ies funding opportunities for improving education systems sponsored by the university council for...
TRANSCRIPT
IES Funding Opportunities for Improving Education Systems
Sponsored by The University Council for Educational Administration
Welcome & Introductions
ModeratorMichelle D. YoungUCEA Executive Director
Panelists:
James Benson Katina Stapleton Program Officer Program Officer
National Center for Education ResearchInstitute of Education SciencesU.S. Department of Education
Are You Looking for Funding for Research on Education Leadership?
• Research on the essential problems of schooling and leadership practice
• Research on improving the preparation and professional development of education leaders
• Research on how to improve local, state, and national education policy
National Center for Education Research Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education
Quick Overview:Institute of Education Sciences (IES)
Research Arm of the U.S. Department of Education
Mission: – Describe the condition and progress of education in the
United States
– Identify education practices that improve academic achievement and access to education opportunities
– Evaluate the effectiveness of Federal and other education programs
5
IES Organizational Structure
6
National Board for Education Sciences
Standards & Review Office
Office of the Director
National Center for Education Evaluation
National Center for Education Statistics
National Center for Education Research
National Center for
Special Education Research
IES Research Objectives
• Develop or identify education interventions (practices, programs, policies, and approaches) – that enhance academic achievement– that can be widely deployed
• Identify what does not work and thereby encourage innovation and further research
• Understand the processes that underlie the effectiveness of education interventions and the variation in their effectiveness
7
FY 2014 Funding for Education Leadership Research
• Improving Education Systems: Policies, Organization, Management, and Leadership grants program– One topic within the Education Research (84.305A)
Request for Applications.• Partnerships and Collaborations Focused on
Problems of Practice or Policy grants program– New Request for Applications (84.305H) that includes
funding for • Researcher-Practitioner Partnerships• Continuous Improvement Research in Education• Evaluation of State and Local Programs and Policies
Improving Education Systems: Policies, Organization, Management, and
Leadership
84.305A Education Research
Requires that you select a TOPIC and a GOAL
Topic: Improving Education Systems: Policies, Organization, Management, and Leadership
Goal: To be determined by your specific research question and research methods
11
Improving Education Systems (Topic within 84.305A Education Research)
Improving Education Systems
Middle & High School Reform
Education Policy, Finance, and
Systems Education Leadership
Education Finance
Leadership and Management
Improving Education Systems: Policies, Organization, Management, and Leadership
65+ Projects since 2004 across several research programs
FY 2014 Improving Education Systems
Supports research to improve student learning through• direct improvements in the organization
and management of schools and State/district education systems serving grades K through 12
• establishment of policies intended to foster such improvements.
Focus on Education Leadership
Improving Education Systems topic supports research on • full range of K-12 school leaders and
administrators at school, district, and State levels
• wide variety of school leadership roles/functions
Potential Education Leadership Topics
Include, but are not limited to . . . .• Variation in leadership roles by school and district context • Skills and knowledge needed by school and district leaders
to improve schools• Professional Development • Education leader recruitment and retention• Licensure and certification• Evaluation and assessment of leaders
– Formative assessments help leaders improve practice– Summative Assessments to evaluate leadership competencies or
performance for accountability purposes– Value-added evaluation systems that incorporate measures of
students’ performance on standardized tests.
Limitations within the Improving Education Systems Topic
• Restricts research on professional development for aspiring K-12 leaders– Allows research on alternative certification pathways
(and their components). Alternative certification pathways are defined as relatively short programs that are intended to provide intensive training to professionals and have them working in
– Only allows exploratory research on other types of pre-service leadership development programs.
• Does not support research on education leadership at the pre-k or postsecondary levels
Research Must Address Student Outcomes
You must include measures of student academic outcomes that are important to students, parents, teachers, and administrators. For Example: • grades or achievement test scores in
reading, writing, mathematics, or science; • course completion and retention; • high school graduation or dropout
Identifying Your Research Goal
• Exploration • Development & Innovation• Efficacy & Replication• Effectiveness• Measurement
18
Exploration Goal
• Explore associations between malleable factors and education outcomes
• Identify factors and conditions that may mediate or moderate relations between malleable factors and student outcomes
• Possible methodological approaches– Analyze secondary data– Collect primary data– Complete a meta-analysis
19
Development & Innovation Goal
• Develop an innovative intervention (e.g., curriculum, instructional approach, program, or policy)
• OR improve existing education interventions
• AND collect data on its usability, feasibility, and fidelity of implementation in actual education settings
• AND collect pilot data on student outcomes
Development process must be
iterative!
20
Efficacy & Replication Goal
• Evaluate whether or not a fully developed intervention is efficacious under limited or ideal conditions
OR
• Gather follow-up data examining the longer-term effects of an intervention with demonstrated efficacy
OR
• Replicate an efficacious intervention varying the original conditions
OR
• Conduct retrospective analysis of secondary data collected in the past
21
Efficacy & Replication Goal
The Researcher should . . .• Ask what might be needed to implement
intervention under routine practice• Reduce appearance of conflict of interest for
developer/evaluators• Do not require confirmatory mediator analyses
but recommend exploratory ones
22
Effectiveness Goal
• Evaluate whether a fully developed intervention that has evidence of efficacy is effective when implemented under typical conditions through an independent evaluation
• Prior to submitting an effectiveness proposal, at least two efficacy studies of the intervention with beneficial and practical impacts on student outcomes must have been completed
23
Effectiveness Goal
• IES expects researchers to:– Implement intervention under routine practice– Include evaluators independent of
development/distribution– Describe strong efficacy evidence for intervention
• IES does not expect wide generalizability from a single study– Expects multiple Effectiveness projects to this end– Sample size is not a key distinction from Efficacy
• IES does not require confirmatory mediator analyses but encourages exploratory ones
• Cost of implementation is limited to 25% of budget24
Measurement Goal
• Development of new assessments or refinement of existing assessments, and the validation of these assessments
OR
• Validation of existing assessments for specific purposes, contexts, and populations
25
Measurement Requirements for Improving Education Systems Topic
You must validate the proposed assessment against student academic outcomes that are important to students, parents, teachers, and administrators. For example: • grades or achievement test scores in
reading, writing, mathematics, science; • Attendance, grade retention, high school
graduation or dropout rates
Changes from Previous 84.305A
• See page 11 for highlights of changes in the FY 2014 RFA.
• Carefully read the full RFA. • Applicants to all goals must describe
plans for dissemination as appropriate to the proposed work.
27
Goal Max. Duration & Award (direct + indirect)
Exploration• With secondary data• With primary data
2 years, $700,0004 years, $1,600,000
Development & Innovation 4 years, $1,500,000
Efficacy & Replication• Follow-up study
4 years, $3,500,0003 years, $1,200,000
Effectiveness• Follow-up study
5 years, $5,000,0003 years, $1,500,000
Measurement 4 years, $1,600,000
Maximum Award Amounts (84.305A)
28
Partnerships & Collaborations Focused on Problems of Practice & Policy (84.305H)
New Request for Applications (RFAs) to further promote research partnerships between research institutions and State and local education agencies
(SEAs/LEAs)
29
Partnerships & IES Priorities
IES seeks to… • encourage education researchers to develop
partnerships with state and local education agencies to advance the relevance of research and usability of its findings for day-to-day work of education practitioners and policymakers
• increase capacity of education practitioners to make constructive use of existing databases, conduct research, and make use of research findings to improve practice
(See http://ies.ed.gov/director/board/priorities.asp)
30
Partnerships & Collaborations Focused on Problems of Practice & Policy (84.305H)
• Researcher-Practitioner Partnerships in Education Research – Support a new or existing partnership to carry out initial
research – Develop a plan for further research
• Continuous Improvement Research in Education – Support well-established partnerships to adapt and revise an
existing approach (or approaches) using continuous improvement strategies
• Evaluation of State & Local Education Programs & Policies – Carry out rigorous evaluations of education programs or
policies that are implemented under routine conditions by State or local education agencies to improve student academic outcomes
Note: Use May 9 version posted on IES website31
Education Issue addressed by 84.305H Applications
• Applicants may propose to address any education issue of priority to LEA/SEA
• The Institute is especially interested in…– School safety– Social skills, attitudes, and behaviors that contribute
to student academic success– Implementation of the Common Core State
Standards
• The peer review process will not penalize applications addressing other education issues
32
Requirements for all 3 R305H Topics: Student Outcomes & Student Populations
• All research must address education outcomes of students, including at least one of these categories:– Academic outcomes– Social and behavioral competencies that support student
success in school
• Students from prekindergarten through postsecondary and adult education– Typically developing students, and/or – Students with disabilities or at risk for disabilities
• Specific requirements for identifying students at risk for disabilities status
• see http://ies.ed.gov/ncser/definition.asp
33
Specific Requirements: Applications must be from a Partnership
• Partnership may be new (Topic 1 and 3) or existing (Topic 2)
• Applications must include at least one Principal Investigator (PI) from a research institution and at least one PI from a State or local education agency– PI from research institution: Must have the ability
and capacity to conduct scientifically valid research and expertise in the education issue to be addressed
– PI from State or local education agency: Must have decision-making authority for the issue within his or her agency
34
Specific Requirements: SEA or LEA Partner
• State education agencies – Examples: education agencies, departments, boards,
commissions – Oversee early learning, elementary, secondary,
postsecondary/higher, and adult education– Includes education agencies and tribal education
agencies in U.S. territories
35
Specific Requirements: SEA or LEA Partner, Cont.
• Local education agencies which are primarily public school districts
• Community college districts• State and city postsecondary systems
– If there is a State or city higher education agency that oversees the postsecondary system, include them as an agency partner
– If there is no State or city education agency that oversees the postsecondary system, the system can apply as the sole agency partner
– A postsecondary system that applies as an education agency partner cannot also serve as the research institution partner in the same project
36
Additional Partners
• Partnerships may include more than one State or local education agency if they share similarities and interests
• Non-education State and local agencies may be partners as long as an education agency is a partner
• Partnerships may include more than one research institution if they have shared interests and will make unique contributions
• Partnerships may include other non-research organizations (e.g., issue-oriented or stakeholder groups) that will contribute to the partnership and its work
37
Topic 1: Research-Practitioner Partnerships in Education Research
• Promote joint research by research institutions and SEAs/LEAs to: – Address education issues of key importance to SEAs/LEAs– Directly contribute to SEA/LEA program and policy
decisions – Provide an opportunity to develop partnership
collaboration through initial research activities as well as develop a longer-term research plan
• Foster longer-term research partnerships to:– Provide and support the use of rigorous research-based
evidence in decision-making– Continue practitioner input into research agenda
38
What should the partnerships do during the grant?
Broadly, the partnerships should… • Carry out initial research regarding the education issue, such
as: – Use administrative databases to explore the relation between state
or district-sponsored interventions and student outcomes
– Construct on-track indicators for students and schools
• Develop the partnership through structured stakeholder meetings, school-site meetings and focus groups, and community forums to present objectives and findings
• Develop a plan for further research on the issue, including assessment of future data collection needs
39
Expected Products of the Partnership Grants
1. A description of the partnership as developed over the grant
2. A description of the education issue addressed by the partners
3. The results of the completed initial research4. A plan for the partnership’s future research5. Recommendations for how the partnership can be
maintained over the longer term6. Lessons learned from developing the partnership that
could be used by others in forming such partnerships
40
Topic 2: Continuous Improvement Research in Education
• Implement, adapt, and revise existing approach(es) to addressing the education issue or problem of concern to the SEA/LEA:– The initial approach reflects knowledge and
capabilities of the partnership at project start time– A short-cycle process of data collection, review and
revision is used to iteratively adapt and refine implementation of the approach
• Pilot the revised approach to identify promise of effectiveness for its impact on student outcomes
41
Continuous Improvement Research in Education
• Foster longer-term research partnerships that will sustain collaborative research after the project is complete
• Foster the capacity of SEAs/LEAs to conduct research internally, including iterative, implementation research
• Contribute to broader understanding of how:– approaches can be adopted to address local conditions
during widespread implementation; – Researchers and practitioners can collaborate to
conduct implementation research that measurably improves practice
42
Continuous Improvement Requirements
• Projects to be supported under the topic are to promote joint research by partnerships of research institutions and SEAs/LEAs– Builds on an existing partnership (one year of prior
work)– Addresses an education issue or problem of key
importance to an SEA/LEA – Proposes a clear approach, with a theoretical and/or
empirical base of support, for addressing the issue faced by the SEA/LEA
– Funds research, partnership, and some training activities, NOT program costs
43
Expected Products of the Continuous Improvement Grant
1. Description of the partnership as developed over the grant2. Description of the education issue addressed by the
partners3. Description of the approach used by the partnership to
address the education issue4. Description of the approach after it has been implemented,
adapted and revised– Identification of the changes made in the approach,
changes made in the education system, and reason for those changes
5. Description of the process used to adapt/revise the approaches along with the data summaries upon which revisions were based
44
Expected Products, cont.
6. Results from pilot analysis of the approach regarding evidence of the promise of the approach to improve student outcomes
7. Determination as to whether the approach is ready for a full evaluation or requires further development
8. Recommendations for how the partnership could be maintained over the longer term
9. Specific and general lessons from the revisions to the approach and changes made in the education system that improved the approach and its implementation
10. Lessons learned from the joint development work performed the partnership that could be used by other partnerships
45
Topic 3: Evaluation of State & Local Education Programs & Policies
• Promote joint evaluation research by research institutions and SEAs/LEAs– On an education program/policy of key importance to
SEAs/LEAs– That will directly contribute to SEA/LEA program and
policy decisions – Provide an opportunity to develop the partnership
through the evaluation• Foster longer-term research partnerships– Provide and support the use of rigorous research-based
evidence in decision making– Continue practitioner input into research agenda
46
What should the partnerships do during the grant?
Broadly, the partnerships should… Identify an education program or policy
implemented by a SEA/LEA, and of high priority to that agency, intended to improve student achievement
Carry out an evaluation of that program/policy
47
Expected Products of the Grants
• Causal evidence of the impact of a clearly specified program/policy implemented by a SEA/LEA
• Conclusions on and revisions to the theory of change that guides the program/policy– Contributions to our theoretical understanding of
education processes and procedures
48
Expected Products of the Grants, cont.
• If a beneficial impact is found… – The organizational supports, tools, and procedures
needed for sufficient implementation of the core components of the program/policy under routine practice should be identified
• If a beneficial impact is not found…– A determination should be made whether and what
type of further research would be useful to revise the program/policy and/or its implementation
• The financial costs of the program/policy
49
Award Parameters (84.305B-H)
Program Max. Duration
Max. Award(direct + indirect)
305H Researcher-Practitioner Partnerships305H Continuous Improvement Research 305H State/Local
2 years4 years5 years
$400,000$2,500,000$5,000,000
50
Application Submission & Review Process
“Because of inevitable electronic glitches, starting as early as possible in developing the grant application,
as well as submitting it electronically is critical.” Successful Grant Writing
Application Deadline
Application Package Posted &
Submission Guide Available
Start Dates
Sept 4, 20134:30:00 PM
DC Time
June 6, 2013 July 1, 2014
toSept 1, 2014
Important Dates and Deadlines
52
Review Application Requirements
Request for Applications Currently available at http://ies.ed.gov/funding
Grants.gov Application Submission Guide Currently available at http://ies.ed.gov/funding
Application Package Currently available at Grants.gov
53
Sign-Up for the Application Process Webinar
During this webinar, IES staff will provide information regarding the grant submission process. The webinar will focus on information in the application instructions package, including content and formatting requirements, human subjects clearance, and application forms.
• Tuesday, July 23, 2013, 2:00PM – 3:30PM ET
Register at http://ies.ed.gov/funding/webinars/.
Peer Review(Standards & Review Office)
• Compliance screening for format requirements• Responsiveness screening for program
requirements• Assigned to review panel– 2-3 reviewers (substantive & methodological)– If scores are strong enough, application is reviewed by
full panel• Many panelists will be generalists to your topic• There will an expert in every procedure you use
– Panel provides an overall score plus scores on Significance, Research Plan, Personnel, and Resources
55
Notification Process
56
• All applicants will receive e-mail notification that the following information is available via the Applicant Notification System (ANS):• Status of award• Reviewer summary statements
• If you are not granted an award the first time, plan on resubmitting, and talk to your Program Officer
Help Us Help You
• Read the Request for Applications carefully
• Call or e-mail IES Program Officers early in the process
• As time permits, IES program staff can review draft proposals and provide feedback
Don’t be afraid to contact us!
57
Q & A
Thank you for your attendance and participation. This session will be available on the UCEA website:
www.ucea.org