2015-2016 Title II, Part A(3) Competitive Grant Program for Improving Teacher Quality

2015-2016 Title II, Part A(3)
Competitive Grant Program
for Improving Teacher Quality
Technical Assistance
October 23, 2015
Webinar and Meeting
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
Purpose
Supports partnerships between highneed LEAs, college/departments of
teacher education, and
college/departments of arts and sciences
4
What is the Potential?

Up to $240,000 for a 20 month period

$2.3 million

10-12 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.
November 20, 2015
6
Two Categories

Two categories in 2015-2016, depending on
Participants:
 Only
new participants
 New and returning participants (from previous
grant-funded projects
(Note: minimum of 30 participants for both
categories)
7
Category #1

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
Category #2

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
Proposal should clearly describe
relationship/ alignment
Needs
(identified needs
addressed by goals
and objectives)
Goals/Objectives/
Intended
Outcomes
Evaluation
(assessing progress
toward goals)
Activities
[Plan of Operation]
(intended to accomplish
goals/objectives)
Teacher Professional
Development Needs Assessment




Use Template, add items as necessary;
posted on MDE and SAMPI websites
Include data from “Parts” A, B, and C (and D,
if appropriate to your proposed project)
Summarize results in narrative
Attach compiled data in Excel Tables
13
Teacher Professional
Development Needs Survey
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Title IIA(3) Improving Teacher Quality Competitive Grants Program 2015-2016
INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROPOSAL TEAMS TO ADMINISTER PRE-PROPOSAL
TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT NEEDS SURVEY
For the 2015-2016 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.
14
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
Updated MOUs to show commitment
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 across entire award period
Shows research support for project
22
EXAMPLE: STEP 1
Needs
Goals/Objectives
Subject-Matter Content:
Measurement, Geometry,
Number/Operations
Pedagogical Content:
Inquiry-based lessons
Other: Understanding
current state requirements (i.e., Common
Core)
+Expand teacher content
knowledge in identified
needs areas
+Improve teacher inquiryrelated skills/practices
+Understand Michigan
content standards/Common
Core
Evaluation
23
Activities
[Plan of
Operation]
EXAMPLE: STEP 2
Needs
Goals/Objectives
Subject-Matter Content:
Measurement, Geometry,
Number/Operations
Pedagogical Content:
Inquiry-based lessons
Other: Understanding
current state requirements (i.e., Common
Core)
+Expand teacher content
knowledge in identified
needs areas
+Improve teacher inquiryrelated skills/practices
+Understand Michigan
content standards/ Common
Core
Evaluation
24
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 Requirements





Overall effectiveness of project – on teacher
content knowledge and pedagogy
Analysis of artifacts (teacher, student)
A plan to conduct pre/post lesson/classroom
observations
Comparison across groups within project
Evidence of impact on students
25
EXAMPLE: STEP 3
Needs
Goals/Objectives
Subject-Matter Content:
Measurement,
Geometry,
Number/Operations
Pedagogical Content:
Inquiry-based lessons
Other: Understanding
current state requirements (i.e., Common
Core)
+Expand teacher content
knowledge in identified needs areas
+Improve teacher inquiry-related
skills/practices
+Understand Michigan content
standards/Common Core
Evaluation
+Pre/post subject-matter teacher content
assessment
+Lesson observations of classroom practices
+Evaluate lessons and assessments for match
with content expectations
26
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 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
27
and two webinars
RFA Specifications
Specifications are shown in MEGS+ by
November 2, 2015, as well as in Help Screens
throughout the application.
28
Review Process




Review and scoring based on criteria
External and internal panels
Scoring rubric used to make
recommendations for funding
Pre-award risk analysis now required
29
Title II, Part A(3) Improving Teacher
Quality Rubric 2015-2016
30
Scoring Rubric
31
Important to Remember





Intensity and focus are important.
Align narrative description with scoring rubric.
Address formatting requirements.
Note directions for use of Attachments.
Pay attention to past performance.
(See scoring rubric changes.)
32
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
33
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.)
34
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
35
Remember ….





Categories
Nature of the partnership/purpose of grant
Tuition OR staff salary
Increased data required
Anticipate approval in February, 2016
36
About the grant program:
Donna L. Hamilton at
[email protected] or 517-241-4546
About MEGS+:
Andy DeYoung at
[email protected] or 517-373-4583