1. Technical Assistance March 18, 2015 Webinar and Meeting
Title II, Part A(3) Competitive Grant Program for Improving Teacher Quality
Technical Assistance
March 18, 2015
Webinar and Meeting

2. Today’s Goals
Review of goals of this grant program (See application for specific requirements.)
Explain the data collection requirements for funded projects
Describe expanded evaluation
Demonstrate how to apply using the MEGS+ system 2

3. Professional Development for teachers, principals, and/or paraprofessionals (if eligible)3

4. Supports partnerships between high-need LEAs, college/departments of teacher education, and college/departments of arts and sciences 4

5. What is the Potential? Up to $240,000 for a 17 month period
$1.3 million
6 awards
At least $400,000 to serve teachers of small or rural LEAs as long as they meet the high poverty requirement.
Future funding possible (Pending ESEA?) 5

6. Deadline for Application
Deadline for submission in MEGS+:
11:59 p.m.
April 17, 2015 6

7. Categories Two categories in 2014-2015, depending on Participants:
Only new participants
New and returning participants (from previous
grant-funded projects
(Note: minimum of 30 participants for both categories) 7

8. Categories (continued):
Partnerships for Professional Learning Opportunities in English Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, Social Studies or World Languages
Address MDE Content Expectation and Common Core State Standards
Build instruction delivery skills
Build assessment skills –teachers and principals
Meet goals for all students, including use of UDL
Eligible for up to $220,000 8

9. Categories (continued):
Partnerships for Sustained Professional Learning Opportunities in English Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, or Social Studies
Address MDE Content Expectations and Common Core State Standards
Build instructional delivery skills
Build assessment skills –teachers and principals
Meet goals for all students, including use of UDL
Eligible for up to $240,000 (because of expanded evaluation) 9

10. Differences between Categories
“Returning” participants can be included in Category #2
Compare differences in Category #2
Evaluate changes in content knowledge and classroom practices in both categories 10

11. Differences within Rubric
Category #2 needs additional information in Evaluation Section
Rubric will demonstrate relationship between project activities and evaluation
Specific statement of content and objectives
Teachers’ Needs and Students’ Needs 11

12. Proposal should clearly describe relationship/ alignment

13. Teacher Professional Development Needs Assessment
Use Template, modify as necessary; posted on MDE website
Include data from “Parts” A, B, and C (and D, if appropriate to your proposed project)
Summarize in narrative
Attach compiled data in Excel Tables 13

14. Teacher Professional Development Needs Survey
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Title IIA(3) Improving Teacher Quality Competitive Grants Program
INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROPOSAL TEAMS TO ADMINISTER PRE-PROPOSAL
TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT NEEDS SURVEY
For the Title IIA(3) grant funding cycle, those planning to submit a proposal are asked to conduct a systematic PRE-PROPOSAL needs assessment with teachers who are likely to participate in the proposed project. Data collected from the needs survey can be combined with a review of pertinent student test scores (or related measures) and other available data and used to help design and provide rationale for the proposed project. 14

15. Minimum of Three Partners
College of eligible IHE that prepares teachers
College of Arts and Sciences and
Eligible high need LEA on MDE website (or group of LEAs, including one high need LEA)
Other secondary partners allowed 15

16. High Need LEA(s) Eligible LEA List generated by CEPI
Includes Special Ed Non-HQ Teachers
Posted on MDE website
Other potential LEA Partners can be added to create LEA partner entity. 16

17. Eligible Local Education Agency (LEA) Partners (sample)17

18. Small, Rural and PSAs
Rural—any LEA given a 7 or 8 locale code by virtue of its location within a community with population less than 25,000 and greater than or equal to 2,500.
LEAs and PSAs – (Public School Academies or Charter Schools) 18

19. Partnership projects must address:
MDE Academic Content Standards (CCSS)
LEA – identified Needs:
Educator professional learning needs collected on the Teacher Professional Development Needs Survey (Template on website)
Learning needs of all students, addressing Michigan’s Vision and Principles of Universal Education
Role in identifying needs and planning project
MOUs to show agreement 19

20. Of Special Note…..
A minimum of 90 hours of content-based Professional Development
Specific attention to Michigan’s Professional Learning Policy and
Evidence of planning with private, nonpublic schools and consultation before designing project and figuring budget 20

21. Summer Institutes
Intense focus on specific content and instructional delivery strategies
Must have follow-up provided periodically throughout the year
Not a smorgasbord for PD grazing 21

22. Project Plan of Operation
Shows link between identified needs, specific content/pedagogy and proposed activities
Identifies benchmarks to determine progress toward stated objectives
Provides timeline
Shows research support for project 22

23. EXAMPLE: STEP 1 Goals/Objectives Needs Activities [Plan of Operation]
+Expand teacher content knowledge in identified needs areas
+Improve teacher inquiry-related skills/practices
+Understand Michigan content standards/Common Core
Needs
Subject-Matter Content: Measurement, Geometry, Number/Operations
Pedagogical Content: Inquiry-based lessons
Other: Understanding current state require-ments (i.e., Common Core)
Activities
[Plan of Operation]
Evaluation 23

24. EXAMPLE: STEP 2 Goals/Objectives Needs Evaluation Activities
+Expand teacher content knowledge in identified needs areas
+Improve teacher inquiry-related skills/practices
+Understand Michigan content standards/ Common Core
Needs
Subject-Matter Content: Measurement, Geometry, Number/Operations
Pedagogical Content: Inquiry-based lessons
Other: Understanding current state require-ments (i.e., Common Core)
Activities
[Plan of Operation]
+Sessions to develop conceptual understanding of grade-appropriate content
+Sessions on differentiated instruction, inquiry-based learning, classroom discourse, use of technology
+Sessions organized around needs-related content expectations, designing lessons/assessments consistent with expectations and Common Core
Evaluation 24

25. Evaluation Requirements
Overall effectiveness of project
Analysis of artifacts (teacher, student) for all awardees
A plan to conduct pre/post lesson/classroom observations
Evidence of impact on students
Comparison across groups within project 25

26. EXAMPLE: STEP 3 Goals/Objectives Needs Activities [Plan of Operation]
+Expand teacher content knowledge in identified needs areas
+Improve teacher inquiry-related skills/practices
+Understand Michigan content standards/Common Core
Needs
Subject-Matter Content: Measurement, Geometry, Number/Operations
Pedagogical Content: Inquiry-based lessons
Other: Understanding current state require-ments (i.e., Common Core)
Activities
[Plan of Operation]
+Sessions to develop conceptual understanding of grade-appropriate content
+Sessions on differentiated instruction, inquiry-based learning, classroom discourse, use of technology
+Sessions organized around needs-related content expectations, designing lessons/assessments consistent with expectations and Common Core
Evaluation
+Pre/post subject-matter teacher content assessment
+Lesson observations of classroom practices
+Evaluate lessons and assessments for match with content expectations 26

27. Evaluation continued:
Extensive data requirements for both categories (may be the majority of the final report)
Recommend staff person devoted to evaluation
Note meetings to address evaluation:
Year One has one face-to-face meeting and one webinar
Year Two has two face-to-face meetings
and two webinars 27

28. RFA Specifications
Specifications are shown in MEGS+ by April 6, 2015, as well as in Help Screens throughout the application. 28

29. Title II, Part A(3) Improving Teacher Quality Rubric 2014-201529

30. Scoring Rubric 30

31. Important to Remember Intensity and focus are important.
Align narrative description with scoring rubric.
Address formatting requirements.
Note directions for use of Appendix/Attachment.
Pay attention to past performance.
(See scoring rubric changes.) 31

32. Also Important
Budget – Note Special Rule, i.e., no one partner (or partner entity) USES more than 50% of the award; sample planning form on website. For example:
Arts & Sciences partner (32%)
College of Ed partner (36%)
LEA partners (32%)
No purchase of classroom materials 32

33. Of Special Note….. At least one LEA drawn from Eligible List
Professional development in deep content for the not-yet highly qualified.
Must open to not-yet highly qualified, up to registration maximum. (Remember - deep content knowledge and improved instructional delivery are the goals.) 33

34. Priorities
Research-based, addressing job-embedded professional learning
Data linking proposal to student learning and teacher need, based on student learning data and teacher needs assessment
Emphasis on Michigan’s content standards to attain deep content knowledge
Emphasis on improving instructional delivery, incorporating technology and Universal Design for Learning 34

35. Remember …. Categories Nature of the partnership/purpose of grant
Tuition OR staff salary
Increased data required
Anticipate approval in May, 2015 35

36. About MEGS+: Andy DeYoung at DeyoungA@michigan.gov or 517-373-4583
About the grant program: Donna L. Hamilton at or
About MEGS+:
Andy DeYoung at or