NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Division of Instruction
Office of Educational Technology

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

 

No Child Left Behind, Title II-D
Enhancing Education Through Technology (E2T2)


2009-2010 Grants to Districts


For Regular Round 8 Funding *

 

RFP Release Date: September 15, 2009

 

Application Due Date: October 23, 2009

 

Anticipated Awards Date: October 30, 2009

 

 

*This RFP pertains to the regular Title IID funds received this year. There is a separate RFP for the ARRA funding. The technical assistance sessions will address questions about both types of grants.

 

 

This Request for Proposal (RFP) is designed to distribute funds to qualified district applicants pursuant to Title IID, of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, to improve student achievement through the use of technology in elementary and secondary schools.

 

The New Hampshire Department of Education (NHDOE) will issue a total of approximately $1 million in federal funding for competitive grants to districts from the Enhancing Education through Technology Program (commonly known as No Child Left Behind, Title II-D Program) in 2009-10 to support the activities described within this document. Two grant types -- the Technology Leaders Program and the Classroom Technology Mini-Grants Program – provide grants in the amount of $10,000 per program to school districts to support the professional development of teachers and administrators and the integration of technology into instruction, in order to advance student learning. Districts may apply for one or both grant types and may submit applications individually or as consortium applications. Districts are strongly encouraged to apply for the Tech Leaders Program as part of a consortium.

 

This document is the official “Request for Proposals” used to outline the application process. It contains important information on the background of the federal program and its requirements. Those districts eligible per the high need districts list in Appendix A may apply to receive Title II-D competitive grant funds. Please review all pages of this document to learn how to apply for an NCLB Title II-D 2009-10 Competitive Grant. Applications must be submitted according to the guidelines described in this document and using the application form available at www.nheon.org/oet/nclb.

 

 

Technical Assistance Webinars:

Webinar – September 16 at 9 AM

Webinar – September 16 at 11 AM

 

Visit www.nheon.org/oet/nclb to register for one or more webinars and receive the login information to the webinar location. All you need is your computer and web browser, plus speakers and a microphone. If you don’t have a microphone, you can still participate in the dialogue using the text chat area on the webinar screen.

On-Site Session:

Optional on-site information session –

October 1st at NHDOE in Room 15 from 9AM to 3PM

October 7th at NHDOE in Room 15 from 9AM to 1PM

 

Dr. Cathy Higgins, NCLB Title II-D Program Manager

Office of Educational Technology, Division of Instruction

New Hampshire Department of Education, 101 Pleasant St, Concord, NH 03301

Voice: 603.271.2453 *** Email: chiggins@ed.state.nh.us 

Applicants are strongly advised to regularly visit the ETNews Blog at www.nheon.org/oetb and use the RSS feed to ensure timely receipt of information, and to subscribe to the ETNews listserv at http://maillist2.nh.gov/mailman/listinfo/nhdoe-etnews

Table of Contents

 

Contact 2

Enhancing Education Through Technology. 3

Technology Leadership Cohort (TLC) Program.. 3

Classroom Technology Mini-Grants. 7

Eligibility Status. 10

Technology Plans. 11

Technology Surveys. 11

Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) 11

Partnership Applications. 11

Equitable Participation. 12

Professional Development 12

Required Evaluation Data and Reports. 13

Project Meetings. 13

Required Budget Forms & Reports. 13

Important Project Dates. 15

APPENDIX A: Report of Current U.S. Census Data. 16

APPENDIX B: Project New Media Literacies. 21

APPENDIX C: Application Format & Content 24

APPENDIX D: Rubrics for Application Reviews. 30

 

 

 

Part A: PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS

With the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, Congress appropriated regular and ARRA funds in 2009-10 for NCLB Title II Part D, the Enhancing Education Through Technology (Ed Tech) Program. NHDOE is releasing this RFP to address the goals of this program using the regular funds. A separate RFP is available for the ARRA application process. The primary goal of the federal Enhancing Education Through Technology Program is to improve student academic achievement through the use of technology in elementary and secondary schools.

In addition, the program is designed to:

(a)  assist every student to become technologically literate by the end of eighth grade, regardless of race, ethnicity, income, geographical location, or disability, and

(b)  encourage effective integration of technology with curriculum development and high quality professional development to promote research-based instructional methods.

 

Approximately $700,000 has been reserved for the TLC program. High need districts (according to Appendix A) may apply to support teams of educators from one or more schools within their districts to participate in this statewide effort to bolster technology leadership. Each participating school team should be comprised of 2 teacher leaders and one supporting principal per school. Each team will be supported by $10,000 in grant funding ($4,000 per educator plus $2,000 per principal).

The ultimate goal of the TLC Program is to support a statewide cadre of skilled, informed teacher leaders and principals who are empowered to support their colleagues in creating truly 21st century learning environments.

Grant Amounts and Numbers of Participants

Consortium applications, including those which originate at PD Centers (www.lescn.org) are strongly encouraged. Such consortia applications may include teams from several districts, with approximately 20 participants plus 10 principals per consortium grant. These approximate sizes per consortium are suggested to ensure a manageable level of coordination per group, as well as to distribute participation across the state. It is estimated that this statewide initiative will serve up to 6 consortium grants, totaling 120 teachers/specialists ($4,000 x 120 teacher leaders = $480,000) and 60 principals ($2,000 per principal = $120,000).

Lead districts for each consortium grant are permitted to include $500 per teacher in their budgets for coordination. These districts must be prepared to coordinate and host TLC activities (in collaboration with NHDOE and the other consortia), replicate and expand the TLC09 program, and work with other TLC program consortia to ensure a common experience for participants. (See http://www.nheon.org/oet/nclb/2008-09/focus4.htm  for information about TLC09).

TLC Program Materials and Activities

In an effort to create a high quality professional development experience in support of emerging technologies and innovative approaches, the following programs are highlighted. Districts are strongly encouraged to plan for participation in these programs within their proposals. These resources can acquaint a significant number of teachers and principals with resources and approaches for creating 21st century learning environments which combine face to face learning with online learning:

·        Project New Media Literacies – This research initiative originated within MIT's Comparative Media Studies program. NML explores how we might best equip young people with the social skills and cultural competencies required to become full participants in an emergent media landscape and raise public understanding about what it means to be literate in a globally interconnected, multicultural world. A series of online NML activities in the form of webinars and social networking resources will be offered to interested NH educators from January through August 2010. Through online activities, educators will learn about the framework of social skills and cultural competencies which shape the work of Project New Media Literacies, and look more closely at learning through such cultural phenomenon as computer game guilds, YouTube video production, Wikipedia, fan fiction, Second Life and other virtual worlds, music remixing, and social network sites. New curricular materials which have emerged from Project New Media Literacies, Global Kids, Harvard’s GoodPlay Project, Common Sense Media, the George Lucas Foundation, and other projects will be examined to identify ways to introduce these skills into contemporary educational practices and take the material, information, and methods back into their classroom. Ideal proposals would recommend one educator per consortium to participate in the monthly webinars as part of the NML “Early Adopter Working Group.” These early adopters would then be able to help guide the growth of the NML online community in New Hampshire, while helping invite many other educators to join the online community over time. (See Appendix B for more details.) http://www.newmedialiteracies.org/

 

·        Intel Thinking With Technology Course – This course provides from 24 to 40 hours (depending on number of modules chosen) of professional development to teachers to learn strategies for addressing and assessing thinking skills, using technology to support deeper understanding of core content. The goal is for teachers to leave the course with a standards-based unit plan, support materials, and implementation strategies to improve and assess students' higher-order thinking with the use of free online tools. This program was offered in last year’s Tech Leader Program and will again be offered. Ideal proposals would plan for new TLC teachers to participate in this program, anticipating 3-4 days of workshop days, with 3 of them as Intel days, hosted in winter-spring 2010 at LESCN sites across the state. http://educate.intel.com/education/teach/workshops/index.asp

 

·        Intel Teach Leadership Forum - The Intel Teach Leadership Forum provides a 4-hour face-to-face professional development session focusing on the importance of leadership in promoting, supporting, and modeling the use of technology in instruction. Through the forum, participants explore relevant research and behaviors related to supporting effective technology integration and associated professional development. Ideal proposals would plan for principals from all participating schools to attend an after school Intel session dedicated to principals and other administrators, hosted at LESCN sites across the state.  http://www.intel.com//education/teach/forums/index.htm

 

·        OPEN NH – This e-learning program, now entering its 5th year in New Hampshire, provides online courses for professional development geared to school or district needs. Courses are facilitated by NH educators, designed by NH educators, and customized to meet the needs of NH schools and educators. Courses include several content areas and instructional topics. Some courses were developed by the national partnership, while others were developed and customized to meet specific needs in New Hampshire. All TLC teachers will be required to regularly access an online OPEN NH workspace for monthly themes and ongoing discussions, anticipating 1-3 hours per week of online engagement. The number of hours online is largely dependent on the extent to which participants explore resources provided within each monthly theme. http://www.opennh.org

 

Dates, Expectations, and More

 

Applications should indicate a date when an initial face to face consortium meeting for participants will be held (an after school time is recommended). At this meeting, participants would receive their iTouch and get started with the program. Teachers who are already participants in the TLC program may continue with the program by becoming the second school team member, in which case they can act as mentors and support for new participants. In your proposal, please indicate participants who are interested in being part of the NML Early Adopters Working Group, briefly indicating the background of each recommended early adopter. We anticipate engaging approximately 6 New Hampshire educators in this working group. An unlimited number of additional NH educators are invited and encouraged to join the online NML community, with the early adopters acting as leaders and guides in this effort.

Participant Expectations (approximately 80 hours distributed over the year)

·        Each teacher leader is expected to login to the TLC online workspace at least twice each week during 3 weeks each month, posting an original substantive message on the weekly topic and responding to two other participants (average 3-6 hours per month from December through August). Each group will be facilitated by an OPEN NH trained facilitator.

·        Teacher leaders who are new to TLC should plan to attend the 4 Intel Teach workshop dates scheduled by their consortium lead (estimated 24 hours total). (This is optional for returning TLC participants or those who will be part of the NML early adopters working group.)

·        Each consortium is strongly encouraged to identify a teacher leader to participate in the New Media Literacies “Early Adopter Working Group” (estimated 1-2 hours per week from January through August). These participants would attend monthly webinars from January through August to brainstorm on a monthly theme relevant to participating schools. Themes will vary and could range from digital media and ethics to exploring Wikipedia to citing examples of effective blended learning. These teacher leaders will then be able to engage other NH teachers in the NML online community as well as implement activities in their own classrooms.

·        Principals are expected to attend the initial TLC meeting held by the consortium lead; provide ongoing support and encouragement to teacher leaders; utilize an iTouch classroom observation application (apps) as well as other apps in order to become more familiar with educational uses for handheld devices; and attend the 21st Century Learner event (spring 2010), one day at the Christa McAuliffe Technology Conference (December 2009), Intel Leadership Forum, and 4-6 other after school sessions organized at consortium sites for participating principals.

We anticipate 5-6 consortium awards of $100,000 each, distributed across all regions of the state, which would support $10,000 per TLC team (total of 20 teacher leaders and 10 principals per consortium) as described below. (As the work of this initiative unfolds during the grant period, additional funding, if available, may be used to provide further support for this effort.)

 

Description of Expenses per Teacher Leader
for Activities from November 2009 through August 2010

Budgeted

Teacher Leader Stipend – Budgets should include teacher stipends to support their full involvement in activities, such as travel costs and time spent online beyond their regular contract hours. Schools are expected to cover the cost of any substitutes that might be needed throughout the year, as their in-kind support for this grant program.

$2,000

OPEN NH Registration - A significant portion of the program is conducted online using an OPEN NH course workspace for common discussions and resources. Registration to use and maintain these course spaces costs $100 per term, and the program will span the winter, spring, and summer terms. Additionally, TLC offers each participant a seat in one OPEN NH course of their choice from a selection of all content areas and several pedagogical themes.

$400

Spring Event Registration – Similar to last year, each participant will be able to attend the 21st Century Learner event hosted by LESCN and scheduled for early April 2010. See www.lescn.org. This is a “not to be missed” event!

$100

McAuliffe Registration – The Christa McAuliffe Technology Conference is an annual event in Nashua, NH each year during the week after Thanksgiving. This is a significant event, widely attended with exceptional keynotes and numerous special features. Each participant will be covered for one day of registration at this event. Participants should plan to bring their iTouches and attend a one hour session hosted by the program in the LESCN exhibitor room.

$120

Handheld Device – Similar to last year, each participant will be provided with an iPod Touch, case for the device, and gift card to purchase additional iTouch apps. The iTouch provides tech leaders with the opportunity to explore multiple uses for this digital device. 

$280

Sessions at LESCN Sites – TLC includes participation in 24 hours of hands-on sessions for the Intel Teach “Thinking with Technology” program. Food, facilities, and facilitation costs will be supported by this grant program at an approximate cost of $100 per day per participant for a total of 3-4 workshop dates.

$400

Coordination Services – Each consortium must have a lead district managing the activities which include: arranging for facilitators when needed; gathering registration details for the April event, McAuliffe, New Media Literacies webinars, and Intel workshops; ordering food and setting up the facility; sending out email reminders to participants; and ordering materials. As a year-long program with multiple features, we estimate this coordination expense at $500 per teacher leader.

$500

Evaluation – The USDOE is strongly encouraging all competitive grants to bolster their evaluation efforts. For this program, each grantee should budget 5% for evaluation costs, with the expectation that a collaborative evaluation plan will be developed and managed by one lead district.

$200

Description of Expenses per Principal
for Activities from November 2009 through August 2010

Budgeted

Spring Event Registration – Similar to last year, each principal will be able to attend the 21st Century Learner event hosted by LESCN and scheduled for early April 2010. See www.lescn.org. This is a “not to be missed” event.

$100

McAuliffe Registration – The Christa McAuliffe Technology Conference is an annual event in Nashua, NH each fall. This is a significant event, widely attended with exceptional keynotes and numerous special features. Each principal will be covered for one day of registration at this event.

$120

Handheld Device – This year, the handheld feature of the program is expanded in order to provide each principal with an iPod Touch, case for the device, and gift card to purchase additional iTouch apps. The iTouch provides principals with the opportunity to explore multiple uses for this digital device, including using it with classroom observations. 

$280

LoTi Observer – TLC grants will cover the $200 cost per school for a yearly subscription to the LoTi Observer. This tool is recommended because of the ongoing use of the LoTi survey in NH for the past several yeaers. However, if all consortium grantees prefer to use an alternate classroom observation tool, these funds would then be available for the alternative instrument.

$200

Other Expenses – It is expected that there will be indirect costs for the lead district plus other unanticipated costs. This amount is set aside to allow some leeway for each team to cover such expenses to support their involvement.

$1,300

 

 

 

 

Approximately $400,000 has been reserved for this program.

 

Districts may apply to sponsor one team per district to either replicate an exemplary mini-grant project or propose a new project. Projects which can directly impact more than one classroom are preferred. We anticipate up to 40 mini-grants of $10,000 each, distributed across all regions of the state and within each grade range of K-2, 3-5, 6-8, and 9-12. Federal guidelines require that each grantee spend at least $2,500 of the total grant for professional development. (As the work of this initiative unfolds during the grant period, additional funding, if available, may be used to provide further support for this effort.)

 

The goal of this effort is to create exemplary projects to disseminate to all NH schools, supported with technology, within each core content area: The Arts, English Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, Social Studies, and/or World Languages.

 

These mini-grants will have similar requirements to previous years, although there are some changes. Each year, the mini-grants have been supported by training sessions and a celebration event provided by the Local Educational Support Center Network (LESCN) and coordinated by Matt Treamer at NCES-PDC. It is clear that many educators are more experienced in video production than ever before. Thus, the professional development requirements have been adapted to accommodate the varying needs of teams. Teams are asked to contact their nearest PD Center (see www.lescn.org) or contact Matt Treamer directly at matt@ncedservices.org to inquire about professional development services that might be offered at a nearby center and customized to meet your project needs.

 

Requirements and Expectations

·        Projects must be carried out by teams of 2-4 educators from each project school.

·        Projects must be focused on a primary content area, as well as address ICT literacy skills. Project based learning (or problem based learning) with a constructivist approach and essential questions are the heart of these projects. Team projects must show evidence that these pedagogies are clearly understood and applied.

·        Teams must attend an initial mini-grants meeting to review expectations, especially the requirements around video production, and establish procedures and contact information during the project period. Several dates for one-hour webinar sessions will be offered during the week of November 16. Awardees will receive these dates when notified of their awards.

·        Teams must produce a 3 minute video, lesson plan, assessment rubric, and related documentation to indicate how the project was carried out and submit draft copies of these materials to the mini-grants coordinator, Matt Treamer, by the end of April 2010. Templates will be provided at the initial webinars in November.

·        Teams must attend one of three after-school mini-grant meetings during the week of May 3-7, 2010 at one of the PD Centers. Support will be provided at these meetings to refine project documentation materials. Such documentation will be made publicly available prior to the Celebration Event at www.nheon.org/omeka. This is also where examples of previous grant materials can be found. Please note that as you browse previous projects, some materials from previous mini-grants might not include all of the required elements. This year, the initial grantees meeting is required attendance for all team members to ensure requirements and expectations are understood by all teams. Awardees will receive the specific May 2010 dates and locations when notified of their awards.

·        Each team must present their project at the annual Mini-Grant Celebration Event on May 21, 2010 at Church Landing in Meredith, NH, as well as present at two other local or regional venues, such as the Christa McAuliffe Technology Conference or other similar event. Important budget note: Please include $500 in your proposed budget for 5 people to attend this event, but do not include the $500 in your OBM Form 1. Instead, this amount will be awarded to one district on behalf of all mini-grant awardees in order to simplify invoicing for all awardees. This is a required event for team members. We encourage teams to invite their principals and superintendents to also attend. It is important that teams understand the costs involved in coordinating this event which includes facilitation, food, and facility costs. When teams are asked to register attendees, please register ONLY those who are sure they will attend to avoid being charged $100 per person for non-attendees.

·        Budgets should contain equipment, supplies, travel, and professional development expenses appropriate to carry out the proposed project. Please contact Cathy Higgins at chiggins@ed.state.nh.us if you have questions about expenses that don’t easily fit into these categories. The total for professional development should be at least $2,500, of which $500 should be set aside for the Celebration Event (see section above).

·        Project proposals must identify and explain at least three specific learning goals the team needs to address and how the proposed professional development will address these.

·        Proposals must indicate that support has been obtained from the superintendent AND the principal. In addition, teams must ask both of them to send an email indicating such support to chiggins@ed.state.nh.us. Each email must acknowledge that he/she has read the RFP, understands the requirements, and will allow the applying team to fulfill the requirements, if they are awarded the grant. Additional emails of support from the local school board, community members or students are welcome but not required.

Exemplary projects are sought which can address the following topics and standards:

 

Social Studies – Contact Ken Relihan, NHDOE Social Studies Consultant

krelihan@ed.state.nh.us

 

Increase accessible technology in GIS and GPS, as outlined in the standards below. Geographic standards which can be exemplified through technology are not limited to those below.  Settlement patterns, migration, and natural resources are examples of geographic issues that lend themselves to technological expression. Technology can certainly be used to support other standards, such as those in Economics and Civics. ArcUser is full of examples of how GIS has been applied to problems in Economics and Government. It should be pointed out that geography is an important topic to address with these projects, and connections with math and science can be achieved through GPS projects. 

 

Geography Grades 3-4

SS:GE:4:1.1: Identify and describe the characteristics and purposes of geographic tools: maps, globes, graphs, diagrams, photographs, satellite-produced images, and other technologies. (Themes: C: People, Places and Environment, F: Global Transformation)

 

Geography Grades 5-6

SS:GE:6:1.3: Utilize maps, globes, graphs, charts, models, and databases to analyze spatial distributions and patterns, e.g., climate zones, natural resources, or population density. (Themes: C: People, Places and Environment)

 

Geography Grades 7-8

SS:GE:8:1.1: Compare relative advantages and disadvantages of using maps, globes, aerial and other photographs, satellite-produced images, and models to solve geographic problems, e.g., the Mercator projections versus Robinson projections. (Themes: C: People, Places and Environment)

 

Geography Grades 9-12

SS:GE:12:1.1: Use graphic tools to depict geographic issues, e.g.,      ice production in the Philippines or voting patterns in the United  States. (Themes: C: People, Places and Environment, E: Cultural Development, Interaction, and Change)

 

World Languages - Contact Ken Relihan, NHDOE World Languages Consultant

krelihan@ed.state.nh.us

 

Applicants are encouraged to consider the use of technology in World Language instruction (e.g., Rosetta Stone) and assessment (various forms of voice recognition software which can assess oral proficiency, etc.). For languages, there is currently not much technology used, so any tools that use technology, or software programs, would be useful. If software programs are more expensive than can be purchased just with a mini-grant, applicants are encouraged to seek other additional funding sources that can supplement the mini-grant budget. Proposals should reference the national standards for World Languages when describing the content that will be addressed.

 

 

The Arts – Contact Marcia McCaffrey, NHDOE Arts Consultant

mmccaffrey@ed.state.nh.us

 

This framework was guided by the broad goals in the National Standards for Arts Education.  They were tailored to meet the needs of New Hampshire students. (Bolded standards are of particular importance.)

 

·       Students will create, perform, and respond with understanding to all of the arts including Dance, Music, Theatre, and Visual Arts.

·       Students will be able to communicate proficiently in at least one art form: Dance, Music, Theatre or Visual Arts.

·       Students will be able to analyze and evaluate works of art from structural, historical, and cultural perspectives. This includes the ability to understand and evaluate works of art in various arts disciplines.

·       Students will recognize exemplary works of art from a variety of historical periods and cultures, as well as understand historical development within and among the arts disciplines.

·       Students will relate various types of arts knowledge and skills within and across the arts disciplines.

·       Students will use technology as ways to create, perform or respond in various arts disciplines.

 

Additionally, the framework is a foundation for local development of assessment instruments. The New Hampshire Curriculum Framework for the Arts provides expectations for student learning which may serve as a basis for assessment design. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and State Consortium for Assessment and Student Standards/Arts (SCASS) models may also be used as a reference for designing performance assessments, keeping in mind that curriculum, instruction and assessment work together to promote strong educational programs.

 

If arts educators utilize the framework as intended, students should be able to achieve to the best of their ability. It is expected that students will be able to communicate proficiently in all four arts disciplines by the end of grade 8. Where necessary, modifications and supports should be provided for students with disabilities, often in collaboration with other professional staff. By offering varied opportunities for personal expression, a wide range of options for successful participation of every student can be insured.

 

It is critical that NH students create art and learn to create it using technology, in order to help integrate deeper student knowledge of concepts and ideas in the arts.

 

 

Science – Contact Jan McLaughlin, NHDOE Science Consultant

jmclaughlin@ed.state.nh.us

 

Teachers in the K-4 classroom should provide students opportunities to engage with concrete manipulative activities that will lead children to construct the desired concepts through investigation and analysis of experience. At this level in particular, science should be integrated with other curricular areas (e.g., reading, writing, math, social studies, technology, art, music, or physical education).

 

Children in grades 5-8 will build on their K-4 measurement and observation skills to construct new understandings and validate scientific theories and explanations. At this level, effective learning environments provide opportunities for collaborative inquiry in the field, classroom, and laboratory. These students need content knowledge as well as frequent and varied practice in experimentation and inquiry.

 

It is important that students develop a solid understanding of how specific domains of science operate. Students in high school should learn science in courses with clear content goals and expectations. Understanding the connections of one science domain to another is important but research indicates students need concentrated knowledge and skills in specific science domains.  Courses become more content-intensive without losing the field, experiential, and laboratory components. Although content may take on a more prominent role, instruction should proceed as much as possible on an inquiry basis.

 

Science Process Skills:

·        SPS1– Scientific Inquiry and Critical Thinking Skills

·        SPS2– Unifying Concepts of Science (including NECAP Science Assessment Targets by Big Idea)

·        SPS3– Personal, Social, and Technological Perspectives

·        SPS4– Science Skills for Information, Communication and Media Literacy

 

Earth Space Science Standards:

·        ESS1– The Earth and Earth materials, as we know them today, have developed over long periods of time, through constant change processes. 

·        ESS2– The Earth is part of a solar system, made up of distinct parts, which have temporal and spatial interrelationships.

·        ESS3– The origin and evolution of galaxies and the universe demonstrate fundamental principles of physical science across vast distances and time.

·        ESS4– The growth of scientific knowledge in Earth Space Science has been advanced through the development of technology and is used (alone or in combination with other sciences) to identify, understand and solve local and global issues.

 

Earth Space Science is lacking in the High School and all science domains need coherence in the elementary school.  All levels need increased inquiry and development of science process skills.  Project based learning approaches beyond standardized laboratories should be used more often.

 

 

English Language Arts & Mathematics – The positions for these NHDOE content consultants are currently vacant.

 

Within these content areas, it is suggested that teams look at their own curriculum to determine which standards most need to be addressed within a mini-grant project.

 

According to NCLB Title II-D federal program guidelines dated March 11, 2002 (p.12) (see www.ed.gov/programs/edtech/legislation.html), funding should be targeted toward “high need districts” which are those districts:

 

(a) With the highest numbers or percentages of children from families with incomes below the poverty line (see www.census.gov/hhes/www/saipe) AND

(b) That have either one or more “schools in need of improvement” or a substantial need for assistance in acquiring and using technology.

 

Based on updated information from the USDOE, the Title II-D high need districts list has been updated for the 2009-10 academic year to indicate eligibility according to the census data (see Appendix A).

 

If you can answer YES to the following questions, your district is eligible to request Title II-D grant funding for the activities described within this RFP:

 

  1. Is your district a high need school district according to Appendix A?
  2. Does your district have one or more schools in need of improvement or a substantial need for assistance in acquiring and using technology?
  3. Does your district have a current district technology plan approved by the NHDOE?
  4. If your district received a Title II-D grant last year, did you complete the required grant reports and data collection sets in 2008-09?

 

If you answered NO to any of the above, your district is not eligible to request Title II-D ARRA funding.

 

Districts receiving Title II-D funds must have budgets and planned activities that are consistent with their technology plans. Federal law requires districts to have an approved district technology plan on file to receive Title II-D funds. Districts must have a new or updated long-range strategic technology plan that aligns with the guidance contained in the New Hampshire Technology Planning Guide (www.nheon.org/oet/tpguide) and is consistent with the objectives of the State Educational Technology Plan. Districts should keep in mind that these federal funds are intended to “supplement and not supplant” the use of local funding. Districts are required to inform the NHDOE whenever significant modifications are made to a local technology plan. Check the Tech Plan Status List (link located on the home page of the Tech Planning Guide) to ensure that your plan is current. (Please note: plans which were received by NHDOE after June 30, 2009 may not have been reviewed yet. Such plans will be reviewed by the end of September and contact persons notified of their plan status.) For approval criteria, districts should refer to the elements described in the current Technology Plan Approval Rubric, available from the home page of the Guide. As part of the grant evaluation process, upon receiving grant awards, districts will be asked to submit a self-assessment of the criteria within the NH School Technology and Readiness (STaR) Chart, which is also located in the Tech Planning Guide.

 

The NHDOE conducts an annual technology survey as part of its obligation to monitor and collect data about the impact of the Title II-D program. While all districts are encouraged to complete the survey, districts that received grants last year were required to submit an Annual District Technology Survey, as well as School Technology Surveys (and Case Study Reports) for each school in the district. Visit www.nheon.org/oet/survey to check the list of surveys submitted. Please contact the NHDOE Office of Educational Technology if you have questions about your district survey submissions.

 

Successful grantees will be asked to certify on their grant signature page the conditions that are met by their district relative to the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) requirements. Districts must be CIPA compliant in terms of their Internet filtering if they are purchasing any equipment that will be used by students to access the Internet.

 

Federal guidelines permit eligible districts to submit either a Single District Application for their district alone or a Partnership Application for more than one district. We suggest that districts form consortia for the Tech Leader grants but apply individually for the Classroom Tech Mini-Grants. The focus of all applications for funding must be on addressing the needs of the high-need LEA(s). Federal guidelines allow additional partners, including institutions of higher education, educational service agencies, libraries, or other educational entities appropriate to provide local programs. Only districts may be fiscal agents for partnership applications. The total amount requested for partnership grants cannot exceed the sum of the individual eligible amounts. Partnership Applications should include unique letters of support (no form letters, please) from each partner.

 

An “eligible local partnership” includes at least one high-need LEA and at least one of the following:

1)    An LEA that can demonstrate that teachers in its schools are effectively integrating technology and

2)    An LEA that has proven teaching practices into instruction, based on a review of relevant research, and that the integration results in improvement in classroom instruction and in helping students meet challenging academic standards;

3)    An institution of higher education that is in full compliance with the reporting requirements of section 207(f) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, and that has not been identified by the State as low-performing under that Act;

4)    A for-profit business that develops, designs, manufactures, or produces technology products or services or has substantial expertise in the application of technology in instruction; or

5)    A public or private nonprofit organization with demonstrated expertise in the application of educational technology in instruction.

 

The eligible local partnership may include other LEAs, libraries, specialists, or other education entities appropriate to local programs.

 

According to federal guidelines, as a district, you must provide an opportunity for local non-public schools within your locality to consult with you when you write your proposal. Contact them to discuss ways they might be included in your project. If they are not interested in partnering with your district, you are not required to include them in your project activities, but you do need to offer them the opportunity. For a list of non-public schools and their contact information, visit this page on the NHDOE website and click on the link to the non-public schools list: http://www.ed.state.nh.us/education/doe/organization/instruction/boip.htm

 

IMPORTANT: According to federal guidelines, if a private school is part of your application, any equipment purchased with the grant remains the property of the public school. It is permissible to loan equipment to the private school, if needed, to carry out the project. It is the responsibility of the district receiving the grant to inventory and maintain any equipment purchased by the grant.

 

§  25% Requirement – Federal program guidelines require that districts use at least 25% of their total grant funds for ongoing, sustained, intensive, high-quality professional development. Districts may budget more than 25% for professional development, as appropriate, within the proposed project. Such professional development should be focused on the integration of advanced technologies, including emerging technologies, into curriculum and instruction and in using those technologies to create new learning environments. (TLC grants are considered largely professional development. Mini-grants should include at least $2,500 towards professional development.)

§  Alternatives – According to federal guidelines, this 25% professional development requirement can be waived only if the district can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the NHDOE that it already provides ongoing, sustained, intensive, high-quality professional development, based on a review of relevant research, to all teachers in core academic subjects. Districts should keep in mind that these federal funds are intended to “supplement and not supplant” the use of local funding.  Any district considering such a waiver must contact Cathy Higgins to discuss this possibility before submitting the proposal. If your district receives a waiver, that documentation will need to be submitted with the proposal.

Federal guidelines require that districts have a means of evaluating the extent to which Title II-D activities are effective in (1) integrating technology into curricula and instruction; (2) increasing the ability of teachers to teach; and (3) enabling students to meet challenging state standards.

 

Because the Title II-D program is a state-administered program, NHDOE is responsible for ensuring that districts comply with statutory requirements. Therefore, districts are required to submit updated budgets, data for performance reports, and other reasonable data to the NHDOE before being awarded funds in subsequent years. All grantees will be required to participate in a statewide evaluation of their grant activities. For the TLC and mini-grant programs, the primary evaluation instruments used will be surveys. Districts interested in the possibility of leading the evaluation efforts (in consultation with the NHDOE) on behalf of multiple grantees may indicate their interest within their proposal. This configuration is desired in order to maximize the potential for a larger and more meaningful evaluation across all projects.

 

While details of the statewide evaluation plan will ultimately be worked out after all grants are awarded, the following data reports are anticipated requirements for all grantees:

§  NH School Technology Survey – This is an annual survey submitted for each building in the district as well as the district as a whole. State data from previous tech surveys may be viewed at www.nheon.org/oet/survey.

§  Administrator & Teacher Student Surveys – Pre and post surveys will be used.

§  NH School Technology and Readiness (STaR) Chart – Awardees will be asked to complete a district’s self-assessment of the criteria within this chart by no later than December 31, 2009. This chart may be downloaded from the Tech Planning Guide at www.nheon.org/oet/tpguide. Instructions for online submission will be provided within award letters.

§  Case Studies Report – This is a short form to report progress on district project activities midway through the project and again after the project is completed. The case studies form is available as a downloadable Word document and an online survey at www.nheon.org/oet. Previously submitted case studies are available at www.nheon.org/ictliteracy. It is possible that this report may be revised during the development of the statewide evaluation plan this year.

 

Each grant type has a different set of meetings. Both types require attendance at an initial meeting to review grant requirements and ensure that expectations and outcomes are understood. Please see the appropriate section above for meeting dates.

 

These grants will utilize the standards OBM Form 2 System.

OBM Form 1

·    An electronic as well as a signed copy of the OBM Form 1 should be submitted with the application. This form is used to authorize federal projects issued by the NHDOE. When completing this budget form, it is important that you double check all entries with your business manager before submitting to the NHDOE. (In many districts, the form is normally completed by the business manager.) Sending the form with errors can result in delays in processing your grant. Common errors include missing or incorrect project start and end dates, missing fiscal agent name in “make checks payable to” box, or incorrectly calculated indirect cost amounts. For detailed instructions on indirect cost calculations and other instructions related to OBM Forms, visit the NHDOE Integrated Programs website at: www.ed.state.nh.us/education/doe/organization/instruction/boip.htm

·    If submitting funding requests for more than one grant type, please list items according to each grant type on the bottom half of page two of the Form 1. This will also be an important tracking strategy if you have any unanticipated changes in expenditures over the project period.

·    See Project Dates section regarding the project start and end dates to be entered on the Form 1.

Obligation and Disbursement Reports

FY 2010 Title II-D projects may remain open until 3/31/11. Funding obligations for awarded projects must be reported by a school district no later than the quarterly report which ends March 2011, with final disbursements reported on the quarterly reports due July 10, 2011. Budget OBM Forms 3 and 4 from the NHDOE are used for these reports.

·        Failure to submit obligation and disbursement reports to the NHDOE Office of Business Management by July 10, 2011 will result in the forfeiture of any outstanding obligations.

 

Part B: WRITING A SUCCESSFUL PROPOSAL

Step 1. Read all sections of this document to understand the grant requirements.

Step 2. Review the application format (see Appendix C), which describes the information that should be included within each section of your proposal. Then review the scoring rubric which will be used to score your proposal.

Step 3. Enter your contact information by 9/30/09 from the link at www.nheon.org/oet/nclb to indicate your district’s intent to apply. This will help us know how many proposal reviewers will be needed.

Step 4. Write your proposal using the application form provided on the website. Then read this guidance document again to be sure you have covered all the required information. Ask someone unfamiliar with the project to read your proposal to assess it for clarity and completeness.

Step 5. Follow the Submission Instructions to submit your proposal.

9/15/09

Request for Proposals for Title IID Regular Grants released

9/16/09

Technical Assistance Session: Online webinar at 9 AM

Register at www.nheon.org/oet/nclb

9/16/09

Technical Assistance Session: Online webinar at 11 AM

Register at www.nheon.org/oet/nclb

9/23/09

New Media Literacies Presentation at NHSTE Annual Meeting

See www.nhste.org for meeting registration details

9/30/09

Indicate intent to apply using the link provided at www.nheon.org/oet/nclb

10/1/09

Optional on-site technical assistance session: NHDOE Room 15 from 9 AM to 3 PM

Register at www.nheon.org/oet/nclb

10/7/09

Optional on-site technical assistance session: NHDOE Room 15 from 9 AM to 1 PM

Register at www.nheon.org/oet/nclb

10/23/09

Application due date for Title IID regular grants: Electronic version of application documents must be emailed to chiggins@ed.state.nh.us and postmarked and addressed to NHDOE by this date. (Please note: this is different than the submission process for the ARRA grants.)

10/30/09

Anticipated awards date

11/9/09

Project period begins

11/16 (week of)

Initial Mini-Grants Webinars held this week. Award letters will contain details.

November

Initial TLC meetings held at consortium sites per proposals

12/3/09

New Media Literacies Presentation at McAuliffe Technology Conference

3/31/11

Project period ends

 

PLEASE SEE ADDITIONAL DATES PERTINENT TO EACH GRANT TYPE IN SECTIONS ABOVE.

 

Submission Instructions

1. Download the application form, OBM Budget Form 1, and submission guidelines from the website at: www.nheon.org/oet/nclb. Use the forms provided to create your proposal and budget form.

2. EMAIL the complete application electronically as attachments to an email to chiggins@ed.state.nh.us by no later than Monday, 10/23/09. The following files should be attached:

Attach the "District Application Cover Page" which indicates the grant type(s) you are applying for and the amount of grant funds requested. (The electronic file does not have to include the superintendent's signature, but the hard copy version that you mail on 10/23/09 must have the signature.)

Attach the application forms containing narrative and budget for each grant application.

Attach only one single Budget OBM form 1. This form will include all requested funds (break out items for each grant type on bottom half of page 2 detail section).

The subject line of the email must read: <Your District Name> Title II-D Application

3. As soon as you email your application, put your signed original OBM Form 1 and the application pages in the mail on the same day (10/23/09). Only one copy (original with signature) is needed.

Mail the budget form 1 and application pages to:

Dr. Cathy Higgins
Office of Educational Technology
NH Department of Education
101 Pleasant St
Concord , NH 03301

 

APPENDIX A: Report of Current U.S. Census Data

New Hampshire “High Need” School Districts

 

According to NCLB Title II-D federal program guidelines dated March 11, 2002 (p.12) (see www.ed.gov/programs/edtech/legislation.html), funding should be targeted toward “high need districts.” These would be districts whose numbers or percentages of children from families with incomes below the poverty line are above the state median (39 and 6.8% respectively) (see www.census.gov/hhes/www/saipe/) AND who have either one or more “schools in need of improvement” OR a substantial need for assistance in acquiring and using technology.

 

The “eligible for funds” column in the table below indicates whether your district is eligible to apply by number, percent, or both, according to Census Data available as of December 2008.

 

 

 

District

Total Pop.

Total Kids

5-17

Total Kids in Poverty 5-17

Poverty %

Urban / Rural

Eligible By

% or #?

ALLENSTOWN

5,271

964

79

8.2%

U

Eligible by Both

ALTON

4,881

544

58

10.7%

R

Eligible by Both

AMHERST

11,376

1,910

42

2.2%

U

Eligible by Number

ANDOVER

2,296

367

46

12.5%

R

Eligible by Both

ASHLAND

2,057

204

18

8.8%

R

Eligible by Percent

AUBURN

5,004

986

31

3.1%

U

Not Eligible

BARNSTEAD

4,212

528

57

10.8%

R

Eligible by Both

BARRINGTON

8,105

1,562

149

9.5%

U

Eligible by Both

BARTLETT *

2,955

418

69

16.4%

R

Eligible by Both

BATH

934

161

2

1.2%

R

Not Eligible

BEDFORD

19,304

3,837

100

2.6%

U

Eligible by Number

BERLIN *

10,452

1,407

204

14.5%

R

Eligible by Both

BETHLEHEM

2,306

180

28

15.6%

R

Eligible by Percent

BOW

7,769

1,800

56

3.1%

R

Eligible by Number

BRENTWOOD

3,418

275

10

3.6%

U

Not Eligible

BROOKLINE

4,417

638

11

1.7%

U

Not Eligible

CAMPTON *

2,928

331

34

10.3%

R

Eligible by Percent

CANDIA

4,182

746

31

4.2%

U

Not Eligible

CHESTER

4,056

826

41

5.0%

U

Eligible by Number

CHESTERFIELD

3,729

654

29

4.4%

R

Not Eligible

CHICHESTER

2,434

416

27

6.5%

R

Not Eligible

CLAREMONT

13,879

2,121

228

10.7%

R

Eligible by Both

COLEBROOK *

3,112

466

74

15.8%

R

Eligible by Both

CONCORD

39,707

5,947

619

10.4%

R

Eligible by Both

CONTOOCOOK VALLEY

18,756

3,718

383

10.3%

R

Eligible by Both

CONWAY *

10,762

1,570

277

17.6%

R

Eligible by Both

CORNISH

1,764

319

16

5.0%

R

Not Eligible

CROYDON

697

109

7

6.4%

R

Not Eligible

DEERFIELD

3,935

801

39

4.9%

R

Eligible by Number

DERRY

36,380

7,509

350

4.7%

U

Eligible by Number

DOVER

29,126

4,021

410

10.2%

U

Eligible by Both

DRESDEN

11,351

607

9

1.5%

R

Not Eligible

DUNBARTON

2,423

414

19

4.6%

R

Not Eligible

EAST KINGSTON

1,907

209

13

6.2%

U

Not Eligible

EPPING

5,855

1,057

62

5.9%

U

Eligible by Number

EPSOM

4,375

712

40

5.6%

R

Eligible by Number

ERROL *

368

37

7

18.0%

R

Eligible by Percent

EXETER

15,030

1,203

78

6.5%

U

Eligible by Number

EXETER REGIONAL COOP

30,833

2,687

105

3.9%

U

Eligible by Number

FALL MOUNTAIN REGIONAL

12,341

2,028

221

10.9%

R

Eligible by Both

FARMINGTON *

7,815

1,535

125

8.1%

R

Eligible by Both

FRANKLIN

9,149

1,489

328

22.0%

R

Eligible by Both

FREEDOM

1,414

151

9

6.0%

R

Not Eligible

FREMONT

3,753

684

25

3.7%

U

Not Eligible

GILFORD

7,373

1,158

74

6.4%

R

Eligible by Number

GILMANTON

3,311

540

39

7.2%

R

Eligible by Both

GOFFSTOWN

17,883

2,901

117

4.0%

U

Eligible by Number

GORHAM *

12,668

921

72

7.8%

R

Eligible by Both

GOSHEN LEMPSTER COOP

1,806

309

31

10.0%

R

Eligible by Percent

GOV WENTWORTH REGIONAL

17,942

2,795

350

12.5%

R

Eligible by Both

GRANTHAM

2,286

301

6

2.0%

R

Not Eligible

GREENLAND

3,430

604

48

7.9%

U

Eligible by Both

HAMPSTEAD

8,869

1,826

65

3.6%

U

Eligible by Number

HAMPTON

15,968

1,660

105

6.3%

U

Eligible by Number

HAMPTON FALLS

2,010

260

10

3.8%

U

Not Eligible

HANOVER

11,351

549

9

1.6%

R

Not Eligible

HARRISVILLE

1,128

187

8

4.3%

R

Not Eligible

HAVERHILL COOP *

4,948

771

40

5.2%

R

Eligible by Number

HENNIKER

4,825

631

21

3.3%

R

Not Eligible

HILL

1,080

210

21

10.0%

R

Eligible by Percent

HILLSBORO-DEERING COOP *

7,398

1,427

115

8.1%

R

Eligible by Both

HINSDALE

4,298

745

71

9.5%

R

Eligible by Both

HOLDERNESS

2,022

221

20

9.0%

R

Eligible by Percent

HOLLIS

7,410

954

14

1.5%

U

Not Eligible

HOLLIS/BROOKLINE COOP

11,827

1,011

21

2.1%

U

Not Eligible

HOOKSETT

12,756

1,998

146

7.3%

U

Eligible by Both

HOPKINTON

5,877

1,103

33

3.0%

R

Not Eligible

HUDSON

24,220

4,697

230

4.9%

U

Eligible by Number

INTER LAKES

8,915

1,335

111

8.3%

R

Eligible by Both

JACKSON

906

99

7

7.1%

R

Eligible by Percent

JAFFREY-RINDGE COOP

11,504

1,842

190

10.3%

R

Eligible by Both

JOHN STARK REGIONAL

13,039

674

34

5.0%

R

Not Eligible

KEARSARGE REGIONAL

14,842

2,190

133

6.1%

R

Eligible by Number

KEENE

23,757

3,061

225

7.4%

R

Eligible by Both

KENSINGTON

2,024

210

8

3.8%

U

Not Eligible

LACONIA

17,787

2,585

282

10.9%

R

Eligible by Both

LAFAYETTE REGIONAL

1,823

131

10

7.6%

R

Eligible by Percent

LANDAFF

395

57

2

3.5%

R

Not Eligible

LEBANON

13,150

1,819

200

11.0%

R

Eligible by Both

LINCOLN-WOODSTOCK

2,521

352

20

5.7%

R

Not Eligible

LISBON REGIONAL

2,170

348

28

8.0%

R

Eligible by Percent

LITCHFIELD

7,775

1,749

65

3.7%

U

Eligible by Number

LITTLETON

6,109

979

101

10.3%

R

Eligible by Both

LONDONDERRY

24,838

5,683

178

3.1%

U

Eligible by Number

LYME

1,758

298

10

3.4%

R

Not Eligible

LYNDEBOROUGH

1,658

187

5

2.7%

R

Not Eligible

MADISON

2,153

364

32

6.6%

R

Not Eligible

MANCHESTER

113,037

17,940

2,460

13.7%

U

Eligible by Both

MARLBOROUGH

2,115

306

19

6.2%

R

Not Eligible

MARLOW

786

118

7

5.9%

R

Not Eligible

MASCENIC REGIONAL

8,092

1,742

160

9.2%

R

Eligible by Both

MASCOMA VALLEY REGIONAL

10,174

1,558

98

6.3%

R

Eligible by Number

MERRIMACK

26,534

5,484

181

3.3%

U

Eligible by Number

MERRIMACK VALLEY

16,410

2,787

283

10.2%

R

Eligible by Both

MILAN *

1,472

251

25

9.8%

R

Eligible by Percent

MILFORD

14,298

2,732

183

6.70%

U

Eligible by Number

MILTON

4,235

812

105

12.93%

U

Eligible by Both

MONADNOCK REGIONAL

15,174

2,499

174

6.96%

R

Eligible by Both

MONROE

794

132

12

9.09%

R

Eligible by Percent

MONT VERNON

2,149

361

15

4.16%

U

Not Eligible

MOULTONBOROUGH

4,865

710

43

6.06%

R

Eligible by Number

NASHUA

91,485

15,489

1,284

8.29%

U

Eligible by Both

NELSON

667

113

10

8.85%

R

Eligible by Percent

NEW BOSTON

4,371

929

69

7.43%

R

Eligible by Both

NEW CASTLE

1,080

132

0

0.00%

U

Not Eligible

NEWFIELDS

1,658

194

4

2.06%

U

Not Eligible

NEWFOUND AREA

9,817

1,564

128

8.18%

R

Eligible by Both

NEWINGTON

829

136

7

5.15%

U

Not Eligible

NEWMARKET

8,582

1,228

97

7.90%

U

Eligible by Both

NEWPORT

6,615

1,167

197

16.88%

R

Eligible by Both

NORTH HAMPTON

4,554

591

14

2.37%

U

Not Eligible

NORTHUMBERLAND

2,413

429

69

16.08%

R

Eligible by Both

NORTHWOOD

3,890

732

36

4.92%

R

Not Eligible

NOTTINGHAM

3,957

753

22

2.92%

R

Not Eligible

OYSTER RIVER COOP

19,844

2,566

159

6.20%

U

Eligible by Number

PELHAM

11,529

2,312

85

3.68%

U

Eligible by Number

PEMBROKE

7,509

1,346

107

7.95%

R

Eligible by Both

PEMI-BAKER REGIONAL

17,384

711

48

6.75%

R

Eligible by Number

PIERMONT

740

110

6

5.45%

R

Not Eligible

PITTSBURG *

1,149

147

18

12.24%

R

Eligible by Percent

PITTSFIELD

4,281

806

96

11.91%

R

Eligible by Both

PLAINFIELD

2,353

399

10

2.51%

R

Not Eligible

PLYMOUTH

6,152

453

50

11.04%

R

Eligible by Both

PORTSMOUTH

22,222

2,455

233

9.49%

U

Eligible by Both

PROFILE

4,129

300

39

13.00%

R

Eligible by Both

RAYMOND

10,343

2,056

133

6.47%

U

Eligible by Number

RIVENDELL INTERSTATE

1,142

147

13

8.84%

R

Eligible by Percent

ROCHESTER

30,832

5,196

643

12.37%

U

Eligible by Both

ROLLINSFORD

2,865

482

40

8.30%

U

Eligible by Both

RUMNEY

1,548

193

30

15.54%

R

Eligible by Percent

RYE

5,540

868

32

3.69%

U

Not Eligible

SALEM

30,057

5,118

210

4.10%

U

Eligible by Number

SANBORN REGIONAL

10,853

1,979

78

3.94%

U

Eligible by Number

SEABROOK

8,483

849

80

9.42%

U

Eligible by Both

SHAKER REGIONAL

9,437

1,579

121

7.66%

R

Eligible by Both

SOMERSWORTH

12,434

2,153

220

10.22%

U

Eligible by Both

SOUHEGAN COOP

13,524

917

28

3.05%

U

Not Eligible

SOUTH HAMPTON

902

158

5

3.16%

U

Not Eligible

STARK

508

90

10

11.11%

R

Eligible by Percent

STEWARTSTOWN

1,002

148

12

8.11%

R

Eligible by Percent

STODDARD

977

130

13

10.00%

R

Eligible by Percent

STRAFFORD

3,920

862

27

3.13%

R

Not Eligible

STRATFORD

932

144

33

22.92%

R

Eligible by Percent

STRATHAM

6,795

721

18

2.50%

U

Not Eligible

SUNAPEE

3,223

526

27

5.13%

R

Not Eligible

TAMWORTH

2,718

410

28

6.83%

R

Eligible by Percent

THORNTON

1,932

209

21

10.05%

R

Eligible by Percent

TIMBERLANE REGIONAL

24,690

4,475

161

3.60%

U

Eligible by Number

UNITY

1,614

211

28

13.27%

R

Eligible by Percent

WAKEFIELD

4,614

761

96

12.61%

R

Eligible by Both

WARREN

912

151

19

12.58%

R

Eligible by Percent

WASHINGTON

944

141

14

9.93%

R

Eligible by Percent

WATERVILLE VALLEY

269

39

3

7.69%

R

Eligible by Percent

WEARE

8,214

1,394

51

3.66%

U

Eligible by Number

WENTWORTH

835

113

13

11.50%

R

Eligible by Percent

WESTMORELAND

1,839

248

8

3.23%

R

Not Eligible

WHITE MOUNTAIN REGIONAL

7,834

1,204

131

10.88%

R

Eligible by Both

WILTON

3,954

458

25

5.46%

U

Not Eligible

WILTON-LYNDEBORO

5,612

432

18

4.17%

U

Not Eligible

WINCHESTER

4,363

703

103

14.65%

R

Eligible by Both

WINDHAM

11,450

2,294

61

2.66%

U

Eligible by Number

WINNACUNNET COOP

31,015

1,084

73

6.73%

U

Eligible by Number

WINNISQUAM REGIONAL

11,516

2,033

138

6.79%

R

Eligible by Number

ACADEMY FOR SCIENCE AND DESIGN CHARTER

Charter

60

4

6.67%

Not Eligible

COCHECO ARTS & TECH. CHARTER ACADEMY

Charter

57

5

8.77%

Eligible by Percent

CSI CHARTER SCHOOL

Charter

39

4

10.26%

Eligible by Percent

GREAT BAY eLEARNING CHARTER SCHOOL

Charter

120

6

5.00%

Not Eligible

NH EQUESTRIAN ACADEMY CHARTER SCHOOL

Charter

21

2

9.52%

Eligible by Percent

NORTH COUNTRY CHARTER ACADEMY

Charter

45

6

13.33%

Eligible by Percent

SEACOAST CHARTER SCHOOL

Charter

103

6

5.83%

Not Eligible

STRONG FOUNDATIONS CHARTER SCHOOL

Charter

70

7

10.00%

Eligible by Percent

SURRY VILLAGE CHARTER SCHOOL

Charter

40

4

10.00%

Eligible by Percent

VIRTUAL LEARNING ACADEMY CHARTER SCHOOL

Charter

no data available

Not Eligible

PROSPECT MOUNTAIN JMA

JMA

468

48

10.3%

Eligible by Both

 

 

 

 

 

Proposed Activities to Engage Educators in NH School Districts

 

http://www.newmedialiteracies.org/

 

Overview

 

According to a Project New Media Literacies white paper, Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education in the 21st Century (2006), the focus of literacy is changing from individual expression to community involvement where creative manifestation and active participation are the hallmark. The new media literacies (NML) are becoming increasingly important and suggest even a hidden curriculum at play.

 

The media-literacy movement has effectively taken the lead in this regard by teaching students to analyze the media they consume and to view themselves as both consumers and producers of media. However, this learning often is relegated to electives or to after-school programs rather than being integrated across curricula. The new media literacies allow us to think in very new ways about the processes of learning, because they acknowledge a shift from a top-down model of learning to one that invokes all voices and all means of thinking and creating new knowledge.

 

It is Project New Media Literacies’ belief that adults and young people alike need to both make and reflect upon media and in the process, acquire important skills in teamwork, leadership, problem solving, collaboration, brainstorming, communications, and creating projects.

 

Project Design for New Hampshire

 

Project New Media Literacies’ relationship with New Hampshire school districts will:

 

1)     Explore the links between multimedia, themed topics and learners’ engagement in distributed knowledge systems; and

2)     Design a distributed open-content, open-knowledge network that informs new approaches to learning.

 

The model will be based on NML’s pedagogical approach and help to establish new modes of professional development, provide methods and tools to increase collaboration among New Hampshire educators, and offer exciting, creative educational content.

 

Early Adopter Working Group

 

Project NML’s Community Site was developed (http://www.projectnml.ning.com) to share resources, give feedback, and have discussions with educators and learners who are interested in further understanding the new media literacies and integrating them into their learning environment.

 

The goal of the network is to create a system of support for educators using collaborative online tools to broaden their participation in the learning process and affect the retention of the students. Each TLC consortium would recommend one educator to be part of the Early Adopter Working Group. This group will work alongside NML’s Community Manager.  The working group, facilitated by NML’s Community Manager, would meet once a month for about an hour via the web to brainstorm a monthly theme relevant to the schools of New Hampshire. We can expect the themes to be varied, ranging from digital media and ethics to exploring Wikipedia to citing examples of effective blended learning. Ideally, each early adopter would have access to a webcam for videoconferencing through an application such as Skype.

 

Using the monthly theme as an anchor, the working group would develop, delegate, and implement on average 3 to 5 strategies throughout the month from February 2010 through August 2010. Webinars would include training in the use of the NML Learning Library. Monthly strategies might include:

 

·       Welcoming new members and answering their questions about the community

·       Starting and participating in a discussion thread on the monthly theme

·       Encouraging other members to participate in the discussions

·       Posting a blog, video, images, or tweet about their use of the new media literacies in the classroom

·       Creating their own challenge in the Learning Library and encouraging others to try it.

 

Expectations for the early adopters would be about one to two hours per week of online participation, plus the monthly webinars and weekly or bi-weekly communications with the Community Manager. Working group members should not view this as additional work but rather as an opportunity to try out new ways of engaging in professional development.  These members should be eager to use digital media and have access to participate in a variety of online tools.  Our objective of this project is to have the original Early Adopters Working Group be vested in the NML community in hopes that they will offer advice, encourage other educators to join in, and remain with NML beyond the projected 10 month timeline.

 

Expectations for additional NH educators participating in the NML Ning community would be an average of one to two hours of online engagement.

 

Webinar Series

 

NML will set the stage for the webinar series through two earlier speaking engagements already scheduled with the NHSTE organization: (1) the Annual Meeting of the New Hampshire Society for Technology in Education (NHSTE) on September 23, 2009 and (2) the speaker spotlight session at the Christa McAuliffe Technology Conference on December 3, 2009.  At each of these presentations, Erin Reilly will provide an overview of our contemporary moment of media change, of the kinds of informal learning, which are occurring in the context of participatory culture and of how schools are responding to the challenges posed by new media technologies.  She will introduce the new media literacies and explore the skill of Appropriation by sharing various examples that point to the importance of us all becoming re-mixers in the 21st century.

 

Her presentation will end with an open invitation to participate in an on-going dialogue with the follow-up webinar series, created to dig deeper into the core social skills and competencies that young people need to learn if they are going to become full participants in the media rich learning environment we are opening up to students.

 

The webinar series would share the framework of social skills and cultural competencies which shape the work of Project New Media Literacies and illustrate the skills by looking more closely at learning through such cultural phenomenon as computer game guilds, YouTube video production, Wikipedia, fan fiction, Second Life and other virtual worlds, music remixing, social network sites, and cosplay (costume role play). Each webinar would closely examine new curricular materials which have emerged from Project New Media Literacies, Global Kids, Harvard’s GoodPlay Project, Common Sense Media, the George Lucas Foundation, and other projects which are seeking to introduce these skills into contemporary educational practices. Participants would have plenty of opportunities to take the material, information, and methods back into their classrooms.

There would be eight Webinars to address the following new media literacies:

 

1.      Play - the capacity to experiment with one’s surroundings as a form of problem-solving

2.      Performance - the ability to adopt alternative identities for the purpose of improvisation and discovery

3.      Transmedia Navigation - the ability to follow the flow of stories and information across multiple modalities AND Multitasking - the ability to scan one’s environment and shift focus as needed to salient details

4.      Collective Intelligence - the ability to pool knowledge and compare notes with others toward a common goal AND Distributed Cognition - the ability to interact meaningfully with tools that expand mental capacities

5.      Simulation - the ability to interpret and construct dynamic models of real-world processes AND Visualization - the ability to interpret and create data representations for the purposes of expressing ideas, finding patterns, and identifying trends

6.      Networking - the ability to search for, synthesize, and disseminate information

7.      Negotiation - the ability to travel across diverse communities, discerning and respecting multiple perspectives, and grasping and following alternative norms

8.      Judgment - the ability to evaluate the reliability and credibility of different information sources

 

Timeline

 

NML envisions a 10-month timeline to implement the webinar series and build an online NH community. The majority of the work would be conducted from December 1, 2009 through August 31, 2010.

 

District Costs

 

The cost to implement this program would be funded as one or more NCLB Title II-D grants to successful district applicants of the TLC Program.

 

 

 

 

 

Pages provided within appendix C are for reference only. Please download the actual application forms, including the application cover page and individual focus area applications from www.nheon.org/oet/nclb.

 

 

District Application Cover Page

 

 

District:

 

Enter district name here

 

Date:

 

     

Project Manager:

Enter project manager name here

Position Title:

Enter your position title here

Mailing Address:

Enter school/district mailing address here

Email Address:

Enter project manager's email address here

Phone:

Enter project manager's phone number here

 

BE SURE TO READ ALL OF THE FOLLOWING

 

I hereby certify that:

 

1.    To the best of my knowledge, the information contained in this application is correct, and the school board of the district named above has authorized me as its representative to submit this application.

2.    The District has submitted to the New Hampshire Department of Education (NHDOE) a General Assurances signature page for the current year.

3.    The District has consulted with the appropriate non-public schools during the design and development of this Ed Tech project prior to all decisions that affect the opportunities of private school children to participate in the program.

4.    All funding for this project will be obligated and reported no later than the quarterly report ending 3/31/2011 and expended and reported no later than quarterly report ending 6/30/2011.

5.    The grant funds expended will supplement, not supplant, funds from non-federal sources.

6.    The District will keep records and provide information to the NHDOE as may be required for program evaluation, consistent with responsibilities under NCLB Title II-D as outlined within the Grant Application Guidance (e.g., annual tech survey, case study report).

7.    The schools to be funded by this program are compliant with the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) because the district employs a filtering mechanism for student access or because Ed Tech funds referenced in this application will NOT be used to purchase computers used to access the Internet or pay for direct costs associated with accessing the Internet.

 

                                                           

Superintendent of Schools (blue ink preferred)             Date

 

We are submitting applications for the following Focus Area(s) and amounts:

 

Applying for?

Grant Type

Amount Requested

Yes     No

Classroom Tech Mini-Grant

$0.00

Yes     No

Tech Leader Cohort (TLC) Program

$0.00

 

TOTAL GRANT FUNDS REQUESTED:

$0.00

 

 

Application Form for TLC Program

 

You may delete this intro paragraph after you read it:

Provide a narrative of no more than 10 single spaced pages with Arial 11 point font (not including contact info, abstract, and budget). PROPOSALS THAT DO NOT CONFORM TO THESE REQUIREMENTS WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED.

 

Tech Leader Cohort (TLC) Program

Districts or consortiums of districts may apply to sponsor two teachers and one principal per school to participate in this statewide effort to bolster technology leadership within schools.

District

ENTER YOUR DISTRICT NAME (not your SAU number) HERE

Participant Names

If consortium, please provide a list indicating 2 teachers and 1 principal that have agreed to participate from each school.

Last Name, First Name

Email

School

Project Abstract (10 Points)

 

Delete all the text in this box and replace it with your response.

Include a clear and concise abstract (75 word maximum) that describes the general status of participating schools in terms of technology implementation within all classrooms and how involvement in this program is intended to bolster technology leadership within schools.

Program Description (50 Points)

 

Delete all the text in this box and replace it with your response.

Describe the willingness of each consortium partner, and the lead district, in particular, to be part of the consortium, involved in this program, and meet the commitments of the grant. Clearly articulate the needs of each school in terms of professional development and technology leadership and how this program might address specific technology plan goals. Indicate each school team’s understanding of the following and articulate any additional information that might be helpful to proposal reviewers:

·        Participation of teachers and principals will require both face to face and online involvement over the program period. Teachers will be required to participate online at least one hour weekly (more for NML Early Adopters).

·        Activities will begin in November 2009 and continue through March 2011, with the bulk of activities ending by August 2010.

·        The principal at each participating school will be required to participate in approximately six TLC face to face sessions as well as a modest amount of online involvement, in order to become familiar with technology trends and issue and to work with the tech leader to develop a plan for advancing technology implementation within the school to create 21st century learning environments.

·        Training materials from Intel Teach, New Media Literacies, OPEN NH, and other sources will be utilized to ensure rigorous and relevant professional development content for creating 21st century learning environments.

Capacity for Success  (40 points)

 

Delete all the text in this box and replace it with your response.

Describe why participation in this statewide effort is appropriate for the schools in the consortium. Describe previous technology training experiences of the proposed tech leaders, their perceived professional development needs, and how the program can help them address the perceived needs of the schools they intend to influence. Examples of previous training experiences might include local workshops or tech leader programs at LESCN sites, state or national conferences, as well as nationally known training programs, such as Thinkfinity, MarcoPolo, Intel Teach to the Future, ISTE programs, and others.

 

Budget Narrative

 

Delete all the text in this box and replace it with your response.

Please indicate all schools involved in the consortium. Your budget should show a total of $10,000 per school times the number of schools involved in your consortium, with funds allocated for each of the activities outlined in the TLC section of the RFP, and a brief description of each budget item.

 

 

 

Application Form for Classroom Technology Mini-Grants

 

You may delete this intro paragraph after you read it:

Provide a narrative of no more than 6 single spaced pages with Arial 11 point font (not including contact info, abstract, and budget). PROPOSALS THAT DO NOT CONFORM TO THESE REQUIREMENTS WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED.

 

Classroom Tech Mini-Grants

Districts may apply to sponsor one team per district to either replicate an exemplary mini-grant project from one of the previous years’ mini-grant projects or propose a new mini-grant project.

District

ENTER YOUR DISTRICT NAME (not your SAU number) HERE

Project Type

Which project are you proposing?

 This project is REPLICATED from (replace this text with the original project title, district name, and year of the project you are replicating).

 This is an ORIGINAL project idea.

Project Name

What is your project name?

Team Members (maximum 4)

Team Leader:
Last name, First

Email

Phone

School

Content Area & Role

Member:
Last name, First

Email

Phone

School

Content Area & Role

Member:
Last name, First

Email

Phone

School

Content Area & Role

Member:
Last name, First

Email

Phone

School or Other

Content Area & Role

Name of Principal

Last name, First

Email

Phone

School

Principal

Project Abstract (15 Points)

Delete all the text in this box and replace it with your response.

Include a clear and concise abstract (75 word maximum) that describes your mini grant project and your overall goals for implementing it in your school. You should describe how this project would fit into your school/district curriculum as well as advance the achievement of your students. The proposal abstract includes an essential question which probes for deeper meaning and broader understanding of the content addressed by this project, fostering the development of higher order thinking and problem solving.

Project Description (40 Points)

Delete all the text in this box and replace it with your response.

Describe your project in general terms and indicate whether it is a replicated project or an original project. 

·        If your project is replicated, review the project video, lesson plan, and other materials. Then describe the changes you intend to make to the project idea and how they will improve the project in order to be appropriate for your situation. Include specific goals and objectives that relate to the essential question, and explain how those goals will be achieved by the project.

·        If your project is original, describe how the project is appropriate for your current situation. Include specific goals and objectives that relate to the essential question, and explain how those goals will be achieved by the project.

Generally discuss how implementing this project will improve technology integration within your classrooms and in the core content areas.  In your discussion, indicate the need for technology integration in your school or district. Describe the determination of need for this project and include one or more examples of data that support the rationale of need for the project, such as NECAP assessment or other data. This explains to the reviewer why the project is worthy of funding as it relates to student achievement.

Describe the primary content area involved in the project, and if additional content areas are addressed, connect each content area to the appropriate state and local standards that the project supports.

Describe in detail the project based learning units that will encompass your project.  Interdisciplinary projects are encouraged. Indicate how the project develops students’ cognitive proficiencies in literacy, numeracy, problem solving, decision making, and/or spatial literacy, and how the activities are aligned to the state ICT Literacy standards, including the creation of specific digital artifacts that can be included in student portfolios.

 

Identify and explain at least three specific learning goals the team needs to address and how the proposed professional development will address these.

 

Indicate support has been obtained from the superintendent AND the principal. In addition, ask both of them to send an email indicating such support to chiggins@ed.state.nh.us. Each email must acknowledge that he/she has read the RFP, understands the requirements, and will allow the applying team to fulfill the requirements, if they are awarded the grant. Additional emails of support from the local school board, community members, or students are welcome but not required.

 

Capacity for Success  (35 points)

Delete all the text in this box and replace it with your response.

Demonstrate capacity for success by providing strong evidence that your school/district and the individual team members are willing and able to conduct the scope of work involved in implementing this project. 

 

Describe why participation is appropriate for your district and the capacity your school or district has that will insure the success of the project.

 

Describe any structures, policies, and/or procedures already in place in your school or district that supports the project and the project-based learning philosophy.

 

Discuss the abilities and expertise of the individual team members with respect to their ability to collaborate, organize, schedule, and deliver a successful project to their students.

 

Discuss team member, and district/administrative support with respect to:

 

  • implementing the project in your classrooms,
  • supporting the professional development opportunities necessary to successfully participate in the Mini-Grant program,
  • participating in required mini-grant meetings,
  • producing the 3 minute documentary video for presentation,
  • preparing the lesson plans and materials necessary for sharing with other,
  • attending the Mini-Grant celebration day,
  • presenting the project to the faculty of the district and at an annual state conference, and
  • participating in post-project evaluations for program improvement.

 

Discuss the Extent of Impact within the School – indicate the anticipated number of staff that will be directly and indirectly impacted by the project, as well as the number of students that will be directly and indirectly impacted, along with supporting explanations for each.

 

Discuss the Extent of Impact to Other Schools – Describe how the project will involve or include outreach to multiple schools, or multiple districts, in order to increase the impact of the project.

 

Budget Narrative (10 points)

Delete all the text in this box and replace it with your response.

Maximum Funding to High Need Districts = $10,000 per district

Format your budget with the narrative in left column and total amounts in right column. Within the narrative, describe a logical connection to your district goals and show how you calculated your costs.

Budget (Describe as appropriate)

Add your narrative below each category title and show how you calculated your total amount proposed for the budget category.

TOTAL

Hardware

 

 

 

Software

 

 

 

Supplies

 

 

 

Professional Development Activities  (must be at least $2,500)

Indicate the PD activities that are needed to support your project.

 

Include $500 for your team’s required participation at the Celebration Event in May, but do not include the $500 on your OBM Form 1 submission.  

 

 

Indirect Cost (per approved 2009-10 district rates posted at http://www.ed.state.nh.us/education/data/misc.htm)

 

 

TOTAL

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pages provided within appendix D are for reference only. These are the rubrics which will be used by reviewers when they read and score applications.

 

Scoring Rubric for TLC Program

Last revision date:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Applicant

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Criteria

No Basis

Poor

Average

Above Average

Excellent

 

Comments

 

Project Abstract (10 points)

0

6

8

9

10

 

Includes a clear and concise abstract (75 word maximum) that describes the general status of participating schools in terms of technology implementation within all classrooms and how involvement in this program is intended to bolster technology leadership within schools.

 

Project Description (50 points)

0

30

40

45

50

 

Describes the willingness of each consortium partner, and the lead district, in particular, to be part of the consortium, involved in this program, and meet the commitments of the grant. Clearly articulate the needs of each school in terms of professional development and technology leadership and how this program might address specific technology plan goals. Indicate each school team’s understanding of the following and articulate any additional information that might be helpful to proposal reviewers:

·        Participation of teachers and principals will require both face to face and online involvement over the program period. Teachers will be required to participate online at least one hour weekly (more for NML Early Adopters).

·        Activities will begin in November 2009 and continue through March 2011, with the bulk of activities ending in August 2010.

·        The principal at each participating school will be required to participate in approximately six TLC face to face sessions as well as a modest amount of online involvement, in order to become familiar with technology trends and issue and to work with the tech leader to develop a plan for advancing technology implementation within the school to create 21st century learning environments.

·        Training materials from Intel Teach, New Media Literacies, and other sources will be utilized to ensure rigorous and relevant professional development content for creating 21st century learning environments.

 

Capacity for Success (40 points)

0

24

32

36

40

 

Describes why participation in this statewide effort is appropriate for the schools in the consortium. Describe previous technology training experiences of the proposed tech leaders, their perceived professional development needs, and how the program can help them address the perceived needs of the schools they intend to influence. Examples of previous training experiences might include local workshops or tech leader programs at LESCN sites, state or national conferences, as well as nationally known training programs, such as Thinkfinity, MarcoPolo, Intel Teach to the Future, ISTE programs, and others.

 

 

Budget

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please indicate all schools involved in the consortium. Your budget should show a total of $10,000 per school times the number of schools involved in your consortium, with funds allocated for each of the activities outlined in the TLC section of the RFP, and a brief description of each budget item.

 

 

TOTAL SCORE (MAX is 100):

 

 

 

 

 

0

 

 

Scoring Rubric for Classroom Tech Mini-Grants

Last revision date:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Applicant

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Criteria

No Basis

Poor

Average

Above Average

Excellent

 

Comments

 

Project Abstract (15 points)

0

6

9

12

15

 

Proposal includes a clear and concise abstract (75 word maximum) that describes mini grant project and overall goals for implementing it in school. Describes how this project would fit into school/district curriculum as well as advance the achievement of students. The proposal abstract includes an essential question which probes for deeper meaning and broader understanding of the content addressed by this project, fostering the development of higher order thinking and problem solving.

 

Project Description (40 points)

0

24

30

34

40

 

Proposal describes project in general terms and indicates whether it is a replicated project or an original project. 

·        If project is replicated, proposal describes the intended changes to the project idea and how they will improve the project in order to be appropriate for the situation. Includes specific goals and objectives that relate to the essential question, and explains how those goals will be achieved by the project.

·        If your project is original, proposal describes how the project is appropriate for current situation. Includes specific goals and objectives that relate to the essential question, and explain how those goals will be achieved by the project.

Proposal generally discusses how implementing this project will improve technology integration within classrooms and in the core content areas.  Indicates the need for technology integration in school or district. Describes the determination of need for this project and includes one or more examples of data that support the rationale of need for the project, such as NECAP assessment or other data. This explains to the reviewer why the project is worthy of funding as it relates to student achievement.

Proposal describes the primary content area involved in the project, and if additional content areas are addressed, connects each content area to the appropriate state and local standards that the project supports.

Proposal describes in detail the project based learning units that will encompass project.  Interdisciplinary projects are encouraged.  Indicates how the project develops students’ cognitive proficiencies in literacy, numeracy, problem solving, decision making, and/or spatial literacy, and how the activities are aligned to the state ICT Literacy standards, including the creation of specific digital artifacts that can be included in student portfolios.

 

Proposal identifies and explains at least three specific learning goals the team needs to address and how the proposed professional development will address these.

 

Proposal indicates support has been obtained from the superintendent AND the principal. An email has been received which acknowledges that he/she has read the RFP, understands the requirements, and will allow the applying team to fulfill the requirements, if they are awarded the grant. Additional emails of support from the local school board, community members or students are welcome but not required.

 

 

Capacity to Implement (35 points)

0

21

26

31

35

 

Proposal demonstrates capacity for success by providing strong evidence that school/district and the individual team members are willing and able to conduct the scope of work involved in implementing this project. 

 

Proposal describes why participation in this effort is appropriate for district and the capacity the school or district has that will insure the success of the project.

 

Proposal describes any structures, policies, and/or procedures already in place in school or district that support the project and the project-based learning philosophy.

 

Proposal discusses the abilities and expertise of the individual team members with respect to their ability to collaborate, organize, schedule, and deliver a successful project to their students.

 

Proposal indicates team member and district/administrative support with respect to:

 

·        implementing the project in classrooms,

·        supporting the professional development opportunities necessary to successfully participate in the Mini-Grant program,

·        participating in required mini-grant meetings,

·        producing the 3 minute documentary video for presentation,

·        preparing the lesson plans and materials necessary for sharing with other,

·        attending the Mini-Grant celebration day,

·        presenting the project to the faculty of the district and at an annual state conference, and

·        participating in post-project evaluations for program improvement.

 

Proposal discusses the Extent of Impact within the School – indicates the anticipated number of staff that will be directly and indirectly impacted by the project, as well as the number of students that will be directly and indirectly impacted, along with supporting explanations for each.

 

Proposal discusses the Extent of Impact to Other Schools – Describes how the project will involve or include outreach to multiple schools, or multiple districts, in order to increase the impact of the project.

 

 

Budget (10 points)

0

6

8

9

10

 

Budget is formatted with the narrative in left column and total amounts in right column. Within the narrative, proposal describes a logical connection to district goals and shows how costs were calculated. Proposal includes $500 set aside for celebration event.

 

 

TOTAL SCORE (MAX is 100):

0

0

0

0

0

0