+ All Categories
Home > Documents > ESEA Title II: Improving Teacher Quality State Grant Program Informational Meeting

ESEA Title II: Improving Teacher Quality State Grant Program Informational Meeting

Date post: 31-Dec-2015
Category:
Upload: melissa-becker
View: 33 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
Description:
ESEA Title II: Improving Teacher Quality State Grant Program Informational Meeting Overview of RFP Rich Jachino Statewide Coordinator November 17, 2009 Parke Hotel, Bloomington. President Barack Obama March 18, 2009. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Popular Tags:
25
ESEA Title II: Improving Teacher Quality State Grant Program Informational Meeting Overview of RFP Rich Jachino Statewide Coordinator November 17, 2009 Parke Hotel, Bloomington
Transcript

ESEA Title II: Improving Teacher Quality State Grant

Program

Informational MeetingOverview of RFP

Rich Jachino

Statewide Coordinator

November 17, 2009

Parke Hotel, Bloomington

President Barack Obama March 18, 2009

 

"To complete our race to the top requires the third

pillar of reform — recruiting, preparing, and

rewarding outstanding teachers. From the

moment students enter a school, the most

important factor in their success is not the color of

their skin or the income of their parents, it’s the

person standing at the front of the classroom.”

Illinois Public Agenda for College and Career Success

and ITQ• A Tale of Two States of Illinois. One is

prosperous, the other is struggling• One is well educated, the other lags in

educational attainment • One is economically vibrant, the other is

economically stagnant• There is a prosperity gap that is wide and

growing, the direct result of disparities in educational attainment by race, ethnicity, income and region

• ITQ – Provide PD in those high poverty areas

Important Due Dates/ Available Funding

• Intent to apply – November 30, 2009

• Proposal due date – January 22,

2010

• Decision on proposals – April 2010

• Funding available - $2,900,000

• Maximum award amount - $325,000

• Estimated projects funded 8-10

Federal Requirements

• The document Title II, Part A Non-

Regulatory Guidance (Revised

October 5, 2006) is available at the

following website address:

http://www.ed.gov/programs/teacherqual/guidance.pdf

.

Eligibility

• An approved public or private institution

of higher education and the division of

the institution that prepares teachers and

principals;

• A school of arts and sciences; and

• One or more high-need Illinois public

school districts or local education

agencies (LEAs).

High Need DistrictTables 1 and 2 in RFP

• A district that serves not fewer than 10,000 children

from families with incomes below the poverty line;

OR for which not less than 20 percent of the

children served by the district are from families

with incomes below the poverty line; and

• There is a high percentage of teachers not teaching

in the academic subjects or grade levels that the

teachers were trained to teach OR for which there

is a high percentage of teachers with emergency,

provisional, or temporary certification or licensing.

State Requirements

• Needs Assessment

• Outcomes

• Theory of Change

• Logic Modeling

• Evaluation

Needs Assessment

• Local Ed Agencies (LEAs) are

required by ISBE to complete needs

assessment

• Student Achievement data

• Teachers teaching out of field

• Supply and demand projections

Outcomes“Evidence of progress”

• Results for both teacher and student

• Include ways to measure progress

• Research based, already tested and

documented as producing teacher

and student learning

Theory of Change

• The underlying basis for an intervention

• An example“Teachers who increase their mathematics knowledge and skills will

be better able to design and deliver effective classroom mathematics

instruction, resulting in increased student achievement.”

• Show link between teacher knowledge and skills and student achievement

• Cite studies

Feedback Loops

• Programs preparing teacher and school leaders to inform and embed PD into preparation program curricula

• College of Education – College of A & S• Feedback loops are used with

evaluation data to improve project characteristics and inform partners

• Today’s symposium provides feedback from partnerships to IBHE and others

Sample Logic Model

Proposals Must address all 3 Absolute Priorities

1. Professional Development Aligned

to State Standards

2. Professional Development Linked to

Student Achievement

3. Professional Development Informs

Educator Preparation Programs

Competitive Priorities

• Low-Performing Schools−Academic Early Warning/Watch List

• Core Academic Subjects−English, reading, language arts,

mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history, and geography

• New Teacher Induction Activities

Eligible Project Activities

• Subject matter knowledge in the core academic subjects that teachers teach

• Principal leadership skill training to close performance gaps

• Train the trainer PD models• Improve teaching and learning at low-

performing schools• Pre-service activities are not eligible

High Need vs Low Performing• High Need districts are found on Table 1 and

Table 2 of the RFP

• Low-performing schools are those schools

designated by as being: - Academic Early Warning

-Academic Watch status - School improvement status under federal ESEA

accountability requirements.

www.isbe.net/research/pdfs/school_improvement08.pdf

Fiscal Agent/Project Director

Responsibilities• Monitoring all project fiscal expenditures for eligible project

activities

• Receiving, holding, disbursing and accounting for all assets and

liabilities of the project

• Work with office of sponsored projects to submit quarterly

expenditure reports

• Provide a cost-effective budget and narrative justification that is

consistent with the scope of the proposed objectives and

activities

• Note: If grant funds are requested for salaries of instructors who will

provide the professional development instruction, then the higher

education institution is not permitted to charge a corresponding tuition

for the same professional development activity.

Criteria for Review120 total points, up to 20 for competitive priorities

• Need for PD (10 points)• Collaborative Planning (15 points)• Eligible Project Activities (20 points)• Logic Model (15 points)• Evaluation Plan (20 points)• Budget (10 points)• Program Sustainability (10 points)• Additional Competitive Priorities (up to 20

points)− Low performing schools, Core academic areas, Teacher

recruitment/Induction, Access for underserved groups

Terms of the Grant

• Grant period April 6, 2010 – Sept 30,

2011

• Budget Transfer Rule

• Evaluation/Audit requirements

• State certifications

Evaluation Plan

• Overview of Population(s) served, needs to

be met through the project, and project

focus

• Description of intended project outcomes

and outcome measures

• Description of program activities and

output measures

• Description of methodology for

determining program effectiveness

Conditions for renewal funding

• Partnerships funded for 3 years

1.  funding availability from the

U.S. Department of Education;

2. project performance; and

3.  accountability measures as

demonstrated in annual interim

evaluation reports.

Collaborative Planning Document• Structure of Partnership• Key Roles of Participants • Describe planning meetings for

development of the partnership• Describe relationship between PD

activities and school improvement plan• http://www.ibhe.org/Grants/PDF/

NCLBWhitePaper.pdf

Summary

The IBHE intends to fund projects

that provide research-based

professional development for in-

service teachers in “high need

school districts” with measureable

outcomes that include student

achievement gains. 

Q and A Session

“Tell me and I forget. Teach

me and I remember. Involve

me and I learn.” ~~ Benjamin

Franklin


Recommended