{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019675925925925927, 'fraction_numerical': 0.016203703703703703, 'mean_word_length': 5.241877256317689, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Assessing Quality in Federal Grants that Support Special Education Teacher-Training Programs

The purposes of this study were to identify indicators of quality of teacher preparation programs that should be included in such programs, and to determine, on the basis of their inclusion in grant applications, whether programs funded by the Division of Personnel Preparation under the Training of Personnel for the Education of the Handicapped program (CFDA 84.029) were quality teacher-training programs. A literature review revealed nomination of 468 generic indicators of quality in seven categories: extent of need for the training, process of participatory planning, plan of operation, content of the training program, plan for evaluating the program, key personnel, and resources available for use in the program. Those indicators (445 of the original 468) that a majority of a panel of 12 experts agreed should be retained were included in the Instrument for Self-Eualuation of Quality in Special Education Teacher-Training Programs. A second instrument was designed from the first, using four of the eight categories and including indicators that may be expected to be found in grant applications. This instrument was used to analyze a sample of 10% of the masters' level programs newly funded in fiscal year 1983 to determine what percentage of indicators of quality were addressed in the grant applications. This analysis showed that all of the grant applications reviewed contained at least 72% of the indicators of quality as measured by the instrument; 40 items were present in 75% of the grants examined. Some recommendations for improving quality in grant applications, as assessed by this instrument, are discussed.