Understanding the ED/IES SBIR Program
For first-time applicants, the U.S. Department of Education’s SBIR program—administered by the Institute of Education Sciences (IES)—can look like any other federal grant opportunity. But there’s a catch: aligning your proposal with ED/IES’s research-centric, mission-driven focus is not optional. It’s the foundation for a fundable application.
The program funds small businesses to create education technology products that improve student outcomes, particularly for underserved learners. But it’s not just about clever tools. Proposals must demonstrate that the innovation is grounded in educational need, designed with real users in mind, and structured around rigorous research. That’s because IES exists to build evidence, not just fund product development. Your proposal will be judged as much on your research plan as on your tech.
There are two main entry points: Phase I and Direct to Phase II (DTP2). Phase I grants are for early-stage ideas—typically $250,000 for 9 months—to develop and test a prototype. The goal is to show that your concept is usable, feasible, and promising enough to warrant further investment. DTP2 skips the prototype stage entirely. It offers $1 million over two years for scaling up a solution that’s already backed by rigorous research (e.g., RCTs or QEDs). If you don’t already have such evidence, you’re not eligible for Direct to Phase II.
What sets ED/IES apart is its explicit integration of product development, user research, and long-term educational impact. Applicants are expected to work directly with educators and learners throughout the project. For Phase I, this means formative testing and iteration. For Direct to Phase II, it means demonstrating fidelity of implementation and preparing for broader efficacy trials.
Note:
ED/IES SBIR proposals must align with IES’s mission to generate evidence—not just to build tech.
Understanding this structure from the outset will help you make smart, aligned decisions about scope, timing, and whether to partner with researchers. In this program, educational impact is not an outcome—it’s the standard.
Deconstructing the DoED Mission for SBIR Relevance
The U.S. Department of Education’s SBIR program doesn’t just ask what you’re building—it asks why it matters. That “why” is grounded in the Department’s mission: to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access. This mission isn’t background noise. It’s a scoring lens.
To stand out as a first-time applicant, you need to show that your innovation advances these goals. Start by translating the language of the mission into specific, measurable aspects of your product design and research plan.
If you’re developing a tool to support algebra instruction in multilingual classrooms, your proposal could describe how it improves math reasoning and includes scaffolds for English learners. That’s educational excellence and equal access. Similarly, an AI-driven reading tutor for students with dyslexia directly maps to improving outcomes for students at risk of failure—a core IES objective.
Reviewers are trained to evaluate proposals for mission alignment. Make their job easy: draw clear lines between what your innovation does and how it serves DoED priorities. Bonus points if you cite federal education goals or data trends to back up your claims (e.g., NAEP proficiency gaps, IEP service delivery challenges, or postsecondary STEM skill demands).
Well-aligned proposals often include a section or subsection titled something like “Alignment with Department of Education Mission”. This is not filler—it’s your chance to prove relevance, credibility, and strategic fit.
Remember: the strongest SBIR proposals don’t just answer what or how—they clearly explain why this matters to education in America right now.
Designing for Priority Areas
Every year, the ED/IES SBIR program defines specific priority areas that reflect the Department’s most urgent educational needs. For FY25, proposals must align with one of several well-defined tracks. Ignoring this step—or picking the wrong track—can sink a first-time application fast.
The good news? Each track provides a clear pathway to demonstrate relevance. The challenge is choosing the one that fits your product’s stage of development and target audience.
- Novel EdTech (IA)
- EdTech Components (IB)
- Direct to Phase II
- Special EdTech
Priority Area IA: For entirely new products. No existing prototype required. The focus is on novel technologies—think AI-driven tutors, adaptive games, or VR learning tools. Your solution should represent a leap forward, not a modest tweak. High risk is acceptable if the potential impact is high.
Priority Area IB: For adding new components to an existing, research-based product. You must show evidence that the base product already improves outcomes, and justify how the new feature addresses an unmet need. The component must be distinct—e.g., a speech-to-text layer added to a reading app.
Direct to Phase II (DTP2): Only apply if your product is based on existing research (e.g., RCT or QED results) and ready to scale. You’ll need to submit peer-reviewed evidence to be eligible. The goal is to build a fully scaled product for broad deployment. Ideal for university spinouts or research nonprofits moving toward commercialization.
Special Education Technology: Cross-cutting priority applicable to any track. Focuses on tools for students with disabilities, early intervention, or special education settings. Strong alignment with DoED’s equity mandate. Innovations may include assistive devices, behavior tracking tools, or accessibility-first design.
When choosing a priority area, match your product’s stage—not your aspirations. If your tool lacks prototype-level functionality, Phase IA is your lane. If you’re building on a proven tool with strong data, IB or DTP2 may be viable. Misalignment here can result in a fast rejection.
ED/IES isn’t vague about these tracks for a reason: they want applicants who understand where they fit—and how to grow.
Demonstrating Mission Alignment in Your Proposal
The best proposals don’t just meet the U.S. Department of Education’s goals—they prove they were designed with them in mind. For first-time applicants, this is where good ideas are either funded or passed over. You’re not only pitching a product; you’re making a case for its educational necessity, usability, and long-term viability.
A strong ED/IES SBIR proposal connects the dots between innovation, evidence, and impact. Here’s how to make that connection clear and compelling.
Start with a Theory of Change
A theory of change answers one core question: How will your product improve educational outcomes? Start by identifying the learner, educator, or system-level problem your innovation addresses. Then, describe the mechanism of change—what your product does differently, and how that leads to better results.
For example, if you’re building an app to improve early math skills among English learners, your theory of change might include dual-language support, contextualized practice, and spaced repetition. Your research plan should be designed to test that theory.
Use Data to Make the Case
Mission alignment is stronger when backed by real numbers. Use NAEP results, IEP service gaps, or published studies to show why your target users are underserved. Highlight structural barriers—such as lack of adaptive materials for special education—or gaps in existing interventions.
You don’t need a peer-reviewed paper, but you do need a clear rationale. What specific problem are you solving, and why does it matter now?
Plan for Iterative Research
The ED/IES SBIR program expects more than a finished product—it expects proof that the product works. Phase I proposals should outline formative research with users: interviews, usability testing, and pilot implementation in authentic settings. For Direct to Phase II, you’ll need to show how you’ll collect data on fidelity, feasibility, and short-term outcomes.
Working with teachers, special education staff, or curriculum directors strengthens your proposal—and gives reviewers confidence in your practical insight.
Tip:
Do not treat commercialization as a formality. IES expects a viable path to scale, sustainability, and classroom impact.
Build a Real Commercialization Plan
Too many first-time applicants rush the commercialization section. That’s a mistake. ED/IES doesn’t just want good ideas—it wants products that survive past the grant.
Your plan should cover your customer (e.g., district tech directors, special ed departments), your pricing model, and your path to market. Will you license through edtech platforms? Sell directly to schools? Partner with curriculum publishers? Show how you’ll sustain the product beyond grant funding.
If possible, include letters of interest from pilot schools or potential partners, or show prior experience with go-to-market strategies in education.
Use Mission Language Throughout
Reviewers want to see that you understand the Department’s goals—and that your project advances them. Use terms like “underserved learners,” “evidence-based,” “educational outcomes,” and “equity in access” when appropriate. This isn’t keyword stuffing; it’s strategic alignment.
Your executive summary should clearly state how the project promotes student achievement and educational excellence, especially for learners at risk of failure.
A compelling proposal doesn’t overreach—it connects research, design, and equity in a coherent narrative. Show reviewers that your innovation doesn’t just fit the ED/IES SBIR program—it belongs there.
From Concept to Funded Prototype: Phase I & Direct to Phase II Tips
Once your idea aligns with the Department of Education’s mission, the next challenge is selecting the right entry point into the ED/IES SBIR program: Phase I or Direct to Phase II. This isn’t just about funding size—it’s about readiness.
For first-time applicants, it’s critical to choose the right path. Here’s how to decide.
Phase I: Choose this if you’re developing a new product or component and don’t yet have a prototype. You’ll build and test a working version with real users and gather initial feedback. Most first-time applicants start here.
Direct to Phase II: Only apply if your product is based on existing research (e.g., RCT or QED results) and ready to scale. You’ll need to submit peer-reviewed evidence to be eligible.
Tips for a Successful Phase I Application
- Focus on feasibility. Your prototype doesn’t have to be pretty, but it must be functional.
- Plan meaningful testing. This means working directly with educators, students, or school settings.
- Keep your scope realistic. What can you achieve in 9 months with $250,000?
Phase I is your opportunity to prove concept: Is your solution usable? Does it address a real need? Is it likely to improve outcomes with further development?
Tips for Direct to Phase II Applicants
- Your research base must be airtight. The application requires rigorous evidence (not anecdotes or case studies).
- Show you can implement at scale. Who will use your product, and how will you support them?
- Budget for research and business. Include evaluation plans and commercialization strategy.
Common pitfalls for first-time applicants include proposing too much for Phase I or submitting to Direct to Phase II without eligible evidence. Avoid both by being honest about your product’s maturity.
Choosing the right phase isn’t about ambition—it’s about fit. A solid Phase I proposal is far more fundable than an overreaching Phase II.