IMPROVING TEACHER QUALITY (ITQ) STATE GRANTS

Arizona Board of Regents 2020 North Central Avenue, Suite 230 Phoenix, AZ 85004-4593 www.azregents.edu The Arizona Board of Regents Announces FY2013 Request for Proposals and Application Guidelines IMPROVING TEACHER QUALITY (ITQ) STATE GRANTS Funded by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 ESEA Title II, Part A Letter of Intent Due Date: Nov. 9, 2012 Full Proposal Due Date: Dec. 7, 2012 Award(s) Announced: Jan. 2013 Funding Start Date: Feb. 1, 2013 Funding End Date: Sept. 30, 2014 Contact: Maryn Boess Grants Program Manager Arizona Board of Regents Maryn.Boess@Grantsusa.net 602-882-3025 (cell) Page 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. FY2013 ITQ GRANT PROGRAM KEY FACTS AT A GLANCE... 3 2. ABOUT THIS REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS... 4 3. IMPORTANT CONTACT INFORMATION: LEADERSHIP TEAM... 4 4. FEDERAL STATUTORY OVERVIEW... 5 5. ABSOLUTE FUNDING FOCUS FOR FY2013: PREPARING ARIZONA S K-8 MATH TEACHERS FOR THE COMMON CORE... 6 A. Overview... 6 B. Program Priorities and Guidelines... 6 6. PROJECT PARTNERS AND PARTNERSHIPS... 7 A. Statutorily Required Partners... 7 B. Non-Statutory Partners... 8 C. LEA Administrative Participation and Commitment... 8 D. Private Schools as Participating Partners... 9 E. Lead Applicant, Fiscal Agent, and Coordinating Partner... 9 F Additional Partners... 10 G. 50% Special Rule Single Partner Use of Funds... 10 7. ADDITIONAL FY2013 PROJECT DETAILS... 10 A. Funding... 10 B. Proposal Development and Review Timeline... 10 C. Letter of Intent to Apply... 10 D. Collaborative Competition... 11 8. PROJECT EVALUATION AND REPORTING... 11 A. Required Independent External Evaluation... 11 B. The Proposal s Evaluation Plan... 11 C. Project Reporting... 11 9. PROJECT BUDGET... 12 A. Preparing the Budget Documents... 12 B. Key Budget Elements... 12 C. Line-Item Budget: Explanation of Items... 13 D. Budget Justification... 15 10. HOW PROPOSALS WILL BE REVIEWED... 15 11. PROPOSAL CONTENTS AND FORMAT... 17 A. Proposal Checklist... 17 B. Introductory Material... 18 C. Project Narrative... 18 D. Budget Documents... 20 E. Attachments and Assurances... 21 F. Other Attachments... 21 APPENDIX: ARIZONA HIGH-NEED LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCIES (LEAs)... 22-26 Page 2

1. FY2013 ITQ GRANT PROGRAM: KEY FACTS AT A GLANCE Contact: For all questions regarding this Request For Proposals or the FY2013 ITQ process, contact Maryn Boess, Grants Program Manager, Arizona Board of Regents, at maryn.boess@grantsusa.net, or (602) 882-3025 (cell). Absolute Funding Focus: For FY2013, ITQ funding will support a single coordinated, multiuniversity/college project to design and deliver a (PDA) 1 that (1) prepares first-year teachers in high-need districts in the Common Core State Standards for K-8 mathematics; and (2) can in turn inform and shape the preparation of pre-service teachers in university/college teacher education programs statewide. Funding Amounts: Up to $948,440 is available to support a single project award, assuming receipt of at least one qualified proposal. Funding Period: Feb. 1, 2013-Sept. 30, 2014 Submission Deadlines: The Letter of Intent to Apply (see pages 10-11) must be received by email on or before 4 pm November 9, 2012. Full proposals must be received both in hard copy and electronically by 4 pm on Dec. 7, 2012. How to Submit Your Proposal: Your proposal must be submitted in BOTH hard-copy AND electronic form: 1. One (1) original paper version of the complete proposal, including all required signatures, forms, and attachments, in the format specified in this RFP. Send or deliver to: FY2013 ITQ Grants Attn: Maryn Boess, Grants Program Manager Arizona Board of Regents 2020 N. Central Ave., Suite 230 Phoenix, AZ 85004 2. One (1) electronic copy of the complete proposal to Maryn Boess at Maryn.Boess@Grantsusa.net. Your emailed submission must include all forms and attachments, but signatures are not required. Please clearly identify each emailed file with the lead applicant s name. Notice of Award: The final award will be announced and proposers notified no later than Jan. 15, 2013. 1 Throughout this proposal the terms Professional Development Approach and PDA are used interchangeably to refer to the specific program of professional development to be planned, created, implemented, and evaluated through this funding opportunity. Page 3

2. ABOUT THIS REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS It is the proposer s responsibility to read and review the following Request For Proposals thoroughly. The RFP is intended to provide clear, detailed guidance to prospective proposers for planning strong, well-founded projects that are in alignment with the goals for FY2013 ITQ funding, and for preparing complete and competitive proposals. Please do not hesitate to contact Maryn Boess, Arizona Board of Regents Grants Program Manager, with any questions about the FY2013 ITQ grant program or this Request for Proposals. Phone: 602-882-3025. Email: maryn.boess@grantsusa.net. 3. IMPORTANT CONTACT INFORMATION: LEADERSHIP TEAM In keeping with the intended statewide scope and impact of this project, a Leadership Team representing the teacher education programs at the three State universities has been developed for the purposes of preparing and submitting one or more qualified proposals. All community college and private university teacher education programs wishing to participate in and/or benefit from this project are strongly encouraged to contact the Leadership Team members to discuss and coordinate your possible participation. No proposals will be accepted that do NOT involve the active participation of all three State university teacher education programs. The Leadership Team members are: Elizabeth R. Hinde, Ph.D Associate Professor and Director Division of Teacher Preparation Arizona State University Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College 602-543-6315 Elizabeth.Hinde@asu.edu Lawrence D. Gallagher, Ed.D. Associate Dean College of Education Northern Arizona University 928 523-5083 Lawrence.Gallagher@nau.edu Renée Tipton Clift, Ph.D. Associate Dean and Professor Teaching, Learning, and Sociocultural Studies University of Arizona 520-621-1573 rtclift@email.arizona.edu Page 4

4. FEDERAL STATUTORY OVERVIEW A. Background In January 2002, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 was reauthorized under the new name of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-110, NCLB). The Improving Teacher Quality (ITQ) grant programs are a major component of NCLB legislation to encourage scientifically-based teacher professional development as a means for improving student academic performance. Under the NCLB legislation (Title II, Part A), funds are available for state agencies for higher education (SAHEs) to support partnerships intended to increase academic achievement of students in core subjects by enhancing the content knowledge and teaching skills of classroom teachers. The Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR) is the State Agency for Higher Education (SAHE) for Arizona. ABOR and the Arizona Department of Education (ADE), working together, are authorized to use these funds for subgrants to competitive, eligible partnerships between an institution of higher education with a teacher preparation program; a school of arts and sciences; and high-need school districts, or Local Education Agencies. 2 Partnerships must focus on implementing professional development strategies that have been demonstrated by scientific research to be effective in increasing student academic achievement. Partnerships must use funds to conduct professional development activities in the core academic subjects to ensure that: Teachers, highly-qualified paraprofessionals, and principals have subject-matter knowledge in subjects they teach (including knowledge of computer-related technology to enhance student learning); and/or Principals have the instructional leadership to help them work most effectively with teachers to help students master core academic subjects. In selecting its ITQ grantees, ABOR takes very seriously its statutory responsibility to support projects that will have the greatest impact on helping Local Education Agencies and particularly high-need LEAs ensure that all teachers are highly qualified and have the knowledge and teaching skills they need to help all students achieve to high standards (Item F-8, Improving Teacher Quality State Grants Non-Regulatory Guidance, U.S. Department of Education). B. Federal Regulations Arizona s ITQ funding process, and the implementation and administration of all ITQ grant awards, are subject to the regulations contained in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-110, NCLB), Title II, Part A. Proposals should be prepared with the NCLB regulatory provisions in mind, and successful proposers will be contractually required to conduct their projects in accordance with the Federal regulatory authority. This Request For Proposals contains the major Federal regulatory provisions currently governing ITQ grants. Prospective grantees are responsible for becoming familiar with, understanding, and working in accordance with all the applicable Federal regulations. Public Law 107-110, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: For the complete text of the law, see: http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html. 2 In this RFP, the term Local Education Agency, or LEA, includes all charter schools. In Arizona each charter school is organized as its own LEA. Page 5

No Child Left Behind Title II, Part A: Teacher and Principal Training and Recruiting Fund (Improving Teacher Quality): For the NCLB regulations specific to the Improving Teacher Quality State Grants program, see: http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg20.html. Improving Teacher Quality State Grants Non-Regulatory Guidance: This non-regulatory guidance issued by the U.S. Department of Education (rev. Oct. 5, 2006) explains in plain-language detail how Title II, Part A funds can be effectively and correctly used to ensure that all teachers are qualified and effective. See: http://www.ed.gov/programs/teacherqual/guidance.doc. A. Overview 5. ABSOLUTE FUNDING FOCUS FOR FY2013: PREPARING ARIZONA S K-8 MATH TEACHERS FOR THE COMMON CORE As the designated State Agency for Higher Education, the Arizona Board of Regents works closely with the Arizona Department of Education each year to identify high-priority needs around teacher professional development and to construct an ITQ grantmaking process to address them. After careful consideration of the most urgent professional development needs facing Arizona s high-need districts and their teachers, and mindful of the desire to use ITQ funding to make a unique contribution, ADE has chosen to target FY2013 funding to preparing teachers in high-need districts in the Common Core State Standards for K-8 mathematics. Specifically, the FY2013 award will support a single, coordinated, multi-university/college project to design and deliver a that (1) prepares first-year teachers in high-need districts in the Common Core State Standards for K-8 mathematics; and (2) can, in future, inform and shape the preparation of pre-service teachers in university/college teacher education programs statewide. The intended end result is a Professional Development Approach to teaching Common Core K-8 mathematics that has been carefully developed for statewide application; that has been field-tested with first-year teachers in high-need districts; and that outside the scope of ITQ funding can and will inform and enhance the teacher preparation programs of the three State universities and partnering community colleges and private universities. B. Program Priorities and Guidelines In addition to the absolute focus outlined above, the following priorities and guidelines apply in planning programs and preparing proposals. The ITQ Advisory Council is keenly interested in seeing that IHE teacher education programs are strengthened and enhanced on the basis of lessons learned from participating in ITQ projects. In order to qualify for 2013 funding, a project must clearly and specifically demonstrate a well-thought-through plan for, and institutional commitment among the partners to, integrating the Professional Development Approach, its materials, and/or lessons learned into their ongoing teacher education curriculum for preservice teachers. Because ITQ funds can directly support professional development for in-service teachers only, the actual delivery of training to pre-service teachers must take place outside the scope of ITQ project funding. Proposals must clearly and specifically: o Demonstrate and document that best-practices at the state and national levels have been carefully considered in developing the PDA. o Demonstrate and document familiarity with professional development currently being provided for Arizona in-service teachers in Common Core State Standards for K-8 mathematics, and Page 6

describe how the proposed PDA builds on and/or supplements existing efforts, rather than duplicating or supplanting them. o Demonstrate and document that participation has been or will be actively sought from Arizona community-college/private-university teacher education programs in (1) planning and implementing the PDA; and (2) using the informing and enhancing their own ongoing teachereducation programs the PDA into their ongoing teacher-education programs. In designing and delivering the PDA, project teams must particularly focus on the needs of first-year teachers. We recognize that it may not be realistic to expect that all teacher-participants be in their first teaching year. However, we expect that project teams will focus on recruiting first-year teachers as participants and will give priority to first-year teacher participants. A. Statutorily Required Partners 6. PROJECT PARTNERS AND PARTNERSHIPS By Federal statute, all ITQ projects must reflect a true collaboration involving at a minimum the following three entities: 1. An institution of higher education (IHE) that has an approved teacher preparation unit: For FY2013, the statutory IHE teacher preparation unit must also serve as the lead applicant and the Coordinating Partner (see page 9). For FY2013, please use Attachment B, Partners Commitment Document, to detail the specific role(s) the statutory IHE teacher education program will fulfill to support and enhance partnership activities. 2. A school or division of arts and sciences within an institution of higher education: For FY2013, this is defined as an academic unit within an IHE that offers an academic major in mathematics. Note: The same IHE can fulfill both requirements above, as long as that IHE includes both an approved teacher preparation unit and a school or division that offers an academic major in mathematics. These requirements can also be met by a partnership involving two different IHEs. For FY2013, please use Attachment B, Partners Commitment Document, to detail the specific role(s) the statutory IHE school of arts and sciences will fulfill to support and enhance partnership activities. 3. At least one high-need local education agency (LEA) 3 : A high-need LEA is defined statutorily as an LEA (including charter schools) that meets both of the following standards: A. The LEA serves at least 10,000 children from families with incomes below the poverty line, OR at least 20% of the children are from families with incomes below the poverty line; AND 3 In this RFP, the term Local Education Agency, or LEA, includes all charter schools. In Arizona each charter school is organized as its own LEA. Thus, a single high-need charter school may serve as the statutorily-required high-need LEA partner. Page 7

B. A high percentage of teachers are teaching in academic subjects or grade levels for which they were not adequately trained to teach; or in which a high percentage of teachers have emergency, provisional, or temporary certification or licensing. For a list of LEAs (including charter schools) that meet the statutory high-need LEA standard selected for Arizona for FY2013, please see Appendix, Arizona High-Need LEAs (pp. 22-26). Every project must include one LEA from this list as its statutory high-need LEA partner, and high-need LEAs must make up at least 50% of all participating LEAs. For FY2013, please use Attachment B, Partners Commitment Document, to detail the role(s) the statutory high-need LEA partner will fulfill to enhance and support partnership activities. B. Non-Statutory Partners Beyond the three statutorily-required partners, the FY2013 ITQ project must be designed to include the following collaborations. Other LEAs. LEAs beyond the single statutory partner must be included to complete the required professional development for in-service teachers. A key factor in a proposal s success will be the project s total budget cost allocated on a per-participating-teacher basis, so attention should be given to the number of in-service teachers who will be served. o All participating LEAs must have at least one non-highly qualified K-8 math teacher. o Preference will be given to projects in which a majority of LEAs come from the highneed list (see Appendix, pp. 22-26). o LEA participation should be created to reflect statewide geographic diversity. The three State universities. For FY2013, in keeping with the intended scope and impact of this funding, the funded project(s) must include active collaborative participation of all three State university teacher education programs. Please see page 4, Leadership Team, for more information. Community colleges and private-universities. The funded project must demonstrate that participation has been or will be actively sought from Arizona community-college/privateuniversity teacher education programs in (1) planning and implementing the PDA; and (2) using the informing and enhancing their own ongoing teacher-education programs the PDA into their ongoing teacher-education programs. All community college and private university teacher education programs wishing to participate in and/or benefit from this project are strongly encouraged to contact the Leadership Team members (see page 4) to discuss and coordinate your possible participation. C. LEA Administrative Participation and Commitment The most successful ITQ projects are those in which principals and administrators are deeply and integrally involved in planning the project and are engaged in ongoing leadership of the project. To address this issue proactively, the ITQ Advisory Council builds up-front and ongoing LEA administrative participation into the structure of all ITQ projects by requiring that proposals demonstrate that: Page 8

A. Principals and district administrators will participate, up front, in identifying the ITQ-related needs within their LEAs, identifying the underlying causes and conditions, and designing strategies to address these issues successfully. B. The project presents a formal structure for project leaders and administrators from all partners to meet regularly for ongoing dialogue, oversight, review and project support. C. The project plan includes a training/orientation session for administrators at the project start. D. The LEA administrator(s) understand that they are expected to support the project partnership to the greatest degree possible to enhance the experience for their teachers. Expected supports include: All participating LEAs are expected to support the project partnership to enhance the experience for their teachers. For instance: Assist with identifying and recruiting teachers who need to increase content knowledge; provide detailed teacher and/or student data to the partnership; supply materials for classroom use; link ITQ content to individual teachers professional development plans; provide time for teachers to meet and plan; arrange for release time for teachers; meet with other administrators and teacher partners to assess future professional development needs, etc. D. Private Schools as Participating Partners Federal statutes require that any private K-12 school(s) located within the geographic boundaries of partnering LEAs must be offered the opportunity to participate as partners in the proposed ITQ project. E. Lead Applicant, Fiscal Agent, and Coordinating Partner The lead applicant and fiscal agent for FY2013 must be the statutory IHE teacher education partner. This organization will also serve as the project s designated Coordinating Partner. The Coordinating Partner agrees to fulfill the following coordinating roles on behalf of the project partnership: 1. Serves as the primary point of contact for the Arizona Board of Regents and the ITQ Advisory Council for all communications regarding the grant-funded project. 2. Initiates and manages all subcontracts related to the project activities. 3. Tracks, accounts for, and compiles project expenditures of all partners and prepares and submits the required consolidated expenditure reports. 4. Receives the disbursement of grant awards on behalf of the entire partnership and will be responsible for redistributing funds as appropriate to the individual partners and subcontractors. 5. Is responsible for coordinating with the contracted external evaluator and other partners to compile, prepare, and submit the required consolidated project activity reports. 6. Collects and compiles the participant information required for the annual Collaborative Data Survey report (form to be provided). The proposal budget may include reasonable compensation to the Coordinating Partner for the time spent fulfilling the coordinating roles on the partnership s behalf. See Project Budget for additional details. Page 9

F. Additional Partners There are no restrictions on the type or number of additional organizations that can partner in an ITQ project. G. 50% Special Rule Single Partner Use of Funds Section 2132(c) of No Child Left Behind requires that no more than 50% of the grant award may directly benefit any single project partner. Please keep this restriction in mind in your project planning and budgeting. Attachment D of your proposal will ask you to document for each project partner who will be receiving or directly benefiting from ITQ grant funds. A. Funding Total Funding Available: $948,440 7. ADDITIONAL FY2013 PROJECT DETAILS Award Amount: The full amount of $948,440 will be awarded to a single project, assuming receipt of at least one qualified proposal. B. Proposal Development and Review Timeline Oct. 15, 2012: Nov. 9, 2012: Dec. 7, 2012: Jan. 2013: Feb 1, 2013: Sept. 30, 2014: Final RFP disseminated to Arizona IHE teacher education programs. Submission deadline for Letter of Intent to Apply Submission deadline for full proposals. Successful applicant notified; new awards announced. Funding of new award begins. End of program funding C. Letter of Intent to Apply Prospective applicants are required to submit a Letter of Intent to Apply. The Letter of Intent to Apply should be no more than two pages, single-spaced, on organization letterhead. In the Letter, include the following: Names and contact information for the three statutory partners Names of all other intended partners identified to date An estimate of the total number of K-8 math teachers to be served by the project A summary of no more than 200 words of the approach your project will take with the required 24 hours of pedagogy-and-practice training The dollar amount you anticipate requesting Please scan your signed Letter of Intent to Apply and email it by 4 pm November 9, 2012, to Maryn.Boess@Grantsusa.net. Page 10

This is not a pre-proposal and will not be scored in any way; nor will applicants be bound to the information in the Letter of Intent to Apply. The Letter is simply intended to give us a better idea how many proposals to expect, and from whom, so we can plan for the most effective and efficient review process. Submitting a Letter of Intent to Apply does not obligate you to submit a full proposal; however, we will only consider proposals for which a Letter of Intent to Apply has been received. D. Collaborative Competition Although statutorily the ITQ funding process must be framed as a competitive grant process, we hope with this funding to support a collaborative competition. That is, we encourage up-front discussion, connection-making and collaborative project planning among prospective applicants that result in either a suite of project proposals, or a single proposal, that reflects collaborative thinking and planning well beyond the level required by the three statutory partnerships and results in a coordinated, statewide effort with significant and sustainable systemic impact. 8. PROJECT EVALUATION AND REPORTING A. Required Independent External Evaluation Each project must allocate 5% of its project budget for an external evaluation. ABOR will pre-qualify a team of education evaluation specialists, who will be assigned to the awarded projects. B. The Proposal s Evaluation Plan A detailed evaluation plan does not need to be submitted with your initial proposal. The selected external evaluators will work with successful proposers to develop and submit a detailed evaluation plan within 30 days of the notice of funding. For purposes of the proposal, you will simply state that all partners are willing to work with the external evaluator team on all activities in support of the evaluation process; specifically: Clarify project outcomes Develop a project Logic Model Identify meaningful progress and success measures Design data collection processes and tools Participate in necessary data collection, reporting, etc. C. Project Reporting All project reports must be consolidated that is, they must reflect the activities and expenditures of all collaborating organizations in a single report. The Coordinating Partner will be responsible for collecting, compiling, preparing and submitting consolidated reports on behalf of the project partnership. Guidelines and reporting forms for all reports will be provided to the Coordinating Partner. Page 11

A. Preparing the Budget Documents 9. PROJECT BUDGET The budget portion of your proposal will consist of three items. More detail and guidelines for preparing each of these documents follow. As an overview: 1. Attachment C: Consolidated Project Budget. Use Attachment C to prepare a consolidated lineitem budget reflecting total expenditures and matching contributions for all partners in the project. Specific guidelines for preparing the consolidated budget document follow in section C. Line-Item Budget: Explanation of Items (pages 13-15). 2. Attachment D: 50% Special Rule Single Partner Use of Funds. Use Attachment D to delineate the expenditures, by category, that will be assigned to each individual project partner. Prepare one Attachment D for each partner with expenditure items represented in the budget. Use the guidelines in C. Line-Item Budget: Explanation of Items (pp. 13-15) to prepare these forms. 3. Budget Justification. Create a narrative Budget Justification to describe your project expenditures in greater detail and to explain how each will be used to further the project activities and intended outcomes. See D. Budget Justification (page 15) for additional details. B. Key Budget Elements 1. Reimbursement-Based Funding: In planning your budget, be aware that ITQ grants are funded on a cost-reimbursement basis. You will submit your reimbursement claims quarterly for approved project expenses incurred during the previous quarter. No funds can be released until the related expenses have actually been incurred. 2. The 50% Limitation (the Special Rule ). Under ITQ statute, no more than 50% of the total grant award may directly benefit any one partnering agency. Your completed Attachment D will delineate how grant funds will be allocated among partners, and will be reviewed carefully to assure that your budget complies with this regulation. 3. Stipends. The project may provide stipends to teacher participants at up to $20 per hour of instruction. Stipends may not be paid to participants in addition to their regular salary for activities during weekdays of the academic year. 4. Tuition and Registration Costs. The project grant must pay participants tuition or registration costs, if any, for all professional development activities (or arrange for tuition or registration costs to be waived as part of the project budget match). 5. Purchases: Supplies, software, and text materials are all eligible purchases, provided these items are essential for the professional development activities that are part of the project. In general, ITQ funds are not to be used to purchase equipment or technology; however, exceptions may be authorized in advance on a case by case basis. Please contact Maryn Boess to discuss. 6. Indirect Costs: Indirect costs are limited to no more than 8% of the requested grant dollars per year. Proposers and their partners are strongly encouraged to waive all or part of their indirect costs as part of their project match. Page 12

7. Coordinating Partner: The proposal budget may include reasonable compensation to the Coordinating Partner for the time spent fulfilling the coordinating roles on the partnership s behalf. This compensation will be included in the line-item budgets under Item 6, Other. 8. Independent External Evaluation: Each project must allocate 5% of its annual project budget for an external evaluation. Additional details on external evaluation will be provided to successful grantees. C. Line-Item Budget: Explanation of Items You will use Attachment C to present your project s consolidated line-item budget. (Each partner s share of the total project budget will be indicated on Attachment D.) In the line-item budget, please list each expenditure item separately under its appropriate category. For instance, each salaried position must be listed separately; each provider of professional or outside services must be listed separately, etc. (You will use the Budget Justification section to more fully explain how each expenditure contributes to and will be used in the project.) In addition to the amount requested from grant funds, please also use Attachment C to indicate for each line item (a) the value of any matching contribution (cash or the value of contributed goods or services); and (b) the institution, school, or organization that is the source of the matching contribution. 1. Personnel Costs Note: In general, individuals on staff can be paid from this grant only for work performed outside the individual s contracted scope of work and contracted working hours. For instance, a faculty member on 9-month contract can be compensated only for project work performed during the summer. However, ITQ funds can be used to buy out faculty or staff time to devote to project activities. Please contact Maryn Boess in advance to discuss any possible special circumstances or exceptions. A. Key Personnel: The names of the Project Director and other key personnel are to be included. Others may be listed by title. The Project Director of a project is expected to be a regular faculty member or other permanent employee whose responsibilities closely align with the project. Salaries must be listed out for all key personnel; lump sum figures are not acceptable. Include the basis for salaries (e.g. hourly or daily) based on academic year salary. B. Support (Clerical, Graduate): Again, compensation must be listed out for each individual position. C & D. Fringe Benefits (ERE): ERE cannot be changed or negotiated from the original proposal - consider this amount carefully in the original budget. 2. Participant Support Costs Participant Support: Participants refers to classroom teachers, highly qualified paraprofessionals, or principals who are employed in public or private schools in Arizona and who are participating in the project s professional-development activities. Special exceptions may be made for participants teaching and residing on reservations in neighboring states. Page 13

A. Materials: Expenses in this category are for materials that are provided directly to participants as part of the project activities. B & C. Course Credit, Tuition, and Fees: The project grant must pay participants tuition or registration costs, if any, for all professional development activities (or arrange for tuition or registration costs to be waived as part of the project matching contribution). D. Travel: Mileage for participants should be budgeted at the current State of Arizona rate (44.5 cents per mile effective Nov. 11, 2006). E. Room and Board: Limit: current Arizona per diem rate. (See http://cfo.asu.edu/fs-travelperdiem for current per diem rates for Arizona communities.) F. Stipends: The project may provide stipends to teacher-participants of up to $20 per hour of instruction. Stipends may not be paid to participants in addition to their regular salary for activities during weekdays of the academic year. G. Teacher Substitutes: The project may compensate participating LEAs for teacher substitutes while teachers take part in project activities. However, LEA partners are strongly encouraged to show their support for the project by providing teacher-substitute pay as a matching contribution. H. Other: Any other expenses directly related to providing professional development services to teachers. 3. Professional/Outside Services Professional and Outside Services: Individuals and expenses included in this category are for individuals who are not considered employees of the institution. Typically the institution designates these individuals as independent contractors who perform a service on behalf of the project. External Evaluation: Each project must allocate 5% of its total annual grant award for an external evaluation; the external evaluation is to be included under this line item. 4. Staff Travel Staff Travel: Staff travel to project activities may be requested. Mileage and per diem should be budgeted at the current Arizona rate. (See Participant Support Costs, above, for details.) Actual costs of hotel rooms may be estimated (as limited by season and location as per Arizona guidelines). 5. Operations Costs A. Materials, Supplies, Photocopying: Funds should not be requested to purchase permanent equipment (capital equipment). Materials and supplies are defined as consumable items necessary for instruction and administration of the project. This includes costs for photocopies, teaching materials, software, staff resources, etc. B. Other Operating Expenditures: Includes postage, phone charges, etc. Page 14

6. Other: Coordinating Partner: You may include reasonable compensation to the designated Coordinating Partner for coordinating and reporting activities on behalf of the project partnership. 7. Subtotal (Direct Costs): This is the total of expenses in lines 1-6. Indirect costs will be based on this amount. 8. Indirect Costs: You may include up to 8% of the total direct costs (line 7) as project indirect costs. However, competitive preference will be given to projects in which the indirect costs are waived as part of the institutional match. 9. Total Costs: Total of all expenses, including direct and indirect costs. D. Budget Justification The third and final portion of your proposal budget submission is the narrative Budget Justification. Using the same categories as those listed on the budget forms, fully explain and justify the amounts requested in each category. Follow the same order and sequence as the budget forms, and use headings to clearly identify each line-item category. In your narrative: 1. Clearly describe and explain each line item of more than $250 in value. 2. Show the dollar amount for each, and show how the amount was calculated. 3. Show a complete breakout for each individual listed under Personnel. Include how much time the individual will be working on the project and the calculations for his/her compensation (per hour, based on annual salary, etc.). 4. Also explain how each resource will be used in the project and by whom, and how it will contribute to the project s success. 10. HOW PROPOSALS WILL BE REVIEWED Proposal Review Team. Proposals will be reviewed and scored by the members of the ITQ Advisory Council. Members reflect a broad, statewide cross-section of education professionals and the community at large, including representatives of: Arizona institutions of higher education (private and public universities, community colleges) K-12 school districts and individual schools Arizona s charter school system The Arizona Department of Education The Arizona Board of Regents The business community Nonprofit and community-based organizations Page 15

Proposal Scoring Criteria. Proposals will be scored by the review team according to a scoring matrix that reflects the provisions of this RFP. In developing your project plan and drafting your proposal, you can rely on the following guidelines: No proposals will be considered that are missing any required documentation, signatures, information, or detail. No proposals will be considered that are not in compliance with or do not include any item in this Request For Proposals that is designated as required or must. Competitive proposals will adhere closely to the guidelines given in this RFP for both format and content of the proposal narrative. Competitive proposals will pay special attention to the items in this RFP that are indicated as a preference or priority. Additional scoring points may be available for proposals that reflect a stated interest or emphasis. The review team will especially appreciate proposals that are written in clear, straightforward language and that clearly and directly set forth what this project will do, how it will work, who will be responsible for doing what, when the work will take place, and how the project is expected to make a difference in terms of impacting a clearly identified need. Collaborative Competition. Although statutorily the ITQ funding process must be framed as a competitive grant process, we hope with this funding to support a collaborative competition. That is, we encourage up-front discussion, connection-making and collaborative project planning among prospective applicants that result in either a suite of project proposals, or a single proposal, that reflects collaborative thinking and planning well beyond the level required by the three statutory partnerships and results in a coordinated, statewide effort with significant and sustainable systemic impact. Page 16

11. PROPOSAL CONTENTS AND FORMAT NOTE: All attachments and forms required for your proposal submission are found in a separate document, ITQ 2013 Application Materials. A. Proposal Checklist A complete proposal package will contain the following items, in the order presented. Guidelines for content and format of each item can be found in following sections. Introductory Material: 1. Cover Sheet (Attachment A) 2. Partners Commitment Document (Attachment B) 3. Table of Contents Project Narrative: Up to 10 double-spaced pages 4. Project Summary 5. Description of Need or Opportunity 6. Statement of Intended Impact 7. Program Design 8. Key Staff 9. Collaboration Plan 10. LEA Administrative Participation 11. Evaluation Plan 12. Sustainability Plan Budget Documents: 13. Consolidated Project Budget (Attachment C) 14. 50% Special Rule Single Partner Use of Funds (Attachment D; one for each partner) 15. Budget Justification Attachments and Assurances: 16. Curriculum Vitae (for Project Director and project team leaders; no more than 1 page each) 17. Collaboration Document (Attachment E) 18. Certificate of Assurances: Project Director (Attachment F) 19. Certification Regarding Governmentwide Debarment, Suspension (Nonprocurement), and Other Responsibility Matters (Attachment G) Page 17

B. Introductory Material 1. Cover Sheet (Attachment A): The Cover Sheet should be completed as directed. The Project Director and an authorized signatory of the submitting organization must both sign the original proposal. These signatures constitute a commitment on the part of the submitting organization to the goals and objectives contained in the proposal, and are viewed by the grantor as a contract that cannot be altered without prior approval of the Arizona Board of Regents Grants Program Office. Only one Cover Sheet should be submitted for the project. Additional partners (including multi-university or multi-campus projects) will sign copies of Attachment B, Partners Commitment Document. 2. Partners Commitment Document (Attachment B): The Partners Commitment Document (Attachment B) should be downloaded and completed as directed. The first two pages are to be signed by the three statutorily-mandated project partners. Please note, the Project Director may not be one of the statutory-partner signators. The third page is to be completed and signed by all other key partners on the project, including other IHEs, LEAs, nonprofits, schools, tribal organizations, businesses, etc. These signatures constitute a commitment on the part of the partnering organizations to the goals and objectives contained in the proposal, and are viewed by the grantor as a contract that cannot be altered without prior approval of the Arizona Board of Regents Grants Program Office. 3. Table of Contents: Begin with a Table of Contents for your narrative, following the headings given below and showing the starting page number for each section. (The Table of Contents is not included in the 10-page limit.) C. Project Narrative Your Project Narrative should be no more than 10 double-spaced pages. Please follow the format below for your narrative, using the same headings in your proposal as are listed below. Use page numbers in the bottom right corner of each page of your narrative. 4. Project Summary: The Project Summary must be limited to 200 words and should clearly, directly and specifically reflect all the key elements of your proposal. The Project Summary will serve as the reviewers first impression of your proposal and will be used in future communications, press releases, presentations, etc. Your Project Summary should include at least one sentence addressing each of the sections in the Project Narrative. It is not an introduction to your proposal; rather, it provides an at-a-glance overview of what your project is about, why it s important, and how it will work. 5. Description of Need or Opportunity: Clearly and directly describe the need among partnering LEAs for the teacher professional development that is being proposed. For each partnering LEA, briefly specify: The poverty level of the LEA; Page 18

The number of classroom teachers in the LEA (in any subject) who are not highly-qualified in the subject they teach; The number of classroom teachers in the LEA who are teaching mathematics and, of those, the number who are not highly-qualified in mathematics; Relevant information about recent student performance in mathematics; Any other factors that make this LEA a high-need or high-priority candidate for participation in this project. 6. Statement of Intended Impact: Clearly and directly cite the specific impacts or outcomes that you intend to achieve through your project. Use the following four impact areas to construct specific statements of the success indicators that will serve as the basis for your project activities and evaluation. Here is what success will look like for our project: A. Teacher Impact How many teachers will complete the training? As a result of their participation in this project, what will the teachers have learned? As a result of their participation in this project, what will teachers do differently in the classroom? B. Student Impact How will the teachers learning and practice translate into improved learning outcomes for their students? C. Systemic Impact What will be the impact of this project on the IHEs future approach to preparing teachers for the K-8 mathematics classroom? How will it serve to: o Embed successful professional-development strategies into the ongoing curriculum of the partnering IHE s teacher-preparation program? and/or o Improve specific aspects of the teacher preparation program? 7. Program Design: Describe the project activities that will be undertaken toward the intended impacts. Give a clear sense of the work that will be performed, how that work will be organized, how that work will take place over time, and how the activities relate to the intended outcomes and broader goals of the project. Include an explanation of the rationale behind each key element of the program design. Also include a project benchmark timetable using this example as a model: Key Activity or Benchmark (brief description) Estimated Start Date: Estimated Completion Date: Responsible Team Member: 8. Key Staff: Provide a brief description of the relevant qualifications of each key project team member, including the Project Director. Page 19

9. Collaboration Plan: In a separate section, describe the collaboration that supports the project. Explain the roles and responsibilities of each partner, including how each will participate in the project and how each will benefit. In this section, also state whether any private K-12 schools fall within the geographic boundaries of the participating LEAs, include their names, and offer evidence of their participation (or evidence that they were offered the opportunity to participate and declined). 10. LEA Administrative Participation: In this section, describe the specific processes or plans for direct, ongoing participation of principals and/or administrators from partnering LEAs in the project. Specifically, explain how the project will meet the following requirements: Principals and district administrators will participate, up front, in identifying the ITQ-related needs within their LEAs, identifying the underlying causes and conditions, and designing strategies to address these issues successfully. The project presents a formal structure for project leaders and administrators from all partners to meet regularly for ongoing dialogue, oversight, review and project support. The project plan includes a training/orientation session for administrators at the project start. 11. Evaluation Plan: You will not submit an evaluation plan with your initial proposal. Successful proposers will work with the assigned external evaluator to submit a detailed evaluation plan within 30 days of the notice of funding. In your proposal, please include a statement attesting that all partners are willing to work with the external evaluator team on all activities in support of the evaluation process; specifically: Clarify project outcomes Develop a project Logic Model Identify meaningful progress and success measures Design data collection processes and tools Participate in necessary data collection, reporting, etc. 12. Systemic Impact: Describe plans for sustaining the project beyond the funding period, including long-term systemic impact of the project or ways in which project structures, goals, and activities can become an ongoing part of Arizona s educational system. For FY2013, proposals must clearly and specifically demonstrate a well-thought-through plan for, and institutional commitment among the partners to, integrating the Professional Development Approach, its materials, and/or lessons learned into their ongoing teacher education curriculum for pre-service teachers. Because ITQ funds can directly support professional development for in-service teachers only, the actual delivery of training to pre-service teachers must take place outside the scope of ITQ project funding. D. Budget Documents 13. Consolidated Project Budget (Attachment C) 14. 50% Special Rule Single Partner Use of Funds (Attachment D; one for each partner) 15. Budget Justification See Project Budget, earlier in this document, for complete guidelines and instructions for preparing the three budget documents. Page 20

E. Attachments and Assurances 16. Curriculum Vitae: For the Project Director and other project team leaders, attach a summary of relevant professional qualifications of no more than one page each. 17. Collaboration Document (Attachment E): Use this form to document the cooperative planning that took place among the IHE arts and science faculty, IHE teacher education faculty, LEA(s), and any other entities, in the preparation of this proposal. 18. Certificate of Assurances: Project Director (Attachment F): By signing this Certificate of Assurances, the Project Director assumes responsibility on behalf of the partnership for assuring that the project will be operated in compliance with applicable Federal regulations, Arizona Department of Education guidelines, and the priorities and directions of the ITQ Advisory Council. 19. Certification Regarding Governmentwide Debarment, Suspension (Nonprocurement), and Other Responsibility Matters (Attachment G): This Certification does not require a signature but does become part of the contractual obligations of the submitting organization and all project partners. Please include the Certification in your proposal submission. F. Other Attachments Please do not submit any attachments other than those that have been specifically required in this Request For Proposals. It is important to the review process that all the information that is relevant to thorough and thoughtful consideration of your proposal be incorporated into the proposal narrative, documents, and required attachments. Page 21

APPENDIX: ARIZONA HIGH-NEED LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCIES (LEAs) U.S. Census SAIPE (Nov. 2011): Arizona LEAs by High-Poverty ("High-poverty" = at least 20% of school-aged children live in poverty households) B. High-poverty LEA? (E>=20%) C. Estimated Population 5-17 D. # of children age 5-17 in poverty who live in poverty households E. % of children 5-17 who live in poverty households (D/C) A. District Name Agua Fria Union High School District no 7638 1003 13.1% Aguila Elementary District YES 200 59 29.5% Ajo Unified District YES 431 157 36.4% Alhambra Elementary District YES 14848 6106 41.1% Alpine Elementary District YES 51 13 25.5% Altar Valley Elementary District YES 1366 479 35.1% Amphitheater Unified District YES 19356 3955 20.4% Antelope Union High School District no 377 73 19.4% Apache Elementary District YES 24 6 25.0% Apache Junction Unified District YES 7291 1535 21.1% Arlington Elementary District YES 253 133 52.6% Ash Creek Elementary District YES 52 24 46.2% Ash Fork Joint Unified District YES 278 81 29.1% Avondale Elementary District YES 7307 1565 21.4% Bagdad Unified School District no 479 81 16.9% Balsz Elementary District YES 3598 1675 46.6% Beaver Creek Elementary District no 780 148 19.0% Benson Unified School District no 1229 230 18.7% Bicentennial Union High School District YES 326 111 34.0% Bisbee Unified District YES 845 316 37.4% Blue Ridge Unified District YES 2625 564 21.5% Bonita Elementary District no 52 10 19.2% Bouse Elementary District YES 48 18 37.5% Bowie Unified District YES 88 30 34.1% Buckeye Elementary District no 5754 982 17.1% Buckeye Union High School District no 4224 744 17.6% Bullhead City School District YES 3877 1754 45.2% Camp Verde Unified District YES 1880 679 36.1% Canon Elementary District YES 352 179 50.9% Cartwright Elementary District YES 20859 7592 36.4% Casa Grande Elementary District YES 8909 1797 20.2% Casa Grande Union High School District YES 5258 1516 28.8% Catalina Foothills Unified District no 4728 298 6.3% Cave Creek Unified District no 8507 701 8.2% Cedar Unified District YES 1688 678 40.2% Chandler Unified District no 44604 5544 12.4% Chevelon Butte School District YES 29 14 48.3% Chinle Unified District YES 5224 2149 41.1% Chino Valley Unified District YES 3633 746 20.5% Clarkdale-Jerome Elementary District no 350 67 19.1% Clifton Unified District no 554 93 16.8% Page 22