- State comment period. Each LEA included in an application must provide its SEA five business days to comment on the application and submit as part of its application package--
- The State's comments or evidence that the State declined to comment
- The LEA's response to the State comment (optional)
- Mayor, City or Town Administrator comment period. Each LEA included in an application must provide its Mayor or other comparable official five business days to comment on the LEA's application and submit as part of its application package—
- The City or Town's comments
- The LEA's response to the City or Town's comment (optional)
- For applicants applying as a consortium, the application must--
- Indicate, consistent with 34 CFR 75.128, whether--
- One member of the consortium is applying for a grant on behalf of the consortium; or
- The consortium has established itself as a separate eligible legal entity and is applying for a grant on its own behalf;
- Be signed by--
- If one member of the consortium is applying for a grant on behalf of the consortium, the Superintendent/CEO, local School Board President, and local Union/Association President (where applicable) of that LEA; or
- If the consortium has established itself as a separate eligible legal entity and is applying for a grant on its own behalf, a representative of the consortium; and
- Include, consistent with 34 CFR 75.128, for each LEA in the consortium, copies of all Memoranda of Understanding or other binding agreements. These binding agreements must--
- Detail the consortium governance structure (as defined in this document) and the individual LEA's role in the structure;
- Bind each member of the consortium to every statement and assurance made in the application;
- Include an assurance signed by the LEA's authorized legal representative that--
- The LEA has, at a minimum, designed and committed to implement no later than the 2014-15 school year--
- a teacher evaluation system (as defined in this document);
- a principal evaluation system (as defined in this document);
- a LEA superintendent evaluation (as defined in this document); and
- a LEA school board evaluation (as defined in this document).
- The LEA has a robust data system that has, at a minimum,--
- An individual teacher identifier with a teacher-student match.; and
- The ability to match student level P-12 and higher education data.
- The LEA has policy and regulatory protections in place that ensure Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) compliant privacy and information protection while enabling access and use by stakeholders; and
- Be signed by the Superintendent/CEO, local School Board President, and local Union/Association President (where applicable).
Facebook
YouTube
Twitter
Email Updates
Comments
I concur with NAEYC that private partners need to be included as well in order to be fair to families
In regards to Absolute Priority 1, Personalized Learning Environments, Citizen Schools commends the Department’s focus on personalized learning environments. To help ensure personalized learning environments are effective, language under Absolute Priority 1 should be revised to include expanded learning opportunities (including before school, after-school, summer learning, and/or expanded learning time programs) as a way to significantly improve teaching and learning through the personalization of strategies, tools, and supports for teachers and students. Expanded learning opportunities ought to be aligned with college- and career-ready standards and integrate academics, enrichment, and skills development through experiences that make learning relevant and engaging and actively address the specific learning needs and interests of all types of students, especially those who may benefit from approaches and experiences not offered in the traditional classroom setting. Moreover, with regards to “increasing the effectiveness of educators, and expand student access to the most effective educators”, we suggest the Department encompass volunteerism by professionals as a means of expanding student access to effective educators. Professionals from various fields could offer a breadth and depth of experience to schools in order to raise student achievement. For example, volunteer professionals from science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) industries have the expertise to teach students skills and information relevant to this field. Over the last several years, federal and state governments, educators at all levels, and the U.S. business community have directed the nation’s attention toward the declining state of STEM education in the United States. Moreover, the private and nonprofit sectors are in a position to engage STEM professionals to work directly with teachers in America’s classrooms to help bring STEM careers to life for students, assist teachers in conducting more relevant learning, and expose more STEM professionals to pathways to full-time teaching.
Thank you for allowing us to submit comments. I have the following comments about the application requirement that I would appreciate if you could consider:
1. I am disappointed that there is not an early learning component (particuarly one that encompasses children as young as Infant and toddler ages) that is required for all RTT applications. Why is this not so consdiering that there is much research support for the long term academic, social, and economical benefits of investing in early childhood education?
2. Why are there not stronger and broader roles for parents/families to play as requirements for RTT District Level Applications? A nice continuum from school choice to allow parents to have a visible decision-making role in how initiatives will operate is a necessary component of some state school systemic philosophies. All of these options make not be palatable for all systems, but a required, essential role for parents/families should be mandatory in any awarded RTT District Level Proposals/Applications.
Although the applicant must include a description of how families have been engaged in developing the proposal, and the application is submitted with letters of support from local public and private programs and parents, we recommend that any application that includes the Competitive Priority for public/private partnerships must include the signatures of the non-school public and private partners in order to ensure that the application fairly represents the understanding of the goals, roles and responsibilities of all the parties. NAEYC
NAEYC's point is very valid here to ensure that all the partners are included in this process in order to be truly fair to families.
I concur with NAEYC's position.
You have to, have to take out the 2,500 students served number as part of the eligibility criteria. 70% of Idaho is considered Rural and would automatically be ruled out befroe they had the opportunity to apply. Those are the schools that have the biggest financial issues going on in the state, because of loss of Widen Forest Funds and Ed Jobs monies.
There are some localities where the Mayor has no control of the School System and the lines of demarcation are clearly established. The Mayor approval/response process (or lack thereof) may adverse affect the perception of the proposal.
To clarify - are we being asked to gain the mayor's signature or is this similar to a review - where we submit to the mayor's office the proposal and then wait on their option to review or not. It would be very difficult to gain the mayor's signature for those who reside in very large cities.
adquate notice should be made to the community the real people most affected by the plan (parents, students, business, volunteers)and give all registered vendors for the school system the opportunity to apply for participation within the initiative; as well as monies to help with the success of the intented goals. Not to only deal with the large agencies. Certain % for the small agencies.