Improving Teacher Quality ITQ

1

• Improving Teacher Quality (ITQ)
• State Grants
• Partnership Grant Program
• Technical Assistance Meeting
• November 4, 2005

2
Federal Legislation

• The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB)
  reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary
  Education Act (ESEA) of 1965.
• Title II focuses on teacher quality

3
TQE-P Coordination

• Title II, Section 203 of HEA
• Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants Program
• separate program with competitive application to
  USDE
• If your IHE-LEA partnership holds one of these
  grants, activities must be coordinated with any
  Title IIA.3 ITQ grant funds you may be awarded
  from MHEC.

4

• Funding under NCLB, Title II, Part A
• 95 to LEAs
• 2.5 to MSDE for statewide activities
• 2.5 to MHEC for ITQ grants

5
MHEC ITQ Grants

• Title II focuses on teacher quality, including
  recruitment
• Title II, Part A (Improving Teacher Quality State
  Grants), Subpart 3 focuses on professional
  development
• MHEC ITQ grants are not for recruiting

6
ITQ Program Focus

• Teachers , where appropriate, principals must be
  able to demonstrate content knowledge in those
  subjects they teach
• Focus on core academic subjects
• arts, civics or government, economics, English,
  foreign language, geography, history, reading or
  language arts, mathematics, science

7
Focus of Project Activities

• Content delivery in core academic areas
• Linking content delivery to challenging academic
  standards for students
• Instructional leadership to improve student
  learning

8
MHEC ITQ Grants

• REQUIRED PARTNERS
• High-need LEA (as defined by NCLB)
• School of arts sciences (offers baccalaureate
  majors in content areas)
• School or division that prepares teachers and/or
  principals

9
High-need LEA

• Based on Census Bureau poverty data, not
• local data, and on teacher information from
• MSDE
• Baltimore City
• Baltimore County
• Montgomery County
• Prince Georges County
• Somerset County

10
Other Partners

• Additional LEA or colleges
• Charter schools
• Educational non-profit organizations
• Private schools
• Private schools with relevant needs should be
  offered the chance to participate (check with the
  participating LEA as to how they are included in
  federally funded projects)

11
Community Colleges

• Can be a lead partner fiscal agent
• Can also be one of the 3 required partners if it
  prepares teachers
• Cannot be the arts sciences required partner
  under this title of NCLB

12
Cross-Regional Partnerships

• Geographic distribution with IHE teams
• Provide services for high-need LEA and for LEA
  not designated as high need
• Activities of sub-grants may differ from those
  involving the high-need LEA
• Majority of funds need not be directed to
  high-need LEA if need addressed is great

13
Cross-Regional Partnerships

• More than 1 IHE
• AND
• More than 1 LEA

14
MHEC ITQ Grants

• Total funds available 1,714,334
• Award ranges
• up to 100,000 for IHE/High-Need LEA
• partnership
• up to 220,000 for cross-regional partnerships
  that include the required partners plus other IHE
  other LEA that are not designated as high need

15
Timeline

• August 16 November 4, 2005 Tech. Assistance
• (November meeting will include workshop)
• January 18, 2006 Proposals due at MHEC by 4
• March 1, 2006 Notification of grant
  awards
• April 1, 2007 Interim reports due
• March 15, 2007 ff. 2nd payment made after
  interim report accepted
• May 31, 2008 Grants end
• September 1, 2008 Final reports due

16
Payment Schedule

• 60 disbursed at outset of grant
• 40 disbursed after interim report
• (at the end of the first year of the grant)
• See RFP post-award changes section (amendments to
  budget etc.)

17
Priorities

• Recruiting participants from low-performing
  schools in high-need LEA
• Using cross-regional partnerships to reach
  participants from low-performing schools in other
  LEA

18
Contact Hours

• 90 hours minimum
• Includes follow-up as at least 10 of total
• Be clear how contact hours (and any credit hours)
  are determined
• Structured follow-up to determine if and how the
  professional development has instructional
  impact explain how conducted

19
Scientific Basis

• Per NCLB, IHE should take the lead to establish
  what activities and practices have been
  demonstrated to be effective
• Attach bibliography as needed
• Your own data from previous activities may be
  used to support effectiveness

20
Cooperative Planning

• Each partner MUST BE involved in project planning
  prepared to support activities
• Partner responsibilities should be clear and
  appear on the cooperative agreement form
• Reporting (MHEC receives one report from
  cross-regionals etc.)
• Flow of funds (seek grants officers assistance)

21
LEA Point of Contact

• Baltimore City
• Lisa Wiseman, lwiseman_at_bcps.k12.md.us
• Baltimore County
• Angela Eucalano, aeucalano_at_bcps.org
• Montgomery County
• Philippa N. Smithey, Philippa_Smithey_at_mcpsmd.org
• Prince Georges County
• Wesley Boykin, wesley.boykin_at_pgcps.org
• Gwendolyn Holland, gholland_at_pgcps.org
• Somerset County Doug Bloodsworth,
• dbloodsworth_at_somerset.k12.md.us

22
Recruitment

• Important element of cooperative planning
• Key to your impact
• Takes planning and time, more time, more
  planning, and then some more time
• To date, biggest obstacle ITQ grants encounter

23
Questions?
24
Fit Focus

• Is your project a good fit for the grant program?
  
• Does the proposal have a clear focus? Does it
  address requirements? Priorities?
• Start early and plan with your LEA partners

25
Proposal Preparation

• www.mhec.state.md.us/grants/itq/itq.asp
• Follow the RFP outline to set up your proposal
• Maximum length for proposal narrative
• 15 pp. for single IHE-LEA partnership (12-pt.
  font)
• 30 pp. for cross-regional partnership
• Not included in this page count résumés,
  budget docs., cover, abstract, assurances,
  agreements

26
Extent of Need (15)

• Each LEA served should have a clearly
  documented professional development need related
  to student achievement in core academic areas

27
Extent of NeedNeeds Assessment

• Describe how the need was assessed
• Local data, not national data
• Explain cooperative effort involved in
  identifying and planning how to address need(s)
• Explain how the proposal addresses the identified
  need(s)

28
Extent of NeedAlignment

• Does your proposal align with the professional
  development plans of the LEA (master plans)?
• Does your project fit well with the school
  improvement plans of the schools you serve?
• How do the project activities align with Maryland
  content standards?

29
Project Goals Objectives (10)

• Clearly linked to needs assessment
• General goals of partnership should be based on
  concrete objectives
• short-term outcomes that break the goals into
• smaller time periods
• Use measurable outcomes reference baseline data

30
Objectives

• Specific (who, what, where of impact)
• Measurable (baseline aftermath)
• Achievable (lead into goldin 2 years?)
• Reasonable (LEA needs results fit focus)
• Time-bound (and timely)

31
Management Plan (15)

• Institutional partners roles clear?
• Project staff members responsibilities clear?
• effort for academic year work
• Sufficient time for commitment
• Recruitment plan for target audience
• Work plan for management actions (data collection
  occasions, recruitment, meetings, reporting c.)

32
Plan of Operation (30)

• Details about Participants
• Target secondary service groups determined by
  needs assessment
• School cooperation for recruitment
• Participant chart (form available online)
• Details about Activities
• Why, how, when, where, by whom, for whom
• Timeline is 5 of the 30 points

33
Plan of OperationProject Activities

• Articulate
• Connections to project outcomes and needs
  assessment
• As much as possible, the relationship to student
  achievement
• High-quality, content-focused professional
  development for at least 90 contact hours, which
  includes structured follow-up

34
Evaluation Plan (20)

• Integral to the project not just after-the fact
• Helps project staff make adjustments
• Look for ties to student performance
• Not be unduly costly
• Report to be included in your final report

35
Evaluation

• Make it clear to reviewers how the baseline was
  identified
• Make it clear how and when data will be collected
• Cooperative planning a must here! How can the
  evaluation be useful to partners?

36
Budget (10)

• Supplement, not supplant, other funds
• Federal guidelines costs must be necessary to
  project activities, reasonable, allocable
• In-kind support, match, supplements from other
  grants to be noted in budget summary narrative

37
Budget Narrative

• Every activity noted in the plan of operation
  should be accounted for in budget summary
• Every item in summary should have corresponding
  entry in the budget narrative
• Cost effectiveness

38
Sub-contracts

• Establish a budget system that works for partners
• A formal sub-contract may be used in addition to
  cooperative planning agreement
• All expenditures must be clearly attributed by
  purpose by party spending the funds

39
Special Rule (50 Rule)

• No single partner can use more than 50 of the
  grant funds
• use means benefit and need not be an entirely
  financial use (per USDE)
• Indicate in the proposal how you have abided by
  the rule do this in reports also

40
Supporting Documents

• Cooperative Planning Agreement
• all partners should know each others distinct
  responsibilities in the project
• Résumés of key staff submit that of a new hire
  later
• Federal forms MHEC assurances
• Scientific research bibliography if warranted

41
Review Process

• Applications checked for completeness
• 5-6 reviewers read each proposal and evaluate it
  according to the information provided in the RFP
• Reviewers convene to discuss each proposal and
  decide upon a final rating and to make grant
  recommendations
• Secretary makes final decisions

42
Data Reporting

• Collect data from the outset
• Project planning adjustment
• Evaluation accuracy
• Interim final report elements
• Interim final reports
• Narrative financial components
• Fiscal agent collects those from sub-grantee(s)
  submits to MHEC

43
MHEC Reporting

• National data elements
• of awards, avg. award, award range, IHEs
• LEAs served, high-need, schools served
• Participants how many, what subjects ages
  taught, number of students impacted, pre-/post
  grant status (certified? etc.), student
  demographics (MSDE Web site)
• Please secure a signed permission for MHEC to
  contact participants for a state program
  evaluation

44
Questions?
45
Worksheets

• Your packet today includes a planning worksheet
  for each proposal section.
• These are are designed to help you ask questions
  and organize your ideas prior to writing your
  proposal. They are addenda to the RFP and
  technical assistance rather than stand-alone
  items.
• We hope they are helpful and welcome your
  suggestions for future handouts.

46

• Lunch and Team Workshop
• 12 3
• Assistance available ASK!

47
Please complete the evaluation form in your
packet.
Thanks for coming!
48
Contact Information

• Paula Fitzwater
• pfitzwat_at_mhec.state.md.us
• [phone]
• Candace Caraco
• ccaraco_at_mhec.state.md.us
• [phone]