U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Elementary and Secondary Education

Washington, DC 20202-5960

Teacher Quality Partnership Grant ProgramPanel Reviewers’ Guidebook

2019

May 23, 2019

Dear Peer Reviewer,

Thank you for agreeing to share your time, knowledge, and expertise to serve as a peer reviewer for the FY 2019 Teacher Quality Partnership grant program competition.

The application review process is one of the most important steps in the program grant funding cycle. It is designed to ensure an equitable and fair assessment of all applications for funding recommendations, and your role as a reviewer is essential to the success of this process. Your scores will be a primary determinant in the decision on which applications receive funding. We ask that you carefully read this guidebook to ensure your full understanding of the program, its objectives, and the application Selection Criteria. The guidebook also provides information on the review process that includes an overview of the program, expectations for reviewers, important application review dates, and other instructions we believe will be helpful to you as a reviewer.

If you have any questions or require assistance before or during the review period, please contact your assigned TQP Panel Monitor or the TQP Competition Manager listed on the Reviewer Contact Information page in this Guidebook.

Thank you again for participating in this very important teacher preparation initiative as we strive to improve effective teaching.

Sincerely,

Ashlee Schmidt Director, Effective Educator Development Division Office of Elementary and Secondary Education U. S. Department of Education

Teacher Quality Partnership Program 2019 Grant ReviewCFDA 84.336S

Table of Contents

COMPETITION Dates to Remember5

COMPETITION CONTACT INFORMATION...................................................................6Longevity Consulting, Inc., Logistics Contractor:..........................................................6Longevity Reviewer Website:.......................................................................................6G5 Helpdesk:................................................................................................................6

PEER REVIEWER ORIENTATION INSTRUCTIONS......................................................7PEER REVIEWER RESPONSIBILITIES.........................................................................7ACCESSING THE G5 SYSTEM.……………………………………………………...………8TQP PROGRAM OVERVIEW..........................................................................................9

Authorizing Statute:......................................................................................................9Program Description:....................................................................................................9Eligible Applicants:.......................................................................................................9

TQP PROGRAM DESIGN.............................................................................................11Absolute Priority: Partnership Grants for the Establishment of Effective Teaching Residency Programs................................................................11Competitive Preference Priority 1 – Computer Science (up to 5 points).................14Competitive Preference Priority 2 – Novice Applicant (0 or 5 points)......................14Invitational Priority (No additional points awarded).................................................14

SELECTION CRITERIA AND SCORING APPLICATIONS...........................................16A. Quality of the Project Design (up to 40 points).......................................................17B. Adequacy of Resources (up to 20 points)..............................................................17C. Quality of the Management Plan (up to 20 points).................................................17D. Quality of the Project Evaluation (up to 20 points).................................................17Competitive Preference Priority 1– Computer Science (up to 5 points)......................17Competitive Preference Priority 2– Novice Applicant (0 or 5 points)..........................17

SAMPLE SELECTION CRITERIA SCORING RUBRIC................................................17REVIEWER SCORES AND COMMENTS.....................................................................19

Written Comments Suggested DOs & DON’T s.........................................................19Examples of Helpful Reviewer Comments.................................................................21

APPENDICES................................................................................................................23Appendix A: TQP Technical Review Form.................................................................24Appendix B: Section 204(a) Accountability and Evaluation and GPRA......................30Appendix C: Compensation Agreement......................................................................31Appendix D: Honorarium Form...................................................................................34Appendix E: TQP Optional Absolute Priority Checklist.………………………….. 36Appendix F. TQP Application Eligibility Screening Form ……………………………….44

2019 TQP Competition Dates to Remember

May 23, 2019 Peer Reviewer OrientationAll peer reviewers must participate in orientation call.

May 24, 2019 Peer reviewer materials available Peer reviewer materials will be posted on the Longevity Consulting, Inc. TQP competition website and the applications may also be accessed in the G5 system. Each peer reviewer has their own unique log in information. Contact Longevity Consulting, Inc. if you have problems logging on to the TQP competition website.

May 24-June 2, 2019 Peer reviewer application reading periodEach peer reviewer will receive electronic copies of the applications that he/she must review. Peer reviewers may also view and/or download applications from the G5 system.

June 3-7, 2019 Application panel callsPeer reviewers must participate in all scheduled panel calls. Peer reviewers will use the MS Word TRF to draft comments and scores for each application. Peer Reviewers will only enter final comments and scores in the G5 system.

June 10-14, 2019 Comment revision and finalizationDuring this week, peer reviewers will revise and finalize their comments on each application. Final comments and scores should be entered into the G5 system during this time. All comments and scores must be approved by the panel monitor before they are submitted as final in G5.

June 17, 2019 Final comments and scores dueThis is the absolute final day for peer reviewers to submit final comments and scores in the G5 system.

June 21, 2019 Honorarium forms duePeer reviewers should return signed honorarium forms to Longevity Consulting, Inc. using the mail label provided.

Competition Contact Information

TQP Competition Manager: Mia Howerton 202-205-0147 Mia.Howerton@ed.gov

Longevity Consulting, Inc., Logistics Contractor:

Karen Gibson-Serrette, Project Manager301-379-5817 k.gibson-serrette@longevityconsulting.com Longevity Reviewer Website:

The Longevity Consulting, Inc., peer reviewer website is now available; however, it is not a public website. Each peer reviewer will be provided with unique log in information by Longevity Consulting, Inc. http://gms.lngvtycnslt.com/index.php/TQP-2019

If you have questions, please email Longevity at tqp@longevityconsulting.com.

G5 Helpdesk:

Call Center Toll-Free Number: 1-888-336-89308:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday - Friday, EDT. On-line support is available by email at: edcaps.user@ed.gov

Peer Reviewer Orientation Instructions

Teacher Quality Program on May 23, 2019Thursday, May 23, 20191:00 pm | Eastern Daylight Time (New York, GMT-04:00) | 2 hrs 30 minsMeeting number: 967 874 243Meeting password: TQP052319   

Add to Calendar When it's time, join the meeting.

 Join by phoneCall-in toll-free number (ATT Audio Conference): 1-888-858-2144     (US) Call-in number (ATT Audio Conference): 1-646-746-3008     (US) Access Code: 211 572 8

Peer Reviewer Responsibilities

Responsibilities of the Peer Reviewer:

Participate in the mandatory peer reviewer orientation webinar on May 23, 2019 at 1:00 p.m. EDT;

Register and become familiar with the G5 system, see information below; Review the TQP Application Instructions Package and the TQP Notice Inviting Applications

(NIA) for New Awards for FY 2019https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/04/03/2019-06493/applications-for-new-awards-teacher-quality-partnership-grant-program (which includes program requirements, program priorities, Selection Criteria and subfactors);

Evaluate assigned applications using the Selection Criteria from the TQP NIA; Use the optional TQP program checklists to verify the applicant eligibility requirements as well

as the absolute priority requirements; Use the Word versions of the Technical Review Form to provide appropriate comments that

justify scores awarded to each application; Participate in all scheduled panel calls to discuss applications and scores awarded to each

application; Maintain confidentiality during the application review process;

Return required ED Form 5249 and to Longevity Consulting, Inc. by June 21, 2019.

ACCESSING THE G5 SYSTEM

As you evaluate each application, you will develop written comments and scores in the MS Word version of the TRF and will be required to provide written final comments and numerical scores in ED’s web based G5 System. You will provide comments for each of the Selection Criteria, competitive preference priorities, and invitational priority if applicable. You must be registered in the G5 system in order to enter comments and scores.

Log in using the same registration information (i.e., name, e-mail) that you provided to the TQP program staff and Longevity Consulting, Inc.

Use the instructions provided in the “Accessing G5 TRFs” handout located on the TQP peer reviewer website provided by Longevity Consulting, Inc.

If you have used G5 before, you do not need to register again. Use your existing username and password or click the “I forgot my password” link on the G5 homepage. (After you receive a new password, you may be prompted to change your password before you can log in and access the software.)

If you have additional issues with your G5 username and password, please call the G5 Hotline for assistance at 1-888-336-8930.

TQP Program Overview

Authorizing Statute:

The Teacher Quality Partnership (TQP) program is a discretionary grant program authorized under Title II, Part A of the Higher Education Act, as amended by the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 (HEA).

Program Description :

The goal for this program is the reform of teacher preparation programs and, as applicable, school leaders. It is a comprehensive program with a number of requirements. It is targeted to the highest need schools and school districts, requires collaboration with and commitment from all key stakeholders—school district, its schools, institutions of higher education (IHEs) including their colleges or departments of education, arts and sciences and, as applicable, other public and private partners.

More specifically the program objectives are to:

Improve the quality of new and prospective teachers by improving the preparation of prospective teachers and enhancing professional development activities for new teachers;

Hold teacher preparation programs at IHEs accountable for preparing highly qualified teachers;

Recruit highly qualified individuals, including minorities and individuals from other occupations, into the teaching force; and

Improve student achievement.

Eligible Applicants:

The applicant for this grant program is described as an “eligible partnership.” The “eligible partnership” may choose the fiscal agent from its required or optional partners.

The “eligible partnership” must include--

a high-need local educational agency; a high-need school or a consortium of high-need schools served by the high-need local

educational agency; or as applicable, a high-need early childhood education program; a partner institution; a school, department, or program of education within such partner institution, which may

include an existing teacher professional development program with proven outcomes within a four-year institution of higher education that provides intensive and sustained collaboration between faculty and local educational agencies consistent with the requirements of this title; and

a school or department of arts and sciences within such partner institution; and

MAY include any of the following:

The Governor of the State; The State educational agency;

The State board of education; The State agency for higher education; A business; A public or private nonprofit educational organization; An educational service agency; A teacher organization; A high-performing local educational agency, or a consortium of such local educational

agencies, that can serve as a resource to the partnership; A charter school (as defined in section 5210 of the Elementary and Secondary Education

Act of 1965); A school or department within the partner institution that focuses on psychology and

human development; A school or department within the partner institution with comparable expertise in the

disciplines of teaching, learning, and child and adolescent development; and/or An entity operating a program that provides alternative routes to State certification of

teachers.

TQP Program Design

The FY 2019 TQP Competition identifies one Absolute Priority, two Competitive Preference Priorities and one Invitational Priority.

Absolute Priority: Partnership Grants for the Establishment of Effective Teaching Residency Programs.

Applicants must address the Absolute Priority, including all aspects of the priority as specified in the Federal Register notice. Below is the absolute priority language as seen in the NIA.

Under this priority, an eligible partnership must carry out an effective teaching residency program that includes all of the following activities:(a) Supporting a teaching residency program described in paragraph II for high-need subjects and areas, as determined by the needs of the high-need LEA in the partnership; (b) Placing graduates of the teaching residency program in cohorts that facilitate professional collaboration, both among graduates of the teaching residency program and between such graduates and mentor teachers in the receiving school;(c) Ensuring that teaching residents who participate in the teaching residency program receive--(1) Effective pre-service preparation as described in paragraph II;(2) Teacher mentoring; (3) Support required through the induction program as the teaching residents enter the classroom as new teachers; and(4) The preparation described below:(i) Incorporate year-long opportunities for enrichment, including--(A) Clinical learning in classrooms in high-need schools served by the high-need local educational agency in the eligible partnership, and identified by the eligible partnership; and(B) Closely supervised interaction between prospective teachers and faculty, experienced teachers, principals, other administrators, and school leaders at early childhood education programs (as applicable), elementary schools, or secondary schools, and providing support for such interaction.(ii) Integrate pedagogy and classroom practice and promote effective teaching skills in academic content areas.(iii) Provide high-quality teacher mentoring.

II. Teaching Residency Programs. (a) Establishment and design. A teaching residency program under this priority is a program based upon models of successful teaching residencies that serve as a mechanism to prepare teachers for success in the high-need schools in the eligible partnership, and must be designed to include the following characteristics of successful programs:(1) The integration of pedagogy, classroom practice, and teacher mentoring;(2) Engagement of teaching residents in rigorous graduate-level course work leading to a master’s degree while undertaking a guided teaching apprenticeship;(3) Experience and learning opportunities alongside a trained and experienced mentor teacher--(i) Whose teaching shall complement the residency program so that classroom clinical practice is tightly aligned with coursework;(ii) Who shall have extra responsibilities as a teacher leader of the teaching residency program, as a mentor for residents, and as a teacher coach during the induction program for new teachers; and for establishing, within the program, a learning community in which all individuals are expected to continually improve their capacity to advance student learning; and

(iii) Who may be relieved from teaching duties as a result of such additional responsibilities; (4) The establishment of clear criteria for the selection of mentor teachers based on measures of teacher effectiveness and the appropriate subject area knowledge. Evaluation of teacher effectiveness must be based on, but not limited to, observations of the following--(i) Planning and preparation, including demonstrated knowledge of content, pedagogy, and assessment, including the use of formative and diagnostic assessments to improve student learning;(ii) Appropriate instruction that engages students with different learning styles;(iii) Collaboration with colleagues to improve instruction;(iv) Analysis of gains in student learning, based on multiple measures that are valid and reliable and that, when feasible, may include valid, reliable, and objective measures of the influence of teachers on the rate of student academic progress; and(v) In the case of mentor candidates who will be mentoring new or prospective literacy and mathematics coaches or instructors, appropriate skills in the essential components of reading instruction, teacher training in literacy instructional strategies across core subject areas, and teacher training in mathematics instructional strategies, as appropriate; (5) Grouping of teaching residents in cohorts to facilitate professional collaboration among such residents;(6) The development of admissions goals and priorities--(i) That are aligned with the hiring objectives of the LEA partnering with the program, as well as the instructional initiatives and curriculum of such agency, in exchange for a commitment by such agency to hire qualified graduates from the teaching residency program; and(ii) Which may include consideration of applicants who reflect the communities in which they will teach as well as consideration of individuals from underrepresented populations in the teaching profession; and (7) Support for residents, once the teaching residents are hired as teachers of record, through an induction program, professional development, and networking opportunities to support the residents through not less than the residents’ first two years of teaching.(b) Selection of individuals as teacher residents.(1) Eligible individual. In order to be eligible to be a teacher resident in a teaching residency program under this priority, an individual shall--(i) Be a recent graduate of a four-year IHE or a mid-career professional from outside the field of education possessing strong content knowledge or a record of professional accomplishment; and (ii) Submit an application to the teaching residency program.(2) Selection criteria for teaching residency program. An eligible partnership carrying out a teaching residency program under this priority shall establish criteria for the selection of eligible individuals to participate in the teaching residency program based on the following characteristics--(i) Strong content knowledge or record of accomplishment in the field or subject area to be taught;(ii) Strong verbal and written communication skills, which may be demonstrated by performance on appropriate tests; and(iii) Other attributes linked to effective teaching, which may be determined by interviews or performance assessments, as specified by the eligible partnership.(c) Stipends or salaries; applications; agreements; repayments.(1) Stipends or salaries. A teaching residency program under this priority shall provide a one-year living stipend or salary to teaching residents during the teaching residency program.(2) Applications for stipends or salaries. Each teacher residency candidate desiring a stipend or salary during the period of residency shall submit an application to the eligible partnership at such time, and containing such information and assurances, as the eligible partnership may require.

(3) Agreements to serve. Each application submitted under paragraph II-(c)(2) of this priority shall contain or be accompanied by an agreement that the applicant will--(i) Serve as a full-time teacher for a total of not less than three academic years immediately after successfully completing the teaching residency program;(ii) Fulfill the requirement under paragraph II-(c)(3)(i) of this priority by teaching in a high-need school served by the high-need LEA in the eligible partnership and teach a subject or area that is designated as high-need by the partnership;(iii) Provide to the eligible partnership a certificate, from the chief administrative officer of the LEA in which the resident is employed, of the employment required under paragraph II-(c)(3)(i) and (ii) of this priority at the beginning of, and upon completion of, each year or partial year of service;(iv) Meet the applicable State certification and licensure requirements, including any requirements for certification obtained through alternative routes to certification, or, with regard to special education teachers, the qualifications described in section 612(a)(14)(C) of the IDEA, when the applicant begins to fulfill the service obligation under this clause; and(v) Comply with the requirements set by the eligible partnership under paragraph II-(d) of this priority if the applicant is unable or unwilling to complete the service obligation required by paragraph II-(c)(3).(d) Repayments.(1) In general. A grantee carrying out a teaching residency program under this priority shall require a recipient of a stipend or salary under paragraph II-(c)(1) of this priority who does not complete, or who notifies the partnership that the recipient intends not to complete, the service obligation required by paragraph II-(c)(3) of this priority to repay such stipend or salary to the eligible partnership, together with interest, at a rate specified by the partnership in the agreement, and in accordance with such other terms and conditions specified by the eligible partnership, as necessary.(2) Other terms and conditions. Any other terms and conditions specified by the eligible partnership may include reasonable provisions for pro rata repayment of the stipend or salary described in paragraph II-(c)(1) of this priority or for deferral of a teaching resident’s service obligation required by paragraph II-(c)(3) of this priority, on grounds of health, incapacitation, inability to secure employment in a school served by the eligible partnership, being called to active duty in the Armed Forces of the United States, or other extraordinary circumstances. (3) Use of repayments. An eligible partnership shall use any repayment received under this paragraph (d) to carry out additional activities that are consistent with the purpose of this priority.Applicants will address the Absolute Priority by addressing the Selection Criteria in the project narrative; as applicable, applicants may include supporting documents in the Appendices.

In Addition to thoroughly reviewing the application, peer reviewers will use the Optional Absolute Priority Checklist to verify whether the applicant has met all requirements for the Absolute Priority. The Absolute Priority Checklist can be found in the Appendix of this guidebook, on the TQP program webpage and on the Longevity Consulting, Inc. TQP competition website.

Competitive Preference Priorities (CPP) (Optional)

CPPs are optional and applicants may choose to address one or both of the CPPs. Applicants should indicate which CPP(s) are being addressed in the program Abstract. Applicants should also indicate where the response to the identified CPP(s) can be found in the application.

These priorities are:

Competitive Preference Priority 1 (up to five points).

Projects designed to improve student achievement or other educational outcomes in computer science (as defined in the Notice Inviting Applications) by increasing the number of educators adequately prepared to deliver rigorous instruction in STEM fields, including computer science, through recruitment, evidence-based (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) professional development strategies for current STEM educators, or evidence-based retraining strategies for current educators seeking to transition from other subjects to STEM fields.

Competitive Preference Priority 2 (0 or five points).

Projects submitted by applicants that meet the definition of novice applicant (as defined in the Notice Inviting Applications) at the time they submit their applications. Panel monitors will score this CPP.

Invitational Priority (No additional points will be awarded for addressing this priority) .

This Invitational Priority is optional, and applicants may choose whether they would like to address it. Applicants should indicate if they are addressing the Invitational Priority in the program Abstract and identify, if they are addressing it, where the response to the Invitational Priority can be found in the application. While there are no points awarded for this priority, peer reviewers should provide both strength and weakness comments.

This priority is:

Spurring Investments in Opportunity Zones

(1) Propose to serve children or students who reside, or attend TQP project schools, in a qualified opportunity zone as designated by the Secretary of the Treasury under section 1400Z-1 of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (Pub. L. 115-97). In addressing this priority, an applicant must provide the census tract number of the qualified opportunity zone for which it proposes to serve children or students and describe the extent to which the applicant will serve individuals in the Qualified Opportunity Zone(s). A list of qualified opportunity zones, with census tract numbers, is available at www.cdfifund.gov/Pages/Opportunity-Zones.aspx; OR

(2) Demonstrate in its application that it has received or will receive financial assistance from a qualified opportunity fund under section 1400Z-2 of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, for a purpose directly related to its proposed project. In addressing this priority, an applicant must identify the qualified opportunity fund from which it has received or will receive financial assistance and describe the extent to which the applicant will use the financial assistance for its proposed project.

SELECTION CRITERIA and SCORING APPLICATIONS

All applicants are required to respond to each of the Selection Criteria published in the Notice Inviting Applications published in the Federal Register on April 3, 2019. Reviewers must use these Selection Criteria to assess the applications. The “Note” section for each criterion provides additional information as guidance to applicants and reviewers. However, the notes are not Selection Criteria. Applicants are encouraged, not required, to consider the guidance in the note sections when developing their responses to the Selection Criteria.

No outside factors, such as personal knowledge of past performance, perceived relative quality based on reading other applications, or subjective judgments about what an application should contain may be considered.

Peer reviewers will use a Technical Review Form (TRF) to draft evaluative comments and assign draft scores to the Selection Criteria, Competitive Preference Priorities and Invitational Priority, if applicable, based on their review of each application

The Word version of the TRF is available on the Longevity Consulting, Inc. TQP competition website and in the G5 system. Peer reviewers will copy and paste final comments and scores from the TRF into G5 once the comments have been approved by the panel monitor. Peer reviewers will complete a TRF for each application assigned to their panel.

The Selection Criteria, maximum points for each criterion and subfactors are below:

Summary RatingsMaximum Points Score

A. Quality of the Project Design 40

B. Adequacy of Resources 20

C. Quality of Management Plan 20

D. Quality of Project Evaluation 20

Selection Criteria Total Score 100

Competitive Preference Priority 1 5

Total Score 105

A. Quality of the Project Design (up to 40 points)

(i) The extent to which the proposed project demonstrates a rationale.(ii) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable.(iii) The extent to which the proposed project is designed to build capacity and yield results that will extend beyond the period of Federal financial assistance.(iv) The extent to which the proposed project represents an exceptional approach for meeting statutory purposes and requirements.

B. Adequacy of Resources (up to 20 points).

(i) The adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment, supplies, and other resources, from the applicant organization or the lead applicant organization(ii) The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in the proposed project to the implementation and success of the project.

C. Quality of Management Plan (up to 20 points).

(i) the Adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks.

D. Quality of the Project Evaluation (up to 20 points).

(i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide valid and reliable performance data on relevant outcomes.(ii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project. Competitive Preference Priority 1 (up to 5 points).

Projects designed to improve student achievement or other educational outcomes in computer science (as defined in the notice inviting applicants) by increasing the number of educators adequately prepared to deliver rigorous instruction in STEM fields, including computer science, through recruitment, evidence-based (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) professional development strategies for current STEM educators, or evidence-based retraining strategies for current educators seeking to transition from other subjects to STEM fields.

Competitive Preference Priority 2 (5 points). (Panel Monitor will score this CPP)

Projects submitted by applicants that meet the definition of novice applicant (as defined in the notice inviting applicants) at the time they submit their application.

Sample Selection Criteria Scoring RubricTeacher Quality Partnership Program

84.336S2019

The numerical scores you assign to an applicant’s response to the Selection Criteria should be consistent with the comments that you write. Comments and scores should reflect the same overall assessment. It is important that you do not pair a significantly negative comment with a high score or a significantly positive comment with a low score. Comments indicate whether the applicant’s response to each selection criterion is excellent, very good, good, fair, poor, or missing. Scores indicate how well the applicant responded to a selection criterion. Shown below are suggested point ranges for an evaluation of applicant responses to a selection criterion that are fully developed, well developed, adequately developed, poorly developed and not addressed.

Maximum Point Value

General Quality of Applicant’s ResponseNot

AddressedPoorly

DevelopedAdequately Developed

Well- Developed

Fully Developed

40 0 1-9 10-19 20-29 30-40

20 0 1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20

PEER REVIEWER SCORES AND COMMENTS

Numeric scores indicate how fully developed, well developed, adequately developed, poorly developed (or not at all) the applicant’s responses to the Selection Criteria are. Comments describe why the peer reviewer assigned a particular numeric score to a criterion. It is imperative that the comments written be consistent with the score you have given. Comments should evaluate what has been presented in the application, not describe or rewrite what the applicant has written.

Technical Review Forms:

Peer reviewers will use a MS Word version of the TRF for submitting scores and comments for the applications assigned to your panel. You will use this form showing the four-selection criterion to record your scores and comments for applicants’ responses to the Absolute Priority. You will use the same TRF to record your scores and comments for the Competitive Preference Priorities and Invitational Priority, as applicable. The Word version of the TRF can be found on the Longevity Consulting, Inc. TQP competition website.

Comments justifying your numerical scores should be written under the “strengths” and “weaknesses” sections of the Technical Review Form. If full points are awarded to a criterion, all comments should be strengths and “no weaknesses found” should be entered in the “weaknesses” section. If partial points are awarded to a criterion, there should be comments under both the “strengths” and “weaknesses” sections.

Suggested vocabulary for comments can be found in the table below:

Peer reviewer comments will be provided as feedback to the applicants. ED panel monitors will review comments to ensure that the feedback is substantive, useful, appropriate, clear, and aligned with the numerical scores assigned the criteria. Your panel monitor will work with you to finalize your comments and scores to ensure that your comments properly reflect your evaluation of each application.

Written Comments Suggested DOs & DON’T s

The table below provides you with some guidance to better assist you with providing the applicant with written comments.

Identifying Strengths Identifying WeaknessesFocused AmbiguousAdequate ConfusingAppropriate ContradictoryComplete InadequateComprehensive InappropriateDetailed LimitedDocumented UnclearThorough VagueStrong Lacking

Comments DOs Comments DON’TsDo write in complete sentences. Do not write incomplete sentences including

only one or two words to justify your score for an applicant’s response to a selection criterion.

Do write clear, concise, and objective comments for each of the Selection Criteria.

Do not write comments that ask questions of the applicant.

Do provide comments for all Selection Criteria, even if full points are awarded.

Do not evaluate one application against another. Each application should be read and scored independently.

Do provide comments on weaknesses when points have been deducted from the Selection Criteria.

Do not forget to write the page numbers to reference the information you are writing about in your evaluative comments.

Do write, “no weaknesses found,” if no points are subtracted for a criterion.

Do not write comments that display your own personal opinions or biases. (i.e., “this is a horrible application”; “this application should not be funded.”)

Do use the MS Word TRF to draft your comments and scores. This allows you to check the spelling and grammar of all comments before you submit them to the panel monitor. Once comments and score are approved as final, you may copy and paste them into G5.

Do not assign zero (0) points to a selection criterion that addresses the topic. A zero may only be assigned if a criterion is MISSING. All three reviewers should agree that the information is missing from the grant application. NOTE: If a criterion is addressed, it should receive at least one (1) point.

Do differentiate comments based on fact from those based on your professional judgment.

Do not assign partial points to a criterion and write only positive or negative comments. Unless you score a selection criterion full points or 0 points, there should be comments in both the “strengths” and “weaknesses” sections of the TRF.

Do write comments that evaluate, not simply describe, what the application says.

Do not use inflammatory or derogatory language when writing your comments.

Do include application page numbers (e-page numbers) to reference the information you are referring to in your evaluative comments.

Examples of Helpful and Not so Helpful Reviewer Comments

This section provides examples of reviewer comments from previous competitions and an explanation of why the comments are or are not helpful to both Department staff and the applicant in understanding the reviewers’ evaluation of each criterion.

Quality of the Project Design

Strengths

“The applicant responded to each requirement in a well-developed and clearly articulated design for improving its teacher preparation program. The application very clearly identified the project goals and delineated the specific objectives, activities, and timelines for each (e-pages 14-20). The project is based on current research for new teacher success (e-page 15). The project includes a strong emphasis on mentor training and mentor support for the participants. Outcome activities intentionally planned to ensure retention of participants (e-pages 17-19). The proposal includes the creation of an infrastructure to be applied after the funding cycle ends (e-page 19-20).”

Why this comment is helpful--

The reviewer used evaluative language and does not simply restate the contents of the application. Each comment includes the relevant page numbers. The comments are clear, objective and concise. Here is another helpful comment.

“The application provides a detailed description of the curriculum (e-page. 19-20), which builds from preparation for school including observations in the summer, increased roles in the classroom throughout the year, and transition from residency to full-time teacher.   Residents spend four days in classrooms and their fifth day is coursework offered on-site in their district.       Building a learning community of residents and mentors is an integral part of the program.”

Both comments used together represent a strong example of the quality of comments we want to provide to the applicants.

Weaknesses

“The content and structure of the residency program are described only in very general terms (pp e24-e29), so it cannot be concluded that the program will implement research-based practices associated with content, pedagogy, initial clinical experiences, or induction support.” And, “The proposal has not clearly stated the target number of residents to be served by the project each year and how that number has been determined in alignment with the anticipated needs of the partners (p. 39). Without this information, it is difficult to understand the long-term impact the project can have.”

Why this comment is helpful—

This comment addresses the lack of specificity in the application with respect to the required activities of the program. The comment also includes relative page numbers.

Quality of the Project Evaluation

Strengths

“High quality evaluation plan with reputable evaluator who has experience in this type of grant. Good questions.”

Why this comment is not helpful--

High points but the reviewer did not specify why the application was “high quality,” nor is it clear what is meant by “good questions.” It would be helpful if the reviewer had elaborated and specified what components of the evaluation made it “high quality.” Did the measures align with the project goals? Did the applicant consider/describe validity and reliability issues as well as timeline issues?

“Pg. 46 defines responsibilities of external evaluator and provides the name and qualifications. The evaluation plan includes both formative and summative evaluation design that is most likely to produce both qualitative and quantitative data given the instruments and activities that are expected to yield data (pgs. 48 & 49).”

Why this comment is not helpful: -

This reviewer summarized rather than evaluated this section of the application. To improve this comment the reviewer should have specified why these actions were strengths of the application. Did they address a specific requirement? Will the data collection methods make them more effective? These questions should be addressed in complete, concise sentences.

Weaknesses

“Did not fully address the GPRA measures.” (23 of 25 points)

Why this comment is not helpful.

The reviewer did not explain what is meant by “fully” and what was missing with regard to the GPRA measures or provide any page number references.

APPENDICES

Appendix A: 2019 TQP Technical Review Form

Peer Reviewers Must Submit a Technical Review Form for EVERY Application on your assigned panel.

Teacher Quality Partnership (TQP) Grant Review2019 Competition Review

(CFDA) 84.336STechnical Review Signature Form

Panel:      Panel Monitor:     

Applicant:      Reviewer Name:     

PR Award:      

I have reviewed and evaluated the application, assigned scores, and written comments in accordance with the Selection Criteria published in the application notice. I confirm that the scores and written comment on ___________ are mine.

Signature: ____________________________________ Date:      

Name:     

Please mail all Honorarium forms using the return label provided back to Longevity Consulting, Inc. no later than June 21, 2019.

Attn: Longevity Consulting, LLC P.O. Box 73128 Washington, DC 20056

U.S. Department of EducationTeacher Quality Partnership (TQP) Grant Review

2019 TQPApplication Technical Review Form

(CFDA 84.336S)

Applicant Application NumberU336S190 _ _ _

Summary RatingsMaximum Points Score

A. Quality of the Project Design 40

B. Adequacy of Resources 20

C. Quality of Management Plan 20

D. Quality of Project Evaluation 20

Selection Criteria Total Score 100

Competitive Preference Priority #1 5

Total 105

A. Quality of the Project Design (up to 40 points)

The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the proposed project demonstrates a rationale (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)).

(ii) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable.

(iii) The extent to which the proposed project is designed to build capacity and yield results that will extend beyond the period of Federal financial assistance.

(iv) The extent to which the proposed project represents an exceptional approach for meeting statutory purposes and requirements.

(Maximum Points 40) Reader’s Score: _______

Strengths:

Weaknesses:

B. Adequacy of Resources (up to 20 points).

The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the proposed project. In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(i) The adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment, supplies, and other resources, from the applicant organization or the lead applicant organization.

(ii) The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in the proposed project to the implementation and success of the project.

Strengths:

Weaknesses:

C. Quality of the Management Plan (up to 20 points).

The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project. In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers:

(i) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks.

Strengths:

Weaknesses:

(Maximum Points 20) Reader’s Score: _______

D. Quality of the Project Evaluation (up to 20 points).

The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be conducted of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide valid and reliable performance data on relevant outcomes.

(ii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project.

Strengths:

Weaknesses:

(Maximum Points 20) Reader’s Score: _______

I. Competitive Preference Priority 1 (up to 5 points).

Projects designed to improve student achievement or other educational outcomes in computer science by increasing the number of educators adequately prepared to deliver rigorous instruction in STEM fields, including computer science, through recruitment, evidence-based professional development strategies for current STEM educators, or evidence-based retraining strategies for current educators seeking to transition from other subjects to STEM fields.

(Maximum Points 5) Reader’s Score: _______

Strengths:

Weaknesses:

II. Invitational Priority (no additional points will be awarded for this priority).

Spurring Investment in Opportunity Zones.

An applicant may address one or both of the following priority areas:

Propose to serve children or students who reside, or attend TQP project schools, in a qualified opportunity zone as designated by the Secretary of the Treasury under section 1400Z-1 of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (Pub. L. 115-97). In addressing this priority, an applicant must provide the census tract number of the qualified opportunity zone for which it proposes to serve children or students and describe the extent to which the applicant will serve individuals in the Qualified Opportunity Zone(s). OR

Demonstrate in its application that it has received or will receive financial assistance from a qualified opportunity fund under section 1400Z-2 of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, for a purpose directly related to its proposed project. In addressing this priority, an applicant must identify the qualified opportunity fund from which it has received or will receive financial assistance and describe the extent to which the applicant will use the financial assistance for its proposed project.

Strengths:

Weaknesses:

Appendix B: Section 204(a) Accountability and Evaluation and GPRA

Section 204 (a) Accountability and Evaluation (HEA, as amended)

Each eligible partnership submitting an application for a grant under this part shall establish, and include in such application, an evaluation plan that includes strong and measurable performance objectives. The plan shall include objectives and measures for increasing—

‘achievement for all prospective and new teachers, as measured by the eligible partnership;

teacher retention in the first three years of a teacher’s career; ‘improvement in the pass rates and scaled scores for initial State certification or licensure

of teachers; and the percentage of highly qualified teachers hired by the high-need local educational

agency participating in the eligible partnership; the percentage of highly qualified teachers hired by the high-need local educational

agency who are members of underrepresented groups; the percentage of highly qualified teachers hired by the high-need local educational

agency who teach high-need academic subject areas (such as reading, mathematics, science, and

foreign language, including less commonly taught languages and critical foreign languages);

the percentage of highly qualified teachers hired by the high-need local educational agency who teach in high-need areas (including special education, language instruction educational programs for limited English proficient students, and early childhood education);

the percentage of highly qualified teachers hired by the high-need local educational agency who teach in high-need schools, disaggregated by the elementary school and secondary school levels;

as applicable, the percentage of early childhood education program classes in the geographic area served by the eligible partnership taught by early childhood educators who are highly competent; and

as applicable, the percentage of teachers trained to integrate technology effectively into curricula and instruction, including technology consistent with the principles of universal design for learning; and to use technology effectively to collect, manage, and analyze data to improve teaching and learning for the purpose of improving student academic achievement.

Teacher Quality Partnership ProgramGovernment Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Measures

Performance Measures: The goal of the TQP program is to increase student achievement in K-12 schools by developing teachers who meet applicable State certification, including any requirements for certification obtained through alternative routes to certification, and licensure requirements. Under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), the following measures will be used by the Department to evaluate the overall effectiveness of the grantee’s project, as well as the TQP program as a whole:

1.) Performance Measure 1: Certification/Licensure. The percentage of program graduates who have attained initial State certification/licensure by passing all necessary licensure/certification assessments within one year of program completion.

2.) Performance Measure 2: STEM Graduation. The percentage of math/science program graduates that attain initial certification/licensure by passing all necessary licensure/certification assessments within one year of program completion.

3.) Performance Measure 3: One-Year Persistence. The percentage of program participants who were enrolled in the postsecondary program in the previous grant reporting period, did not graduate, and persisted in the postsecondary program in the current grant reporting period.

4.) Performance Measure 4: One-Year Employment Retention. The percentage of program completers who were employed for the first time as teachers of record in the preceding year by the partner high-need LEA or ECE program and were retained for the current school year.

5.) Performance Measure 5: Three-Year Employment Retention. The percentage of program completers who were employed by the partner high-need LEA or ECE program for three consecutive years after initial employment.

6.) Performance Measure 6: Student Learning. The percentage of grantees that report improved aggregate learning outcomes of students taught by new teachers. These data can be calculated using student growth, a teacher evaluation measure, or both. (This measure is optional and not required as part of GPRA reporting.)

7.) Efficiency Measure: The Federal cost per program completer. (This data will not be available until the final year of the project period.)Note: If funded, grantees will be asked to collect and report data on these measures in their project's annual performance reports (34 CFR 75.590).

Appendix C: Compensation Agreement

AGREEMENT FOR GRANT APPLICATION REVIEWERS WHO RECEIVE COMPENSATION

Freedom of Information Act

I understand that under the Freedom of Information Act the Department may release my reviews verbatim to the public. The Department may also release individual reviewers' names in conformance with the Department's disclosure policy, but generally will not identify an individual reviewer with a particular review. However, to avoid complicating the release of reviews, I agree not to make comments which could be seen as offensive or constitute an invasion of privacy of any individual.

Confidentiality of Documents and Restriction on Contact

I agree that assistance applications are made available to grant application reviewers solely for the purpose of reviewing those applications against the Selection Criteria of the grant program.

I also agree not to discuss the information, concepts, and procedures contained in the applications outside the Department during or after the review process, and to discuss them within the Department only with the panel members and in the context of and under the procedures for application review. I agree to follow the written instructions provided by the Department for the completion of technical review forms. I also agree to return the applications to the Department or dispose of them if so instructed. I agree to retain no copies of documents or parts of documents related to this review.

I agree not to contact the originator of the application being reviewed concerning any aspects of its contents.

Conflict of Interest

I certify to the best of my knowledge I do not have a conflict of interest with respect to any of the applications being considered for this competition.

I understand that I will be considered to have a “conflict of interest” when I, or certain individuals and entities with whom I have a relationship, have a financial interest in the outcome of this competition.

For example, I will have a direct conflict of interest in this competition if:

For an application submitted to this competition, I have agreed to serve as an employee or consultant on the project, or have been offered the opportunity to do so and have not yet accepted or declined, if a grant is awarded, or if my personal financial interests will otherwise be affected by the outcome of the competition; or

I helped prepare an application in the competition, even if I have no financial interest in the success or failure of that application.

I will also have a conflict of interest if certain entities or individuals I have a relationship with have a financial interest in the outcome of the competition. For example, I will have a conflict of interest if any of the following would benefit financially in any way from an application in the competition being funded:

My spouse, my child, a member of my household, or any relative with whom I have a close relationship;

Any employer I have served within the last 12 months, my business partner, an organization that I have served as an officer, director, or trustee within the last 12 months, or an organization that I serve as an active volunteer;

Any person or organization with whom I am negotiating or have an arrangement concerning future employment;

Any professional associate, including any colleague, scientific mentor, or student, with whom I am currently conducting research or other professional activities or with whom I have conducted such activities within the last twelve months; or

Any individual with whom I have or have had a personal relationship where the nature, duration or recency of that relationship would impair my ability to impartially review any application in the competition.

The above is a list of examples, only. This list is not exhaustive. Therefore, I will also promptly notify the appropriate Program Official if I become aware of any other circumstances that might cause someone to question my impartiality in serving as a reviewer for this competition. I further agree to promptly notify the appropriate Program Official if, while reviewing the applications assigned to me, I discover that I may have a conflict of interest.

Agreement on Scope of Work

A. Before reviewing and scoring any application, I will carefully read all instructions to reviewers, priorities (if applicable), regulations, criteria, and the technical review forms, all of which will be made available to me by the appropriate Program Official;

B.   I will carefully review and score all applications provided to me; C. I will score each application solely on its content and the degree to which the application

meets the appropriate priorities and criteria; andD. I will complete a technical review form for each application, record the scores in the space(s)

provided, sign and date the form, and return it to the appropriate Program Official.E. I understand that my comments and scores will be shared with the applicants and I agree to

develop and present my comments and scores in a manner consistent with those expected of educated professionals.

Printed or Typed Name of Reviewer Signature of Reviewer

Date

ED Form 5249

Appendix D: Honorarium Form

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for agreeing to serve as a reviewer in the 2019 Teacher Quality Partnership (TQP) Competition peer review. Please review the guidelines and procedures for honorarium payment.

H onorarium P a y m e n t G u idel i n e s

After all peer review responsibilities have been met, you will be eligible to receive your honorarium payment. Participants that satisfy the requirements in totality will receive an honorarium in the amount of $200.00 per application successfully reviewed. A completed and signed honorarium form must be submitted to Team Longevity (TL) to process and release your payment. Participants are required to complete the below responsibilities prior to payment:

Complete, sign and submit ED Form 5249 by Friday, May 24, 2019; Participate in all scheduled panel calls; Upload comments and scores for each assigned application into the Department of Education (ED) G5

system; Work to finalize all reviewer comments and submit scores in G5 by Monday, June 17, 2019, 4:30pm EDT

(note that all comments and scores must be verified and approved by ED); Once all comments and scores are uploaded in G5 and approved by ED, send your completed and

signed honorarium form using the pre-paid postage provided by Team Longevity by Friday, June 21, 2019;

Return signed and completed forms to Team Longevity via one of the following options:o Email: tqp@longevityconsulting.como Fax: (800) 409-1892o Mail: Longevity Consulting, LLC, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 1225, Washington, DC

20004You may use the pre-paid postage that will be emailed to you by the end of the peer review

You will receive honorarium payment by check within 30 days once your completed forms are received by Longevity Consulting, LLC and your comments and scores are approved by ED. Checks are scheduled to be mailed by Friday, June 28, 2019. On behalf of Team Longevity and ED staff, we want to thank you for serving as a peer review participant, and we look forward to working with you. If you have any additional questions regarding honorarium, please contact Team Longevity at tqp@longevityconsulting.com.

Sincerely,

Team LongevityTQP Peer Review Contractor

Honorarium Form FY 2019 TQP Competition Peer Review

REVI

EWER

INFO

RMAT

ION Name:

Dates Participated:

Phone: Email:

(Provide a brief description of the work performed)

REVI

EWER

PAY

MEN

T NF

ORM

ATIO

N

Reviewer SSN or TIN:

Address Where Payment Should be Sent:

Honorarium Amount:

I understand that this information will be used by Team Longevity to generate a form 1099-MISC for tax-reporting purposesand will be regarded as confidential. My signature below indicates that all information above is correct. Please send my check and form 1099-MISC to the address listed under Reviewer Payment Information.

ReviewerSignature:_____ _____________________________________________ Date:_______________________***Signature is required to confirm and process payment

FOR OFFICE USE EM PMAPPROVAL: APPROVAL:

Team Longevity1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 1225

Washington, DC 20004Fax: 800-409-1892

Email: tqp@longevityconsulting.com

Appendix E: TQP Optional Absolute Priority Checklist

Effective Teaching Residency Programs (Teacher Residency Program)Applicants are strongly encouraged to use the checklist below to indicate the option used to support eligibility and the page of where it can be found in the application. Applicants must respond to the Absolute Priority. Applicants must address each component of this priority as listed below. To ensure the application meets all priority requirements and that reviewers and Department staff can locate this information in the application, the Department strongly encourages the applicant to use the checklist below and to indicate the page number(s) where each component is located in the program narrative.Page Number

(a)____,

(b)____

(c)___

(1)____(2)____(3)____

(4)___

(I) GENERAL. Under this priority, an eligible partnership must carry out an effective teaching residency program that includes all of the following activities:(a) Supporting a teaching residency program described in paragraph II(a) for high-need subjects and areas, as determined by the needs of the high-need LEA in the partnership;

(b) Placing graduates of the teaching residency program in cohorts that facilitate professional collaboration, both among graduates of the teaching residency program and between such graduates and mentor teachers in the receiving school;

(c) Ensuring that teaching residents who participate in the teaching residency program receive—

(1) Effective pre-service preparation as described in paragraph II;(2) Teacher mentoring; (3) Support required through the induction program as the teaching residents enter the classroom as new teachers; and(4) The preparation described in paragraphs (c)(i), (ii), and (iii) Clinical Experience and Interaction in the Absolute Priority.

(a)____

(1)____(2)____

(3)____

(II) REQUIRED COMPONENTS OF TEACHING RESIDENCY PROGRAMS.

(a) Establishment and design. A teaching residency program under this priority is one that also is based upon models of successful teaching residencies that serves as a mechanism to prepare teachers for success in the high-need schools in the eligible partnership, and designed to include the following characteristics of successful programs:

(1) The integration of pedagogy, classroom practice, and teacher mentoring;(2) Engagement of teaching residents in rigorous graduate-level course work leading to a master’s degree while undertaking a guided teaching apprenticeship;(3) Experience and learning opportunities alongside a trained and experienced mentor teacher--

(i)____

(ii)____

(iii)___

(4)____

(i)____

(ii)____(iii)____(iv)____

(v)____

(5)____

(6)____(i)____

(ii)____

(7)___

(i) Whose teaching shall complement the residency program so that classroom clinical practice is tightly aligned with coursework;(ii) Who shall have extra responsibilities as a teacher leader of the teaching residency program, as a mentor for residents, and as a teacher coach during the induction program for new teachers; and for establishing, within the program, a learning community in which all individuals are expected to continually improve their capacity to advance student learning; and(iii) Who may be relieved from teaching duties as a result of such additional responsibilities;

(4) The establishment of clear criteria for the selection of mentor teachers based on measures of teacher effectiveness and the appropriate subject area knowledge. Evaluation of teacher effectiveness shall be based on, but not limited to, observations of the following--

(i) Planning and preparation, including demonstrated knowledge of content, pedagogy, and assessment, including the use of formative and diagnostic assessments to improve student learning;(ii) Appropriate instruction that engages students with different learning styles;(iii) Collaboration with colleagues to improve instruction;(iv) Analysis of gains in student learning, based on multiple measures that are valid and reliable and that, when feasible, may include valid, reliable, and objective measures of the influence of teachers on the rate of student academic progress; and(v) In the case of mentor candidates who will be mentoring new or prospective literacy and mathematics coaches or instructors, appropriate skills in the essential components of reading instruction, teacher training in literacy instructional strategies across core subject areas, and teacher training in mathematics instructional strategies, as appropriate;

(5) Grouping of teaching residents in cohorts to facilitate professional collaboration among such residents;

(6) The development of admissions goals and priorities--(i) That are aligned with the hiring objectives of the LEA partnering with the program, as well as the instructional initiatives and curriculum of such agency, in exchange for a commitment by such agency to hire qualified graduates from the teaching residency program; and(ii) Which may include consideration of applicants that reflect the communities in which they will teach as well as consideration of individuals from underrepresented populations in the teaching profession; (7) Support for residents, once the teaching residents are hired as teachers of record, through an induction program, professional development, and networking opportunities to support the residents through not less than the residents’ first two years of teaching.

(b)____(1)____

(i)____

(b) Selection of individuals as teaching residents.(1) Eligible Individual. In order to be eligible to be a teaching resident in a teaching residency program under this priority, an individual shall—-(i) Be a recent graduate of a four-year institution of higher education or a mid-career professional from outside the field of education possessing strong content knowledge or a record of professional accomplishment; and

(ii)____

(2)____

(i)____

(ii)____

(iii)____,

(ii) Submit an application to the teaching residency program.

(2) Selection Criteria for Participants. An eligible partnership carrying out a teaching residency program under this priority shall establish criteria for the selection of eligible individuals to participate in the teaching residency program based on the following characteristics--(i) Strong content knowledge or record of accomplishment in the field or subject area to be taught;

(ii) Strong verbal and written communication skills, which may be demonstrated by performance on appropriate tests; and

(iii) Other attributes linked to effective teaching, which may be determined by interviews or performance assessments, as specified by the eligible partnership.

(1)____,

(2)____,

(3)____

(i)____,,

(ii)____,

(iii)____,

(iv)____,

(v)____,

(1)____,

(c) Stipends or salaries; applications; agreements; repayments.

(1) Stipends or salaries. A teaching residency program under this priority shall provide a one-year living stipend or salary to teaching residents during the teaching residency program;

(2) Applications for stipends or salaries. Each teacher residency candidate desiring a stipend or salary during the period of residency shall submit an application to the eligible partnership at such time, and containing such information and assurances, as the eligible partnership may require;

(3) Agreements to serve. Each application submitted under paragraph (c)(2) of this priority shall contain or be accompanied by an agreement that the applicant will—

(i) Serve as a full-time teacher for a total of not less than three academic years immediately after successfully completing the teaching residency program;(ii) Fulfill the requirement under paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this priority by teaching in a high-need school served by the high-need LEA in the eligible partnership and teach a subject or area that is designated as high-need by the partnership;(iii) Provide to the eligible partnership a certificate, from the chief administrative officer of the LEA in which the resident is employed, of the employment required under paragraph (c)(3)(i) and (ii) of this priority at the beginning of, and upon completion of, each year or partial year of service;(iv) Meet the applicable State certification and licensure requirements, including any requirements for certification obtained through alternative routes to certification, or, with regard to special education teachers, the qualifications described in section 612(a)(14)(C) of the IDEA, when the applicant begins to fulfill the service obligation under this provision; and

(v) Comply with the requirements set by the eligible partnership under paragraph II-(d) of this priority if the applicant is unable or unwilling to complete the service obligation required by the paragraph.

(d) Repayments.

(1) In general. A grantee carrying out a teaching residency program under this priority shall require a recipient of a stipend or salary under paragraph (c)(1) of this priority who does not complete, or who

(2)____,

(3)____,

notifies the partnership that the recipient intends not to complete, the service obligation required by paragraph (c)(3) of this priority to repay such stipend or salary to the eligible partnership, together with interest, at a rate specified by the partnership in the agreement, and in accordance with such other terms and conditions specified by the eligible partnership, as necessary;

(2) Other terms and conditions. Any other terms and conditions specified by the eligible partnership may include reasonable provisions for pro rata repayment of the stipend or salary described in paragraph (c)(1) of this priority or for deferral of a teaching resident’s service obligation required by paragraph (c)(3) of this priority, on grounds of health, incapacitation, inability to secure employment in a school served by the eligible partnership, being called to active duty in the Armed Forces of the United States, or other extraordinary circumstances;

(3) Use of repayments. An eligible partnership shall use any repayment received under paragraph (d) to carry out additional activities that are consistent with the purposes of this priority.

Appendix F: TQP Applicant Eligibility Screening Form

TQP Application Eligibility Screening FormInstructions: For an applicant to be considered eligible for a TQP award, all program requirements included below must be met. Each panel member (peer reviewers and panel monitor) must complete this form for each application that has been assigned to the panel for review prior to the panel discussion. Use the OPTIONAL Program Checklists submitted by the applicant to locate the information in the application. If the applicant did not submit the Optional Program Checklists, the panel should review the application to verify where this information is found. During the panel discussion, the panel should discuss the results of this application eligibility screening form for consistency across the panel. If there is eligibility information that cannot be found or is questionable in the application, the panel monitor should contact Mia Howerton as soon as possible.

PR Award Number: U336S190__________

Applicant Name: ______________________________________________

Who is the Lead Applicant? IHE LEA Non-profit Other ______________

Panel Monitor Only:

Did the applicant include a GEPA Statement? YES NO

Does GEPA Statement include both a Barrier and a Solution? YES NO

General Application Requirements: Verify that the information in the list below has been included in the application. If the applicant has submitted the Optional TQP General Application and Program Requirements Checklist, you may want to reference the checklist to locate the information below within the application.

Needs Assessment: (Appendix C)

Description of Program

Description of Induction Activities

Description of Coordination Strategies and alignment w/ State and Student Achievement

Assessment of Resources

Description of Evaluation Plan

Yes/No _________________

Pg. ________________

Pg. _________________

Pg. _____________

Pg. ________________

Pg. ________________

Panel Monitor Only:High-Need LEA Verification: (Both Poverty or Rural Status Data and Teacher Need are required.) Verify that the information in the list below has been included in the application. If the applicant has submitted the Optional TQP High-Need LEA AND High-Need School Checklist, you may want to reference the checklist to locate the information within the application.

Poverty/Rural Status Data (At least one is needed.)

Data showing LEA serves 20% or more children from low income families

Data showing LEA serves 10,000 or more children from low income families

LEA is eligible for ESEA’s Small, Rural School Achievement Program

LEA is eligible for ESEA’s Rural and Low-Income School Program

Data Source and Year Data Provided

Teacher Need Data (At least one is needed.)

High percentage of teachers not teaching in the academic subject areas or grade levels in which the teachers were trained to teach

High teacher turnover rate

High percentage of teachers with emergency, provisional, or temporary certification or licensure

Data Source and Year Percentage Provided

How many high-need LEAs is the applicant proposing to partner with in this application? ___________

Are any of the partner LEAs not high need? Yes No If yes, please list them below.

Panel Monitor Only:High-Need School Verification: (Must include for at least ONE high-need school at the time of application.) Verify that the information in the list below has been included in the application. If the applicant has submitted the Optional TQP High-Need LEA AND High-Need School Checklist, you may want to reference the checklist to locate the information within the application. High-Need School within the LEA

In highest quartile of schools in LEA using Free and Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) data

Elementary Schools - 60% or more of students eligible for FRPL

Not an Elementary School - 45% or more of students eligible for FRPL

Data Source and Year Percentage Provided

Is the applicant partnering with at least one High-Need school within the High-Need LEA(s)?

Yes No Not Included

Partner IHE Eligibility Verify that the information in the list below has been included in the application. If the applicant has submitted the Optional TQP Eligible Partnership AND Partner IHE Verification Checklist, you may want to reference the checklist to locate the information within the application. “Partner institution” from Section 200(17) of the HEA means an IHE, which may include a two-year IHE offering a dual program with a partner four-year IHE, participating in an eligible partnership that has a teacher preparation program--

(i) Whose graduates exhibit strong performance on State determined qualifying assessments for new teachers through--Page _______

(A)  Demonstrating that 80 percent or more of the graduates of the program who intend to enter the field of teaching have passed all of the applicable State qualification assessments for new teachers, which shall include an assessment of each prospective teacher’s subject matter knowledge in the content area in which the teacher intends to teach; or

(B) Being ranked among the highest-performing teacher preparation programs in the State as determined by the State--Page _______

(1)  Using criteria consistent with the requirements for the State Report Card under section 205(b) of the HEA before the first publication of the report card; and

Page _______

(2)  Using the State report card on teacher preparation required under section 205(b), after the first publication of such report card and for every year thereafter; and

(ii) That requires--Page _______

(A)  Each student in the program to meet high academic standards or demonstrate a record of success, as determined by the institution (including prior to entering and being accepted into a program), and participate in intensive clinical experience;

Page _______

(B)  Each student in the program preparing to become a teacher who meets applicable State certification and licensure requirements; and

Page _______

(C)  Each student in the program preparing to become an early childhood educator to meet degree requirements, as established by the State, and become highly competent.

Note: For purposes of paragraph (ii)(C) of this definition, the term “highly competent,” under section 200(12) of the HEA, when used with respect to an early childhood educator, means an educator-- (a) With specialized education and training in development and education of young children from birth until entry into kindergarten; (b) With–- (i) A baccalaureate degree in an academic major in the arts and sciences; or (ii) An associate degree in a related educational area; and (c) Who has demonstrated a high level of knowledge and use of content and pedagogy in the relevant areas associated with quality ECE.

RECOMMENDATION:

Applicant meets all eligibility requirements. Applicant meets eligibility requirements but did not include a GEPA

Statement. Applicant did not meet the following eligibility requirements: (List the

requirements that were not met below.)

The information provided is unclear and a decision on eligibility decision cannot be made.

TQP Panel Monitor ______________________________(Signature and date)

TQP Competition Manager ______________________________ (Signature and date)