|
NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION |
|
|
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS |
|
|
Revised on 01/26/11 @ 17:00 (look for text in green) Revised deadlines on 02/08/11 No Child
Left Behind, Title II-D
Project Period: April 1, 2011 to June 30,
2012 The Office of Educational
Technology at the NHDOE will issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) this year
for competitive grants to eligible districts, under the ESEA Title II-D
Program (Enhancing Education Through Technology), to support the improvement of student achievement through the use of
technology in elementary and secondary schools. A total of approximately $480,000 will be available this year
for three types of Title II-D grants: Technology
Leader Cohort (TLC) Program for Teachers and Administrators, Classroom
Technology Mini-Grants, and a single Digital Resources Consortium Grant. |
|
|
If you have questions, comments, or recommendations:
|
|
|
12/15/2010 NHDOE-OET
releases first draft of RFP. Please note that this draft is intended to
promote discussion of essential and targeted features and responsibilities,
increase district understanding of grant expectations, and assist districts
in the grant writing process. Dec to Feb Grant
writing webinars on the following Wednesdays: Dec 15 at 9am and 3pm – Discuss all 3
types: TLC, Minigrant, Consortium Dec 22 at 9am and 3pm – Discuss all 3
types: Minigrant, TLC, Consortium Jan 19 at 9am and 3pm – Discuss all 3
types: Consortium, Minigrant, TLC Jan 26 at 9am and 3pm – This session
takes place after the official RFP is released. Any NH educator may participate in any or all of these
webinars. About 20 minutes of each webinar will be spent discussing each of
the 3 grant types. All you need is your computer and web browser, plus
speakers and a microphone. If you don’t have a mic,
you can still participate in the dialogue using the text chat area on the
webinar screen. To join the webinar: http://nheon.org/oet/nclb/
1/26/2011 Grant
writing webinar for final questions about RFP
3/14/2011 NHDOE-OET
announces awards 4/8/2011 First
professional development event: LESCN Educating 21st Century Learners Location/Time:
Church Landing in Meredith, NH from 8:30 to 3:30 Spring ‘11 First
series of Phase I meetings & webinars for Digital Resources (DR)
Consortium Summer ‘11 Summer
professional development activities (selected list to be provided) DR
Consortium Phase I concludes by August 15 8/31/2011 DR
Consortium Phase II (expanded proposal) due by 9PM via email to NHDOE OET 9/16/2011 DR
Consortium Phase II begins 9/1/2011 Classroom
implementation period begins 11/29 –12/1 McAuliffe
Technology Conference – Project Team Presentations / Facilitation Spring ‘12 Projects
end (March 31st or June 30th) |
|
|
This Request for Proposal (RFP) is designed to distribute funds to qualified district applicants pursuant to Title II-D, of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, to improve student achievement through the use of technology in elementary and secondary schools. This document outlines the application process. It contains important information on the background of the federal program and its requirements. Those districts eligible per the high need districts list in Appendix A may apply to receive one or more of the following Title II-D competitive grant types. Please review all pages of this document to learn how to apply for an NCLB Title II-D 2010-11 Competitive Grant. Applications must be submitted according to the guidelines described in this document. The
Three Grant Types Technology Leader Cohort (TLC) Program for Teachers and
Administrators – TLC grants will be funded for school district teams
to participate in this statewide leadership development program. Awards will
support a coordinated program which includes online and on-site learning,
equipment, and related expenses for several school district teams. Additional
review points are possible for well designed consortium proposals composed of
teams from multiple districts and/or large districts, as well as proposals
that extend the work of the 2010 NML Early Adopters group. Also encouraged
are proposals that involve undergraduate faculty from a NH educator
preparation program. The program includes teacher stipends,
an iPad for each administrator, choice of an iPad or 3 iPod Touches for each teacher on the team, and
online and face to face events. Program content must focus on helping
teachers and administrators to acquire expertise with the use of media
literacies to support digital age learners in all content areas. We
anticipate awarding grants to support up to 20 school teams sponsored at no
more than $10,000 per team. Classroom Technology Mini-Grants will be funded for school teams to participate in
this statewide program to provide school teams with digital tools,
strategies, and related support for project based learning activities to
advance student learning. Additional review points are possible for those
teams new to the mini-grant program and for proposals which involve multiple schools across multiple districts (such
as a 5th grade project occurring collaboratively in 3 different
districts). Also encouraged are proposals
that involve undergraduate faculty from a NH educator preparation program.
School teams may apply for up to $10,000. Districts may apply to sponsor one team per school to either replicate an exemplary
mini-grant project or propose a new project. [Please
note that although districts may submit proposals for more than one school,
it is likely that awards to a greater number of districts will be prioritized
over awards to multiple schools in some districts.] One grant for a Digital Resources Consortium will
provide funding to one district acting as coordinator and fiscal agent to
work with multiple districts (part or all of the state’s districts) in
planning for and acquiring digital resources to support a 21st
century learning environment. Up to $200,000 will fund a Digital
Resources Consortium grant, awarded in two
phases. As the project
work unfolds during the grant period, additional funding, if available, may
be used to provide further support for these initiatives. |
|
|
Part A: PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS |
|||||||||||||||||||||
Enhancing Education Through Technology |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
With the No
Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, Congress appropriated regular and ARRA funds in
2010-11 for NCLB Title II Part D, the Enhancing Education Through Technology
(Ed Tech) Program. The primary goal of the federal Enhancing Education
Through Technology Program is to improve student academic achievement
through the use of technology in elementary and secondary schools. In addition,
the program is designed to: (a) assist every student to become
technologically literate by the end of eighth grade, regardless of race,
ethnicity, income, geographical location, or disability, and (b) encourage effective integration of technology with
curriculum development and high quality professional development to promote
research-based instructional methods. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Technology
Leader Cohort (TLC) Program for Teachers and Administrators TLC grants will be funded for school district teams to
participate in this statewide leadership development program. Awards will
support a coordinated program which includes online and on-site learning,
equipment, and related expenses for several school district teams. Additional
review points are possible for well designed consortium proposals composed of
teams from multiple districts and/or large districts, as well as proposals
that extend the work of the 2010 NML Early Adopters group. Also encouraged
are proposals that involve undergraduate faculty from a NH educator
preparation program. The program includes teacher stipends,
an iPad for each administrator, choice of an iPad or 3 iPod Touches for each teacher on the team, and
online and face to face events. Program content must focus on helping
teachers and administrators to acquire expertise with the use of media
literacies to support digital age learners in all content areas. We
anticipate awarding grants to support up to 20 school teams sponsored at no
more than $10,000 per team. The ultimate
goal of the TLC Program is to support a statewide cadre of skilled, informed
teacher leaders and principals who are empowered to support their colleagues
in creating truly 21st century learning environments. Numbers
of Participants and Schools Consortium applications, including those which originate at PD
Centers (www.lescn.org) and/or large
districts are preferred. Such consortia applications may include teams from
up to 5 districts per consortium. These approximate sizes are suggested to
ensure a manageable level of coordination per group, as well as to distribute
participation across the state. It is estimated that this statewide
initiative will serve up to 20 school teams, totaling 40 teachers/specialists
and 20 administrators. Lead districts for each consortium grant are permitted to include
$600 per district team in their budgets for coordination, as well as food and
facilities fees for events hosted on-site. These districts must be prepared
to coordinate and host TLC activities (in collaboration with NHDOE and the
other consortia), promote the program, and work to ensure a common experience
for participants. TLC
Program Materials, Activities, and Expectations In an effort to create a high quality professional development
experience in support of emerging technologies and innovative approaches, the
following programs are highlighted. Districts are strongly encouraged to plan
for participation in these programs within their proposals. These resources
can acquaint a significant number of teachers and principals with resources
and approaches for creating 21st century learning environments
which combine face to face learning with online learning: ·
Digital and Media Literacies – Educators learn about the framework of
social skills and cultural competencies of digital and new media literacies.
While there are a growing number of excellent resources to address this, two
are of particular relevance to New Hampshire: o
New
Media Literacies (NML) project - Explores how we might best equip young
people with the social skills and cultural competencies required to become
full participants in an emergent media landscape and raise public
understanding about what it means to be literate in a globally
interconnected, multicultural world. A series of online and on-site NML
activities (webinars, course modules, and coaching from NML trained NH
teachers) is available, beginning with a summer 2011 institute. (See Appendix
B for more details.) http://www.newmedialiteracies.org/
o
Digital
and Media Literacy – Renee Hobbs from the Media Education Lab at Temple
University recently published a set of 10 recommendations for bringing digital
and media literacy education into formal and informal settings through a
community education movement. http://www.knightcomm.org/digital-and-media-literacy/
·
OPEN NH – This e-learning program, now entering its
6th year in New Hampshire, provides online courses for professional
development geared to school or district needs. Courses are facilitated by NH
educators, designed by NH educators, and customized to meet the needs of NH
schools and educators. Courses include several content areas and
instructional topics. Some courses were developed by the national
partnership, while others were developed and customized to meet specific
needs in New Hampshire. ·
Intel Teach Leadership Forum - The Intel Teach Leadership Forum
provides two 2-hour sessions of face-to-face or online professional
development focused on the importance of leadership in promoting, supporting,
and modeling the use of technology in instruction. This module is recommended
as a starting point for all administrator workshops, to be followed by
additional 2-hour sessions for administrators to explore relevant research
and trends and to develop and implement personal action plans. http://www.intel.com//education/teach/forums/index.htm Dates,
Expectations, and More Applications should indicate a date when an initial face to face
meeting for participating teams will be held (an after school time is
recommended). At this meeting, participants would receive equipment, review
program expectations, and get started with activities. Since the program
seeks to develop and support educators who will lead and advocate for
learning powered with technology, grant participants will be required to
commit to mentoring others in their districts and to host open house events,
so that other schools can learn from what they’ve done during the grant
period. These outreach efforts should be coordinated by the consortium lead
district.
Please visit www.nheon.org/oet/nclb periodically
for updated information and resources. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Classroom Technology Mini-Grants will be funded for school teams to participate in
this statewide program to provide school teams with digital tools,
strategies, and related support for project based learning activities to
advance student learning. Additional review points are possible for those
teams new to the mini-grant program and for proposals which involve multiple schools across multiple districts (such
as a 5th grade project occurring collaboratively in 3 different
districts). Also encouraged are proposals
that involve undergraduate faculty from a NH educator preparation program.
School teams may apply for up to $10,000. Districts
may apply to sponsor one team per school to either replicate an exemplary mini-grant project or propose a new
project. Projects which can directly impact more than one classroom are
preferred. We anticipate up to 20 mini-grants, distributed across all regions
of the state and within each grade range of K-2, 3-5, 6-8, and 9-12. Federal
guidelines require that each grantee spend at least 25% of the total grant for
professional development. [Please note that
although districts may submit proposals for more than one school, it is
likely that schools that span more districts will be funded instead of
multiple schools spanning fewer districts.] The goal of
this effort is to create exemplary
projects to disseminate to all NH schools, supported with the use of
digital technologies, within one or more core content areas: The Arts,
English Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, Social Studies, and/or World
Languages. These mini-grants will have similar requirements to previous years,
although there are some changes. Each year, the mini-grants have been
supported by training sessions and a celebration event provided by the Local
Educational Support Center Network (LESCN) and coordinated by Matt Treamer at
NCES-PDC. It is clear that many educators are more experienced in video
production than ever before. Thus, the professional development requirements
have been adapted to accommodate the varying needs of teams. Teams are encouraged
to contact a PD Center (see www.lescn.org)
or contact Matt Treamer directly at matt@ncedservices.org
to inquire about professional development services that might be offered at a
nearby center and customized to meet your project needs. All applicants are expected to
review the following website on the importance of PBL, as well as additional
resources that can acquaint them more fully with a PBL approach: In addition, the Constructing Modern Knowledge summer event (see Appendix B) is recommended as an opportune event to support refining your project materials and plan as you prepare to implement it in your classrooms during the 2011-12 school year. Requirements and
Expectations ·
Projects must be carried out by teams of no more than
4 educators from each project school, but may extend to multiple schools and
additional educators. ·
Projects must be focused on one or more content areas,
with the proposal indicating which content area is the main focus. All
projects must also address ICT literacy skills, but should not be focused
solely on ICT literacy. Project based learning (or problem based learning)
with a constructivist approach and essential questions are the heart of these
projects. Team projects must show evidence that these pedagogies are clearly
understood and applied. ·
Teams must include features which align with digital
and media literacy skills. ·
Teams must participate in a mini-grants webinar and an online
mini-course to review expectations, especially the requirements around video
production, establish procedures and contact information during the project
period, and submit project reports and outcomes. ·
Teams must produce a 3 minute video, lesson plan,
assessment rubric, and related documentation to indicate how the project was
carried out and submit draft copies of these materials to the mini-grants
coordinator, Matt Treamer, by (date TBD). Templates will be provided within
the online workspace. ·
Each team must present their project at the annual Mini-Grant
Celebration Event at Church Landing in Meredith, NH, as well as present at
two other local or regional venues, such as the Christa McAuliffe Technology
Conference or other similar event. ·
Budgets should contain equipment, supplies,
travel, and professional development expenses appropriate to carry out the
proposed project. Please contact Cathy Higgins at chiggins@ed.state.nh.us if you have
questions about expenses that don’t easily fit into these categories. The
total for professional development should be at least 25% of the total budget
requested, of which $500 should be set aside for the Celebration Event (see
section above). ·
Project proposals must identify and explain at least three
specific learning goals the team needs to address in its professional
development activities and how the proposed professional development will
address these. ·
Proposals must indicate that support has been obtained from the
superintendent Please visit www.nheon.org/oet/nclb periodically
for updated information and resources. |
|
One grant for a Digital Resources Consortium will
provide funding to one district acting as coordinator and fiscal agent to
work with multiple districts (part or all of the state’s districts) in
planning for and acquiring digital resources to support a 21st
century learning environment. Up to $200,000 will fund a Digital
Resources Consortium grant, awarded in two
phases. Phase I - Plan for Learning
Powered with Technology A
single Phase I planning grant to a lead district will support a statewide
conversation with those districts interested in participating and advocating
for a vision and direction. Starting points for discussion will include (1)
the newly released National Educational Technology Plan, (2) insights from
districts that received ARRA Ed Tech grants in 2009, and (3) other recently
published white papers and reports on recommendations for educational
transformation. The project manager will work with NHDOE OET and LESCN to
coordinate a series of online and on-site meetings attended by district teams
of superintendent, principal, tech director, library media specialists,
classroom teachers, students, and others as appropriate. As
added support for this effort, those districts that received ARRA Ed Tech
grants in 2009 will be asked to host on-site and/or online open house events
to acquaint others with lessons learned, successes, and challenges. These
conversations should begin in spring 2011 and conclude by August 15, 2011, so
that the consortium proposal can be expanded with recommendations for Phase
II, which should be scheduled to begin on or about September 16, 2011. Phase II - Purchase Supporting
Resources for Learning Powered with Technology The
second phase will be an award to the same lead district or another district
that will act as a lead district to coordinate consortium purchases of a
statewide set of digital resources based on the recommendations gathered
during Phase I. It is important that Phase I be as inclusive as possible, so
that in Phase II the resources deemed most important for purchasing first can
be identified. Possible purchases might include:
|
|
Reference Material Transforming American Education: Learning Powered with Technology – The National Educational Technology Plan available at: http://www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010 On policies and access: http://thejournal.com/articles/2010/12/01/its-time-to-trust-teachers-with-the-internet-a-conversation-with-meg-ormiston.aspx Requests from NH educators during the grant writing process (December-January):
Please visit www.nheon.org/oet/nclb periodically
for updated information and resources. |
|
According to NCLB Title II-D federal
program guidelines dated March 11, 2002 (p.12) (see www.ed.gov/programs/edtech/legislation.html), funding should be targeted toward
“high need districts” which are those districts: (a) With the highest numbers or percentages
of children from families with incomes below the poverty line (see www.census.gov/hhes/www/saipe) AND (b) That have
either one or more “schools in need of improvement” or a substantial need for
assistance in acquiring and using technology. Based on updated information from the USDOE, the Title II-D high need districts list has been updated for the 2009-10 academic year to indicate eligibility according to the census data (see Appendix A). If you can answer YES to the following
questions, your district is eligible to request Title II-D grant funding for
the activities described within this RFP:
If you answered NO to any of the above,
your district is not eligible to request Title II-D ARRA funding. |
|
Districts should keep in mind that these
federal funds are intended to “supplement and not supplant” the use of local
funding. Federal law requires districts to have an approved district
technology plan on file to receive Title II-D funds. Districts receiving
Title II-D funds must have budgets and planned activities that are consistent
with their technology plans. Districts must have a new or updated long-range
strategic technology plan that aligns with the guidance contained in the New
Hampshire Technology Planning Guide (www.nheon.org/oet/tpguide) and goals of the state’s educational
technology plan. Districts are required to inform the
NHDOE whenever significant modifications are made to a local technology plan.
Check the Tech Plan Status List (link located on the home page of the Tech
Planning Guide) to ensure that your plan is current. For approval criteria,
districts should refer to the elements described in the current Technology
Plan Approval Rubric, available from the home page of the Guide. As part of
the grant evaluation process, each school within applicant districts should
also submit a self-assessment of the criteria within the NH School Technology
and Readiness (STaR) Chart, which is also located
in the Tech Planning Guide. |
|
The NHDOE conducts an annual technology
survey as part of its obligation to monitor and collect data about the impact
of the Title II-D program. While all districts are encouraged to complete the
survey, districts that received grants last year were required to submit an
Annual District Technology Survey, as well as School Technology Surveys (and
Case Study Reports) for each school in the district. (Additional data
collection was required of districts receiving the ARRA grants.) Visit www.nheon.org/oet/survey to check the list of surveys submitted.
Please contact the NHDOE Office of Educational Technology if you have
questions about your district survey submissions. |
|
Successful grantees will be asked to
certify on their grant signature page the conditions that are met by their
district relative to the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA)
requirements. Districts must be CIPA compliant in terms of their Internet
filtering if they are purchasing any equipment that will be used by students
to access the Internet. |
|
Federal guidelines permit eligible
districts to submit either a Single District Application for their district
alone or a Partnership Application for more than one district. We suggest
that districts form consortia for the Tech
Leader program and the Digital
Resources Consortium, but apply individually for the Classroom Tech Mini-Grants. The focus of all
applications for funding must be on addressing the needs of the high-need Federal guidelines allow additional
partners, including institutions of higher education, educational service
agencies, libraries, or other educational entities appropriate to provide
local programs. Only districts may be fiscal agents for partnership
applications. The total amount requested for partnership grants cannot exceed
the sum of the eligible amounts if applying as individual districts.
Partnership Applications should include unique letters of support (no form
letters, please) from each partner. An “eligible local partnership” includes
at least one high-need LEA and at least one of the following: 1) An LEA that can demonstrate that teachers
in its schools are effectively integrating technology and 2) An LEA that has proven teaching practices
into instruction, based on a review of relevant research, and that the
integration results in improvement in classroom instruction and in helping
students meet challenging academic standards; 3) An institution of higher education that
is in full compliance with the reporting requirements of section 207(f) of
the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, and that has not been
identified by the State as low-performing under that Act; 4) A for-profit business that develops,
designs, manufactures, or produces technology products or services or has
substantial expertise in the application of technology in instruction; or 5) A public or private nonprofit
organization with demonstrated expertise in the application of educational
technology in instruction. The eligible local partnership may
include other LEAs, libraries, specialists, or other education entities
appropriate to local programs. |
|
According to federal guidelines, as a
district, you must provide an
opportunity for local non-public schools within your locality to consult with
you when you write your proposal. Contact them to discuss ways they might
be included in your project. If they are not interested in partnering with
your district, you are not required to include them in your project
activities, but you do need to offer them the opportunity. For a list of
non-public schools and their contact information, visit this page on the
NHDOE website and click on the link to the non-public schools list: http://education.nh.gov/instruction/integrated/no_child_left2010-11.htm IMPORTANT: According to federal
guidelines, if a private school is part of your application, any equipment
purchased with the grant remains the property of the public school. It is
permissible to loan equipment to the private school, if needed, to carry out
the project. It is the responsibility of the district receiving the grant to
inventory and maintain any equipment purchased by the grant. |
|
§
25%
Requirement – Federal program guidelines require that districts use at least
25% of their total grant funds for ongoing, sustained, intensive,
high-quality professional development. Districts may budget more than 25% for
professional development, as appropriate, within the proposed project. Such
professional development should be focused on the integration of advanced
technologies, including emerging technologies, into curriculum and
instruction and in using those technologies to create new learning
environments. (TLC grants are considered largely professional development.
Mini-grants should include at least $2,500 towards professional development,
some of which will be the mini-grant celebration event.) §
Alternatives
– According to federal guidelines, this 25% professional development
requirement can be waived only if
the district can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the NHDOE that it already
provides ongoing, sustained, intensive, high-quality professional development,
based on a review of relevant research, to all teachers in core academic
subjects. Districts should keep in mind that these federal funds are intended
to “supplement and not supplant” the use of local funding. Any district considering such a waiver must
contact Cathy Higgins to discuss this possibility and request a waiver before submitting the proposal. If your district receives a waiver, the
approval documentation will need to be submitted with the proposal. |
|
Federal guidelines
require that districts have a means of evaluating the extent to which Title
II-D activities are effective in (1) integrating technology into curricula
and instruction; (2) increasing the ability of teachers to teach; and (3)
enabling students to meet challenging state standards. Because the Title II-D
program is a state-administered program, NHDOE is responsible for ensuring
that districts comply with statutory requirements. Therefore, districts are
required to submit updated budgets, data for performance reports, and other
reasonable data to the NHDOE before being awarded funds in subsequent years.
All grantees will be required to participate in a statewide evaluation of
their grant activities. For the TLC and mini-grant programs, the primary evaluation
instruments used will be surveys. Districts interested in the possibility of
leading the evaluation efforts (in consultation with the NHDOE) on behalf of
multiple grantees may indicate their interest within their proposal. This
configuration is desired in order to maximize the potential for a larger and
more meaningful evaluation across all projects. Please refer to www.nheon.org/oet/survey for links to all evaluation instruments.
The following data reports are anticipated requirements for all grantees: §
NH
School Technology and Readiness (STaR) Chart –
Complete this chart for each school involved in the project. This is a
district and school self-assessment submitted on or before proposal
submission. §
NH
School Technology Survey –
This is an annual survey submitted for each building in the district as well
as the district as a whole. A companion district survey is also required. §
Classroom
Walkthrough Survey – This 5 minute survey should be use weekly over a set
period of time to indicate patterns of change in classroom activity during
the grant period. §
Administrator,
Teacher, & Student Surveys – Pre and post surveys will be used. §
Speak
Up Survey – This is an annual national survey available at www.projecttomorrow.org. §
Case
Studies Report – This is a short form to report progress on district project
activities midway through the project and again after the project is
completed. The case studies form is available as a downloadable Word document
for data collection, after which the data is submitted through an online
survey at www.nheon.org/oet. This report is CRITICAL because it
tells the story of the grant and is often used for dissemination of impact of
the program. |
|
Project meetings will be conducted
largely online, with occasionally scheduled face to face meetings when
appropriate. |
|
The new online grants management system
will be used for the grants. 1. The application submitted online is used
to authorize federal projects issued by the NHDOE. When completing this
budget form, it is important that you double check all entries with your
business manager before submitting to the NHDOE. Submitting with errors can
result in delays in processing your grant. 2. If submitting funding requests for more
than one grant type, please be sure to list each grant separately. This will
also be an important tracking strategy if you have any unanticipated changes
in expenditures over the project period. 3. Please be careful to budget as accurately
as possible, as each budget change after the award is made can be time
consuming for both the NHDOE and district staff. Obligation
and Disbursement Reports FY 2011 Title II-D projects may remain
open to 3/31/12 but no later than 6/30/2012. Funding obligations for awarded
projects must be reported by a school district no later than the last quarter
of the grant period, with final disbursements reported on the subsequent
quarter. Failure to submit obligation
and disbursement reports to the NHDOE Office of Business Management by July
10, 2012 will result in the forfeiture of any outstanding obligations. |
|
New Hampshire “High
Need” School Districts According to Title II-D federal program guidelines dated 3/11/02
(p.12), funding should be targeted toward “high need districts” whose numbers
or percentages of children from families with incomes below the poverty line
are above the state median (44 and 8.6% respectively) SEE CENSUS DATA HERE: http://www.census.gov/did/www/saipe/data/schools/data/2009.html SEE PROGRAM GUIDELINES HERE: www.ed.gov/programs/edtech/legislation.html Columns 1, 2, 3 on the right below indicate whether your district is
eligible to apply by number, percent, or both, according to Census Data
available as of December 2010. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 and |
2 or |
3 |
|
|
District |
Total Pop. |
Total Kids 5-17 |
Total Kids in Poverty 5-17 |
Poverty % |
Urban / Rural |
Eligible if above median by # or % |
And has # SINI Schools |
Or
Tech Need |
|
ALLENSTOWN |
5424 |
962 |
81 |
8.5% |
U |
By # |
2 |
TBD |
|
ALTON |
4899 |
541 |
73 |
13.5% |
R |
By # and % |
0 |
TBD |
|
AMHERST |
11478 |
1819 |
53 |
3.0% |
U |
By # |
2 |
TBD |
|
ANDOVER |
2314 |
360 |
43 |
12.0% |
R |
By % |
1 |
TBD |
|
ASHLAND |
2053 |
196 |
23 |
11.8% |
R |
By % |
0 |
TBD |
|
AUBURN |
5059 |
961 |
45 |
4.7% |
U |
By # |
0 |
TBD |
|
BARNSTEAD |
4218 |
520 |
72 |
13.9% |
R |
By # and % |
1 |
TBD |
|
BARRINGTON |
8233 |
1462 |
149 |
10.2% |
U |
By # and % |
2 |
TBD |
|
BARTLETT * |
2,974 |
398 |
70.5 |
17.8% |
R |
By # and % |
0 |
TBD |
|
BATH |
942 |
156 |
10 |
6.5% |
R |
Not Eligible |
0 |
TBD |
|
BEDFORD |
19487 |
3653 |
115 |
3.2% |
U |
By # |
0 |
TBD |
|
BERLIN * |
10051 |
1328.16 |
286.499 |
21.6% |
R |
By # and % |
4 |
TBD |
|
BETHLEHEM |
2305 |
172 |
36 |
21.0% |
R |
By % |
1 |
TBD |
|
BOW |
7809 |
1763 |
48 |
2.8% |
R |
By # |
2 |
TBD |
|
BRENTWOOD |
3471 |
269 |
10 |
3.8% |
U |
Not Eligible |
0 |
TBD |
|
BROOKLINE |
4458 |
607 |
16 |
2.7% |
U |
Not Eligible |
1 |
TBD |
|
CAMPTON * |
2956 |
324 |
44 |
13.6% |
R |
By # and % |
0 |
TBD |
|
CANDIA |
4220 |
726 |
41 |
5.7% |
U |
Not Eligible |
0 |
TBD |
|
CHESTER |
4089 |
803 |
44 |
5.5% |
U |
By # |
1 |
TBD |
|
CHESTERFIELD |
3697 |
617 |
29 |
4.8% |
R |
Not Eligible |
1 |
TBD |
|
CHICHESTER |
2460 |
406 |
19 |
4.7% |
R |
Not Eligible |
0 |
TBD |
|
CLAREMONT |
13855 |
2047 |
265 |
13.0% |
R |
By # and % |
4 |
TBD |
|
COLEBROOK * |
3000.3 |
441.66 |
97.999 |
22.2% |
R |
By # and % |
1 |
TBD |
|
CONCORD |
39937 |
5829 |
571 |
9.8% |
R |
By # and % |
6 |
TBD |
|
CONTOOCOOK VALLEY |
18887 |
3533 |
414 |
11.8% |
R |
By # and % |
4 |
TBD |
|
CONWAY * |
10918 |
1508 |
281.5 |
18.7% |
R |
By # and % |
3 |
TBD |
|
CORNISH |
1766 |
308 |
19 |
6.2% |
R |
Not Eligible |
1 |
TBD |
|
CROYDON |
678 |
104 |
10 |
9.7% |
R |
By % |
0 |
TBD |
|
DEERFIELD |
3970 |
778 |
42 |
5.4% |
R |
Not Eligible |
1 |
TBD |
|
DERRY |
36628 |
7285 |
425 |
5.9% |
U |
By # |
6 |
TBD |
|
DOVER |
29618 |
3764 |
371 |
9.9% |
U |
By # and % |
4 |
TBD |
|
DRESDEN |
11457 |
590 |
20 |
3.4% |
R |
Not Eligible |
0 |
TBD |
|
DUNBARTON |
2437 |
406 |
18 |
4.5% |
R |
Not Eligible |
0 |
TBD |
|
EAST KINGSTON |
1964 |
206 |
17 |
8.3% |
U |
Not Eligible |
0 |
TBD |
|
EPPING |
5890 |
1024 |
68 |
6.7% |
U |
By # |
2 |
TBD |
|
EPSOM |
4380 |
697 |
47 |
6.8% |
R |
By # |
0 |
TBD |
|
ERROL * |
359.26 |
37.66 |
9.999 |
26.6% |
R |
By % |
1 |
TBD |
|
EXETER |
15183 |
1167 |
103 |
8.9% |
U |
By # and % |
0 |
TBD |
|
EXETER REGIONAL COOP |
31139 |
2615 |
125 |
4.8% |
U |
By # |
2 |
TBD |
|
FALL MOUNTAIN REGIONAL |
12291 |
1935 |
243 |
12.6% |
R |
By # and % |
6 |
TBD |
|
FARMINGTON * |
7961 |
1444 |
183 |
12.7% |
R |
By # and % |
3 |
TBD |
|
FRANKLIN |
9182 |
1456 |
309 |
21.3% |
R |
By # and % |
3 |
TBD |
|
FREEDOM |
1411 |
144 |
14 |
9.8% |
R |
By % |
0 |
TBD |
|
FREMONT |
3836 |
676 |
44 |
6.6% |
U |
By # |
1 |
TBD |
|
GILFORD |
7425 |
1151 |
71 |
6.2% |
R |
By # |
2 |
TBD |
|
GILMANTON |
3322 |
533 |
48 |
9.1% |
R |
By # and % |
1 |
TBD |
|
GOFFSTOWN |
18039 |
2762 |
152 |
5.6% |
U |
By # |
4 |
TBD |
|
GORHAM RANDOLPH SHELBURNE |
3434 |
498 |
60 |
12.1% |
R |
By # and % |
1 |
TBD |
|
GOSHEN LEMPSTER COOP |
1826 |
304 |
38 |
12.5% |
R |
By % |
1 |
TBD |
|
GOV WENTWORTH REGIONAL |
18098 |
2657 |
359 |
13.6% |
R |
By # and % |
3 |
TBD |
|
GRANTHAM |
2295 |
291 |
3 |
1.1% |
R |
Not Eligible |
0 |
TBD |
|
GREENLAND |
3462 |
590 |
61 |
10.4% |
U |
By # and % |
0 |
TBD |
|
HAMPSTEAD |
8939 |
1775 |
84 |
4.8% |
U |
By # |
0 |
TBD |
|
HAMPTON |
16125 |
1616 |
138 |
8.6% |
U |
By # and % |
0 |
TBD |
|
HAMPTON FALLS |
2057 |
259 |
13 |
5.1% |
U |
Not Eligible |
0 |
TBD |
|
HANOVER |
11457 |
534 |
17 |
3.2% |
R |
Not Eligible |
0 |
TBD |
|
HARRISVILLE |
1107 |
173 |
8 |
4.7% |
R |
Not Eligible |
0 |
TBD |
|
HAVERHILL COOP * |
4988 |
748 |
76 |
10.2% |
R |
By # and % |
3 |
TBD |
|
HENNIKER |
4849 |
615 |
26 |
4.3% |
R |
Not Eligible |
1 |
TBD |
|
HILL |
1087 |
206 |
12 |
5.9% |
R |
Not Eligible |
0 |
TBD |
|
HILLSBORO-DEERING COOP * |
7454 |
1357 |
123 |
9.1% |
R |
By # and % |
3 |
TBD |
|
HINSDALE |
4268 |
703 |
73 |
10.4% |
R |
By # and % |
2 |
TBD |
|
HOLDERNESS |
2047 |
216 |
25 |
11.6% |
R |
By % |
0 |
TBD |
|
HOLLIS |
7480 |
907 |
27 |
3.0% |
U |
Not Eligible |
0 |
TBD |
|
HOLLIS/BROOKLINE COOP |
11938 |
963 |
29 |
3.1% |
U |
Not Eligible |
0 |
TBD |
|
HOOKSETT |
12822 |
1957 |
117 |
6.0% |
U |
By # |
3 |
TBD |
|
HOPKINTON |
5903 |
1080 |
40 |
3.8% |
R |
Not Eligible |
0 |
TBD |
|
HUDSON |
24453 |
4468 |
256 |
5.8% |
U |
By # |
5 |
TBD |
|
INTER LAKES |
8941 |
1310 |
133 |
10.2% |
R |
By # and % |
2 |
TBD |
|
JACKSON |
917 |
95 |
8 |
8.5% |
R |
Not Eligible |
0 |
TBD |
|
JAFFREY-RINDGE COOP |
11395 |
1738 |
194 |
11.2% |
R |
By # and % |
4 |
TBD |
|
JOHN STARK REGIONAL |
13131 |
649 |
37 |
5.8% |
R |
Not Eligible |
1 |
TBD |
|
KEARSARGE REGIONAL |
14954 |
2152 |
124 |
5.8% |
R |
By # |
3 |
TBD |
|
KEENE |
23521 |
2885 |
262 |
9.1% |
R |
By # and % |
4 |
TBD |
|
KENSINGTON |
1990 |
200 |
9 |
4.5% |
U |
Not Eligible |
0 |
TBD |
|
LACONIA |
17857 |
2558 |
354 |
13.9% |
R |
By # and % |
5 |
TBD |
|
LAFAYETTE REGIONAL |
1837 |
127 |
13 |
10.3% |
R |
By % |
0 |
TBD |
|
LANDAFF |
399 |
55 |
7 |
12.8% |
R |
By % |
0 |
TBD |
|
LEBANON |
13282 |
1767 |
256 |
14.5% |
R |
By # and % |
5 |
TBD |
|
LINCOLN-WOODSTOCK |
2542 |
341 |
29 |
8.6% |
R |
By % |
1 |
TBD |
|
LISBON REGIONAL |
2185 |
338 |
47 |
14.0% |
R |
By # and % |
1 |
TBD |
|
LITCHFIELD |
7831 |
1668 |
76 |
4.6% |
U |
By # |
2 |
TBD |
|
LITTLETON |
6194 |
954 |
131 |
13.8% |
R |
By # and % |
1 |
TBD |
|
LONDONDERRY |
25136 |
5545 |
206 |
3.8% |
U |
By # |
5 |
TBD |
|
LYME |
1776 |
288 |
11 |
3.9% |
R |
Not Eligible |
0 |
TBD |
|
LYNDEBOROUGH |
1667 |
179 |
13 |
7.3% |
R |
Not Eligible |
0 |
TBD |
|
MADISON |
2191 |
351 |
32 |
9.2% |
R |
By % |
0 |
TBD |
|
MANCHESTER |
114062 |
17072 |
2678 |
15.7% |
U |
By # and % |
21 |
TBD |
|
MARLBOROUGH |
2098 |
289 |
17 |
5.9% |
R |
Not Eligible |
1 |
TBD |
|
MARLOW |
783 |
111 |
7 |
6.4% |
R |
Not Eligible |
0 |
TBD |
|
MASCENIC REGIONAL |
6928 |
1458 |
164 |
11.3% |
R |
By # and % |
5 |
TBD |
|
MASCOMA VALLEY REGIONAL |
10249 |
1509 |
123 |
8.2% |
R |
By # |
0 |
TBD |
|
MASON |
1266 |
206 |
14 |
6.8% |
R |
Not Eligible |
0 |
TBD |
|
MERRIMACK |
26798 |
5227 |
195 |
3.8% |
U |
By # |
3 |
TBD |
|
MERRIMACK VALLEY |
16480 |
2729 |
252 |
9.3% |
R |
By # and % |
5 |
TBD |
|
MILAN * |
1414 |
235.5 |
30.5 |
13.0% |
R |
By % |
0 |
TBD |
|
MILFORD |
14428 |
2601 |
200 |
7.7% |
U |
By # |
2 |
TBD |
|
MILTON |
4282 |
759 |
107 |
14.1% |
U |
By # and % |
2 |
TBD |
|
MONADNOCK REGIONAL |
14366 |
2267 |
223 |
9.9% |
R |
By # and % |
5 |
TBD |
|
MONROE |
801 |
128 |
13 |
10.2% |
R |
By % |
0 |
TBD |
|
MONT VERNON |
2172 |
343 |
15 |
4.4% |
U |
Not Eligible |
1 |
TBD |
|
MOULTONBOROUGH |
4913 |
678 |
43 |
6.4% |
R |
Not Eligible |
0 |
TBD |
|
NASHUA |
92294 |
14743 |
1493 |
10.2% |
U |
By # and % |
13 |
TBD |
|
NELSON |
662 |
107 |
17 |
15.9% |
R |
By % |
0 |
TBD |
|
NEW BOSTON |
4388 |
883 |
64 |
7.3% |
R |
By # |
1 |
TBD |
|
NEW CASTLE |
1089 |
128 |
0 |
0.0% |
U |
Not Eligible |
0 |
TBD |
|
NEWFIELDS |
1679 |
191 |
5 |
2.7% |
U |
Not Eligible |
0 |
TBD |
|
NEWFOUND AREA |
9891 |
1528 |
182 |
12.0% |
R |
By # and % |
6 |
TBD |
|
NEWINGTON |
836 |
133 |
8 |
6.1% |
U |
Not Eligible |
0 |
TBD |
|
NEWMARKET |
8670 |
1197 |
119 |
10.0% |
U |
By # and % |
3 |
TBD |
|
NEWPORT |
6623 |
1127 |
239 |
21.3% |
R |
By # and % |
3 |
TBD |
|
NORTH HAMPTON |
4595 |
575 |
23 |
4.0% |
U |
Not Eligible |
0 |
TBD |
|
NORTHUMBERLAND |
2313 |
404 |
91 |
22.6% |
R |
By # and % |
0 |
TBD |
|
NORTHWOOD |
3960 |
715 |
53 |
7.5% |
R |
By # |
1 |
TBD |
|
NOTTINGHAM |
3988 |
732 |
31 |
4.3% |
R |
Not Eligible |
1 |
TBD |
|
OYSTER RIVER COOP |
20157 |
2399 |
157 |
6.6% |
U |
By # |
1 |
TBD |
|
PELHAM |
11635 |
2201 |
102 |
4.7% |
U |
By # |
3 |
TBD |
|
PEMBROKE |
7433 |
1298 |
98 |
7.6% |
R |
By # |
1 |
TBD |
|
PEMI-BAKER REGIONAL |
17540 |
697 |
71 |
10.2% |
R |
By # and % |
0 |
TBD |
|
PIERMONT |
745 |
107 |
10 |
9.4% |
R |
By % |
0 |
TBD |
|
PITTSBURG * |
1097 |
136 |
24 |
17.7% |
R |
By % |
0 |
TBD |
|
PITTSFIELD |
4296 |
788 |
82 |
10.5% |
R |
By # and % |
2 |
TBD |
|
PLAINFIELD |
2356 |
385 |
20 |
5.2% |
R |
Not Eligible |
0 |
TBD |
|
PLYMOUTH |
6217 |
439 |
65 |
14.9% |
R |
By # and % |
0 |
TBD |
|
PORTSMOUTH |
22427 |
2389 |
296 |
12.4% |
U |
By # and % |
4 |
TBD |
|
PROFILE |
4142 |
291 |
50 |
17.2% |
R |
By # and % |
0 |
TBD |
|
RAYMOND |
10401 |
1990 |
174 |
8.8% |
U |
By # and % |
3 |
TBD |
|
RIVENDELL INTERSTATE |
1147 |
142 |
16 |
11.3% |
R |
By % |
0 |
TBD |
|
ROCHESTER |
31408 |
4867 |
647 |
13.3% |
U |
By # and % |
7 |
TBD |
|
ROLLINSFORD |
2907 |
450 |
40 |
8.9% |
U |
By % |
1 |
TBD |
|
RUMNEY |
1572 |
189 |
39 |
20.7% |
R |
By % |
0 |
TBD |
|
RYE |
5600 |
847 |
43 |
5.1% |
U |
Not Eligible |
0 |
TBD |
|
SALEM |
30276 |
4968 |
311 |
6.3% |
U |
By # |
3 |
TBD |
|
SANBORN REGIONAL |
10931 |
1923 |
118 |
6.2% |
U |
By # |
4 |
TBD |
|
SEABROOK |
8515 |
819 |
108 |
13.2% |
U |
By # and % |
2 |
TBD |
|
SHAKER REGIONAL |
9535 |
1556 |
149 |
9.6% |
R |
By # and % |
1 |
TBD |
|
SOMERSWORTH |
12629 |
2012 |
263 |
13.1% |
U |
By # and % |
4 |
TBD |
|
SOUHEGAN COOP |
13650 |
872 |
30 |
3.5% |
U |
Not Eligible |
0 |
TBD |
|
SOUTH HAMPTON |
917 |
155 |
7 |
4.6% |
U |
Not Eligible |
0 |
TBD |
|
STARK |
486 |
85 |
13 |
15.3% |
R |
By % |
0 |
TBD |
|
STEWARTSTOWN |
964 |
139 |
16 |
11.6% |
R |
By % |
0 |
TBD |
|
STODDARD |
956 |
122 |
22 |
18.1% |
R |
By % |
0 |
TBD |
|
STRAFFORD |
3956 |
800 |
31 |
3.9% |
R |
Not Eligible |
0 |
TBD |
|
STRATFORD |
896 |
135 |
44 |
32.6% |
R |
By # and % |
0 |
TBD |
|
STRATHAM |
6853 |
702 |
23 |
3.3% |
U |
Not Eligible |
0 |
TBD |
|
SUNAPEE |
3218 |
502 |
31 |
6.2% |
R |
Not Eligible |
0 |
TBD |
|
SURRY SCHOOL DISTRICT |
721 |
97 |
8 |
8.3% |
R |
Not Eligible |
0 |
TBD |
|
TAMWORTH |
2746 |
390 |
33 |
8.5% |
R |
Not Eligible |
0 |
TBD |
|
THORNTON |
1944 |
203 |
27 |
13.4% |
R |
By % |
0 |
TBD |
|
TIMBERLANE REGIONAL |
24948 |
4360 |
207 |
4.8% |
U |
By # |
3 |
TBD |
|
UNITY |
1613 |
203 |
33 |
16.3% |
R |
By % |
1 |
TBD |
|
WAKEFIELD |
4647 |
727 |
100 |
13.8% |
R |
By # and % |
1 |
TBD |
|
WARREN |
920 |
146 |
24 |
16.5% |
R |
By % |
0 |
TBD |
|
WASHINGTON |
945 |
136 |
18 |
13.3% |
R |
By % |
0 |
TBD |
|
WATERVILLE VALLEY |
271 |
38 |
4 |
10.6% |
R |
By % |
0 |
TBD |
|
WEARE |
8282 |
1326 |
64 |
4.9% |
U |
By # |
2 |
TBD |
|
WENTWORTH |
841 |
110 |
16 |
14.6% |
R |
By % |
0 |
TBD |
|
WESTMORELAND |
1824 |
234 |
11 |
4.8% |
R |
Not Eligible |
1 |
TBD |
|
WHITE MOUNTAIN REGIONAL |
7536 |
1136 |
170 |
15.0% |
R |
By # and % |
3 |
TBD |
|
WILTON |
3969 |
434 |
27 |
6.3% |
U |
Not Eligible |
0 |
TBD |
|
WILTON-LYNDEBORO |
5636 |
407 |
33 |
8.2% |
U |
Not Eligible |
1 |
TBD |
|
WINCHESTER |
4321 |
664 |
116 |
17.5% |
R |
By # and % |
1 |
TBD |
|
WINDHAM |
11573 |
2235 |
75 |
3.4% |
U |
By # |
1 |
TBD |
|
WINNACUNNET COOP |
31293 |
1055 |
92 |
8.8% |
U |
By # and % |
0 |
TBD |
|
WINNISQUAM REGIONAL |
11594 |
2010 |
165 |
8.3% |
R |
By # |
4 |
TBD |
|
PROSPECT MOUNTAIN JMA |
JMA |
388 |
26 |
6.8% |
JMA |
Not Eligible |
1 |
TBD |
|
ACADEMY FOR SCIENCE &
DESIGN |
Charter |
110 |
7 |
6.4% |
Charter |
Not Eligible |
TBD |
|
|
COCHECO ARTS
& TECH CHARTER |
Charter |
76 |
7 |
9.3% |
Charter |
By % |
TBD |
|
|
CSI CHARTER |
Charter |
41 |
4 |
9.8% |
Charter |
By % |
TBD |
|
|
GREAT BAY eLEARNING CHARTER |
Charter |
147 |
9 |
6.2% |
Charter |
Not Eligible |
TBD |
|
|
LEDYARD
CHARTER SCHOOL |
Charter |
26 |
2 |
7.7% |
Charter |
Not Eligible |
TBD |
|
|
NORTH COUNTRY
CHARTER |
Charter |
52 |
8 |
15.4% |
Charter |
By % |
TBD |
|
|
SEACOAST
CHARTER |
Charter |
146 |
8 |
5.5% |
Charter |
Not Eligible |
TBD |
|
|
STRONG
FOUNDATIONS CHARTER |
Charter |
91 |
7 |
7.7% |
Charter |
Not Eligible |
TBD |
|
|
SURRY VILLAGE
CHARTER |
Charter |
64 |
6 |
9.4% |
Charter |
By % |
TBD |
|
|
VIRTUAL
LEARNING ACADEMY CHARTER |
Charter |
38 |
3 |
7.9% |
Charter |
Not Eligible |
TBD |
|
|
Total Districts or Charters: |
176 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Median by Number: |
44 |
|||||||
|
Median by Percent: |
8.6% |
|||||||
SPRING 2011
LESCN Educating 21st Century Learners
April 8, 2011 at Church Landing in Meredith, NH
http://www.lescn.org/Home/educating-the-21st-century-learner-conference
This
year’s featured Keynote Speaker will be Gary S. Stager, Ph.D., Executive
Director: The Constructivist Consortium,
http://stager.org/, an internationally
recognized educator, speaker and consultant who has led professional
development in the world's first laptop schools (1990), collaborated in the MIT
Media Lab's Future of Learning Group, and was recognized as one of "20
Leaders to Watch" in 2007 by The National School Boards Association and in
2010 issue of Tech & Learning Magazine was referred to as "one of
today's leaders who are changing the landscape of edtech
through innovation and leadership." Conference breakout sessions will
include educators representing all levels (kindergarten-higher education)
modeling 21st Century Classrooms.
OPEN NH e-Learning for Educators Professional
Development Courses
Spring 2011 Session: April 5 – May 24, 2011
All
TLC participants will be required to regularly access an online OPEN NH “TLC
workspace” for topics, events, and ongoing discussions. While the initial
content for TLC will be provided, the TLC participants will be asked to expand
the content by contributing ideas and resources. Teachers should anticipate 2
hours 2X per week for each 7 week course term (spring, fall, winter) plus online
access during summer 2011. While the program requires teachers to login at
least twice each week to post to the discussion forum, the number of hours
online is largely dependent on the extent to which participants are interested
in exploring more deeply the resources within each module that are initially
provided by the program or developed by the community of participants.
SUMMER
2011
Constructing
Modern Knowledge 2011
July 11-14, 2011
in Manchester, NH
http://constructingmodernknowledge.com
This is a “minds-on institute” for
educators committed to creativity, collaboration and computing. Participants
engage in intensive computer-rich project development with peers and a
world-class faculty. This year’s guest speakers include Jonathan Kozol, Derrick Pitts, Mitchel Resnick and Lella Gandini.
Digital Media Literacies Institute
Summer 2011 - Dates and location to be determined by participating school teams
Key
digital media projects will form the basis of this summer institute, which
would include New Media Literacies (NML), Media Education Lab Projects, and
other emerging media literacies program resources.
Intel Teach Leadership Forum
Dates and location to be determined by participating school teams
OPEN NH e-Learning for Educators Professional
Development Courses
Summer 2011 Session: July 6 – August 24, 2011
FALL
2011
OPEN NH e-Learning for Educators Professional
Development Courses
Fall 2011 Session: October 4 – November 22, 2011
Christa McAuliffe Technology Conference
November 29 – December 1, 2011 at the Center of New Hampshire in Manchester, NH
PRIORITY
TOPICS TO BE OFFERED AT PD CENTERS
Each
proposal will be reviewed by a team of reviewers using established criteria, as
follows. Final rubrics will be posted online after February 7, 2011.
These
elements are important for creating a quality project of any type and will be
considered in the rubrics for each grant type:
TLC Grants – Review Rubric
Some
of the elements of quality proposals that will include, but not be limited to:
Mini-Grants – Review Rubric
Some
of the elements of quality proposals that will include, but not be limited to:
Digital Resources
Consortium – Review Rubric
Some
of the elements of quality proposals that will include, but not be limited to: