Improving Instruction through Regional Data Initiatives

1
Improving InstructionthroughRegional Data
Initiatives

• Question and Answer
• Applications due September 21, 2009

2
Change in DateImproving Instruction through
Regional Data Initiatives

• The MEGS changes are not complete
• MEGS will be ready to accept applications
  September 14, 2009
• There are no changes to the grant documents we
  have already distributed and posted on our
  websites
• www.michigan.gov/edtech
• www.techplan.org
• Applications close in MEGS on Monday, September
  21, at 5pm EDT

3
ScoringImproving Instruction through Regional
Data Initiatives

• The initial round of scoring is scheduled for
  September 24, 2009
• We are recruiting members of the Michigan
  Education Research Association (MERA)
• Interested reviewers contact Bettie
  Landauer-Menchik
• K-12 Outreach College of Education, Michigan
  State University
• 517 432-9470 menchikb_at_msu.edu
• Anticipate recommending funding ? Oct 15

4
Change in ProcessImproving Instruction through
Regional Data Initiatives

• Apply ? September 21, 2009
• Score ? September 24, 2009
• Recommend ? October 14, 2009
• Ask for assurances (MEGS) ? Oct 14, 2009
• Close assurances (MEGS) ? Nov 15, 2009
• Finalize budgets ? Nov 30, 2009

5
Determining BudgetImproving Instruction through
Regional Data Initiatives

• 10 ISDs _at_ 75,000 ? 750,000
• 2 districts/psa not participating _at_ 10 of ISD
  population? -15,000
• Consortium included research partner ? 75,000
• 10 ISDs research collaborative ? 810,000
• 810,000 dependent on other Regional Data
  Initiatives not participation levels

6
Nonparticipating ISDs, Districts, and
PSAsImproving Instruction through Regional Data
Initiatives

• Second round opportunities (February 2010)
• Sign up with first round winners
• Second opportunity given to districts and PSAs to
  join Regional Data Initiatives of ISD choosing
• Alternative solution is significant coverage gaps
  exist
• Round 1 ? Round 2

7
Non-Public SchoolsImproving Instruction through
Regional Data Initiatives

• Must be notified of opportunity in the planning
  phase
• Data system, differentiation tools, and
  professional development
• Differentiation tools and professional
  development
• Professional development

8
Data for Student SuccessImproving Instruction
through Regional Data Initiatives

• Three areas of focus
• Business rules that automate or simply the
  process of Regional Data Initiatives pulling in
  state data
• Dynamic Inquiries for using state compliance data
• Professional development, including
  sustainability work
• Nothing has been finalized

9
Questions from the Field 1Improving Instruction
through Regional Data Initiatives

• The model of an ISD lead with a consortium of
  ISDs applying how are the other ISDs treated in
  the grant from a budget point of view sub
  recipients?
• It is up to applicant. Ideally, we would see
  significant collaborative work done at the state
  and regional level with professional development
  and other executables happening at the individual
  ISD level. We are not interested, however, in a
  pass through model with very little
  coordination and participating ISDs doing there
  own thing.

10
Questions from the Field 2Improving Instruction
through Regional Data Initiatives

• Based on the answer to the first question, how do
  indirect costs work each ISD indicates, or only
  the lead?
• There is no official limit to indirect charges,
  although this not to say if we see exorbitant
  indirect rates that we will not question them. I
  advise participating ISDs to understand exactly
  what services the indirect charges get them. It
  would be better to spell out the direct services
  provided for coordinating the collaborative and
  keep the indirect for covering accounting and
  process work.

11
Questions from the Field 3Improving Instruction
through Regional Data Initiatives

• What to do about LEAs who want to be involved but
  are not using what their ISD uses?
• Well look at that in the second round. Right now
  the ISD is the king maker in terms of picking
  the system that will serve their ISD.

12
Questions from the Field 4Improving Instruction
through Regional Data Initiatives

• What is the process for round 2 ISDs to get
  involved?
• It should be as straight forward as possible. The
  second round ISD has its pick of the first round
  winners they sign on and have their locals
  provide assurances. Locals that do not sign on in
  Round 1 also have the option in Round 2. The
  major caveat may be less money available because
  of MDEs desire to fund the addenda projects out
  of the money not taken by ISDs and locals signing
  up in Round 1. MDE reserves the right to
  reconfigure qualifying applications for Round 2
  in case significant portions of our locals are
  not served (i.e., large urbans, PSAs, etc.), in
  which case we may consider allowing locals to
  pick Regional Data Initiatives different then
  their ISD, but thats a big if.

13
Questions from the Field 5Improving Instruction
through Regional Data Initiatives

• Can ISDs who join a consortium in round 1 be
  brand new to the data warehousing product (we
  have had two ISDs approach us to be part of our
  application, but it isnt clear in the
  application rubric if that is allowed though it
  does say that the application has to indicate
  there is a plan to add new in this case, wed
  be adding some new up front) ?
• ABSOLUTELY. This is the intent of the grant.

14
Questions from the Field 6Improving Instruction
through Regional Data Initiatives

• How does eTranscript work into this?
• eTranscript is a separate project funded and
  supported by CEPI. MDE is looking at providing a
  Michigan Merit Curriculum (MMC) tracker
  component, but there is internal debate as to
  whether or not to proceed. We will ask the
  Professional Learning Community of winning
  Regional Data Initiatives to 1) make a
  recommendation on a statewide approach and 2)
  recommend a set of national standards to which
  locals can map their course definitions.

15
Questions from the Field 7Improving Instruction
through Regional Data Initiatives

• Can funding of data coaches in the counties be
  part of this grant?
• ABSOLUTELY. Research and evidence has shown
  coaching models work well in delivering
  job-embedded professional development for
  teachers.

16
Questions from the Field 8Improving Instruction
through Regional Data Initiatives

• Can the consortium indicate it is partnering with
  others to complete the work (i.e. you asked REMC
  to work on updating the REMC 8th grade assessment
  and work on a rubric for instructional staff tech
  usage but we see that both of which are listed
  in the addendum for the grant)?
• Yes. Name anyone you want. The addenda for the
  8th Grade Tech Literacy and the Personnel Skilled
  with Technology arose from conversations at the
  REMC in-service. We anticipate strong addenda
  applications on both.

17
Questions from the Field 9Improving Instruction
through Regional Data Initiatives

• What types of activities are expected in the
  category of 20 set aside for collaborative work
  through a PLC administered by MAISA (20 is over
  2 million across all grants) ?
• There will be a Professional Learning Community,
  administered by MAISA, and a common evaluation
  that will come from the 20, but it will not cost
  20. The 20 number is intended to provide
  flexibility in individual Regional Data
  Initiatives budgets to facilitate statewide
  collaboration on the issues related in the
  Project Design Considerations section of the
  grant, pages 2 and 3. It prevents Regional Data
  Initiatives from saying, we dont have budget
  for that. At least half (10) can count as
  professional development.

18
Questions from the Field 10Improving
Instruction through Regional Data Initiatives

• Because such a large part of this grant is about
  collaboration, why is more than one consortium
  per product allowed? We understand that you gave
  approval for the UP ISDs and some upper lower
  Michigan ISDs to form a second Data Director
  consortium for this grant. That seems to be
  duplication of effort and contradicts the notion
  that ISDs will collaborate together on the same
  product. We will of course keep in touch with
  them, but that is much different than
  partnering/collaborating on a grant.
• MDE has believed for some time that a statewide
  data warehouse solution is unachievable and
  disadvantageous (i.e., disparate broadband
  access, etc.). We believe there is value in
  investing in our regions for a host of reasons
  proximity of service, chief among them. If a
  region determines that it is best to propose a
  separate instance, using the same underlying
  package of tools, to best service the schools
  within the region, we will entertain funding that
  project separately. That being said, a project
  has to score well to warrant creating yet another
  layer of management.

19
Questions from the Field 11Improving
Instruction through Regional Data Initiatives

• What is your expectation on timing of using D4SS
  as the conduit for data for the state? I see you
  have it listed on page 7 of the application, but
  we have only just started talking about that at
  D4SS advisory meetings and dont have that in
  this school years scope of work.
• Data for Student Success must step to the plate
  and support the Regional Data Initiatives. This
  must be a priority. There is time to develop a
  coordinated approach and then work by the time
  the grants are awarded. Primary to the task will
  be identifying how D4SS will support the
  individual Regional Data Initiatives and
  establishing a timeline to deliver services.

20
Questions from the Field 12Improving
Instruction through Regional Data Initiatives

• In section B of the rubric, differentiated
  instruction, it talks about describing
  tools/services/resources that the consortium will
  use. It then goes on to talk about
  collaboratively developing a common approach.
  What is meant by that? While all ISDs are on the
  same page globally, because each ISD is in a
  different place in working with their locals, not
  all will have the same approach in the two years
  of this grant. Please elaborate.
• The knock against data warehousing has been that
  the tool stops at the administrators desk. While
  some programs push down to the teacher, many
  times that support ends with a report. We will do
  our best not to let this be the case in our
  Regional Data Initiatives. We know that some
  Consortia will submit proposal strong in the area
  of shared differentiation strategies and
  resources. Winning consortia that are weak in
  this area will be encouraged to learn from the
  stronger programs and adopt strategies and
  resources. This is the exact intention of the 20
  set aside and collaborative work of the MAISA
  Professional Learning Community.

21
Other Questions from the Field 13 Improving
Instruction through Regional Data Initiatives

• Is there one pot of money for the collaborative?
• The lead ISD will act as fiscal agent.  The way
  the money is dispersed will be up to the
  collaborative, the state will not dictate that,
  but the idea is commonality.  It is likely that a
  per/pupil and/or per/district formula will be
  used by most collaboratives.
• Could a curriculum instruction management tool
  be part of the suite of tools?
• Is it helping put data into teachers' hands?  Is
  it helping gather data about student learning? 
  Is it common?  Does it provide all of the
  stakeholders with common methods and strategies
  for differentiation?  (Short answer  Yes, it
  could be.)

22
Other Questions from the Field 14 Improving
Instruction through Regional Data Initiatives

• Is each ISD free to participate in the
  collaborative group but utilize different tools
  to achieve the common "output?"  For example,
  could the collaborative say it would support SISs
  but different ISDs would use different SISs?  The
  common collaborative advantage is to recognize
  that attendance and behavior data, for example
  need to be integrated with student achievement
  data in the common data analysis tool, but it may
  come from many different SISs.
• Common terminology, common output, common data
  are all part of the goal.  Providing common
  information to all stakeholders is part of the
  goal. Yes, it could especially with a large
  collaborative where each ISD is starting from a
  different place with some things in place and
  other areas where the tablet is relatively blank.

23
Other Questions from the Field 15 Improving
Instruction through Regional Data Initiatives

• My discussion with Dwight lead me to a line of
  reasoning that goes like this since ISD has a
  dollar value should each "product" or "output"
  also have a dollar value.  Does there need to be
  a way to use both factors for the distribution of
  money?  For example, if an ISD supported only
  Power School, that doesn't seem like it would be
  "worth" the same dollars as an ISD that supports
  Power School, Inform Benchmark?  I am not sure
  where this leads us?  We need to discuss this.
• The grant proposal includes an Oakland addenda
  about an early warning system for identifying
  dropouts. Since this may be SIS-specific, it
  would be difficult for participating ISDs to
  implement on their various systems. Will it be
  necessary for all ISDs to do that addenda. in
  fact, that leads the question, if a proposal does
  include addenda that are more targeted, are all
  participating ISDs expected to implement them?

24
Other Questions from the Field 16 Improving
Instruction through Regional Data Initiatives

• The second question came up during our
  teleconference and the suggestion that we could
  increase project participation by mentoring other
  ISDs. While we think this is a great way to
  expand the project, we are concerned that we
  simply do not have the man/womanpower and
  resources to take that on. We will freely share
  what we've done in Inform and Benchmark and
  participate in implementation of the project as
  much as we can, but our current RtI
  implementation initiative is consuming most of
  our resources and adding a formal mentoring
  project is just not feasible for us at this time.
  Is that going to cause a problem with our
  participation?

25
Other Questions from the Field 17 Improving
Instruction through Regional Data Initiatives

• We have three locals that are not Inform
  districts. Can the grant money be used to
  purchase Inform for those locals for the next two
  years?
• Yes. The idea of the grant is the leverage gain
  by have common systems.
• Can the grant money be used to support new work
  related to the grant by current staff?
• Yes, if it enhances the products contents.

26
Other Questions from the Field 18 Improving
Instruction through Regional Data Initiatives

• Does the money go to the ISD or to the
  participating locals...or both?
• I think the money goes to the ISD which may in
  turn pay for Inform for the LEA, or pay for subs
  for PD, etc. It is not flow through money. The
  ISDs will be the fiscal agents.
• What type of up-front work would you expect
  participating ISDs to need to do in support of an
  Oakland proposal?
• Share PD strategies, share Inform and Benchmark
  stuff, provide data about who is doing what, etc.

27
Other Questions from the Field 19 Improving
Instruction through Regional Data Initiatives

• What are the responsibilities for reporting/
  evaluation of the project?

28
Question 20?Improving Instruction through
Regional Data Initiatives

• Bruce Umpsteadumpsteadb_at_michigan.gov517.335.2957