Technical AssistanceMarch 18, 2015Webinar and Meeting

2014-2015 Title II, Part A(3)Competitive Grant Program

for Improving Teacher Quality

Today’s Goals

Review of goals of this grant program (See application for specific requirements.)

Explain the data collection requirements for funded projects

Describe expanded evaluation

Demonstrate how to apply using the MEGS+ system

2

Professional Development for teachers, principals,

and/or paraprofessionals

(if eligible)

3

Supports partnerships between high-need LEAs, college/departments of teacher education, and college/departments of

arts and sciences

4

What is the Potential?

Up to $240,000 for a 17 month period

$1.3 million

6 awards

At least $400,000 to serve teachers of small or rural LEAs as long as they meet the high poverty requirement.

Future funding possible (Pending ESEA?)

5

Deadline for Application

Deadline for submission in MEGS+:

11:59 p.m.

April 17, 2015

6

Categories

Two categories in 2014-2015, depending onParticipants:

Only new participantsNew and returning participants (from previous grant-funded projects

(Note: minimum of 30 participants for both categories)

7

Categories (continued):

Partnerships for Professional Learning Opportunities in English Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, Social Studies or World Languages– Address MDE Content Expectation and Common

Core State Standards– Build instruction delivery skills– Build assessment skills –teachers and principals– Meet goals for all students, including use of UDL– Eligible for up to $220,000

8

Categories (continued):

Partnerships for Sustained Professional Learning Opportunities in English Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, or Social Studies– Address MDE Content Expectations and Common

Core State Standards– Build instructional delivery skills– Build assessment skills –teachers and principals– Meet goals for all students, including use of UDL– Eligible for up to $240,000 (because of expanded

evaluation)

9

Differences between Categories

● “Returning” participants can be included in Category #2

● Compare differences in Category #2● Evaluate changes in content knowledge and

classroom practices in both categories

10

Differences within Rubric

• Category #2 needs additional information in Evaluation Section

• Rubric will demonstrate relationship between project activities and evaluation

• Specific statement of content and objectives

• Teachers’ Needs and Students’ Needs

11

Goals/Objectives/

I ntended Outcomes

Needs (identified needs

addressed by goals and objectives)

Activities [Plan of Operation] (intended to accomplish

goals/objectives)

Evaluation (assessing progress

toward goals)

Proposal should clearly describe relationship/ alignment

Teacher Professional Development Needs Assessment

Use Template, modify as necessary; posted on MDE website

Include data from “Parts” A, B, and C (and D, if appropriate to your proposed project)

Summarize in narrative Attach compiled data in Excel Tables

13

Teacher Professional Development Needs Survey

14

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONTitle IIA(3) Improving Teacher Quality Competitive Grants Program 2014-2015 INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROPOSAL TEAMS TO ADMINISTER PRE-PROPOSAL TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT NEEDS SURVEY  For the 2014-2015 Title IIA(3) grant funding cycle, those planning to submit a proposal are asked to conduct a systematic PRE-PROPOSAL needs assessment with teachers who are likely to participate in the proposed project. Data collected from the needs survey can be combined with a review of pertinent student test scores (or related measures) and other available data and used to help design and provide rationale for the proposed project.

Minimum of Three Partners

College of eligible IHE that prepares teachers College of Arts and Sciences and Eligible high need LEA on MDE website (or

group of LEAs, including one high need LEA) Other secondary partners allowed

15

High Need LEA(s)

Eligible LEA List generated by CEPI

Includes Special Ed Non-HQ Teachers

Posted on MDE website

Other potential LEA Partners can be added to create LEA partner entity.

16

Eligible Local Education Agency (LEA) Partners (sample)

17

Small, Rural and PSAs

Rural—any LEA given a 7 or 8 locale code by virtue of its location within a community with population less than 25,000 and greater than or equal to 2,500.

LEAs and PSAs – (Public School Academies or Charter Schools)

18

Partnership projects must address:

MDE Academic Content Standards (CCSS) LEA – identified Needs:

– Educator professional learning needs collected on the Teacher Professional Development Needs Survey (Template on website)

– Learning needs of all students, addressing Michigan’s Vision and Principles of Universal Education

– Role in identifying needs and planning project– MOUs to show agreement

19

Of Special Note…..

A minimum of 90 hours of content-based Professional Development

Specific attention to Michigan’s Professional Learning Policy and

Evidence of planning with private, nonpublic schools and consultation before designing project and figuring budget

20

Summer Institutes

Intense focus on specific content and instructional delivery strategies

Must have follow-up provided periodically throughout the year

Not a smorgasbord for PD grazing

21

Project Plan of Operation

Shows link between identified needs, specific content/pedagogy and proposed activities

Identifies benchmarks to determine progress toward stated objectives

Provides timeline Shows research support for project

22

EXAMPLE: STEP 1

23

Goals/Objectives+Expand teacher content knowledge in identified needs areas+Improve teacher inquiry-related skills/practices+Understand Michigan content standards/Common Core

NeedsSubject-Matter Content: Measurement, Geometry, Number/OperationsPedagogical Content: Inquiry-based lessonsOther: Understanding current state require-ments (i.e., Common Core)

Activities[Plan of

Operation]

Evaluation

EXAMPLE: STEP 2

24

Goals/Objectives+Expand teacher content knowledge in identified needs areas+Improve teacher inquiry-related skills/practices+Understand Michigan content standards/ Common Core

NeedsSubject-Matter Content: Measurement, Geometry, Number/OperationsPedagogical Content: Inquiry-based lessonsOther: Understanding current state require-ments (i.e., Common Core)

Activities[Plan of

Operation]+Sessions to develop conceptual understanding of grade-appropriate content+Sessions on differentiated instruction, inquiry-based learning, classroom discourse, use of technology+Sessions organized around needs-related content expectations, designing lessons/assessments consistent with expectations and Common Core

Evaluation

Evaluation Requirements

Overall effectiveness of project Analysis of artifacts (teacher, student) for all

awardees A plan to conduct pre/post lesson/classroom

observations Evidence of impact on students Comparison across groups within project

25

EXAMPLE: STEP 3

26

Goals/Objectives+Expand teacher content knowledge in identified needs areas+Improve teacher inquiry-related skills/practices+Understand Michigan content standards/Common Core

NeedsSubject-Matter Content: Measurement, Geometry, Number/OperationsPedagogical Content: Inquiry-based lessonsOther: Understanding current state require-ments (i.e., Common Core)

Activities[Plan of

Operation]+Sessions to develop conceptual understanding of grade-appropriate content+Sessions on differentiated instruction, inquiry-based learning, classroom discourse, use of technology+Sessions organized around needs-related content expectations, designing lessons/assessments consistent with expectations and Common Core

Evaluation+Pre/post subject-matter teacher content assessment+Lesson observations of classroom practices+Evaluate lessons and assessments for match with content expectations

Evaluation continued:

Extensive data requirements for both categories (may be the majority of the final report)

Recommend staff person devoted to evaluation

Note meetings to address evaluation:– Year One has one face-to-face meeting and one

webinar– Year Two has two face-to-face meetings

and two webinars27

RFA Specifications

Specifications are shown in MEGS+ by April 6, 2015, as well as in Help Screens throughout the application.

28

Title II, Part A(3) Improving Teacher Quality Rubric 2014-2015

29

30

Scoring Rubric

Important to Remember

Intensity and focus are important. Align narrative description with scoring rubric. Address formatting requirements. Note directions for use of Appendix/Attachment. Pay attention to past performance.

(See scoring rubric changes.)

31

Also Important

Budget – Note Special Rule, i.e., no one partner (or partner entity) USES more than 50% of the award; sample planning form on website. For example:Arts & Sciences partner (32%)College of Ed partner (36%)LEA partners (32%)

No purchase of classroom materials

32

Of Special Note…..

At least one LEA drawn from Eligible List Professional development in deep content for

the not-yet highly qualified. Must open to not-yet highly qualified, up to

registration maximum. (Remember - deep content knowledge and improved instructional delivery are the goals.)

33

Priorities

Research-based, addressing job-embedded professional learning

Data linking proposal to student learning and teacher need, based on student learning data and teacher needs assessment

Emphasis on Michigan’s content standards to attain deep content knowledge

Emphasis on improving instructional delivery, incorporating technology and Universal Design for Learning

34

Remember ….

Categories Nature of the partnership/purpose of grant Tuition OR staff salary Increased data required Anticipate approval in May, 2015

35

About MEGS+:

Andy DeYoung atDeyoungA@michigan.gov or 517-373-4583

About the grant program:

Donna L. Hamilton at HamiltonD3@michigan.gov or 517-241-4546