Technical Assistance March 18, 2015 Webinar and Meeting 2014-2015 Title II, Part A(3) Competitive Grant Program for Improving Teacher Quality Technical Assistance March 18, 2015 Webinar and Meeting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal should clearly describe relationship/ alignment

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

Teacher Professional Development Needs Survey MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Title IIA(3) Improving Teacher Quality Competitive Grants Program 2014-2015   INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROPOSAL TEAMS TO ADMINISTER PRE-PROPOSAL TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT NEEDS SURVEY For the 2014-2015 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Title II, Part A(3) Improving Teacher Quality Rubric 2014-2015 29

Scoring Rubric 30

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

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

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

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

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

About MEGS+: Andy DeYoung at DeyoungA@michigan.gov or 517-373-4583 About the grant program: Donna L. Hamilton at HamiltonD3@michigan.gov or 517-241-4546 About MEGS+: Andy DeYoung at DeyoungA@michigan.gov or 517-373-4583