Transcript Training Presentation

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
"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 NonRegulatory Guidance (Revised October 5,
2006) is available at the following
website address:
http://www.ed.gov/programs/teacherq
ual/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 District
Tables 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 lowperforming 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 Review
120 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/NCLBWh
itePaper.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