Preparing a New Generation of Educators Initiative EOI

Preparing a New Generation of Educators Initiative EOI Frequently Asked Questions & Answers Thank you for your interest in the second phase of the S. D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation s Preparing a New Generation of Educators Initiative EOI and RFP process. For those who were able to attend, we appreciate your participation in and thoughtful questions during the March 4 th, 2016 EOI webinar. We look forward to working with all applicant campuses and districts in the coming weeks. Below, please find answers to frequently asked questions, including those raised during the webinar. Questions posed during the March 4 th EOI webinar are marked with an asterisk (*). If you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to email NGEI@sdbjrfoundation.org or refer to the CSU NGEI website. EOI Logistics 1. What should an Expression of Interest (EOI) consist of and how should it be submitted? The EOI should consist of the completed EOI template, with all Microsoft Word tables filled in, as well as a separate document containing responses to the narrative questions. Please save these documents as two separate PDFs according to the guidelines stated in the EOI solicitation, attach both PDFs to one email, and send to NGEI@sdbjrfoundation.org no later than March 15, 2016 in order to be considered. EOIs received after 12AM PST on March 16, 2016 may not be considered. 2. Do you have specific requirements for margins and font size? Please answer EOI narrative questions, noting the indicated page requirements, using no smaller than 12 point font and 1 inch margins. 3. For the narrative response, do the pages need to be single spaced or double spaced? Answers to the narrative questions should not exceed four pages for new applicants or five pages for current grantees, singled spaced. 4. Is it acceptable to use more than the recommended number of pages for a given section? The EOI narrative page numbers are strong guidelines developed with both the questions posed and conciseness in mind. To be fair to all applicants, we ask that you adhere to the guidelines. For the questions posed within the EOI template, please attempt to answer within the space provided. 5. *Will the EOI webinar transcript will be made available to potential applicants? The March 4 th EOI webinar will not be transcribed, but a webinar Q&A recording will be available on the NGEI website to accompany this FAQ document. This FAQ is considered the document of record. 6. Does the Foundation require approval from the campus or district partner boards? EOI submission does not require signatures from campus or district partner boards, though each partner is required to include the name and title of its NGEI lead. In order to be selected for and eventually receive funding, RFP invitees will be required to submit additional signatures as well as an MOU acknowledging the campus-district partnership. 1

EOI Selection Process 7. How will EOIs be reviewed and assessed? Foundation staff, with input from initiative stakeholders and field experts as appropriate, will review each EOI submission for the elements listed in the solicitation. Those elements are: Clarity of proposed project; Alignment with initiative Key Transformation Elements and associated goals; Strength (or potential) of partnership between campus and K-12 district partner(s); Scale (or potential scale) of partnership in terms of number of candidates impacted by the project, percentage of candidates at a campus impacted by the project, and/or number of candidates relative to district hiring needs; Alignment of draft budget to proposed project; and Strength of proposed indicators of progress toward initiative goals 8. *Does this round of funding also include targeted grants and comprehensive grants as in Phase 1? If so, how are they differentiated? No, this phase does not include a targeted versus comprehensive designation. There is only one type of grant, although the award level for which campuses are eligible varies and is set forth in the EOI. EOI Content Questions 9. *Should applicants plan to focus on math and science, or can language be a focus? Our foundation has a particular interest in STEM learning. It is unlikely that we would award funds to a plan that does not at least address STEM, in particular CCSS-Math and the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). That is not to say, however, that we have not in the past supported, or would not continue to support, projects that focus on standards beyond CCSS-Math and NGSS. In short, language may be a focus, but not at the expense or exclusion of math and science. 10. *Does our project have to address both math and science? The Foundation s preference is for projects that address both math and science. Given the Foundation s approaching spend down date and the fact that the Foundation has a limited timeline for making the impact it would like to see in this area, there is a strong interest in supporting both the Common Core and NGSS. Projects addressing both CCSS-Math and NGSS will be best situated for funding. 11. *Does the project have to include faculty from science and math departments on the initiative leadership team? The Foundation does not require faculty from math and science departments to be on the leadership team for this initiative, although it does anticipate that including such faculty on the leadership team might be helpful in implementing an effective teacher preparation program. 2

12. *How many teacher preparation candidates is the Foundation looking for campuses to include each year, and across the grant s 3 years? The Foundation has not identified a specific number of candidates that are expected to be prepared each year or over the course of the grant. The Foundation is, however, hoping to see scale. If, for example, a CSU campus typically prepares 100 teacher candidates in a given year, the Foundation would not be likely to fund an initiative that is only designed to prepare ten candidates. 13. *Does the Foundation require teacher preparation candidates involved in this initiative to receive single subject credentials or multiple subject credentials? Does the grant lean toward a particular type of credential? Given the Foundation s dual commitments to K-8 learning and STEM, the Foundation will likely support projects that include at least some funding for multiple subject candidates. This is not to say that single subject efforts would not be supported, as they have been in the past. 14. *Will the RFP be restricted to K-8? Or will our RFP submission be stronger if we restrict it to K-8? The RFP is not restricted to K-8, but applicants should consider the Foundation s specific focus on K-8 education. The Foundation has historically supported efforts to improve the preparation of single subject STEM teachers with the understanding that some of those teachers will likely teach children in at least grades 6-8, and potentially in high school. The Foundation will likely continue this practice based on application contents. Please note that while the Committee will review all RFP submissions, the EOI portion of the application process will be reviewed by Foundation staff. Would an exclusive focus on middle school teachers be acceptable? Yes. 15. *Does the Foundation consider interns as well as students enrolled in traditional credential pathways as teacher candidates eligible to be enrolled in the funded program? It is the Foundation s assumption that the Key Transformation Elements it has outlined are more easily applied to traditional programming. While the Foundation has not expressed an explicit preference regarding the use of funds for internship programs, the Key Transformation Elements will significantly determine how the Foundation awards these grants. Interested applicants should carefully review the Elements against their plans to guide their thinking in determining what kind of pathway or program is most aligned to this funding s intention. In short, intern programs are not excluded, but all applications should address the Key Transformation Elements. 16. If a grant is awarded to a campus which was not the recipient of funding in the first round of the initiative, is it acceptable to engage in a planning period and/or pilot during the first year of the grant? Yes, though in applications for new work the Foundation may take an even deeper interest in sustainability planning. If the real work of the grant does not begin until 2017, what measures will both partners take to ensure the work is sustainable by 2019? 3

District Partnerships 17. *Does partnering with a district with a diverse population improve the CSU campus s likelihood of being funded? As of the webinar on March 4, 2016, the Foundation does not plan to award RFP points based on the diversity of the partner district(s). However, the Foundation does plan to fund partnerships that prepare teachers for California s needs. This logically includes preparation in districts that reflect the diversity of the state. It is hard to imagine, for example, that teachers prepared in a district that is not reflective of California s diversity would leave their training as well prepared as those prepared in diverse settings. The Foundation is interested in knowing where teacher candidates will be placed and anticipates that teacher candidates who are placed in roles where they will have the opportunity to gain facility working with diverse populations will be best prepared. 18. *Our campus s primary partnership will be with a major school district. Could our second partner be a community college? This round of funding focuses specifically on partnerships between campuses and school districts. Community Colleges are not eligible partners in this funding round. 19. *Does the initiative s stated goal of 75% of the teachers hired by the partner district being trained by the partner CSU program apply to all departments at the CSU, or just to the targeted programs? In transitioning to a new normal, we would like to see partnerships in which the CSU campus is responsible for preparing the majority of teachers hired by the district. We hope that districts will be able to hire 75% or more of the teachers from the partner CSU through a pipeline that meets the requirements laid out in this initiative EOI. Additional details about partnership expectations will be provided in the RFP. 20. *If we are working with two districts, is the goal is for 75% of our graduates to be hired across both districts, or just one? The goal, which we know is a stretch, is that 75% of graduates hired by the district from the partner campus would be prepared in a program that aligns with the initiative s Key Transformation Elements. 21. *Is there flexibility in the number of district partners for geographically dispersed regions? The Foundation is aware that campus-district partnerships are difficult and time-consuming. With that in mind, while the Foundation initially expected a maximum of one district partner per campus, the maximum is set at two districts. Campuses should consider that number to be a maximum of two district partners per year. A campus could, for instance, work with two districts in its local region during the first year of this grant and then shift focus, applying what was learned through the initial district partnerships to other local districts. The Foundation has heard from some campuses that they intend to employ this approach. 22. *What requirements are you looking for in terms of selecting and preparing cooperating teachers, field supervisors, and faculty? Is professional development required for residential teachers and field supervisors? The new CTC accreditation standards address the preparation and support of mentor teachers, and the Foundation anticipates that all teacher preparation programs will likely align with these standards. The 4

Foundation further anticipates that programs supported through this funding round will have a robust plan for supporting anyone who will be giving feedback to teacher candidates to give that feedback in a way that is calibrated with the other feedback that candidates will receive. Faculty, supervisors, mentors, and cooperating teachers should all have a shared vision in terms of what candidates need to know and be able to do. While the Foundation does not explicitly require professional development on this subject, it is difficult to imagine effectively aligning on requirements and feedback for candidates without strong training for faculty, supervisors, mentors, and cooperating teachers. 23. *Can the Foundation share some examples of how district partners might use funding? District partners might use funds awarded through this grant to account for the requirement of at least one person with at least 0.5 of their role devoted to the maintenance of this relationship. Districts may also use the funds to provide some of the professional development support discussed in Question #22, or for mentor teacher selection and support. In the interest of sustainability, the Foundation is reluctant to see either campuses or districts use funding only to support things, like candidate scholarships or mentor teacher stipends, that could not be maintained at the end of the grant. Rather, districts might use funds to develop leaders who can continue these efforts after the end of the grant, to transition particular school sites to serve as focus sites for candidate placement, and/or to train and develop mentor teachers who can continue to serve in that role. Initiative Budget and Leveraged Funds 24. *Does the Foundation have a preference for funding campuses that received funding in Phase 1 of NGEI? This EOI is open to any campus in the CSU system. There were some significant successes in Phase 1 and the Foundation anticipates that successful Phase 1 grantees may be well-positioned in their application for this next round. There is no scoring preference, however, for those campuses in the RFP. 25. *Will funded campuses be allowed to purchase hardware for the project (i.e., computers)? In the past, the Foundation has not funded any technology purchases. It is possible that in this round, if there is a plan for a small technology investment that is directly tied to student learning and candidate support, the Foundation might allow these small investments in technology. Technology is not the focus of this work, but the Foundation does recognize that certain small technology purchases may directly contribute to student and candidate learning, and/or to ensuring the initiative s sustainability beyond the grant period. 26. *Can "in kind" contributions be counted toward the 50% funding match? Yes, the 50% leveraged resources requirement can include in kind contributions. These contributions are a strong way to capture leveraged resources. For example, match funds could contribute to college or partner salaries or expenses, or to technology purchases by the district or campus. The match may also include foregone indirect costs. Additional budget information will be provided in the RFP. 27. *Is the 50% match to be supplied by both the campus and the district partners? This grant includes a sub-award from the campus to the district partner(s). The Foundation expects to see at least a 50% match on funds that will stay at the campus, and will also be examining how districts are planning for sustainability regarding the funds that are sub-awarded to them. 5

28. *Are district partners able to contribute to the 50% match of leveraged funds? Yes, and in fact this is an expectation. Their contributions can include direct funding of salaries of district staff, stipends for cooperating teachers, and resources for clinical sites (e.g., added instructional materials, technology, etc.) that support the project. The contributions can also include such things as in-kind contributions of equipment, materials, and other resources, or of dedicated time of principals, teachers on special assignment, cooperating teachers, or other staff (defined as in-kind goods and services ). Per a recently revised Foundation policy, sub-awardees (in this case, districts) are prohibited from charging indirect costs. As such, districts may not include indirect costs in their sub-award budgets, but they can apply indirect costs toward the 50% match requirement. 29. Are salaries for faculty assigned time at the full replacement rate or at the standard "backfill" rate? Are fringe benefits allowed? Salaries for faculty assigned time should be at the full replacement rate. Fringe benefits may be included. 30. Are there restrictions on travel and supplies in the budget? Limited funds may be used for in-state travel and meetings and must be directly related to program objectives. There is no blanket restriction on the purchase of supplies and materials but these types of expenditures should be a very small portion of overall funds and should have a direct link to student outcomes. As such, supplies, materials, and technology purchases will be exceptions. It would be preferable to count such expenditures toward the required 50% leveraged match requirement. Initiative Staffing 31. *Is each partner, e.g. CSU campus and both districts, expected to have a 0.5 FTE person (i.e., 3 @ 0.5 throughout the partnership) to maintain the partnership? Yes, managing this partnership must be an explicit part of someone s role at each participating partner organization. The.5 position is intended to ensure that the buck stops with one person at each organization; if maintenance of the partnership is everyone s job it can too easily become nobody s job. The Foundation recognizes that allocating human resources to this work may be challenging for smaller school districts, and in such cases is open to learning more about how a person might be responsible for this work while also doing other similar or related work for the district. The Foundation is also open to learning more about the potential for one full time position at either organization overseeing a partnership. If applicants submit plans that deviate from the.5 FTE requirement, the Foundation will review them and make final funding determinations based upon factors including sustainability of staffing plans, district size, and planned roles and responsibilities of partnership leaders. 32. *Can the.5 positon be filled by staff or faculty? Yes, the 0.5 FTE positions may be filled by either staff or faculty. RFP Content Specific Questions 33. *Is the specific campus-district partnership MOU language or a template available to present to our board? 6

The Foundation will share MOU language and/or a template along with the RFP, but anticipates that the MOU will make plain the plans for staffing and supporting the partnership. 34. *What is the makeup of the Review Committee and the process for reviewing applications? As in the last round of funding, the RFP applications will be reviewed by the initiative s faculty workgroup, which includes CSU faculty from across the system. In this round, the Committee will be majority faculty but may also include a panel of experts from outside the CSU system. The full list of reviewers will be made available. Recently Added Questions 35. Are fringe benefits allowed? Yes, fringe benefits may be included in the budget. Last updated: 3/11/2016 10:09 AM 7