**SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHER QUALITY RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM**

CFDA NUMBER: 84.324

RELEASE DATE: May 6, 2005

REQUEST FOR APPLICATIONS NUMBER:

1\. NCSER-06-07 Special Education Teacher Quality -- Mathematics and
Science Research Grants Program

2\. NCSER-06-08 Special Education Teacher Quality -- Reading and Writing
Research Grants Program

INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION SCIENCES

<http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ies/programs.html>

LETTER OF INTENT RECEIPT DATES:

1\. Special Education Teacher Quality -- Mathematics and Science: June
6, 2005

2\. Special Education Teacher Quality -- Reading and Writing: September
12, 2005

APPLICATION RECEIPT DATES:

1\. Special Education Teacher Quality -- Mathematics and Science: August
4, 2005, 8:00 p.m. Eastern time

2\. Special Education Teacher Quality -- Reading and Writing: November
17, 2005, 8:00 p.m. Eastern time

THIS REQUEST FOR APPLICATIONS CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION:

1.  Request for Applications

2.  Overview of the Institute\'s Research Programs

3.  Purpose and Background

4.  Requirements of the Proposed Research

5.  Applications Available

6.  Mechanism of Support

7.  Funding Available

8.  Eligible Applicants

9.  Special Requirements

10. Letter of Intent

11. Submitting an Application

12. Contents and Page Limits of Application

13. Application Processing

14. Peer Review Process

15. Review Criteria for Scientific Merit

16. Receipt and Review Schedule

17. Award Decisions

18. Where to Send Inquiries

19. Program Authority

20. Applicable Regulations

21. References

[]{#Request .anchor}

[**1. REQUEST FOR APPLICATIONS**](#Request)

The Institute of Education Sciences (Institute) invites applications for
research projects that will contribute to its Special Education Teacher
Quality research program. The Institute\'s Special Education Teacher
Quality Research program holds two competitions: (1) Special Education
Teacher Quality -- Reading and Writing and (2) Special Education Teacher
Quality -- Mathematics and Science. For these competitions, the
Institute will consider only applications that meet the requirements
outlined below under the section on Requirements of the Proposed
Research.

For the purpose of this Request for Applications (RFA), students with
disabilities are as defined in the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act 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).
Students who have already been identified with a disability as defined
here, as well as students at high risk of developing a disability
without preventive services are of interest under this RFA.

**[2. OVERVIEW OF THE INSTITUTE\'S RESEARCH PROGRAMS]{.underline}**

The Institute supports research that contributes to improved academic
achievement for all students, and particularly for those whose education
prospects are hindered by conditions associated with poverty, minority
status, disability, family circumstance, and inadequate education
services. Although many conditions may affect academic outcomes, the
Institute supports research on those that are within the control of the
education system, with the aim of identifying, developing and validating
effective education programs and practices. The conditions of greatest
interest to the Institute are curriculum, instruction, assessment and
accountability, the quality of the teaching and administrative
workforce, resource allocation, and the systems and policies that affect
these conditions and their interrelationships. In this section, the
Institute describes the overall framework for its research grant
programs. Specific information on the competition(s) described in this
announcement begins in [Section 3](#Section3).

The Institute addresses the educational needs of typically developing
students through its Education Research programs and the needs of
students with disabilities through its Special Education Research
programs. Both the Education Research and the Special Education Research
programs are organized by academic 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 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) 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 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.

\(i\) *[Curriculum and instruction]{.underline}*. Several of the
Institute\'s programs focus on the development and evaluation of
curricula and instructional approaches. These programs include: (1)
Reading and Writing Education Research, (2) Mathematics and Science
Education Research, (3) Cognition and Student Learning Education
Research, (4) Reading and Writing Special Education Research, (5)
Mathematics and Science Special Education Research, (6) Language and
Vocabulary Development Special Education Research, (7) Serious Behavior
Disorders Special Education Research, (8) Early Intervention and
Assessment for Young Children with Disabilities Special Education
Research, and (9) Secondary and Post-Secondary Outcomes Special
Education Research.

\(ii\) *[Teacher quality]{.underline}*. A second condition that affects
student learning and achievement is the quality of teachers. The
Institute funds research on how to improve teacher quality through its
programs on (10) Teacher Quality -- Read/Write Education Research, (11)
Teacher Quality -- Math/Science Education Research, (12) Teacher Quality
-- Read/Write Special Education Research, and (13) Teacher Quality --
Math/Science Special Education Research.

\(iii\) *[Administration, systems, and policy]{.underline}*. 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 its programs on (14)
Individualized Education Programs Special Education Research (15)
Education Finance, Leadership, and Management Research, (16) Assessment
for Accountability Special Education Research, and (18) Research on High
School Reform.

Applicants should be aware that some of the Institute\'s programs cover
multiple conditions. Of the programs listed above, these include (3)
Cognition and Student Learning, (14) Individualized Education Programs
Special Education Research, and (15) Education Finance, Leadership, and
Management. Finally, the Institute\'s National Center for Education
Statistics supports the (17) National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP) Secondary Analysis Research Program. The NAEP Secondary Analysis
program funds projects that cut across conditions (programs, practices,
and policies) and types of students (regular education and special
education students).

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.

d\. *Research goals*. The Institute has established five research goals
for its research programs
(<http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ies/programs.html>). 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 potentially effective
for improving outcomes; (c) Goal Three -- establish the efficacy of
fully developed programs, practices, or policies that either have
evidence of potential efficacy or are widely used but have not been
rigorously evaluated; (d) Goal Four -- provide evidence on the
effectiveness of programs, practices, and policies implemented at scale;
and (e) Goal Five -- develop or validate data and measurement systems
and tools.

Applicants should be aware that the Institute does not fund research on
every condition and every outcome at every grade level in a given year.
For example, at this time, the Institute is *not* funding research on
science education interventions (curriculum, instructional approaches,
teacher preparation, teacher professional development, or systemic
interventions) at the post-secondary or adult education levels.
Similarly, at this time, the Institute is not funding research on
measurement tools relevant to systemic conditions at the post-secondary
or adult levels.

For a list of the Institute\'s FY 2006 grant competitions, please see
Table 1 below. This list includes the Postdoctoral Research Training
Fellowships in the Education Sciences, which is not a research grant
program. Funding announcements for these competitions may be downloaded
from the Institute\'s website at
<http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ies/programs.html>. Release dates
for the Requests for Applications vary by competition.

> **[Table 1: FY 2006 Research Grant Competitions:]{.underline}**
>
> 1 Reading and Writing Education Research
>
> 2 Mathematics and Science Education Research
>
> 3 Cognition and Student Learning Education Research
>
> 4 Reading and Writing Special Education Research
>
> 5 Mathematics and Science Special Education Research
>
> 6 Language and Vocabulary Development Special Education Research
>
> 7 Serious Behavior Disorders Special Education Research
>
> 8 Early Intervention and Assessment for Young Children with
> Disabilities Special Education Research
>
> 9 Secondary and Post-Secondary Outcomes Special Education Research
>
> 10 Teacher Quality -- Read/Write Education Research
>
> 11 Teacher Quality -- Math/Science Education Research
>
> 12 Special Education Teacher Quality Research -- Read/Write
>
> 13 Special Education Teacher Quality Research -- Math/Science
>
> 14 Individualized Education Programs Special Education Research
>
> 15 Education Finance, Leadership, and Management Research
>
> 16 Assessment for Accountability Special Education Research
>
> 17 National Assessment of Educational Progress Secondary Analysis
> Research Program
>
> 18 Research on High School Reform
>
> 19 Education Research and Development Centers
>
> 20 Postdoctoral Research Training Fellowships in the Education
> Sciences

[]{#Section3 .anchor}**[3. Purpose and Background]{.underline}**

**A. Purpose of the Special Education Teacher Quality research
program.**

The Institute\'s Special Education Teacher Quality Research program
holds two competitions: (1) Special Education Teacher Quality -- Reading
and Writing and (2) Special Education Teacher Quality -- Mathematics and
Science. The general purpose of the Special Education Teacher Quality
research program is to identify effective strategies for preparing
future teachers of students with disabilities or improving the
performance of current teachers of students with disabilities in ways
that increase student learning and school achievement.

The Institute intends for the Special Education Teacher Quality research
program to fulfill five goals: (a) identifying programs and practices
for teacher preparation or teacher professional development that are
potentially effective for improving reading, writing, mathematics, or
science achievement of students with disabilities, as well as mediators
and moderators of the effects of these programs and practices; (b)
developing new programs and practices for teacher preparation or
professional development that will eventually result in improving
teacher practices and through them student learning and achievement for
students with disabilities; (c) establishing the efficacy of programs
and practices for teacher preparation or professional development for
improving teacher practices and through them student learning and
achievement for students with disabilities; (d) providing evidence of
the effectiveness of teacher preparation or professional development
programs that are implemented at scale and intended for improving
teacher practices and through them student learning and achievement for
students with disabilities; and (e) developing and validating new
assessments of teacher quality, or validating existing assessments for
teachers of students with disabilities at any grade level from
kindergarten through high school against measures of student
achievement. Under Goals One through Four, the Institute supports
identification, development, and evaluation of teacher preparation and
teacher professional development interventions for teaching reading,
writing, mathematics or science to students with disabilities from
kindergarten through high school. Under Goal 5, assessments for use with
pre-kindergarten through high school teachers of students with
disabilities are eligible. For the purpose of this research program,
teachers of students with disabilities may be teachers who are or are
preparing to be certified in special education or teachers who teach or
are preparing to teach students with disabilities in inclusive regular
education classes.

Long term outcomes of the Special Education Teacher Quality program will
be an array of tools and strategies (e.g., pre-service and in-service
programs, policies, assessments) that have been demonstrated to be
effective for improving and assessing teacher performance in ways that
are linked to increases in student achievement for students with
disabilities. In this Request for Applications, the term *teacher
preparation* refers to pre-service training of teachers who will teach
students with disabilities, including regular education teachers who
will have students with disabilities in their classes, and the term
*professional development* refers to the in-service training of current
teachers who teach students with disabilities, including regular
education teachers who have students with disabilities in their classes.

**B. Background for the Teacher Quality research program**

Students with disabilities are often poor readers. According to the 2003
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), in fourth grade, 71
percent of students with disabilities contrasted with 33 percent of
students without disabilities scored below the basic level in reading;
in eighth grade, 68 percent of students with disabilities contrasted
with 22 percent of students without disabilities scored below the basic
level in reading. In 2002, 68 percent of twelfth graders with
disabilities and 24 percent of twelfth graders without disabilities
scored below the basic level. Reading below the basic level means that
when reading grade appropriate text these students cannot extract the
general meaning or make obvious connections between the text and their
own experiences or make simple inferences from the text. In other words,
approximately two-thirds of students with disabilities who take the NAEP
cannot understand what they have read.

In writing, a similar picture emerges. At fourth grade, 43 percent of
students with disabilities contrasted with 11 percent of students
without disabilities scored below the basic level on the 2002 NAEP
writing assessment. At eighth grade, 53 percent of students with
disabilities contrasted with 11 percent of students without disabilities
scored below the basic level; at twelfth grade, the comparable
proportions were 70 percent and 23 percent.

Students with disabilities also struggle in mathematics. In the 2003
NAEP mathematics assessment, 49 percent of Grade 4 students with
disabilities contrasted with 20 percent of Grade 4 students without
disabilities scored below the basic level. Among Grade 8 students, 71
percent of students with disabilities contrasted with 27 percent of
students without disabilities scored below the basic level. At Grade 4
scoring below the basic level means that the student is likely to miss
problems such as using a ruler to find the total length of three line
segments. At Grade 8 scoring below the basic level means that the
student is unlikely to be able to solve problems such as finding the
perimeter of a figure.

One approach to improving student learning is by identifying effective
curricula and instructional approaches; a second approach is to improve
teachers\' knowledge and skills. That is the approach taken by the
Institute\'s Special Education Teacher Quality research program. In a
national survey of teachers in regular public schools (U.S. Department
of Education, 2001), only 32 percent of teachers whose classes included
students with disabilities indicated that they felt very well prepared
to address the needs of students with disabilities. The Institute
intends for the Special Education Teacher Quality research program
ultimately to provide teacher preparation programs and school district
professional development programs with specific interventions to improve
the training and professional development of teachers of students with
disabilities.

Professional training in teaching reading/writing and math/science to
students with disabilities requires more rigorous research evidence to
help determine *what content* should be delivered to teachers, and *how
to deliver* the content of the professional development, in order to
have an impact on academic achievement. The program also addresses how
to measure the appropriate teacher knowledge and skills that are
predictive of student achievement.

\(i\) *What the content should be.* A major criticism of current teacher
preparation programs is that many courses are not evidence-based and are
often poorly linked to state standards. Another criticism is that
content and pedagogy courses are inadequate. Content courses do not
train students how to teach specific content, and pedagogy courses
typically focus on generic, rather than content-specific instructional
strategies. The Institute is interested in empirical tests of the
efficacy of teacher preparation programs that are designed to train
special education teachers, as well as teacher preparation programs that
are designed to enable general education teachers to work effectively
with students with disabilities in inclusive settings. The Institute is
also interested in empirical examinations of teacher preparation
programs that assess what special education teachers are taught, what
they learn, and how this converges with state and national standards
with regard to what the students these teachers will eventually teach
should know and be able to do.

The Institute is also interested in examining professional development
programs that are designed to develop different types of knowledge and
skills. These include, but are not limited to, professional development
programs designed to develop teachers\' knowledge about teaching a
specific academic content area (e.g., mathematics, reading) to students
with disabilities and professional development programs designed around
a specific curriculum for students with disabilities, where the intent
is to provide teachers with specific skills, strategies, and perhaps
lesson plans for delivering this specific curriculum.

\(ii\) *How content should be delivered.* We have little reliable
evidence about how to improve teacher preparation programs; how to
appropriately balance content, pedagogy, and clinical training
experiences; and, who should deliver courses (e.g., discipline-based
departments, like mathematics, or departments of teacher education).
Similarly, although experts commonly believe that most current
professional development offerings are not very effective, very little
research exists that allow for clear causal interpretations of the
impact of specific professional development programs or for knowing
which elements of professional development programs (e.g., coaching) are
critical or relatively more important than others.

\(iii\) *How should teacher knowledge be assessed.* The Special
Education Teacher Quality research program also addresses the need to
develop practical assessments of teacher subject matter knowledge and
pedagogical knowledge and skills and validate these assessments (or
existing assessments) against measures of student learning and
achievement. Understanding what skills and knowledge make a teacher
effective and identifying teacher candidates and current teachers who
have these skills and knowledge is critical to developing a highly
qualified teacher workforce.

Ideally assessments of pedagogical knowledge and skills and subject
matter knowledge would not only predict student achievement but also be
practical to administer and cost-effective. Although some existing tests
of pedagogical knowledge and subject matter knowledge have been
correlated with the test takers\' SAT or ACT scores (e.g., Gitomer,
Latham, & Ziomek, 1999), validation of existing tests against measures
of student learning and achievement remains to be accomplished. Hence,
the Institute is interested in proposals to validate existing measures
of pedagogical knowledge and subject matter knowledge against measures
of student learning and achievement as well as proposals to develop and
validate new measures. A system of assessment of teacher pedagogical and
subject matter knowledge that predicts student outcomes could form the
basis for an improved system of certification and for determining the
effectiveness of professional development activities.

[]{.mark}

**[4. REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROPOSED RESEARCH]{.underline}**

**A. General Requirements**

a\. *Interventions/assessments intended for individuals with
disabilities*. This competition is restricted to research directed to
teachers of individuals with disabilities or at high risk for developing
disabilities without preventive services, as previously defined (see 1.
[Request for Applications](#Request)).

b\. *Applying to multiple competitions.* Applicants may submit proposals
to more than one of the Institute\'s FY 2006 competitions. Applicants
may submit more than one proposal to a particular competition. However,
applicants may only submit a given proposal once (i.e., applicants may
not submit the same proposal or very similar proposals to multiple
competitions or to multiple goals in the same competition).

c\. *Applying to a particular goal within a competition*. 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.

d\. *Inclusions and restrictions on interventions under Special
Education Teacher Quality -- Read/Write.*

\(i\) For the FY 2006 Special Education Teacher Quality -- Read/Write
competition, applicants must submit under *either* Goal One *or* Goal
Two *or* Goal Three *or* Goal Four *or* Goal Five. As stated above,
*teacher preparation* refers to pre-service training of teachers who
will teach students with disabilities, including regular education
teachers who will have students with disabilities in their classes, and
the term *professional development* refers to the in-service training of
current teachers who teach students with disabilities, including regular
education teachers who have students with disabilities in their classes.

\(ii\) Goal One incorporates efforts to identify conditions that are
associated with and are potential determinants of student achievement in
reading and writing for students with disabilities and teacher quality.
The understanding developed through Goal One awards is expected to be
relevant to the design and implementation of future interventions. The
typical methodology for Goal One will be the analysis of existing
databases, including state longitudinal databases, using statistical
approaches that allow for testing models of the relationships among
variables in ways that strengthen hypotheses about paths of influence.
For the FY 2006 Special Education Teacher -- Read/Write competition,
Goal One is limited to teacher preparation and professional development
for teaching reading or writing to students with disabilities from
kindergarten through high school.

\(iii\) Applicants proposing to develop new interventions should apply
under Goal Two. Under Goal Three, the Institute will accept proposals to
conduct efficacy or replication trials of interventions. Goal Four
targets evaluations of the effectiveness of interventions implemented at
scale. The second through fourth goals can be seen as a progression from
development (Goal Two) to efficacy (Goal Three), to effectiveness at
scale (Goal Four).

.

Goals Two, Three, and Four are limited to teaching reading/pre-reading
or writing/pre-writing to students with disabilities from kindergarten
through high school. Applicants interested in teacher preparation or
teacher professional development for teachers of young children with
disabilities at the pre-kindergarten level should refer to the
Institute\'s Early Intervention and Assessment of Young Children with
Disabilities research program
(<http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ies/programs.html>).

[]{.mark}

\(iv\) Goal Five is to develop and validate assessments of teacher
subject matter and pedagogical knowledge and skills for teacher
education students in teacher preparation programs who will be teaching
students with disabilities, and new or current teachers of students with
disabilities at any level from pre-kindergarten through high school.
Goal Five covers assessments relevant to core academic content areas
(e.g., reading, writing, social studies, history), except mathematics
and science.

e\. *Inclusions and restrictions on interventions under Special
Education Teacher Quality -- Math/Science.*

\(i\) For the FY 2006 Special Education Teacher Quality -- Math/Science
competition, applicants must submit under *either* Goal One *or* Goal
Two *or* Goal Three *or* Goal Four *or* Goal Five. As stated above,
*teacher preparation* refers to pre-service training of teachers who
will teach students with disabilities, including regular education
teachers who will have students with disabilities in their classes, and
the term *professional development* refers to the in-service training of
current teachers who teach students with disabilities, including regular
education teachers who have students with disabilities in their classes.

\(ii\) Goal One incorporates efforts to identify conditions that are
associated with and are potential determinants of student achievement in
mathematics and science for students with disabilities and teacher
quality. Goal One is limited to teacher preparation and professional
development for teaching math/science to students with disabilities at
any grade from kindergarten through high school.

\(iii\) Applicants proposing to develop new interventions should apply
under Goal Two. Under Goal Three, the Institute will accept proposals to
conduct efficacy or replication trials of interventions. Goal Four
targets evaluations of the effectiveness of interventions implemented at
scale. The second through fourth goals can be seen as a progression from
development (Goal Two) to efficacy (Goal Three), to effectiveness at
scale (Goal Four)

Goals Two, Three, and Four are limited to teaching math/science to
students with disabilities at any grade from kindergarten through high
school. Applicants interested in teacher preparation or teacher
professional development for teachers of young children with
disabilities at the pre-kindergarten level should refer to the
Institute\'s Early Intervention and Assessment of Young Children with
Disabilities research program
(<http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ies/programs.html>).

\(iv\) Goal Five is to develop and validate assessments of teacher
subject matter and pedagogical knowledge for teacher education students
who will be teaching students with disabilities in teacher preparation
programs, and new or current teachers who are or will be teaching
students with disabilities at any level from pre-kindergarten through
high school. Goal Five covers assessments relevant to teaching
mathematics and science.

**B. Applications under Goal One (Identification)**

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

a\. *[Purpose of identification studies]{.underline}*. Through all of
its research programs that include the Identification goal (Goal One),
the Institute is primarily interested in analyses of multivariate data,
such as longitudinal individual student data that exist in a number of
state-level and district-level databases, to identify existing programs,
practices, and policies that may have an impact on academic outcomes and
to examine factors that may mediate or moderate the effects of these
programs, practices, and policies.

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

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

Evidence of the potential effectiveness of a program, practice, or
policy obtained through a Goal One project has the possibility of being
used to support a subsequent application for a Goal Three (Efficacy)
project.

b\. *[Methodological requirements]{.underline}*.

[]{.mark}

\(i\) *Database*. The applicant should describe clearly the database(s)
to be used in the investigation including information on sample
characteristics, variables to be used, and ability to ensure access to
the database if the applicant does not already have access to it. The
database should be described in sufficient detail so that reviewers will
be able to judge whether or not the proposed analyses may be conducted
with the database. If multiple databases will be linked to conduct
analyses, applicants should provide sufficient detail for reviewers to
be able to judge the feasibility of the plan.

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

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

\(iii\) *Data analysis*. The applicant must include detailed
descriptions of data analysis procedures. Because predictor variables
relevant to education outcomes (e.g., student characteristics, teacher
characteristics, school and district characteristics) often covary, the
Institute expects investigators to utilize the most appropriate
state-of-the-art analytic techniques to isolate the possible effects of
variables of interest. Analytic strategies should allow investigators to
examine mediators and moderators of programs and practices. The relation
between hypotheses, measures, independent and dependent variables should
be well specified.

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

d\. *[Awards]{.underline}*. Typical awards for projects at this level
are \$100,000 to \$250,000 (total cost = direct + indirect costs) per
year for 1 or 2 years. The size of the award depends on the scope of the
project.

**C. Applications under Goal Two (Development)**

a\. *[Purpose of Goal Two (Development).]{.underline}* Through all of
its research programs that include the Development goal (Goal Two), the
Institute intends to support the development of interventions --
programs, practices, and policies. From the Institute\'s standpoint, a
funded development project would be successful if at the end of the 2 or
3 year development award, the investigators had a fully developed
version of the proposed intervention, including for example, materials
for students and teachers and preliminary data demonstrating the
*potential* of the intervention for improving student outcomes. The
Institute anticipates that investigators with successful development
projects would submit proposals to subsequent competitions for Goal
Three (Efficacy) awards. Thus, Goal Two applicants should be aware that
the type of data (e.g., measures of student learning and achievement)
they propose to collect under Goal Two awards should prepare them to
apply for Goal Three awards.

The Institute recognizes that research on children with disabilities
often utilizes alternative research designs due to low incidence of
specific disabilities. In such cases, single subject designs are
appropriate.

b\. *[Requirements for proposed intervention]{.underline}*. Under Goal
Two, the Institute will consider interventions that are in the early
stages of development (e.g., those that do not have an entire curriculum
ready to evaluate). Applicants should provide a strong rationale to
support the use of the proposed intervention (e.g., curriculum,
instructional practice, teacher professional development program or
professional development delivery model). Reviewers will consider
whether there is a strong theoretical foundation for the proposed
intervention and whether the proposed intervention is grounded in
empirical research. For example, a proposed language intervention might
be based on empirical data on language and vocabulary development for
students with disabilities obtained through laboratory studies or on the
gaps reported in the National Reading Panel Report (NICHD, 2000). In
other cases, applicants might have already developed some components of
the intervention and have pilot data showing the potential efficacy of
those components. In such cases, the proposed project might be to
complete the development of the intervention and collect data on the
potential efficacy of the intervention. Alternatively one could imagine
a proposal to develop an intervention for struggling high school readers
that is based on an intervention developed for upper elementary and
middle school students and for which there are some data showing the
potential of the intervention for improving reading comprehension. In
this case, the applicant would be proposing to modify this existing
intervention to make it appropriate for high school students who are
struggling readers and to collect data on the potential efficacy of the
modified intervention. The point is that applicants should clearly and
concisely articulate why the proposed intervention, as opposed to some
other type of intervention, should be developed. Why is the proposed
intervention likely to be successful for improving student learning and
achievement?

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

Finally, the Institute recognizes there are some fully developed
interventions that would not qualify for investigation under Goal Three
because there are no student outcome data indicating potential efficacy
(as defined below) nor is there wide-spread use. In such cases,
applicants may apply under Goal Two for support to conduct a small study
to test whether the intervention shows evidence of potential efficacy as
defined below. **Such projects are limited to a maximum of 2 years of
support because the Institute expects the investigator to be ready to
implement the intervention in schools or other education delivery
settings at the beginning of the award period**. The applicant should
clearly state in the beginning of the research narrative that he or she
is applying under Goal Two with a fully developed intervention that has
not been previously evaluated using student outcome measures.

c\. *[Methodological requirements]{.underline}*. In addition to
providing a strong rationale for the proposed intervention, applicants
should clearly and completely describe the proposed research methods for
obtaining evidence of the *potential efficacy* of the proposed
intervention. By potential efficacy, the Institute means that there are
student outcome data indicating that exposure to the intervention is at
least correlated with increases in student performance. For example, the
applicant might compare pre-intervention to post-intervention gain
scores on a standard measure of reading comprehension between students
whose teachers received a new professional development program on
reading instruction and students whose teachers did not receive
professional development on reading instruction. Alternatively, the
applicant might compare end-of-year science achievement scores in
classrooms using the intervention with district scores for the same
grade level. The Institute recognizes that such data do *not* provide
causal evidence of the impact of the intervention on student outcomes.
However, the purpose of the Development goal is to provide funds to
develop interventions that on the basis of the theoretical rationale and
relevant empirical evidence appear to have the potential to improve
student learning and to collect preliminary data that would permit a
reasonable evaluation of whether or not the intervention has sufficient
potential to merit further investment.

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

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

\(iii\) *Measures*. For all proposals under Goal Two, investigators must
include measures of relevant student outcomes (e.g., measures of reading
or mathematics achievement). Applicants to the Teacher Quality
competitions must include measures of teacher practice, as well as
measures of student learning and achievement. The applicant should
provide information on the reliability and validity of the selected
measures and justify the appropriateness of the proposed measures.

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

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

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

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

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

e\. *[Awards]{.underline}*. Typical awards for projects at this level
are \$150,000 to \$500,000 (total cost = direct + indirect costs) per
year for 2 to 3 years. The size of the award depends on the scope of the
project.

**D. Applications under Goal Three (Efficacy and Replication Trials)**

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

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

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 Level 1 study criteria
([http://whatworks.ed.gov](http://whatworks.ed.gov/)) whether or not the
intervention is found to improve student outcomes relative to the
comparison condition. Further, the Institute would consider
methodologically successful projects to be *pragmatically successful* if
the rigorous evaluation determined that the intervention has a net
positive impact on student outcomes in relation to the program or
practice to which it is being compared.

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

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

\(i\) For interventions that are *not* already in wide use, applicants
must have an intervention that is fully developed and should provide a
compelling rationale for the use of the intervention that includes (1) a
strong theoretical foundation and (2) evidence of the potential efficacy
of the intervention (see Goals One and Two for the Institute\'s
definition of potential efficacy). Applicants who intend to devote a
significant part of the project period to developing new components or
materials for the intervention (e.g., additional curriculum modules,
materials to train teachers to use the intervention curriculum) or new
delivery approaches (e.g., material that was delivered by a teacher is
proposed to be delivered via computer) should apply to Goal Two. Goal
Three projects are limited to those interventions that are fully
developed and have all materials (including teacher training programs)
ready for implementation.

To establish that the proposed project will make a significant
contribution to improving student outcomes, the applicant should clearly
detail the theoretical basis for the intervention as well as the
empirical evidence in support of the intervention. For example,
empirical evidence of the potential efficacy of the intervention cited
in the application could consist of data based on a single-group,
pre-test/post-test study showing an increase in scores. As another
example, the preliminary evidence could be a small quasi-experimental
study in which the intervention was implemented in a few classrooms and
students\' end-of-year achievement test scores are compared to the
scores of other classrooms in the same district.

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

\(ii\) To propose evaluations of interventions that are already in wide
use but have not been rigorously evaluated (e.g., a commercially
distributed curriculum), applicants should provide documentation of the
widespread use of the program to justify the proposed efficacy
evaluation. In such cases, applicants do not need to provide evidence of
the potential efficacy of the intervention. Of course, if such evidence
is available, applicants should include it.

c\. *[Methodological requirements]{.underline}*.

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

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

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

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

\(iii\) *Power*. Applicants should clearly address the power of the
evaluation design to detect a reasonably expected and minimally
important effect. Many evaluations of education interventions are
designed so that clusters or groups of students, rather than individual
students, are randomly assigned to treatment and comparison conditions.
In such cases, the power of the design depends in part on the degree to
which the observations of individuals within groups are correlated with
each other on the outcomes of interest. For determining the sample size,
applicants need to consider the number of clusters, the number of
individuals within clusters, the potential adjustment from covariates,
the desired effect, the intraclass correlation (i.e., the variance
between clusters relative to the total variance between and within
clusters), and the desired power of the design (note, other factors may
also affect the determination of sample size, such as using one-tailed
vs two-tailed tests, repeated observations, attrition of participants,
etc.; see Donner & Klar, 2000; Murray, 1998; W.T. Grant Foundation,
<http://www.wtgrantfoundation.org/info-url_nocat3040/info-url_nocat_show.htm?doc_id=225435&attrib_id=9485>).
When calculating the power of the design, applicants should anticipate
the degree to which the magnitude of the expected effect may vary across
the primary outcomes of interest.

\(iv\) *Measures*. Investigators should include relevant standardized
measures of student achievement (e.g., standardized measures of
mathematics achievement or reading achievement) in addition to other
measures of student learning and achievement (e.g., researcher-developed
measures). For Special Education Teacher Quality applications,
applicants must also include measures of teacher practices. The
applicant should provide information on the reliability, validity, and
appropriateness of proposed measures.

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

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

> In evaluations of education interventions, students in the comparison
> group typically receive some kind of treatment (i.e., the comparison
> group is generally not a \"no-treatment\" control because the students
> are still in school experiencing the school\'s curriculum and
> instruction). For some evaluations, the primary question is whether
> the treatment is more effective than a particular alternative
> treatment. In such instances, the comparison group receives a
> well-defined treatment that is usually an important comparison to the
> target intervention for theoretical or pragmatic reasons. In other
> cases, the primary question is whether the treatment is more effective
> than what is generally available and utilized in schools. In such
> cases, the comparison group might receive what is sometimes called
> \"business-as-usual.\" That is, the comparison group receives whatever
> the school or district is currently using or doing in a particular
> area. Business-as-usual generally refers to situations in which the
> standard or frequent practice across the nation is a relatively
> undefined education treatment. However, business-as-usual may also
> refer to situations in which a branded intervention (e.g., a published
> curriculum) is implemented with no more support from the developers of
> the program than would be available under normal conditions. In either
> case, *using a business-as-usual comparison group is acceptable.* When
> business-as-usual is one or another branded intervention, applicants
> should specify the treatment or treatments received in the comparison
> group. In all cases, applicants should account for the ways in which
> what happens in the comparison group are important to understanding
> the net impact of the experimental treatment. As noted in the
> preceding paragraph, applicants should be able to compare 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.

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

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

\(viii\) *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. For random assignment studies,
> applicants need to be aware that typically the primary unit of
> analysis is the unit of random assignment.
>
> Finally, documentation of the resources required to implement the
> program and a cost analysis needs to be part of the study.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Competitive applicants will have access to institutional resources that
adequately support research activities and access to schools in which to
conduct the research. Applicants are required to 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.

e\. *[Awards]{.underline}*. Typical awards for projects at this level
will be \$250,000 to \$750,000 (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 the award
depends on the scope of the project.

**E. Applications under Goal Four (Effectiveness Evaluations of
Interventions Implemented at Scale)**

[]{.mark}

a\. *[Purpose of effectiveness evaluations]{.underline}*. Through all of
its research programs that include the Effectiveness Evaluations goal
(Goal Four), the Institute intends to support impact evaluations of
interventions -- programs, practices, policies -- that are implemented
at scale to determine whether or not fully developed interventions are
effective when the interventions are implemented under conditions that
would be typical for the implementation of the intervention if a school
district or other education delivery setting were to implement the
intervention (i.e., without special support from the developer or the
research team) and across a variety of conditions (e.g., different
student populations, different types of schools). The primary question
of interest is, \"Does this intervention produce a net positive increase
in student learning and achievement relative to the variety of products
or practices that are currently available and utilized by schools?\"

b\. *[Requirements for proposed intervention]{.underline}*. To be
considered for Goal Four awards, applicants should provide a clear
rationale for the *practical* importance of the intervention. Applicants
should address three questions. (1) 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? (2) Is the intervention reasonably affordable to schools and
other education delivery entities? (3) Is the intervention designed so
that it is feasible for schools and other education delivery entities to
implement the intervention? Interventions appropriate for study under
Goal Four are interventions that have not yet been implemented at scale
but have evidence of the efficacy of the program on a limited scale.

Applicants must provide *strong* evidence of the efficacy of the program
as implemented on a small scale to justify the proposal to conduct a
large-scale evaluation of the effectiveness of the intervention. As an
example of strong evidence of efficacy, an applicant might describe the
results of two or more small scale, rigorously conducted evaluations
using random assignment to intervention and comparison conditions in
which the efficacy of the intervention is demonstrated with different
populations of students (e.g., students from middle income families in
suburban high schools and students from low income families in poor
rural high schools). Evidence for efficacy from single-subject
experimental would involve multiple studies in different settings that
demonstrate causal effects. Alternatively, a single efficacy evaluation
might have involved schools from more than one district and included a
diverse population of students and alone could constitute sufficient
evidence of the efficacy of the intervention. Importantly, the evidence
of efficacy must be based on the results of randomized field trials, or
well-designed quasi-experimental evaluations.

c\. *[Implementation of the intervention]{.underline}*. One goal of
evaluations of interventions implemented at scale is to determine if
programs are effective when implemented at a distance from the
developers of the program and with no more support from the developers
of the program than would be available under normal conditions. 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 and provide
procedures that will capture the conditions and critical variables that
affect the success of a given intervention.

d\. *[Methodological requirements]{.underline}*. For the methodological
requirements for Goal Four projects, please refer to the methodological
requirements listed under Goal Three.

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

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

When the developer of the intervention is involved in the project
(whether or not the developer is a for-profit entity), applicants should
clearly describe the role that the developer will take in the
evaluation. Developers may not provide any training or support for the
implementation that is not normally available to users of the
intervention.

Competitive applicants will have access to institutional resources that
adequately support research activities and access to schools in which to
conduct the research. Applicants are required to 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]{.underline}*. 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. Applications under Goal Five (Measurement)**

Across the Institute\'s research programs, the Measurement goals differ
in purpose. Requirements described below apply to the Special Education
Teacher Quality research program.

*a. [Requirements for Goal Five (Measurement) proposals to the Special
Education Teacher Quality research program. ]{.underline}*

\(i\) *Purpose of Special Education Teacher Quality Goal Five
proposals*. For the Special Education Teacher Quality research program,
the purpose of the Assessment goal is to support the development and
validation of assessments that measure teacher subject matter and
pedagogical knowledge in core academic subjects (e.g., reading,
mathematics, and science). Such tests might be used, for example, as a
component of a state certification process for determining highly
qualified teachers.

\(ii\) *Requirements of proposed assessments*. Under Goal Five,
applicants are invited to develop and validate assessments that measure
teacher subject matter and pedagogical knowledge in core academic
subjects including, for example, reading, mathematics, science, history,
and social studies. Assessments may be designed for teachers at any
grade level (pre-kindergarten through high school). Applicants must
propose to validate these measures against standardized measures of
student learning and achievement (i.e., do teachers\' scores on measures
of content and pedagogical knowledge predict the achievement of their
students?). Alternatively, applicants may propose to validate *existing*
measures of teacher content and pedagogical knowledge against
standardized measures of student achievement.

Applicants must provide a compelling rationale to support the
development of the proposed assessment. Reviewers will consider the
strength of the theoretical foundation for the proposed assessment, the
existing empirical evidence supporting the proposed assessment, and
whether the proposed assessment duplicates existing assessments of
teacher subject matter knowledge and pedagogical knowledge. In
developing assessments, applicants should consider the pragmatic
constraints, such as ease of administration and cost, that states or
districts will use to determine whether the instrument is a reasonable
option for general use. The point is that applicants must clearly and
concisely articulate why the proposed assessment, as opposed to some
other assessment, should be developed and/or validated.

\(iii\) *Methodological requirements*. Applicants should detail the
proposed procedures for developing the assessment instrument (e.g.,
procedures for determining which subject matter content and pedagogical
knowledge are being \"tapped\" by the instrument (i.e., construct
validity), procedures for selecting items to be used in the assessment,
assessing difficulty of selected items, obtaining representative
responses to questions). Applicants must clearly describe the research
plans for assessing the validity and reliability of the instrument.
Applicants should describe the characteristics and size of samples to be
used in each study, procedures for collecting data, measures to be used,
and data analytic strategies. As an example, investigators might conduct
\"value-added\" analyses to compare student achievement across teachers
scoring at different levels on the proposed teacher assessment.
Value-added analyses use statistically adjusted gain scores for
individual students to estimate, for example, the effect of a particular
teacher on his or her students' learning relative to the effects of
other teachers on their students' learning.

[]{.mark}

\(iv\) *[Personnel and resources]{.underline}*. Competitive applicants
will have research teams that collectively demonstrate expertise in (a)
the academic content area, (b) instructional practice or teacher
training, (c) assessment, (d) implementation of and analysis of results
from the research design that will be employed, and (f) 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.

\(v\) *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.

**[5. APPLICATIONS AVAILABLE]{.underline}**

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

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

by the following dates:

Special Education Teacher Quality -- Math/Science July 7, 2005

Special Education Teacher Quality -- Read/Write October 14, 2005

**[6. MECHANISM OF SUPPORT]{.underline}**

The Institute intends to award grants for periods up to 5 years pursuant
to this request for applications. Please see specific details for each
goal in the Requirements of the Proposed Research section of the
announcement.

**[7. FUNDING AVAILABLE]{.underline}**

The size of the award depends on the scope of the project. Please see
specific details in the Requirements of the Proposed Research section of
the announcement. Although the plans of the Institute include this
program of research, 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 goal depends upon the number of high quality
applications submitted to that goal. The Institute does not have plans
to award a specific number of grants under each particular goal.

**[8. ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS]{.underline}**

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

**[9. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS]{.underline}**

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

Recipients of awards are expected to publish or otherwise make publicly
available the results of the work supported through this program.
Beginning June 1, 2005, the Institute asks IES-funded investigators to
submit voluntarily to the Educational Resources Information Center
(ERIC) an electronic version of the author\'s final manuscript upon
acceptance for publication in a peer-reviewed journal, resulting from
research supported in whole or in part, with direct costs from the
Institute. The author\'s final manuscript is defined as the final
version accepted for journal publication, and includes all modifications
from the peer review process. Details of the Institute\'s policy are
posted on the Institute\'s website at <http://www.ed.gov/ies>.

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

The Institute anticipates that the majority of the research 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).

**[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/>

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

**[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 by the following dates:

Special Education Teacher Quality -- Math/Science July 7, 2005

Special Education Teacher Quality -- Read/Write October 14, 2005

[]{.mark}

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 2, 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
*[i]{.underline}* (Appendix A) are required parts of the proposal.
Section *[j]{.underline}* (Appendix B) is optional. All sections must be
submitted electronically.

Observe the page number limitations given in Table 2.

**Table 2**

+----------------------------------+----------+------------------------+
| **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) -- Sections A and B         |          |                        |
+----------------------------------+----------+------------------------+
| c\. Budget Information           | n/a      |                        |
| Non-Construction Programs (ED    |          |                        |
| 524) -- Section C                |          |                        |
+----------------------------------+----------+------------------------+
| d\. Project Abstract             | 1        |                        |
+----------------------------------+----------+------------------------+
| e\. Research Narrative           | 20       | Figures, charts,       |
|                                  |          | tables, and            |
|                                  |          |                        |
|                                  |          | diagrams may be        |
|                                  |          | included in Appendix A |
+----------------------------------+----------+------------------------+
| f\. Reference List               | no limit | Complete citations,    |
|                                  |          | including              |
|                                  |          |                        |
|                                  |          | Titles and all authors |
+----------------------------------+----------+------------------------+
| g\. Curriculum Vita of Key       | 4 per CV | No more than 4 pages   |
| Personnel                        |          | for each               |
|                                  |          |                        |
|                                  |          | key person             |
+----------------------------------+----------+------------------------+
| h\. Budget Justification         | no limit |                        |
+----------------------------------+----------+------------------------+
| i\. Appendix A                   | 15       |                        |
+----------------------------------+----------+------------------------+
| j\. Appendix B                   | 10       | See restrictions       |
+----------------------------------+----------+------------------------+

**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)---Sections A
and B**

The application should include detailed budget information for each year
of support requested and a cumulative budget for the full term of
requested Institute support. Applicants should 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/>). The ED 524 form has three sections:
A, B, and C. Instructions for Sections A and B are included on the form.

**C. Budget Information Non-Construction Programs (ED 524)---Section C**

Instructions for ED 524 Section C are as follows. Section C is a
document constructed or generated by the applicant and is typically an
Excel or Word table. Section C should provide a detailed itemized budget
breakdown for each project year, for each budget category listed in
Sections A and B. For each person listed in the personnel category,
include a listing of percent effort for each project year, as well as
the cost. Section C should also include a breakdown of the fees to
consultants, a listing of each piece of equipment, itemization of
supplies into separate categories, and itemization of travel requests
(e.g. travel for data collection, conference travel, etc.) into separate
categories. Any other expenses should be itemized by category and unit
cost.

**D. Project Abstract**

The abstract is limited to one page, single-spaced (about 3,500
characters including spaces) and should include: (1) The title of the
project; (2) the RFA goal under which the applicant is applying (e.g.,
development, efficacy); and brief descriptions of (3) the purpose (e.g.,
to develop and obtain preliminary evidence of potential efficacy of a
reading comprehension intervention for struggling high school readers);
(4) the setting in which the research will be conducted (e.g., 4 high
schools from a rural school district 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 (e.g.,
experimental, quasi-experimental, single-subject, correlational,
observational, descriptive); (9) measures of key outcomes; and (10) data
analytic strategy.

**E. Research Narrative**

Incorporating the requirements outlined under the section on
Requirements of the Proposed Research, the *research narrative* provides
the majority of the information on which reviewers will evaluate the
proposal. The research narrative must include the four sections
described below (a. \"Significance\" through d. \"Resources\") in the
order listed and must conform to the [**format
requirements**](#FormatReq) described in section e.

a\. *[Significance (suggested: 2-3 pages)]{.underline}.* Describe the
contribution the study will make to providing a solution to an education
problem identified in the Background Section of this RFA.

Provide a compelling rationale addressing, where applicable, the
theoretical foundation, relevant prior empirical evidence, and the
practical importance of the proposed project. For projects in which an
intervention is proposed (whether to be developed or to be evaluated),
include a description of the intervention along with the theoretical
rationale and empirical evidence supporting the intervention. For
projects in which an assessment is proposed (whether to be developed or
evaluated), include a description of the assessment and a compelling
rationale justifying the development or evaluation of the assessment.
(Applicants proposing an intervention or assessment may use Appendix B
to include up to 10 pages of examples of curriculum material, computer
screens, and/or test items.)

b\. *[Research Narrative (suggested: 13-16 pages)]{.underline}.*

> \(i\) Include clear, concise hypotheses or research questions;
>
> \(ii\) Present a clear description of, and a rationale for, the sample
> or study participants, including justification for exclusion and
> inclusion criteria and, where groups or conditions are involved,
> strategies for assigning participants to groups;
>
> \(iii\) Provide clear descriptions of, and rationales for, data
> collection procedures;
>
> \(iv\) Provide clear descriptions of and justification for measures to
> be used, including information on the reliability and validity of
> measures; and
>
> \(v\) Present a detailed data analysis plan that justifies and
> explains the selected analysis strategy, shows clearly how the
> measures and analyses relate to the hypotheses or research questions,
> and indicates how the results will be interpreted. Quantitative
> studies should, where sufficient information is available, include an
> appropriate power analysis to provide some assurance that the sample
> is of sufficient size.

c\. *[Personnel (suggested: 1-2 pages)]{.underline}.* Include brief
descriptions of the qualifications of key personnel (information on
personnel should also be provided in their curriculum vitae). For each
of the key personnel, please describe the roles, responsibilities, and
percent of time devoted to the project.

d\. [*Resources (suggested: 1-2 pages*)]{.underline}. Provide a
description of the resources available to support the project at the
applicant's institution and in the field settings in which the research
will be conducted.

e\. []{#FormatReq .anchor}*[Format requirements]{.underline}*. The
research 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 research
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 research narrative including
footnotes. See frequently asked questions available at
[https://ies.constellagroup.com](https://ies.constellagroup.com/) on or
before June 6, 2005.

Conform to the following four requirements:

> \(i\) The height of the letters must not be smaller than 12 point;
>
> \(ii\) 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;
>
> \(iii\) No more than 6 lines of type within a vertical inch;
>
> \(iv\) 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 and format used must conform to all four requirements.
Small type size makes it difficult for reviewers to read the
application; consequently, the use of small type will be grounds for the
Institute to return the application without peer review. 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 a 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* include the ED 424 form, the one-page
abstract, the ED 524 form and narrative budget 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.

**F. Reference List**

Please include complete citations, including titles and all authors, for
literature cited in the research narrative.

**G. Brief Curriculum Vita of Key Personnel**

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

**H. Budget Justification**

The *budget justification* should provide sufficient detail to allow
reviewers to judge whether reasonable costs have been attributed to the
project. It should include the time commitments and brief descriptions
of the responsibilities of key personnel. *The budget justification
should correspond to the itemized breakdown of project costs that is
provided in Section C*. 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 Section C. For applications that include subawards for work
conducted at collaborating institutions, applicants should submit an
itemized budget spreadsheet for each subaward for each project year, and
the details of the subaward costs should be included in the budget
narrative. Applicants should use their institution's federal indirect
cost rate and use the off-campus indirect cost rate where appropriate
(see instructions under Section 9 Special Requirements). If less than 75
percent of total indirect costs are based on application of the
off-campus rate, the applicant should provide a detailed justification.

**I. Appendix A**

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) should be included in the
20-page 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.

**J. Appendix B (optional)**

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) should be included
in the 20-page research narrative.

**K. Additional Forms**

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

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

**[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 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.

**[15. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR SCIENTIFIC MERIT]{.underline}**

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

Significance Does the applicant make a compelling case for the potential
contribution of the project to the solution of an education problem? For
cases in which the applicant proposes to develop or evaluate an
intervention, does the applicant present a strong rationale justifying
the need to evaluate the selected intervention (e.g., does prior
evidence suggest that the intervention is likely to substantially
improve student learning and achievement)?

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

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?

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?

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

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

a\. Special Education Teacher Quality -- Math/Science June 6, 2005

b\. Special Education Teacher Quality -- Read/Write September 12, 2005

**B.** **Application Receipt Dates:**

a\. Special Education Teacher Quality -- Math/Science August 4, 2005,
8:00 p.m. Eastern time

b\. Special Education Teacher Quality -- Read/Write November 17, 2005,
8:00 p.m. Eastern time

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

a\. Special Education Teacher Quality -- Math/Science March 1, 2006

b\. Special Education Teacher Quality -- Read/Write June 1, 2006

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

The following will be considered in making award decisions:

Scientific merit as determined by peer review

Responsiveness to the requirements of this request

Performance and use of funds under a previous Federal award

Contribution to the overall program of research described in this
request

Availability of funds

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

**Special Education Teacher Quality -- Read/Write and Math/Science**

> Dr. Kristen Lauer Dr. David Malouf
>
> Institute of Education Sciences Institute of Education Sciences
>
> 555 New Jersey Avenue, NW 555 New Jersey Avenue, NW
>
> Washington, DC 20208 Washington, DC 20208
>
> Email: <kristen.lauer@ed.gov> Email : david.malouf@ed.gov
>
> Telephone: (202) 245-7412 Telephone : (202) 245-7427

**[19. PROGRAM AUTHORITY]{.underline}**

20 U.S.C. 9501 [et 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, 75.221, 75.222, and 75.230.

**[21. REFERENCES]{.underline}**

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

Gitomer, D. H., Latham, A. S., & Ziomek, R. (1999). *The Academic
Quality of Prospective Teachers: The Impact of Admissions and Licensure
Testing.* [www.ets.org/praxis/](http://www.ets.org/praxis/)

Goldhaber, D. D. & Brewer, D. J. (1997). Why don\'t schools and teachers
seem to matter? Assessing the impact of unobservables on education.
*Journal of Human Resources, 32*, 505-523.

Goldhaber, D. D. & Brewer, D. J. (2000). Does teacher certification
matter? High school certification status and student achievement.
*Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22* (2), 129-145.

Monk, D. H. (1994). Subject area preparation of secondary mathematics
and science teachers and student achievement. *Economics of Education
Review*, *13*, 125-145.

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

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
(2001). *Teacher Preparation and professional Development: 2000.* NCES
2001-088. Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
(2003). *The Condition of Education 2003*, NCES 2003-067. Washington,
DC.