Search UW System

UW System Home > Offices > Academic & Student Services

Wisconsin ESEA Title II
Improving Teacher Quality Program

Home | Request for Proposals | Forms | FAQs | Projects | Related Links | Acronyms

Grant Competition for Institutions of Higher Education in Wisconsin

Request for Proposals and Application Guidelines

Proposal Deadline:  October 10, 2008
Principal investigators are encouraged to check with their institution's research administration office for institutional deadlines or other requirements that might apply.

2008 PDF version for downloading and printing

TABLE OF CONTENTS

OVERVIEW
Introduction & Background
Wisconsin Priorities

APPLICATION INFORMATION
Partnerships
Needs Assessment
Activities
Duration
Scientifically Based Research
Evaluation
Geographical Distribution & Special 50% Rule
Deadlines
Assistance
Project Period
Budget
Stipends
Teacher Substitutes
Indirect Costs
Credit
Required Reports and Meetings

PROPOSAL PREPARATION
Intent to Submit Proposal Email
Cover Page
Abstract
Project Description
Appendices
Personnel
Budget
Required Forms

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Proposal Submission
Proposal Review
Evaluation Criteria

APPENDIX
Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Definitions
Additional Resources

 
OVERVIEW

Introduction & Background

On January 8, 2002 President George W. Bush signed into law the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P.L. 107-110 (NCLB). The Improving Teacher Quality Grant Programs (Title II) are a major component of the NCLB legislation.  These programs encourage scientifically based professional development as a means for improving student academic performance.  As schools are responsible for improving student learning, it is essential to have highly qualified teachers leading the way. 

Under Part A of Title II, funds are made available for state agencies for higher education (SAHEs) to support partnerships intended to increase the academic achievement of students in core subjects by enhancing the content knowledge and teaching skills of classroom teachers.  Project participants may consist of teachers, principals, and paraprofessionals including pre-service teacher candidates from public and private schools.  The state agency for higher education, working in conjunction with the state educational agency, shall use the funds to make subgrants, on a competitive basis to eligible partnerships. Funds to eligible partnerships are awarded under the guidelines described in this RFP.  Partnerships between faculty in teacher education, faculty arts and sciences, and school districts are at the foundation of these efforts.  One of the school districts in an eligible partnership must be a High-need LEA.  Other partners may include additional LEAs, charter schools, businesses, and nonprofit organizations.  The core subjects are defined to be arts, civics and government, economics, English, foreign languages, geography, history, mathematics, reading or language arts, and science.

The amount available for higher education projects in Wisconsin is expected to be approximately $1,136,000. It is anticipated that about $700,000 will be available for new project awards. The range of past awards has been $22,000 to $95,000, with an average of $53,500. Awards greater than $90,000 must demonstrate an extensive degree of collaboration among the partners, and have a significant, systemic impact on teachers and student achievement. Financial and programmatic contributions by participating school districts, non-public schools, other private organizations, and the sponsoring higher education institution are highly recommended and should be documented in the "other" column of the budget, the budget narrative and program narrative.

Any partnership receiving both a WITQ subgrant and a Section 203 of Title II of the Higher Education Act award under the Partnership Program for improving teacher preparation must coordinate activities of the two awards.

This document, along with the required application forms, can be found on the Wisconsin ESEA Improving Teacher Quality web site, http://www.uwsa.edu/acss/esea/. 
 
A Program Similar to This Program - Math & Science Partnerships

Under Part B of Title II, approximately $2,300,000 is available for Math & Science Partnerships.  These funds are administered and awarded by Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction.  In general, the one-year award amounts are greater in the Math & Science Partnership program than in this program.  Additional information may be obtained by visiting the Wisconsin DPI website at http://dpi.wi.gov/cal/t2bgrant.html.

Wisconsin Priorities  

The NCLB Act provides Wisconsin with a tremendous opportunity to ensure the success of every child.  Accountability, especially as it is reflected in student achievement results is a characteristic of all NCLB programs.

Wisconsin Adopted NCLB Goals for Student Achievement

Performance Goal 1: By 2013-2014, all students will reach high standards, at a minimum attaining proficiency or better in reading/language arts and mathematics.

Performance Goal 2: All limited English proficient students will become proficient in English and reach high academic standards, at a minimum attaining proficiency or better in reading/language arts and mathematics.

Performance Goal 3: All students will graduate from high school.

The quality of teachers is important to attain these goals; therefore, Wisconsin has redefined teacher, administrator, and pupil service staff qualification standards and is implementing a standards-based, performance-driven system of teacher preparation and licensing. Chapter PI 34 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code outlines the state’s plan for the preparation of highly qualified professional teachers. The teacher education programs will be performance based, and all fully licensed teachers will be highly qualified.  See http://dpi.wi.gov/tepdl/.
 
Wisconsin Information Network for Successful Schools (WINSS)

The WINSS, an Internet-based school improvement resource, it is an excellent tool to help not only schools identified for improvement, but any school wishing to improve performance in one or more of the accountability areas.  WINSS has four sections:

1. Standards and Assessment describes the Wisconsin model academic content standards and state and local assessment tools available to educators to evaluate student progress in attaining proficiency in reading, language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies.
2. Data Analysis makes available all data about student performance on state assessments.
3. Continuous School Improvement describes the research base supporting characteristics of successful schools, and provides surveys that can be used to evaluate how a school is meeting its standards.
4. Best Practices contains resources for designing improvements to meet local goals.
   See http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/sig/index.html.
    

Wisconsin ESEA Improving Teacher Quality 2008 Priorities

Priorities for the 2008 competition are improvement in student achievement in reading/language arts, mathematics, and science, and increasing the quality of teaching in all core subjects. Special consideration will be given to a proposal that uses lesson study or the teaching of techniques designed to help ALL students achieve high standards.  Special considerations will also be given to a proposal that involves pre-service teachers and attempts to change the preparation program so they are able to teach in ways different from how they were taught.  Pre-service teachers may be participants in the project if it is a school-based teacher training program that provides prospective teachers and beginning teachers with an opportunity to work under the guidance of experienced teachers and college faculty.

 
APPLICATION INFORMATION

Key Program Elements

Partnerships

Projects are designed and implemented by partnerships that include K-12 administrators, faculty, teachers, and guidance counselors in participating K-12 schools, higher education faculty and administrators from teacher education and the arts and sciences.  Other partners are encouraged and may include businesses, nonprofit organizations, other K-12 schools, and other institutions of higher education.  These partners engage in the effort at both the institutional and individual levels, and share goals, responsibilities and accountability for the project.  The program must demonstrate substantial collaboration between arts and sciences and teacher preparation departments in Wisconsin’s public and private IHEs, LEAs, and other education entities.  Every proposal submitted must verify this collaboration on the required forms.

Every funded project must include a qualified High-need LEA.  Submitted proposals only need to show true collaboration with at least one LEA in their planning of the proposed project, and indicate a willingness to work with the additional High-need district(s). A list of Wisconsin High-need LEAs may be found in the Appendix.

Each of the small, rural, High-need LEAs has indicated that they are willing to participate in innovative, meaningful projects; however, they do not care to be inundated with requests.  Collectively these High-need LEAs have identified the following interest areas of projects they would join. 

1. Reducing the achievement gap between Native American and non-native American populations.

2. Restructuring Special Education services to meet extraordinary high needs and increased numbers of students. 

3. Combining reading and math instruction resulting in higher student achievement in both areas.

4. Improving implementation of the elementary math program Trailblazers.

5. Improving implementation of the middle school math program Connected Math.

6. Improved articulation and sequencing of K-12 mathematics.

7. High school reading programs across the curriculum.

8. Improved implementation of a Guided Reading program.

9. Grade 5-12 mathematics professional development.

10. General teaching and classroom management strategies/skills professional development.

11. Reducing the achievement gap between economically disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged populations.

12. Programs for parents in parenting skills.

13. Grade 6-12 math dealing with graphing calculators, data analysis, etc.

14. Instructional use of technology – not internet research or PowerPoint.

15. College classes that have the needs of K-12 teachers as the basis of the syllabus.

16. Online (or other) learning groups that would connect isolated teachers with other teachers teaching the same grade level or content area.

17. Improved services for English Language Learners.

18. Early childhood literacy.

19. Grade 7-12 mathematics, science and social studies curriculum development.

20. Instructional techniques for Advanced Placement classes in mathematics and science.

21. Six traits writing across the curriculum.

Therefore, each proposal must clearly indicate which of these interest areas it contains in the agenda of the Collaboration Document (Form C).  If the review team recommends the proposal for funding, the appropriate qualified High-need district(s) will be contacted and added as the High-need LEA.  This change will be made in collaboration with the project proposer.  When necessary, the budget will be adjusted to accommodate this addition.

Proposals with Milwaukee public schools as partner will not need to identify one of the above interest areas, however, they will need to have a MPS administrator sign the Eligible Partnership document.

Needs Assessment  

The project must address the results of a comprehensive assessment of the teacher quality and professional development needs with respect to the teaching and learning of core subjects at any schools and LEAs that comprise the partnership. Possible sources include WINSS and local student achievement data, local teacher needs assessments, WASDI Math and Science Teachers needs assessments. Student achievement data and teacher quality data must be used in preparing a proposal.

Activities  

Grant activities must be clearly focused on the Wisconsin Model Academic Standards and PI-34 Teacher Licensing.  Activities must be related to the needs of teachers, principals, and paraprofessionals including pre-service training that can lead to teacher certification.  The project should have limited objectives that will be accomplished, and will demonstrate an improvement in student achievement and/or increase the number of highly qualified teachers.  Proposals must include evidence that the project will provide professional development activities in the specific discipline(s) as well as in the related pedagogy.  See the Appendix for definition of Professional Development activities that may be supported by this program.

Duration  

Formats for projects include, but are not limited to, institutes, seminars, intense summer and year-long courses, or combinations thereof.  The most effective projects have been summer programs of at least two weeks with 80 or more contact hours, using a hands-on, inquiry based, problem-solving approach, and incorporating follow-up activities during the school year.  One, two, and three-year projects are supported.

Scientifically Based Research  

The activities to be carried out by the partnership must be based on a review of scientifically based research.  An explanation of how the activities will lead to improvement in student academic achievement and quality of instruction must be included.

Evaluation  

Each partnership receiving a subgrant shall develop an evaluation and accountability plan for activities of the project that include rigorous objectives that measure the impact of the activities.  Measurable objectives for improved student academic achievement are required.  Additionally, measurable objectives that increase the number of highly qualified teachers may be included.

Each project must have a comprehensive evaluation plan.  Proposals must include reliable and valid measurable objectives.  The proposal must provide a description and timeline of how data will be gathered and used to evaluate the project’s impact with respect to the objectives. The evaluation plan must examine whether the project functioned as the proposal stated it would, how the project activities contribute to teaching/learning outcomes, and how teachers' and/or students' performance have been affected by participation in the project. An outside evaluator should conduct the evaluation.

Geographical Distribution & Special 50% Rule

Geographical Distribution “Grants must be equitably distributed by geographic area within the state.”(NCLB Title II, Part A, Subpart 3, Section 2132) This rule is satisfied as a part of the final review process.

Use of Funds “No single participant in an eligible partnership may use more than fifty percent of the funds made available to the partnership.” (NCLB Title II, Part A, Subpart 3, Section 2132)  This rule is satisfied by completion of the budget information forms.

Deadlines  

Proposals are due October 10, 2008. Successful applicants will be notified by approximately January 15, 2009 that their proposals have been selected for funding.

Assistance  

General and/or specific questions may be submitted to makuratp@uww.edu and they will be answered as soon as possible.

Project Period  

Proposed projects may last 12 to 39 months. Proposals for two or three-year projects are encouraged. Multi-year projects are expected to provide a coordinated plan of activities for participants over two or three years rather than repeating an annual project two or three times. Funding for second and third year activities of multi-year projects will be dependent on successful completion of the project's initial activities as well as on the continued availability of grant money to UW System for the program. For the second or third year of a funded project, rather than submitting a complete application packet, project directors will be expected to submit a progress report, an annual budget, and a description of the activities planned for the next year.

• Annual Projects will have activities from April 1, 2009 through July 31, 2010.
• Two-year Projects will run from April 1, 2009 through July 31, 2011. The initial funding period will be for activities through March 31, 2010.
• Three-year Projects will run from April 1, 2009 through July 31, 2012. The initial funding period will be for activities through March 31, 2010. The second year of funding will cover activities from April 1, 2010 through March 31, 2011. All remaining project activities will be funded by the third year grant.

Proposed projects are expected to include professional development that is sustained over a period of time. 

Budget   

A grant may pay either for participant tuition or for the direct instructional costs of program delivery. It cannot pay for both. Direct costs may include summer or released time salaries and fringe benefits for faculty and staff, participant stipends, required institutional fees (not including tuition), participants' living costs, travel, supplies, and consultants' fees. Any institution may elect to charge tuition and required fees instead of direct costs. For UW institutions, UW System policy permits the payment of direct costs for a credit-producing course in lieu of tuition only when direct costs exceed projected tuition revenue. If the grant pays the direct costs of instruction, then participants will not be charged tuition. 

If K-12 teachers are hired as part of the teaching staff, their remuneration should be commensurate with their contribution, based on considerations similar to those used for faculty salaries.

Equipment, supplies, and text materials may be purchased through the grant, provided it is used for professional development activities that are part of the funded project. A budget summary using Form B and a budget narrative explaining each item is required. Each item must be justified for its contribution to the program.

Stipends  

The suggested maximum for stipends to full time participants is $250 per week. Stipends for participants in a program that is less than full-time shall be adjusted proportionally. Participants shall not receive stipends in addition to their regular salary for activities during weekdays of the academic year. If credit is granted at no cost to the participants, then the awarding of participant stipends is not allowed.

Teacher Substitutes  

Substitutes may be paid at the local rate up to a maximum of $85 per day.  Additional costs for substitutes must be paid by other sources.  Federal funds may not be used to pay for teacher substitutes in private schools.  These substitutes must be paid with funds from another source. 

Indirect Costs  

Indirect costs are limited to eight percent (8%) of the Title II Higher Education funds for the project.

Credit  

While it is not required, projects may offer university undergraduate or graduate credit for participants. In determining the amount of credit to offer for a given project, all institutions should adhere to the University of Wisconsin policy on the awarding of credit as stated in UW System Policy on Academic Year and Assorted Derivatives, 1984.

"... It is assumed that study leading to one semester credit represents an investment of time by the average student of not fewer than 48 hours for class contact in lectures, for laboratories, examinations, tutorials and recitations, and for preparation and study; or a demonstration by the student of learning equivalent to that established as the expected product of such a period of study. Study leading to one quarter of credit represents two-thirds of that set as the standard for one semester credit."

Required Reports and Meetings  

A financial report is required within thirty days of the end of the project period. A project report including participant data and describing funded activities is required by September 30, 2010. Forms for the two reports are available online at http://www.uwsa.edu/acss/esea/forms/. Attendance at the annual Spring Reporting and Monitoring meeting is required and funds for attendance should be included in the budget.

To be eligible to submit a proposal, project directors of previous ESEA grants must have all required reports on file with the Wisconsin ESEA Improving Teacher Quality Higher Education Program Coordinator.

Intent to Submit Proposal Email

In order to prepare for the review process, please send a email to makuratp@uww.edu identifying the (1) Applying institution or organization, (2) Project Director, (3) Core subject area(s), and (4) targeted grade level(s) before September 15, 2008.  Although this email is not required it is appreciated.

 
PROPOSAL PREPARATION

Proposals must be a MS Word document or a PDF file. Where page limits are given, the document must be double-spaced with a font size of at least 12 points (maximum of three lines per inch), and margins must be at least one inch. Reviewers will be instructed that they are not expected to read beyond the maximum number of pages specified. The proposal should be self-explanatory without reference to optional appendices.  Appendices are limited to 10 pages.  The proposal must have pages numbered and include each of the following elements in this order.

A. Cover page  

Wisconsin ESEA Improving Teacher Quality Grant Form 1 is to be completed for the cover page.

B. Abstract  

One page, using the following format.  The abstract should be text only without tables or special formatting.  This information is required for listing funded projects on the WITQ website at http://www.uwsa.edu/acss/esea/projects/.

• IHE
• Title
• Teaching Grade Level of Participants
• Project Director and email address
• LEAs the project is designed to serve
• One sentence description of the participant activities
• One sentence identification of the benefits to participants
• Dates and times of project activities
• Duration of the project
• Number of participants

C. Project Description  

No more than 16 pages that address the following areas:

1. Needs assessment (typically 2 pages): 
   Describe the needs being addressed, how they were identified and documented, and who was involved in this process.
2. Goals and objectives  (typically 1 page): 
   Describe the specific objectives and how their achievement will increase student achievement/teacher quality
3. Program design (typically 9 pages): 
   Describe the program activities.  Identify the alignment between the needs, objectives, activities, and evaluation.  Identify the alignment of the activities with the Wisconsin Model Academic Standards and PI-34.  Provide details regarding: number of participants, participant selection, university credit, specific dates and times, responsible person assigned to each part of each activity, best practices model being used, and the related scientifically-based research. 
4. Sustainability and follow-up (typically 1 page):
   Describe the follow-up activities planned, and how the changes will be sustained after the project ends.
5. Evaluation (typically 3 pages):
   Describe how the project will be evaluated.  Include methods used to measure increased student achievement and enhanced teacher quality.
    
   Summarize the evaluation in a table format. The table's column headings should be Project Objective, Related Activities, Responsible Person, Indicator(s) of Success. There should be one row for each of the project objectives identified in number 2 above. The row will include the objective, list the major activities that will advance the stated objective, identify who will have the lead responsibility for each of the major activities (name), and describe the documentation that indicates the effectiveness of the activities and attainment of the objective.
    
   For multiyear projects indicate the documentation that will be provided in October 2008 to justify continuation.

D. Appendices  

Optional (Must be less than 10 pages)

E. Personnel  

Include a brief vita (one-page maximum) for the director(s) and each of the instructional staff. Briefly discuss the qualifications of the project director(s) and faculty/staff for this project. In particular, address each of the following questions.

• What previous experiences have they had with K-12 students and with K-12 teachers?
• Has (have) the director(s) and faculty personally been involved with the LEA(s)? 
• If the same director or staff member(s) is (are) involved in more than one proposed project, clearly distinguish what time periods and activities are allocated to each project. The proposed salary budgets should accurately reflect the appropriate time allocations for each project.

Other Projects: State whether or not a similar project has received funds from the Eisenhower or Wisconsin ESEA Improving Teacher Quality Higher Education Program in prior years. If so: 

• When was it? 
• Who was the project director? 
• How does the proposed project differ from any previous project? 
• Why is Wisconsin ESEA Improving Teacher Quality support required for the proposed project? 
• Provide a summary of the evaluation of the previous project. 
• Provide evidence that the need still exists and that the previous project has helped to meet that need.

F. Budget  

1. Budget Summary: Wisconsin ESEA Improving Teacher Quality Grant Form B is to be completed for the budget Summary page- if the proposal is for multiple years, a Budget Summary page needs to be submitted for each year.
2. Budget Explanation: An itemized budget that is organized into expenditure categories and income sources is required. It must include:
   
   • salary for faculty/staff should be based on the actual costs for a replacement buyout,
   • fringe benefits,
   • participant related costs,
   • administrative costs (postage, envelopes, printing, etc.)  The administrative costs should include travel and lodging for the director to attend a required monitoring/reporting meeting held each Spring in a central Wisconsin location.
   • costs of instructional materials and supplies and equipment, other instructional costs, contractual costs
3. Budget Information (50% Special Rule): The “Special Rule” does not focus on which partner receives the funds, but which partner directly benefits from them. This applies to all costs of running and administration of the program.  In satisfying the rule, instructional costs charged to the grant may be regarded as being used by the units of the IHE for salaries, etc., and by the LEAs for teacher support and may be distributed accordingly.  Likewise, tuition charged to the grant may be treated in the same manner.  Submit a copy of Form SR, providing information for:
   (1) higher education school of arts and sciences partner, 
   (2) higher education division that prepares teachers partner, 
   (3) each LEA partner(s),
   (4) each of the other partners.  

G. Required Forms  

Forms are available at http://www.uwsa.edu/acss/esea/forms/. Forms A and E requiring signatures should be scanned and included in the document.

• Form C The Collaboration Document showing the involvement of the intended beneficiaries in the planning of the program
• Form E The Eligible Partnership Document(s) defining all partners
• Form A Statement of Assurances
• Form SR50 One copy must be completed for each partner (i.e. Must, at least, have completed forms for Higher Education core subject area, Higher Education pedagogy, Local Education Agency)

 
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Proposal Submission

The proposal must be submitted in an electronic format. It may either be a single PDF file, or a single MSWord document. All pages should be numbered, and all pages should be presented using portrait page orientation.  The final document should be sent as an e-mail attachment to makuratp@uww.edu. University of Wisconsin campus personnel should check with their Grants office before submitting a proposal.

Proposal Review 

Reviewers
The Wisconsin ESEA Improving Teacher Quality Grants Proposal Review Committee will evaluate proposals. This committee will consist of members, selected by the program coordinator from the following.

• University of Wisconsin institutions 
• Independent colleges and universities
• University of Wisconsin System Administration 
• Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction
• Wisconsin elementary teachers 
• Wisconsin middle school teachers 
• Wisconsin secondary teachers 
• CESA districts 
• Non-profit organizations 

Review Panel
Any individual may volunteer to be considered as a reviewer by e-mailing makuratp@uww.edu. Reviewers are each assigned 4-6 proposals to read. The review committee will meet Thursday afternoon and Friday morning October 30-31, 2008. Reviewer travel and lodging expenses for the review meeting are paid by WITQ Higher Education Grant Program administrative funds. Ethnic, gender, geographic, and subject matter diversity will be sought when selecting the committee.

Evaluation Criteria 

Criteria by which proposals will be evaluated include:

• Significance and documentation of the needs being addressed, 
• Focus of professional development on increasing student achievement,
• Clarity and significance of project objectives, 
• Coherence of the needs, objectives, activities, outcomes,
• Overall design of the proposed project,
• Best practices model(s) identified and scientifically-based research cited,
• Plans for assessment of teaching/learning improvements,
• Plans for project evaluation, 
• Likelihood of sustainability of project after funding period, 
• Qualifications of project personnel, 
• Clear and appropriate budget, 
• Involvement of the intended beneficiaries in the planning of the program,
• Geographical distribution of grants.

The reviewer’s evaluation form is one of the tools used to determine which proposals receive funding.  This evaluation form is available online at http://www.uwsa.edu/acss/esea/forms/.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance  CFDA #84.367

 
Appendix

Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Definitions

ARTS AND SCIENCES
When referring to an organization unit of an institution of higher education, any academic unit that offers one or more academic majors in disciplines or content areas corresponding to the academic subjects in which teachers teach; an when referring to a specific academic subject, the disciplines or content areas in which an academic major is offered by an organizational unit (Title II, Part A, section 2102).

CESA
Cooperative Educational Service Agency. There are twelve such agencies, or districts, in Wisconsin.

Core subjects
For this program the core subjects are defined to be “English, reading or language arts, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history, and geography” (NCLB Title IX, Part A, section 911).

DPI
Department of Public Instruction.

Eligible Partnership
An Eligible Partnership is an entity that includes (i.) a private or state institution of higher education and the division of the institution that prepares teachers and principals AND (ii.) a school of arts and sciences AND (iii.) a high-need LEA.” The Eligible Partnership may include another education related entity. (NCLB Title II, Part A, Subpart 3, Section 2132)

ESEA
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965

HIGH-NEED LEA
An LEA that serves not fewer than 10,000 children from families with incomes below the poverty line; or for which not less than 20 percent of the children served by the agency are from families with incomes below the poverty line; and for which there is a high percentage of teachers not teaching in the academic subjects or grade levels that the teachers were trained to teach; or for which there is a high percentage of teachers with emergency, provisional, or temporary certification of licensing (Title II, Part A, section 2102).

HIGHLY-QUALIFIED TEACHER

1. When the term “highly-qualified teacher” is used with respect to any public elementary school or secondary school teacher teaching in a State, it means that:
   • The teacher hasobtained full State certification as a teacher (including certification obtained through alternative routes to certification) or passed the State teacher licensing examination, and holds a license to teach in such State, except that when the term is used with respect to any teacher teaching in a public charter school, the term means that the teacher meets the certification or licensing requirements set forth in the State’s public charter school law; and
   • The teacher has not had certification or licensure requirements waived on an emergency, temporary, or provisional basis.
2. When the term “highly-qualified teacher” is used with respect to:
   
   1. An elementary school teacher who is new to the profession, it means that the teacher has met the requirements of paragraph (A) above, and:
      
      • Holds at least a bachelor’s degree; and
      • Has demonstrated, by passing a rigorous State test, subject knowledge and teaching skills in reading, writing, mathematics, and other areas of the basic elementary school curriculum (which may consist of passing a State-required certification or licensing test or tests in reading, writing, mathematics, and other areas of basic elementary school curriculum); or
   2. A middle school or secondary teacher who is new to the profession, it means that the teacher has met the requirements of paragraph (A) above, holds at least a bachelor’s degree, and has demonstrated a high level of competency in each of the academic subjects in which the teacher teaches by:
      
      • Passing a rigorous State academic subject test in each of the academic subjects in which the teacher teaches (which may consist of a passing level of performance on a State-required certification or licensing test or tests in each of the academic subjects in which the teacher teaches); or
      • Successful completion, in each of the academic subjects in which the teacher teaches, of an academic major, a graduate degree, coursework equivalent to an undergraduate academic major, or advanced certification or credentialing.
3. When the term “highly-qualified teacher” is used with respect to an elementary, middle, or secondary school teacher who is not new to the profession, it means that the teacher has met the requirements of paragraph (A) above and:
   
   • Holds at least a bachelor’s degree,
   • Has met the applicable standard in the clauses of sub-paragraph (B), which includes an option for a test; or
   • Demonstrates competence in all the academic subjects in which the teacher teachers based on a high objective uniform State standard of evaluation that-
     
     1. Is set by the State for both grade appropriate academic subject matter knowledge and teaching skills;
     2. Is aligned with challenging State academic content and student academic achievement standards and developed in consultation with core content specialists, teachers, principals, and school administrators;
     3. Provides objective, coherent information about the teacher’s attainment of core content knowledge in the academic subjects in which a teachers teaches;
     4. Is applied uniformly to all teachers in the same academic subject and the same grade level throughout the State;
     5. Takes into consideration, but not be based primarily on, the time the teacher has been teaching in the academic subject;
     6. Is made available to the public upon request; and
     7. May involve multiple, objective measures of teacher competency. [Title IX, Part A, section 9101 (23)]

IHE
Institution of Higher Education. This includes both private and public institutions. It includes both two-year and four-year institutions.

LEA
A Local Education Agency. This may be a single public school, a public school district, or a consortium of public schools or districts. For example, one of the CESA districts could serve as the LEA for purposes of this program. Note: While teachers of private schools are eligible to participate in Eisenhower projects, private schools may not serve as the LEA.

NCLB
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001

Professional Development Activities
Activities that –

1. improve and increase teachers’ knowledge of the academic subject they teach;
2. are an integral part of broad school-wide and district-wide educational improvement plans;
3. give teachers, principals, and administrators the knowledge and skills to provide students with the opportunity to meet challenging state content standards;
4. improve classroom management skills;
5. are high quality, sustained, intensive, and classroom focused;
6. are not 1-day or short-term workshops or conferences;
7. advance teacher understanding of effective instructional strategies that are scientifically based and improve student academic achievement;
8. are aligned with state content standards and curricula tied to these standards;
9. are developed with extensive participation of teachers, principals, parents, and administrators;
10. are regularly evaluated for their impact on increased teacher effectiveness and improved student achievement.” (NCLB Title IX, Section 9101)

SAE
State Agency for Education. This is the state agency that is responsible for K-12 education. In Wisconsin the SAE is DPI

SAHE
State Agency for Higher Education. In Wisconsin the SAHE is UW System

Scientifically Based Research

1. means research that involves the application of rigorous, systematic, and objective procedures to obtain reliable and valid knowledge relevant to education activities and programs; and
2. includes research that –
   1. employs systematic, empirical methods that draw on observation or experiment;
   2. involves rigorous data analyses that are adequate to test the stated hypotheses and justify the general conclusions drawn;
   3. relies on measurements or observational methods that provide reliable and valid data across evaluators and observers, across multiple measurements and observations, and across studies by the same or different investigators;
   4. is evaluated using experimental or quasi-experimental designs in which individuals, entities, programs, or activities are assigned to different conditions and with appropriate controls to evaluate the effects of the condition of interest, with a preference for random-assignment experiments, or other designs to the extent that those designs contain within-condition or across-condition controls;
   5. ensures that experimental studies are presented in sufficient detail and clarity to allow for replication or, at a minimum, offer the opportunity to build systematically on their findings; and
   6. has been accepted by a peer-reviewed journal or approved by a panel of independent experts through a comparably rigorous, objective, and scientific review.” (NCLB Title IX, Part A, Section 9101)

UW System
University of Wisconsin System

WINSS
Wisconsin Information Network for Successful Schools

Wisconsin High-Need LEAs
Based upon most recent Census data:

Augusta	Bowler	Crandon
Hillsboro	La Farge	Lac Du Flambeau #1
Menominee Indian	Mercer	Milwaukee
New Auburn	Northwood	Norwalk-Ontario-Wilton
Royal School District	Weston	Weyerhaeuser Area

Additional Resources 

US Department of Education Resources
 
No Child Left Behind website: http://www.ed.gov/legislation/ESEA02/
 
Bringing Evidence-Driven Progress to Education: A Recommended Strategy for the U.S. Department of Education.  Report of the Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy. November 2002, at http://www.excelgov.org/usermedia/images/uploads/PDFs/coalitionFinRpt.pdf
 
What Works Clearinghouse http://www.w-w-c.org/ established by the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences to provide educators, policymakers, and the public with a central independent, and trusted source of scientific evidence of what works in education.
 
Wisconsin Resources
 
DPI Educator Licensing and Program Approval website: http://dpi.wi.gov/tepdl/
 
DPI Content and Learning Team Division for Academic Excellence Team Directory website: http://dpi.wi.gov/dae/