Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
2010-2011 Title II, Part A(3)Competitive Grant Program
for Improving Teacher Quality
Technical AssistanceMarch 17, 2011 Webinar and Meeting
2
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
3
Professional Development for teachers, principals, and/or
paraprofessionals
4
Supports partnerships between high-need LEAs,
college/departments of teacher education, and
college/departments of arts and sciences
5
What is the Potential?
Up to $220,000 for a 16 month period
$2.7 million
12 awards
At least $400,000 to serve teachers of small or rural LEAs as long as they meet the high poverty requirement.
Continuation funding possible (Pending ESEA)
6
Deadline for Application
Deadline for submission:
11:59 p.m.
April 29, 2011
7
Categories
Partnerships for Sustained Professional Learning Opportunities in English Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, or Social Studies– Address MDE Content Expectation– Build instruction delivery skills– Build assessment skills – both teachers and
principals– Meet goals for all students, including
implementation of UDL– Eligible for up to $220,000 (because of expanded
evaluation)
8
Categories continued:
Partnerships for Professional Learning Opportunities in English Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, or Social Studies– Address MDE Content Expectation– Build instruction delivery skills– Build assessment skills – both teachers and
principals– Meet goals for all students, including
implementation of UDL– Eligible for up to $200,000
9
Differences between Categories
● “Returning” Participants can be included in Category #1
● Evaluate Changes in Classroom Practices in Both
● Compare Differences in Category #1
10
Option for Continuation
Interim ReportsMeet ObjectivesCommitment to Continue
11
Teacher Professional Development Needs Assessment
Summarize in NarrativeAttach Compiled Data in Excel
Tables
12
Minimum Partners
College of IHE that prepares teachers
College of Arts and Sciences and
One or more high need LEA
(See scoring rubric changes.)
13
High Need LEA(s)
Eligible LEA List Generated by CEPI
Posted on MDE Website
Other Potential LEA Partners
14
Eligible Local Education Agency (LEA) Partners
15
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)
16
All partnership projects must address:
MDE content expectations LEA – identified Needs:
– Educator professional learning needs collected on the Teacher Professional Development Needs Survey, and
– Template on website– Learning needs of all students, addressing
Michigan’s Vision and Principles of Universal Education
(See scoring rubric changes.)
17
Teacher Professional Development Needs Survey
18
Remember ….
Categories
Nature of the partnership
Tuition OR staff salary
Increased data required
Anticipate approval in May
19
Of Special Note…..
A minimum of 90 hours of content-based Professional Development
Specific attention to Learning Forward/NSDC definition of professional development (http://www.learningforward.org/index.cfm)
Evidence of planning with private, nonprofit schools and consultation before figuring budget
20
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. (Deep content knowledge and improved instructional delivery are the goals.)
21
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 expectations to attain deep content knowledge
Emphasis on improving instructional delivery, incorporating technology and Universal Design for Learning
22
Important to Remember
Intensity and focus are more important than large numbers of participants
Budget – Special rule, i.e., no one partner USES more than 50% of the award
Attention to past performance(See scoring rubric changes.)
23
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
24
Evaluation Changes
Assessment of program and deeper analysis of artifacts (teacher, student) for all awardees
A plan to conduct pre/post lesson/classroom observations
Comparison across groups within project
25
More Evaluation Changes
Extensive data requirements for everyone (may constitute the majority of the final report)
Recommend staff person devoted exclusively to evaluation tasks
Note additional 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 webinars
26
RFA Specifications
Specifications are shown on MEGS by April 1, 2011, as well as Help Screens throughout the application.
27
28
About the grant program:
Donna L. Hamilton [email protected] at
517-241-4546
About MEGS:
MEGS Help Manual at http://megs.mde.state.mi.us/megsweb/documents/ApplicantManual.pdf
or
Claudia Nicol [email protected] or 517-335-1151
