Docstoc

MathScience - Lasip

Document Sample
MathScience - Lasip Powered By Docstoc
					                                  Request for Proposals



Guidelines for the Submission of 2008-09



MATHEMATICS and/or
SCIENCE
LaSIP PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSALS FOR 4th-12th GRADE EDUCATORS



Important Dates

   December 6, 2007      Informational Compressed Video Conference
   December 10, 2007     Non-binding Notices of Intent Deadline
   January 22, 2008      Deadline for Submission of Proposals




                           P. O. Box 3677
                  Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70821-3677
                            225-219-0690
                           www.lasip.org
 Important Notices


1. Extended Funding, 2008 LaSIP RFP

   This Request for Proposals (RFP) solicits submissions for 2008 professional development
   (PD) initiatives in mathematics and/or science focus content areas from four-year
   Institutions of Higher Education (IHE). Funded projects will provide research-based, content-
   intensive professional development for teachers of mathematics and/or science, grades 4-12,
   in at least one high-need local education agency (LEA) and target schools. Meritorious
   proposals will be funded on a more extended basis for either 18 or 27 months, as funds are
   available and ongoing evaluation is satisfactory.

   Extended funding for 2008 mathematics and/or science projects begins a newer phase of
   more extended LaSIP funding, offering two different avenues. Proposals may be submitted by
   LaSIP principal investigators (PIs) with more than three years experience for 27-month
   funding and for PIs with three years or less, 18-month funding. Extended funding begins
   when the LaSIP Council approves funding and contracts have been signed by all parties, or
   approximately March 2008. These extended funding cycles will provide for more sustained
   implementation and time for evidence of success through evaluation results to meet the
   proposal’s measurable objectives.

   a. Twenty-seven month funding: begins with teacher participants April 2008, continues with
      optional summer institutes and academic year (AY) follow-up in the schools during school
      years 2008-09 and 2009-10, with funding to end no later than June, 2010.
   b. Eighteen-month funding: begins with teacher participants April 2008, continues with
      optional summer institutes and AY follow-up in the schools, and conclude with an optional
      additional summer institute. Funding will end no later than September, 2009.

   Community colleges may be a principal partner only if the college has a Department of
   Education and approved teacher education program. If a community college is designated as
   the lead institution and fiscal agent for the grant, a four-year IHE must be the other higher
   education partner, as stipulated by NCLB Act of 2001 funding regulations.

   Mathematics and science proposals should focus on specific areas of need as documented
   by the State’s LEAP21, GEE21, and EPAS EXPLORE (8th) or PLAN (10th) assessments.
   Proposals must demonstrate collaborative planning with the high-need LEA and targeted
   schools fully involved so the project meets the specific data-driven needs of all schools in
   the partnership. University course work credit toward certification and NCLB Highly
   Qualified certification is encouraged (II. Overview, Page 8).

2. Technical Assistance Workshop

   A technical assistance workshop will be provided to assist potential grant applicants in all
   aspects of writing, partnering with other universities and community colleges, and including,
   specifically, help with the budget. Potential high-need LEAs and their schools and other target
   schools should participate in the technical workshop. This workshop will provide a public
   venue to explore potential partnerships with other colleges and universities and an opportunity
   to receive technical assistance concerning the submission of proposals. All interested
   applicants are strongly encouraged to participate in the technical assistance workshop via
                                                       ______________________________________
                                                                     2008-09 LaSIP MATHEMATICS
                                                             Professional Development RFP, Cycle-1
                                                                                      October 2008
                                                                                                 2
   Compressed Video Conference (CVC) to be held November 29, 2007. To register for the
   CVC or learn more about this RFP, contact Ms. Lynne Tullos: lynne.tullos@la.gov , by
   Tuesday, November 27, 2007.

3. Funding Requirements

   Prospective projects, in accordance with federal requirements for the Improving Teacher
   Quality State Grants Program (Title II), a part of the NCLB Act of 2001 and one of LaSIP’s
   funding sources, must involve meaningful collaboration and direct participation among eligible
   partnerships: between a public or private institution of higher education (IHE), including
   divisions of the institution that prepare teachers and principals, and a school of arts and
   sciences; and at least one 4-12 school from a high-need LEA (See Appendices B and C).
   Additional participants include teams of mathematics or science teachers, grades 4-12, and
   administrators in target schools such as those participating in the LA High School ReDESIGN
   or in similar reform initiatives, LINCS, LA GEAR UP, or TAP schools, or schools designated as
   High Priority, High Needs, or Pace Setter schools in the State.

4. Glossary of Terms

   To ensure that applicants from all disciplines fully understand terminology used in this RFP, a
   glossary of terms is provided in Appendix A. Terms that have been included in the glossary
   are highlighted throughout the document.

5. Electronic Submission of Proposals/Online Availability of RFP

   Electronic submission of all proposals is required. This RFP as well as instructions for
   submitting proposals may be accessed at the LaSIP website, www.lasip.org.

6. Inquiries About this RFP

   Inquiries about this RFP must be submitted via email to Ms. Lynne Tullos at
   lynne.tullos@la.gov, and will be accepted until 4:30 p.m., January 14, 2008. All Q&As will be
   posted to the LaSIP website weekly.

7. Suggestions for Improvements in this RFP

   LaSIP actively solicits constructive suggestions about ways in which this RFP can be
   improved. Suggestions must be received in writing no later than March 31, 2008, to be
   considered prior to the issuance of the 2009-10 RFP. Suggestions should be emailed to Ms.
   Lynne Tullos at lynne.tullos@la.gov.

8. Acronyms
      AY                     Academic Year
      BESE                   Board of elementary and Secondary Education
      BOR                    Board of Regents
      CVC                    Compressed Video Conference
      EPAS                   Educational Planning and Assessment System
      EOC                    End of Course Exams, for 2008-09 Algebra and English IV
      GEE21                  Graduation Exit Exam (Grade 10, 11)
                                                       ______________________________________
                                                                     2008-09 LaSIP MATHEMATICS
                                                             Professional Development RFP, Cycle-1
                                                                                      October 2008
                                                                                                 3
   GLE          Grade Level Expectations
   IHE          Institutions of Higher Education
   LA GEAR UP   LA Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate
                 Programs
   LaSIP        LA Systemic Initiatives Program
   LEA          Local Education Agency
   LEAP21       Louisiana Educational Assessment Program (grades 4,8,10)
   LINCS        Learning Intensive Networking Communities for Success
   NCLB         No Child Left Behind
   PD           Professional Development
   PI           Principal Investigator
   RFP          Request for Proposals
   SACS         Southern Association of Colleges and Schools
   TAP          Teacher Advancement Program
   USDE         United States Department of Education




                                        ______________________________________
                                                      2008-09 LaSIP MATHEMATICS
                                              Professional Development RFP, Cycle-1
                                                                       October 2008
                                                                                  4
Table of Contents
                                                                                          Page
I.      Introduction                                                                      7
II.     Overview                                                                          7
III.    Goals and Measurable Objectives                                                   8
IV.     Project Development and Criteria                                                  9
V.      Eligibility Requirements                                                          10
VI.     Funding Priorities                                                                11
VII.    Timeline                                                                          12
VIII.   General Budgetary Guidelines                                                      12
IX.     Preparation of Proposals                                                          13
X.      Proposal Deadline, Submission Process, and Format                                 14
XI.     Review Process                                                                    14
XII.    Contractual Agreement                                                             15
XIII.   Ownership of Copyrights and Patents                                               15
XIV.    Public Nature of Proposals Submitted                                              15
XV.     References                                                                        15


        APPENDICES                                                                        19
        A.   Glossary                                                                     20
        B.   No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Legislation                                      23
        C.   Target 4-12 Schools                                                          25
             1.    High Needs LEAs                                                        26
                    th
             2.    9 Grade Academies                                                      27
             3.    LINCS                                                                  29
             4.    LA GEAR UP                                                             32
             5.    TAP                                                                    34
        D.   Budget Forms and Instructions                                                42
        E.   Reviewer Evaluation Form                                                     43
             1.     Mathematics                                                           44
             2.     Science                                                               48
        F.   Forms for Submission                                                         52

                                                       ______________________________________
                                                                     2008-09 LaSIP MATHEMATICS
                                                             Professional Development RFP, Cycle-1
                                                                                      October 2008
                                                                                                 5
     1.   Notice of Intent                                                      53
     2.   Cover Page                                                            54
     3.   Project Abstract                                                      55
     4.   Curriculum Vitae                                                      56
     5.   Memo of Agreement Among Partners                                      57
     6.   Cooperative Planning Efforts                                          59
     7.   Current and Pending Support                                           60
     8.   Project Timeline                                                      61
G.   Waiver of Tuition and Fees                                                 62
H.   Checklist for Submission of Proposals                                      64




                                             ______________________________________
                                                           2008-09 LaSIP MATHEMATICS
                                                   Professional Development RFP, Cycle-1
                                                                            October 2008
                                                                                       6
I.     INTRODUCTION


From its inception in 1991 and throughout its history, the Louisiana Systemic Initiatives Program
(LaSIP), now a part of the Louisiana Board of Regents (BoR), has recognized the pivotal role that
well-prepared teachers play in improving student achievement. LaSIP’s signature initiative,
professional development (PD) for teachers and principals, is supported through a significant and
lasting partnership between the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) and
the BoR, which provide governance and financial support.

Effective teachers are crucial to Louisiana’s efforts to improve education. The LaSIP PD program
encourages innovative proposals that incorporate and contribute to the existing research base on the
design and implementation of effective PD and its impact on teacher learning, teacher change, and
ultimately, student achievement.

II.   OVERVIEW


LaSIP PD projects are developed to provide assistance to high-need LEAs1 and their teachers,
paraprofessionals, or principals and target schools by providing on-going course work for
certification, content and instruction, and continuing education. The target schools include schools
participating in any of the High School ReDESIGN initiatives, LINCS, LA GEAR UP, or TAP (Appendix
C).

This RFP invites innovative proposals founded on research and effective PD practices for sustained,
high-quality professional development activities that:
 ensure individuals are able to use challenging State academic content standards, the LA
    Comprehensive Curriculum, and State assessments to improve instructional practices, and that
 include intensive programs designed to prepare such individuals who will return to the classroom
    to provide instruction related to the PD and to share that instruction with their peers.

LaSIP mathematics or science PD must provide grades 4-12 school faculty and/or school
administrators with in-depth content knowledge, effective classroom skills, and leadership skills
needed to ensure the academic achievement of the students they serve.

Awards will be made to proposals showing the most promise and participant support to positively
affect student achievement through increases in:
        • grades 4-12 teachers’ content knowledge in targeted mathematics and/or science
           content areas,
        • grades 4-12 teachers’ instructional practices in inquiry-based instruction,
        • grades 4-12 teachers’ use of assessment results to improve instruction, and
        • innovative ways to support teachers in their classrooms during the school year that ensure
           implementation of the program.

Proposals should focus on specific areas of need as documented by the State LEAP21, GEE21, and
EPAS EXPLORE (8th) or PLAN (10th) assessments. Proposals should demonstrate collaborative
planning with the high-need school(s) and targeted schools fully involved so that the content focus
1
  See Appendix A for definitions of terms in bold



                                                          ______________________________________
                                                                        2008-09 LaSIP MATHEMATICS
                                                                Professional Development RFP, Cycle-1
                                                                                         October 2008
                                                                                              Page 7
of the proposal meets the specific data-driven needs of the schools in the partnership. Providing
higher-level mathematics and science content PD classes for teachers supports the State’s new LA
CORE 4 initiatives (Section XV, Proposed Curriculum Recommendations website) as well as SACS
certification required to teach dual enrollment courses. University course work credit that enables
teachers or paraprofessionals to obtain certification and NCLB Highly Qualified status is encouraged.

Algebra will continue as a statewide focus for mathematics proposals serving grades 8-12, in
response to the State Department’s End Of Course (EOC) assessments and 9th Grade Academies
(Appendix B). Higher level content courses that provide teachers with the background needed to
teach dual enrollment courses may also be a documented need in high schools and project focus.

Proposals serving grades 4-8 mathematics must document the specific need(s) of the participating
target schools, according to their 4th and 8th LEAP21 and EPAS EXPLORE assessments.
Professional development that focuses on the NCLB highly qualified certification status for middle
school teachers may be a specific need for a particular region.

Science proposals should serve teachers of grades 4-8 or 8-12 with a focus on biology, chemistry, or
physical science and prepare teachers to provide higher levels of instruction for increased student
achievement such as the EOC exams in these content areas and teaching dual enrollment courses.

In 2001, the Louisiana Board of Regents released its Master Plan for Public Postsecondary
Education. One of the three primary goals outlined in the Master Plan was to “increase opportunities
for student access and success.” Implementation of the Educational Planning and Assessment
System (EPAS) was one of seven specific strategies listed to help achieve this end.

EPAS, which includes the EXPLORE assessment in the 8th grade, the PLAN assessment in the 10th
grade, and culminates with the ACT assessment in the 11th grade, provides a longitudinal, systematic
approach to educational and career planning, assessment, instructional support, and evaluation.
EPAS places emphasis on the integrated, higher-order thinking skills which students develop in
grades K-12 that are important for success both during and after high school. The system focuses on
a number of key transition points that young people face, particularly 8th graders preparing to enter
high school, 10th graders planning and preparing for college and the workplace, and 11th and 12th
graders being ready for life after high school.

Successful PD should be linked to data from EPAS assessments, the State LEAP21 and GEE21
assessments, and a given teacher’s understanding of the research process, classroom needs, and
his/her previous knowledge about learning. The information should be specific rather than general,
and should be documented as follows:
     Content chosen for PD activities should be based on specific teacher needs (Gersten, Chard &
        Baker, 2000), and the identification of these needs should involve the use of objective student
        performance data, particularly student growth over time (Torgesen, Meadows & Howard,
        2006). The data provided from EPAS, LEAP21 and/or GEE21/EOC should be documented in
        the proposal.
     Content-based PD should be combined with activities that support teachers in understanding
        how students learn and applying this knowledge of student learning in the classroom for
        maximum effectiveness (Marzano, 2003).

 III. GOALS AND MEASURABLE OBJECTIVES




                                                           ______________________________________
                                                                       2008-09 LaSIP MATHEMATICS
                                                                        Professional Development RFP
                                                                                       November 2008
                                                                                              Page 8
All proposals must describe how the project will achieve each of the following LaSIP goals through
project designed measurable objectives and include objective data that measure rigor and relevance.
The LaSIP mathematics and science goals are:
        1. Improvement in student achievement based in part on EPAS and LEAP21 and/or
           GEE21/EOC assessments in mathematics and/or science over the life of the project, using
           each teacher’s student scores for 2007 as a base year;
        2. Increases in teachers’ knowledge and understanding of key mathematics and/or science
           concepts, including higher levels of content instruction in mathematics and science for dual
           enrollment;
        3. Improvement in teachers’ pedagogical knowledge and practices that utilize scientifically-
           based research findings and best practices in inquiry-based instruction; and
        4. Enhancement of teachers’ use of assessment to monitor the effectiveness of their
           instruction and student understanding.

Additionally, if pre-service education students from the partner IHE(s) are included, the project should
demonstrate the
       5. Impact in the preparation of pre-service education students through improvement in rigor
          and relevance to existing coursework or the design of new mathematics, science content
          and/or pedagogy courses.

When addressing LaSIP goals, narratives should identify baseline data and must clearly identify
measurable outcomes (objective data). Outcomes related to the project’s objectives for each LaSIP
goal will be evaluated through collaboration with an external evaluation source. The specific criteria
and format for submitting a LaSIP PD proposal is located in Section IV, Proposal Development and
Criteria and Appendix F.

    IV.   PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT AND CRITERIA


LaSIP expects proposal narratives to conform to the following criteria:
 Analysis of Need & Collaborative Planning (10 points): Proposals should reflect a collective
   effort to identify and address the needs of the teachers and students in the high-need LEA(s) and
   targeted schools. References to actual data, schools’ improvement plans, and statewide
   initiatives should support the focus of the plan. Evidence must be provided to show participating
   schools were represented in the project planning and development, including at least one
   principal, teacher, and school or district leader from the high-need LEA to be served.

     Project Objectives (10 Points): Objectives must be measurable and include the objective data to
      measure success. There should be no more than two measurable objectives to support each of
      the LaSIP PD goals (Section III). Objectives must be specific, achievable, and reflect national or
      State initiatives, trends, and content standards.

      Description of Activities (30 Points): Proposed activities must be directly related to the
      achievement of project objectives. Activities should be of sufficient length and intensity for
      teachers or administrators to learn new ways of thinking, teaching and leading, and to integrate
      this knowledge into their professional practice. Proposals will be evaluated based on plans for the
      entire funding cycle, including innovative plans for academic year (AY) school-based follow-up
      support for teachers and/or principals. Proposals must be grounded in scientifically-based
      research, incorporating a strong pedagogical component and best practices and use the Louisiana
      Grade Level Expectations (GLEs) and the Louisiana Comprehensive Curricula for mathematics
                                                             ______________________________________
                                                                         2008-09 LaSIP MATHEMATICS
                                                                          Professional Development RFP
                                                                                         November 2008
                                                                                                Page 9
         and science. Specific data-driven subject-matter content and classroom instructional strategies for
         each phase of the funding cycle must be part of this section (II. Overview, page 7).

        Capacity, Resources, Sustainability (15 Points): A proposal should describe how it utilizes
         available resources and coordinates with existing initiatives to improve instructional or leadership
         practices and teachers’ content knowledge. Proposals must demonstrate work-embedded
         practices or contexts such as mentoring relationships, train-the-trainer models, student
         projects/competitions, Lesson Study, or establishment of communities of practice to impact a
         maximum number of teachers. Bonus points will be awarded to proposals demonstrating buy-in
         from participating schools and districts that include support during the AY such as financial
         support for school or district content coaches, master teachers, or scheduling time for faculty study
         groups or establishment of communities of practice at each school. PD programs must be of
         sufficient intensity and duration for teachers to make gains. Building collaborative partnerships
         between the schools, districts and IHE will be a valued component. While summer workshops are
         encouraged as one component of a comprehensive program, the focus of the PD should include
         work-embedded activities that are sustained and intensive. Partnership with schools to provide
         ongoing mentoring for teachers and support for principals is recommended.

        Evaluation Plan (10 Points): Rigorous and comprehensive program evaluation serves as the
         basis for LaSIP’s ongoing improvement in the design and delivery of PD for teachers and
         administrators. Specific program data is required for reviewers to fully understand improvements
         in individual projects, teachers, and their students. For this reason, LaSIP program evaluation
         consists of two essential and interconnected components to answer different program and funding
         questions: (1) an External Evaluation Source Component, and (2) a Project-Designed
         Component. The External Evaluation Source will be discussed with all funded project directors
         and describe the types of evaluations to be collected during the funding cycle. Each funded
         project will budget for its share of the external evaluation costs. The Project-Designed
         Evaluation plan should assess the success of the project in terms of its stated objectives, impact
         of the project on participants’ content area knowledge and instructional or leadership practices,
         and the impact in terms of student learning (Appendix A for detailed information).

        Budget and Budget Narrative (15 Points): Expenses for all project personnel, participants, and
         activities must be adequately explained, reasonable, and within the restrictions of this RFP. The
         responsibilities of all paid personnel must be clearly described, reasonable, and match the actual
         time on task. For each hour of actual time on task, instructors may be compensated an additional
         hour for planning and preparing for the instruction. The institution(s) and participating school
         districts should demonstrate a commitment to carry out the program through cost sharing. Bonus
         points will be awarded to proposals that demonstrate a cost effective and innovative design and
         implementation plan for AY follow-up support (Appendix D, Budget).

The Reviewer Evaluation Forms (Appendix E) match these bulleted criteria. Use of each section
heading in the proposal will allow reviewers to better locate and understand the specifics of the
proposal. An additional criteria on the Scoring Rubric will be the measure of the Overall Impression
(10 Points) of the proposal to impact and improve teaching, leadership, and learning that is worthy of
being funded.

LaSIP reserves the right to negotiate modifications in project duration, design and/or budgets during
the award process and funding cycle, as needed.

    V.       ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS

                                                                  ______________________________________
                                                                              2008-09 LaSIP MATHEMATICS
                                                                               Professional Development RFP
                                                                                              November 2008
                                                                                                    Page 10
A primary funding source for LaSIP PD projects is USDE Title II, Part A, No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
monies. In accordance with NCLB requirements, proposals must involve meaningful collaboration and
direct participation among eligible partnerships represented by a partnership between a public or
private institution of higher education (IHE) and the division of the institution that prepares teachers
and principals and a school of arts and sciences. In addition, at least one K-12 school from a high-
need local education agency must be a principal partner (Appendix B). Additional participants include
teams of grades 4-12 mathematics or science teachers and administrators in target schools such as
those participating in the LA High School ReDESIGN or in similar reform initiatives, LINCS, LA GEAR
UP, or TAP schools, or schools designated as High Priority, High Need, or Pace Setter schools in the
State (Appendix B).

Proposals may emanate from any accredited public or private four-year degree-granting institution of
higher education (IHE). A community college with a division that prepares teachers and principals
[Section 2131(1), USDE EDGAR guidance] may be an additional principal project partner (Appendix
B) of any partnership. Community colleges may be a principal project partner and fiscal agent only if
the college has a Department of Education and approved teacher education program and if a four-
year IHE serves as the other higher education partner.

 VI. FUNDING PRIORITIES


LaSIP seeks to fund 7-12 mathematics and science proposals that stimulate systemic and sustainable
changes in the delivery of professional development and extend the scope and reach of professional
development activities to serve the high-need LEA(s) and target schools.

Proposals may be funded for up to 18 months or 27 months, as described in Appendix A. It is
incumbent upon applicants to explain in detail how the extended time will be used and is needed to
accomplish the project’s measurable objectives. Reviewers may elect to fund the proposal for the
maximum allowable time, but continued funding beyond one-year is based on exemplary progress in
the first year. Due to fiscal funding limitations, LaSIP will fund the highest rated proposals
recommended with continued annual funding through the cycle of the grant, provided funds are
available and evaluations are positive.

A. Priorities for Partnerships

Priority will be given to proposals that include:
 Two or more postsecondary institutions in the partnership. Bonus points will be awarded to
     proposals that bring community colleges and IHEs together in the partnership.

   School selection should consider the data-driven needs of the State as a guide and serve either
    LA GEAR UP or the LA Department of Education’s target school initiatives such as High School
    ReDESIGN and similar redesigned high schools, LINCS, TAP, or low-performing schools such as
    High Priority, High Need, or Pace Setter schools, in addition to at least one high-need LEA.

   Teachers of mathematics or science in grades four through eight (4-8) or eight through twelve (8-
    12) in the high-need LEA and target schools. Participants from these schools should account for
    at least 75% of the total number of participants in the project. Attempts should be made to obtain
    a critical mass of teacher participants from a school building or a school district. Funded projects
    may provide PD opportunities for teachers from private schools that meet Brumfield vs. Dodd
    legislation criteria.
                                                            ______________________________________
                                                                        2008-09 LaSIP MATHEMATICS
                                                                         Professional Development RFP
                                                                                        November 2008
                                                                                              Page 11
      Pre-service education students from the partnering IHE(s) may participate in project activities but
       may not receive monetary support using funds provided through this grant. Participants from the
       pre-service education student group should account for no more than 15% of the total number of
       participants in the project.

      Paraprofessionals may be included as project participants if there is a mechanism that enables
       them to work with teachers in the high-need school district(s) and schools participating in the
       project or in order to obtain the education necessary for the paraprofessionals to become certified
       and licensed teachers.

      School principals and district superintendents may be included as participants in the grant
       provided that the administrator has meaningful participation in project collaboration/design,
       instructional activities, and follow-up sessions. Meaningful participation is expected to equal at
       least half of the contact hours required of teacher participants. The most promising projects are
       those which provide opportunities for building teacher capacity and professional autonomy.

 Infused into documenting mathematics and/or science content needs are the low literacy rates of
 Louisiana students and the need to develop a more literate and capable citizenry for the future.
 Because the Louisiana Literacy Plan requires a school-wide model for literacy across all content
 areas, implementation of literacy strategies in the mathematics and science curricula should be
 highlighted in proposals. According to the Louisiana Literacy Plan, “Literacy includes an individual’s
 ability to read, write, speak, view, and listen in English at levels of proficiency necessary to function in
 the family, in society and on the job.” (http://www.doe.state.la.us/lde/uploads/8629.pdf)

VII.     TIMELINE


         December 6, 2007                     Informational CVC Scheduled
         December 10, 2007                    Non-binding Notices of Intent Due
         January 14, 2008                     Deadline for Inquiries about RFP
         January 22, 2008                     Deadline for Submission of Proposals
         February 2008                        Review of Proposals/Interviews with Staff
         March 2008                           LaSIP Council/ Notification of Funding

 VIII.        GENERAL BUDGETARY GUIDELINES


LaSIP expects approximately $3.35 million to fund mathematics, science, and literacy projects, or
approximately 20 projects for fiscal year 2008-09. The budget should adhere to the following general
budgetary guidelines. More specific guidelines are included on the LaSIP website, www.lasip.org .

              The Budget should be reasonable and clearly aligned with the mission, goals, and
               objectives of the proposed project. Reasonable expenses for project staff and participants
               related to in-state meetings integral to project success, including travel for project staff to
               conduct on-site evaluations and follow-up, and room and board charges for those
               participants requiring residential service may be requested. (See allowable and non-
               allowable expenditures below.)
              A detailed Budget Narrative of each line item on the budget form, including a description of
               the time involvement, roles, and responsibilities of the project director and staff, which
               mathematically supports the figures in the budget, is required. Justify expenses for all
                                                                 ______________________________________
                                                                             2008-09 LaSIP MATHEMATICS
                                                                              Professional Development RFP
                                                                                             November 2008
                                                                                                   Page 12
           project personnel and participants and ensure all costs are adequately explained,
           reasonable, and within guidelines.
          Specify sources of cost sharing (university in-kind support, LEA support, and/or other
           agency support) and explain how they enhance the project.
          Allowable Expenditures (2008-09):
           o Grant funds can be used only for non-recurring expenses such as teacher stipends,
               instructional or classroom materials (includes calculators), consultants, faculty, staff,
               mentors/coaches, travel/lodging and other costs, according to State regulations
           o Expenses incurred for attendance at State content conferences, including
               travel/lodging and stipends if not being paid by the school district
           o Indirect costs and Fringe Benefits
           o All required employer-paid taxes and TRSL benefits for educators
            Non-allowable Expenditures (2008-09):
           o Grant funds cannot be used to pay any conference fees or memberships.
           o Grant funds cannot be used to purchase non-disposable items such as cameras, video
               or overhead equipment, tools, computers/computer equipment, screens, display
               boards, etc.
           o Grant funds cannot be used to purchase food, except for individual meals associated
               with project-related travel
           o Out of state conference travel
           o Tuition of graduate or undergraduate students
           o Building or infrastructure improvements

       Budgets, including the number of staff requested, may be reduced in direct proportion to the
       actual number of participants if the number of participants is significantly less than projected
       (20% or more) during the funding cycle.

       Projects should not proceed with activities if the number of actual participants is 75% of the
       recruited participant number for which the project was funded without the written approval of
       LaSIP.

       Funded principal investigators must commit to sending one project staff member to at least 16
       hours of EPAS training so that individual(s) will be able to incorporate EPAS Online Modules
       and best practices into each project’s curriculum.

 IX. PREPARATION OF PROPOSALS


Applicants must submit a complete proposal that adheres to the following format:
      1. Notice of Intent (Appendix F, Form 1): used to notify prospective applicants of changes and
          submission locations
      2. Cover Page (Appendix F – Form 2)
      3. Project Abstract (Appendix F – Form 3): include a 250 word description of the project to be
          used in Statewide Report
      4. Table of Contents
      5. Project Timeline (Appendix F, Form 8): outlining each phase of the funding cycle, the
          specific content to be covered, the person or persons responsible for the activities and their
          time commitment
      6. Project Narrative (Section IV): limit narrative to 15 double-spaced pages, using the following
          outline:
               A. Analysis of Need and Collaborative Planning
                                                            ______________________________________
                                                                        2008-09 LaSIP MATHEMATICS
                                                                         Professional Development RFP
                                                                                        November 2008
                                                                                              Page 13
                  B. Project Objectives
                  C. Description of Activities
                  D. Capacity, Resources, Sustainability
                  E. Evaluation Plan
                  (Do not discuss national needs in mathematics or science education because
                  reviewers have extensive perspectives on national issues. Include a list of all acronyms
                  used in the proposal)
        7. Budget and Budget Narrative (Appendix D): include cost sharing
        8. Staff Curriculum Vitae (Appendix F, Form 4): Provide vitae for the following individuals
                  Project director(s) (one person must be designated as the Senior Project Director)
                  Project instructional staff
                  Coaches, mentors, teachers or principals who play a role in project planning or
                     implementation of project
        9. Current and Pending Support (Appendix F, Form 7)
        10. Memo of Agreement Among Partners (Appendix F, Form 5)
        11. Cooperative Planning Efforts (Appendix F, Form 6)
        12. References Cited: Provide full references for all materials actually cited in the narrative;
            limit to two pages.
        13. Appendices: no more than 10 pages (does not include forms required in this RFP)

 X.       PROPOSAL DEADLINE, SUBMISSION PROCESS, AND FORMAT


      Two hard copies of the proposals must be received and an electronic copy, in Microsoft Word
      format only, should be uploaded to the LaSIP drop box (the specific URL will be sent to those
      submitting Notices of Intent or attending the Technical Assistance CVC) no later than 4:00 pm
      Wednesday, January 22, 2008. Please adhere to the following instructions when submitting your
      proposal:
         • Use 12-point Times New Roman or 12-point Arial font
         • Use 1-inch margins on standard 8 ½ x 11-inch paper
         • Paginate all pages (beginning with the cover page)

   Mail the original proposal and a hard copy to the following address:

                                           LaSIP/LA GEAR UP
                                          Dr. Kerry Davidson
                                            P.O. Box 3677
                                     Baton Rouge, LA 70821-3677

                                       Attention: Ms. Lynne Tullos

For questions or problems with the electronic submission; call Neal Boyd, 225-278-6656

 XI.      REVIEW PROCESS

To ensure high-quality opportunities for teachers year after year, PD proposals undergo a rigorous
competitive review based on recommendations of out-of-state consultants with appropriate expertise.
Continued funding depends on successful implementation and continued availability of funds. This
RFP, including all forms, may be accessed on the LaSIP website at www.lasip.org.

Proposals will be reviewed using a two-stage procedure which includes (1) evaluation of written
                                                              ______________________________________
                                                                          2008-09 LaSIP MATHEMATICS
                                                                           Professional Development RFP
                                                                                          November 2008
                                                                                                Page 14
proposals, and (2) interview of prospective staff and school partners by out-of-state review teams;
either on-site or through an electronic CVC. The external review panel(s) will review and assess
proposals and conduct interviews using the Reviewer Evaluation Form (Appendix E). Evaluators’
recommendations shall be submitted in a final Statewide Report to the LaSIP Council for
consideration of funding and become public record. Notification of awards will be made immediately
thereafter.

 XII.    CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT


Institutions that are awarded funding by the LaSIP Council under this RFP will enter into a contract
with the Louisiana Board of Regents. All State, federal, and BoR laws, regulations and guidelines
must be followed. Notification of awards will be made immediately upon funding approval of the
LaSIP Council. Reviewers’ comments will be forwarded to all principal investigators with responses
and/or changes expected in writing before contracts are awarded. Contracts are expected to be
issued no later than April 1, 2008.


 XIII.   OWNERSHIP OF COPYRIGHTS AND PATENTS

Ownership of copyrights and patents or other proprietary interests that may result from contract
activities shall be governed by applicable federal regulations, State law, and local institutional policies.

 XIV.    PUBLIC NATURE OF PROPOSALS SUBMITTED

Once a proposal is received in the LaSIP office, it becomes public record. The LaSIP staff, of its own
accord, will not disseminate proposals to individuals other than external reviewers; however,
applicants should be aware that, if a request for a proposal is made by the public (e.g., a
representative of the news media), a copy of the proposal, by law, must be provided.

 XV. REFERENCES


Baker, S., Gersten, R., & Lee, D.S. (2002). A synthesis of empirical research on teaching
       mathematics to low-achieving students. The Elementary School Journal 103(1), 52-73.

Birman, B., Desimone, L., Porter, A.C., & Garet, M. (2000). Designing professional development that
      works. Educational Leadership, 57(8), 28-33.

Christle, C.A., & Schuster, J.W. (2003). The effects of using response cards on student participation,
        academic achievement, and on-task behavior during whole-class, math instruction. Journal of
        Behavioral Education, 12(3), 147-165.

Deno, S. L. (2003). Developments in curriculum-based measurement. The Journal of Special
      Education, 37(3), 184-192.

Desimone, L., Birman, Porter, A., Garet, M., & Yoon, K.S. (2003). Improving teachers' in-service
      professional development in mathematics and science: The role of postsecondary institutions.
      Educational Policy, 17(5), 613-649.


                                                              ______________________________________
                                                                          2008-09 LaSIP MATHEMATICS
                                                                           Professional Development RFP
                                                                                          November 2008
                                                                                                Page 15
Desimone, L., Porter, A.C., Garet, M., & Yoon, K. S. (2002). Effects of professional development on
      teachers’ instruction: Results from a three-year longitudinal study. Educational Evaluation and
      Policy Analysis, 24(2), 81-112.

DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Karhanek, G. (2004). Whatever it takes: How professional
      learning communities respond when kids don’t learn. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree (formerly
      National Educational Service).

Fantuzzo, J.W., King, J.A., & Heller, L.R. (1992). Effects of reciprocal peer tutoring on mathematics
      and school adjustment: A component analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 331-
      339.

Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (2006). What is scientifically-based research on progress monitoring?
      Retrieved October 1, 2006 from http://www.studentprogress.org/library/articles.asp

Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C.L., Phillips, N.B., Karns, K., & Dutka, S. (l997). Enhancing
      students’ helping behavior during peer-mediated instruction with conceptual mathematical
      explanations. Elementary School Journal, 97, 223-249.

Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C.L., & Stecker, P.M. (1991). Effects of curriculum-based measurement
       and consultation on teacher planning and student achievement in mathematics operations.
       American Educational Research Journal, 28(3), 617-641.

Garet, M.S., Porter, A.C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K.S. (2001). What makes professional
       development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational
       Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945.

Gersten, R., Chard, D., & Baker, S. (2000). Factors enhancing sustained use of research-based
      instructional practices. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 445-457.

Harper, G.F., Mallette, B., Macheady, L., & Brennan, G. (1993). Classwide peer tutoring teams and
       direct instruction as a combined instructional program to teach generalizable strategies for
       Mathematics Word Problems. Education and Treatment of Children, 16(2), 115-134.

Heward, W. L., Gardner III, R., Cavanaugh, R. A., Courson, F. H., Grossi, T. A., & Barbetta, P. M.
      (1996). Everyone participates in this class: Using response cards to increase active student
      response. Teaching Exceptional Children, 28(2), 4-10.

Kameenui, E.K., & Carnine, D.W. (1998). Effective teaching strategies that accommodate diverse
     learners. Des Moines, IA: Prentice-Hall Inc.

Marzano, R.J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria, VA:
      Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Sanders, W.L., & Rivers, J.C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student
      academic achievement. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and
      Assessment Center.

Shinn, M.R., (1998). Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement. New York: Guilford
       Press.

                                                          ______________________________________
                                                                      2008-09 LaSIP MATHEMATICS
                                                                       Professional Development RFP
                                                                                      November 2008
                                                                                            Page 16
Stanovich, P.J., Stanovich, K.E. (2003). Using Research and Reason in Education: How Teachers
       Can Use Scientifically Based Research to Make Curricular & Instructional Decisions.

       Partnership for READING. Retrieved on October 30, 2007 from
       http://www.nifl.gov/partnershipforreading/publications/html/stanovich/

Stecker, P., Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (2005). Using curriculum-based measurement to improve
       student achievement: Review of Research. Psychology in the Schools, 42(8), 795-819.

Tomlinson, C.A. (2000). What is differentiated instruction? Retrieved on October 1, 2006 from
       http://www.readingrockets.org/articles/263

Whitehurst, G.J. (2002). Research on teacher preparation and professional development: White
      House conference on preparing tomorrow’s teachers. Retrieved on September 15, 2006 from
      www.ed.gov/admins/tchrqual/learn/preparingteachersconference/whitehurst.html


OTHER WEBSITES AND ARTICLES FOR REVIEW

Lessons from a Decade of Mathematics and Science Reform: A Capstone Report for the Local
      Systemic Change through Teacher Enhancement Initiative
      www.pdmathsci.net/reports/capstone.pdf

La High School Redesign www.doe.state.la.us/lde/hsr/2045.html

LDE and the Blue Ribbon Commission for Education Excellence: Creating High Schools of the Future
      http://www.doe.state.la.us/lde/uploads/6518.doc

MAA: Reaching for Common Ground in K-12 Mathematics Education
     http://www.maa.org/common-ground/cg-report2005.html

National Staff Development Council:                 By the numbers         Data-in-a-Day     technique
       http://www.nsdc.org/library/publications/jsd/ginsberg222.cfm

North Central Regional Educational Laboratory: Professional Development: Learning from the Best
       http://www.peecworks.org/PEEC/PEEC_Research/00285D71-007EA7AB.0/lftb.pdf)

SREB Leadership Curriculum Training Module Summaries
     http://www.sreb.org/main/Leadership/Modules/modulesummaries.asp

SREB: Numeracy Leadership: Module Summary
     www.sreb.org/main/Leadership/Modules/modulesummaries.asp

The Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement: Love and Math
      http://www.centerforcsri.org/files/CenterIssueBriefMar06.pdf

The Urban Institute: What Do We Know? Seeking Effective Math and Science Instruction
      http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/311150.pdf

Creating A World-Class Education System for All Students in Louisiana. Superintendent Pastorek’s
       message http://www.louisianaschools.net/lde/uploads/11622.pdf
                                                           ______________________________________
                                                                       2008-09 LaSIP MATHEMATICS
                                                                        Professional Development RFP
                                                                                       November 2008
                                                                                             Page 17
Proposed Curriculum Recommendations http://www.louisianaschools.net/lde/uploads/10474.pdf

The CORE Curriculum: How it has been defined
      http://www.louisianaschools.net/lde/uploads/9814.doc

What Experience has Taught Us About PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Facilitating Mathematics
      and Science Reform: Lessons Learned (SEDL)
      http://www.sedl.org/pubs/ms90/experience_pd.pdf




                                                        ______________________________________
                                                                    2008-09 LaSIP MATHEMATICS
                                                                     Professional Development RFP
                                                                                    November 2008
                                                                                          Page 18
APPENDICES




       ______________________________________
                   2008-09 LaSIP MATHEMATICS
                    Professional Development RFP
                                   November 2008
                                         Page 19
       APPENDIX A

GLOSSARY

1) Brumfield vs. Dodd: Non-public schools are eligible to receive federal and State funding per the
   BRUMFIELD vs. DODD Court Order:       http://www.doe.state.la.us/lde/uploads/7794.pdf

2) Core Costs are all expenses incurred by the project, except staff and participant travel and
   indirect costs. The Core Costs calculation is used to gauge whether a proposed project’s
   expenses are reasonable in relation to the number of participants it proposes to serve. Travel
   costs are excluded from the equation because these expenses may be exceptionally large or
   small, depending upon the project scope and location of its participants, and must, therefore, be
   separately considered. Indirect costs are not relevant to the calculation because they are
   proportionally the same for all projects.

3) Communities of Practice are groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something
   they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly. Common examples include faculty
   study groups and Professional Learning Communities. http://www.ewenger.com/theory/index.htm
   Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) are characterized by shared purpose, collaborative
   activity, and collective responsibility among all staff. Educators in PLCs embrace the notion that
   the fundamental purpose of school is learning not teaching. This emphasis on learning leads
   those within the school to concentrate their effort and energy on critical questions of what we want
   students to learn, how will we know they have learned, and how will we respond when students
   experience difficulty (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, & Karhanek, 2004).

4) Eligible Partnerships: Appendix B, No Child Left Behind Legislation. The partnership
   commitments for all partners include planning together to provide content-rich mathematics and/or
   science PD projects for school academic coaches, teams of mathematics and/or science
   teachers of grades 4-12, and administrators from high-need LEAs and target schools that are
   part of the High School ReDESIGN or similar initiatives, LINCS, LA GEAR UP, or TAP schools, or
   schools designated as High Priority, High Need, or Pace Setter schools in the State. A small
   percentage (15%) of project participants may include pre-service education students from the
   institutions of higher education (IHE) that comprise the partnership, though they may not receive
   stipends or classroom materials.

5) External Evaluation Source Component:
   a) Achievement of the project objectives and LaSIP goals will be assessed by an external
      evaluator source, selected through a competitive process by LaSIP on behalf of project
      directors. Financial commitments and payment schedules for project evaluations will be
      established with project directors who receive funding awards.
   b) The external evaluation source will:
            conduct a training workshop for project personnel to disseminate information and to
               ensure uniformity in data collection strategies and evaluation techniques,
            assign a member of the evaluation team as a liaison with each Cycle-1 project,
            provide ongoing systematic formative evaluations and timetables for collection,
            determine what information will be collected and analyzed regarding participants,
            measure outcomes related to state objectives for individual projects and for all projects
               combined, and
            develop summative evaluations for funded projects to submit a final, comprehensive
               report by the end of the funding cycle.
   c) Project directors are expected to:
                                                           ______________________________________
                                                                       2008-09 LaSIP MATHEMATICS
                                                                        Professional Development RFP
                                                                                       November 2008
                                                                                             Page 20
              schedule time during workshops and follow-up sessions for the evaluation team to
               conduct interviews without interfering in participants’ learning,
              secure assurances that the external evaluation team will have access to confidential
               data from both the 4-12 and IHE partners (Appendix F – Form 5) for reporting and
               evaluation purposes,
              guarantee the confidentiality of the data,
              report requested information for every participant by the pre-announced due date(s),
              collect and submit teacher and student pre-and post-test scores and/or summarized
               results related to the science content of the individual project, and
              encourage participants to complete all survey instruments provided by the external
               evaluation team.

       Failure to ensure full participation in required reporting data may adversely affect continued
       funding and future BoR funding opportunities.

       Additionally, changes in student learning, the most important index measured will be used to
       evaluate LaSIP PD projects. Measures used may include the LEAP 21, GEE 21, iLEAP, and
       EPAS.

6) High Need Local Education Agencies (LEAs): Appendix B

7) Lesson Study is a process in which teachers jointly plan, observe, analyze, and refine their
   classroom lessons. Lesson study is widely credited for the steady improvement of Japanese
   elementary mathematics and science instruction. Since 1999, the use of lesson study has
   increased in many sites across the United States. Additional information may be obtained by
   accessing http://www.tc.edu/lessonstudy/lessonstudy.html.

8) Mathematics or science focus content areas: The need to provide higher level mathematics
   content PD for teachers supports the State’s new LA CORE 4 initiatives. Therefore, serving the
   needs of teachers teaching higher level courses and seeking SACS certification to teach dual
   enrollment is a priority focus. University course work credit toward certification is encouraged.
   a) Proposals serving 4-8 mathematics must document the need(s) of the participating LEAs,
      according to their 4th and 8th LEAP21 and EPAS Explore assessments. Professional
      development that meets the need for the NCLB highly qualified certification for middle school
      teachers will be a focus area. Algebra will continue as a statewide focus for 8-12 proposals, in
      response to the State Department’s End Of Course (EOC) assessments and 9th Grade
      Academies.
   b) Science proposals should serve teachers of grades 8-12 and focus on biology, chemistry, or
      physical science, preparing teachers to provide higher levels of instruction for increased
      student achievement such as the EOC exams in these content areas.

9) No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation ties federal funding to improvements in student
   achievement as measured by statewide standardized assessments. (Appendix B) Emphasis is
   placed on closing achievement gaps among students of different racial, ethnic, and economic
   backgrounds. For more information about NCLB, go to Appendix G or the U.S. Department of
   Education’s website: www.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml. The most recent non-regulatory guidance
   issued   for   Title  II, Part   A     (August    3,   2005)   can    be    downloaded   at
   www.ed.gov/programs/teacherqual/guidance.pdf.




                                                            ______________________________________
                                                                        2008-09 LaSIP MATHEMATICS
                                                                         Professional Development RFP
                                                                                        November 2008
                                                                                              Page 21
10) Paraprofessional is an individual with instructional duties who works in classrooms with children.
    Individuals who work solely in non-instructional roles, such as food service, cafeteria or
    playground supervision, personal care services, and non-instructional computer assistance are not
    considered to be paraprofessionals for the purposes of this RFP.

11) Participant Selection involves identifying the target audience for the project. Participant
    selection may include teachers, principals, paraprofessionals and/or pre-service students. The
    project design should be developed around the needs of the participants chosen for the project
    and the desired outcomes. Participant and school selections should begin immediately with the
    planning and writing of the proposal so that by the time the proposal is submitted, all or nearly all
    participants have been recruited.

12) Principal Project Partners: Appendix B, No Child Left Behind Legislation

13) Project-Designed Evaluation Component should allow for an in-depth examination of the
    impact of an individual project on specific participants in specific areas and the ability to make
    ongoing course corrections based upon data. The focus of Project-Designed evaluation is on the
    clearly delineated, measurable objectives of the individual projects. Incorporating EPAS and
    LEAP/GEE-like evaluation assessments as pre/post measures, among other project designed
    evaluation may be used. Plans for involving rigorous evaluation of student performance, including
    regular ongoing assessment of students (progress monitoring) as well as State assessment
    results is optional, but should be considered as an effective evaluation and implementation tool.
    Project evaluation plans should specify (1) what types of data will be collected; (2) when various
    types of data will be collected; (3) what instruments will be developed and used (4) how the data
    will be analyzed; (5) when the reports of results and outcomes will be available; and (6) how the
    information will be used by the project to monitor success and pr5ovide accountability information
    to stakeholders.

14) SACS Certification: The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools; to teach dual enrollment
    courses, instructors or teachers must have a degree in the content area plus 18 graduate hours in
    the content area to be certified.

15) Target Schools: Schools participating in the LA High School ReDESIGN or in similar reform
    initiatives and including 9th grade Academies, LINCS, LA GEAR UP, or TAP schools, or schools
    designated as High Priority (schools with an SPS below 60), High Need (schools above 60 but
    below the state average, and have declined in the last three years), or Pace Setter schools
    (schools meeting their growth targets for three or more consecutive years) in the State. (Appendix
    C)




                                                            ______________________________________
                                                                        2008-09 LaSIP MATHEMATICS
                                                                         Professional Development RFP
                                                                                        November 2008
                                                                                              Page 22
   APPENDIX B

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND (NCLB) LEGISLATION
Eligibility, Purpose, Priorities, and Funding

ELIGIBILITY:

Eligibility is limited to partnerships comprised of at least: (1) a private or State Institution of Higher
Education (IHE) and the division of the institution that prepares teachers and principals (College of
Education); (2) a College of Arts and Sciences; and (3) a high-need local education agency (LEA)
[Note: for purposes of this definition, the statutorily required partners will be referred to as “principal
partners.”]

An eligible partnership may also include another LEA, especially LINCS and LA GEAR UP
elementary, middle, or secondary schools, a 2-year or community college, a public charter, private, or
parochial school, other low-performing elementary or secondary schools, another IHE, or a school of
arts and sciences within that IHE and the division of that IHE that prepares teachers and principals.

       *A high-need LEA is defined as an LEA:
       (A) (i) that serves not fewer than 10,000 children from families with incomes below the poverty
                line, according to the US Census; or
           (ii) for which not less than 20 percent of the children served by the agency are from
                families with incomes below the poverty line; and
       (B) (i) for which there is a high percentage of teachers not teaching in the academic subjects
                or grade levels that the teachers were trained to teach; or
           (ii) for which there is a high percentage of teachers with emergency, provisional, or
                temporary certification or licensing [Section 2102(3)].

       A map of Eligible high-need LEAs in Louisiana is included in Appendix F.

PURPOSE OF PARTNERSHIPS:

The intent of the legislation is to support professional development activities in core academic
subjects of mathematics, science, and literacy that ensure projects (1) provide long-term, sustained,
high-quality professional development for Louisiana’s K-12 teachers, (2) provide access to teachers in
high-need LEAs, (3) result in change of teacher practice or teachers’ content knowledge that
increases student achievement in the classroom, (4) influence the implementation of research-based
curriculum in undergraduate and graduate teacher education programs, and (5) strengthen
collaboration between faculties of institutions of higher education and among other partners in the
program.

The federal law requires that, in order for an institution of higher education to be eligible for a grant, it
must enter into an agreement with a local school district, or consortia of such districts, to provide
sustained, high-quality professional development for the elementary and secondary school teachers in
the schools of that district. Therefore, teacher participants and principals from the schools to be
served by the project must be involved in the planning of projects and the preparation of proposals,
which must be aligned with assessment of the needs of the local schools. Financial and
programmatic participation by school districts, nonpublic schools, and the sponsoring higher
education institution is necessary and should be reflected in the proposed budget information.


                                                               ______________________________________
                                                                           2008-09 LaSIP MATHEMATICS
                                                                            Professional Development RFP
                                                                                           November 2008
                                                                                                 Page 23
PRIORITIES:

Consistent with the priorities and criteria of the USDE’s NCLB regulations, LaSIP will make awards
that support the following types of partnership activities to enhance student achievement in
participating high-need LEAs:

   a. Professional development activities in core academic subjects of mathematics, science,
      and/or literacy with an component of literacy across all content area(s); and

   b. Development and provision of assistance to LEAs and to their teachers,
      paraprofessionals, or school principals, in providing sustained, high-quality professional
      development activities and ongoing support.

FUNDING:

The clearly stated intent of the federal legislation and LaSIP’s goal is to support projects likely to bring
about lasting change. Workshops held in the summer months must have organized support for
teachers during the academic year through classroom implementation by project teaching staff. The
NCLB program will not support short-term professional development projects. Such projects usually
lack breadth of coverage and conceptual foundation and have only minimal impact on classroom
instruction. Supported activities should equip teachers and principals with proper materials and
management techniques, and should present opportunities for discussion and evaluation. School-
year      activities   may       include      a     range     of    activities:         workshops         or
demonstrations/observations/debriefings, coaching, and mentoring.

Proposals that include up to 10% of participant recruitment from pre-service education students also
are invited. Such proposals must identify possible improvements to campus-based teacher education
programs, i.e., improvements that involve further innovation in teacher education programs within an
institution of higher education to better meet the needs of schools for well-prepared teachers.
Proposals that include students are invited but any costs incurred as a result of including students in a
summer component must be contributed or matching from the school/LEA partner. Curriculum
development projects will not be supported.




                                                              ______________________________________
                                                                          2008-09 LaSIP MATHEMATICS
                                                                           Professional Development RFP
                                                                                          November 2008
                                                                                                Page 24
APPENDIX C
TARGET SCHOOLS:




             Table 1        HIGH NEED LEAs

             Table 2   HIGH SCHOOLS IN REDESIGN

             Table 3     9TH GRADE ACADEMIES

             Table 4            LINCS

             Table 5         LA GEAR UP

             Table 5             TAP




                                        ______________________________________
                                                    2008-09 LaSIP MATHEMATICS
                                                     Professional Development RFP
                                                                    November 2008
                                                                          Page 25
Table 1




          ______________________________________
                        2008-09 LaSIP MATHEMATICS
                Professional Development RFP, Cycle-1
                                         October 2008
                                              Page 26
Table 2        9th Grade Academies

    District                           School
Ascension                Dutchtown High School
                         East Ascension High School
                         St. Amant High School
Avoyelles                Avoyelles High School
                         Marksville High School
Bossier                  Airline High School
                         Haughton High School
Caddo                    Woodlawn High School
                         Green Oaks Perf.
                         Southwood High School
Calcasieu                Iowa High School
                         Alfred Barbe High School
                         Westlake High School
DeSoto                   Mansfield High School
East Baton
Rouge                    Central High School
                         Tara High School
E. Feliciana             Clinton High School
Iberia                   Jeanerette High School
Jefferson                Helen Cox High School
                         L.W. Higgins High School
                         Grace King High School
                         W. Jefferson High School
Jeff. Davis              Welsh High School
Morehouse                Bastrop High School
Natchitoches             Lakeview Sr. High School
Lafourche                So. Lafourche High School
                         Thibodaux High School
Lincoln                  Ruston High School
Livingston               Live Oak High School
                         Walker Freshman Academy
Ouachita                 W. Monroe High School
                         W. Ouachita High School
Plaquemines              Belle Chasse High School
Rapides                  Pineville High School
St. Charles              Destrehan High School
                         Hahnville High School
St. John the
Baptist                  East St. John High School
St. Landry               Northwest High School
                         Eunice High School
St. Mary                 West St. Mary High School
St. Tammany              Covington High School
                         Salmen High School
Tangipahoa               Loranger High School
                         Independence High School
                                            ______________________________________
                                                        2008-09 LaSIP MATHEMATICS
                                                         Professional Development RFP
                                                                        November 2008
                                                                              Page 27
Terrebonne   Ellender High School
Union        Farmerville High School
Vernon       Leesville High School
Washington   Franklinton High School
             Varnado High School
Webster      Minden High School
West Baton
Rouge        Brusly High School
Winn         Winnfield High School
Zachary      Zachary High School




                                 ______________________________________
                                             2008-09 LaSIP MATHEMATICS
                                              Professional Development RFP
                                                             November 2008
                                                                   Page 28
Table 3 LINCS School List


                                       2007-08 LINCS Schools


       Region   District      School                                                                       Students Served



         1      Jefferson     026096    Geraldine Boudreaux Elementary School                                            560
         1      Jefferson     026042    V.C. Haynes Middle for Adv. Studies                                              416
         1      Jefferson     026073    Walter G. Schneckenburger Elementary School                                      393
         1      Jefferson     026088    Woodmere Elementary School                                                       259
         1      Jefferson                                                                 District Total                1628
         1      RSD           396002    Joseph S. Clark                                                                  547
         1      RSD                                                                       District Total                 547

                                        South Plaquemines Elementary School (formerly Port Sulphur High
         1      Plaquemines   038012                                                                                     255
                                        School)

         1      Plaquemines                                                               District Total                 255
                                                                                       Region 1 Totals                  2,430
         2      St. Tammany   052002    Abita Springs Middle                                                             410
         2      St. Tammany   052048    Whispering Forest Elementary                                                     510
                St. Tammany                                                               District Total                 920
         2      Washington    059006    Franklinton High School                                                          781
                Washington                                                                District Total                 781
                                                                                       Region 2 Totals                  1,701
         3      Assumption    004003    Belle Rose Middle School                                                         202
         3      Assumption    004005    Labadieville Middle School                                                       399
         3      Assumption    004007    Napoleonville Middle School                                                      349
         3      Assumption    004009    Pierre Part Elementary School                                                    519
                Assumption                                                                District Total                1469
         3      Lafourche     029001    Bayou Blue Middle School                                                         755
                Lafourche                                                                 District Total                 755
         3      St. James     047002    Gramercy Elementary School                                                       169
         3      St. James     047010    Sixth Ward Elementary School                                                     204
         3      St. James     047006    Paulina Elementary School                                                        267
         3      St. James     047008    St. James High School                                                            688
                St. James                                                                 District Total                1,328
         3      St. John      048021    Lake Ponchartrain Elementary                                                     949
                St. John                                                                  District Total                 949
         3      St. Mary      051023    Patterson Junior High School                                                     642
                St. Mary                                                                  District Total                 642
         3      Terrebonne    055028    Oaklawn Junior High School                                                       566
                Terrebonne                                                                District Total                 566
                                                                                       Region 3 Totals                  5,709
         4      Evangeline    020014    Ville Platte High School                                                         886
                Evangeline                                           District Total                                      886
         4      Iberia        023013    Jeanerette Middle School                                                         178

                                                                   ______________________________________
                                                                               2008-09 LaSIP MATHEMATICS
                                                                                Professional Development RFP
                                                                                               November 2008
                                                                                                     Page 29
4   Iberia           023026   North Street Elementary School                                          179
4   Iberia           023029   Pesson Addition Elementary School                                       289
    Iberia                                                                 District Total             646
4   St. Landry       049006   Creswell Elementary School                                              337
4   St. Landry       049016   Grolee Elementary School                                                562
4   St. Landry       049040   South Street Elementary School                                          457
    St. Landry                                                             District Total        1,356
                                                                         Region 4 Totals         2,888
5   Calcasieu        010016   Dolby Elementary School                                                 479
5   Calcasieu        010028   M. J. Kaufman Elementary School                                         386
5   Calcasieu        010050   St. John Elementary School                                              727
    Calcasieu                                                              District Total         1592
                                                                         Region 5 Totals          1592
6   Avoyelles        005003   Bunkie Elementary School                                                545
    Avoyelles                                                              District Total             545
6   Grant            022001   Colfax Elementary School                                                410
6   Grant            022002   Dry Prong Junior High School                                            415
6   Grant            022005   Grant High School                                                       710
    Grant                                                                  District Total        1,535
6   Natchitoches     022001   Cloutierville Elementary School                                         396
    Natchitoches                                                           District Total             396
6   Sabine           043004   Florien High School                                                     229
6   Sabine           043005   Many Elementary School                                                  378
6   Sabine           043006   Many High School                                                        323
6   Sabine           043007   Many Junior High School                                                 425
6   Sabine           043010   Pleasant Hill High School                                               297
6   Sabine           043011   Zwolle Elementary School                                                455
    Sabine                                                                 District Total        2,107
                                                                         Region 6 Totals         4,583
7   Caddo            009069   Booker T. Washington High School                                        456
7   Caddo            009037   Linwood Middle School                                                   638
    Caddo                                                                  District Total         1094
7   DeSoto           016017   North DeSoto Middle School                                              545
    DeSoto                                                                 District Total             545
                                                                         Region 7 Totals          1639
8   Caldwell         011001   Caldwell Parish High School                                             599
    Caldwell                                                               District Total             599
8   City of Monroe   065010   Berg Jones Elementary                                                   123
8   City of Monroe   026055   Lincoln Elementary School                                               90
    City of Monroe                                                         District Total             213
8   Franklin         021001   Baskin School                                                           273
8   Franklin         021006   Crowville School                                                        354
8   Franklin         021004   Gilbert School                                                          300
    Franklin                                                               District Total             927
8   Jackson          025005   Jonesboro-Hodge High School                                             478
    Jackson                                                                District Total             478
8   Lincoln          031012   Ruston Elementary School                                                418
    Lincoln                                                                District Total             418


                                                          ______________________________________
                                                                      2008-09 LaSIP MATHEMATICS
                                                                       Professional Development RFP
                                                                                      November 2008
                                                                                            Page 30
    8        Madison               033001       Madison Middle School                                                                   544
             Madison                                                                                  District Total                    544
    8        Morehouse             034010       Delta Junior High School (Delta HS)                                                     368
    8        Morehouse             034016       Pine Grove Elementary School                                                            385
             Morehouse                                                                                District Total                    753
                                                                                                   Region 8 Totals                     3,932


Unless otherwise noted, enrollment counts based on enrollments of 10/01/06, PK-12, and "nongraded" students reported via Student Information
System (SIS).
             School participates in Making Middle Grades Work (MMGW) and therefore receives an additional $2,000
             School participates in High Schools That Work (HSTW) and therefore receives an additional $2,000
             School participates in Reading First, therefore K-3 students are subtracted prior to applying LINCS funding formula
             School participates in Reading First and MMGW
             School participates in Reading First and HSTW
             Joined LINCS in 2007-08 (Year 1) Formula = $9000+ $9/ch                                                                      35
             Joined LINCS in 2006-07 (Year 2) Formula = $8000 + $9/ch                                                                      2
             Joined LINCS in 2005-06 (Year 3) Formula = $7000 + $9/ch                                                                     16
             Joined LINCS in 2004-05 (Year 4) Formula = $6000 + $9/ch                                                                      3




                                                                          ______________________________________
                                                                                      2008-09 LaSIP MATHEMATICS
                                                                                       Professional Development RFP
                                                                                                      November 2008
                                                                                                            Page 31
  Table 4 LA GEAR UP schools


                                        First                      School
      School Name             Title    Name       Last Name         City           Phone #               Fax #
Avoyelles Parish School
Board                         Dr.     Ronald     Mayeux          Marksville    318-240-0201
Bunkie MS                     Mr.     Dexter     Compton         Bunkie        318-346-7227       318-346-6964
Mansura MS                    Mr.     Allen      Wanersdorfer    Mansura       318-964-2332       318-964-2110
Marksville MS                 Ms.     Mary       Speer           Marksville    318-253-8952       318-253-9955
Bunkie HS                     Mr.     Mary       Wilson          Bunkie        318-346-6216       318-346-9611
Avoyelles HS                  Mr.     Bruce      Juneau          Moreauville   318-985-2618       318-985-2786
Marksville HS                 Mr.     Charles    Jones           Marksville    318-253-9356       318-253-4256
East Carroll Parish School                                       Lake
Board                         Dr.     Voleria    Millikin        Providence    318-559-2222
                                                                 Lake
Lake Providence JHS
                              Ms.     Janice     Harris          Providence    318-559-1395       318-559-0679
                                                                 Lake
Monticello School(k-12)
                              Ms.                                Providence    318-552-6366       318-552-7658
                                                                 Lake
Lake Providence SHS
                              Ms.     Rosie      Armstrong       Providence    318-559-1984       318-559-5380
East Feliciana Parish
School Board                  Dr.     Glenn      Brady           Clinton       225-683-3040
Clinton MS                    Mr.     Shirley    Cupit           Clinton       225-683-3321       225-683-5151
Jackson MS                    Ms.     Sharon     Jones           Jackson       225-634-5932       225-634-5955
Clinton HS                    Mr.     Dave       Carter          Clinton       225-683-3321       225-683-5115
Jackson HS                    Mr.     Joseph     Jones           Jackson       225-634-5931       225-634-3207
Franklin Parish School
Board                         Dr.     Lanny      Johnson         Winnsboro     318-435-9046
                                                                 Fort
Fort Necessity JHS
                              Mr.     Milton     Lender          Necessity     318-723-4793       318-723-4343
Gilbert JHS                   Mr.     George     Johnson         Gilbert       318-435-5961       318-435-3739
Crowville School(k-8)         Ms.     Terri      Shirley         Crowville     318-722-3244       318-722-3552
Baskin School(k-8)            Mr.     James      Shirley         Baskin        318-248-2381       318-248-2187
Franklin Parish HS            Mr.     Joe        Bondurant       Winnsboro     318-435-5676       318-435-6493
Franklin Parish Alternative   Mr.     Kenneth    Blackson        Winnsboro     318.435.9046       318.435.3392
Madison Parish School
Board                         Dr.     Patricia   Candler         Tallulah      318-574-3616
Madison Parish Middle
School                        Ms.     Gloria     Watkins         Tallulah      318-574-0933       318-574-9910
Madision Parish HS            Mr.     Will       Rogers          Tallulah      318-574-3529       318-574-5943


                                                             ______________________________________
                                                                         2008-09 LaSIP MATHEMATICS
                                                                          Professional Development RFP
                                                                                         November 2008
                                                                                               Page 32
Louisiana Recovery School
District
                                                                New
S.B. Wright Charter School
                              Ms.    Sharon     Clark           Orleans       504.304.3915
New Orleans Charter                                             New           1-888-NOLA-SCI
Science & Math HS             Ms.    Barbara    MacPhee         Orleans       (665-2724
Pointe Coupee Parish
School Board                  Dr.    Daniel     Rawls           New Roads     225-638-8674
Livonia HS                    Ms.    Stacy      Gueho           Livonia       225-637-2532       225-637-3024
Pointe Coupee Central HS      Rev.   Larry      Oliver          Morganza      225-638-3085       225-638-9595
Rougon Elementary             Mr.    Ted        David           Rougon        225-627-4291       225-627-5111
Upper Pointe Coupee Elem      Ms.    Marcia     Pinsonat        Batchelor     225-492-2555       225-492-3138
Sabine Parish School Board    Mr.    Dorman     Jackson         Many          318-256-9228
Many JHS                      Ms.    Madeline   Owens           Many          318-256-3573       318-256-2846
Many SHS                      Mr.    Wayne      Chance          Many          318-256-2114       318-256-0492
Zwolle SHS                    Mr.    Chad       Crow            Zwolle        318-645-6104       318-645-4830
St. Helena Parish School
Board                         Dr.    Amy        Westbrook       Greensburg    225-222-4349       225-222-4937
St. Helena Central MS         Dr.    Alvin      Decuir          Greensburg    225-222-6291       225-222-6780
St. Helena Central HS         Mr.    Gary       Porter          Greensburg    225-222-4402       225-222-6986
St. John the Baptist          Mr.    Michael    Coburn          Reserve       985-536-1106
Garyville/Mt. Airy Math and
Science Magnet School         Ms.    Kelly      Joseph          Garyville     985-535-5400       985-535-5017
East St. John SHS             Ms.    Patricia   Triche          Reserve       985-536-4226       985-536-4286
Washington Parish School
Board                         Mr.    Darrell    Fairburn        Franklinton   985-839-3436
Angie JHS                     Mr.    Randy      Branch          Angie         985-986-3105       985-986-5515
Franklinton JHS               Ms.    Pauline    Bankston        Franklinton   985-839-3501       985-839-6912
Mt. Hermon School             Mr.    Don        McDaniel        Mt. Hermon    985-877-4642       985-877-4710
Varnado SHS                   Ms.    Emma       Ross            Varnado       985-732-2025       985-732-5198
Franklinton SHS               Ms.    Beverly    Young           Franklinton   985-839-6781       985-839-9830
Pine SHS                      Mr.    Geary      McKenzie        Franklinton   985-848-5243       985-848-9433




                                                            ______________________________________
                                                                        2008-09 LaSIP MATHEMATICS
                                                                         Professional Development RFP
                                                                                        November 2008
                                                                                              Page 33
Table 5 TAP school list
Louisiana Teacher Advancement Program Schools 2007-2008


      Algiers Charter Schools:

      Alice M. Harte Elementary                           Mr. Brian Riedlinger, Ed.D,
      Superintendent
             Ms. Anna Faye Marciante                       4480 General de Gaulle, Suite 202
             5300 Berkley Drive                            New Orleans, La. 70131
             New Orleans, Louisiana 70131                  504-280-8600
             504-398-7101                                  504-393-0928 (Fax)
             504-398-7103 (Fax)                            briedlinger@slc-gno.org
             amarciante@algierscharterschools.org

             Dwight D. Eisenhower Elementary                              Kevin Guiitterrez,
      Chief Academic Officer
             Ms. Cynthia Bernard                           4480 General de Gaulle, Suite 202
             3700 Tall Pines Drive                         New Orleans, LA 70131
             New Orleans, Louisiana 70131                  504-210-9832
             504-398-7125                                  504-393-0928 (Fax)
             504-398-7129 (Fax)
             kguitterrez@algierscharterschools.org
             cbernard@algierscharterschools.org

             Edna Karr Senior High
             Mr. John Hiser
             3332 Huntlee Drive
             New Orleans, Louisiana 70131
             504-398-7115
             504-398-7118 (Fax)
             jhiser@algierscharterschools.org

             Harriet R. Tubman Elementary
             Ms. Patsy Gearing
             2013 Gen. Meyer Avenue
             New Orleans, Louisiana 70114
             504-363-1064
             504-363-2184 (Fax)
             pgearing@algierscharterschools.org

             Martin Behrman Elementary
             Ms. Rene Lewis Carter
             715 Opelousas Avenue
             New Orleans, Louisiana 70114
             504-324-7030
             504-309-1874 (Fax)
             rlewis-carter@algierscharterschools.org



                                                     ______________________________________
                                                                 2008-09 LaSIP MATHEMATICS
                                                                  Professional Development RFP
                                                                                 November 2008
                                                                                       Page 34
      McDonogh #32 Elementary
      Mr. Lee Green
      800 de Armas Street
      New Orleans, Louisiana 70114
      504-363-1057
      504-361-7957 (Fax)
      lgreen@algierscharterschools.org

      O. Perry Walker High School
      Ms. Mary Laurie
      2832 General Meyer Avenue
      New Orleans, Louisiana 70114
      504-324-7550
      504-363-1085 (Fax)
      mlaurie@algierscharterschools.org

      William J. Fischer Elementary
      Ms. Dahme K. Bolden
      1801 L.B. Landry Avenue
      New Orleans, Louisiana 70114
      504-304-3976
      504-363-1013 (Fax)
      dbolden@algierscharterschools.org

Calcasieu Parish:

Elementary Schools:

A.A. Nelson Elementary School                   Mr. Wayne Savoy, Superintendent
       Ms. Jacqueline Smith                     P.O. Box 800
       1001 Country Club Rd.                    Lake Charles, La. 70602-08000
       Lake Charles, Louisiana 70605            337-217-4000, Ext. 1704
       337-477-1775                             337-217-4001 (Fax)
       337-474-6843 (Fax)                       wayne.savoy@cpsb.org
       jacqueline.smith@cpsb.org

      Barbe Elementary School
      Mr. John Spikes                          Susan Couch, Executive Master
      400 Penn Street                          600 South Shattuck Street
      Lake Charles, LA 70601                   Lake Charles, LA 70601
      337-433-4746                             337-217-4140, Ext. 1617
      337-439-9048 (Fax)                       337-217-4091 (Fax)
      john.spikes@cpsb.org                     337-474-2552 (Home)
                                               337-794-3401 (Cell)
                                                   susan.couch@cpsb.org

      Brentwood Elementary                      Sue Way, TAP Coordinator
      Mr. Brent Washington                       337-217-4140, Ext. 1618
      3825 Brentwood Avenue                     337-217-4091 (Fax)
      Lake Charles, LA 70607                    337-477-9971 (Home)
      337-477-7081                              337-515-6064 (Cell)
                                          ______________________________________
                                                      2008-09 LaSIP MATHEMATICS
                                                       Professional Development RFP
                                                                      November 2008
                                                                            Page 35
337-474-4116 (Fax)                    sue.way@cpsb.org
Elwin.washington@cpsb.org

Combre/Fondel Elementary       Mrs. Yvette Ardoin, Grant Consultant
Mr. Harold Winey                     337-217- 4090, Ext. 1201
2115 Fitzenreiter                    337-217-=4091 fax
Lake Charles, LA 70601               yvette.ardoin@cpsb.org
337-433-7218
337-436-8371 (Fax)
harold.winey@cpsb.org

D.S. Perkins Elementary
Ms. Gloria Marcantel
565 N. Crocker Street
Sulphur, LA 70663
337-527-7401
337-527-3937 (Fax)
gloria.marcantel@cpsb.org

Jessie Clifton Elementary
Mr. Henry Hicks
100 N. Prater Street
Lake Charles, LA 70601
337-433-5316
337-436-3520 (Fax)
henry.hicks@cpsb.org

John J. Johnson Elementary
Ms. Betty Sims
500 Malcolm Street
Lake Charles, LA 70601
337-439-9985
337-439-6160 (Fax)
betty.sims@cpsb.org

LeBleu Settlement Elementary
Ms. Stephanie Jill Portie
6509 Hwy. 3059
Lake Charles, LA 70615
337-433-4746
337-439-9048 (fax)
jill.portie@cpsb.org

Oak Park Elementary
Ms. Melinda Hardy
2001 18th Street
Lake Charles, LA 70601
337-478-2768
337-478-2774 (Fax)
melinda.hardy@cpsb.org

                                ______________________________________
                                            2008-09 LaSIP MATHEMATICS
                                             Professional Development RFP
                                                            November 2008
                                                                  Page 36
      Pearl Watson Elementary
      Ms. Berna Dean Johnson
      1300 Fifth Street
      Lake Charles, LA 70601
      337-436-5029
      337-436-6815 (Fax)
      bernadean.johnson@cpsb.org

      Ralph Wilson Elementary
      Ms. D. “Kim” Broussard
      1400 Opelousas Street
      Lake Charles, LA 70601
      337-436-7103
      337-436-7943 (Fax)
      dwaunis.broussard@cpsb.org

      T.H. Watkins
      Ms. Kay Victorian
      2501 Seventh Avenue
      Lake Charles, LA 70601
      337-478-3929
      337-478-9496 (Fax)
      kay.victorian@cpsb.org

      Vincent Settlement Elementary
      Ms. Jean Hernandez
      1072 Vincent Settlement Road
      Sulphur, LA 70665
      337-583-4148
      337-523-7542 (Fax)
      jean.hernandez@cpsb.org

      Vinton Elementary
      Ms. Molly Beard
      1610 Hampton Street
      Vinton, LA 70668
      337-589-7365
      337-589-6613 (Fax)
      molly.beard@cpsb.org

Middle Schools:

      DeQuincy Middle
      Mr. William “Billy” Kellogg
      1603 W. 4th Street
      Dequincy, LA 70633
      337-786-3000
      337-786-5778 (Fax)
      billy.kellogg@cpsb.org


                                      ______________________________________
                                                  2008-09 LaSIP MATHEMATICS
                                                   Professional Development RFP
                                                                  November 2008
                                                                        Page 37
      F.K. White Middle School
      Mr. Chris Fontenot
      1000 E. McNeese Street
      Lake Charles, LA 70607
      337-477-1648
      337-478-7899 (Fax)
      chris.fontenot@cpsb.org

Middle Schools:

      J.I. Watson Middle
      Ms. Pat Schooler
      201 East First Street
      P.O. Box 687
      Iowa, LA 70647
      337-582-3537
      337-582-7530 (Fax)
      pat.schooler@cpsb.org

      LeBlanc Middle
      Mr. Thomas Finnie
      1100 N. Crocker Street
      Suphur, LA 70063
      337-527-5296
      337-527-5297 (Fax)
      tom.finnie@cpsb.org

      Molo Middle
      Mr. James Wilson
      2300 Medora Street
      Lake Charles, LA 70601
      337-433-6785
      337-439-0787 (Fax)
      james.wilson@cpsb.org

      Oak Park Middle
      Mr. Martin Guillory
      2200 Oak Park Boulevard
      Lake Charles, LA 70601
      337-478-3310
      337-474-0753 (Fax)
      martin.guillory@cpsb.org

      Reynaud Middle
      Ms. Carolyn Thomas-Clark
      745 S. Shattuck Street
      Lake Charles, LA 70601
      337-436-5729
      337-491-0963 (fax)
      carolyn.clark@cpsb.org

                                 ______________________________________
                                             2008-09 LaSIP MATHEMATICS
                                              Professional Development RFP
                                                             November 2008
                                                                   Page 38
      S. P. Arentt Middle
      Mr. Vance Richmond
      400 Sulphur Avenue
      Westlake, LA 70669
      337-436-9657
      337-436-5745 (Fax)
      van.richmond@cpsb.org

Middle Schools:

      Vinton Middle
      Mr. Stephen Hardy
      900 Horridge Street
      Vinton, LA 70668
      337-589-7567
      337-589-7587 (Fax)
      steve.hardy@cpsb

      W. W. Lewis Middle
      Mr. Tony Dougherty
      1752 Cypress Street
      Sulphur, LA 70663
      337-527-6178
      337-528-3773 (Fax)
      tony.dougherty@cpsb.org

Caddo Parish:

      Cherokee Park Elementary
      Mr. Tyrone Burton
      2010 E Algonquin Trl
      Shreveport, LA 71107
      (318) 221-6782
      318- 221-1748 (Fax)
      tburton@caddo.k12.la.us

      Mr. Rodney Watson
      Interim Superintendent
      1961 Midway
      Shreveport LA 71130
      (318) 603-6300
      (318) 631-5241 (Fax)
      rodneywatson@caddo.k12.la.us




                                     ______________________________________
                                                 2008-09 LaSIP MATHEMATICS
                                                  Professional Development RFP
                                                                 November 2008
                                                                       Page 39
      South Highlands Elementary
      Mr. Keith Burton
      831 Erie Street
      Shreveport, LA 71106
      318-865-5119
      318-861-6264 (Fax)
        kburton@caddo.k12.la.us

East Baton Rouge Parish:

      Cedarcrest-Southmoor Elementary      Ms. Charlotte Placide, Superintendent
      Ms. Josephine Batiste                P. O. Box 2950
      10187 Twin Cedars St.                Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70821
      Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70816         225-922-5618
      225-293-9950                         225-922-5499 (Fax)
      225-293-5028 (Fax)                   cplacide@ebrschools.org
      jbatiste@ebrschools.org

      Crestworth Middle Magnet School      Lizabeth Frischhertz, East Baton Rouge
       Ms. Angela Thomas                   12000 Goodwood Boulevard
      10650 Avenue F                       Baton Rouge, LA 70816
      Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70807         225-226-7625
      225-775-6845                         225-226-7605 (Fax)
      225-775-0051 (Fax)                   lfrischhertz@ebrschools.org
      anthomas@ebrschools.org

Jefferson Parish:

Hazel Park/Hilda Knoff Elementary School   Ms. Diane Roussel, Superintendent
       Ms. Karen Bucher                    501 Manhattan Boulevard
       8809 Jefferson Highway              Harvey, Louisiana 70058-4495
       River Ridge, Louisiana 70123        504-349-7802
       504 -737-6163                       504-349-7960 (Fax)
       504 -738-9153 (Fax)                 Diane.Roussel@jppss.k12.la.us
       Karen.Bucher@jppss.k12.la.us
                                           Ms. Marian Bernard, Director of C & I
                                           501 Manhattan Blvd
                                           Harvey, LA 70058-4495
                                           (504) 349-7964
                                           (504) 349-7797 (Fax)
                                           marian.bernard@jppss.k12.la.us




                                                  ______________________________________
                                                                2008-09 LaSIP MATHEMATICS
                                                        Professional Development RFP, Cycle-1
                                                                                 October 2008
                                                                                      Page 40
Rapides Parish:

      Forest Hill Elementary School
      Ms. Nancy Rials                 Mr. Gary L. Jones, Superintendent
      P.O. Box 400                    P. O. Box 1230
      Forest Hill, La. 71430          Alexandria, La. 71309-1230
      318-748-6844                    318-487-0888
      318-748-6848 (Fax)              318-449-3190 (Fax)
      rialsn@rapides.k12.la.us        jonesg@rapides.k12.la.us




                                            ______________________________________
                                                        2008-09 LaSIP MATHEMATICS
                                                         Professional Development RFP
                                                                        November 2008
                                                                              Page 41
APPENDIX D

BUDGET GUIDELINES

(BUDGET FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS will be available on the
LaSIP website, www.lasip.org )




                               ______________________________________
                                           2008-09 LaSIP MATHEMATICS
                                            Professional Development RFP
                                                           November 2008
                                                                 Page 42
APPENDIX E
Reviewer Evaluation Forms
Mathematics
Science




                            ______________________________________
                                        2008-09 LaSIP MATHEMATICS
                                         Professional Development RFP
                                                        November 2008
                                                              Page 43
                                                         2008 LaSIP PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
                                                               REVIEWER EVALUATION FORM
                                                                MATHEMATICS PROPOSALS

Lead Institution:_________________________________________________ Sr. Project Director___________________________________

Project Title:______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Project Focus: Algebra______ with Science Applications ______ and Literacy ________ Other _______________________________

Reviewer Number: _________                    Total Score: ___________             Recommended for Funding (Y/N) : ___________

Criteria                                                                                 Unsatisfactory   Fair     Average      Good       Outstanding    Total
                                                                                               1           2          3          4              5
A. Analysis of Need & Collaborative Planning (10 points)
Proposal reflects a collective effort to identify and address an in-service need of
local teachers or district(s). Proposal references school consolidated plans,
statewide action plans, and relevant data.
Principals, teachers, postsecondary subject area specialists, postsecondary education
specialists, and other leaders from the school or school district(s) to be served were
actively involved in the project planning.
 Bonus points: Did the proposal bring community colleges and IHEs together into
 the partnership?
                                                                                                                                         SUBTOTAL A

B. Project Objectives (10 points)
Project objectives are specific, achievable, and measurable and include appropriate
objective data.

The objectives are clearly linked to the LaSIP goals, as well as to the State’s data
driven needs for the partnership schools/districts
                                                                                                                                         SUBTOTAL B

C. Description of Activities (30 points)
The project activities are directly related to the achievement of project objectives


                                                                                                                 ______________________________________
                                                                                                                               2008-09 LaSIP MATHEMATICS
                                                                                                                       Professional Development RFP, Cycle-1
                                                                                                                                                October 2008
                                                                                                                                                     Page 44
Criteria                                                                                Unsatisfactory=1   Fair=2    Average=3   Good=4    Outstanding=5   Total
Activities are of sufficient length and intensity for teachers or administrators to
learn new ways of thinking, teaching and leading and to integrate this knowledge
into their professional practice.
The project activities are explained in adequate detail with respect to their nature,
sequence, duration, source of instruction, and course of study.

Proposal includes plans for the entire funding cycle, including innovative plans for
academic year school-based follow-up support for teachers and/or principals.
Specific subject-matter content/classroom instructional strategies for each phase of
the funding cycle have been described and are appropriate to the needs.
The project incorporates a strong pedagogical component, which reflects awareness
of recent research on teaching and learning (grounded in scientifically-based
research) and supports current state and national standards for content and student
academic performance in mathematics, science, reading, or other subject areas, as
appropriate.
                                                                                                                                           SUBTOTAL C

D. Capacity, Resources, Sustainability (15 points)
The proposal describes how it utilizes available resources and coordinates with
existing initiatives to improve instructional or leadership practices and teachers’
content knowledge.
The proposal demonstrates work-embedded practices or contexts such as mentoring
relationships, train-the-trainer models, student projects/competitions, Lesson Study,
or establishment of Faculty Study Groups to impact a maximum number of
teachers.
The proposal demonstrates the partnership’s ability to implement the program
successfully.
Bonus points: Does the proposal demonstrate buy-in from participating schools and
districts that include support during the AY such as financial support for school or
district content coaches, master teachers, online chat rooms and/or scheduling time
for communities of practice at each school?
                                                                                                                                           SUBTOTAL D

E. Evaluation Plan (10 points)
The Project-Designed Evaluation plan assesses the success of the project using
performance indicators that have been articulated to measure specific objectives.
Criteria                                                                                Unsatisfactory=1   Fair=2    Average=3   Good=4    Outstanding=5   Total

                                                                                                                    ______________________________________
                                                                                                                                2008-09 LaSIP MATHEMATICS
                                                                                                                                 Professional Development RFP
                                                                                                                                                November 2008
                                                                                                                                                      Page 45
The plan includes the assessment tools to measure the impact of the project on
participants’ content area knowledge and instructional or leadership practices, and
the impact in terms of student learning..
The proposal describes how information about and from the project will be shared
with other teachers and administrators throughout the state and describes how
techniques and activities from the training will have a lasting impact on
instructional practices after the project ends.
                                                                                                                  SUBTOTAL E

F. Budget and Budget Narrative (15 points)
The responsibilities of all key personnel are clearly described and reasonable.

Expenses for all project personnel, participants, and activities are adequately
explained, reasonable, and within guidelines.

The institution and LEA demonstrate a commitment to carry out the program
through cost sharing.

                                                                                                                  SUBTOTAL F


G. Overall Impression (10 points)
The proposal presents an effective, comprehensive, and clear plan for a professional
development program that shows promise of having a lasting, positive impact on
instruction and learning.
The proposed project has significant potential to improve teaching, leadership, and
learning and is important and worthy of being funded.
Bonus points: Does the proposal demonstrate a cost effective and innovative design
and implementation plan for AY follow-up support?

                                                                                                                  SUBTOTAL G


                                                               TOTAL SCORE (Subtotal A + B + C + D + E + F + G =)




                                                                                           ______________________________________
                                                                                                       2008-09 LaSIP MATHEMATICS
                                                                                                        Professional Development RFP
                                                                                                                       November 2008
                                                                                                                             Page 46
COMMENTS:




            ______________________________________
                        2008-09 LaSIP MATHEMATICS
                         Professional Development RFP
                                        November 2008
                                              Page 47
                                                         2008 LaSIP PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
                                                                REVIEWER EVALUATION FORM
                                                                   SCIENCE PROPOSALS

Lead Institution:_______________________________________________ Sr. Project Director___________________________________

Project Title:______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Project Focus: Biology______ Physical Science ______ with Math________ and Literacy_______ Other _________________________

Reviewer Number: _________                    Total Score: ___________              Recommended for Funding (Y/N) : ___________

Criteria                                                                                      Unsatisfactory=1   Fair=2   Average=3   Good=4     Outstanding=5   Total
A. Analysis of Need & Collaborative Planning (10 points)
Proposal reflects a collective effort to identify and address an in-service need of local
teachers or district(s). Proposal references school consolidated plans, statewide action
plans, and relevant data.
Principals, teachers, postsecondary subject area specialists, postsecondary education
specialists, and other leaders from the school or school district(s) to be served were
actively involved in the project planning.
Bonus points: Did the proposal bring community colleges and IHEs together into the
partnership?

                                                                                                                                                  SUBTOTAL A

B. Project Objectives (10 points)
Project objectives are specific, achievable, and measurable and include appropriate
objective data.

The objectives are clearly linked to the LaSIP goals, as well as to the State’s data driven
needs for the partnership schools/districts.
                                                                                                                                                   SUBTOTAL B

C. Description of Activities (30 points)

The project activities are directly related to the achievement of project objectives.


                                                                                                                   ______________________________________
                                                                                                                               2008-09 LaSIP MATHEMATICS
                                                                                                                                Professional Development RFP
                                                                                                                                               November 2008
                                                                                                                                                     Page 48
Criteria                                                                                        Unsatisfactory=1   Fair=2   Average=3   Good=4     Outstanding=5   Total
Activities are of sufficient length and intensity for teachers or administrators to learn new
ways of thinking, teaching and leading and to integrate this knowledge into their
professional practice.

The project activities are explained in adequate detail with respect to their nature,
sequence, duration, source of instruction, and course of study.

Proposal includes plans for the entire funding cycle, including innovative plans for
academic year (AY) school-based follow-up support for teachers and/or principals.
Specific subject-matter content/classroom instructional strategies for each phase of the
funding cycle have been described and are appropriate to the needs.
The project incorporates a strong pedagogical component, which reflects awareness of
recent research on teaching and learning (grounded in scientifically-based research) and
supports current state and national standards for content and student academic
performance in mathematics, science, reading, or other subject areas, as appropriate.
                                                                                                                                                    SUBTOTAL C

D. Capacity, Resources, Sustainability (15 points)
The proposal describes how it utilizes available resources and coordinates with existing
initiatives to improve instructional or leadership practices and teachers’ content
knowledge.
The proposal demonstrates work-embedded practices or contexts such as mentoring
relationships, train-the-trainer models, student projects/competitions, Lesson Study, or
establishment of Faculty Study Groups to impact a maximum number of teachers.
The proposal demonstrates the partnership’s ability to implement the program
successfully.
Bonus points: Does the proposal demonstrate buy-in from participating schools and
districts that include support during the AY such as financial support for school or district
content coaches, master teachers, online chat rooms and/or scheduling time for
communities of practice at each school?
                                                                                                                                                    SUBTOTAL D

E. Evaluation Plan (10 points)

The Project-Designed Evaluation plan assesses the success of the project using
performance indicators that have been articulated to measure specific objectives.


                                                                                                                     ______________________________________
                                                                                                                                 2008-09 LaSIP MATHEMATICS
                                                                                                                                  Professional Development RFP
                                                                                                                                                 November 2008
                                                                                                                                                       Page 49
Criteria                                                                                       Unsatisfactory=1   Fair=2   Average=3   Good=4     Outstanding=5   Total
The plan includes the assessment tools to measure the impact of the project on
participants’ content area knowledge and instructional or leadership practices, and the
impact in terms of student learning..

The proposal describes how information about and from the project will be shared with
other teachers and administrators throughout the state and describes how techniques and
activities from the training will have a lasting impact on instructional practices after the
project ends.
                                                                                                                                                   SUBTOTAL E

F. Budget and Budget Narrative (15 points)
The responsibilities of all key personnel are clearly described and reasonable.
Expenses for all project personnel, participants, and activities are adequately explained,
reasonable, and within guidelines.

The institution and LEA demonstrate a commitment to carry out the program through
cost sharing.

                                                                                                                                                   SUBTOTAL F


G. Overall Impression (10 points)
The proposal presents an effective, comprehensive, and clear plan for a professional
development program that shows promise of having a lasting, positive impact on
instruction and learning.
The proposed project has significant potential to improve teaching, leadership, and
learning and is important and worthy of being funded.
Bonus points: Does the proposal demonstrate a cost effective and innovative design and
implementation plan for AY follow-up support?

                                                                                                                                                   SUBTOTAL G


                                                                         TOTAL SCORE (Subtotal A + B + C + D + E + F + G =)



                                                                                                                    ______________________________________
                                                                                                                                2008-09 LaSIP MATHEMATICS
                                                                                                                                 Professional Development RFP
                                                                                                                                                November 2008
                                                                                                                                                      Page 50
COMMENTS:




            ______________________________________
                        2008-09 LaSIP MATHEMATICS
                         Professional Development RFP
                                        November 2008
                                              Page 51
APPENDIX F

2007-08 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL FORMS



     Form 1                     Notice of Intent

     Form 2                     Cover Page


     Form 3                     Project Abstract


     Form 4                     Curriculum Vitae


     Form 5                     Memo of Agreement Among Partners


     Form 6                     Cooperative Planning Efforts


     Form 7                     Current and Pending Support


     Form 8                     Project Timeline




                                             ______________________________________
                                                           2008-09 LaSIP MATHEMATICS
                                                   Professional Development RFP, Cycle-1
                                                                            October 2008
                                                                                 Page 52
Louisiana Systemic Initiatives Program
2008-09 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS

NOTICE OF INTENT


Name of Institution (Include Branch/Campus and School or Division):



Address (Include Department):




Senior Principal Investigator:

Co-Principal Investigator(s):

Phone: (        )                                                       Fax: (       )

Senior PI E-mail:



Title of Project:


This non-binding Notice of Intent should include the following information for the proposed project:
(1) primary focus, including discipline and subject matter; (2) districts or regions to be served; (3)
intended grade levels; and (4) proposed outcomes. This information will be used to ensure adequate
preparation for the review of LaSIP PD proposals, including engagement of consultants with
appropriate expertise. Applicants may modify the information provided below in part or whole as
proposal development continues.




(Form 1)
                                                           ______________________________________
                                                                         2008-09 LaSIP MATHEMATICS
                                                                 Professional Development RFP, Cycle-1
                                                                                          October 2008
                                                                                               Page 53
 LOUISIANA SYSTEMIC INITIATIVES PROGRAM
 2008-09 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
 COVER PAGE

Indicate appropriate         Grade Level(s) Targeted:
                                                                              School Districts To Be Served:
project option: (i.e.,
Math, Science, Math/Sci.)    Number of Targeted Participants:

                             Number of Targeted Schools:

                             Number of Pre-Service Students:

Name(s) of Submitting Institution(s) of Higher Education (IHE) and/or Community Colleges (CC) (Include
Branch/Campus/Other Components):


Address of IHE and/or CC (Include Dept/Unit, Street Address/P.O. Box Number, City, State, Zip Code):

Title of Proposed Project:


Total Funds Requested              Circle Funding Request:    Total Cost Share:
$                                  18 Mo.        27 Mo.       $
The signatories certify that the institution and the proposed project are in compliance with all applicable
Federal and State laws and regulations.

Name/Title (type or print);          Dept./Telephone No.                                  Signature
include Institution (if different    Email Address
from above)

Senior PI/PD


Co-PI/PD


Co-PI/PD

Campus Head or
Authorized
Institutional Representative
Dean, College of
Education

Dean, College of
Arts and Sciences

Authorized
Fiscal Agent


 (Form 2)

                                                                ______________________________________
                                                                            2008-09 LaSIP MATHEMATICS
                                                                             Professional Development RFP
                                                                                            November 2008
                                                                                                  Page 54
LOUISIANA SYSTEMIC INITIATIVES PROGRAM
2008-09 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

PROJECT ABSTRACT

Name of Institution(s) (Include Branch/Campus and School or Division):




Sr. Principal Investigator:

Phone: (            )                                        Fax: (       )

E-mail:
Title of Project:

Abstract (maximum 250 words): Include a description of the project which states the project option
(including specific subject matter content, if appropriate), overarching goal(s), institution(s) involved,
participants for which the project is designed, frequency of contact during summer and/or AY,
number of teacher participants, targeted districts, targeted grade levels, primary activities, and
proposed outcomes.




(Form 3)



                                                             ______________________________________
                                                                         2008-09 LaSIP MATHEMATICS
                                                                          Professional Development RFP
                                                                                         November 2008
                                                                                               Page 55
    LOUISIANA SYSTEMIC INITIATIVES PROGRAM
    2008-09 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

    CURRICULUM VITAE (Limited to two pages)



                                                                  Current Position Title
Name
                                                                  Project Position Title

EDUCATION (Begin with baccalaureate or other initial professional education and include postdoctoral training.

INSTITUTION AND LOCATION         DEGREE                           YEAR                             FIELD OF STUDY
                                                                  CONFERRED




    RESEARCH AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: DO NOT EXCEED TWO PAGES. Begin with present
    position, list in reverse chronological order previous relevant employment, experience, and honors.




    (Form 4- This page should be duplicated)


                                                                       ______________________________________
                                                                                   2008-09 LaSIP MATHEMATICS
                                                                                    Professional Development RFP
                                                                                                   November 2008
                                                                                                         Page 56
 MEMORANDOM OF AGREEMENT AMONG PARTNERS
 2008-09 LaSIP Professional Development for K-12 Mathematics and Science

                                                                        ______________________________________________________
 ______________________________________________________                 (Project Title)

 (Name of Sponsoring Institution or Institutions)

 ______________________________________________________

 _____________________________________________________                  _______________________________________________
                    (Sr. Project Director)                              (Supt. or Principal, High-Need LEA)


 This cooperative agreement reflects the specific responsibilities and the roles each of the partners provided in writing this proposal. The
 purpose of this partnership is to prepare and support educators to help all students achieve high standards of learning and development.
 (A summary of each partner’s responsibilities and roles in this partnership should be attached to this signature page.)

 Type of Partner                 Teacher    Preparation Dept./School    of High-need Local Education Additional Partners
                                 Program                Arts & Sciences    Agency (LEA – Required)
                                 (Required)             (Required)
 Name, Title


 Institution/District/School


 Appx. Time Spent on
 Cooperative        Planning;
 planning, writing, meetings
 Signature


                                                                                                 ______________________________________
(Form 5)                                                                                                       2008-09 LaSIP MATHEMATICS
                                                                                                       Professional Development RFP, Cycle-1
                                                                                                                                October 2008
                                                                                                                                     Page 57
Memorandum of Agreement Among Partners (cont.)
Sponsoring Institution:

Project Director:

Type of Partner                Additional Partners   Additional Partners   Additional Partners       Additional Partners

Name, Title


Institution/District/School


Appx. Time Spent on
Cooperative        Planning;
planning, writing, meetings
Signature




                                                                                       ______________________________________
                                                                                                   2008-09 LaSIP MATHEMATICS
      (Form 5 cont’d)                                                                               Professional Development RFP
                                                                                                                   November 2008
                                                                                                                         Page 58
Cooperative Planning Efforts

Describe the collaborative planning efforts that have occurred between the participating institution,
colleges of education, colleges/divisions of arts and science, local school districts and other
participating organizations and agencies. Include dates of meetings, names of participants and
schools, and/or departments of participants. (All charts need not be used, and if more are needed,
just copy and add additional charts.)


DATE                     NAMES OF PARTICIPANTS              SCHOOLS/DEPARTMENTS



Outcome of Meeting




DATE                     NAMES OF PARTICIPANTS              SCHOOLS/DEPARTMENTS



Outcome of Meeting




DATE                     NAMES OF PARTICIPANTS              SCHOOLS/DEPARTMENTS



Outcome of Meeting




DATE                     NAMES OF PARTICIPANTS              SCHOOLS/DEPARTMENTS


Outcome of Meeting




(Form 6. This page may be duplicated and rows expanded.)
                                                           ______________________________________
                                                                         2008-09 LaSIP MATHEMATICS
                                                                 Professional Development RFP, Cycle-1
                                                                                          October 2008
                                                                                               Page 59
    CURRENT AND PENDING SUPPORT
    List all State, Federal, or university funding support for each faculty member and project director(s) during this
    funding cycle. Use additional sheets as necessary.

    NAME OF FACULTY : ____________________________________________


Status of Support: ___Current     ___Pending      ___Submission Planned in Near Future

Proposal Title (or Semester Teaching Support):

Source of Support:

Award Amount (or Monthly Teaching Rate): $________________________             Period Covered:___________________

Location of Activity:

Person-Months or % of Effort Committed to the Project: _____Cal Yr      _____Acad      _____Summ


Status of Support: ___Current     ___Pending      ___Submission Planned in Near Future

Proposal Title (or Semester Teaching Support):

Source of Support:

Award Amount (or Monthly Teaching Rate): $________________________             Period Covered:___________________

Location of Activity:

Person-Months or % of Effort Committed to the Project: _____Cal Yr      _____Acad      _____Summ


Status of Support: ___Current     ___Pending      ___Submission Planned in Near Future

Proposal Title (or Semester Teaching Support):

Source of Support:

Award Amount (or Monthly Teaching Rate): $________________________             Period Covered:___________________

Location of Activity:

Person-Months or % of Effort Committed to the Project: _____Cal Yr       _____Acad     _____Summ




    (Form 7-should be duplicated for each project faculty member)




                                                                      ______________________________________
                                                                                  2008-09 LaSIP MATHEMATICS
                                                                                   Professional Development RFP
                                                                                                  November 2008
                                                                                                        Page 60
Project Progression of Activities Table (delete sample provided below)
Time line     Contact Hours    Major Activities                                        Staff Responsible

April, 2008   6 hours          First meeting with participants; overview of project;   All   staff     present      and
                               pre/test; discussion of individual student data;        responsible
                               participant data
June, 2008    6 hours/5 days   Professional     development;      content    focus,    J.    Jackson,    content;      S.
                               assessment, leadership                                  Anderson,     assessment;       R.
                                                                                       Fletcher, leadership




                                                                                             ______________________________________
                                                                                                           2008-09 LaSIP MATHEMATICS
                                                                                                   Professional Development RFP, Cycle-1
                                                                                                                            October 2008
                                                                                                                                 Page 61
APPENDIX G

WAIVER OF TUITION AND FEES




                             ______________________________________
                                           2008-09 LaSIP MATHEMATICS
                                   Professional Development RFP, Cycle-1
                                                            October 2008
                                                                 Page 62
______________________________________
            2008-09 LaSIP MATHEMATICS
             Professional Development RFP
                            November 2008
                                  Page 63
APPENDIX H
Checklist for Submission of 2008-09 Proposals


 Proposal Cover Page
 Project Abstract
 Table of Contents
 Project Timeline
 Project Narrative
      1.   Analysis of Need & Collaborative Planning
      2.   Project Objectives
      3.   Description of Activities
      4.   Capacity, Resources, Sustainability
      5.   Evaluation Plan


 Budget, Budget Narrative, and Cost Share
 Curriculum Vitae
 Currently Funded Projects and Pending Support
 Memo of Agreement Among Partners
 Cooperative Planning Efforts References
 References
 Appendices




                                              ______________________________________
                                                          2008-09 LaSIP MATHEMATICS
                                                           Professional Development RFP
                                                                          November 2008
                                                                                Page 64

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:18
posted:6/13/2011
language:English
pages:64