• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Request for Proposals
 

Request for Proposals

on

  • 3,402 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
3,402
Views on SlideShare
3,402
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
22
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft Word

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Request for Proposals Request for Proposals Document Transcript

    • Guidelines for the Submission of 2007-08 PROPOSALS FOR LaSIP PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR K-12 TEACHERS Request for Proposals (RFP) Important Dates November 15, 2006 Informational Compressed Video Conference November 20, 2006 Notices of Intent Due January 9, 2007 Deadline for Submission of Proposals P. O. Box 5029 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70821-5029 225-219-0690 October 2006
    • 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development Proposals Important Notices 1. Scope of the 2007-08 LaSIP RFP This request for proposals (RFP) provides guidelines for submission of 2007-08 LaSIP professional development (PD) projects in mathematics, literacy, LIGO science, and EPAS. More detailed information regarding submission of proposals in specific disciplines is contained in Appendices B-E. 2. Informational Compressed Video Conference (CVC) An informational CVC will be held on November 15, 2006 at 2:00 p.m. to discuss the criteria and guidelines of this RFP. Please contact Faimon Roberts at FRoberts@regents.state.la.us by November 8 to be included. 3. Funding Requirements In accordance with federal requirements of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), key staff of prospective projects must involve meaningful collaboration among the College of Arts and Sciences and the College of Education at public or private postsecondary institutions. In addition, at least one K-12 partner must be from a high need LEA (see Appendix G). 4. Glossary of Terms To ensure that applicants from all disciplines fully understand terminology used in the RFP, a glossary of terms is provided in Appendix A. Terms that have been included in the glossary are underlined throughout the document. 5. Electronic Submission of Proposals/Online Availability of RFP Electronic submission of all proposals is required. This RFP as well as instructions for submitting proposals may be accessed on the LaSIP website, www.lasip.org. 6. Inquiries About this RFP Inquiries about this RFP must be submitted in writing and will be accepted until 4:30 p.m., December 12, 2006. Inquiries should be emailed to Ms. Cheryl Taylor, ctaylor@regents.state.la.us. 7. Suggestions for Improvements in this RFP LaSIP actively solicits constructive suggestions about ways in which this RFP can be improved. Suggestions must be received in writing no later than May 31, 2007 to be considered prior to the issuance of the 2008-09 RFP. Suggestions should be emailed to Ms. Cheryl Taylor, ctaylor@regents.state.la.us.
    • Table of Contents Page I. Introduction 3 II. Brief Research Overview 3 III. General Considerations 4 IV. Overview of Proposal Narrative 5 V. Eligibility Requirements 10 VI. Timeline 10 VII. Budgets, Funding, and Cost-Sharing 10 VIII. General Budgetary Guidelines 11 IX. Specific Proposal Requirements and Format 12 X. Submission Requirements 16 XI. Review Process 17 XII. Inquiries About This RFP 17 XIII. Contractual Agreement 17 XIV. Ownership of Copyrights and Patents 17 XV. Public Nature of Proposals Submitted 17 XVI. References 18 APPENDICES A. Glossary 24 B. PD Guidelines: Mathematics 30 C. PD Guidelines: Literacy for Adolescent Students 33 D. PD Guidelines: Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory 35 (LIGO) E. PD Guidelines: Educational Planning and Assessment Instrument (EPAS) 39 F. Eligible K-12 Schools 1. LINCS 43 2. LA GEAR UP 49 3. High Need LEAs 50 G. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Legislation 51 H. Reviewer Rating Form 53 I. Budget Forms and Instructions 56 J. Forms for Submission 1. Notice of Intent 58 2. Cover Page 59 3. Project Abstract 60 4. Curriculum Vitae 61 5. Memo of Agreement Among Partners 62 6. Cooperative Planning Efforts 64 7. Current and Pending Support 65 K. Waiver of Tuition and Fees 67 L. Checklist for Submission of Proposals 68
    • I. INTRODUCTION Studies consistently show that teacher quality is among the top factors that determine student success (Sanders & Rivers, 1996; Whitehurst, 2002), transcending diversity, economic status, and past academic performance. From its inception in 1991 and throughout its history, the Louisiana Systemic Initiatives Program (LaSIP) has recognized the pivotal role that well-prepared teachers play in improving student achievement. LaSIP’s signature initiative, professional development (PD) for teachers, is supported through a significant and lasting partnership between the Board of Regents (BoR) and the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE), which provide governance and financial support. LaSIP PD projects are designed to support teachers in low performing schools (see Appendix F), in particular those schools participating in Learning Intensive Networking Communities for Success (LINCS) and Louisiana Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (LA GEAR UP). Proposals are developed based on a request for proposals (RFP) which invites innovative applications founded on research and effective practices. The 2007-08 RFP focuses on raising the academic achievement of students while allowing flexibility for the needs of the various school populations served and the strengths of the universities meeting those needs. To ensure high-quality opportunities for teachers year after year, PD proposals undergo a rigorous competitive review based on recommendations of out-of-state consultants with appropriate expertise. Projects are funded based on recommendations of reviewers and approval by the LaSIP Council. For AY 2007-08, LaSIP will fund PD projects that prepare teachers with in-depth content knowledge and effective classroom skills needed to increase the academic achievement of the students they serve. This RFP, including all forms, may be accessed on the LaSIP website at www.lasip.org. II. BRIEF RESEARCH OVERVIEW There is little doubt that effective teachers have a direct and powerful impact on student academic achievement (Ferguson, 1997; Rowan, Correnti, & Miller, 2002; Whitehurst, 2002), regardless of students’ family background or economic status. Hence, an important research task for the past decade has been to identify the characteristics of effective teachers and to determine which PD experiences most improve teaching practice. Professional consensus suggests that effective teachers possess particular knowledge and skills, such as adequate understanding of content knowledge. Moreover, a large body of literature is emerging which indicates that it is the interaction of a complex set of knowledge and skills that maximizes effective teaching, now thought to be characterized by: (1) in-depth understanding of subject-matter knowledge; (2) proper sequencing and effective instructional strategies; (3) valid methods for assessing entry skills and progress; and (4) reliable methods for modifying instruction (Fredrick, Deitz, Bryceland, & Hummel, 2000; Heward, Heron, Neef, & Peterson, 2004; Marzano, 2003, McKee & Witt, 1990). ________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 3
    • Whether emphasizing enhanced content knowledge, instructional strategies, assessment, or methods for modifying instruction, PD opportunities should be aimed at improving student achievement and informed by research indicating that PD should be focused upon teacher needs. Three key features important to high quality PD have been identified, including: (1) sufficient intensity and duration; (2) relevant and research-based content; and (3) opportunities for teachers to engage in active learning (Birman, Desimone, Porter, & Garet, 2000; Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001). Successful PD should be linked to a given teacher’s understanding of the research process, classroom needs, and previous knowledge about learning, and it should be specific rather than general, as follows:  Teacher understanding of the rationale behind and knowledge of the appropriate use of research-based instructional strategies is necessary for the sustained use of these strategies by teachers (Gersten, Chard, & Baker, 2000).  Content chosen for PD activities should be based on specific teacher needs (Gersten, Chard, & Baker, 2000), and the identification of these needs should involve the use of objective student performance data, particularly student growth over time (Torgesen, Meadows, & Howard, 2006).  Content-based PD should be combined with activities that support teachers in understanding how students learn and applying this knowledge of student learning in the classroom for maximum effectiveness (Marzano, 2003).  Programs which focus on specific teacher practices result in greater classroom changes than do those which involve more general information (Desimone, Porter, Garet, Yoon, & Birman, 2002; Glang, Gersten, & Morvant, 1994, as cited in Greenwood, 1998). Unfortunately these characteristics are not common in PD as it is currently offered. There is often a ‘disconnect’ between the specific needs of teachers and schools and the PD activities (Garet et al., 2001). Dissemination of written materials and conversations about best practices are common with few, or no, opportunities for practicing new skills or receiving meaningful follow-up support (Joyce, Showers, & Rolheiser-Bennet, 1987; Marzano, 2003). Effective teachers are crucial to Louisiana’s efforts to improve education. The 2007-08 LaSIP PD program encourages submission of innovative proposals that incorporate and contribute to the existing research base on the design and implementation of effective PD and its impact on teacher learning and teacher change. III. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT Strengthening content knowledge and classroom instructional skills among classroom teachers is integral to LaSIP’s pursuit of long-term, sustainable school-wide improvements. Accomplishing this mission requires innovative thinking based on up-to- date knowledge from research and effective practice. As applicants develop proposals in any of the designated 2007-08 LaSIP PD content areas, the following questions should ______________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 4
    • be considered throughout the process and reexamined periodically to assure alignment with the tenets of the LaSIP PD program: A. Are proposed content and strategies based on documented teacher/student needs, appropriate for today’s classrooms, and sufficiently limited in scope to realize meaningful improvement within the proposed time frame? B. Does the proposal demonstrate a recognition that teacher practice and teacher understanding are inextricably linked? C. Are the proposed plans for teacher support of adequate intensity, including occasions for teachers to observe others and to receive feedback from others with expertise? D. Does the project provide an array of opportunities for teachers to reflect on targeted content and instructional strategies, how they will be implemented in their classrooms, and how they fit into the State curricula and standards? E. Does the proposed project design acknowledge and address the role of adequate literacy skills in learning new subject matter knowledge? F. Is there sufficient administrative support to promote implementation and sustained practice of new knowledge and skills? G. Is there an explicit attempt to link change with student performance data? H. Does the proposal offer a clear plan for examining outcomes and modifying project activities accordingly? IV. OVERVIEW OF NARRATIVE REQUIREMENTS The specific criteria and format for submitting a LaSIP PD proposal is located in this document in Section IX. The information provided below offers further clarification of the required elements for the proposal narrative. A. The Rationale and Need for the proposed project should provide an overview of its mission and content focus based upon the profile and documented needs of teachers and students to be served. Applicants are not expected to have enrolled specific participants prior to submission of the proposal. Data for similar populations to those being targeted may be used. Documentation of needs may be varied, including, but not limited to standardized test scores, State/district data, and relevant reports. There should be a clear link between the mission of the PD project and the needs of the target population. B. The Project Design emanates from the Rationale and Need (above) and presents a well-conceived plan that reflects up-to-date knowledge from research and effective practice. The project design should be developed ______________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 5
    • around the needs of targeted participants and expected outcomes. Participant selection may include teachers, administrators, and/or students working in a variety of arrangements including, but not limited to:  School teams of teachers from a single discipline;  School teams of teachers from multiple disciplines;  Teacher(s) being prepared as coaches;  Teachers and students working in collaboration; or  Teams of teachers paired with paraprofessionals in single or multiple disciplines. Applicants may elect to impact only those participants with whom they will have direct contact or they may propose a plan for dissemination to other teachers in the school. Although administrators may not be a primary focus of the project, LaSIP encourages some level of connection between projects and school administrators to ensure greater support for teachers when they return to their classrooms. Essential components of the Project Design are the following: 1. Measurable Objectives should be clearly stated and identify change that is measurable and achievable within a specific time frame. Objectives may involve changes in student achievement, student behavior, teacher knowledge, and/or teacher use of effective instructional strategies. Objectives should not be statements of goals or descriptions of project activities and should not include specific projected numerical improvements without baseline documentation. Measurable objectives may be used as one measure of the project’s success. 2. Subject-Matter Content/Classroom Instructional Strategies involve the specific content and instructional materials that will be used in the project, as well as classroom instructional strategies that will be taught to participating teachers by project staff. Subject-matter content of the project should be aligned with relevant Louisiana education standards, including the Louisiana Comprehensive Curriculum, Louisiana Literacy Plan, and High School Redesign (see http://www.doe.state.la.us). Applicants are encouraged to employ such evidence-based strategies and practices as (1) progress monitoring, (2) differentiated instruction, (3) peer tutoring, and (4) increasing students’ opportunities to respond. Overall, teachers who examine student data continuously (e.g., progress monitoring), increase students’ opportunities to demonstrate their understanding and practice new skills, and provide students with ______________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 6
    • meaningful feedback will evidence growth in student academic achievement. 3. The Delivery Method may include face-to-face contact, electronic communication, or a combination of the two. In addition, there should be a convincing argument that the amount of time being committed during the project will be sufficient to accomplish the project’s mission and objectives. Other important issues that should be addressed in this section are described below: a. Project Instructional Strategies are those evidence-based strategies that will be employed by project staff to bring about maximum improvement in participants’ content knowledge and instructional strategies. Projects should document and continuously monitor the degree to which participating teachers are successfully meeting the objectives of the project. This data provides the basis for needed program modifications. b. The process for ensuring meaningful feedback and support to participants during the project is key to the successful implementation of the program. Research has demonstrated that the use of modeling and provision of meaningful feedback is necessary in the acquisition and maintenance of new knowledge and skills. The proposal should provide specific details with regard to plans for ensuring adequate support. Creative, cost-effective participant support may be provided through a variety of ways depending on the design of the individual project. Design choices may include, but are not limited to, employment of a single full-time site coordinator or multiple part-time site coordinators, master teachers from participating schools, follow-up visits by project staff, and/or employment of knowledgeable senior-level graduate students. Support to participating teachers should involve more than observation, general discussion, and journaling alone. c. The most promising projects are those which provide opportunities for building teacher capacity and professional autonomy. Educational reforms are more likely to be sustained if teachers assume greater responsibility for their own professional growth and become more informed consumers of educational programs and materials. Opportunities which support participants’ continued professional growth include such approaches as lesson study, which is used to systematically examine teaching practices, and professional learning communities which provide a framework for teacher-led reforms at the school level. ______________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 7
    • 4. Building Collaborative Partnerships is the final component of the project design. Successful projects should develop and implement strong partnerships with participating schools and districts. If impact on teachers other than those served by the project is anticipated, the plan for dissemination throughout the school should be provided. Oftentimes, PD project staff are unaware of how, or even if, the project content and instructional strategies taught to participants are translating into actual classroom practice. Strong projects will plan for interacting with targeted schools to ensure faithful and effective implementation of the program at each site. C. Highly Qualified Staff are essential to any successful project. The expertise of the staff as a whole should include appropriate content knowledge and classroom experience at the appropriate grade levels. Proposals should include justification that the time commitments allotted for each staff member are sufficient to achieve the objectives of the project. D. Rigorous and comprehensive program evaluation serves as the basis for LaSIP’s ongoing improvement in the design and delivery of PD for teachers. LaSIP collects a broad spectrum of data in such areas as enhanced teacher content knowledge, improved instructional strategies, and increases in student achievement. The dissemination of this information to individual projects provides valuable insights for project staff; however, more program- specific data is also required to fully understand needed improvements in individual projects. For this reason, LaSIP program evaluation consists of two interconnected components: (1) LaSIP-Designed Component and (2) Project-Designed Component. The evaluation components, explained more fully below, are viewed as essential, with each generating different types of information, serving different purposes, and answering different questions. 1. LaSIP-Designed Component The overall evaluation of the LaSIP PD program is designed and monitored by the LaSIP staff. The measures included in this component provide comprehensive information about the impact of all LaSIP PD projects upon teachers and students in specific content areas. Data will be collected at various times during the project. LaSIP will collaborate with, and request assistance from, individual projects to successfully complete the data collection process. Project evaluation will include pre- and post-measures of the following indices: a. Teacher content knowledge— An assessment of teacher content knowledge will be standardized across similar content foci to allow the ______________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 8
    • opportunity for comparisons. Projects are expected to utilize the results of pretesting when individualizing project instruction. b. Direct classroom observation of instructional practices— These observations will be conducted utilizing a LaSIP observation protocol. Different versions may be used for literacy, mathematics/science, and EPAS. Staff from the PD projects may be needed to assist the LaSIP staff in performing these observations. Projects are encouraged to utilize this measure with their teachers as a training tool, providing individualized and immediate feedback to teachers based on the observation protocol. c. Teacher and student surveys— Teachers will be surveyed concerning their participation in the PD project. Samples of students may also complete pre- and post-measures of their teacher’s instructional practices. Project staff may be requested to assist in this endeavor. Additionally, changes in student learning, the most important index measured, will be utilized to evaluate the LaSIP PD projects. Measures used can include the LEAP 21, GEE 21, iLEAP, and EPAS. 2. Project-Designed Component Project-Designed evaluation will allow for an in-depth examination of the impact of an individual project on specific participants in specific areas and the ability to make ongoing course corrections based upon data. The focus of Project-Designed evaluation is on clearly delineated, measurable objectives of the individual projects, connected to specific project activities and methods of evaluation. Project-Designed evaluation should consider the following: a. Developing methods of evaluation that are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the objectives of the project; b. Continuously assessing student and teacher status in obtaining project objectives; c. Using ongoing data collection in making course corrections; d. Including rigorous evaluation of the use of effective instruction by teachers, including teacher content knowledge and use of effective instructional strategies; e. Involving rigorous evaluation of student performance, including regular ongoing assessment of students (progress monitoring), as ______________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 9
    • well as state assessment results. Assessment of students is optional, but should be considered by projects; f. Conducting evaluation of the faithful implementation of the PD program in participating classrooms and schools; g. Disseminating project curriculum and findings in Louisiana. ______________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 10
    • V. ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS Proposals may emanate from any accredited public or private 4-year degree-granting institution of higher education. A community college with a division that prepares teachers and principals [Section 2131(1), USDE EDGAR guidance] may be an additional, non-principal member of any partnership. Only individuals affiliated with an eligible Louisiana 4-year institution of higher education may serve as principal or co- principal investigators. A primary funding source for LaSIP PD projects is No Child Left Behind (NCLB) funds. In accordance with NCLB requirements, key staff of prospective projects must involve meaningful collaboration among the College of Arts and Sciences and the College of Education at public or private postsecondary institutions. In addition, at least one K-12 school partner must be classified “high need” according to the regulations of the U.S. Department of Education (see Appendix G). VI. TIMELINE November 15, 2006 Informational CVC Scheduled November 20, 2006 Notices of Intent Due December 12 , 2006 Deadline for Inquiries about RFP January 9, 2007 Deadline for Submission of Proposals January/February 2007 Review of Proposals/Interviews with Staff February/March, 2007 LaSIP Council/ Notification of Funding VII. BUDGETS, FUNDING and COST-SHARING LaSIP has four sources of funds from which to finance 2007-08 projects: Federal No Child Left Behind (USDE, Title II, Part A, SAHE), Federal Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (USDE, GEAR UP), the Louisiana Board of Regents LEQSF, and the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education 8(g). Anticipated funding will total approximately $3 million. It is expected that available funds will finance approximately six (6) mathematics projects, three (3) LIGO science projects, three (3) literacy projects, one (1) EPAS project, one (1) LA Health project, and one (1) guidance and counseling project. LaSIP strongly encourages the sharing of costs for proposed projects through institutional support and the leveraging of funds from districts, schools, and other entities. The nature and amount of the cost-sharing commitment are considered direct evidence of the institutions' and schools’ desire to implement the project and their commitment to the proposed project's ultimate success. As a result, the awarding of a grant is influenced, in some measure, by the extent of these commitments. Institutional cost-sharing commitments are not taken lightly, either by the out-of-state experts who evaluate proposals, or by the LaSIP Council. Therefore, institutions and participating schools are strongly encouraged to make only those commitments that they can realistically meet. ______________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 11
    • Final funding decisions will be made by the LaSIP Council based on the recommendations of the reviews conducted by out-of-state consultants. All budgets will be reviewed to ensure that proposed expenditures are reasonable and allowable. If necessary, budgets may be renegotiated to bring them into alignment with USDE, BESE, BoR and LaSIP guidelines. Because the funds available for PD are limited, LaSIP will fund the highest rated proposals recommended for support until all monies are allocated. VIII. GENERAL BUDGETARY GUIDELINES The budget proposal for the project should adhere to the following general budgetary guidelines. More specific guidelines are included in Appendix I. • The budget should be reasonable and clearly aligned with the mission, goals, and objectives of the proposed project. • Proposals may request funding for up to 13.5 months. Contracts will begin on May 1, 2007 and continue until June 15, 2008. • All funds available for LaSIP projects are reimbursement funds. Institutions must pay for services and activities before requesting reimbursement, using mandated procedures and forms provided by LaSIP. • Budget modifications must be approved prior to expenditure of funds. • Care should be taken to ensure proposals are cost-effective. Core costs, which include all expenses associated with the project except travel and indirect costs, should be limited to $4,000 per participant. • Projects may be required to reduce budget expenditures if the number of participants is significantly less than projected. • Cost sharing of any kind (e.g., private sector, federal, state, or local) pledged in the proposal must be honored in the event that the proposal is funded. Even if the proposal is funded at a reduced level, the full commitment may have to be honored. Further, the required signature of the fiscal agent on the proposal cover page is a certification to LaSIP that the fiscal agent is aware of the claimed commitment(s) and has determined said commitment(s) to be consistent with all applicable guidelines, regulations, and/or policies. Examples of cost sharing from universities include tuition and fees or salaries and fringe. Examples of cost sharing from schools and districts include additional stipends, substitute pay, mileage, classroom materials, equipment, and conference expenses. • Participants may be charged fees by the university if required by legislation for non-matriculating students (Appendix K). ______________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 12
    • • Deviations from budgetary guidelines, if any, should be carefully explained and justified in the proposal and the budget narrative. • Appendix I contains the 2007-08 budget and cost-sharing forms and instructions and provides additional detail. IX. SPECIFIC PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS AND FORMAT A. Cover Page (See Appendix J, Form 2) B. Project Abstract (see Appendix J, Form 3): The abstract should include a description of the project which states the project option (including specific subject matter content, if appropriate), overarching goal(s), institution(s) involved, participants for which the project is designed, frequency of contact during summer and/or AY, number of teacher participants, targeted districts, targeted grade levels, primary activities, and proposed outcomes. C. Table of Contents D. Narrative Due to the highly competitive nature of the 2007-08 LaSIP PD projects, it is recommended that applicants use Sections III and IV to ensure alignment of the proposal with the mission and goals of the RFP. To gain a full understanding of the criteria on which proposals will be evaluated, see Appendix H. The narrative section of the proposal is limited to a maximum of 20 double- spaced pages, using 11-point font. All sections of the proposal should be typed on plain, 8 ½” x 11” white paper, with pages numbered and 1” margins at the top, bottom, and on each side. The narrative should include the headings shown below, in the order given. 1. Rationale and Need for the Project (Total of 10 points) Briefly state the project’s overarching mission, content focus, institution(s) involved, number of teacher participants, targeted school districts, and grade levels. Proposals should include the following types of information which specifically support the mission and focus of the proposed project. a. Detailed profile of students and teachers to be served, including demographic information. b. Specific content needs of teachers and students that will be addressed in this project including appropriate documentation. c. Other pertinent needs that will be addressed. ______________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 13
    • d. Discussion of whether this project is best viewed as a single year or multiple year project. 2. Project Design (Total of 50 points) The project design focuses on improving student achievement and reflects up-to-date knowledge from research and effective practice. This section should begin with a broad description of the participants to be selected (see Section IV.B). Additional information, including details of the participant selection, should follow in the order shown below: a. Measurable Objectives (Subtotal 5 points) Objectives should be clearly stated and identify change that is measurable and achievable within a specific time frame. Objectives may involve changes in student achievement, student behavior, teacher knowledge, and/or teacher use of effective instructional strategies. Objectives should not be statements of goals or descriptions of project activities and should not include specific numerical improvements without baseline documentation. b. Specific Subject-Matter Content/Classroom Instructional Strategies (Subtotal 15 pts.) Address subject-matter content, including classroom instructional materials and classroom instructional strategies that will be employed. Describe the connection between the project’s content focus and relevant Louisiana educational standards and documents (e.g. Louisiana Comprehensive Curriculum, Louisiana Literacy Plan, High School Redesign, etc.). All Louisiana Department of Education documents may be accessed at http://www.doe.state.la.us. c. Delivery Method (Subtotal 20 pts.) This section includes a detailed description of and evidence for the delivery method being proposed and how the intended approach is likely to enhance teachers’ content knowledge and classroom strategies leading to improved student achievement. Details should include the following:  Describe the participant selection, including who will be recruited, their qualifications, and their proposed role in achieving the objectives of the project.  Amount of time (number of hours) and frequency of contact throughout the project. ______________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 14
    •  Project instructional strategies to be used, including evidence of effectiveness (see Section IV.B.3).  Project instructional materials, including rationale for selection.  Plans for providing adequate feedback and support to participants during the project to ensure implementation of new knowledge and behaviors.  Dissemination to other teachers at the school, if applicable. d. Collaborative Partnerships and Participant Recruitment (Subtotal 10 pts.) This section should clearly address plans for interacting with targeted schools to ensure effective implementation of the program at each site. Include a description of how project staff will recruit participants and interact with teachers and administrators to ensure comprehensive, faithful implementation of the program. Provide specific details regarding how partnerships with the districts/schools will be developed and implemented. Proposals must document a working/planning relationship with a high- need LEA and at least one other LINCS, LGU or other low-performing school (see Appendix J, Form 6). Participation by at least one principal, teacher, and school or district leader to be served is required in the planning process to ensure the nature and content of the activities will meet the needs of the target audience. 3. Quality of Key Personnel (Total of 10 points) The quality of the personnel who will carry out the project has a direct impact on its potential for success. While it is not expected that each member of the team will possess all the qualities that will be required to ensure a successful project, collectively the team must demonstrate the competencies and skills necessary to provide high quality instruction in content and instructional strategies. In addition, it is essential that members of the team have successfully taught students similar to those targeted. In addition to the information requested below, the proposal should also contain the following: (1) brief vitae of not more than two pages each, highlighting relevant training and experience for all project personnel included in the budget (Appendix J, Form 4), and (2) current and pending support information (Appendix J, Form 7). If a position is not yet filled, a description of the qualifications of the person to be hired must be included. Upon hiring, a biographical sketch must be submitted to the LaSIP office for approval. ______________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 15
    • a. Provide a description of project staff (including consultants, if used) which includes their role in the project, time commitment, project responsibilities, and relevant training and/or experience. b. Document assurance that the composition of the project team conforms to the guidelines of NCLB (see Appendix J, Form 5). 4. Project Evaluation (20 points) Describe the Project-Designed Component of the Evaluation Plan (Section IV.D.2). This section, in combination with the LaSIP-Designed Component, will further examine the project’s success in meeting measurable objectives, and should include the following: a. Overview: Complete the chart below to identify the linkage among the project’s measurable objectives, project activities, measures used, timing of evaluation, and outcomes. (Please note that it not expected that the column titled “Outcome” will be completed at this time.) Measurable Project Measures to Timing of Outcome Objectives Activities be Used Measurement b. Methods of Evaluation: Include a description of the evaluation measures that will be used for examining the effectiveness of the project. Also describe the timing of the evaluation measures and the staff responsible.  Teacher Measures: Discuss the manner in which PD will be evaluated, including teacher knowledge and teacher use of effective instructional strategies.  Implementation Measures: Discuss the manner in which the faithful and comprehensive implementation of the PD program in classrooms and schools will be measured.  Student Measures: (optional) If student performance is to be assessed, discuss the manner in which this will occur, including the use of valid and reliable assessments which will be used to determine student progress. c. Modifications of Project Design: Provide information regarding the use of ongoing data collection efforts to inform project modifications. d. Project Dissemination: Describe the plan for dissemination of project findings. ______________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 16
    • E. Budget, Budget Narrative, and Cost Share (10 points) The proposed project budget should clearly support and be aligned with the mission, goals, and objectives of this RFP. It should be both reasonable and cost effective, based upon the number of days of PD, the number of participants, and the level of staff involvement in the project. The project budget will consist of three distinct sections, the Budget Request, the Budget Narrative, and the Cost-Sharing Statement, which correspond with the budget forms and instructions provided Appendix I, and must comply with the Budget Guidelines contained within this document. F. References (No points assigned) Please provide a list of references that have been cited or used in the development of this proposal. G. Curriculum Vitae A brief biographical sketch of not more than two pages should be submitted for all key personnel (i.e., university staff and consultants) using Form 4 in Appendix J. The biographical sketch should highlight qualifications of key personnel relevant to the content and grade levels being targeted. If the position is not yet filled, a description of the qualifications of the person to be hired must be included. Upon hiring, a biographical sketch must be submitted to for approval. H. Current and Pending Support Please complete Form 7 in Appendix J which provides information regarding prior or current PD support for the project director and the co-project director(s) since 2003. X. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS A. Notice of Intent A non-binding Notice of Intent (NOI) is requested of all applicants using Form 1 in Appendix J. NOIs should be submitted electronically to Ms. Cheryl Taylor at CTaylor@regents.state.la.us by 4:30 p.m. on November 20, 2006. B. Full Proposal To be eligible for consideration, applicants must submit proposals electronically to the LaSIP secure site, www.lasip.org no later than 4:30 p.m., January 9, 2007. A return email will be sent within two days to acknowledge receipt of proposals. ______________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 17
    • In addition, one copy of the proposal with original signatures and two additional copies, postmarked no later than January 9, 2007, should be submitted through U.S. mail to: Dr. Kerry Davidson LaSIP Professional Development P.O. Box 5029 Baton Rouge, LA 70821-5029 XI. REVIEW PROCESS Proposals will be reviewed using a two-stage procedure which includes (1) evaluation of written proposals and (2) interview of prospective staff by out-of-state review teams. This external review panel will review and assess proposals and conduct interviews using the Reviewer Rating Form (Appendix H). Evaluators’ recommendations shall be submitted in a final report to the LaSIP Council for consideration. Notification of awards will be made immediately thereafter. XII. INQUIRIES ABOUT THIS RFP Written inquiries about this RFP will be accepted until 4:30 p.m., December 12, 2006. All inquiries may be emailed to Ms. Cheryl Taylor at CTaylor@regents.state.la.us. Questions and answers will be posted on the LaSIP website as they are received and will remain on the website until February 2007. Operating in this manner ensures that all interested parties receive the same information. XIII. CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT Institutions that are awarded funding under this RFP will enter into a contract with the Louisiana Board of Regents. XIV. OWNERSHIP OF COPYRIGHTS AND PATENTS Ownership of copyrights and patents, or other proprietary interests that may result from grant activities shall be governed by applicable federal regulations, state law, and local institutional policies. XV. PUBLIC NATURE OF PROPOSALS SUBMITTED Once a proposal is received in the LaSIP office, it becomes public record. The LaSIP staff, of its own accord, will not disseminate proposals to individuals other than to external reviewers; however, applicants should be aware that, if a request for a proposal is made by the public (e.g., a representative of the news media), a copy of the proposal, by law, must be provided. ______________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 18
    • XVI. REFERENCES Baker, S., Gersten, R., & Lee, D.S. (2002). A synthesis of empirical research on teaching mathematics to low-achieving students. The Elementary School Journal 103(1), 52-73. Birman, B., Desimone, L., Porter, A. C., & Garet, M. (2000). Designing professional development that works. Educational Leadership, 57(8), 28-33. Christle, C.A., & Schuster, J.W. (2003). The effects of using response cards on student participation, academic achievement, and on-task behavior during whole-class, math instruction. Journal of Behavioral Education, 12(3), 147-165. Delquadri, J., Greenwood, C.R., Stretton, K., & Hall, R.B. (1983). The Peer tutoring spelling game: A classroom procedure for increasing opportunity to respond and spelling performance. Education and Treatment of Children, 6, 225-239. Deno, S. L. (2003). Developments in curriculum-based measurement. The Journal of Special Education, 37(3), 184-192. Desimone, L., Birman, Porter, A., Garet, M., & Yoon, K.S. (2003). Improving teachers' in- service professional development in mathematics and science: The role of postsecondary institutions. Educational Policy, 17(5), 613-649. Desimone, L., Porter, A. C., Garet, M., & Yoon, K. S. (2002). Effects of professional development on teachers’ instruction: Results from a three-year longitudinal study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 81-112. DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Karhanek, G. (2004). Whatever it takes: How professional learning communities respond when kids don’t learn. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree (formerly National Educational Service). Fantuzzo, J.W., Davis, G.Y., & Ginsburg, M.D. (1995). Effects of parent involvement in isolation or in combination with peer tutoring on student self-concept and mathematics achievements. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(2), 272-281. Fantuzzo, J.W., King, J.A., & Heller, L.R. (1992). Effects of reciprocal peer tutoring on mathematics and school adjustment: A component analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 331-339. Ferguson, R.F. (1998). Can schools narrow the black-white test score gap? In C. Jenks and M. Phillips (Eds.), The black-white score gap (pp. 318-374). Washington, DC: Brookings Institute. Florida Center for Reading Research (2006). Differentiated reading instruction: Small group alternative lesson structures for all students. Retrieved October 12, 2006 from http://www.fcrr.org/assessment/pdf/smallGroupAlternativeLessonStructures.pdf ______________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 19
    • Fredrick, L.D., Deitz, S.M., Bryceland, J.A., & Hummel, J.H. (2000). Behavior analysis, education, and effective schooling. Reno, NV: Context Press. Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (2006). What is scientifically-based research on progress monitoring? Retrieved October 1, 2006 from http://www.studentprogress.org/library/articles.asp Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., & Burish, P. (2000). Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies: An evidence-based practice to promote reading achievement. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 15, 85-91. Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C.L., Phillips, N.B., & Bentz, J. (l994). Classwide curriculum-based measurement: Helping general educators meet the challenge of student diversity. Exceptional Children, 60, 518-537. Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C.L., Phillips, N.B., Karns, K., & Dutka, S. (l997). Enhancing students’ helping behavior during peer-mediated instruction with conceptual mathematical explanations. Elementary School Journal, 97, 223-249. Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C.L., & Stecker, P.M. (1991). Effects of curriculum-based measurement and consultation on teacher planning and student achievement in mathematics operations. American Educational Research Journal, 28(3), 617-641. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., Mathes, P.G., & Simmons, D.C. (l997). Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies: Making classrooms more responsive to diversity. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 174-206. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., Thompson, A., Yen, L., Al Otaiba, S., Nyman, K., Svenson, E., Yang, N., Prentice, K., Kazdan, S., & Saentz, L. (2001). Peer-assisted learning strategies in reading: Extensions for kindergarten, first grade, and high school. Remedial and SpecialEducation, 22, 15-21. Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K.S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945. Gersten, R., Chard, D., Baker, S. (2000). Factors enhancing sustained use of research- based instructional practices. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 445-457. Ginsburg-Block., M., & Fantuzzo, J.W. (1997). Reciprocal peer tutoring: An analysis of “teacher” and “student” interactions as a function of training and experience. School Psychology Quarterly 12(2), 134-149. Graney, S.B., & Shinn, M.R. (2005). Effects of reading curriculum-based measurement (R-CBM) teacher feedback in general education classrooms. School Psychology Review, 34(2), 184-201. ______________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 20
    • Greenwood, C.R. (1991). Longitudinal analysis of time, engagement, and achievement in at-risk versus non-risk students. Exceptional Children, 57(6), 521-535. Greenwood, C. R. (1998). Teachers’ perceptions of students with learning disabilities in general education settings. Learning Disability Quarterly, 21(1), 75-84. Greenwood, C.R., Dinwiddie, G., Terry, B., Wade, L., Stanley, S.O., Thibadeau, S., & Delquadri, J.C. (1984). Teacher-versus peer-mediated instruction: An ecobehavioral analysis of achievement outcomes. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 17, 521-538. Harper, G.F., Mallette, B., Macheady, L., & Brennan, G. (1993). Classwide peer tutoring teams and direct instruction as a combined instructional program to teach generalizable strategies for Mathematics Word Problems. Education and Treatment of Children, 16(2), 115-134. Heward, W.L. (2000). Exceptional children: An introduction to special education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Heward, W. L., Gardner III, R., Cavanaugh, R. A., Courson, F. H., Grossi, T. A., & Barbetta, P. M. (1996). Everyone participates in this class: Using response cards to increase active student response. Teaching Exceptional Children, 28(2), 4-10. Houtveen, T., & Van de Grift, W. (2001). Inclusion and adaptive instruction in elementary education. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 6, 389-409. Hudson, R. (2006). Differentiating instruction for struggling readers. Retrieved on October 18, 2006 from www.fcrr.org/staffpresentations/RHudson/differentiating_instruction_2005_fcrr.pdf Irvine J.J. (1986). Teacher-student interactions: Effects of student race, sex, and grade level. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 14-21. Joyce, B., Showers, B., & Rolheiser-Bennet, C. (1987). Staff development and student learning: A synthesis of research on models of teaching. Educational Leadership, 11-23. Kameenui, E.K., & Carnine, D.W. (1998). Effective teaching strategies that ccommodate diverse learners. Des Moines, IA: Prentice-Hall Inc. Marzano, R.J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. McKee, W.T., & Witt, J.C. (1990). Effective teaching: A review of instructional and environmental variables. In T.B. Gutkin & C.R. Reynolds (Eds.), The handbook of school psychology (pp. 821-846). New York: John Wiley & Sons. ______________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 21
    • Noell, G.H., Greshham, F.M., & Gansle, K.A. (2002). Does treatment integrity matter? A preliminary investigation of instructional implementation and mathematics performance. Journal of Behavioral Education, 11, 51-67. Palincsar, A.M., & Brown, A.L. (1989). Classroom dialogues to promote self-regulated comprehension. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching (Vol. 1, pp.35-71). New York: JAI. Rowan, B., Correnti, R., & Miller, R.J., (2002). What large-scale, survey research tells us about teacher effects on student achievement: Insights from the Prospects study of elementary schools. Teachers College Record, 104, 1525-1567. Sanders, W. L., & Rivers, J. C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student academic achievement. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment Center. Shinn, M.R., (1998). Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement. New York: Guilford Press. Shinn, M.R., Shinn, M.M., Hamilton, C., & Clarke, B. (2002). Using curriculum-based measurement in general education classrooms to promote reading success. In M. Shinn, H.M. Hill, & G. Stonner (Eds.), Interventions for academic and behavior problems II: Preventive and remedial approaches (pp. 113-142). Bethesda, Maryland: NASP Publications. Sprick, R.S., Borgeier, C., & Nolet, V. (2002). Prevention and management of behavior problems in secondary schools. In M. Shinn, H.M. Hill, & G. Stonner (Eds.), Interventions for academic and behavior problems II: Preventive and remedial approaches (pp. 373-401). Bethesda, Maryland: NASP Publications. Stecker, P., Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (2005). Using curriculum-based measurement to improve student achievement: Review of Research. Psychology in the Schools, 42(8), 795-819. Sutherland, K.S., & Wehby, J.H. (2001). Exploring the relationship between increased opportunities to respond to academic requests and the academic and behavioral outcomes of students with EBD: A review. Remedial and Special Education, 22(2), 113-21. Tomlinson, C.A. (2000). What is differentiated instruction? Retrieved on October 1, 2006 from http://www.readingrockets.org/articles/263 Tomlinson, C.A. (2001). Differentiation of instruction in the elementary grades. ERIC Digest. Retrieved on October 3, 2006 from http://www.ericdigests.org/2001-2/elementary.html ______________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 22
    • Torgesen, J., Meadows, J.G., & Howard, P. (2006). Using student outcome data to help guide professional development and teacher support: Issues for reading first and K-12 reading plans. Retrieved on October 13, 2006 from http://www.fcrr.org/assessment/PDFfiles/Prof_dev_guided.pdf Whitehurst, G.J. (2002). Research on teacher preparation and professional development: White House conference on preparing tomorrow’s teachers. Retrieved on September 15, 2006 from: www.ed.gov/admins/tchrqual/learn/preparingteachersconference/whitehurst.html Witt, J.C., Noell, G.H., LaFleur, L.H., & Mortenson, B.P. (1997). Teacher use of interventions in general education settings: Measurement and analysis of the independent variable. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 30(4), 693-696. ______________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 23
    • APPENDICES ______________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 24
    • APPENDIX A GLOSSARY 1. Core Costs are all expenses incurred by the project, except staff and participant travel and indirect costs. The Core Costs calculation is used to gauge whether a proposed project’s expenses are reasonable in relation to the number of participants it proposes to serve. Travel costs are excluded from the equation because these expenses may be exceptionally large or small, depending upon the project scope and location of its participants, and must, therefore, be separately considered. Indirect costs are not relevant to the calculation because they are proportionally the same for all projects. Core costs for 2007-08 projects should be limited to $4,000 per participant. 2. Differentiated Instruction (see Expanded Glossary below) 3. Faithful Implementation involves accurately following the intended design of a program, curriculum, or research-validated practice. The integrity of use of evidence- based strategies, programs, etc. in the classroom, school or district level has found to be a significant predictor of the success of these practices in improving student achievement (Noell, Gresham, & Gansle, 2002). 4. Instructional Materials A. Classroom Instructional Materials are student materials the teacher- participants need in the classroom to support the content and/or strategies they learned during the project. These materials become property of the participant’s district/school in the event participant transfers. B. Project Instructional Materials are teaching tools and/or printed materials that participants need to learn new content or skills during the project and will take with them to use in classrooms. Project instructional materials may not be kept by the university. These materials become property of the participant’s district/school in the event participant transfers. 5. Instructional Strategies A. Classroom Instructional Strategies are defined as those evidenced-based strategies that will be employed by participating teachers in their classrooms to obtain maximum student achievement. B. Project Instructional Strategies are those evidenced-based strategies that will be employed by project staff to bring about maximum change. 6. Lesson Study is a process in which teachers jointly plan, observe, analyze, and refine their classroom lessons. Lesson study is widely credited for the steady improvement of Japanese elementary mathematics and science instruction. Since 1999, the use of lesson study has increased in many sites across the United States. ______________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 25
    • Additional information may be obtained by accessing http://www.tc.edu/lessonstudy/lessonstudy.html. 7. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation ties federal funding to improvements in student achievement as measured by statewide standardized assessments. Emphasis is placed on closing achievement gaps among students of different racial, ethnic, and economic backgrounds. For more information about NCLB, go to Appendix G or the U.S. Department of Education’s website: www.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml. The most recent non-regulatory guidance issued for Title II, Part A (August 3, 2005) can be downloaded at www.ed.gov/programs/teacherqual/guidance.pdf. 8. Opportunities to Respond (see Expanded Glossary below) 9. Paraprofessional is an individual with instructional duties who work in classrooms with children. Individuals who work solely in non-instructional roles, such as food service, cafeteria or playground supervision, personal care services, and non- instructional computer assistance are not considered to be paraprofessionals for the purposes of this RFP. 10. Participant Selection involves identifying the target audience for the project. Participant selection may include teachers, administrators, paraprofessionals and/or students working in a variety of arrangements. The project design should be developed around the needs of the participants chosen for the project and desired outcomes. Projects are expected to be different, based on the kinds of participants targeted for intervention (e.g., projects designed to prepare discipline-specific coaches would have a different structure and emphasis than those designed to prepare teams of multidisciplinary classroom teachers). 11. Peer Tutoring (see Expanded Glossary below) 12. Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) are characterized by shared purpose, collaborative activity, and collective responsibility among all staff. Educators in PLCs embrace the notion that the fundamental purpose of school is learning, not teaching. This emphasis on learning leads those within the school to concentrate their effort and energy on critical questions of what we want students to learn, how will we know they have learned, and how will we respond when students experience difficulty (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, & Karhanek, 2004). 13. A Profile refers to demographic and other pertinent information concerning project participants and their students. Profile information for teachers may include mobility, certification, and educational attainment. Examples of profile data for students includes socioeconomic status (SES), academic achievement, rates of behavior problems, parental education levels, unexcused absences, enrollment in rigorous coursework, TOPS enrollment, and postsecondary education attainment. 14. Progress Monitoring (see Expanded Glossary below) ______________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 26
    • EXPANDED GLOSSARY Differentiated Instruction Differentiated instruction involves modifying instruction for diverse learners. Students within one classroom often bring a variety of different skill levels; differentiated instruction matches teaching to the different needs of these learners. Effective use of differentiated instruction requires teachers to be proactive and vary the content, process, and products of their teaching to ensure that all students are learning. Components of differentiated instruction should include flexible grouping, effective classroom management, student progress monitoring, and allowing students opportunities to respond at their instructional level (Florida Center for Reading Research, 2006; Houtveen & Van de Grift, 2001; Kameenui & Carnine, 1998; Tomlinson, 2000). When differentiating instruction, teachers continually assess students’ progress in meeting instructional objectives and modify instructional plans to assist students in achieving mastery. Teachers model, scaffold, explain strategies, provide feedback, and have students practice to mastery. Learning objectives are tailored to individual student instructional levels through examination of student progress monitoring data. Not all students learn at the same rate or need the same explicit detail, and this data-based instructional planning helps teachers make those instructional decisions. Extended learning time is provided for struggling students, which has been found to be necessary for struggling students who are at-risk for school failure. Therefore, whole-class, grouping, and individual instructional practices are used, with flexible grouping being an important component (Florida Center for Reading Research, 2006; Hudson, 2006; Houtveen & Van de Grift, 2001; Kameenui & Carnine, 1998; Tomlinson, 2001). Through flexible grouping of students, teachers adjust the intensity of instruction, degree of explicitness, amount of scaffolding during guided practice, and amount of independent practice. Whole-group instruction provides the basis of common knowledge between students. Small group instruction can include same ability grouping to meet individual student needs and adjust pacing, and mixed ability grouping to provide students with opportunities to work with and learn from peers. Flexible grouping can also include pairs of students working together and individual student work. Assessment and alteration of groups occurs frequently, with the number of groups matched to the needs of the class, rather than having a predetermined number of groups (Hudson, 2006). Opportunities to Respond (OTR) Research has supported the link between active participation of students during classroom instruction, increased academic achievement (Christle & Schuster, 2003) and decreased problem behavior (Sprick, Borgmeier, & Nolet, 2002). Students who make more responses during instruction learn more than those who make fewer responses (Heward et al., 1996, as cited in Christle & Schuster, 2003). Therefore, effective teachers ensure high student participation rates by offering students frequent opportunities to respond (OTR). Higher rates of OTR are associated with increased on- task behavior and academic achievement and decreased inappropriate behavior in ______________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 27
    • general education students (Heward, 2000) and in students with emotional/behavioral disorders (Sutherland & Wehby, 2001). Teachers should provide opportunities for all students to participate actively and successfully during lessons. Teacher use of varied and appropriate activities, solicitation of student participation, and provision of time for student response/consideration will increase students’ OTR. Relying on student volunteers alone will not guarantee adequate levels of student responses (Sprick et al., 2002). OTR can also be increased by use of response cards, timed trials, ungraded and frequent quizzes, and choral responding (Christle & Schuster, 2003; Heward et al., 1996; Sprick et al., 2002). Unfortunately, research has demonstrated that lower achieving students have fewer opportunities to respond publicly in the classroom than higher achieving students (Good 1970, as cited in Irvine, 1986; Heward, 2000). Moreover, female students and students of minority ethnicity are often provided with fewer opportunities to respond (Irvine, 1986). Active learning and increased opportunities to respond are not supported by traditional classroom instruction where only one student participates at a time (Christle & Schuster, 2003). Peer Tutoring Increasing students’ opportunities to respond has been linked with academic achievement. However, the constraints of class size often limit the number of times a student can respond and be provided with corrective feedback from the teacher. Peer tutoring alleviates this difficulty as students are placed into dyads and take turns asking and answering questions (Fredrick, Deitz, Bryceland, & Hummel, 2000). Evidence-based peer tutoring is not an informal strategy where students are placed in pairs without specific directions. Certain components for effective peer tutoring appear to be necessary, including role reversal, appropriate and immediate feedback, and learner responding (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Burish, 2000). Unstructured peer tutoring has not been found to be effective in increasing academic achievement (e.g., Palincsar & Brown, 1989). Peer tutoring has been demonstrated to have a significant and positive impact on literacy and math achievement, across elementary, middle, and high schools (Baker, Gersten, & Lee, 2002; Fantuzzo, Davis, & Ginsburg, 1995; Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlettt, Phillips, Karns, & Dutka, 1997; Fuchs et al., 2001; Ginsburg-Block & Fantuzzo, 1997). Use of peer tutoring has also been demonstrated to lead to greater academic gains than traditional teacher procedures (e.g., Greenwood et al., 1984). Research validated peer tutoring programs include: • Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS; https://kc.vanderbilt.edu/pals; Fuchs et al., 2001; Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes, & Simmons, 1997; Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett, Phillips, & Bentz, 1994) • ClassWide Peer Tutoring (CWPT; www.specialconnections.ku.edu; Delquadri, Greenwood, Stretton, & Hall, 1983; Greenwood, 1991) • Reciprocal Peer Tutoring (RPT; Fantuzzo, King, & Heller, 1992) ______________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 28
    • • Classwide Student Tutoring Teams (CSTT; Harper, Mallette, Maheady, & Brennan, 1993) Progress Monitoring Progress monitoring “is a scientifically based practice that is used to assess students’ academic performance and evaluate the effectiveness of instruction.” Overall, the “use of progress monitoring results in more efficient and appropriately targeted instructional techniques and goals, which together, move all students to faster attainment of important state standards of achievement” (www.studentprogress.org). Progress monitoring involves assessing how well students learn what the teacher is teaching every day in the classroom. All students can be successful academically and progress monitoring helps facilitate that goal. Reliance on statewide testing to pinpoint individual student weaknesses is problematic. Statewide tests are administered too late in the academic year for academic interventions to be implemented other than attendance at summer school or grade retention. Progress monitoring addresses this weakness with brief, standardized measurements that integrate a variety of skills into one instrument that can be used frequently (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006). Progress monitoring can be used for universal screening, monitoring students’ academic competence, evaluating the effectiveness of instructional programs, planning instruction, improving instructional programs, and identifying candidates for special education (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006; Stecker, Fuchs, & Fuchs, 2005). Research has linked systematic progress monitoring to improved student achievement in literacy and mathematics (e.g., Baker, Gersten, & Lee, 2002; Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes, & Simmons, 1997), improved instructional planning and modifications (Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett, & Stecker, 1991; Witt, Noell, LaFleur, & Mortenson, 1997), and better classification and placement decisions (Stecker, Fuchs, & Fuchs, 2005). Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) has been developed as a tool to accomplish student progress monitoring (Deno, 2003; Graney & Shinn, 2005). CBM was developed by Deno and colleagues at the University of Minnesota around 1985. They were interested in developing a technology for assessing student achievement that was reliable, valid, simple, efficient, easily understood, and inexpensive. Solid evidence supports the use of academic probes usually 1-3 minutes in length and CBM materials can be developed from the curriculum that the teacher is using or purchased. CBM allows teachers to have a tool they can use to monitor student learning so they know what to teach next. CBM can be used for screening, placement in curriculum, and planning. Unlike other informal assessment methods, CBM is standardized and has strong psychometric properties, including reliability and validity (Deno, 2003). CBM is sensitive enough to detect academic achievement changes in short periods of time, and, therefore, can be used repeatedly to improve individual instructional planning and enhance teacher instructional planning (Deno, 2003). Furthermore, CBM is not based on any particular instructional theory, approach, or curriculum and can be used to provide ______________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 29
    • information to teachers for instructional planning across all programs (Graney, & Shinn, 2005). A significant empirical relation between CBM and statewide, high-stakes literacy tests (e.g., Crawford, Tindal, & Steiber, 2001; McGlinchey & Hixson, 2004, as cited in Graney & Shinn, 2005) has been demonstrated repeatedly. Recently, the U.S. Department of Education, National Center on Student Progress Monitoring chose CBM as a scientifically based method for progress monitoring (National Center on Student Progress Monitoring, 2005). CBM is associated with positive student outcomes in general and special education and prevention of student academic difficulties (Shinn, Shinn, Hamilton, & Clarke, 2002; Shinn, 1998). Suggested websites: www.studentprogress.org, www.interventioncentral.com ______________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 30
    • APPENDIX B PD GUIDELINES: MATHEMATICS When schools, districts, and universities collaborate, the schools and districts benefit from the university expertise, university-provided professional development (PD) benefits from input of practitioners, and the result is increased breadth and depth of understanding that ultimately promotes student achievement (Desimone, Garet, Birman, Porter, & Yoon, 2003). This research guides the PD guidelines for mathematics PD proposals for 2007-08. Mathematics collaborative proposal developers should address the fundamental question: What structure and specific content will support the mathematics professional development needs of teachers in LINCS, LA GEAR UP and other low-performing schools in Louisiana? The structure must: provide teachers with the capacity and motivation to deliver purposeful classroom instruction; contribute to the increase in student achievement on state assessments; provide school-wide support to teachers’ peers; and encourage careers related to engineering, science, technology, and mathematics. Infused into this fundamental question are the low literacy rates of Louisiana’s students and the need to develop a more literate and capable citizenry for the future. According to the Louisiana Literacy Plan, “Literacy includes an individual’s ability to read, write, speak, view, and listen in English at levels of proficiency necessary to function in the family, in society and on the job.” (http://www.doe.state.la.us/lde/uploads/8629.pdf) Because the Louisiana Literacy Plan requires a school-wide model, implementation of literacy strategies across the mathematics curriculum should be highlighted in proposals. Most funded projects will be one year projects. However, because innovative proposals may include research components, applicants may request an opportunity for second year renewal, if the proposal demonstrates the overall impact of the project would be enhanced by a second year renewal. It is incumbent upon applicants requesting consideration for a second year renewal to include measurable objectives to be met within the first year and explain how the second year would enhance the collection of longitudinal data for the research components. Reviewers may elect to fund the proposal for one year only or may make the proposal eligible for a second year renewal, based on exemplary progress in the first year, successful attainment of measurable objectives, available funds, and a renewal proposal. Nevertheless, due to inherent budgetary restrictions, proposals submitted for multi-year consideration will still be limited to the initial 13.5 month contract period outlined in this RFP. Innovative mathematics projects informed by research and including a literacy component should provide instructional practices and activities that support priority areas such as: ______________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 31
    • • Middle and high school faculty engaging in content and teaching strategies that will prepare students for careers in engineering, the sciences, technology, and mathematics-related fields. ”This new vision must propel schools and parishes to embrace data, align practices, and set a course for sustained change that will help each school and each student meet the state and nationally set goals for success.” LDE and the Blue Ribbon Commission for Education Excellence: Creating High Schools of the Future http://www.doe.state.la.us/lde/uploads/6518.doc • Professional development experiences for middle and high school faculty engaging in Algebra I content and teaching strategies and using one or more particular components of the Algebra I Comprehensive Curriculum and the Algebra I End-of- Year Exams. The availability of multiple teacher resources to support ongoing efforts of teachers will prepare all students for success in Algebra I by ninth grade and preferably by eighth. Target audiences should include all teachers of Algebra I and teachers of those mathematics courses that immediately precede Algebra I (i.e. middle grade math teachers). (La High School Redesign www.doe.state.la.us/lde/hsr/2045.html) • Elementary and/or middle school teachers engaging in rigorous content and teaching strategies in conjunction with teaching and planning lessons for summer camps. Elementary and middle school students may participate in a summer component of the project, allowing teachers to apply what they learn in PD, to practice skills and examine student work and their own instructional practices. Other websites and articles for review: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory: Professional Development: Learning from the Best http://www.peecworks.org/PEEC/PEEC_Research/00285D71-007EA7AB.0/lftb.pdf) SREB Leadership Curriculum Training Module Summaries http://www.sreb.org/main/Leadership/Modules/modulesummaries.asp Lessons from a Decade of Mathematics and Science Reform: A Capstone Report for the Local Systemic Change through Teacher Enhancement Initiative www.pdmathsci.net/reports/capstone.pdf The Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement: Love and Math http:// www.centerforcsri.org/files/CenterIssueBriefMar06.pdf MAA: Reaching for Common Ground in K-12 Mathematics Education http://www.maa.org/common-ground/cg-report2005.html The Urban Institute: What Do We Know? Seeking Effective Math and Science Instruction http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/311150.pdf SREB: Numeracy Leadership: Module Summary www.sreb.org/main/Leadership/Modules/modulesummaries.asp ______________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 32
    • National Staff Development Council: By the numbers Data-in-a-Day technique http://www.nsdc.org/library/publications/jsd/ginsberg222.cfm NSF: Teacher Institute Concept Tested http://transcoder.usablenet.com/tt/www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/teacher/backgroun d.jsp ______________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 33
    • APPENDIX C PD GUIDELINES: LITERACY FOR ADOLESCENT STUDENTS Reading failure significantly increases the likelihood that students will drop out of high school without a diploma, graduate unprepared for postsecondary education, and have limited opportunities in the workforce. Although these students may have learned the basics of literacy, their failure to acquire fluent decoding and comprehension skills hampers their continued reading achievement. In fact, many studies demonstrate that vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension are particular concerns with middle and high school students at risk for reading failure. While the research is strong and convincing on the basic components of literacy instruction for young children, there is much less guidance on the development of reading skills among adolescents, including the identification, prevention, and remediation of reading difficulties. To encourage innovative, empirically-based solutions to Louisiana’s literacy problem, LaSIP has identified adolescent1 literacy as a funding priority for 2007-08. Interested applicants are invited to submit proposals which focus on strategies and practices for secondary teachers in enhancing literacy instruction. Proposals should be developed within the context of one or both priority areas identified below: GOAL: To increase teachers’ knowledge of the basics of literacy instruction. TARGET AREAS: (1) Elevating literacy achievement of students reading at least two years below grade level; and/or (2) Increasing teachers’ use of effective literacy instruction across the curriculum. Proposals submitted for 2007-08 LaSIP PD Projects in Literacy should be aligned with the Louisiana Literacy Plan and demonstrate a working knowledge of the following national reports and publications. These documents provide a framework for the development of promising, empirically-based literacy programs for adolescent students. Notable Reports and Publications American Federation of Teachers (1999). Teaching reading is rocket science: What expert teachers of reading should know and be able to do. Washington, DC: Author. (http://www.aft.org/pubsreports/downloads/teachers/rocketsci.pdf) Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C. E. (2004). Reading Next - A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy: A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. Learning First Alliance (2000). Every Child Reading: A professional development guide. A companion to every child reading: An action plan. Baltimore, MD: Author. Downloadable at www.learningfirst.org 1 Defined in this RFP as students in grades 4-12 ______________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 34
    • Lyon, G. R. (1998). Why reading is not a natural process. Educational Leadership, (55)6,14-18. National Association of State Boards of Education (2005, October). Reading at risk: The state response to the crisis in adolescent literacy. The report of the NASBE study group on middle and high school literacy. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Boards of Education. National Reading Panel (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. NIH Publication No. 00-4754. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Scientific Studies of Reading Kamil, M.L., Mosenthal, P.B., Pearson, P.D., & Barr, R. (2000). Handbook of Reading Research: Vol. III. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. McCardle, P. & Chhabra, V. (2004). The voice of evidence in reading research. Baltimore: Brooks Publishing. References Specific to Adolescent Readers Diamond, L. (2004). Implementing and sustaining a middle and high school reading and intervention program. [Electronic version] Retrieved on October 13, 2006 at http://www.corelearn.com/Downloads.htm Jetton T. L., & Dole, J. A. (2004). Improving literacy through professional development: Success and sustainability in a middle school. In D. S. Strickland & D. E. Alverman (Eds.), Bridging the literacy achievement gap: Grades 4-12 (pp.164-182). New York: Teachers College Press. Kamil, M.L. (2003). Adolescents and literacy: Reading for the 21st century. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. Moats, L. (2001). When older kids can’t read. Educational Leadership, 58(6), 36-40. Important Websites Florida Center for Reading Research- http://www.fcrr.org Louisiana Literacy Plan- http://www.doe.louisiana.gov/lde/uploads/8629.pdf National Institute for Literacy- http://www.nifl.gov/nifl/publications.html Consortium on Reading Excellence- http://www.corelearn.com ______________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 35
    • APPENDIX D PD GUIDELINES: LASER INTERFEROMETER GRAVITATIONAL-WAVE OBSERVATORY (LIGO) I. BACKGROUND The Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO) Education Outreach Program, a five-year initiative to which the National Science Foundation has awarded $5,000,000, is a collaborative effort among the LIGO Science Education Center (LIGO SEC), Southern University-Baton Rouge (SUBR), the Louisiana Systemic Initiatives Program (LaSIP) and Louisiana Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (LA GEAR UP), and the Exploratorium of San Francisco. LIGO SEC Outreach implements initiatives and programs to achieve the following goals: (1) communicate LIGO-related science concepts to the public; (2) strengthen pre-service and in-service science teaching; and (3) create a national model that demonstrates how universities, systemic programs, school districts, and informal learning environments can work together to support inquiry-based science teaching and learning. The diagram below depicts LIGO SEC’s Outreach collaborative organization and initiatives: Figure 1. LIGO Educational Outreach Collaborative Partnership ______________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 36
    • II. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF LaSIP INFORMAL/FORMAL SCIENCE LEARNING INTIATIVE The focus of 2007-08 LaSIP science professional development (PD) efforts is to provide PD so teachers can effectively integrate classroom learning (Formal Science Learning) with LIGO SEC exhibits (Informal Science Learning) through the connection of these processes: (1) professional development for teachers; (2) classroom preparation for student field trips; (3) field trips which reinforce classroom learning; and (4) classroom follow-up of field trip activities. LaSIP LIGO projects will be funded through the leveraging of non-LIGO resources. Projects will be managed collaboratively between the Project Director and the LaSIP/LA GEAR UP staff. Each project will provide summer- and academic-year professional development to targeted middle and high school teachers that integrate “LIGO” science and Exploratorium exhibits and “snacks” into Louisiana curricula. To design and implement a project, it is essential to recognize and understand the five components of Informal/Formal Science Learning Project. These are depicted in the graphic below and explained in the narrative that follows. Figure 2. LaSIP/LA GEAR UP Informal/Formal Science Learning Project ______________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 37
    • III. COMPONENTS OF INFORMAL/FORMAL SCIENCE LEARNING PROJECTS A. Initiative for Teachers The PD provided through LaSIP/LA GEAR UP will assimilate LIGO-related science into the curricula of targeted Louisiana 6-12 grade classrooms. This initiative will include Louisiana university personnel who will acquire or have relevant understandings of: (a) how scientific concepts associated with LIGO SEC exhibits prepared by the Exploratorium can be used for instructional purposes; and (b) how insights of the associated scientific concepts can be integrated into targeted classrooms based on Louisiana’s curriculum and accountability needs. During summers and academic years 2005-06 and 2006-07, LaSIP/LA GEAR UP has provided continuing PD to science teachers in targeted schools based on LIGO SEC’s eight themes (light, waves, interference, gravity, resonance, oscillations, feedback, astronomy) and best practices learned through the previous years’ projects. Attention will be focused on the extent to which scientific concepts associated with LIGO SEC exhibits are actually incorporated into classroom learning. In designing and implementing this initiative, LaSIP/LA GEAR UP collaborated closely with key personnel from the Exploratorium, LIGO SEC, and individuals from SUBR. Guided by this RFP, a team, led by a university Project Director, that includes university physicists, mathematicians, and education faculty is invited to develop a proposal. The LIGO SEC Program Leader will be an advisor for the project and the LIGO SEC staff may serve as presenters during the project. LIGO SEC staff will also lead tours of the LIGO facility and provide demonstrations, present exhibits, “snacks”, and other science investigations. The project should begin with a summer institute to provide participants with an understanding of LIGO sciences, how best to use LIGO SEC facilities and “science snacks” to enhance teaching and learning. During the fall and spring semester, the university personnel will provide academic year workshops on issues related to enhancing teaching and learning in participants schools and will share best practices observed by project personnel during school site visits. LA GEAR UP and LINCS middle and high school science teachers will be recruited to participate in the LIGO SEC content-rich PD project. B. Teachers’ Reform Science Instruction After having participated in the summer institute PD activities, teachers will implement inquiry-based teaching using LIGO SEC investigations and “snacks”. All materials will be aligned with Louisiana Science Standards and Comprehensive Curriculum. LaSIP/LA GEAR UP science staff and project staff, generally a Site Coordinator employed by the project, will visit and mentor teachers as curricular revisions are implemented. ______________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 38
    • C. Student Field Trips to LIGO Participants will work in collaboration with project and LIGO SEC staff to arrange field trips for their students to LIGO. Before field trips, students will use LIGO science “snacks” to undertake pre- investigations and while at the site, will tour LIGO, visit the SEC, and participate in investigations about LIGO-related sciences. After returning to their schools, teachers will continue to use LIGO SEC “snacks” and other investigations to further student learning. D. Teachers Attend Follow-up Workshops and Conferences During 2007-08, teachers who are experiencing the PD described above will participate in special workshops at LIGO that will reinforce and expand what they have learned. Additional sponsored workshops and conferences will be an extension of the PD Initiative and will further the science content knowledge of teachers and enhance their inquiry-based teaching skills. Teachers will also embed appropriate technology into their teaching strategies and investigations. E. Literacy Infused into all LaSIP PD projects is the fundamental necessity to address the low literacy rates of Louisiana students and the need to develop a more literate and capable citizenry. Literacy includes an individual’s ability to read, write, speak, view, and listen in English at levels of proficiency necessary to function in the family, in the classroom, in society and on the job. To become familiar with Louisiana Literacy efforts all LaSIP project personnel should become familiar with the Louisiana Literacy Plan (http://www.doe.state.la.us/lde/uploads/8629.pdf). Because the Louisiana Literacy Plan requires a school-wide model, implementation of literacy strategies across all content areas should be highlighted in proposals, integrated into all project components and documented as being used by participants to increase student learning. ______________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 39
    • APPENDIX E PD GUIDELINES: EDUCATIONAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT SYSTEM (EPAS) I. INTRODUCTION During 2001 the Louisiana Board of Regents (BoR) released its Master Plan for Public Postsecondary Education (2001). One of the three primary goals outlined in the Master Plan was to “increase opportunities for student access and success (to all citizens).” Implementation of ACT’s Educational Planning and Assessment System (EPAS) was one of seven specific strategies identified to help achieve this end. Offering EPAS to all 8th and 10th grade students in every public middle and high school has been dually supported by both the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) and the Department of Education (DOE). This has assisted in achieving almost 100% district participation statewide. Louisiana EPAS, which includes the EXPLORE assessment in the 8th grade, the PLAN assessment in the 10th grade, and culminates with the ACT assessment in the 11th or 12th grade, was developed in response to the need for all students to be prepared for high school and the transitions they make after graduation. EPAS provides a longitudinal, systematic approach to educational and career planning, assessment, instructional support, and evaluation. EPAS places emphasis on the integrated, higher- order thinking skills which students develop in grades K-12 that are important for success both during and after high school. The system focuses on a number of key transition points that young people face, particularly 8th graders preparing to enter high school, 10th graders planning and preparing for college and the workplace, and 12th graders being ready for life after high school. Each program includes the four components that form the foundation of EPAS:  Assessment—Student achievement is assessed at three key transition points in EPAS—8th/9th, 10th, and 11th/12th grades—so that academic progress can be monitored to ensure that each student is prepared to reach his/her post-high school goals.  Student Planning—Process through which students can identify career and educational goals early and then pursue those goals.  Instructional Support—Support materials and services to help classroom teachers prepare their students for the coming transitions. This component reinforces the direct link between the content and skills measured in the EPAS programs and those that are taught in high school classrooms.  Evaluation—An academic information monitoring service that provides teachers and administrators with a comprehensive analysis of academic growth between EPAS levels. These four EPAS components work together in concrete and effective ways to respond to the needs of students, teachers, and school administrators. EPAS is unique in that its programs can be mixed and matched in ways that meet the needs of individual students, schools and districts in Louisiana. The assessment component of EPAS measures academic skills identified in Louisiana Content Standards ______________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 40
    • and, therefore, the assessment results can serve as a predictor of success on LEAP 21 and GEE 21 assessments. Using data provided by DOE, ACT has developed a preliminary concordance table correlating EXPLORE and PLAN scores to LEAP 21 and GEE 21 scores, respectively. (EPAS Accountability Correlation tables are available on the BoR website, http://www.regents.state.la.us) Information about ACT’s Educational and Assessment System can be found on their website at http://www.act.org and information about Louisiana’s EPAS initiative can be found on the Board of Regents’ website at http://www.regents.state.la.us. II. PURPOSE AND GOALS LaSIP is issuing this request for proposals (RFP) to fund one EPAS professional development project which includes school counselors, teachers, administrators, and district curricula coordinators. All proposed projects should outline a detailed plan to facilitate the project. The overarching goal of the project is to provide professional development for a minimum four-person team from LINCS and LA GEAR UP schools, who will use EPAS to increase student achievement for postsecondary education. The project should include activities designed to help educators move through all stages of program planning and implementation. The proposed project should include: 1. The use of EPAS data to direct counseling services and classroom instruction toward academic achievement; 2. Identified strategies for incorporating EPAS across the curricula; 3. Content-area and grade-level specific curricula using EPAS data and materials; and 4. Components for implementing professional learning communities (PLC). Proposals should include a plan for collaborating with each school during the AY to ensure ongoing support for project participants and their redelivery through PLCs. Therefore, communicating with participants is essential, through both site visits and secure chat rooms, for participants to ask questions and share ideas. Also important is working with the participants to ensure that the content presented is consistent with and supportive of the Louisiana Content Standards and Comprehensive Curriculum (LCC). III. GENERAL GUIDELINES Project Directors and staff should clearly articulate in the proposal a vision for reproducing the PD statewide. In addition, the proposal should identify the specific goals and activities necessary to successfully and efficiently operate the program. The proposal should also present a detailed recruitment plan. Project Structure: The project should begin with a summer institute to provide participants with an understanding of EPAS data and materials and other supporting elements. University personnel will also work with teams to design school based ______________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 41
    • presentation materials to be used in their schools with the faculty, students and parents. During the fall semester, the university personnel will conduct at least three days of workshops on issues that teams identify and will share best practices observed by project personnel during school site visits. Eligible Participants: Teams participating in the project will be selected, on a first- come, first-serve basis, from applications submitted by LINCS and LA GEAR UP middle and high schools. A school may participate by sending a team of at least four consisting of a school administrator or school improvement coordinator (or the LA GEAR UP school coordinator for junior high schools without a school improvement coordinator), at least one mathematics and one ELA teacher, and the district curricula coordinator. LINCS schools must include the school counselor as one of the members of the core team. If openings exist, schools may additionally send a school administrator, social studies or science teacher, and/or the school technology teacher. Literacy: Infused into all LaSIP PD projects is the fundamental necessity to address the low literacy rates of Louisiana students and the need to develop a more literate and capable citizenry. Literacy includes an individual’s ability to read, write, speak, view, and listen in English at levels of proficiency necessary to function in the family, in the classroom, in society and on the job. To become familiar with Louisiana Literacy efforts all LaSIP project personnel should become familiar with the Louisiana Literacy Plan (http://www.doe.state.la.us/lde/uploads/8629.pdf). Because the Louisiana Literacy Plan requires a school-wide model, implementation of literacy strategies across all content areas should be highlighted in proposals, integrated into all project components and documented as being used by participants to increase student learning. Collaboration: The nature of this project requires that applicants collaborate extensively with a number of diverse partners, including LaSIP/LA GEAR UP staff, school personnel at multiple sites, the BoR EPAS Coordinators and Portal designers, as well as ACT staff. ______________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 42
    • APPENDIX F ELIGIBLE LINCS, LA GEAR UP, AND HIGH-NEED LEAs ______________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 43
    • LINCS Schools By Region, District: 2006-07 Schoo Region District Grades 2006-07 Content l REGION: 1 Jefferson 026074 Catherine Strehle Elementary School PK,K-6 Reading/ELAMath 026027 Estelle Elementary School PS,PK,K-5 Reading/ELAMath 026096 Geraldine Boudreaux Elementary School PK-5 Reading/ELAMath 026081 Joseph S. Maggiore Sr. Elementary School PK,K-5 Math 026042 V.C. Haynes Middle School 6-8 Math 026073 Walter G. Schneckenburger Elementary School PK-5 Reading/ELA 026040 William Hart Elementary School K-6 Reading/ELAMath Plaquemines 038007 South Plaquemines Elem (formerly Port Sulphur)* K-6?? Reading/ELAMath St. Charles 045014 Albert Cammon Middle School 5-8,NG Reading/ELAMathSci 045006 RK Smith Middle (formerly E.J. Landry Middle) 6-8,NG Reading/ELAMath REGION: 2 East Baton Rouge 017013 Bernard Terrace Elementary School PK-K-5,NG Math 017041 Greenville Elementary School PS,PK,K-5,NG Math 017043 Highland Elementary School PS,PK,K-5,NG Math 017053 Magnolia Woods Elementary School PS,PK,K-5,NG Math 017121 Mohican Education Center (formerly White Hills) 5-8,NG Math 017084 South Boulevard Extended Day School PK,K-5,NG Math 017093 Villa Del Rey Elementary School PS,PK,K-5,NG Math East Feliciana 019003 Clinton Elementary School PS,PK,K-5 Reading/ELAMath 019001 Clinton High School 8-12 Reading/ELA 019002 Clinton Middle School 6-8 Reading/ELA ______________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 44
    • 019007 Jackson Elementary School PS,PK,K-5 Reading/ELAMath 019014 Jackson High School 8-12 Reading/ELAMath 019011 Jackson Middle School 6-8 Reading/ELA 019009 Slaughter Elementary School PK,K-5 Reading/ELA Iberville 024003 Crescent Elementary School IN,K-8 Reading/ELAMath 024019 Dorseyville Elementary School PK,K-6 Reading/ELA 024024 E.J. Gay Middle School 4-8 Reading/ELAMath 024025 East Iberville Elementary/High School PK,K-12 Math Reading/ELAMathSciSocS 024023 North Iberville Elementary/High School IN,PK,K-12 t 024010 Plaquemine Senior High School 8-12 Math 024017 White Castle High School 7-12 Reading/ELA Pointe Coupee 039012 Rosenwald Elementary School PK-4 Math 039010 Valverda Elementary School PS,K-6,NG Math St. Tammany 052004 Alton Elementary School PS,PK,K-5 Math 052005 Bayou Lacombe Middle School 4-6 Math 052040 Bayou Woods Elementary School PS,PK,K-3 Math 052009 Carolyn Park Middle School 4-6 Math 052010 Chahta-Ima Elementary School PS,PK,K-3 Math 052013 Covington High School 8-12 Reading/ELAMath 052017 Florida Avenue Elementary School PS,PK,K-5 Math 052008 Glynn H. Brock Elementary School PS,PK,K-5 Math REGION: 3 Assumption 004001 Assumption High School 8-12 Reading/ELA 004003 Belle Rose Middle School 6-8 Reading/ELA 004005 Labadieville Middle School 6-8 Reading/ELA ______________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 45
    • 004007 Napoleonville Middle School 6-8 Reading/ELA Lafourche 029016 Lockport Middle School 6-8 Reading/ELAMath 029020 Raceland Middle School 6-8 Reading/ELAMathSci St. James 047006 Paulina Elementary School PK-6 Reading/ELA 047008 St. James High School 7-12 Reading/ELA St. John 048001 East St. John High School 8-12 Reading/ELAMath 048020 Fifth Ward Elementary School IN,PS,K-7 Reading/ELAMath 048013 West St. John High School 8-12 Reading/ELAMath Terrebonn e 055013 Ellender Memorial High School 8-12,NG Reading/ELAMath 055028 Oaklawn Junior High School 7-8 Reading/ELAMath 055036 Terrebonne High School 10-12 Reading/ELA REGION: 4 Iberia 023001 Anderson Middle School 7-8,NG Reading/ELAMath 023010 Hopkins Street Elementary School K-6,NG MathScience 023012 Jeanerette Elementary School K-6,NG Reading/ELA 023016 Johnston Street Elementary School PS,K-6,NG Reading/ELASci 023026 North Street Elementary School PK-6 Reading/ELAMath 023027 Park Elementary School PS,K-6,NG Math 023029 Pesson Addition Elementary School K-4 Reading/ELAMath St. Landry 049006 Creswell Elementary School PK-6 Reading/ELAMath 049028 North Elementary School PS,PK,K-6,NG Reading/ELAMath 049053 Northwest High School 8-12,NG Reading/ELAMath 049055 Plaisance Elementary School PS,K-8,NG Math 049040 South Street Elementary School K-6 Math ______________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 46
    • 049044 Washington Elementary School PS,PK,K-7,NG Reading/ELAMath REGION: 5 Allen IN,PS,PK,K-4,N 002005 Oakdale Elementary School G Math 002007 Oakdale Middle School 4-8,NG Math IN,PS,PK,K-6,N 002008 Oberlin Elementary School G Math IN,PS,PK,K-12, 002010 Reeves High School NG Math Beauregard 006022 East Beauregard Elementary School PS,PK,K-5,NG Reading/ELA Calcasieu 010072 Calcasieu Career Center 6-12,NG Math IN,PS,PK,K-5,N 010010 College Oaks Elementary School G Math IN,PS,PK,K-5,N 010013 DeQuincy Elementary School G Math IN,PS,PK,K-5,N 010018 Fairview Elementary School G Math 010054 Richard W. Vincent Elementary School IN,PS,K-5,NG Math 010058 Washington/Marion Magnet High School 8-12,NG Math REGION: 6 Avoyelles 005005 Bunkie Middle School 7-8,NGN Math 005014 Mansura Middle School 7-8,NG Math 005017 Marksville Middle School 7-8,NG Math Natchitoches IN,PS,PK,K-6,N 035012 L.P. Vaughn Elem/Middle (formerly N. Natchitoches) G Reading/ELAMath Rapides Reading/ELAMathSciSocS 040001 Acadian Elementary School PK,K-5 t 040045 Alma Redwine Elementary School PS,PK,K-5 Reading/ELAMath 040018 Arthur F. Smith Middle Magnet School 6-8 Reading/ELAMath 040038 Carter C. Raymond Middle School 4-8 Math 040017 D.F. Huddle Elementary School PK,K-5 Reading/ELAMath ______________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 47
    • 040022 Hadnot-Hayes Elem. (formerly Walter D. Hadnot) PK,K-5 Math 040016 Horseshoe Drive Elementary School PS,PK,K-5 Reading/ELAMath 040044 Lessie Moore Elem. (formerly J.S. Slocum) PS,PK,K-6 Reading/ELAMath 040024 Martin Park Elementary School PS,PK,K-5 Reading/ELAMath 040027 North Bayou Rapides Elementary School PS,PK,K-5 Math 040039 Reed Avenue Elementary School PK,K-5 Math REGION: 7 Caddo 009069 Booker T. Washington High School 9-12 Math 009009 Caddo Career Center 9-12 Reading/ELAMath 009061 E.B. Williams Stoner Hill Elem Lab School PS,PK,K-5 Reading/ELAMath 009022 Fair Park High School 8-12 Math 009037 Linwood Middle School 6-8 Reading/ELA 009073 Woodlawn High School PK,8-12 Reading/ELAMath DeSoto 016018 Logansport Elementary School PS,PK,K-6,NG Reading/ELAMath 016004 Logansport High School 7-12,NG Reading/ELA 016019 Mansfield Elementary School 3-5 3-5,NG Reading/ELA 016007 Mansfield High School IN,8-12,NG Reading/ELA 016014 North DeSoto Elementary School PS,PK,K-4,NG Reading/ELAMath 016012 North DeSoto High School 8-12,NG Reading/ELAMath 016017 North DeSoto Middle School 5-8 Reading/ELA 016008 Pelican All Saints High School PS,PK,K-12,NG Reading/ELAMath 016010 Stanley High School PS,PK,K-12,NG Reading/ELAMath Red River 041010 Red River Elementary School PS,PK,K-6,NG Reading/ELAMath 041002 Red River High School 9-12,NG Reading/ELAMath 041011 Red River Junior High School 7-8,NG Reading/ELAMath REGION: 8 ______________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 48
    • Franklin 021001 Baskin School PK-8 Math 021002 Crowville School PK-8 Math 021004 Gilbert School PK-8 Math 021010 Winnsboro Elementary School PK-5 Math Lincoln 031004 Cypress Springs Elementary School K-5,NG Math 031007 Hico Elementary School PS,PK,K-6,NG Math 031014 Simsboro High School K-6,NG Math Madison 033002 Madison High (formerly Tallulah & McCall HSs) 9-12,NG Math IN,PS,PK,K-5,N 033003 Tallulah Elementary School G Math 033007 Wright Elementary School PS,PK,K-5,NG Math Monroe City 065002 Carroll High School 9-12 Math 065003 Carroll Junior High School 7-8 Math 065009 Martin Luther King, Jr. Middle School 6-8 Math Morehouse 034010 Delta Junior High (formerly Delta HS)* PK-8 Math 034004 Morehouse Junior High School 7-8,NG Math Richland 042003 Delhi Elementary School PK-4 Math 042001 Delhi High School 9-12 Math 042002 Delhi Middle School 5-8 Math IN,PS,PK,K-5,N 042005 Mangham Elementary School G Math 042006 Mangham High School 9-12,NG Math IN,PS,PK,K-5,N 042010 Rayville Elementary School G Math 042009 Rayville Junior High School 6-8,NG Math Tensas 054001 Tensas High School (formerly Davidson High)* 7-12,NG Math IN,PS,PK,K-8,N 054003 Newellton Elem (formerly Newellton HS, K-12)* G Math IN,PS,PK,K-6,N 054005 Tensas Elementary School G Math ______________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 49
    • *School Name Changes for 2006-07 ______________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 50
    • ________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 49
    • 2006-07 HIGH NEED LEAs ________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 50
    • APPENDIX G NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND (NCLB) LEGISLATION Eligibility, Purpose, Priorities, and Funding ELIGIBILITY: Eligibility is limited to partnerships comprised of at least: (1) a private or State Institution of Higher Education (IHE) and the division of the institution that prepares teachers and principals (College of Education); (2) a College of Arts and Sciences; and (3) a high-need local education agency (LEA) [Note: for purposes of this definition, the statutorily required partners will be referred to as “principal partners.”] An eligible partnership may also include another LEA, especially LINCS and LA GEAR UP elementary, middle, or secondary schools, a 2-year or community college, a public charter, private, or parochial school, other low-performing elementary or secondary schools, another IHE, or a school of arts and sciences within that IHE and the division of that IHE that prepares teachers and principals. *A high-need LEA is defined as an LEA: (A) (i) that serves not fewer than 10,000 children from families with incomes below the poverty line, according to the US Census; or (ii) for which not less than 20 percent of the children served by the agency are from families with incomes below the poverty line; and (B) (i) for which there is a high percentage of teachers not teaching in the academic subjects or grade levels that the teachers were trained to teach; or (ii) for which there is a high percentage of teachers with emergency, provisional, or temporary certification or licensing [Section 2102(3)]. A map of Eligible high-need LEAs in Louisiana is included in Appendix F. PURPOSE OF PARTNERSHIPS: The intent of the legislation is to support professional development activities in core academic subjects of mathematics, science, and literacy that ensure projects (1) provide long-term, sustained, high-quality professional development for Louisiana’s K-12 teachers, (2) provide access to teachers in high-need LEAs, (3) result in change of teacher practice or teachers’ content knowledge that increases student achievement in the classroom, (4) influence the implementation of research-based curriculum in undergraduate and graduate teacher education programs, and (5) strengthen collaboration between faculties of institutions of higher education and among other partners in the program. The federal law requires that, in order for an institution of higher education to be eligible for a grant, it must enter into an agreement with a local school district, or consortia of such districts, to provide sustained, high-quality professional development for the elementary and secondary school teachers in the schools of that district. Therefore, teacher participants and administrators from the schools to be served by the project must be involved in the planning of projects and the preparation of proposals, which must be aligned with assessment of the needs of the local schools. Financial and programmatic participation by school districts, nonpublic schools, and the sponsoring higher education institution is necessary and should be reflected in the proposed budget information. ______________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 51
    • PRIORITIES: Consistent with the priorities and criteria of the USDE’s NCLB regulations, LaSIP will make awards that support the following types of partnership activities to enhance student achievement in participating high- need LEAs: a. Professional development activities in core academic subjects of mathematics, science, and/or literacy with an component of literacy across all content area(s); and b. Development and provision of assistance to LEAs and to their teachers, paraprofessionals, or school principals, in providing sustained, high-quality professional development activities and ongoing support. FUNDING: The clearly stated intent of the federal legislation and LaSIP’s goal is to support projects likely to bring about lasting change. Workshops held in the summer months must have organized support for teachers during the academic year through classroom implementation by project teaching staff. The NCLB program will not support short-term professional development projects. Such projects usually lack breadth of coverage and conceptual foundation and have only minimal impact on classroom instruction. Supported activities should equip teachers and principals with proper materials and management techniques, and should present opportunities for discussion and evaluation. School-year activities may include a range of activities: workshops or demonstrations/observations/debriefings, coaching, and mentoring. Proposals that include up to 10% of participant recruitment from pre-service education students also are invited. Such proposals must identify possible improvements to campus-based teacher education programs, i.e., improvements that involve further innovation in teacher education programs within an institution of higher education to better meet the needs of schools for well-prepared teachers. Proposals that include students are invited but any costs incurred as a result of including students in a summer component must be contributed or matching from the school/LEA partner. Curriculum development projects will not be supported. ______________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 52
    • APPENDIX H REVIEWER RATING FORM INSTRUCTIONS: Review this form and the program guidelines prior to reading proposals. The higher the score, the more clearly the proposal satisfies the criterion under consideration. Use the Comments space following each section to justify a given score. Please include both strengths and weaknesses that were identified in the proposal. Attach additional pages as necessary. I. RATIONALE AND NEED—Total of 10 points A. To what extent is the profile of students and teachers to be served sufficiently specific, including demographic information? B. To what extent are specific content needs identified, documented, and appropriate for the target population? Are other identified needs pertinent? C. To what extent are the mission and content focus appropriate for the documented needs of the target populations? TOTAL SCORE: _____ of 10 Points COMMENTS: II. PROJECT DESIGN—Total of 50 points A. To what extent are project objectives clear and measurable? B. To what extent is the plan for participant selection well-conceived and likely to achieve the project’s stated mission and objectives? C. To what extent are subject-matter content, instructional materials, and classroom strategies clearly identified, evidence-based, and linked to Louisiana’s curricular efforts? D. To what extent are the method of delivery and duration of contact adequate to support intended changes? E. To what extent will the participant feedback and assistance component of the project provide adequate support for change? F. To what extent are plans for interacting with schools collaborative and likely to result in the faithful implementation of the intended program? G. To what extent does the design of the PD component reflect up-to-date knowledge from research and effective practice and likely to address the needs of teachers leading to improved student achievement? TOTAL SCORE: ______ of 50 Points COMMENTS: ______________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 53
    • III. QUALITY OF KEY PERSONNEL—Total of 10 points A. To what extent are descriptions for each project staff clear and complete, including relevant credentials and direct experience with targeted students? B. To what extent does the staff as a whole possess the qualifications and skills necessary to meet the needs of participants with regard to the delivery of subject-matter content and classroom instructional strategies? C. To what extent are the time commitments of the staff adequate to meet the objectives of the project? D. To what extent does the makeup of the staff meet funding guidelines required for NCLB? E. If the project director or co-project director has received previous funding, has it been adequately documented? TOTAL SCORE: _____ of 10 Points COMMENTS: IV. QUALITY OF PROJECT EVALUATION—Total of 20 points A. To what extent do project activities support the stated measurable objectives? B. To what extent are proposed teacher, student, and implementation measures appropriate and linked to measurable objectives? C. To what extent is the use of proposed teacher, student, and implementation measures likely to lead to needed project revisions? D. To what extent is the project’s dissemination plan likely to further understanding of PD for teachers? TOTAL SCORE: _____ of 20 Points COMMENTS: V. BUDGET, BUDGET EXPLANATION, AND COST SHARE—Total of 10 points A. To what extent is the budget aligned with the program and appropriate for the scope of the project? B. To what extent is the budget explanation clearly written and understandable, including an explanation of time commitment, roles, and responsibilities for all staff, including consultants if applicable? ______________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 54
    • C. To what extent does the budget information include a detailed account of each source of cost share and matching funds? D. To what extent is the proposed budget in compliance with budgetary guidelines and requirements? TOTAL SCORE: _____ of 10 Points COMMENTS: TOTAL SCORE: _________ of 100 Points Additional Comments: =================================================================== I agree to maintain in confidence any information, documentation and material of any kind (herein referred to as “Material”) included in this proposal. I further agree not to disclose, divulge, publish, file patent application on, claim ownership of, exploit or make any other use whatsoever of said “Material” without the written permission of the principal investigator. To the best of my knowledge, no conflict of interest is created as a result of my reviewing this proposal. Reviewer’s Name and Institution: ______________________________________________________________________ Reviewer’s Signature: ___________________________________________ Date: _____________ ______________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 55
    • APPENDIX I FOR BUDGET FORMS AND INSTRUCTION REFER TO LaSIP WEBSITE www.lasip.org ______________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 56
    • APPENDIX J 2007-08 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL FORMS Form 1 Notice of Intent Form 2 Cover Page Form 3 Project Abstract Form 4 Curriculum Vitae Form 5 Memo of Agreement Among Partners Form 6 Cooperative Planning Efforts Form 7 Current and Pending Support ______________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 57
    • Louisiana Systemic Initiatives Program 2007-08 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS NOTICE OF INTENT Name of Institution (Include Branch/Campus and School or Division): Address (Include Department): Principal Investigator(s): Phone: ( ) Fax: ( ) E-mail: Title of Project: This non-binding Notice of Intent should include the following information for the proposed project: (1) primary focus, including discipline and subject matter; (2) districts or regions to be served; (3) intended grade levels; and (4) proposed outcomes. This information will be used to ensure adequate preparation for the review of LaSIP PD proposals, including engagement of consultants with appropriate expertise. Applicants may modify the information provided below in part or whole as proposal development continues. (Form 1- 2007-08 LaSIP PD, Revised October 2006) ______________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 58
    • LOUISIANA SYSTEMIC INITIATIVES PROGRAM 2007-08 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS COVER PAGE Indicate appropriate Grade Level(s) Targeted: School Districts To Be Served: project option: (i.e., EPAS, LIGO, Literacy, Number of Targeted Participants: Math) Number of Targeted LINCS Schools: Number of Targeted LA GEAR UP Schools: Name(s) of Submitting Institution(s) of Higher Education (Include Branch/Campus/Other Components): Address of Institution of Higher Education (Include Dept/Unit, Street Address/P.O. Box Number, City, State, Zip Code): Title of Proposed Project: FY 2007-08 Funds Requested Cost Share: $ $ The signatories certify that the institution and the proposed project are in compliance with all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations. Name/Title (type or print); include Dept./Telephone No. Signature Institution (if different from above) Email Address PI/PD Co-PI/PD Co-PI/PD Campus Head or Authorized Institutional Representative Dean, College of Education Dean, College of Arts and Sciences Authorized Fiscal Agent (Form 2- 2007-08 LaSIP PD, Revised October 2006) ______________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 59
    • LOUISIANA SYSTEMIC INITIATIVES PROGRAM 2007-08 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS PROJECT ABSTRACT Name of Institution (Include Branch/Campus and School or Division): Address (Include Department): Principal Investigator(s): Phone: ( ) Fax: ( ) E-mail: Title of Project: Abstract (maximum 250 words): Include a description of the project which states the project option (including specific subject matter content, if appropriate), overarching goal(s), institution(s) involved, participants for which the project is designed, frequency of contact during summer and/or AY, number of teacher participants, targeted districts, targeted grade levels, primary activities, and proposed outcomes. (Form 3- 2007-08 LaSIP PD, Revised October 2006) ______________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 60
    • LOUISIANA SYSTEMIC INITIATIVES PROGRAM 2007-08 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS CURRICULUM VITAE Current Position Title Name Project Position Title EDUCATION (Begin with baccalaureate or other initial professional education and include postdoctoral training. INSTITUTION AND LOCATION DEGREE YEAR FIELD OF STUDY CONFERRED RESEARCH AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: DO NOT EXCEED TWO PAGES. Begin with present position, list in reverse chronological order previous relevant employment, experience, and honors. (Form 4- 2007-08 LaSIP PD, Revised October 2006) ______________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 61
    • MEMO OF AGREEMENT AMONG PARTNERS 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development for K-12 Mathematics, Science, Literacy, and EPAS ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ (Name of Sponsoring Institution or Institutions) (Project Title) _____________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ (Project Director/s) (Project Director/s) This cooperative agreement reflects the overall commitment as well as the specific responsibilities and the roles of each of the partners listed below. The purpose of this partnership is to prepare and support educators to help all students achieve high standards of learning and development. (A summary of each partner’s responsibilities and roles in this partnership should be attached to this signature page.) Type of Partner Name Title Institution/District/School Signature Teacher Preparation Program (Required) Dept./School of Arts & Sciences (Required) High-need Local Education Agency (LEA – Required) Additional Partners Additional Partners (Form 5) ________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 62
    • Memorandum of Agreement Among Partners (cont.) Sponsoring Institution: Project Director: Type of Partner Name Title Institution/District/School Signature Additional Partners Additional Partners Additional Partners (Form 5 cont’d) ______________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 63
    • APPENDIX J, FORM 6 Cooperative Planning Efforts Describe the collaborative planning efforts that have occurred between the participating institution, colleges of education, colleges/divisions of arts and science, local school districts and other participating organizations and agencies. Include dates of meetings, names of participants and schools, and/or departments of participants. (All charts need not be used, and if more are needed, just copy and add additional charts.) DATE NAMES OF PARTICIPANTS SCHOOLS/DEPARTMENTS Outcome of Meeting DATE NAMES OF PARTICIPANTS SCHOOLS/DEPARTMENTS Outcome of Meeting DATE NAMES OF PARTICIPANTS SCHOOLS/DEPARTMENTS Outcome of Meeting DATE NAMES OF PARTICIPANTS SCHOOLS/DEPARTMENTS Outcome of Meeting ________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 64
    • APPENDIX J, FORM 7 CURRENT AND PENDING SUPPORT List all State and Federal funding support for each investigator and other senior personnel since FY 2003. Use additional sheets as necessary. NAME OF INVESTIGATOR: ____________________________________________ Status of Support: ___Current ___Pending ___Submission Planned in Near Future Contract Number/Proposal Title: Source of Support: Award Amount (or Annual Rate): $___________________________ Period Covered:___________________ Location of Activity: Person-Months or % of Effort Committed to the Project: _____Cal Yr _____Acad _____Summ Status of Support: ___Current ___Pending ___Submission Planned in Near Future Contract Number/Proposal Title: Source of Support: Award Amount (or Annual Rate): $___________________________ Period Covered:___________________ Location of Activity: Person-Months or % of Effort Committed to the Project: _____Cal Yr _____Acad _____Summ Status of Support: ___Current ___Pending ___Submission Planned in Near Future Contract Number/Proposal Title: Source of Support: Award Amount (or Annual Rate): $___________________________ Period Covered:___________________ Location of Activity: Person-Months or % of Effort Committed to the Project: _____Cal Yr _____Acad _____Summ ______________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 65
    • APPENDIX K WAIVER OF TUITION AND FEES ______________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 66
    • ______________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 67
    • APPENDIX L Checklist for Submission of 2007-08 Proposals  Proposal Cover Page  Project Abstract  Table of Contents  Narrative 1. Rationale and Need for the Project 2. Project Design 3. Collaborative Partnership and Participant Recruitment 4. Quality of Key Personnel 5. Project Evaluation  Budget, Budget Narrative, and Cost Share  References  Curriculum Vitae  Current and Pending Support  Memo of Agreement Among Partners  Cooperative Planning Efforts ______________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 68
    • ______________________________________ 2007-08 LaSIP Professional Development RFP October 2006 Page 69