Archived Information

PREDOCTORAL INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH TRAINING PROGRAM IN THE EDUCATION
SCIENCES

CFDA NUMBER: 84.305

RELEASE DATE: February 4, 2004

REQUEST FOR APPLICATIONS: NCER-04-06

# Institute of Education Sciences 

<http://www.ed.gov/programs/edresearch/applicant.html>

LETTER OF INTENT RECEIPT DATE: March 11, 2004

APPLICATION RECEIPT DATE: May 27, 2004

THIS REQUEST FOR APPLICATIONS CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION:

1.  Request for Applications

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  Purpose of the Training Program

2.  Background

3.  Requirements of the Proposed Training Program

4.  Applications Available

5.  Mechanism of Support

6.  Funding Available

7.  Eligible Applicants

8.  Special Requirements

9.  Letter of Intent

10. Submitting an Application

11. Contents and Page Limits of Application

12. Application Processing

13. Peer Review Process

14. Review Criteria

15. Receipt and Review Schedule

16. Award Decisions

17. Where to Send Inquiries

18. Program Authority

19. Applicable Regulations

20. References

[1. REQUEST FOR APPLICATIONS]{.underline}

The Institute of Education Sciences (Institute) invites applications for
its Predoctoral Interdisciplinary Research Training Program in the
Education Sciences. For this competition, the Institute will consider
only applications that meet the requirements outlined below under the
section on Requirements of the Proposed Training Program.

[2. PURPOSE OF THE TRAINING PROGRAM]{.underline}

The Institute's objectives in creating the Predoctoral Interdisciplinary
Research Training Program in the Education Sciences are to support the
development of innovative interdisciplinary training programs for
doctoral students interested in conducting applied education research,
and to establish a network of training programs that collectively
produce a cadre of education researchers willing and able to conduct a
new generation of methodologically rigorous and educationally relevant
scientific research that will provide solutions to pressing problems and
challenges facing American education.

[3. BACKGROUND]{.underline}

A number of recent reports have described current education practice as
not resting on a solid research base (Coalition for Evidence-Based
Policy, 2002; NRC, 1999, NRC, 2000, NRC, 2002). Instead, policy
decisions are often guided by personal experience, folk wisdom, and
ideology. The passage of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 signals
that the education enterprise of the United States has entered a new era
in which policy and practice are expected to be based on evidence. This
will require a transformation in the field of education. Practitioners
will have to turn routinely to education research when making important
decisions, and education researchers will have to produce research that
is relevant to those decisions. To achieve this ambitious agenda, there
is a need for a cadre of well-trained scientists capable of conducting
high quality research that is relevant to practitioners and policy
makers.

There are significant capacity issues within the education research
community. According to a recent survey conducted by the National
Opinion Research Center, only 7% of doctorate recipients in the field of
Education cite research and development as their primary postdoctoral
activity (Hoffer et.al., 2003). Similarly, a recent membership survey
conducted by the American Educational Research Association (AERA)
revealed that less than a quarter of its membership cite research as
being their major responsibility (AERA, 2002). Perhaps even more
worrisome is the fact that the number of Education doctorate recipients
in the subfields of Education Statistics/Research Methods and
Educational Assessment, Testing and Measures is extremely low compared
to other subfields. This imbalance has remained consistent over the
course of the past ten years (Hoffer, et.al., 2003; APA Research Office,
in press). The situation is no better in closely-related disciplines.
For instance, the number of doctoral degrees in educational psychology
has declined from 144 in 1978 to 48 in 2001 (Hoffer et al., 2003).
Compounding this decline is the fact that of the 48 doctoral degree
recipients in 2001, only 16 reported being involved in research within
one year of the receipt of their degree (APA Research Office, in press).
Transforming education into an evidence-based field is very important
work for the nation. It will require training new researchers in
sufficient numbers to address the many tasks at hand.

There are also significant issues pertaining to the nature of the
training that is currently being provided by graduate programs (Viadero,
2004). Many schools of education are not providing rigorous research
training for doctoral students. While research training that is relevant
to education is often provided elsewhere in universities, e.g.,
psychology and economics departments, these disciplines are seldom
focused on education topics, and students are pointed towards other
careers and research interests. Moreover, there seems to be a mismatch
between what education decision makers want from the education research
community and what the education research community is providing.
Educational practitioners want research to help them make informed
decisions in those areas in which they have choices to make, such as
curriculum and teacher professional development. They want the research
and development enterprise to generate valid and useable assessment
instruments. They want information on the relative costs and benefits of
different education investments. They want effective management
strategies to be developed and validated.

Many of the questions raised by practitioners and policy makers require
answers to questions of what works in education for whom under what
circumstances. These are causal questions that are best answered by
randomized trials of interventions and approaches brought to scale. Yet,
these are questions and methods with which relatively few in the
education research community have been engaged. While the total number
of articles featuring randomized field trials in other areas of social
science research has steadily grown over the past 30 years, the number
of randomized trials in education has lagged far behind (Boruch, de Moya
& Snyder, 2001; Cook, 2001). A recent survey of every empirical article
published in the American Educational Research Association's two premier
journals over a ten-year span from 1993 to 2002 revealed that only 6% of
the research reports utilized a randomized trial. In contrast, over six
times as many studies used qualitative methods as the primary research
tool (Whitehurst, 2003). Qualitative methods have a valid use in
education research, but it is not to answer questions of what works. The
dominance of qualitative methods in research reports in leading
education research journals and the dominance of what works questions
among practitioners is a clear sign of the mismatch between the focus of
the practice community and the current research community.

Another category of questions raised by the practice community focuses
on assessment. The standards and accountability movement has generated a
ballooning demand for people who are trained in the design,
implementation, analysis, and use of education tests and measures to
assess the results of instruction, to aid in the selection and promotion
of staff, and to support the management of schools and districts.
Individuals with skills in psychometrics are needed throughout the
education sector, from federal statistical agencies to university
training programs to state education agencies to test developers, to
local school districts. However, no more than 15 Psychology doctoral
degrees in psychometrics have been awarded in a given year since 1992,
and a ten year low of 2 were awarded in 2001 (APA Research Office, in
press). Supply is meager.

Yet another category of problems raised by practitioners and policy
makers is the need for a new generation of teaching materials and
curricula that take advantage of expanding knowledge of how people learn
and that leverage new delivery mechanisms such as the internet and
personal computers (NRC, 2000). The design, testing, and implementation
of new teaching methods will require scientists who are well trained in
cognition, learning, and motivation, and who also are prepared to
grapple with the challenges of extending laboratory-derived knowledge of
these topics to teaching and learning in complex, real-world
environments. Researchers who can straddle the worlds of cognitive
science and education practice are very badly needed.

The needs of education policy and practice are served not only by
research that directly addresses problem solution but also by research
that raises questions and generates hypotheses that can eventually lead
to new applications or refinements of existing approaches (NRC, 2002).
Frequently hypothesis-generating research relies on complex statistical
methods that can tease out potential causal influences in large,
correlational datasets. Statistical training is also needed in the
design and analysis of experimental and quasi-experimental studies, as
well as survey and observational data. While there are many doctoral
training programs that focus on applied mathematics and statistics, the
application of this expertise to problems in education requires that
students be grounded in education content. That, in turn, requires a
concentration of students and faculty who are focused on education
topics.

In order to increase the supply of scientists and researchers in
education who are prepared to conduct rigorous evaluation studies,
develop new products and approaches that are grounded in a science of
learning, design valid tests and measures, and explore data with
sophisticated statistical methods, this initiative will fund the
creation of innovative interdisciplinary research training programs in
the education sciences. Grants will be awarded to institutions that can
put together a program across disciplines such as psychology, political
science, economics, statistics, sociology, education, and epidemiology
that will provide intensive training in education research and
statistics. Predoctoral students will graduate within a traditional
discipline, e.g., economics, but will receive a certificate in education
sciences, and will be expected to conduct dissertations on education
topics.

[4. REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROPOSED TRAINING PROGRAM]{.underline}

Proposals submitted to this competition must be organized around one or
more interdisciplinary education research themes and involve a group of
faculty members from a number of different relevant disciplines across
the institution. Typically, interdisciplinarity will be achieved by
crossing the boundaries of departments or schools within a single
institution, but applications will be considered that achieve this goal
through other means such as consortia of faculty from multiple
institutions within the same geographic area. Applicants also may
consider partnerships with entities currently engaged in education
research and evaluation contract activities that would provide practical
field experience in school-based research. The interdisciplinary theme
provides a framework for integrating research and education and for
promoting collaborative efforts within and across departments. Fellows
should gain the breadth of skills and understanding necessary to conduct
rigorous applied research in education while at the same time being well
grounded in their major fields. The proposed training program should
include the following features:

1.  A Program Director (PD) who will be the head of the training program
    and is expected to be an essential participant in its educational
    and research activities. The PD will have overall responsibility for
    the administration of the award, management of the program, and
    interactions with the Institute;

2.  A core of five or more outstanding faculty (including the PD) from
    two or more disciplines with proven track records in research and
    training in education-related topics;

3.  One or more interdisciplinary themes, appropriate for doctoral level
    research in

> education, that serve as the foundation for program activities. Some
> examples would include (but not be limited to):

-   Interdisciplinary training in the design and implementation of
    randomized field trials in complex, real world settings such as
    schools. Training could encompass coursework and research typically
    carried out by faculty from departments of Psychology, Education,
    Economics and Sociology, as well as Schools of Public Health.
    Coursework could entail subjects such as research methods,
    epidemiology, statistics and measurement development as well as
    content-specific coursework.

-   Interdisciplinary training in cognitive sciences related to
    cognition and learning, including teaching and pedagogy. Training
    could encompass coursework and research typically conducted by
    faculty from departments of Psychology, Education, Computer Science,
    and Cognitive Neuroscience, as well as Schools of Engineering.
    Coursework could entail subjects such as research methods,
    statistics, measurement development, cognitive science, motivation,
    educational technology, human factors, software development, and
    information technology.

4.  Institutional strategy and plan for the recruitment, mentoring, and
    retention of a full-

> time complement of at least 10 U.S. graduate fellows, including
> outreach efforts to encourage applications from members of
> underrepresented minorities and persons with disabilities;

5.  Innovative graduate education and training mechanisms, curricula
    enhancement,

> and other educational features that foster strong interactions among
> participating
>
> fellows and faculty (e.g., new coursework, proseminar series, special
> colloquia,
>
> research collaboration involving graduate fellows and faculty members
> who are part
>
> of the consortia);

6.  Provision of fellowship stipend support for all fellows who are
    admitted into the program. The default stipend amount is \$30,000
    per year (12 months) per fellow for up to 5 years. Applicants may
    propose other arrangements with justification, e.g., campus policies
    on levels of student stipends. All fellowship stipend recipients
    must be citizens or permanent residents of the U.S. In addition,
    fellowship recipients must be registered as full-time students
    during each term for which they will be receiving fellowship
    support. Fellows must make satisfactory progress towards the degree
    in order to remain eligible for program funds. The fellowship also
    will provide a cost-of-education allowance of up to \$10,500 per
    year per fellow for tuition, health insurance, and normal fees.
    Funds must be requested for the Program Director to travel to
    Washington, DC for a two-day kickoff meeting in the Fall of 2004,
    and to support both Program Director and fellows' travel for one
    two-day meeting each year in Washington, DC, with other grantees and
    Institute staff. Funds also may be requested to support fellow
    registration and travel expenses to attend professional conferences.
    Funds may be requested up to \$25,000 per year to partially defray
    the routine costs of research by fellows (e.g., local travel to
    research sites, materials). Requests for grant supplements to
    support more extensive research projects by individual or
    collaborating fellows will be considered. Proposals requesting such
    supplements may be submitted to the Institute at any time during the
    award period;

7.  There are no funds for faculty research or salaries with the
    following exceptions: (a) up to 5 months total of faculty salary
    support for the development of new program curricula; (b) up to two
    months of salary support per year for the Program Director for
    management purposes; (c) up to half the salary of a new faculty
    member who would be recruited specifically to enhance the breadth
    and quality of the interdisciplinary research training program;
    and (d) funds to support short-term visiting faculty who will
    enhance the breadth and quality of the interdisciplinary research
    training program. Funds may be requested to support colloquia as
    part of the training program, including but not limited to travel
    support for guest research and training presentations. Applicants
    may request up to six months of salary support per year for a
    Program Coordinator for logistical and clerical program support.
    Funds for facility renovation and maintenance are not allowed;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
8.  Fellows' doctoral dissertations and other required products must
    address practical

> questions in education. Dissertation committees must include at least
> two faculty
>
> members who are part of the interdisciplinary training program;
>
> 9\. Administrative plan and organizational structure that ensures
> effective management of the program resources; and
>
> 10\. Institutional commitment(s) to furthering the goals of the
> training program and creating a supportive environment for research
> and education.

[5. APPLICATIONS AVAILABLE]{.underline}

Application forms and instructions for the electronic submission of
applications will be available for this program of research no later
than March 11, 2004, from the following web site:

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

[6. MECHANISM OF SUPPORT]{.underline}

The Institute intends to award grants for periods up to 5 years pursuant
to this request for applications.

[7. FUNDING AVAILABLE]{.underline}

Awards will be made in amounts ranging from \$500,000 to \$1,000,000
(total cost) per year for a duration of five years. The amount of the
award will depend on the scope of the program and the number of fellows
to be supported on stipends. Although the plans of the Institute include
this training program, 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 programs
funded depends upon the number of high quality applications submitted.

[8. ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS]{.underline}

Academic institutions in the United States and its territories that
grant the Ph.D. degree in fields relevant to education may submit
proposals under this competition. Training programs may involve more
than one institution, but a single institution must accept overall
management responsibility for the program (34 CFR 74.51(a)).

[9. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS]{.underline}

Program Directors will be asked to submit a yearly report due one month
prior to the annual meeting assessing the effectiveness of the program
and describing the status of fellows in the program.

Research associated with this training program must be relevant to U.S.
education. Fellowship recipients and others associated with the program
are expected to publish or otherwise make publicly available the results
of the work supported through this training program.

Predoctoral fellowship recipients and Program Directors must attend one
two-day meeting each year in Washington, DC, with other grantees and
Institute staff.

[10. LETTER OF INTENT]{.underline}

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

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

The letter of intent should include a descriptive title, the
interdisciplinary research training theme(s) that the application will
address, and a brief description of the proposed training program (no
longer than one page, single-spaced, using a 12 point font without
compression or kerning); the name, institutional affiliation, address,
telephone number and e-mail address of the Program Director; and the
name and institutional affiliation of four or more key faculty members.
The letter of intent should provide an estimated budget request by year,
and a total budget request. Although the letter of intent is optional,
is not binding, and does not enter into the review of subsequent
applications, the information that it contains allows Institute staff to
estimate the potential workload to plan the review.

[11. SUBMITTING AN APPLICATION]{.underline}

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

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

Application forms and instructions for the electronic submission of
applications will be available for this program no later than March 11,
2004. Potential applicants should check this site for information about
the electronic submission procedures that must be followed and the
software that will be required.

The application form approved for this program is OMB Number 1890-0009.

[12. CONTENTS AND PAGE LIMITS OF APPLICATION]{.underline}

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

Sections described below, and summarized in Table 1, represent the body
of a proposal submitted to the Institute and should be organized in the
order listed below. Sections *[a]{.underline}* (ED 424) through
*[h]{.underline}* (Appendix A) are required parts of the proposal. All
sections must be submitted electronically.

Observe the page number limitations given in Table 1.

**Table 1**

+----------------------------------+----------+------------------------+
| **Section**                      | **Page   | **Additional           |
|                                  | Limit**  | Information**          |
+----------------------------------+----------+------------------------+
| a\. Application for Federal      | n/a      |                        |
| Education Assistance (ED 424)    |          |                        |
+----------------------------------+----------+------------------------+
| b\. Budget Information           | n/a      |                        |
| Non-Construction Programs (ED    |          |                        |
| 524)                             |          |                        |
+----------------------------------+----------+------------------------+
| c\. Project Abstract             | 1        |                        |
+----------------------------------+----------+------------------------+
| d\. Training Program Narrative   | 20       | Figures, charts,       |
|                                  |          | tables, and            |
|                                  |          |                        |
|                                  |          | diagrams may be        |
|                                  |          | included in Appendix A |
+----------------------------------+----------+------------------------+
| e\. Reference List               | no limit | Complete citations,    |
|                                  |          | including              |
|                                  |          |                        |
|                                  |          | titles and all authors |
+----------------------------------+----------+------------------------+
| f\. Curriculum Vita of Key       | no limit | No more than 3 pages   |
| Personnel                        |          | for each               |
|                                  |          |                        |
|                                  |          | key person             |
+----------------------------------+----------+------------------------+
| g\. Budget Narrative             | no limit |                        |
+----------------------------------+----------+------------------------+
| h\. Appendix A                   | 15       |                        |
+----------------------------------+----------+------------------------+

a\. *Application for Federal Education Assistance (ED 424).* The form
and instructions are available on the website.

b.  *Budget Information Non-Construction Programs (ED 524).* The
    application must include a budget for each year of support requested
    and a cumulative budget for the full term of requested Institute
    support. Applicants must provide budget information for each project
    year using the ED 524 form (a link to the form is provided on the
    application website at
    [https://ies.constellagroup.com](https://ies.constellagroup.com/)).
    ED 524 form has three sections: A, B, and C.

Instructions for Sections A and B are included on the form. Instructions
for Section C are as follows. Section C must provide an itemized budget
breakdown for each project year, for each budget category listed in
Sections A and B. Section C may be submitted as an Excel spreadsheet
with an itemized listing of project costs accompanying the budget
narrative uploaded as part of the PDF file. For personnel, include a
listing of percent effort for each project year, as well as the cost.
Section C should also include a listing of each piece of equipment,
itemization of supplies into separate categories, and itemization of
travel requests (e.g. conference travel, etc.) into separate categories.
Any other expenses should be itemized by category and unit cost. For
multi-institution training programs, the lead institution shall submit
the proposal, with other participating institutions included as
subcontractors (34 CFR 74.5). Budgets shall be provided for the overall
project as well as individually for the lead institution and for each
subcontractor. U.S. Department of Education policy (34 CFR 75.562
(c)(2)) limits indirect cost reimbursement on a training grant to the
recipient's actual indirect costs, as determined by its negotiated
indirect cost rate agreement, or eight percent of a modified total
direct cost base, whichever amount is less. For the purposes of this
competition, a modified total direct cost base is defined as total
direct costs less stipends, tuition and related fees, and capital
expenditures of \$5,000 or more.

*c. Project Abstract.* The *project abstract* is limited to one page and
must include: (1) The title of the training program; (2) the name and
institutional affiliation of the PD; and (3) a brief description of the
proposed training program, highlighting its key interdisciplinary
educational and research features.

d\. *Proposed* *Training Program Narrative.* Incorporating the
requirements outlined under the section on Requirements of the Proposed
Training Program, the *training program narrative* provides the majority
of the information on which reviewers will evaluate the proposal and
should include the following sections (1 through 4) in the order listed:

> \(1\) [Detailed Description of the Proposed Training Program
> (suggested: 14-17 pages)]{.underline}
>
> Describe the overall theme(s), structure, goals, and anticipated
> impact of the proposed interdisciplinary research training program.
> Describe its thematic basis and unifying aspects, noting the various
> interdisciplinary educational and research activities to be offered.
> Include a discussion of what is missing from graduate education and
> training in your current program and what could be done more
> effectively, including overcoming disciplinary and institutional
> barriers to genuine interdisciplinary research training. Discuss how
> the proposed program will address these issues. Describe the graduate
> education and training mechanisms that are essential to the proposed
> program, highlighting its new or innovative features. Outline ongoing
> lines of education research being conducted by the proposed faculty
> and how research practica and other training activities will be
> incorporated into the training program. Discuss how the proposed
> program will address the issues raised in this request for
> applications. Discuss potential career development opportunities to be
> provided to fellowship recipients. List concrete strategies for
> advertising the program and recruiting fellows and the approximate
> number of fellows to be admitted to the program. Address how
> recruitment procedures will encourage the participation of
> underrepresented minorities and persons with disabilities.

(2) [Institutional Commitment, Management, and Program Evaluation
    (suggested: 3-4 pages)]{.underline}

Describe the commitment of the institution(s) at all appropriate
administrative levels to supporting the goals of the proposed training
program and to creating a supportive environment for interdisciplinary
education research. Applicants should describe the recruitment and
retention of graduate students at the institution (s) over the last
three years, including information (e.g., demographics, average GRE
scores) for applicants and enrollees, and the number of doctorates
awarded, including average time to degree. This information may be
listed in tabular format in Appendix A. A supporting letter of
commitment from the senior administration of all participating
institutions must be included in Appendix A. Describe plans and
procedures for the overall management of the program. These plans should
include clear and fair procedures for the allocation of program funds,
including the amount and duration of fellowship support, management of
day-to-day operations, etc. Describe plans for assessing the overall
effectiveness of the training program (include a list of measures to be
collected and analyzed on a year-to-year basis).

> \(3\) [Personnel (suggested: 1-2 pages)]{.underline}
>
> Include brief descriptions of the qualifications of key personnel,
> including the Program Director and four or more other key faculty
> members, specifying their proposed role in the training program
> (information on personnel should also be provided in their curriculum
> vitae).
>
> \(4\) [Resources (suggested: 1-2 pages)]{.underline}
>
> Provide a description of the resources available to support the
> training program at the participating institution(s) including field
> settings (e.g., schools, software development labs) with which the
> institution has a relationship that could support fellows' training
> and research projects.

The training program narrative is limited to the equivalent of 20 pages,
where a "page" is 8.5 in. x 11 in., on one side only, with 1 inch
margins at the top, bottom, and both sides. Single space all text in the
training program 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
training program narrative including footnotes. See frequently asked
questions available at
[https://ies.constellagroup.com](https://ies.constellagroup.com/) on or
before March 11, 2004.

Conform to the following four requirements:

> \(1\) The height of the letters must not be smaller than 12 point;
>
> \(2\) Type density, including characters and spaces, must be no more
> than 15 characters per inch (cpi). For proportional spacing, the
> average for any representative section of text must not exceed 15 cpi;
>
> \(3\) No more than 6 lines of type within a vertical inch;
>
> \(4\) Margins, in all directions, must be at least 1 inch.
>
> Applicants should check the type size using a standard device for
> measuring type size, rather than relying on the font selected for a
> particular word processing/printer combination. Figures, charts,
> tables, and figure legends may be smaller in size but must be readily
> legible. The type size used must conform to all four requirements.
> Small type size makes it difficult for reviewers to read the
> application. Adherence to type size and line spacing requirements is
> also necessary so that no applicant will have an unfair advantage, by
> using small type, or providing more text in their applications.
> **Note, these requirements apply to the PDF file as submitted**. As a
> practical matter, applicants who use 12 point Times New Roman without
> compressing, kerning, condensing or other alterations typically meet
> these requirements.
>
> Use only black and white in graphs, diagrams, tables, and charts. The
> application must contain only material that reproduces well when
> photocopied in black and white.

The 20-page limit does *not* apply to the ED 424 form, the one-page
abstract, the ED 524 form and budget narrative justification, the
curriculum vitae, or reference list. Reviewers are able to conduct the
highest quality review when applications are concise and easy to read,
with pages numbered consecutively.

e\. *Reference List*. Please include complete citations, including
titles and all authors, for literature cited in the training program
narrative.

f\. *Brief Curriculum Vita of Key Personnel*. Abbreviated curriculum
vita should be provided for the Program Director and other key faculty
members. Each vita is limited to 3 pages and should include information
sufficient to demonstrate that personnel possess training and expertise
commensurate with their duties. [The vita should include current Federal
award support, including other training grants.]{.underline} The
curriculum vita must adhere to the margin, format, and font size
requirements described in the training program narrative section.

g\. *Budget Narrative*. The *budget narrative* must provide sufficient
detail to allow

> reviewers to judge whether reasonable costs have been attributed to
> the training program. It must include the time commitments and brief
> descriptions of the responsibilities of key faculty. *The budget
> justification should correspond to the itemized breakdown of project
> costs that is provided in ED 524 form Section C*. 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 Section C.

h\. *Appendix A*. In A*ppendix A,* the applicant must provide support
letters from all participating institutions. The letter(s) 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 training program that will be required if the
application is funded. Applicants also may include any additional
figures, charts, or tables that supplement the training program
narrative in this section. Appendix A is limited to 15 pages.

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

> \(1\) SF 424B - Assurances-Non-Construction Programs

\(2\) ED-80-0013 - Certification Regarding Lobbying, Debarment,
Suspension and other Responsibility Matters; and Drug-Free Workplace
Requirements

> \(3\) ED 80-0014 (if applicable) - Lower Tier Certification
>
> \(4\) SF-LLL (if applicable) - Disclosure of Lobbying Activities

[13. APPLICATION PROCESSING]{.underline}

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

[14. PEER REVIEW PROCESS]{.underline}

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

Each application will be assigned to at least two primary reviewers who
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 only those applications deemed to have the
highest merit, as reflected by the preliminary rank order and the most
competitive proposals will be discussed and scored.

[15. REVIEW CRITERIA]{.underline}

The goal of Institute-supported programs is to contribute to the
solution of education problems and to provide reliable information about
the education practices that support learning and improve academic
achievement and access to education for all students. Reviewers will be
expected to assess the following aspects of an application in order to
judge the likelihood that the proposed interdisciplinary research
training program 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 Training Program
and in the description of the training program narrative, which appears
in the section on Contents and Page Limits of Application.

Significance Does the applicant make a compelling case for the potential
contribution of the proposed interdisciplinary research training
program?

Program Plan Does the applicant present (a) a strong plan for the
proposed training program; (b) a clear interdisciplinary orientation
that emphasizes rigorous training in research methodology; and (c) an
emphasis on research that addresses practical problems in education?
Does the proposed plan meet the requirements described in the section on
the Requirements of the Proposed Training Program and in the description
of the training program narrative in the section on Contents and Page
Limits?

Personnel Does the description of the personnel make it apparent that
the Program Director and key faculty possess the training and experience
and will commit sufficient time to competently implement the proposed
training program?

Resources Does the applicant have the facilities, equipment, supplies,
and other resources required to support the proposed training
activities? Do the commitments of all participating institutions show
support for the implementation and success of the project?

[16. RECEIPT AND REVIEW SCHEDULE]{.underline}

Letter of Intent Receipt Date: March 11, 2004

# Application Receipt Date: May 27, 2004, 8:00 p.m. Eastern time

Earliest Anticipated Start Date: September 1, 2004

[17. AWARD DECISIONS]{.underline}

The following will be considered in making award decisions:

Overall strength of the proposed training program as determined by the
peer review process

Responsiveness to the requirements of this request

Performance and use of funds under a previous Federal award

Contribution to the overall goals described in this request

Availability of funds

[18. INQUIRIES MAY BE SENT TO:]{.underline}

Dr. James Griffin

Institute of Education Sciences

555 New Jersey Avenue, NW

Suite 611a

Washington, DC 20208

Email : James.Griffin@ed.gov

Telephone: (202) 219-2280

[19. PROGRAM AUTHORITY]{.underline}

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

[20. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS]{.underline}

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

[21. REFERENCES]{.underline}

American Educational Research Association (AERA). (2002). *Demographic
characteristics of*

> *AERA membership in 2001-2002*. Retrieved December 23, 2003 from
> [http://www.aera.net/about/reports/annual/02/tables.pdf]{.underline}.

American Psychological Association (APA), Research Office. (in press).
*2001 Doctorate*

*Employment Survey*. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Boruch, R., de Moya, D., and Snyder, B. (2001). The importance of
randomized field trials in

education and related fields. In R. Boruch and F. Mosteller (Eds.).
*Evidence Matters*.

Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy. (2002, November). Rigorous
evidence: The key to

progress in education? Lessons from medicine, welfare and other fields.
*Proceedings of*

*The Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy Forum*, Washington, DC.

Cook, T.D. (2001). Sciencephobia: Why education researchers reject
randomized experiments.

*Education Next*. Retrieved January 5 from
[www.educationnext.org](http://www.educationnext.org/).

Hoffer, T.B., S. Sederstrom, L. Selfa, V.Welch, M. Hess, S. Brown, S.
Reyes, K. Webber, and

I. Guzman-Barron. (2003). *Doctorate Recipients from United States
Universities: Summary*

*Report 2002*. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center. (The report
gives the results of

Data collected in the Survey of Earned Doctorates, conducted for six
Federal agencies, NSF,

NIH, USED, NEH, USDA, and NASA by NORC.).

National Research Council. (1999). *Improving student learning: A
strategic plan for education*

*Research and its utilization*. Committee on a Feasibility Study for a
Strategic Education

Research Program. Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and
Education.

Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (2000). *How people learn: Brain, mind,
experience and school*.

Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning. J. Bransford, A.
Brown, and

R. Cocking (Eds.). Committee on Learning Research and Educational
Practice. S. Donovan,

J. Bransford, and J. Pellegrino (Eds.). Commission on Behavioral and
Social Sciences in

Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council (2002). *Scientific research in education*.
Committee on Scientific

Principles for Education Research. R.J. Shavelson and L. Towne (Eds.).
Center for

Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.
Washington, DC:

National Academy Press.

Viadero, D. (2004). The skills gap. *Education Week*, 23 (16), 30, 31,
33.

Whitehurst, G. J. (2003). The Institute of Education Sciences: New wine,
new bottles.

> *Presentation given at the annual meeting of the American Educational
> Research Association*.

Retrieved on December 20, 2003 from
[http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/ies.html]{.underline}.