Overview of the SPDG Competition Jennifer Doolittle, Ph.D. 1.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
FY 2012 SIG 1003G LEAD PARTNER REQUEST FOR SEALED PROPOSAL (RFSP) BIDDERS’ CONFERENCE February 7, 2011.
Advertisements

Alaska Native Education Program (ANEP) Technical Assistance Meeting September 2014 Sylvia E. Lyles Valerie Randall Almita Reed.
High-Quality Supplemental Educational Services And After-School Partnerships Demonstration Program (CFDA Number: ) CLOSING DATE: August 12, 2008.
TRC RFA WEBINAR Thursday, January 16, :00 a.m.
Enhancing Education Through Technology Round 9 Competitive.
Quality Improvement Capacity for Impact Project (QICIP) Pre-Review Conference Call Competitive Funding Opportunity Announcement: HRSA March 25,
2010 Magnet Schools Assistance Program Pre-Application Meeting March 26, 2010 U.S. Department of Education Office of Innovation and Improvement Office.
What is the Parent Involvement Plan (PIP)? Why do we have a Parent Involvement Plan (PIP)? (PIP) PARENT INVOLVEMENT PLAN 1.
Centers for International Business Education—Technical Assistance.
Emily Lynn Grant Administrator Office of Sponsored Projects and Research Administration.
Developing Quality Grant Proposals U.S. Department of Education Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives
Program Planning & Improvement Webinar: Part III -Selection Criteria - An informational Service- Presenters: Barbara Purvis & Ella Taylor.
School Leadership Program Pre-Application Slides United States Department of Education Office of Innovation and Improvement.
CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION BUREAU OF EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION Laboratory School and Model Early Childhood Learning Grant
California Stakeholder Group State Performance and Personnel Development Plan Stakeholders January 29-30, 2007 Sacramento, California Radisson Hotel Welcome.
Overview of the FY 2010 SPDG Competition Jennifer Coffey 1.
Grant Writing Workshop for Research on Adult Education Elizabeth R. Albro National Center for Education Research.
Keystones to Opportunity Pennsylvania’s Vision for Sustainable Growth in Reading Achievement Curriculum Directors’ Meeting February 23, 2012.
Professional Development for Arts Educators Program (PDAE) Pre-Application Webinar U.S. Department of Education Office of Innovation and Improvement Improvement.
OFFICE OF FIELD SERVICES SPRING PLANNING WORKSHOP 2012.
Grant Writing 101 Information and Tips for Preparing and Submitting an Application Debbie Kalnasy Bryan Williams Office of Safe and Drug-Free School s.
Arts in Education Model Development and Dissemination Grant Program (AEMDD) Pre-Application Webinar U.S. Department of Education Office of Innovation and.
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.
School Improvement Planning and Reporting for Cohort 2 and Cohort 3 Schools June 8, 2015June 8, 2015.
Predominantly Black Institutions Program CFDA: A FY 2015 PREAPPLICATION WEBINAR Washington, DC July 14, :00 AM. – 12:00 PM, EDT July 14, 2015.
Introduction to The Grant Center Fitchburg State University.
Consolidated Funding ApplicationConsolidated Funding Application ESEA Directors InstituteESEA Directors Institute October 6-9, 2014October 6-9, 2014.
State Support System for Districts New Hampshire Department of Education.
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.
Project Design Jennifer Doolittle, Ph.D. April 23, 2009.
Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives Carol M. White Physical Education Program CFDA # F.
QUALITY OF THE MANAGEMENT PLAN 15 Points (recommend 5 pages)
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.
Project Design Jennifer Coffey OSEP May 4,
Applying for the SPDG Jennifer Coffey, Ph.D. November 23, 2010.
Jaquanda Pugh Teacher assist II February 22, 2010.
FOCUSING ON GETTING THE PERFECT SCORE Robin Ward District Grant Writer Brevard Public Schools.
Full-Service Community Schools Pre-Application Meeting March 12, 2008 United States Department of Education Office of Innovation and Improvement Archived.
OFFICE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION NATIONAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM (NPD) NPD Grant Competition Webinar 2: GPRA & Selection Criteria January.
Mathematics and Science Partnerships Grant RFP Informational Session April 5, 2010.
Focus Schools Grant Monitoring and Support Consolidated Planning and Monitoring September 2015.
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.
Spring 2015 OMSP Request For Proposal. Important Dates Intent to Submit: March 21, 2015 Applications: 4:30 p.m., Friday, May 15, 2015 Announcement of.
Crafting a Quality Grant Proposal March, 2016 ACCELERATED COLLEGE CREDIT GRANT.
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.
Office of Innovation and Improvement June 9, 2016 Academies for American History and Civics Grant Competition Note: These slides are intended as guidance.
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.
U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs Building the Legacy: IDEA 2004 Highly Qualified Teachers (HQT)
Selection Criteria and Invitational Priorities School Leadership Program U.S. Department of Education 2005.
Project Design SPDG Competition FY C. QUALITY OF PROJECT DESIGN (0-20 points)  Describe the extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes.
SPDG Competition FY 2011 Management Plan. (f) Quality of the management plan. (20 points) (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan.
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE & DISSEMINATION: MODEL DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS TO IMPROVE ADOLESCENT LITERACY FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES IN GRADES 6 – 12 (84.326M)
School-wide Consolidation: LEA Panel
Introductions & Logistical Information
North Carolina Council on Developmental Disabilities
Technical Assistance Webinar: Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities: Technical.
Technical Assistance Webinar Personnel Development To Improve Services and Results for Children With Disabilities – Early Childhood Personnel.
End of Year Report and Renewal Process
Briefing: Interdisciplinary Preparation for Personnel Serving Children with Disabilities Who Have High-Intensity Needs CFDA K Office of.
Educational Technology, Media and Materials for Individuals with Disabilities Webinar: Research and Development Center on Developing Software.
Mini-Grant Web-meeting
Working with your AoA Project Officer
United Nations Voluntary Fund on Disability (UNVFD)
North Carolina Council on Developmental Disabilities
Examining ESSA: Title II, Special Education, & Next Steps
Presentation transcript:

Overview of the SPDG Competition Jennifer Doolittle, Ph.D. 1

The Basics  ---- will be available for new awards  Application is due ---- –If using E-applications due 4:30:00:00 Eastern time –If mailing, postmarked before 12:00 AM  100 pages for the Project Narrative –Double-spaced –12 point font 2

Budget  Note: We will set the amount of each award after considering--  (1) The amount of funds available for making the grants;  (2) The relative population of the State or outlying area;  (3) The types of activities proposed by the State or outlying area;  (4) The alignment of proposed activities with section 612(a)(14) of IDEA;  (5) The alignment of proposed activities with State plans and applications submitted under sections 1111 and 2112, respectively, of the ESEA; and  (6) The use, as appropriate, of scientifically-based research and instruction.  Estimated Average Size of Awards: $-----, excluding outlying areas.  Estimated Number of Awards: --.  Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice. 3

Keep in Mind  90% of your budgeted amount needs to be for activities delineated in (a) “Professional Development Activities” under “Use of Funds”  Must also have an activity or activities related to (b) “Other Activities” under Use of Funds  You must budget to attend the Project Directors’ Conference & $4,000 annually for support of the State Personnel Development Grants Program Web site 4

Contracts and Subgrants  Must award contracts or subgrants to LEAs, institutions of higher education, parent training and information centers, or community parent resource centers, as appropriate, to carry out the State plan; and  May award contracts and subgrants to other public and private entities, including the lead agency under Part C of IDEA, to carry out the State plan. 5

Big Ideas  Given our needs, how will this grant get us where we want to go?  How can we communicate our ideas as to how we're going to get there?  What will it look like when we're there? 6

The application narrative should include the following sections in this order:  (a) Need for project. (19 points)  (1) The Secretary considers the need for the proposed project.  (2) In determining the need for the proposed project the Secretary considers 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. 7

(b) Significance. (19 points)  (1) The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed project.  (2) In determining the significance of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the likelihood that the proposed project will result in system change or improvement. 8

(c) Quality of the project design. (19 points)  (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project.  (2) In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:  (i) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable.  (ii) 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.  (iii) The extent to which the proposed activities constitute a coherent, sustained program of training in the field.  (iv) The extent to which the design of the proposed project reflects up ‑ to ‑ date knowledge from research and effective practice.  (v) The extent to which the proposed project will establish linkages with other appropriate agencies and organizations providing services to the target population.  (vi) 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. 9

(d) Quality of project personnel. (8 points)  (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the personnel who will carry out the proposed project.  (2) In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary considers the extent to which the applicant encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability.  (3) In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:  (i) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of key project personnel.  (ii) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of project consultants or subcontractors. 10

(e) Adequacy of resources. (8 points)  (1) The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the proposed project.  (2) In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:  (i) The adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment, supplies, and other resources, from the applicant organization or the lead applicant organization.  (ii) The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in the proposed project to the implementation and success of the project.  (iii) The extent to which the budget is adequate to support the proposed project.  (iv) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives, design, and potential significance of the proposed project.  (v) The potential for continued support of the project after Federal funding ends, including, as appropriate, the demonstrated commitment of appropriate entities to this type of support. 11

(f) Quality of the management plan. (8 points)  (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project.  (2) In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:  (i) 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.  (ii) How the applicant will ensure that a diversity of perspectives are brought to bear in the operation of the proposed project, including those of parents, teachers, the business community, a variety of disciplinary and professional fields, recipients or beneficiaries of services, or others, as appropriate. 12

(g) Quality of the project evaluation. (19 points)  (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be conducted of the proposed project.  (2) In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary considers the following factors:  (i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project.  (ii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation provide for examining the effectiveness of project implementation strategies.  (iii) 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.  (iv) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes. 13

E-Application Hours & Hotline  The hours of operation of the e-Grants Web site are 6:00 a.m. Monday until 7:00 p.m. Wednesday; and 6:00 a.m. Thursday until 8:00 p.m. Sunday, Washington, DC time. Please note that, because of maintenance, the system is unavailable between 8:00 p.m. on Sundays and 6:00 a.m. on Mondays, and between 7:00 p.m. on Wednesdays and 6:00 a.m. on Thursdays, Washington, DC time. Any modifications to these hours are posted on the e- Grants Web site.  GAPS Hotline (Helpdesk) at Helpdesk hours of operation are 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday, Washington, D.C. time.Helpdesk 14

E-application   Password is ed immediately and applicants cannot work on the application until they have a username and password.  Applicants work online to complete forms and upload narratives. Applicants save data (the work in progress) directly to the GAPS database.  Applicants can see multiple instructions documents and form instructions are separate.  Applicants can only upload.doc,.rtf & PDF files, and the software does not allow other file types.  The e-Application submission process is almost instantaneous after the applicant completes the authorized representative information and clicks on the submit button  Demo  SPDG application package 15