Request for Proposal for Improving Teacher Quality Grants. No Child Left Behind Public Law

Transcription

1 Grant Program Request for Proposal for Improving Teacher Quality Grants No Child Left Behind Public Law DATED MATERIAL OPEN IMMEDIATELY Closing Date: October 3, :00 p.m. Central Time Teacher Quality Grant program for Higher Education

2 OKLAHOMA STATE REGENTS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION Ronald H. White, Chairman Oklahoma City William Stuart Price Vice Chairman Tulsa Marlin Ike Glass, Jr. Newkirk Joseph L. Parker, Jr. Secretary Tulsa James D. Jimmy Harrel Leedy Julie Carson Assistant Secretary Claremore Cheryl P. Hunter Oklahoma City Bill W. Burgess, Jr. Lawton John Massey Durant Glen D. Johnson Chancellor The Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education, in compliance with Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Executive Order as amended, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and other federal laws, do not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, religion, handicap or status as a veteran in any of its policies, practices, or procedures. This includes, but is not limited to, admissions, employment, financial aid and educational services. This publication, duplicated by the State Regents central services, is issued by the Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education as authorized by 70 O.S. 2001, Section Copies have been prepared and distributed internally. Copies have been deposited with the Publications Clearinghouse of the Oklahoma Department of Libraries.

3 NCLB Title II, Part A RFP Page 3 of 34 TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW... 4 GRANT PROGRAM ELIGIBLE PARTNERSHIPS... 4 A. GRANT PROGRAM ELIGIBLE PARTNERSHIPS... 4 B. A HIGH-NEED LEA... 4 C. ADDITIONAL ALLOWABLE PARTNERS... 5 GRANT PROGRAM AWARD TYPES AND REQUIREMENT... 5 A. TYPE A AWARD PROPOSALS... 5 B. TYPE B AWARD PROPOSAL... 5 C. ALL GRANT PROPOSALS MUST INCLUDE... 6 GRANT PROGRAM GENERAL GUIDELINES... 6 A. GRANT PROGRAM DIRECTOR... 6 B. GRANT PROGRAM AWARD PROCESS... 6 C. GRANT PROGRAM NOTIFICATION OF AWARD AND RIGHT OF APPROVAL... 6 D. GRANT PROGRAM SPECIAL RULES... 6 GRANT PROGRAM FUNDING REGULATIONS... 7 A. TOTAL GRANT AWARD... 7 B. MAXIMUM GRANT AWARD FOR TYPE A... 7 C. MAXIMUM GRANT AWARD FOR TYPE B... 7 D. MATCHING/IN-KIND CONTRIBUTION... 7 GRANT PROGRAM SUBMISSION PROCESS... 7 A. PROPOSAL APPLICATION TEMPLATES... 8 B. PROPOSAL APPLICATION APPENDICES GRANT PROGRAM NOTIFICATION PROCESS GRANT PROGRAM TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE MEETING GRANT PROGRAM TIMELINE AND PROCEDURES A. TIMELINE B. FISCAL PROCEDURES C. DATE COLLECTION D. REPORTS E. PARTICIPANT COMMITMENT FORM F. INTERIM REPORTS G. FINAL REPORTS H. EVALUATION I. OWNERSHIP OF COPYRIGHTS AND PATENTS NCLB TITLE II, PART A NON- REGULATORY GUIDANCE A. A. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT B. B. FEDERAL AWARDS TO THE STATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY C. D. STATE AWARDS TO THE LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY - ADMINISTRATION D. F. FEDERAL AWARDS TO THE STATE AGENCY FOR HIGHER EDUCATION SPECIAL RULE PROPOSAL APPLICATION TEMPLATES A. PROPOSAL COVER PAGE B. PROPOSAL ABSTRACT C. PROPOSAL NARRATIVE PROPOSAL APPLICATION APPENDICES A. APPENDIX A: INSTITUTIONAL ENDORSEMENT LETTER(S) B. APPENDIX B: STATEMENT OF ASSURANCES C. APPENDIX C: MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT AMONG PARTNERS D. APPENDIX D: CERTIFICATION FOR 50% RULE E. APPENDIX E: PROPOSAL BUDGET F. APPENDIX F: PROPOSAL BUDGET NARRATIVE G. APPENDIX G: ANTICIPATED OUTCOME CHART TEMPLATE... 34

4 NCLB Title II, Part A RFP Page 4 of 34 Request for Proposal Under Public Law Improving Teacher Quality Grant Application BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW Title II, Part A of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) authorizes the Highly Qualified Teachers and Improving Teacher Quality State Grants Program. The goal of the program is to ensure that all students have highly qualified teachers; that is, teachers with the subject-matter knowledge and teaching skills necessary to help all children achieve to high academic standards, regardless of individual learning styles or needs. State funding through Title II, Part A supports scientifically based practices that improve teaching so as to raise student achievement in core academic subjects. The focus of NCLB is on scientifically based methods to improve teacher quality, school accountability, and core content knowledge leading to increased student academic achievement. Oklahoma s Title II, Part A State Agency for Higher Education grant program will meet these priorities by funding high-quality professional-development activities that will: Enhance teacher knowledge on how to utilize student achievement data to make effective adjustments in curriculum, instruction, and formative/benchmark assessments; Provide teachers with challenging curriculum that aligns with Oklahoma s Priority Academic Student Skills (PASS) 1 and the ACT Standards for Transition Include high levels of participation of higher-education faculty to promote the inclusion of proven methods and knowledge within teacher-education programs; and Incorporate scientifically research-based curriculum and practices. GRANT PROGRAM ELIGIBLE PARTNERSHIPS The intent of the NCLB is to support proposals that: (1) provide long-term, sustained, high-quality professional development for Oklahoma s K-12 teachers, (2) provide access to teachers in high-need LEAs, (3) result in change of teacher practice or teachers content knowledge that increases student achievement in the classroom and (4) strengthen collaboration between faculties of institutions of higher education and among other partners in the program. A. Grant Program Eligible Partnerships: The partnerships will use the funds to conduct professional development activities in core academic subjects to ensure that teachers, highly qualified paraprofessionals have subject-matter knowledge in the academic subjects they teach, including computer related technology to enhance instruction. In accordance with federal statute, the Oklahoma State Regents awards Title II, Part A grants to eligible partnerships. A partnership must include, at a minimum: (1) a private or public institution of higher education (IHE) and the division of the institution that prepares teachers and principals; (2) a school of arts and sciences that awards baccalaureate degrees; AND (3) a high-need local education agency (LEA). The education department (Partner #1) and the school of arts and sciences (Partner #2) may be housed within the same IHE. B. A High-Need LEA: A high-need LEA is defined by the U.S. Department of Education as: (A) a LEA that serves not fewer than 10,000 children from families with incomes below the poverty line OR for 1 Oklahoma State Department of Education; Priority Academic Student Skills:

5 NCLB Title II, Part A RFP Page 5 of 34 which not less than 20 percent of the children served by the agency are from families with incomes below the poverty line, AND (B) a LEA for which there is a high percentage of teachers not teaching in the academic subjects or grade levels that the teachers were trained to teach OR for which there is a high percentage of teachers with emergency, provisional, or temporary certification or licensing. The Census Bureau s most current poverty data may be found on its website: Partnering school districts will be able to provide the information to address Criterion B. C. Additional Allowable Partners: An eligible partnership also may include additional institution of higher education (IHE) - either two-year or four-year, additional local education agency (LEA) - whether they are high-need or not, public charter schools, individual elementary or secondary schools, educational service agencies, nonprofit educational organizations, nonprofit cultural organizations, entities carrying out a pre-kindergarten program, teacher organizations, principal organizations, or businesses. GRANT PROGRAM AWARD TYPES AND REQUIREMENT The State Regents have established two award categories, referred to as Type A and Type B award proposals. A. Type A Award Proposals: Provide sustained, high quality continuing professional education workshops that reflects the needs of the partnering high-need LEA(s), as defined by the Federal poverty criterion; Increase teacher content knowledge and improve the classroom instructional practices; Increase teacher knowledge on using student achievement data to improve student achievement; Ensure that participants can use challenging curriculum aligned to PASS and the ACT Standards for Transition; Incorporate research-based curriculum and practices to meet the need areas as established by the Oklahoma State Department of Education (SDE) 2 ; Implement and measure the sustainability of the grant for the duration of the training. B. Type B Award Proposal: Establish a Professional Education Center for Teaching Quality (PECTQ) with the potential for long term sustainability; Provide high quality professional development to high-need LEA(s), as defined by the Federal poverty criterion; Include multiple IHEs to meet and develop partnerships with high-need K-12 school districts to improve teacher knowledge and instructional practices in classroom; Raise skills and expertise levels of teachers and administrators in literacy, mathematics and science; 2 Oklahoma State Department of Education websites:

6 NCLB Title II, Part A RFP Page 6 of 34 Increase teacher knowledge on using student achievement data to improve instructional practices and student achievement. Incorporate research-based curriculum and practices to meet the need areas as established by the Oklahoma State Department of Education (SDE); Implement and measure the sustainability of the grant for the duration of the training and beyond; C. All Grant Proposals Must Include: Scientifically researched-based pre- and post-assessment of participants to measure impact of grant activity on teacher content knowledge; Multiple internal evaluation components to assess impact of grant activity on teacher instructional practices and the correlation to student achievement. Evaluation components can include tools such as journaling, active research, videotaping, Teacher Work Sample Methodology (TWSM) and student test scores; Description of the methodology based on or contributes to the realm of scientifically based research as defined in NCLB; At least 25 teachers or 75 percent of the projected number in proposal, whichever is greater over the time of the grant with each participant receiving at least a total of 50 contact hours (to include a minimum of 10 hours of follow-up, e.g., classroom-based, learning communities); Illustrate the measurable sustainability of the professional development during the grant period; K-12 faculty, administrators, and/or other K-12 personnel actively involved in the planning and/or implementation of the grants activities, documented within the proposal. GRANT PROGRAM GENERAL GUIDELINES A. Grant Program Director: Each partnership must designate a director. The director submits the grant proposal for consideration in the selection process. If the partnership is selected for a grant, the director is responsible for the submission of all project reports and will receive the grant payments from Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education. The director must be an institution of higher education, either two-year or four-year, but it does not have to be one of the statutorily required partners. B. Grant Program Award Process: All grants will be awarded on a competitive basis. All proposals that satisfy minimum eligibility criteria as defined above and that include all required parts of the proposal as defined in the Grant Proposal Format section will be evaluated and rated by a panel of readers on the basis of established criteria. Proposals that do not satisfy the above will not be forwarded to a panel review process. Review panels will consist of representatives from: (1) higher education institutions, (2) elementary and secondary schools, and (3) public or private business sector. State Regents Staff will make the final selections based on rating and geographic distribution. C. Grant Program Notification of Award and Right of Approval: The presidents of institutions submitting grant proposals will be notified of the decision regarding the disposition of their proposal by December A copy of this communication will simultaneously be sent to proposal director. An opportunity for feedback on those proposals which are not approved will be provided upon request by the institution submitting the proposal. This request must be received by OSRHE within ten (10) working days after notification of the status of such proposal. D. Grant Program Special Rules: No single partner in an eligible partnership may use more than 50

7 NCLB Title II, Part A RFP Page 7 of 34 percent of the funds awarded to the Proposal 3. Proposals must be grounded in scientifically-based research, defined by federal law as strategies that have been proven to work in schools. The term scientifically-based includes research that applies rigorous, systemic and objective procedures to obtain knowledge that identifies teaching competencies to improve student learning 4. Systematic evaluation of program and participants must be implemented with data to be collected and submitted in the final report 5. GRANT PROGRAM FUNDING REGULATIONS The Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education, as the designated State Agency for Higher Education, manages an annual grant selection for Title II, Part A funds. The award amount will be an indication of the program s viability to provide high quality continuing professional education workshops for teachers or teams of teachers from individual schools and/or districts. A. Total Grant Award: A total of approximately $800, will be awarded to eligible partnerships to support innovative and effective continuing professional education that improves teacher content knowledge, teacher instructional methodology and teacher knowledge about data-driven decisionmaking in the classroom. Although there are no minimum budget limits for grant proposals, please note, this year there are maximum grant budget assigned for each type. The State Regents intend to select multiple qualified proposals for Type A and Type B awards. B. Maximum Grant Award for Type A: The maximum amount an individual proposal may request for Award A is $80, The number of awarded grants will be limited by the geographical areas of the partnerships, size of the negotiated final budget and availability of the total funds. C. Maximum Grant Award for Type B: The maximum amount an individual proposal may request for Award B is $160, The number of awarded grants will be limited by the geographical areas of the partnerships, size of the negotiated final budget and availability of the total funds. D. Matching/In-Kind Contribution: In-kind financial contribution or programmatic collaborations by participating school districts, non-public schools, other private organizations, and the sponsoring higher education institution are highly recommended and should be documented in the Matching/In-kind column of the Proposal Budget Expenditure Template (appendix E) and explained in the budget narrative (appendix F). The number of grants will be limited by the quality of proposals submitted and the size of the negotiated final budgets in comparison to the total funds available. GRANT PROGRAM SUBMISSION PROCESS The director must submit the required paperwork electronically via attachments to Saeed Sarani, ssarani@osrhe.edu at Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education (OSRHE) No later than October 3, 2008 by 5:00 p.m. Central Time. Grant application, including Proposal Cover Page, Proposal Abstract, Proposal Narrative and all the required appendices must be submitted in Microsoft Word and Microsoft Excel. Only the following documents will be accepted in PDF; (1) Institutional Endorsement Letter, (2) Statement of Assurances, (3) Memorandum of Agreement Among Partners and (4) Certification for 50% Rule. In addition to electronic submission, one original and one copy of the grant proposal, including all the require appendices, supporting documents and original signed letters and forms (Institutional Endorsement 3 See Appendix D, Certification for 50% Rule 4 See NCLB Title II, Part A Non-Regulatory Guidance Section, B-4. 5 See Grant Program Timeline and Fiscal Procedures section.

8 NCLB Title II, Part A RFP Page 8 of 34 Letter(s), Statement of Assurances, Memorandum of Agreement Among Partners and Certification for 50% Rule) must be postmarked by Friday, October 3, 2008 the proposal deadline to: Saeed Sarani Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education 655 Research Parkway, Suite 200 Oklahoma City, OK NO EXCEPTION WILL BE MADE. FAXED MATERIALS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. A. Proposal Application Templates: Required components of a grant proposal and total possible points for each component are listed below. Participants are strongly urged to follow the recommended format below when submitting electronically and assembling the hardcopy for mailing. The form of the presentation may be tailored to suit the topic and the style of the author, but it is essential that each of these subjects is addressed in the order presented here and clearly identified in the text of the proposal. All the downloadable application, forms, required templates and appendices in Microsoft Office Word and Excel, and the PDF copy of the 2009 Improving Teacher Quality Request for Proposal (RFP) is available on the website; Proposal Cover Page Proposal Abstract i. 80 to 100 words, Times New Roman, Font size 11, and double lines spaced. Proposal Narrative i. 100 points for Type A award and 110 points for Type B Award. ii. Extra 10 bonus points will be awarded if the proposal director has involved any schools from the School Improvement List iii. Length should be no more than 20 pages, Times New Roman, Font size 11, and double lines spaced. iv. Applicant should designate which grant award is being proposed, Award A or Award B. v. The Narrative should describe the key elements of the proposal as follow: NEEDS ADDRESSED AND PROPOSAL OBJECTIVES (20 POINTS) How well do the grant objectives align with the needs of the partnering high-need LEA(s)? How well do the grant objectives address increasing teacher content knowledge? How was student achievement data used to determine grant effectiveness? How well do the grant objectives address using challenging curriculum aligned to PASS and/or the ACT Standards for Transition? 6 Oklahoma State Department of Education School Improvement List websites:

9 NCLB Title II, Part A RFP Page 9 of 34 PARTNERSHIP DESCRIPTION (15 POINTS) To what extent were/are the partners included in the planning and/or implementation of the grant activities? How clear are the roles and responsibilities described in the management structure? PLAN OF OPERATION (15 POINTS) How well do the proposed timeline, recruitment efforts, and use of curricula/materials promote the stated objectives of the grant activities? To what extent do the proposed activities align with and/or contribute to the realm of scientifically based research? How realistic and clearly defined are the anticipated project outcomes? EVALUATION PLAN (15 POINTS) How effective is the evaluation plan for determining whether the project goals are met? Are there measurable benchmarks of success? How effective is the plan for assessing the impact of the grant activities on the partnering LEA(s)? Are appropriate follow-up sessions planned? How well does the evaluation plan involve multiple assessment components (including, at a minimum, preand post-testing)? INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT (5 POINTS) Evaluate the adequacy and appropriateness of the institutional support (office space, clerical staff, hardware, etc.) being provided to sustain the proposed activities. Is this support clearly reflected in the budget? SPECIAL FEATURES AND STRENGTHS (AWARD A: 15 POINTS AND AWARD B: 25 POINTS) Award A and B: How well does the proposal describe strategies for including teachers, LEA administrators and higher education faculty as participants in the grant activities? Award A and B: Evaluate special features and institutional strengths for the proposed project. Consider such features as specialized curricula, innovative techniques, and previous experience with similar projects. Award B Only: Evaluate the organizational structure of the high quality Professional Education Center for Teaching Quality (PECTQ) with the potential for long-term sustainability. How well does the proposal outline the collaboration among the sponsoring institutions of higher education? PROPOSED BUDGET (15 POINTS) The budget must reflect the special rule defined by Section 2132(c) that no single partner in a partnership may use more than 50% of the funds made available through this grant. In the Budget Narrative summarize the percent use of funds by each partner. Does the proposal acknowledge and abide by the 50% special rule? In the Budget Narrative section, however, a more detailed explanation of each item comprising this broad category and its cost would be shown. Each grant may budget not more than 8 percent of the total direct cost for indirect costs or their negotiated federal rate (whichever is less). The budget should include an amount equal to 7 percent of the total grant to cover costs associated with the external independent evaluation for the team that will be selected by OSRHE

10 NCLB Title II, Part A RFP Page 10 of 34 PROFESSIONAL STAFF (REQUIRED) Provide summarized vitae (maximum 2 pages per person) of all professional staff actively associated with the proposal and/or accountable for its performance attached as an appendix to the proposal. Also clearly identify the position each person will fill for the proposed program. B. Proposal Application Appendices: Appendix A: Institutional Endorsement Letter(s) i. A letter of endorsement signed by the chief executive officer or officers (in the case of multiinstitutional partnerships). ii. The application cannot be processed without this letter. Appendix B: Statement of Assurances i. An original statement of assurances, signed by the institutional president to ensure that the institution is fully aware of its obligations to adhere to all state and federal requirements in the event the proposal is funded. ii. No funds will be released until a statement signed by the institution s president is submitted. Appendix C: Memorandum of Agreement Among Partners i. Federal law requires Title II, Part A higher education grant programs to have partnerships; a Memorandum of Agreement must be submitted. ii. The application cannot be processed without this form. Appendix D: Certification for 50% Rule i. A signed copy of the Certification form must be submitted with the initial and the final expenditure budget reports. Appendix E: Proposal Budget i. This section includes the proposal budget. Appendix F: Proposal Budget Narrative: i. The section includes the proposal budget narrative which is a detailed description of the proposed budget. Appendix G: Anticipated Outcomes Chart GRANT PROGRAM NOTIFICATION PROCESS Once the review process is completed and the State Regents approve the grant proposals, award letters will be mailed to the institution presidents and copies sent to the proposal directors no later than December These funded proposals may operate between the date of notification and May 31, Proposal directors/institutions are then responsible for maintaining proper records of all non-consumable inventory items, records, and data pertaining to the activities of the awarded grant proposal for evaluation and auditing for up to five years. Information, guidelines, and a timeline to assist the proposal directors with their duties and responsibilities relating to the awarded grant are found at the end of this document.

11 NCLB Title II, Part A RFP Page 11 of 34 GRANT PROGRAM TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE MEETING A Technical Assistance Meeting will be held on September 5, 2008, at the offices of the State Regents in Oklahoma City from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. This meeting will serve as a question-and-answer session for potential grant applicants. It will also include a review of the overall grant requirements, high-need areas, SDE School Improvement Schools list 2007 and criteria for scientifically researched-based pre- and post assessment. Please RSVP no later than 3:00 p.m. on August 29, 2008 if you are planning to attend the Technical Meeting. Please complete the VC form 7 if you are planning to join via videoconference. GRANT PROGRAM TIMELINE AND PROCEDURES A proposal checklist is available on our website for your convenient; Please feel free to use this form to check for the required documents before submission of the proposal. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education contact: Lisa Holder, Ed.D. Director of Teacher Education and Minority Teacher Recruitment Center, , lholder@osrhe.edu. Saeed Sarani, M.B.A., Coordinator of the NCLB Improving Teacher Quality State Grant Program, , ssarani@osrhe.edu. Funded Proposals may operate between the date of notification and May 31, A. Timeline: August 2008 Request for proposal available for download: September 05, 2008 Technical Assistance Meeting at Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education (OSRHE) 10:00 a.m. 12:00 p.m. (RSVP by: 3:00 p.m., August 29, 2008.) October 3, 2008 Proposals due by 5:00 p.m. Central Time. All proposals must be submitted electronically via attachments to Saeed Sarani, ssarani@osrhe.edu at OSRHE. Also one original copy of the grant proposal, including all the supporting documents and original signed letters and forms must be postmarked by Friday, October 3, November 2008 Intent to Bid proposal for the External Evaluators available for download. Interested parties may contact Saeed Sarani, ssarani@osrhe.edu at OSRHE December 2008 Notification of grant awards made. Institution presidents and directors of grant program notified of approved and non-approved proposals January 2009 Notification of External Evaluator award made February 6, 2009 Signed agreement letter due to OSRHE office. Directors Meeting at OSRHE, 10:00 a.m. 12:00 p.m. May 15, 2009 Participant Commitment Forms due to OSRHE Office via O-SAFE June 2009 First payments, 50% of grant award made after Participant Commitment Form is received and approved by OSRHE October 30, 2009 The following Interim reports are due to OSRHE office via O-SAFE: 1.Interim Narrative Report, 2.Interim Internal Evaluation Report 7 Videoconference form is available for download on

12 NCLB Title II, Part A RFP Page 12 of 34 November through December Interim Expenditure Report, Second payments, 20% of grant award will be reimbursed after receipt and approval of all Interim reports. December June The following Final reports must be submitted to OSRHE office via O-SAFE no 2010, or one month later than June 30, 2010: following completion 1.Comprehensive Final Narrative Report, of grant activities no later than June 30, 2.Final Internal Evaluation Report. 2010) 3.Final Expenditure Report, 4. Final Participants Commitment Report, 5.Final Certification for 50% Rule, A questionnaire to be provided by the external evaluators to be completed by the grant directors for this final narrative. The final grant payment will not be made until after the grant activity has been concluded AND all evaluations and reports have been submitted, evaluated and approved. IF FINAL REPORTS ARE NOT RECEIVED BY JUNE 30, 2010, THE REMAINING EXPENDITURES WILL NOT BE REIMBURSED. January through Final payments will be reimbursed after receipt and approval of all Final reports August 2010 B. Fiscal Procedures: In the case of multi-institutional partnerships, the partnership must designate an IHE fiscal officer. All documents relating to Title II, Part A grants should be assigned to individual accounts/files that can be readily identified and verified. If an institution or partnership receives more than one grant, separate accounts/files should be established for each grant. Once a grant has been approved, payment will be made to the IHE fiscal office in three parts. For public institutions, payment will be made by transfer to 430 Funds in the State Finance Office. For private institutions, payment will be made by warrant. If an institution has more than one Title II, Part A grant, funds may not be shifted from one account to another. Funds may not be shifted between budget categories of a single grant unless permission to do so is granted by Saeed Sarani NCLB State Grant Program Coordinator. Authorization to modify the proposal in any way must be approved by Saeed Sarani ssarani@osrhe.edu upon a written request from the proposal director. Eligible expenditures will ordinarily be limited to those directly necessary and essential to the accomplishments of the proposed grant activity. This will customarily include personnel costs, consultant fees, materials and supplies, travel, etc. Categories and limitations on allowable costs are noted in the Education Department s General Administrative Regulations (Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) - See website: Fifty percent (50%) of the grant award will be processed after a Participant Commitment Form is received and approved by OSRHE (due no later than May 15, 2009). An additional twenty (20%) of the award will be processed after Interim Narrative Report, Interim Internal Evaluation Report

13 NCLB Title II, Part A RFP Page 13 of 34 and Interim Expenditure Report have been received and approved (due no later than October 31, 2009). The final funds will be paid on a COST-REIMBURSEMENT BASIS ONLY by submitting and approval of Final Report, Final Internal Evaluation Report, Final Expenditure Report, Final Participant Commitment Report and Final Certification for 50% Rule must be submitted no later than June 30, IF FINAL REPORTS ARE NOT RECEIVED BY JUNE 30, 2010, THE REMAINING EXPENDITURES WILL NOT BE REIMBURSED. Unexpended funds will be retained by the State Regents. Expenditures in excess of approved budget amounts will be the responsibility of the sponsoring institution. Institutions not providing any reports required by the State Regents in accordance with the federal regulations will jeopardize future funding opportunities from the Title II, Part A State Grant Program. C. Date Collection: The U.S. Department of Education requires data from the states regarding the participants involved in these grants. The successful awarded grants will use the Participant Commitment Form to make sure you are collecting all the information needed. D. Reports: The successful awarded grant directors must submit all the required reports electronically through the secured website, O-SAFE. The directors will be assigned an ID and a Password for this website. Grantees and subgrantees must keep records that fully show: i. The amount of funds under the grant or subgrant; ii. How the grantee or subgrantee uses the funds; iii. The total cost of project activities; iv. The share of the cost provided from other sources; v. Complete inventory of the non-consumable items; and vi. Other records to facilitate an effective audit. In addition, all grantees and subgrantees are required to keep records to show their compliance with program requirements. Record keeping should permit an audit trail that clearly documents that all funds were used for activities that were reasonable, allowable, and allocable to the program [EDGAR Sections and ]. i. NOTE: All non-consumable inventory items, records, and data must be maintained for up to five years for evaluation and auditing purposes. ii. NOTE: Any changes in program activities must have prior written approval from the State Regents office. E. Participant Commitment Form: Due May15, 2009 A detailed list of participants with demographic data is due before the first grant payment will be made. The form can be downloaded from the State Regents grants website.

14 NCLB Title II, Part A RFP Page 14 of 34 If a total of 25 participants, or 75 percent of proposed number in proposal, whichever is greater, has not been identified before the beginning of the grant activities, then the grant director must contact Saeed Sarani ( or ssarani@osrhe.edu) for permission to proceed with project expenditures and activities. Submit all reports through secured website, O-SAFE ONLY. F. Interim Reports: Due October 30, 2009 The following Interim reports are due to OSRHE office via O-SAFE: i. Interim Narrative Report, ii. Interim Internal Evaluation Report iii. Interim Expenditure Report, These reports must be submitted and approved before a second grant payment will be made. G. Final Reports: Final reports are due 1 month following the completion of the grant activities, no later than June 30, The following Final reports must be submitted to OSRHE office via O-SAFE: i. Comprehensive Final Narrative Report, ii. Final Internal Evaluation Report. iii. Final Expenditure Report, iv. Final Participants Commitment Report, v. Final Certification for 50% Rule, A questionnaire to be provided by the external evaluators to be completed by the grant directors for this final narrative. The final grant payment will not be made until after the grant activity has been concluded AND all evaluations and reports have been submitted, evaluated and approved. The final grant payment will not be made until after the grant activity has been concluded AND all evaluations and reports have been submitted, evaluated and approved. IF FINAL REPORTS ARE NOT RECEIVED BY THE JUNE 30, 2010, THE REMAINING EXPENDITURES WILL NOT BE PAID. H. Evaluation: Each grant proposal must include a plan for program evaluation with multiple evaluation components that link teacher practice to student achievement. At the time of final reports submission, a final assessment should be included in the Comprehensive Final Narrative report. An independent External Evaluation team will also evaluate the actual activities of the grant during the award period. This team will be selected by Regents staff. Each proposal should include an amount equal to 7 percent of the total grant for the External Evaluation team.

15 NCLB Title II, Part A RFP Page 15 of 34 I. Ownership of Copyrights and Patents: Ownership of copyrights and patents, or other proprietary interests that may result from grant activities shall be governed by applicable federal regulations, state law, and local institutional policies.

16 NCLB Title II, Part A RFP Page 16 of 34 NCLB TITLE II, PART A NON- REGULATORY GUIDANCE NCLB ACT of 2001 Improving Teacher Quality State Grants October 5, 2006 from the U.S. Department of Education Sections A-1 through A-3 Section B-4 Section D-3 Sections F-29 through F-34

17 NCLB Title II, Part A RFP Page 17 of 34 NCLB TITLE II, PART A NON- REGULATORY GUIDANCE A. A. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT A-1. A-2. A-3. What is meant by high-quality professional development? The term high-quality professional development means professional development that meets the criteria contained in the definition of professional development in Title IX, Section 9101(34) of ESEA. Professional development includes, but is not limited to, activities that: Improve and increase teachers knowledge of academic subjects and enable teachers to become highly qualified; Are an integral part of broad school-wide and district-wide educational improvement plans; Give teachers and principals the knowledge and skills to help students meet challenging State academic standards; Improve classroom management skills; Are sustained, intensive, and classroom-focused and are not one-day or short-term workshops; Advance teacher understanding of effective instruction strategies that are based on scientifically based research; and Are developed with extensive participation of teachers, principals, parents, and administrators. What strategies can States use to help LEAs adopt and implement more effective teacher professional development activities? States can, for example: (1) develop guidance on effective strategies for improving teacher quality and provide that guidance to the LEAs; (2) adopt a formal statement of State priorities; (3) improve technical assistance and monitoring for LEAs; (4) sponsor conferences and other meetings that address issues related to improving teacher performance; and (5) disseminate information about successful programs and practices. In providing this assistance, States should consider the needs of all teachers - whether they are regular classroom teachers, special education teachers, or teachers of English language learners - so that a unified, comprehensive system of professional development is available to all who need to be highly qualified. States might also provide guidance to LEAs on effective ways of coordinating resources available for professional development from programs such as Title I and Title III of the ESEA and IDEA, Part B. The statute authorizes LEAs to use program funds for teacher advancement initiatives that promote professional growth and emphasize multiple career paths, such as paths to becoming a career teacher, mentor teacher, or exemplary teacher [Section 2113(c)(14)]. What are some options by which LEAs can implement these activities? Too often, the best career advancement option currently available for teachers is to become school principals or LEA administrators. This leaves fewer excellent, experienced teachers working directly with children in the classroom. Teacher advancement initiatives that offer multiple career paths can provide professional opportunities without having teachers leave the classroom. For example, an LEA could establish a system whereby teachers could opt to pursue various career paths, such as:

18 NCLB Title II, Part A RFP Page 18 of 34 becoming a career teacher, staying in the classroom with traditional instructional duties; becoming a mentor teacher, staying in the classroom but taking on additional duties such as mentoring first-year teachers and receiving additional pay for these duties; or becoming an exemplary teacher, based on a distinguished record of increasing student academic achievement, and training other teachers to do the same while receiving additional pay for these duties. B. B. FEDERAL AWARDS TO THE STATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY B-4. What is scientifically based research and how does it apply to this program? Section 9101(37) of ESEA, as amended by NCLB, defines scientifically based research as research that involves the application of rigorous, systematic, and objective procedures to obtain reliable and valid knowledge relevant to education activities and programs. The statute then explains that this kind of research: 1. Employs systematic, empirical methods that draw on observation or experiment; 2. Involves rigorous data analyses that are adequate to test the stated hypotheses and justify the general conclusions drawn; 3. Relies on measurements or observational methods that provide reliable and valid data across evaluators and observers, across multiple measurements and observations, and across studies by the same or different investigators; 4. Is evaluated using experimental or quasi-experimental designs in which individuals, entities, programs, or activities are assigned to different conditions and with appropriate controls to evaluate the effects of the condition of interest, with a preference for random-assignment experiments, or other designs to the extent that those designs contain within-condition or across-condition controls; 5. Ensures that experimental studies are presented in sufficient detail and clarity to allow for replication or, at a minimum, offer the opportunity to build systematically on their findings; and 6. Has been accepted by a peer-reviewed journal or approved by a panel of independent experts through a comparably rigorous, objective, and scientific review. (Note: practitioner journals or education magazines are not the same as peer-reviewed academic journals.) The statute also requires that all SEA activities supported with program funds must be based on a review of scientifically based research, AND THE SEA MUST MAINTAIN DOCUMENTATION THAT EXPLAINS WHY IT EXPECTS THOSE ACTIVITIES TO IMPROVE STUDENT ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT. C. D. STATE AWARDS TO THE LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY - ADMINISTRATION D-3. What data should an SEA use for determining the portion of an LEA s program allocation that is attributable to the number of children in poverty? As in question D-2, the SEA must use the most recent available Census data, as determined by the Secretary, on the number of children age 5-17 from families with incomes below the poverty line. The most recent family poverty data can be found at: This site reports the most recent data on the number of children in poverty for nearly every school district in the United States. (Note: the Census Bureau data does not include poverty data for newly created districts or charter schools. See question D-5 for guidance in determining adjusted counts.) D. F. FEDERAL AWARDS TO THE STATE AGENCY FOR HIGHER EDUCATION SPECIAL

19 NCLB Title II, Part A RFP Page 19 of 34 RULE F-29. What is the meaning of Section 2132(c) (the special rule ) that states no single participant in an eligible partnership may use more than 50 percent of the Title II, Part A funds made available to the partnership? Section 2132(c) of the law requires that no single participant in an eligible partnership, (i.e., no single high-need LEA, no single IHE and its division that prepares teachers and principals, no single school of arts and sciences, and no other single partner), may use more than 50 percent of the subgrant. The provision focuses not on which partner receives the funds, but on which partner directly benefits from them. Example: Correct Use of Funds Jefferson University, its College of Education, and its College of Arts and Sciences partner with the Lincoln high-need school district to provide professional development in instructional leadership for 20 principals. Jefferson University s grants office receives 100 percent of the Title II, Part A funds for the partnership. The Grants Office gives: the College of Education 25 percent of the funds to use to pay its faculty to deliver professional development in instructional leadership methodologies for 20 principals at Lincoln school district; the College of Arts and Sciences 25 percent of the funds to use to pay its faculty to deliver professional development content knowledge in instructional leadership for 20 principals at Lincoln School District; Lincoln School District 50 percent of the funds to use to pay stipends for its principals to participate in the professional development offered by faculty from the College of Education and College of Arts and Sciences at Jefferson University. In this example no partner uses more that 50 percent of the funds for its own benefit. Example: Incorrect Use of Funds Jefferson University, its College of Education, and its College of Arts and Sciences partner with the Lincoln high-need school district to provide professional development in instructional leadership for 20 principals. Jefferson University s Grants Office receives 100 percent of the Title II, Part A funds for the partnership. The Grants Office gives: the College of Education 20 percent of the funds to use to pay its faculty to deliver a professional development summer course in instructional leadership methodologies for 20 principals at Lincoln school district; the College of Arts and Sciences 10 percent of the funds to use to pay its faculty to deliver a professional development summer course in instructional leadership content knowledge for 20 principals at Lincoln school district; a mentor principal 10 percent of the funds to work with the 20 Lincoln school district principals, in their buildings, applying what they learned in the professional development summer courses; Lincoln school district 60 percent of the funds to pay stipends to the 20 principals attending the professional development summer courses. In this example one partner uses more than 50 percent of the funds for its own benefit.

20 NCLB Title II, Part A RFP Page 20 of 34 F-31. If an IHE receives program funds that teachers would otherwise pay for IHE-sponsored professional development, would those funds figure in as part of the funds used by the IHE partner? F-32. F-33. F-34.. Not necessarily. Since the tuition assistance is for a teacher s professional development, the funds also may reasonably be attributable to use by the LEA partner that employs the teacher. Costs associated with developing professional development materials, IHE faculty time, and other expenses that the IHE incurs to conduct the professional development may be treated as funds used by the division of the IHE that bears these costs. If IHE faculty are full-time employees of the IHE, but a percentage of their time and services go to the LEA, which partner is deemed to use Title II, Part A funds? Similarly, if IHE faculty members receive release time to serve LEAs, are their salaries attributable to the IHE or to the LEA partner? Since the Department has not issued regulations in this area, the subgrantee may attribute these salary costs to the partners in any manner that is reasonable. However, if the subgrant is paying for salary costs that otherwise would be paid by the IHE, it would seem to make sense to view the subgrant used to pay this salary as used by the division of the IHE in which the individuals are employed. Moreover, while faculty release time (i.e., a reduced IHE teaching load) may permit faculty members to provide services to the LEA and its teachers, program funds are still paying for a portion of faculty members salaries. Therefore, here too, it seems reasonable that these Title II, Part A funds are best attributable to the division of the IHE that employs the faculty. Are the salaries of teachers hired under a SAHE subgrant to work as mentors to other teachers attributable to the LEA or to the IHE, if the IHE pays these salaries? While the IHE (should it be the partnership s fiscal agent) may pay the salaries of these mentor teachers, these individuals presumably are working at, and for, the LEA. Therefore, the Title II, Part, A funds used to pay these salaries may reasonably be considered to have been used by the LEA. Are indirect costs of the partnership s fiscal agent treated as part of the maximum allowable 50 percent of Title II, Part A funds that the partner may use? In general, indirect costs reflect general administration and overhead that cannot easily be charged as direct program costs of the programs or activities they benefit, and that are borne by a party as a result of activities it charges as direct costs. While a portion of one partner s direct costs (e.g., salaries of mentor teachers paid by the IHE fiscal agent) may be considered as used by another partner (in this case, the LEA), the IHE and not the LEA is benefiting from being able to charge the indirect costs. Hence, subgrant funds used to pay indirect costs are best attributable to the partner that uses the corresponding funds as direct costs.

21 NCLB Title II, Part A RFP Page 21 of 34 NCLB Title II, Part A Improving Teacher Quality Grant Proposal Application Templates Proposal Cover Page Word Proposal Abstract Word Proposal Narrative - Word

22 NCLB Title II, Part A RFP Page 22 of 34 PROPOSAL APPLICATION TEMPLATES A. Proposal Cover Page Proposal Title Proposal Director Address Telephone Number Fax Number Proposal Director s Information Previous Proposal Information Has this program been funded last year? Yes No If yes, how many participants did you propose to serve? How many did you actually serve? If yes, please list name of the Proposal, year funded, and source of funds (Quality Initiative Grant, Dwight D. Eisenhower Grant Program, etc.) Are there other factors or funds such as NSF, Department of Education, or other funding that reviewers need to be aware of? For funding, list source, amount, and whether or not it is ongoing or dependent on acceptance of this proposal: Current Proposal Information Institution(s) Proposal Type (please check one) Award A Award B Proposal Beginning Date Proposal Ending Date Have you entered into the required agreements with LEAs? List including district and school sites: List innovative features of this proposal Yes No

23 NCLB Title II, Part A RFP Page 23 of 34 Participating LEAs (list all with census poverty levels) Optional: List participating schools from School Improvement Schools List (SIS). Expected Number of Participants Targeted Grade Levels (if applicable) LEAs Information Financial Information Total $ Amount Grant Requested Institutional Fund Match LEA Match Has this Proposal been funded before? Yes No If yes, please complete the questions a-g a. Name of the Proposal b. Year funded c. Source of funds (NCLB, Quality Initiative Grant, Dwight D. Eisenhower Grant Program, etc.) d. How many participants did you propose to serve? e. How many did you actually serve? f. Are there other funds, (i.e.; NSF, EdGov, etc.) that reviewers need to be aware of? g. Funding Sources Instructional Date: Summer Workshops and Follow-Up Activities Summer workshops: Location: From: To: Summer workshops: Location: From: To: Summer workshops: Location: From: To: Follow-up workshops: Location: From: To: Follow-up workshops: Location: From: To: Follow-up workshops Location: From: To: