1. The Grant Process at the Institute of education sciences
Paul L. Morgan, Ph.D.
Eberly Fellow
Professor of Education and Demography
Department of Education Policy Studies
Director, Center for Educational Disparities Research
Penn State
@PaulMorganPhD

2. Presentation’s structure
Overview of IES, RFA structure, funding mechanisms
Elements of weaker and stronger proposals, by section
Observations of the submission and review process

3. Background on IES
Established in 2002 with the Education Sciences Reform Act
Independent, non-partisan statistics, research, and evaluation office of the U.S. Department of Education
For fiscal year 2017, requested a budget of $694,000,000 from Congress
Provides scientific evidence designed to inform educational practice and policy

6. Source: IES Budget Request, Fiscal Year 2017
Source: IES Budget Request, Fiscal Year Retrieved from

7. Overview of IES Research & Research Training Grant Programs
Education Research Programs
Special Education Research Programs
Statistical & Research Methodology in Education
Partnerships & Collaborations Focused on Problems of Practice & Policy
Researcher-Practitioner Partnerships in Education Research
Continuous Improvement Research in Education
Evaluation of State & Local Education Programs & Policies
Research Training Grant Programs in the Education Sciences
Pre-doctoral Interdisciplinary Research Training Methods Training for Education Researchers
Post-doctoral Research training Program in Education Sciences & Special Education
Research training Program in Special Education: Early Career Development and Mentoring
Training in Education Research Use & Practice
Education Research & Development Centers
Unsolicited
SBIRs

8. Overview of IES Research & Research Training Grant Programs
Education Research Programs
Cognition and Student Learning
Early Learning Programs and Policies
Education Technology
Education Leadership
Effective Teachers and Effective Teaching
English Learners
Improving Education Systems
STEM Education
Postsecondary and Adult Education
Reading and Writing
Social and Behavioral Context for Academic Learning
Special Topics

9. Overview of IES Research & Research Training Grant Programs
Education Research Programs

10. Overview of IES Research & Research Training Grant Programs
Special Education Research Programs
Autism Spectrum Disorders
Cognition and Student Learning in Special Education
Early Intervention and Early Learning in Special Education
Families of Children with Disabilities
Mathematics and Science Education
Professional Development for Teachers and Related Services Providers
Reading, Writing, and Language Development
Social and Behavioral Outcomes to Support Learning
Special Education Policy, Finance, and Systems
Technology for Special Education
Transition Outcomes for Special Education Secondary Students

11. Overview of IES Research & Research Training Grant Programs
5 Research Goals
Exploration: examine relations between malleable factors and education outcomes; small primary data studies, secondary analyses, or meta-analyses
Development and Innovation: develop new education interventions; demonstrate the feasibility of the intervention for implementation in an authentic education delivery setting; collect pilot data on promise of intervention to achieve intended outcomes
Efficacy & Replication: evaluate whether fully-developed interventions are effective under-specified conditions and with specific types of students; usually using random assignment to intervention and comparison conditions
Scale-up Effectiveness: evaluate the impact & feasibility of interventions at scale; test whether interventions are effective when implemented under typical conditions
Measurement: develop and validate assessments or other measurement tools

12. Research & Research Training Grant Programs

13. Overview of IES Research & Research Training Grant Programs
What is included in an application?
Project Summary/Abstract
Project Narrative & Appendices
Bibliography & References Cited
Human Subjects Narrative
Biographical Sketch for each senior/key person
Lists of Current and Pending Funding Support for each senior/key person
Narrative Budget Justification
Dissemination Plan

14. Overview of IES Research & Research Training Grant Programs
Four Sections of Project Narrative
Significance: Does the applicant provide a compelling rationale for the significance of the project?
Research Plan: Does the applicant meet the methodological requirements for the application’s goal? Does the dissemination plan address a range of audiences?
Personnel: Do the PI and other key personnel possess appropriate training and experience and will commit sufficient time to competently implement the proposed research?
Resources: Are the facilities, equipment, supplies, and other resources sufficient to support the proposed activities? Do the commitments of each partner show sufficient support?

15. Elements of Stronger and Weaker IES Proposals

16. Significance section Weaker proposals Stronger proposals
Don’t clearly explain how they are responsive to the specifics of the RFA (e.g. lack a theory of change)
Poorly organized
Assume lots of background knowledge, use lots of jargon
Detail their responsiveness to the RFA
Provide a rationale and objectives of the proposal can be accurately summarized in 5 min (including by a tired and over-worked reviewer trying to remember what the proposal was about right before the panel deliberates)
Fail to survey the existing literature in a manner that provides a compelling justification for the project
Leaves a reviewer asking, “so what?” or “don’t we already know this?”
Justifies the proposal based on theory and prior empirical work
Reads as “cutting edge” by fairly summarizing the boundary between “what we know” and “what we don’t” and how the answers will inform educational practice

17. Research methods section
Weaker proposals
Stronger proposals
Have not been read by a research methodologist/applied statistician
Are under-powered, do not explicitly test directional hypotheses, and fail to consider alternative explanations
Are written or at least closely edited by a knowledgeable research methodologist/applied statistician
Use the most appropriate methods for the type of goal being applied for
Are well powered
Evaluate alternative explanations or findings
Fail to anticipate likely objections to sampling, design, and measurement questions
Anticipate and explicitly address likely objections (e.g., use MLM when the independence assumption is clearly violated)
Acknowledges any remaining methodological limitations

18. Personnel and resources sections
Weaker proposals
Stronger proposals
Fail to include team members with the substantive or methodological expertise
Include only on junior team members with no prior grant-funded experience
The time commitments of each member are reasonable to their qualifications and responsibilities
Include consultants (usually not more than 3) to provide additional oversight and expertise
Fail to include letters of support specific to the the project’s resource demands, particularly for school sites
Provide letters of support from every personnel member not at the granting institution, including consultants as well as school districts where the project will be conducted.
The greater the demands of the project on consultant or LEA, the more detailed these letters should be in the time commitment

19. Experiences with the submission and review process

20. Some things to consider for the submissions process
Think of likely objections. How can you address these?
Give yourself enough time (e.g., 1-3 months of on-going work) to put together the proposal
Try to have a complete draft 1 month prior to the deadline
Have 2 or 3 other researches provide feedback
Collect and report on pilot data or preliminary findings if possible
Plan on subcontracts to take 1 month or more

21. Some more things to consider for the review process
Ask the RFA project officer to review the proposal prior submission (give at least 1 month’s time for this)
Talk to your project officer following any funding decisions prior to revising and resubmitting
Plan on the panel having talked over your project for about 20 minutes
Plan on revising the proposal as a result of not being funded
IES reviewer will typically provide detailed (1-3 pages) feedback
Revisions are required to have a resubmission letter

22. Some last things to consider for the review process
Consider anything as a “win” if you think you can adequately respond to the reviews
Be respectful, fair, and exhaustive in your response letter
State the criticism fairly, and consider it and your response from the reviewer’s perspective
Use the reviews as an opportunity to improve the work
Consider other agencies (e.g., NIH) that may have RFAs offering closely aligned, potential funding mechanisms

23. Thank you!
@PaulMorganPhD