FAQs
Grants Round: Education and Neuroscience
(Closing date: 6 May 2014)
Who can lead/be a member of a delivery/project team?
To ensure that the neuroscience is properly interpreted and applied in meaningful and
feasible ways, we are keen to encourage collaborations between educational researchers,
teachers, neuroscientists, cognitive scientists, psychologists, and other academics and notfor-profit organisations who can offer insight into applying neuroscience to learning (such as
in the fields of rehabilitation or sports science).
Can for-profit organisations be involved in the delivery of an intervention?
Yes, but applications must be led by not-for-profit organisations. If for-profit companies are to
be involved in the delivery of the intervention, we would expect them to provide substantial
subsidies or co-funding.
How much funding is available per project and how long can the projects last?
Our expected minimum funding award is £50 000. The applicant should propose the budget
that they think is required, bearing in mind that the cost of any eventual intervention should
be affordable for implementation in a large number of schools. Please note that the actual
level of funding often changes post-application in discussion with the Education Endowment
Foundation (EEF) and the independent evaluator (see below), who will advise on the
appropriate sample size and length of project. For information, the average EEF grant size is
£600 000.
The length of the project should be determined by the nature of the intervention and the
timescale in which its impacts should be evident. Projects can be funded for up to four years,
but note that ongoing attainment data, beyond the funding of the grant itself, will be collected
through the national pupil database. This longitudinal follow-up will be conducted by the EEF
and does not need to be costed as part of the grant.
What types of proposals are you looking to fund?
We are seeking proposals for educational interventions that have been informed by
neuroscience, with the aim of developing and testing the most promising ideas. The
intervention should aim to improve the attainment of pupils, especially those who are
disadvantaged, aged 5–16. We are particularly interested in literacy and numeracy
outcomes, although other academic and non-academic areas may also be assessed.
Successful proposals will build on existing evidence about effective teaching and learning
practices, and explain how such practices could be made more effective or efficient using
robust evidence from neuroscience. We are willing to consider projects that require a
development phase in order to finalise an intervention before testing its impact.
How is disadvantage defined/what does ‘disadvantaged’ mean?
In this case, a disadvantaged pupil is an individual aged 5–16 who has been on free school
meals in the previous six years or who was ‘looked after’ for at least six months in that year.
Often the interventions that are tested are whole-school or whole-class approaches, meaning
that children that do not match the definition of ‘disadvantaged’ are also the recipients of the
1
approach. In these cases we would expect the schools involved to have a higher proportion
of children who meet the definition than the national average of 25 per cent.
Will you fund interventions for students with learning disabilities or other special
educational needs?
Any applications examining interventions for students with learning disabilities or special
educational needs must offer interventions that are well-founded neuroscientifically; an
intervention cannot be justified simply by the fact that the population with which it is proposed
to work has an atypical neurological basis. However, we would be willing to consider
applications in which the intervention has arisen from findings in neuroscience but is then
targeted at a specific group of children, as long as the intervention would also be appropriate
for, and evaluated in, a wider range of pupils.
To what extent do proposed interventions need to be based on neuroscientific
findings?
Proposals need to demonstrate a deep understanding of both the relevant neuroscience and
the educational context within which the proposed intervention might occur, including the
practicalities of wider implementation. Projects will only be funded if there is an explicit
causal hypothesis relating a finding in neuroscience to a novel intervention or an amendment
to an existing intervention – not if neuroscience simply explains the basis of already
established and proven educational interventions.
In some cases, where there is limited evidence of impact but a promising idea, we may be
able to support pilot-stage research to clarify claims and produce quantitative and qualitative
evidence before undertaking further robust evaluation at a larger scale.
How will proposed interventions be evaluated?
We will rigorously evaluate the attainment impact of the interventions, wherever possible by
randomly allocating which schools or pupils receive it. We will pair successful applicants with
an independent evaluator who together will work to design an appropriate evaluation plan.
Note that the evaluation plan does not need to be included in the project plan and budget.
However, applicants may propose to include additional experimental measures to elucidate
the processes of change and develop our understanding of neuroscience.
Will you fund interventions that benefit/involve pupils in only one school?
We are unlikely to support projects that benefit pupils in only one school. Our aim is to
identify interventions and approaches that, if shown to be successful, could be taken on by a
large number of schools. We are only interested in testing initiatives that are practical and
affordable for schools. We also need to understand what training and support is needed so
that schools and teachers can use the intervention effectively.
Projects do not need to have recruited schools prior to applying. This will be done as part of
the project and in consultation with the independent evaluator.
Do I need to include evidence of the potential educational impact of the approach I
propose?
If available, evidence of the educational impact of the approach being proposed should be
provided. We also would like applicants to outline how their proposal applies the findings of
rigorous educational research. Please refer to the Sutton Trust and the EEF’s Teaching and
Learning Toolkit and the recent summary Neuroscience and Educational Interventions, both
available on the EEF website. The Royal Society’s 2011 publication Brain Waves 2:
2
Neuroscience: implications for education and lifelong learning provides some helpful
background reading and is also available on the EEF website.
How do I submit a funding application?
To submit an application, please register for the Education and Neuroscience Round via the
EEF website and complete the online form by 6 May 2014. Try to minimise the use of
abbreviations and acronyms to avoid any confusion for the reader, defining them when they
are first used. Keep technical jargon to a minimum.
When will I find out if my application has been successful?
Following the closing date on 6 May 2014, we will review the received applications against
our criteria. A small number of applicants will be invited to interviews on 16 or 17 July 2014.
We will then begin conversations with a number of the most promising proposals, with a view
to jointly developing a project and evaluation plan. We do not expect to make final funding
decisions until autumn 2014.
ELIGIBILITY CHECK
Are you the lead organisation for the application?
 Where a group of organisations are applying for funding, one should be designated
as the ‘lead organisation’. This organisation will have overall responsibility for the
completion of application procedures and the direction and management of the
project.
Do you agree to an independent evaluation of your project?
 The attainment impact of the projects will be independently and rigorously evaluated
by one of the EEF’s panel of evaluators.
Are you an educational institution, state body, registered charity or not-for-profit
organisation?
 Educational institutions are schools, university technical colleges, sixth form and
further education colleges, and universities.
 Not-for-profit organisations include community and voluntary groups and social
enterprises.
 State bodies include local authorities and national agencies.
Does your proposal seek to increase the educational attainment of pupils eligible for
free school meals or ‘looked after’ children?
 The aim of the project must be directly linked to raising attainment and be capable of
being objectively measured as part of a robust evaluation.
Is your project of a sufficient size to attract EEF–Wellcome Trust funding?
 Our expected minimum grant size is £50 000, and we are unlikely to support projects
that benefit pupils in only one school.
GUIDANCE NOTES ON THE APPLICATION FORM
Section 1. About your organisation
NOTE: Except where stated, please relate all answers to the lead organisation. These
questions are for information purposes and do not form part of the assessment.
3
1.1 Name of organisation
1.2 Organisation type
 Please select from: primary school; secondary school; further education college/sixth
form; university; local education authority; charity; other.
 As above, please answer with respect to the lead organisation, even if there are a
variety of different types of entities in your partnership.
 If your organisation is already entered into our application system, this will be
answered automatically.
1.3 Please give the names and a brief description of any partner organisations that will
contribute to this project (Max. 200 words in total)
 Please indicate what role the partner organisation(s) will play in the proposed project.
1.4 Lead applicant contact name
1.5 Lead applicant contact email address
1.6 Lead applicant contact telephone number
1.7 Lead applicant contact role/position
NOTE: Questions 1.8–1.10 should only be answered by applicants who responded with
‘Charity’ or ‘Other’ to Question 1.3.
1.8 Please describe briefly your main activities, and estimate what proportion of your
resources (staff time/funding) are devoted to education (Max. 150 words)
 Please describe your main areas of activity (e.g. education, health, social care) and
the type of activity you conduct in each area (e.g. project delivery, research,
advocacy).
 If detailed figures are not available on the proportion of resources devoted to each
area, please provide a best estimate.
1.9 How many staff members does your organisation employ (full-time equivalent)?
1.10

What is your organisation’s annual income (in GBP)?
Please include income from all sources, e.g. charitable grants, government
donations, etc.
Section 2. About the project
This is the key section that will form the focus of the assessment of applications.
2.1 Project title (Max. 25 words)
 Please give your project a title. Simple, descriptive titles (e.g. ‘Online peer tutoring’)
are welcome.
2.2 Please outline your proposed project (Max. 500 words)
 Please give a summary of the project for which you are seeking funding – what does
it aim to do and how will it do it? How will it be delivered? You should demonstrate
that your objectives are attainable within the stated timeframe. Be realistic – overly
ambitious proposals may not give the committee confidence that the objectives will be
achieved.
4
2.3 Please explain how your project fits with our approach (Max. 800 words)
 As outlined above, we intend to support projects that will effectively challenge
educational disadvantage and improve our knowledge of what works in raising the
attainment of disadvantaged students. These approaches should be based on ideas
generated by neuroscientific research. In this section please outline how your project
fits with this approach, including:
o the neuroscientific basis of your proposal
o how the neuroscience leads to or refines the educational intervention
o how this could impact on educational outcomes, including raising the
attainment of disadvantaged students.
2.4 Please cite any previous evidence showing that your proposal is likely to raise
attainment (e.g. pilot results, evidence from other countries, evidence from related
schemes, well-evidenced education theory, etc.). Wherever possible, please show
evidence that children who participate in your proposed project (or something similar)
improve relative to a comparison group of similar children who do not participate.
2.5 Please explain how practical your proposed intervention would be for schools to
implement (Max. 200 words)
2.6 If the proposed project has been piloted or is already being implemented, please
describe its reach and impact, and its cost so far (Max. 200 words)
 We are interested in how established the project is and what its reach and impact has
been.
2.7 Please describe the target population of the proposed intervention (Max. 200
words)
 Give details of the pupil characteristics (such as age) and the school type, as well as
an estimate of how many pupils you expect to be affected directly by the proposed
project.
 NOTE: Actual delivery may involve different numbers of pupils to those included in
this proposal, as determined by the views of the independent evaluator.
2.8 In addition to educational attainment levels, which we would expect to be
measured by the independent evaluator, are there any further outcomes or
experimental data that you would like to collect to better understand the impact of
the proposed intervention and the process of change? (Max. 200 words)
2.9 Additional comments (Optional, max. 200 words)
 If you have any further comments to make regarding your proposal, please state
them here.
Section 3. Expenses
3.1 How much funding are you seeking in total? What proportion of this are you
seeking from the joint EEF–Wellcome Trust funding initiative? (Max. 150 words)
 Please let us know how much your project will cost and how much of that cost you
are asking the EEF and Wellcome Trust to fund.
 If you have approached, or you are considering approaching, any other organisations
to seek funding for this project, please outline those organisations and the amounts
sought.
 If for-profit companies are involved, please outline the expected subsidy or co-funding
that they will contribute.
5

NOTE: You do not need to include independent evaluation costs, but do include costs
for any additional outcome or experimental measures that you would be responsible
for collecting.
3.2 Please give a breakdown of the proposed costs and phasing
We will provide funding for the directly incurred costs of the research project. Directly
incurred costs are actual costs that are explicitly identifiable as arising from the conduct
of a project (e.g. staff salaries, equipment, materials, travel). These costs should be
charged as the cash value actually spent and should be supported by an auditable
record. We do not fund on a proportion of full economic costs (fEC) basis. All equipment,
materials and consumables, etc. should be clearly and carefully justified where requested
in the form. The outlined costs should offer the very best value for money.
3.3 Additional comment on funding (Optional, max. 25 words)
6