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 9, 2009
Principal investigators are encouraged to check with their institution's research administration office for institutional deadlines or other requirements that might apply.

ESEA rfp PDF

TABLE OF CONTENTS

OVERVIEW
Introduction & Background
Wisconsin Priorities

APPLICATION INFORMATION
Partnerships
Needs Assessment
Activities
Duration
Scientifically Based Research
Evaluation
Project Period
Budget
Other Requirements
Special Notes
Important Deadlines

PROPOSAL PREPARATION
Cover Page
Abstract
Project Description
Appendices
Personnel
Budget
Required Forms

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Proposal Submission
Proposal Review
Volunteer to Review
Evaluation Criteria

APPENDIX
Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Definitions
Additional Resources

 
OVERVIEW
Introduction & Background

Under Part A of Title II, funds are made available for state agencies for higher education  (University of Wisconsin System) 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.  The University of Wisconsin System, working in conjunction with the Wisconsin DPI, shall use the funds to make subgrants, on a competitive basis to eligible partnerships.
The amount available for higher education projects in Wisconsin is expected to be approximately $1,130,000. It is anticipated that about $700,000 will be available for new project awards.
Funds are awarded partnerships between higher education faculty in teacher education, higher education faculty in arts and sciences, and one or more local school districts. One of the school districts in an eligible partnership must be a High-need LEA.
Every proposal must indicate willingness to work with Wisconsin’s high-need LEAs. Proposals may be submitted with non-high-need LEAs so long as the applicant agrees to this condition. When the review panel recommends a proposal for funding, the University of Wisconsin System will contact appropriate high-need LEAs and the prospective project director to work out how a high-need LEA will be added to the project as the statutory required high-need LEA.  UW-System will work with the applicant to make any appropriate proposal or budget adjustments (such as tuition costs, travel for participants or staff, etc.).  Other partners may include additional LEAs, charter schools, businesses, and nonprofit organizations. 
In Wisconsin, the subjects of English language arts, mathematics, science, foreign languages, social studies, art and design, dance, music, and theatre are treated as ESEA core subjects.
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 Title II Part B, approximately $2,200,000 is available for Math & Science Partnerships.  These funds are administered and awarded by Wisconsin DPI. Additional information may be obtained at by visiting the website at  http://dpi.wi.gov/cal/t2bgrant.html.

Wisconsin Priorities  

Priority 1: All students will reach proficiency or better in reading/language arts and mathematics.
Priority 2: All limited English proficient students will become proficient in English and reach proficiency or better in reading/language arts and mathematics.
Priority 3: All students will graduate from high school.
Priority 4: All teacher licensure programs will have a collaborative relationship between core content area faculty and teacher education faculty.

Wisconsin ESEA Improving Teacher Quality 2009 Priorities

Priorities for the 2009 competition are (1.) improvement in student’s achievement in reading/language arts, mathematics, and science, and increasing the quality of teaching in all core subjects for ALL students, and (2.) improvement of collaboration between higher education arts and teacher education faculties.

 
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. 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.

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 Wisconsin Teacher Standards.  Activities must be related to the needs of teachers, principals, and paraprofessionals.  The project should have attainable goals 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.
Proposed projects are expected to include professional development that is sustained over a period of time. 

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. 

  • One-year Projects will have activities from March 1, 2010 through July 31, 2011. 
  • For two-year Projects: Year one activities and budget will run from March 1, 2010 March 1, 2011.  Year two activities and budget will run from March 1, 2011 to July 31, 2012.
  • For three-year Projects Year one activities and budget will run from March 1, 2010 March 1, 2011.  Year two activities and budget will run from March 1, 2011 to March 1, 2012. Year three of funding will cover activities from March 1, 2012 to July 31, 2013
Budget   

A. Tuition
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. 

B. Staff remuneration
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.

C. Supplies
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.

D. 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.

E. Teacher Substitutes
Substitutes may be paid at the local rate up to a maximum of $105 per day.  Additional costs for substitutes must be paid by other sources.  Federal funds shall not be used to pay for teacher substitutes in private schools.  These substitutes must be paid with funds from another source. 

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

Other Requirements  

A. 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.
B. 50% Rule:  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 SR 50 budget information forms.

Special Notes  

1. 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."

2. Required Reports
A financial report is required within thirty days of the end of each one-year project period.  A project report including participant data and describing funded activities is required by September 30th each year.  Forms, for the two reports, are available online at http://www.uwsa.edu/acss/esea/forms/index.htm.

3. Required Meetings
Attendance at the annual Spring Reporting and Monitoring meeting is required and funds for attendance should be included in the budget.

4. Previous Project Directors: 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.

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

Important Deadlines  

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, 2009.  Although this email is not required, it insures a thorough review.

Proposal Deadline
Proposals are due by 4:30 PM on October 9, 2009. Successful applicants will be notified by approximately January 15, 2010 that their proposals have been selected for funding.  Unsuccessful applicants will be notified at the same time.

 
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.  All pages (except summary table) should be presented in Portrait view.  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 Wisconsin Teacher Standards.  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 2 pages):
    Describe how the project will be evaluated.  Include methods used to measure increased student achievement and enhanced teacher quality.  For multiyear projects enumerate the specific documentation that will be provided in September 2010 to justify continuation.
  6. 6. Summary (typically 1 page This page may use landscape format):
    Summarize the project and 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.
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 should be sent as an e-mail attachment to makuratp@uww.edu.

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 

Volunteer to Review

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 a Thursday afternoon and Friday morning in October or November. Reviewer travel and lodging expenses for the review meeting are paid by WITQ Higher Education Grant Program administrative funds. Ethnic, gender, geographic, teaching level, and subject matter diversity will be sought when selecting the committee.

Evaluation Criteria 

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/index.htm.

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. A. 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:
    1. The teacher has obtained 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
    2. The teacher has not had certification or licensure requirements waived on an emergency, temporary, or provisional basis.
  2. B. 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:
    2. Holds at least a bachelor’s degree; and
    3. 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
    4. 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:
    5. 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
    6. 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. C. 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: 
    1. holds at least a bachelor’s degree,
    2. Has met the applicable standard in the clauses of sub-paragraph (B), which includes an option for a test; or
    3. 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 WITQ projects, private schools may not serve as the LEA. 
 
NCLB No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
 
Partnership Partnership means an agreement between two or more high need local educational agencies and the science, technology, engineering, or mathematics departments of the higher education institutes that have agreed to work together in the pursuit of common goals in an attempt to improve K-12 instructional quality and student performance in relative isolation from each other. It is expected that each partner normally contributes resources, exchange ideas, and assumes responsibility.
Conditions for success
*       Create relationships between institutes not between individuals only
*       Create a bond of trust and demonstrate openness
*       Work as a team, for consensus and consultation
*       Respect the organizational mission of each partner
*       Respect the expectations and limits of each partner
*       Share power, risks and responsibilities
*       Invest jointly in resources
*       Encourage commitment and permanency from the stakeholders
*       Evaluate the impact of the project on each partner regularly

Professional Development Activities means 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. (A) 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. (B) 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 and teacher qualification data:
Ashland, Augusta, Bayfield, Beloit, Bowler, Cashton, Cassville, Crandon, Geneva J4, Glidden, Granton Area, Hayward Community, Hillsboro, La Farge, Lac du Flambeau #1, Menominee Indian, Mercer, Milwaukee, New Auburn, Northwood, Norwalk-Ontario-Wilton, Royall School District, Wausaukee, Weston, Weyerhaeuser Area

Additional Resources 

No Child Left Behind website: http://www.ed.gov/nclb/
 
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://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/ 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/
 
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.