ARRA EETT-Competitive

1. ARRAEETT-Competitive Rollout Meeting September 22, 2009

2. Agenda • Overview and Eligibility • Funding • Application • Format • Project narrative and required forms • Scoring criteria • Reporting requirements • NCLB / ARRA differences

3. Short Version • ARRA EETT-C released September 11, 2009 • ARRA EET-C similar to Round 8 EETT-C • Application due October 15, 2009 • Plan start date of December 1, 2009

4. ARRA EETT Grant Funding • $5.08 million available for RIMS schools • $3.05 million maximum grant • $300/student in grades 4-8 • 2008-2009 CBEDS • Obligated by June 30, 2011 • No follow-up Grant

5. One Time Funds • In addition to Round 8 & 9 EETT- C programs • LEAs funded through previous EETT-C rounds ARE ELIGIBLE (refer to eligibility lists)   • $5.08 million available for RIMS schools

6. Application Timeline • Due date: October 15, 2009 • Application reviews: October 26-30, 2009 • Notification of grant awards: November 2009

7. Wrinkles • NCLB EETT-C funded schools are eligible • Possible to fund the same school in Round 8 and ARRA • Be strategic • Reorder priority list • Turn down funds for schools funded in Round 8 • Apply for different schools

8. ARRA Program Goals • Spend quickly to save and create jobs • Improve student achievement through school improvement and reform • Ensure transparency, reporting and accountability • Invest in a way that minimizes the “funding cliff” of one-time funds

9. EETT Program Goals • Professional development • Educational technology infrastructure • Student academic achievement • Research based programs • Home-school communication

10. Differences • Professional development program (2a) • “Describe opportunities for target teachers to receive coaching or mentoring, including in the area of using student data to inform instruction” • Technology to analyze achievement data for the purpose of improving instruction for individual learning

11. Differences • Evaluation and Program Management (5h) • Address 4 ARRA Priorities • Spend quickly • Improve student achievement • Ensure transparency and accountability • Minimize “funding cliff”

12. Differences • Sustainability (6) • No follow up grant • After the “funding cliff” • Other funding sources • Systemic changes • Sustainable practices

13. Questions about program differences?

14. Scoring Priorities • Small school districts are ranked at the top of the list in the decile in which they scored. • HS District<301, Elementary District <901, Unified<1,501 • Applicants that receive less than $6,000 in EETT Formula grant funds are ranked below eligible small school districts in the same decile range • All other schools serving grades 4-8

15. Use of Funds • Minimum of 25% on high quality professional development, which must: • Integrate technology into the state-adopted materials • Support student achievement of state academic standards • Remainder on other resources that support implementation of the application plan

16. Use of Funds • Hardware • Infrastructure and technical support • Electronic learning resources • Supplies and materials • Fostering communication among parents, students, teachers, and community • Evaluation of grant activities

17. The Application

18. Format Requirements • Narrative may not exceed 25 pages • Pages must include line numbers • no more than 36 lines per page • Submitted in print form, single sided, 8½ x 11 paper, portrait orientation • 12 point font for readability RFA page 5

19. Program Narrative • Program for Students • Professional Development • Expanded Access to Electronic Learning Resources, Including Infrastructure, Equipment, and Technical Support • Communication and Collaboration Among Home, School, and Community • Evaluation

20. Evaluation • Multiple measures, collected over time • Evaluation process is thorough, reasonable, and viable, and addresses ALL required performance goals • Any additional performance goals have an evaluation component

21. Evaluation • Data will be used in a continuous review, refinement, and improvement cycle • Process will provide the CDE with clear information about progress and success to determine readiness for follow-up grant • Process for collecting data and submitting the required reports

22. Budget • Connection between expenditures and needs, goals, and strategies • Proposed expenditures are reasonable and necessary • At least 25% spent on professional development • Items to be acquired are clearly explained and tied to program goals

23. Scoring

24. Scoring • How can an LEA Score maximum points? • Have a well-designed research-based program • Answer all Project Narrative questions outlined for all six sections in the RFA • Match your grant to the “Strong Case” column of the Scoring Guide

25. What’s Next? • Investing in Innovation Fund - $650M • “To be eligible, an LEA must have made progress in raising student achievement, significantly closing the achievement gap, and made progress in other areas.”

26. For More Information • Regional Contact: Molly Large • RIMS CTAP Professional Development Coordinator • mlarge@ctap10.org • (909) 386-2686 voice

27. For More Information • CDE Lead: Cliff Rudnick, EdTech Office • crudnick@cde.ca.gov • http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/fo/r5/eettca09rfa.asp • List of Eligible Schools • Request for applications • Frequently asked questions • Reporting documents

28. Questions? Thank you for attending!