Upload
maximilian-hopkins
View
219
Download
5
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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 [email protected] or 517-373-4583
About the grant program:
Donna L. Hamilton at [email protected] or 517-241-4546