intervention*. All applicants should clearly
describe the intervention (e.g., features, components). When applicants
clearly describe 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., training program) 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 the intervention and comparison conditions.

***c.* *Implementation of the intervention***. One goal of scale-up
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, Goal Four applicants are addressing
the significance of their proposal.*

***d. Methodological requirements***. **Under Goal Four, the proposed
research design must be appropriate for answering the research questions
or hypotheses that are posed.** For the methodological requirements for
Goal Four projects, please refer to the [methodological
requirements](#PIII_D_Goal3_c) listed under Goal Three.

In addition, to the methodological requirements listed under Goal Three,
for Goal Four projects, 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 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. 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.[^3]

***e. Personnel and resources***. Competitive applicants will have
research teams that collectively demonstrate expertise in: (a) the
relevant content area (e.g., reading, mathematics, student behaviors);
(b) the type of intervention proposed (e.g., program, practice, policy);
(c) implementation of, and analysis of results from, the research design
that will be employed; and (d) working with schools and other education
delivery settings.

Competitive applicants will have access to institutional resources that
adequately support research activities and access to schools in which to
conduct the research. Strong applications 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
teacher training materials without involvement of the developer or
publisher. However, involvement of the developer or distributor must not
jeopardize the objectivity of the evaluation. Strong applications will
carefully describe the role, if any, of the developer/distributor in the
intervention. Developers may not provide any training or support for the
implementation that is not normally available to users of the
intervention. Applicants should describe how objectivity in the
evaluation would be maintained. Strong applications will assign
responsibility for random assignment to condition and data analyses to
individuals who are *not* part of the organization that developed or
distributes the intervention.

*Collaborations including for-profit distributors of 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.

### 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.

While each purpose of assessment is important in determining children's
performance across domains and permits practitioners to gauge how
students are performing at different points in time (e.g., monitoring
progress during instruction vs. determining grade level proficiency)
aligned with different goals, conceptualizing and conducting assessment
in the broad context of accountability requires that researchers address
a different set of issues and goals. Thus, the Institute is also
interested in applications that address assessment for accountability.

***Assessment for Accountability***. Under Goal Five, projects may study
how assessments for large-scale accountability purposes, such as meeting
the requirements of NCLB, can best be designed and used to capture and
represent proficiency and growth for children with disabilities.
Projects must respond to the requirements of the topics under which they
are applying. For example, Goal Five projects in the Mathematics and
Science Education program may study assessments for accountability as
applied to measuring proficiency in mathematics or science; while
projects in the Secondary and Transition Services program may study
assessments for accountability within the context of secondary or
transition services. Projects on assessment for accountability may study
a variety of topics such as new assessment approaches, accommodations,
alternate assessments based on alternate or modified achievement
standards, individual student growth models for accountability purposes,
universal design and accessible assessments, and other topics.

***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; (c)
proposals to adapt assessments originally designed and used for research
purposes for broader use in instructional settings; and (d) proposals to
develop or test new techniques for assessment or analysis of assessment
data in the context of state accountability standards and systems.

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. Applications on
assessment for accountability should provide sufficient description of
the proposed assessment instrument or technique in the context of state
and federal accountability policies so that reviewers are able to judge
the merits and feasibility of the proposed research on assessment for
accountability.

*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.*** There are two aspects of the
research methodology that applicants must clearly address: (a) the
proposed methods for developing the assessment, and (b) the proposed
research methods for obtaining evidence of the *validity and
reliability* of the instrument.

\(i\) *[Assessment development]{.underline}*. Applicants must detail the
proposed procedures for developing the assessment. Strong applications
will include descriptions of: (a) the procedures for determining the
constructs that will be \"tapped\" by the instrument; (b) the procedures
for selecting items to be used in the assessment, including assessing
difficulty of selected items, and obtaining representative responses to
items; and (c) the process for determining the administrative procedures
for conducting the assessment (e.g., mode of administration,
inclusion/exclusion of individual test takers, and whether make-ups or
alternative administrative conditions will be allowed). Applicants
should describe the process they will use to collect empirical data that
will provide feedback for refining specific components of the
assessment. *Applicants should describe the iterative development
process to be used in the design and refinement of the proposed
measurement tool.*

\(ii\) *[Assessment evaluation]{.underline}*. Applicants must clearly
describe the research plans for determining the validity and reliability
of the instrument. Applicants should describe the characteristics, size,
and analytic adequacy of samples to be used in each study, including
justification for exclusion and inclusion criteria. Applicants should
describe detailed planned analytic methods (e.g., statistical and/or
psychometric models), plans for treatment of missing responses, and
criteria for interpreting results.

***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.
Applicants should also demonstrate access to statistical and measurement
resources and technical expertise needed for developing and studying
assessment instruments and techniques.

***e. Awards*.** Typical awards under Goal Five will be \$150,000 to
\$400,000 (total cost = direct + indirect costs) 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 IV GENERAL SUBMISSION AND REVIEW INFORMATION

## 6. APPLICATIONS AVAILABLE 

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:

<http://www.Grants.gov/>

by the following dates:

Topics with July 26, 2007 Application Deadline Date April 23, 2007

Topics with November 1, 2007 Application Deadline Date April 30, 2007

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

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

## 7. MECHANISM OF SUPPORT

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](#Requirements) section of the announcement.

## 8. FUNDING AVAILABLE

The size of the award depends on the scope of the project. Please see
specific details in the [Requirements of the Proposed
Research](#Requirements) 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.

## 9. ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS 

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.

## 10. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS

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.

Applicants should budget for one meeting each year in Washington, DC,
with other grantees and Institute staff for a duration of up to 3 days
of meetings. At least one project representative should attend the
three-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).

The Institute strongly advises applicants to establish a written
agreement among all key collaborators and their institutions (e.g.,
principal and co-principal investigators) regarding roles,
responsibilities, access to data, publication rights, and
decision-making procedures within 3 months of receipt of an award.

## 11. LETTER OF INTENT

A letter indicating an applicant's intent to submit an application is
optional, but encouraged, for each application. The letter of intent
form must be submitted electronically by the date listed at the
beginning of this document, using the instructions provided at:
[https://ies.constellagroup.com](https://ies.constellagroup.com/)

The letter of intent should include:

-   Descriptive title;

-   Topic and goal that the applicant will address;

-   Brief description of the proposed project;

-   Name, institutional affiliation, address, telephone number and
    e-mail address of the principal investigator(s);

-   Name and institutional affiliation of any key collaborators and
    contractors;

-   Duration of the proposed project;

-   Estimated budget request for each year; and

-   Total budget request.

The project description should be single-spaced and should not exceed
one page (about 3,500 characters). Although the letter of intent is
optional, is not binding, and does not enter into the review of a
subsequent application, the information that it contains allows
Institute staff to estimate the potential workload to plan the review.

## 12. SUBMITTING AN APPLICATION

Applications must be submitted **electronically by 4:30 p.m**.,
**Washington, DC time** on the application deadline date, using the ED
standard forms and the instructions provided at the following web site:

[http://www.Grants.gov](http://www.Grants.gov/)

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

## 13. CONTENTS OF APPLICATION 

All applications and proposals for Institute funding must be contained
within specified page limits. 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) application page limits, (c) acceptable format, and (d)
necessary attachments (.PDF files) will be provided in the **Application
Instructions** document for this competition that can be found under the
"For Applicants \-- Apply for Grants" link of Grants.gov. Also, all of
the required forms will be provided in the **Application Package** that
accompanies the Application Instructions.

You must search for the downloadable Application Instructions and
Application Package for each competition by the CFDA number. Do not
include the alpha suffix in your search (e.g., search for 84.324, not
84.324A). For this competition, make sure that you download the "Special
Education Research" Application Instructions and Application Package.

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 personnel, (e) narrative budget justification (f) subaward
budgets, (g) Appendix A, (h) Appendix B, (i) human subjects narrative,
and (j) additional forms. The instructions below will be reiterated in
the Application Instructions document for this competition, which will
be available, as noted above, under the "For Applicants \-- Apply for
Grants" link of Grants.gov.

### 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 document the feasibility of an
intervention); (4) the setting in which the research will be conducted
(e.g., rural school districts in Alabama); (5) the population(s) from
which the participants of the study(ies) will be sampled (age groups,
race/ethnicity, SES); (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; (9) if
applicable, measures of key outcomes; and (10) if applicable, data
analytic strategy.

Please see the website <http://ies.ed.gov/ncser/projects/> for examples
of project summaries/abstracts.

### 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,](#Requirements) and the
requirements listed under the relevant research grant topic, the
*project narrative* provides the majority of the information on which
reviewers will evaluate the proposal.

The project 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 the *Fiscal Year 2008 Application Package
Highlights,*** which will be part of the application instructions, to be
available on [http://www.Grants.gov](http://www.Grants.gov/) by April
23, 2007.

**a. *Significance****[.]{.underline}* In the [General Requirements of
the Proposed Research](#Requirements) section and in the subsections
describing the requirements for the proposed intervention, the Institute
details the information that the applicant should include in order to
address the significance of proposed Goal 1, Goal 2, Goal 3, Goal 4, and
Goal 5 projects.

For projects in which an intervention or assessment is proposed (whether
to be developed or to be evaluated), applicants may use Appendix B to
include up to 10 pages of examples of materials to be used by
participants (e.g., training materials for teachers, 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 applications for Goal One,
Goal Two, Goal Three, Goal Four, and Goal Five should address all of the
requirements detailed in the methodological requirements sections for
the appropriate research goal.

**c. *Personnel****.* Applicants must include brief descriptions of the
qualifications of key personnel (information on personnel should also be
provided in their curriculum vitae) in the research narrative to be
compliant with the requirements of the Request for Applications. For
each of the key personnel, please describe the roles, responsibilities,
and percent of time devoted to the project.

**d. *Resources***. Applicants must include a brief description of
resources available to support the project at the applicant's
institution and in the field settings in which the research will be
conducted in the research narrative to be compliant with the
requirements of the Request for Applications.

### 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. The fifth page of
the attachment should 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](#f.-subaward-budget)".)

[]{.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 10 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.

### 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 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. Research on Human Subjects

This section will be submitted as a .PDF attachment. If an applicant
proposes research activities involving human subjects at any time during
the proposed project period, either at the applicant organization or at
any other performance site or collaborating institution, then the
applicant must provide either a human subjects \"exempt research
narrative\" or a \"nonexempt research narrative" and upload this
narrative as instructed in the ***Fiscal Year 2008 Application Package
Highlights***. See the U.S. Department of Education's web page for
detailed information about the protection of human subjects in research:
<http://www.ed.gov/policy/fund/guid/humansub/overview.html>.

### J. 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
>
> \(2\) Grants.gov Lobbying Form
>
> \(3\) 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

## 14. APPLICATION PROCESSING 

Applications must be received by **4:30 pm, Washington, D.C.** **time**
on the application deadline 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.

## 15. PEER REVIEW PROCESS 

Applications that are compliant 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.

## 16. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR SCIENTIFIC MERIT 

The purpose 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 for all
applications 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, in the section of the
relevant research grant topic, and in the description of the project
narrative, which appears in the section on Contents of Application.

### A. Significance 

For significance of the project, Goal One applicants need to address the
theoretical and empirical rationale for the study and the practical
importance of the intervention (e.g., program, practice) that will be
examined issues, as outlined in section III.5.B.a (Purpose of
identification studies).

[]{.mark}

For significance of the project, Goal Two and Goal Three applicants need
to describe (a) the intervention (e.g., features, components) and the
logic model for the intervention, (b) the theoretical and empirical
support for the proposed intervention, and (c) the practical importance
of the intervention, as detailed in section III.5.C.b (for Goal Two:
Requirements for proposed intervention.) and in section III.5.D.b for
Goal Three.

[]{.mark}

For significance of the project, Goal Four applicants need to address
the implementation of the intervention as discussed in section III.5.E.c
and the requirements for the intervention in section III.5.E.b.

[]{.mark}

For significance of the project, Goal Five applicants need to describe
the theoretical and empirical support for the proposed assessment, the
practical utility of the assessment, and the components of the
assessment.

### B. Research Plan 

Does the applicant address the requirements described in the
methodological requirements section for the Goal under which the
applicant is submitting the proposal?

### 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?

## 17. RECEIPT AND START DATE SCHEDULE

### A. Letter of Intent Receipt Dates: 

Topics with July 26, 2007 Application Deadline Date May 24, 2007

Topics with November 1, 2007, Application Deadline Date September 6,
2007

### B. Application Deadline Dates: 

Topics with July 26, 2007 Application Deadline Date July 26, 2007

Topics with November 1, 2007, Application Deadline Date November 1, 2007

### C. Earliest Anticipated Start Date: 

Topics with July 26, 2007 Application Deadline Date March 2008

Topics with November 1, 2007, Application Deadline Date July 2008

## 18. AWARD DECISIONS 

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

## 19. INQUIRIES MAY BE SENT TO: 

A.  **Reading, Writing, and Language Development Special Education
    Research**

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

Telephone: (202) 219-2024

## 20. PROGRAM AUTHORITY

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.

## 21. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

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.

## 22. REFERENCES

### 

Baer, D.M., Wolf, M.M., Risley, T.R. (1968). Some current dimensions of
applied behavior analysis. *Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1,*
91-97.

Bailey, D.B., Hebbeler, K., Spiker, D., Scarborough, A., Makkik, S., &
Nelson, L. (2005). Thirty-six-month outcomes for families of children
who have disabilities and participated in early intervention.
*Pediatrics*, *116*, 1246-1352.

Becker, W.C., Madson, C.H., Jr., Arnold, C.R., & Thomas, D.R. (1967).
The contingent use of teacher attention and praise in reducing classroom
behavior problems. *Journal of Special Education, 1967*, 287-307.

Bradley, R., & Danielson, L. (2004). The Office of Special Education
Program\'s LD initiative: A context for inquiry and consensus. *Learning
Disability Quarterly, 27*(4), 186-188.

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.

Carr, E. G., Dunlap, G., Horner, R. H., Koegel, R. L., Turnbull, A. P.,
Sailor, W., et al. (2002). Positive behavior support: Evolution of an
applied science. *Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 4*, 4--16.

Carr, E. G., Robinson, S., Taylor, J. C., & Carlson, J. L. (1990).
Positive approaches to the treatment of severe behavior problems in
persons with developmental disabilities: A review and analysis of
reinforcement and stimulus-based procedures. *Monograph of the
Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 4.*

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

Coie, J. D., & Dodge, K. A. (1998). *Aggression and antisocial
behavior*. In W. Damon (Editor-in-Chief) and N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.),
Handbook of child psychology, 5^th^ edition. Volume 3. Social,
emotional, and personality development. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

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.

Farmer, T. W., Quinn, M. M., Hussey, W., & Holahan, T. (2001). The
development of disruptive behavior disorders and correlated constraints:
Implications for intervention. *Behavioral Disorders, 7*, 117-130.

Farmer, E. M. Z., Mustillo, S., Burns, B. J., & Costello, E. J. (2005).
The epidemiology of mental health problems and service use in youth:
Results from the Great Smoky Mountains study. In M. H. Epstein, K.
Kutash & A. Duchnowski (Eds.), *Outcomes for children and youth with
emotional and behavioral disorders and their families: programs and
evaluation best practices*. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

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.

Guralnick, M.J. (1988). Efficacy research in early childhood
intervention programs. In S.L. Odom & M.B. Karnes (Eds). Early
intervention for infants and children with handicaps: An empirical base
*(*pp. 75-88). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

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

Horner, R., Dunlap, G., Beasley, J., Fox, L., Bambara, L., Brown F., et
al. (2005). Positive support for behavioral, mental, health,
communication, and crisis needs. In K. C. Lakin & A. Turnbull (Eds).,
*National goals and research for people with intellectual and
developmental disabilities* (pp. 93-107). Washington, DC: American
Association on Mental Retardation.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004, P.L. 108-446, 118
Stat. 2647 (2004)

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.

Kuhn, T.S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.

Lane, K.L., Menzies, H. M., Munton, S. M., Von Duering, R. M., &
English, G. L. (2005). The effects of a supplemental early literacy
program for a student at risk: A case study. *Preventing School Failure,
50*, 21-28.

Lee, Y., Sugai, G., & Horner, R. (1999). Effect of component skill
instruction on math performance and on-task, problem, and off-task
behavior of students with emotional and behavioral disorders. *Journal
of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 1*, 195-204.

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/njcld/>

National Research Council and Institute of Medicine (2000) *From Neurons
to Neighborhoods: The Science of Early Childhood Development.* Committee
on Integrating the Science of Early Childhood Development. Jack P.
Shonkoff and Deborah A. Phillips, eds. Board on Children, Youth, and
Families, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Safran, S. P., & Oswald, K. (2003). Positive behavior supports: Can
schools reshape disciplinary practices? *Exceptional children, 69*(3),
361-374.

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.

Sugai, G., Horner, R.H., Dunlap, G., Hieneman, M., Lewis, T.J., Nelson,
C.M., Scott, T., Liaupsin, C., Sailor, W., Turnbull, A.P., Turnbull,
H.R., III, Wickham, D., Reuf, M., & Wilcox, B. (2000). Applying positive
behavioral support and functional behavioral assessment in schools.
*Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 2,* 131-143.

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.]{.underline}

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Data, 2005, Retrieved March
22, 2007, from <http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/>.

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National
Early Intervention Longitudinal Study (NEILS) Data, 2001, Retrieved
March 1, 2007, from
<http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/2001/section-iii.pdf>[\>.]{.underline}

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences,
Pre-Elementary Education Longitudinal Study (PEELS) Data, 2003-2004,
Retrieved March 1, 2007, from
<https://www.peels.org/DataTables/default.asp>\>

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, Special
Education Elementary Longitudinal Study (SEELS) Data, 2004, Retrieved
March 1, 2007, from
<http://www.seels.net/search/datatableOverview.htm>\>.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services, Office of Special Education Programs, *26^th^*
*Annual (2004) Report to Congress on the Implementation of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education* *Act*, vol. 1, Washington,
D.C., 2005.

U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services, Office of Special Education Program, *A New
Era: Revitalizing Special Education for Children and Their Families*,
Washington, DC, 2002.

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.

Walker, H.M. & Sprague, J.R. (1999). The path to school failure,
delinquency, and violence: Casual factors and some potential solutions*.
Intervention in School and Clinic, 35*, 67-73.

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.

[^1]: For additional information on describing procedures for
    randomization, see the What Works Clearinghouse document, *Evidence
    Standards for Reviewing Studies* (p. 6), available at
    <http://www.whatworks.ed.gov/reviewprocess/study_standards_final.pdf>.

[^2]: For more information, see Donner, A., & Klar, N. (2000). *Design
    and Analysis of Cluster Randomization Trials in Health Research*.
    New York: Oxford University Press; Murray, D. M. (1998). *Design and
    Analysis of Group-Randomized Trials*. New York: Oxford University
    Press; W.T. Grant Foundation & University of Michigan,
    <http://sitemaker.umich.edu/group-based/optimal_design_software>.

[^3]: For additional information on how to calculate the costs of a
    program or conduct an economic evaluation, applicants might refer to
    Levin, H.M., & McEwan, P.J. (2001). *Cost-Effectiveness Analysis*.
    2nd Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.