Selection Criteria and Invitational Priorities School Leadership Program U.S. Department of Education 2005.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Management Plans: A Roadmap to Successful Implementation
Advertisements

Performance management guidance
How Do We Know We Are Making Progress? Virginia Department of Education Office of School Improvement
THIS WORKSHOP WILL ADDRESS WHY THE FOLLOWING ARE IMPORTANT: 1. A comprehensive rationale for funding; 2. Measurable objectives and performance indicators/performance.
Campus Improvement Plans
Title I Schoolwide Providing the Tools for Change Presented by Education Service Center Region XI February 2008.
Alaska Native Education Program (ANEP) Technical Assistance Meeting September 2014 Sylvia E. Lyles Valerie Randall Almita Reed.
Specific outcomes can be compared to resources expended; and successful programs can be highlighted;
High-Quality Supplemental Educational Services And After-School Partnerships Demonstration Program (CFDA Number: ) CLOSING DATE: August 12, 2008.
Office of Migrant Education: Comprehensive Needs Assessment Pilot Arizona Component.
Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European
Evaluation of Math-Science Partnership Projects (or how to find out if you’re really getting your money’s worth)
Centers for International Business Education—Technical Assistance.
CONNECTICUT ACCOUNTABILTY FOR LEARNING INITIATIVE Executive Coaching.
How to Develop a Project Evaluation Plan Pat Gonzalez Office of Special Education Programs
Mia Alexander-Snow, PhD Director, Office for Planning and Institutional Effectiveness Program Review Orientation 1.
School Leadership Program Pre-Application Slides United States Department of Education Office of Innovation and Improvement.
Proposal Writing for Competitive Grant Systems
Federal Emphasis on Accountability in Higher Education and Regional Accreditation Processes Carla D. Sanderson Commissioner, Southern Association of Colleges.
EL-Civics Application Remember! If in a consortium: –Must complete Budget Detail page for each consortium member EL-Civics Application.
DRAFT – Not for Circulation Investing in Innovation (i3) 2012 Development Competition Summary Document February 2012 Note: These slides are intended as.
Overview of the FY 2010 SPDG Competition Jennifer Coffey 1.
Overview of the SPDG Competition Jennifer Doolittle, Ph.D. 1.
Prof. György BAZSA, former president Hungarian Accreditation Committee (HAC) CUBRIK Workshop IV Beograd, 13 March, 2012 European Standards and Guidelines.
Professional Development for Arts Educators Program (PDAE) Pre-Application Webinar U.S. Department of Education Office of Innovation and Improvement Improvement.
Fundamentals of Evaluation for Public Health Programs ROBERT FOLEY, M.ED. NIHB TRIBAL PUBLIC HEALTH SUMMIT MARCH 31,
Foundation Degrees Foundation Degree Forward Lichfield Centre The Friary Lichfield Staffs WS13 6QG — Tel: Fax: —
Arts in Education Model Development and Dissemination Grant Program (AEMDD) Pre-Application Webinar U.S. Department of Education Office of Innovation and.
Performance-based Contracting and Maine’s State Personnel Development Grant (SPDG) Dawn Kliphan March 28, 2010.
HECSE Quality Indicators for Leadership Preparation.
School Leadership Program Pre Application Meeting March 31, 2008 United States Department of Education Office of Innovation and Improvement Archived Information.
School Leadership Program Pre Application Meeting February 19, 2010 United States Department of Education Office of Innovation and Improvement Archived.
Comprehensive Educator Effectiveness: New Guidance and Models Presentation for the Special Education Advisory Committee Virginia Department of Education.
Comprehensive Educator Effectiveness: New Guidance and Models Presentation for the Virginia Association of School Superintendents Annual Conference Patty.
Predominantly Black Institutions Program CFDA: A FY 2015 PREAPPLICATION WEBINAR Washington, DC July 14, :00 AM. – 12:00 PM, EDT July 14, 2015.
Continuous Improvement and Focused Monitoring System US Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs Overview of the OSEP Continuous Improvement.
March Madness Professional Development Goals/Data Workshop.
Program Evaluation Presenter: Dr. Laura R. Dawson Executive Vice President/COO The Dawson Group of Virginia, Inc.
1 Access to the World and Its Languages LRC Technical Assistance Workshop (Part 1) Access to the World and Its Languages I N T E R.
The University of Kentucky Program Review Process for Administrative Units April 18 & 20, 2006 JoLynn Noe, Assistant Director Office of Assessment
QUALITY OF THE MANAGEMENT PLAN 15 Points (recommend 5 pages)
Welcome to today’s Webinar: Tier III Schools in Improvement We will begin at 9:00 AM.
Management Plan Describe the adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project: On time and within budget Include clearly.
ESEA FOR LEAs Cycle 6 Monitoring Arizona Department of Education Revised October 2015.
Learning More About Oregon’s ESEA Waiver Plan January 23, 2013.
Project Design Jennifer Coffey OSEP May 4,
Changes in Professional licensure Teacher evaluation system Training at Coastal Carolina University.
Moving Title IA School Plans into Indistar ESEA Odyssey Summer 2015 Presented by Melinda Bessner Oregon Department of Education.
FOCUSING ON GETTING THE PERFECT SCORE Robin Ward District Grant Writer Brevard Public Schools.
Performance Monitoring COURTNEY MILLS SCPCSD DIRECTOR OF ACADEMIC PROGRAMS.
School Development Goal Development “Building a Learning Community”
Office of Service Quality
OFFICE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION NATIONAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM (NPD) NPD Grant Competition Webinar 2: GPRA & Selection Criteria January.
CHAPTER 16 Preparing Effective Proposals. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS  Conducting a Preliminary Assessment  Prior to Writing the Proposal  How Fundable.
1 Restructuring Webinar Dr. Zollie Stevenson, Jr., Ph.D. Director Student Achievement and School Accountability Programs Office of Elementary and Secondary.
QUALITY OF THE PROJECT DESIGN 15 Points (recommend 5 pages)
1 DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS TO ENSURE STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES RECEIVE A QUALITY HIGHER EDUCATION PROGRAM Performance Measurement, Program and Project Evaluation.
Preparing for the Title III Part F STEM Competition Alliance of Hispanic Serving Institutions Educators Grantsmanship Institute March 20, 2016.
RE-AIM Framework. RE-AIM: A Framework for Health Promotion Planning, Implementation and Evaluation Are we reaching the intended audience? Is the program.
Program Information for Applicants School Leadership Program U.S. Department of Education 2005.
Office of School Turnaround Center for Accountability and Improvement, Ohio Department of Education 25 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio
Overview of the FY 2011 SPDG Competition Jennifer Coffey, Ph.D. State Personnel Development Grants Program Lead 1.
Need For The Project SPDG Competition FY The NEED FOR THE PROJECT is the foundation of the SPDG application  Scoring criteria: the range of points.
Note: In 2009, this survey replaced the NCA/Baldrige Quality Standards Assessment that was administered from Also, 2010 was the first time.
February 25, Today’s Agenda  Introductions  USDOE School Improvement Information  Timelines and Feedback on submitted plans  Implementing plans.
Opening a Quality Charter School in the Los Angeles Unified School District Charter Schools Division February 27, 2008.
Briefing: Interdisciplinary Preparation for Personnel Serving Children with Disabilities Who Have High-Intensity Needs CFDA K Office of.
Title III of the No Child Left Behind Act
Courtney Mills Principal, Midlands Middle College
Campus Improvement Planning
Presentation transcript:

Selection Criteria and Invitational Priorities School Leadership Program U.S. Department of Education 2005

This presentation provides information for consideration regarding selection criteria and invitational priorities.

Background:  EDGAR*: Selection criteria are chosen from a set of approved generic components that may be used for any grant competition.  NOTE: Program offices provide additional information regarding the ways in which applicants may want to consider addressing the selection criteria. *EDGAR = Education Department General Administrative Regulations

Selection Criteria  Need for project  (20 points)  Quality of the project design  (25 points)  Significance of the project  (20 points)  Quality of the management plan  (15 points)  Quality of the project evaluation  (20 points)

Need for Project: EDGAR: The Secretary considers the following factors: 1) The magnitude or severity of the problem to be addressed by the proposed project; and 2) The extent to which specific gaps or weaknesses in services, infrastructure, or opportunities have been identified and will be addressed by the proposed project, including the nature and magnitude of those gaps or weaknesses.

Need for Project: NOTE: Applicants are encouraged to address the need for the project by:  Discussing reasons the participating LEAs have such need and why those needs are not met by current programs; and  Describing data confirming the needs.

Quality of the Project Design EDGAR: The Secretary considers the following factors: 1) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable; 2) The extent to which the design of the proposed project reflects up-to-date knowledge from research and effective practice;

Quality of the Project Design 3) The extent to which the design of the proposed project is appropriate to, and will successfully address, the needs of the target population or other identified needs; and 4) The extent to which the proposed project is part of a comprehensive effort to improve teaching and learning and support rigorous academic standards for students.

Quality of the Project Design NOTE: Applicants are encouraged to address the project design by discussing the overall project model, including key elements such as:  Research base;  Proposed applicants;  Recruitment and selection strategies;  Plans for using incentives for teachers or individuals from other fields who want to become principals and assistant principals;

Quality of the Project Design  Activities to prepare and place principals and assistant principals;  Program delivery strategy (ies);  Plans for implementing on-site or school- based work experiences;  Activities for participant placement and follow- up; and  Retention strategies.

Significance of the Project EDGAR: The Secretary considers the following factors: 1) The extent to which the proposed project involves the development or demonstration of promising new strategies that build on, or are alternatives to, existing strategies;

Significance of the Project 2) The extent to which the proposed project is likely to build local capacity to provide, improve, or expand services that address the needs of the target population; and 3) The importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely to be attained by the proposed project.

Significance of the Project NOTE: Applicants are encouraged to address the significance of the project by discussing:  How the proposed project will help the participating LEA(s) achieve results it could not otherwise achieve;  How the proposed project is part of a long- term response to the needs of the participating LEA(s) and how the project will be a part of the overall school improvement plan(s) of the participating LEA(s); and

Significance of the Project  How the proposed project will build capacity in the participating LEA(s) in order for the project to be continued after the grant period ends (see the Notfice inviting applications for more detailed information on this NOTE).

Quality of the Management Plan EDGAR: The Secretary considers the following factors: 1) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks;

Quality of the Management Plan 2) The extent to which the time commitments of the project director and principal investigator and other key project personnel are appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed project; and 3) The adequacy of procedures for ensuring the feedback and continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project.

Quality of the Management Plan NOTE: Applicants are encouraged to address the management plan by providing:  The name, title, and time commitment of each key person;  A year-to-year timeline of undertaking project activities; and  Strategies for determining whether or not the project is meeting its goals and objectives and for making appropriate corrections.

Quality of the Project Evaluation EDGAR: The Secretary considers the following factors: 1) The extent to which the methods of evaluation include the use of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project and will produce quantitative and qualitative data to the extent possible; and 2) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes.

Quality of the Project Evaluation NOTE: Applicants are encouraged to address the project evaluation by:  Proposing benchmarks for assessing both short- and long-term progress toward goals and objectives;  Developing outcome measures for assessing impact on teaching, learning, and other outcomes for project participants;

Quality of the Project Evaluation  Identifying the evaluator and describing the qualifications of that individual and/or organization;  Indicating what types of data will be collected, as well as when, how, and with what instruments;  Describing how data will be analyzed and when reports will be available (consider how methods of evaluation will affect annual performance reports, as well as the final project evaluation).

Quality of the Project Evaluation  Indicating how the data collected will be used to monitor the progress of the project as well as to provide accountability information and strategies for project replication.  Applicants also should devote an appropriate level of resources to project evaluation.

Questions For more detailed information on any of the topics covered in this presentation refer to the Notice Inviting Applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY)2005. Contact the School Leadership Program Staff at