1. 2010-2011 Title II, Part A(3) Competitive Grant Program for Improving Teacher Quality Technical Assistance March 17, 2011 Webinar and Meeting

2. 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

3. 3 Professional Development for teachers, principals, and/or paraprofessionals

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

5. 5 What is the Potential? Up to $220,000 for a 16 month period $2.7 million 12 awards At least $400,000 to serve teachers of small or rural LEAs as long as they meet the high poverty requirement. Continuation funding possible (Pending ESEA)

6. 6 Deadline for Application Deadline for submission: 11:59 p.m. April 29, 2011

7. 7 Categories Partnerships for Sustained Professional Learning Opportunities in English Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, or Social Studies – Address MDE Content Expectation – Build instruction delivery skills – Build assessment skills – both teachers and principals – Meet goals for all students, including implementation of UDL – Eligible for up to $220,000 (because of expanded evaluation)

8. 8 Categories continued: Partnerships for Professional Learning Opportunities in English Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, or Social Studies – Address MDE Content Expectation – Build instruction delivery skills – Build assessment skills – both teachers and principals – Meet goals for all students, including implementation of UDL – Eligible for up to $200,000

9. 9 Differences between Categories ●“ Returning” Participants can be included in Category #1 ●Evaluate Changes in Classroom Practices in Both ●Compare Differences in Category #1

10. 10 Option for Continuation Interim Reports Meet Objectives Commitment to Continue

11. 11 Teacher Professional Development Needs Assessment Summarize in Narrative Attach Compiled Data in Excel Tables

12. 12 Minimum Partners College of IHE that prepares teachers College of Arts and Sciences and One or more high need LEA (See scoring rubric changes.)

13. 13 High Need LEA(s) Eligible LEA List Generated by CEPI Posted on MDE Website Other Potential LEA Partners

14. 14 Eligible Local Education Agency (LEA) Partners

15. 15 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)

16. 16 All partnership projects must address: MDE content expectations LEA – identified Needs: – Educator professional learning needs collected on the Teacher Professional Development Needs Survey, and – Template on website – Learning needs of all students, addressing Michigan’s Vision and Principles of Universal Education (See scoring rubric changes.)

17. 17 Teacher Professional Development Needs Survey

18. 18 Remember …. Categories Nature of the partnership Tuition OR staff salary Increased data required Anticipate approval in May

19. 19 Of Special Note….. A minimum of 90 hours of content-based Professional Development Specific attention to Learning Forward/NSDC definition of professional development (http://www.learningforward.org/index.cfm) Evidence of planning with private, nonprofit schools and consultation before figuring budget

20. 20 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. (Deep content knowledge and improved instructional delivery are the goals.)

21. 21 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 expectations to attain deep content knowledge Emphasis on improving instructional delivery, incorporating technology and Universal Design for Learning

22. 22 Important to Remember Intensity and focus are more important than large numbers of participants Budget – Special rule, i.e., no one partner USES more than 50% of the award Attention to past performance (See scoring rubric changes.)

23. 23 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

24. 24 Evaluation Changes Assessment of program and deeper analysis of artifacts (teacher, student) for all awardees A plan to conduct pre/post lesson/classroom observations Comparison across groups within project

25. 25 More Evaluation Changes Extensive data requirements for everyone (may constitute the majority of the final report) Recommend staff person devoted exclusively to evaluation tasks Note additional 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

26. 26 RFA Specifications Specifications are shown on MEGS by April 1, 2011, as well as Help Screens throughout the application.

27. 27

28. 28

29. About the grant program: Donna L. Hamilton HamiltonD3@michigan.gov at 517-241-4546 HamiltonD3@michigan.gov About MEGS: MEGS Help Manual at http://megs.mde.state.mi.us/megsweb/documents/ApplicantManual.pdf or Claudia Nicol at NicolC@michigan.govNicolC@michigan.gov or 517-335-1151