community models for helping teachers deepen content ...initiativ… · funding focus (initiative...

FY2015 ITQ Request for Proposals INITIATIVE GRANTS:

Arizona Board of Regents 2020 North Central Avenue, Suite 230

Phoenix, AZ 85004-4593

www.azregents.edu

The Arizona Board of Regents Announces

Improving Teacher Quality (ITQ)

FY2015 Request for Proposals and Application Guidelines

REV. 1-30-2015

INITIATIVE GRANTS

Community Models for Helping Teachers

Deepen Content Knowledge

and Strengthen Classroom Practice

in Core Academic Areas

Funded by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, ESEA Title II, Part A

________________________________________________

Letter of Intent to Apply Due Date: Feb. 27, 2015

ABSOLUTE Proposal Due Date: May 1, 2015

Award(s) Announced: As selected

Funding Start Date: Immediately upon selection

Project End Date: On or before Sept. 30, 2016

Contact: Maryn Boess Grants Program Manager Arizona Board of Regents [email protected] 602-882-3025 (cell)


CONTENTS 1. FY2015 ITQ INITIATIVE GRANTS: Key Facts at a Glance ................................................................. 3 2. ABOUT THIS REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS ....................................................................................... 5 3. FEDERAL STATUTORY OVERVIEW ................................................................................................... 5 4. PROJECT REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................................................. 6 5. INVITATIONAL PRIORITY .................................................................................................................... 7 6. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT APPROACHES AND ELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES ............................. 7 7. PROJECT PARTNERS AND PARTNERSHIPS ................................................................................... 8 A. Statutorily Required Partners ........................................................................................................... 8 B. Additional Partners ........................................................................................................................... 9 C. LEA Administrative Participation and Commitment ......................................................................... 9 D. Private Schools as Participating Partners ...................................................................................... 10 E. Lead Applicant, Fiscal Agent, and Coordinating Partner ............................................................... 10 F. 50% Special Rule – Single Partner Use of Funds ......................................................................... 10 7. ADDITIONAL FY2015 PROJECT DETAILS ....................................................................................... 11 A. Funding .................................................................................................................................... 11 B. Proposal Development and Review Timeline ................................................................................ 11 C. Letter of Intent to Apply ................................................................................................................. 12 8. PROJECT EVALUATION AND REPORTING ..................................................................................... 12 A. Required Independent External Evaluation ................................................................................... 12 B. The Proposal’s Evaluation Plan ..................................................................................................... 12 C. Project Reporting ........................................................................................................................... 12 9. PROJECT BUDGET ............................................................................................................................ 13 A. Preparing the Budget Documents .................................................................................................. 13 B. Key Budget Elements ..................................................................................................................... 13 C. Line-Item Budget: Explanation of Items ......................................................................................... 14 D. Budget Justification ........................................................................................................................ 16 10. HOW PROPOSALS WILL BE REVIEWED ........................................................................................ 17 A. Proposal Review Team .................................................................................................................. 17 B. Proposal Scoring Criteria ............................................................................................................... 17 C. “Rolling Review” ............................................................................................................................. 18 11. PROPOSAL CONTENTS AND FORMAT ........................................................................................... 19 A. Proposal Checklist ......................................................................................................................... 19 B. Introductory Material ...................................................................................................................... 20 C. Project Narrative ............................................................................................................................ 21 D. Budget Documents ......................................................................................................................... 23 E. Attachments and Assurances ........................................................................................................ 23 F. Other Attachments ......................................................................................................................... 24 APPENDIX: ARIZONA HIGH-NEED LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCIES (LEAs) ................................ 25-29


1. FY2015 ITQ INITIATIVE GRANTS: Key Facts at a Glance

Contacts: For questions regarding this Request For Proposals or the FY2015 ITQ grants process,

contact Maryn Boess, Grants Program Manager, Arizona Board of Regents, at [email protected], or (602) 882-3025 (cell).

For questions regarding Arizona’s College and Career Ready Standards, current Arizona

Department of Education professional development efforts, and other topics specific to the focus of this RFP, please contact Beth Driscoll, Arizona Department of Education Educator Excellence,

at [email protected], or (602) 364-2191.

Concurrent Granting Processes for FY2015: A total of $1,237,000 is available for Arizona’s

FY2015 ITQ project grants. This year, we will be distributing these funds through two concurrent granting processes.

• Initiative Grants (this RFP): Approximately $237,000 is available for Initiative Grants, which are smaller, more tightly focused projects initiated and delivered by faculty within a degree-granting college of arts and science. The remainder of this document relates specifically and exclusively to the Initiative Grants program.

• Leverage Grants (separate RFP): Approximately $1,000,000 is available for Leverage Grants, which are large-scale, collaborative projects initiated by and implemented through an Institution of Higher Education’s college of teacher education. Please see separate Request For Proposals for details about the Leverage Grants program and instructions for preparing a proposal.

Funding Focus (Initiative Grants): Community Models for Helping Teachers Deepen Content Knowledge and Strengthen Classroom Practice in Core Academic Areas

Initiative Awards are comparatively small, focused projects designed to deliver high-quality, intensive professional development to in-service K-12 teachers in the core academic areas. The awards afford the opportunity for university/college faculty, in collaboration with other community members, to test and apply best-practices approaches and professional development models to deepen classroom teachers’ content-area expertise and strengthen classroom effectiveness. Preference will be given to projects:

• Which serve primarily high-poverty, high-need school districts; and/or

• In which principals or other school instructional leaders are included in the professional development approach (PDA).1

Size of Awards: In general, we expect Initiative Grants to be between $50,000 and $100,000, though

smaller and larger awards will be considered depending on scale and scope. Notices of Award: Proposals will be reviewed as they are received, and applicants will be notified of

the review team’s decision within three weeks of receipt.

1 Throughout this document the terms “professional development approach” and “PDA” are used interchangeable to refer to the specific program of professional development to be planned, created, implemented, and evaluated through this funding opportunity.


Please Get in Touch Early!

As soon as you know you might want to develop an Initiative Grants project, please get in touch with Maryn Boess, ABOR Grants Program Manager, at (602) 882-3025 or [email protected]. We can talk over your ideas informally and start the process of building out a successful project – before you and your team have invested a great deal of time and energy. The sequence is:

1. Call or email Maryn for an informal planning and brainstorming discussion. 2. Submit “Letter of Intent to Apply.” 3. Submit full proposal.

Project Start Date: Immediately upon selection for award, but no later than July 1, 2015 Project End Date: At proposers’ discretion, but no later than Sept. 30, 2016. Submission Deadlines:

Rolling-Review Process: Proposals for Initiative Grants will be reviewed as they are received, and successful projects can begin as soon as the award is made official. We strongly encourage you to develop, finalize, and submit your materials as early as you can, rather than waiting until the absolute deadline. Absolute Deadlines: Given this rolling-review process, all materials must be received on or before the following absolute deadlines in order to be considered:

• The “Letter of Intent to Apply” (see page 12) must be received by email no later than 4 pm February 27, 2015. You are encouraged to submit earlier.

• Full proposals must be received both in hard copy and electronically no later than 4 pm May 1, 2015. You are encouraged to submit earlier.

How to Submit Your Proposal: Your proposal must be submitted in BOTH hard-copy AND electronic form:

1. One original paper version of the complete proposal, including all required signatures, forms, and attachments, in the format specified in this RFP. Send or deliver to:

FY2015 ITQ Grants Attn: Maryn Boess, Grants Program Manager Arizona Board of Regents 2020 N. Central Ave., Suite 230 Phoenix, AZ 85004

2. One electronic copy of the complete proposal by email to Maryn Boess at [email protected]. Your emailed submission must include all forms and attachments, but signatures are not required. Please clearly identify each emailed file with the lead applicant’s name.


2. ABOUT THIS REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

It is the proposer’s responsibility to read and review the following Request For Proposals thoroughly. The RFP is intended to provide clear, detailed guidance to prospective proposers for planning strong, well-founded projects that are in alignment with the goals for FY2015 ITQ funding, and for preparing complete and competitive proposals. Please do not hesitate to contact Maryn Boess, Arizona Board of Regents Grants Program Manager, with any questions about the FY2015 ITQ grant program or this Request for Proposals. Phone: 602-882-3025. Email: [email protected].

3. FEDERAL STATUTORY OVERVIEW

A. Background In January 2002, President George W. Bush signed into law the reauthorization of the

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 under the new name of the No Child Left

Behind Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-110, NCLB). The Improving Teacher Quality (ITQ) grant

programs are a major component of NCLB legislation to encourage scientifically-based

professional development as a means for improving student academic performance. Under the

NCLB legislation (Title II, Part A), funds are available for state agencies for higher education

(SAHEs) to support partnerships intended to increase academic achievement of students in core

subjects by enhancing the content knowledge and teaching skills of classroom teachers. Core

subjects are defined as:

• Arts

• Music

• Civics and government

• Economics

• English

• Foreign languages

• Geography

• History

• Mathematics

• Reading or language arts

• Science

The Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR) is the State Agency for Higher Education (SAHE) for

Arizona. ABOR and the Arizona Department of Education (ADE), working together, are

authorized to use these funds for subgrants to competitive, eligible partnerships between an

institution of higher education with a teacher preparation program; a school of arts and sciences;

and high-need school districts. Partnerships must focus on implementing professional

development strategies that have been demonstrated by scientific research to be effective in

increasing student academic achievement. Partnerships must use funds to conduct professional

development activities in the core academic subjects to ensure that:

• Teachers, highly-qualified paraprofessionals, and principals have subject-matter

knowledge in subjects they teach (including knowledge of computer-related technology

to enhance student learning); and/or

• Principals have the instructional leadership to help them work most effectively with

teachers to help students master core academic subjects.


In selecting its ITQ grantees, ABOR takes very seriously its statutory responsibility to “support

projects that will have the greatest impact on helping Local Education Agencies – and

particularly high-need LEAs – ensure that all teachers are highly qualified and have the

knowledge and teaching skills they need to help all students achieve to high standards” (Item F-

8, “Improving Teacher Quality State Grants – Non-Regulatory Guidance,” U.S. Department of

Education).

B. Federal Regulations

Arizona’s ITQ funding process, and the implementation and administration of all ITQ grant

awards, are subject to the regulations contained in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (P.L.

107-110, NCLB), Title II, Part A. Proposals should be prepared with the NCLB regulatory

provisions in mind, and successful proposers will be contractually required to conduct their

projects in accordance with the Federal regulatory authority.

This Request For Proposals contains the major Federal regulatory provisions currently governing

ITQ grants. Prospective grantees are responsible for becoming familiar with, understanding, and

working in accordance with all the applicable Federal regulations.

• Public Law 107-110, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: For the complete text of

the law, see: http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html.

• No Child Left Behind Title II, Part A: “Teacher and Principal Training and

Recruiting Fund” (Improving Teacher Quality): For the NCLB regulations specific to

the Improving Teacher Quality State Grants program, see:

http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg20.html.

• Improving Teacher Quality State Grants Non-Regulatory Guidance: This non-

regulatory guidance issued by the U.S. Department of Education (rev. Oct. 5, 2006)

explains in plain-language detail how Title II, Part A funds can be effectively and

correctly used to ensure that all teachers are qualified and effective. See:

http://www.ed.gov/programs/teacherqual/guidance.doc.

4. PROJECT REQUIREMENTS

To be considered for an Initiative Grant, a project must clearly and specifically meet ALL of the following requirements:

1. The project must meet the statutory requirements set out in this RFP;

2. The project must directly address the funding focus stated for this RFP;

3. The project must be initiated by and under the direction of faculty within a degree-granting college of arts and science, with the sponsorship and support of the college;

4. The faculty project director must be teamed with at least one individual within an IHE teacher education program to meet on a regular basis to assure that content focus and pedagogical training are aligned, and that lessons learned from the in-the-field project are shared with the IHE’s pre-service program.


5. The proposal must demonstrate and document familiarity with professional development

currently being provided for Arizona in-service teachers and principals in AZCCRS for math, science, or English/language arts, and describe how the proposed PDA builds on and/or supplements existing efforts, rather than duplicating or supplanting them.

5. INVITATIONAL PRIORITY

The FY2015 ITQ Initiative Grants review team especially welcomes and invites proposals for projects that include school principals, assistant principals, and other instructional leaders in a meaningful way as participants in the PDA. This is not mandatory. However, projects that do incorporate instructional leaders will be given special consideration in the review process.

6. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT APPROACHES AND ELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES

A. Overall Program Focus

In general, ITQ partnerships must use funds to conduct professional development activities in the

core academic subjects to ensure that teachers, highly-qualified paraprofessionals, and principals

have subject-matter knowledge in subjects they teach, including the use of technology to enhance

instruction. These partnerships are intended to focus on implementing professional development

strategies that have been demonstrated by scientific research to be effective in increasing student

academic achievement.

The core academic subjects are:

• Arts

• Music

• Civics and government

• Economics

• English

• Foreign languages

• Geography

• History

• Mathematics

• Reading or language arts

• Science

B. Eligible Professional Development Approaches

Grant activities must be clearly focused on professional development strategies that have been

demonstrated by scientific research to be effective in increasing student academic achievement in

the core subjects by enhancing the content knowledge and teaching skills of classroom teachers.

As set forth by NCLB Title IX, Section 9101(23), eligible professional development approaches

are those that:

• Improve and increase teachers’ knowledge of the academic subject they teach;


• Are an integral part of broad school-wide and district-wide educational improvement

plans;

• Give teachers, principals, and administrators the knowledge and skills to provide students

with the opportunity to meet challenging state content standards;

• Improve classroom management skills;

• Are high quality, sustained, intensive, and classroom focused;

• Are not one-day or short-term workshops or conferences;

• Advance teacher understanding of effective instructional strategies that are scientifically

based and improve student academic achievement;

• Are aligned with state content standards and curricula tied to these standards;

• Are developed with extensive participation of teachers, principals, parents, and

administrators;

• Are regularly evaluated for their impact on increased teacher effectiveness and improved

student achievement. Within these guidelines, possible formats for professional development activities include, but are

not limited to:

• Institutes

• Seminars

• Online programs

• Intense summer and year-long courses

• Mentoring

• Teacher exchanges.

7. PROJECT PARTNERS AND PARTNERSHIPS

A. Statutorily Required Partners By Federal statute, all ITQ projects must reflect a true collaboration involving at a minimum the following three entities:

1. An institution of higher education (IHE) that has an approved teacher preparation unit: For FY2015 Leverage Grants, the statutory IHE teacher preparation unit must also serve as the lead applicant and the Coordinating Partner (see p. 10).

• For FY2015, please use Attachment B, “Partners’ Commitment Document,” to detail the specific role(s) the statutory IHE teacher education program will fulfill to support and enhance partnership activities.

2. A degree-granting school or division of arts and sciences within an institution of higher

education: For FY2015, this is defined as an academic unit within an IHE that offers an academic major in any of the core academic areas.

• For FY2015, please use Attachment B, “Partners’ Commitment Document,” to detail the specific role(s) the statutory IHE school of arts and sciences will fulfill to support and enhance partnership activities.


3. At least one high-need local education agency (LEA): For a list of Arizona LEAs that meet the statutory “high-need LEA” standard, please see Appendix, “Arizona LEAs by High Poverty,” pages 25-29.

• For FY2015, please use Attachment B, “Partners’ Commitment Document,” to detail the role(s) of the statutory high-need LEA partner.

B. Additional Partners

Preference will be given to projects that involve meaningful partnerships beyond the statutorily

required partners described above. These additional partners may include any of the following:

• Other LEAs (the majority of which must be “high-need” according to the definition

above)

• Public or private K-12 schools (especially charter schools)

• Additional IHEs

• Businesses

• Nonprofit organizations

• Community organizations

• Tribal entities

C. LEA Administrative Participation and Commitment The most successful ITQ projects are those in which both school and district administrators are deeply and integrally involved in planning the project and are engaged in ongoing leadership of the project. To address this issue proactively, the ITQ Advisory Council builds up-front and ongoing LEA administrative participation into the structure of all ITQ projects by requiring that proposals demonstrate that:

1. Principals and district administrators will participate, up front, in identifying the ITQ-related needs within their LEAs, identifying the underlying causes and conditions, and designing strategies to address these issues successfully.

2. The project presents a formal structure for project leaders and administrators from all partners to

meet regularly for ongoing dialogue, oversight, review and project support.

3. The project plan includes a training/orientation session for administrators at the project start.

4. The LEA administrator(s) understand that they are expected to support the project partnership to the greatest degree possible to enhance the experience for participants. For instance: Assist with identifying and recruiting teachers and principals who can benefit from the program; provide detailed teacher and/or student data to the partnership; supply materials for participant use; link ITQ content to individual principals’ professional development plans; provide time for principals to meet and plan; meet with other administrators and teacher partners to assess future professional development needs, etc.


D. Private Schools as Participating Partners Federal statutes require that any private K-12 school(s) located within the geographic boundaries of partnering LEAs must be offered the opportunity to participate as partners in the proposed ITQ project. Your proposal must document sincere efforts to engage eligible private K-12 as project partners. E. Lead Applicant, Fiscal Agent, and Coordinating Partner The statutory IHE teacher/leader preparation partner will serve as the project’s lead applicant and fiscal agent. This organization will also serve as the project’s designated Coordinating Partner. The Coordinating Partner agrees to fulfill the following coordinating roles on behalf of the project partnership:

1. Serves as the primary point of contact for the Arizona Board of Regents and the ITQ Advisory Council for all communications regarding the grant-funded project.

2. Initiates and manages all subcontracts related to the project activities.

3. Tracks, accounts for, and compiles project expenditures of all partners and prepares and submits the required consolidated expenditure reports.

4. Receives the disbursement of grant awards on behalf of the entire partnership and will be responsible for redistributing funds as appropriate to the individual partners and subcontractors.

5. Is responsible for coordinating with the contracted external evaluator and other partners to compile, prepare, and submit the required consolidated project activity reports.

6. Collects and compiles the participant information required for the annual Collaborative Data Survey report (form to be provided).

The proposal budget may include reasonable compensation to the Coordinating Partner for the time spent fulfilling the coordinating roles on the partnership’s behalf. See “Project Budget” for additional details. F. 50% Special Rule – Single Partner Use of Funds Section 2132(c) of No Child Left Behind requires that no more than 50% of the grant award may

directly benefit any single project partner. Please keep this restriction in mind in your project planning and budgeting. “Attachment D” of your proposal will ask you to document for each project partner who will be receiving or directly benefiting from ITQ grant funds.


8. ADDITIONAL FY2015 PROJECT DETAILS

A. Funding Up to $1,237,000 is available in total for Arizona’s FY2015 ITQ grants. Approximately $237,000 will be distributed through the Initiative Grants program. We anticipate funding 8 to 10 highly-qualified project teams. In general, we expect Initiative Awards to be between $50,000 and $100,000, though smaller and larger awards will be considered depending on scale and scope.

NOTE: One factor the review team will take into consideration is a proposed project’s “cost per participant.” This is calculated by dividing the entire grant request by the number of teachers and/or instructional leaders who will be taking part in the professional development. For instance, a project with a budget of $25,000 that will provide training for 35 participants will have a cost-per-participant of about $714. In general, we would expect to see a cost-per-participant of no more than $1,500, though exceptions may be made on an individual basis.

B. Proposal Development and Review Timeline Rolling-Review Process: Proposals for Initiative Grants will be reviewed as they are received, and successful projects can begin as soon as the award is made official. We strongly encourage you to develop, finalize, and submit your materials as early as you can, rather than waiting until the absolute deadline. Please see page 4, “How to Submit Your Proposal,” for specific submission requirements.

Final RFP disseminated to Arizona IHE teacher education programs:

Dec. 10, 2014

Contact Maryn Boess with informal expression of interest ([email protected]; 602-882-3025):

As soon as you know you are interested in applying

Absolute submission deadline for “Letter of Intent to Apply”:

Feb. 27, 2015 (however, you are strongly encouraged to submit earlier)

Absolute submission deadline for full proposal: May 1, 2015 (however, you are strongly encouraged to submit earlier)

Applicants contacted with decision: Within three weeks of the date you submitted the proposal

Project start date: Immediately on official notification of award (but no later than July 1, 2015)

Project end date: No later than Sept. 30, 2016


C. Letter of Intent to Apply To help support up-front discussion, connection-making, and collaborative project planning, we require prospective applicants to submit either a Letter of Intent to Apply. The Letter of Intent to Apply should be no more than two pages, single-spaced, on organization letterhead. In the Letter, include the following:

• Names and contact information for the three statutory partners

• Names of all other intended partners identified to date, including LEAs

• An estimate of the total number of teachers and principals to be served by the project

• A brief statement of the overall approach you intend your PDA to follow

• The dollar amount you anticipate requesting

Please email your signed Letter of Intent to Apply to [email protected] as early as possible but no later than 4 pm February 27, 2015.

This is not a pre-proposal and will not be scored in any way; nor will applicants be bound to the information in the Letter of Intent to Apply. Submitting a Letter of Intent to Apply does not obligate you to submit a full proposal. However, we will only consider proposals for which a Letter of Intent to Apply has been received.

8. PROJECT EVALUATION AND REPORTING

A. Required Independent External Evaluation

The proposal must allocate 5% of its project budget for an external evaluation. ABOR will pre-qualify a team of education evaluation specialists, who will be assigned to the awarded project. B. The Proposal’s Evaluation Plan A detailed evaluation plan does not need to be submitted with your initial proposal. The selected external evaluators will work with successful proposers to develop and submit a detailed evaluation plan within 30 days of the notice of funding. For purposes of the proposal, you will simply state that all partners are willing to work with the external evaluator team on all activities in support of the evaluation process; specifically:

• Clarify project outcomes

• Develop a project Logic Model

• Identify meaningful progress and success measures

• Design data collection processes and tools

• Participate in necessary data collection, reporting, etc. C. Project Reporting All project reports must be consolidated – that is, they must reflect the activities and expenditures of all collaborating organizations in a single report. The Coordinating Partner will be responsible for collecting,


compiling, preparing and submitting consolidated reports on behalf of the project partnership. Guidelines and reporting forms for all reports will be provided to the Coordinating Partner.

9. PROJECT BUDGET

A. Preparing the Budget Documents The budget portion of your proposal will consist of three items. More detail and guidelines for preparing each of these documents follow. As an overview:

1. Attachment C: Consolidated Project Budget. Use Attachment C to prepare a consolidated line-

item budget reflecting total expenditures and matching contributions for all partners in the project. Specific guidelines for preparing the consolidated budget document follow in section “C. Line-Item Budget: Explanation of Items” (pages 14-16).

2. Attachment D: 50% Special Rule – Single Partner Use of Funds. Use Attachment D to

delineate the expenditures, by category, that will be assigned to each individual project partner. Prepare one Attachment D for each partner with expenditure items represented in the budget. Use the guidelines in “C. Line-Item Budget: Explanation of Items” (pp. 14-16) to prepare these forms.

3. Budget Justification. Create a narrative Budget Justification to describe your project expenditures in greater detail and to explain how each will be used to further the project activities and intended outcomes. See “D. Budget Justification” (pp. 16-17) for additional details.

B. Key Budget Elements

1. Disbursement of Award Funds. ITQ awards are no longer disbursed on a reimbursement basis. Instead, your project will be pre-funded – that is, the award dollars will be disbursed before expenditures have actually occurred. The final disbursement schedule will be negotiated based on the specific project’s timing, but typically 50% will be disbursed at project start, no later than July 1, 2015; and 40% will be disbursed on Jan. 1, 2016. The final 10% of the award will be withheld until all requirements have been met for closing out the project, including submission of final activity and financial reports.

2. The 50% Limitation (the “Special Rule”). Under ITQ statute, no more than 50% of the total grant award may directly benefit any one partnering agency. Your completed Attachment D will delineate how grant funds will be allocated among partners, and will be reviewed carefully to assure that your budget complies with this regulation.

3. Stipends. The project may provide stipends to participants at up to $25 per hour of instruction during weekends and during the summer break. Stipends may not be paid to participants in addition to their regular salary for activities during weekdays of the academic year.

4. Tuition and Registration Costs. The project grant must pay participants’ tuition or registration

costs, if any, for all professional development activities (or arrange for tuition or registration costs to be waived as part of the project budget match).

5. Purchases: Supplies, software, and text materials are all eligible purchases, provided these items are essential for the professional development activities that are part of the project. In general,


ITQ funds are not to be used to purchase equipment or technology; however, exceptions may be authorized in advance on a case by case basis. Please contact Maryn Boess to discuss.

6. Indirect Costs: Indirect costs are limited to no more than 8% of the requested grant dollars per

year. Proposers and their partners are strongly encouraged to waive all or part of their indirect costs as part of their project match.

7. Coordinating Partner: The proposal budget may include reasonable compensation to the

Coordinating Partner for the time spent fulfilling the coordinating roles on the partnership’s behalf. This compensation will be included in the line-item budgets under Item 6, “Other.”

8. Independent External Evaluation: Each project must allocate 5% of its annual project budget

for an external evaluation. Additional details on external evaluation will be provided to successful grantees.

9. Food and Beverage Expenditures. U.S. Department of Education funds may NOT be used to purchase food or beverage for project staff or participants. Specifically:

• Please do NOT include food and beverage items as budgeted expenditures from your ITQ funds.

• Food and beverage costs may also NOT be imbedded in a conference facility’s all-inclusive cost proposal.

We do understand that this poses a challenge in planning professional development workshops, conferences, etc.; however, the U.S. Department of Education in May 2014 issued very clear and specific instructions in this regard. Here are some suggestions on how to provide food and beverage for your project staff and participants, when necessary, during project activities:

• Hold your event in a location where attendees can purchase food and beverage on their own.

• Use other, non-ITQ funds to pay for food and beverage – e.g., partners, sponsors, etc.

• A host facility may contribute food and beverage as in-kind, but this must be specifically spelled out in your facility agreement as a contribution separate from other facility charges, and the dollar value of the contribution must be specified.

C. Line-Item Budget: Explanation of Items You will use Attachment C to present your project’s consolidated line-item budget. (Each partner’s share of the total project budget will be indicated on Attachment D.) In the line-item budget, please list each expenditure item separately under its appropriate category. For instance, each salaried position must be listed separately; each provider of professional or outside services must be listed separately, etc. (You will use the “Budget Justification” section to more fully explain how each expenditure contributes to and will be used in the project.) In addition to the amount requested from grant funds, please also use Attachment C to indicate for each line item (a) the value of any matching contribution (cash or the value of contributed goods or services); and (b) the institution, school, or organization that is the source of the matching contribution.


1. Personnel Costs

Note: In general, individuals on staff can be paid from this grant only for work performed outside the individual’s contracted scope of work and contracted working hours. For instance, a faculty member on 9-month contract can be compensated only for project work performed during the summer. However, ITQ funds can be used to “buy out” faculty or staff time to devote to project activities. Please contact Maryn Boess in advance to discuss any possible special circumstances or exceptions.

A. Key Personnel: The names of the Project Director and other key personnel are to be

included. Others may be listed by title. The Project Director of a project is expected to be a regular faculty member or other permanent employee whose responsibilities closely align with the project. Salaries must be listed out for all key personnel; lump sum figures are not acceptable. Include the basis for salaries (e.g. hourly or daily) based on academic year salary.

B. Support (Clerical, Graduate): Again, compensation must be listed out for each individual

position.

C & D. Fringe Benefits (ERE): ERE cannot be changed or negotiated from the original proposal - consider this amount carefully in the original budget.

2. Participant Support Costs

Participant Support: “Participants” refers to classroom teachers, highly qualified paraprofessionals, or principals who are employed in public or private schools in Arizona and who are participating in the project’s professional-development activities. Special exceptions may be made for participants teaching and residing on reservations in neighboring states.

A. Materials: Expenses in this category are for materials that are provided directly to participants

as part of the project activities. B & C. Course Credit, Tuition, and Fees: The project grant must pay participants’ tuition or

registration costs, if any, for all professional development activities (or arrange for tuition or registration costs to be waived as part of the project matching contribution).

D. Travel: Mileage for participants should be budgeted at the current State of Arizona rate (44.5

cents per mile as of Dec. 2014).

E. Room and Board: Limit: current Arizona per diem rate. (See http://cfo.asu.edu/fs-travel-perdiem for current per diem rates for Arizona communities.)

F. Stipends: The project may provide stipends to participants of up to $25 per hour of

instruction on weekends or during summers only. Stipends may NOT be paid to participants in addition to their regular salary for activities during weekdays of the academic year.

G. Teacher Substitutes: The project may compensate participating LEAs for teacher substitutes

while teachers take part in project activities. However, LEA partners are strongly encouraged to show their support for the project by providing teacher-substitute pay as a matching

contribution.

H. Other: Any other expenses directly related to providing professional development services to participants.


Note on Food and Beverage: ITQ funds may NOT be used to pay for food or beverage for participants. Please see Item 9 on page 15 for more details.

3. Professional/Outside Services

Professional and Outside Services: Individuals and expenses included in this category are for individuals who are not considered employees of the institution. Typically the institution designates these individuals as independent contractors who perform a service on behalf of the project.

• External Evaluation: Each project must allocate 5% of its total annual grant award for an external evaluation; the external evaluation is to be included under this line item.

4. Staff Travel

Staff Travel: Staff travel to project activities may be requested. Mileage and per diem should be budgeted at the current Arizona rate. (See “Participant Support Costs,” above, for details.) Actual costs of hotel rooms may be estimated (as limited by season and location as Arizona guidelines).

5. Operations Costs

A. Materials, Supplies, Photocopying: Funds should not be requested to purchase permanent equipment (capital equipment). Materials and supplies are defined as consumable items necessary for instruction and administration of the project. This includes costs for photocopies, teaching materials, software, staff resources, etc.

B. Other Operating Expenditures: Includes postage, phone charges, etc.

6. Other:

• Coordinating Partner: You may include reasonable compensation to the designated Coordinating Partner for coordinating and reporting activities on behalf of the project partnership.

7. Subtotal (Direct Costs): This is the total of expenses in lines 1-6. Indirect costs will be based on

this amount.

8. Indirect Costs: You may include up to 8% of the total direct costs (line 7) as project indirect costs. However, competitive preference will be given to projects in which the indirect costs are waived as part of the institutional match.

9. Total Costs: Total of all expenses, including direct and indirect costs.

D. Budget Justification The third and final portion of your proposal budget submission is the narrative “Budget Justification.” Using the same categories as those listed on the budget forms, fully explain and justify the amounts requested in each category. Follow the same order and sequence as the budget forms, and use headings to clearly identify each line-item category. In your narrative:


1. Clearly describe and explain each line item of more than $250 in value.

2. Show the dollar amount for each, and show how the amount was calculated.

3. Show a complete breakout for each individual listed under “Personnel.” Include how much time the individual will be working on the project and the calculations for his/her compensation (per hour, based on annual salary, etc.).

4. Also explain how each resource will be used in the project and by whom, and how it will contribute to the project’s success.

10. HOW PROPOSALS WILL BE REVIEWED

A. Proposal Review Team Proposals will be reviewed and scored by the members of the ITQ Advisory Council. Members reflect a broad, statewide cross-section of education professionals and the community at large, including representatives of:

• Arizona institutions of higher education (private and public universities, community colleges)

• K-12 school districts and individual schools

• Arizona’s charter school system

• The Arizona Department of Education

• The Arizona Board of Regents

• The business community

• Nonprofit and community-based organizations

B. Proposal Scoring Criteria Proposals will be scored by the review team according to a scoring matrix that reflects the provisions of this RFP. In developing your project plan and drafting your proposal, you can rely on the following guidelines:

• No proposals will be considered that are missing any required documentation, signatures, information, or detail.

• No proposals will be considered that are not in compliance with or do not include any item in this Request For Proposals that is designated as “required” or “must.”

• Competitive proposals will adhere closely to the guidelines given in this RFP for both format and content of the proposal narrative.

• Competitive proposals will pay special attention to the items in this RFP that are indicated as a “preference” or “priority.” Additional scoring points may be available for proposals that reflect a stated interest or emphasis.

• The review team will especially appreciate proposals that are written in clear, straightforward language and that clearly and directly set forth, specifically, what this project will do, how it will


We believe this process will serve all of us – ABOR, the ITQ Advisory Council, and our proposing teams – in several key ways. At the same time, we recognize the potential challenges and ask you to help us address those challenges proactively. You can do this, very simply, by getting in touch as soon as you know you are interested in applying. Please contact Maryn at [email protected] or (602) 882-3025 so we can, as early as possible, begin talking about your project ideas and coordinating the proposal development process.

work, who will be responsible for doing what, when the work will take place, and how the project is expected to make a difference in terms of impacting a clearly identified need.

• In addition to the overall quality of the proposed projects, in making its award decisions the review team will consider such factors as how the mix of projects reflects desired overall diversity in geographic location, professional development approach, and content areas addressed.

C. “Rolling Review” This year we are implementing what we call a “rolling review.” This means that, rather than waiting until a single deadline and then reviewing all proposals competitively against each other, our review team will review each proposal as it is submitted, evaluate it on its own merits against our Leverage Grants requirements and priorities, and decide whether to fund.

How a “Rolling Review” Works: The ITQ Advisory Council will review proposals as they are received, on their own merits. We expect to review each proposal and contact the proposing team within three weeks of its receipt. One of four things will happen when we have received and reviewed a proposal.

1. Award unconditionally. If it is clear that the project is a good fit and would be a good choice for our ITQ Leverage Grants program, we will notify the proposing team that we are prepared to make the award. Award negotiations can begin immediately, with the expectation that the project will be approved substantially as submitted, and project activities can begin immediately.

2. Approve subject to contingencies. The review team thinks that, overall, the project is a good fit

but there is at least one area of concern or question that must be resolved to our satisfaction before a final “yes” can be given.

3. Competitive consideration. Proposals in this category show promise but are not strong enough

to be approved on their own merits. These proposals will be set aside for “competitive consideration” once the absolute deadline has passed. We will offer the proposing team the chance to make recommended modifications and resubmit, with no guarantee of funding the revised project.

4. Sorry, no. Proposals in this category are clearly not a fit for our ITQ 2015 funding and will not be given further consideration. We will talk with the proposing team about why the proposal is not a fit. The proposing team is welcome to submit a proposal for a different project by the absolute deadline, for competitive consideration.

At the deadline, if there are still funds to be awarded, any proposals that have not yet been reviewed or that were set aside for competitive consideration will be reviewed and rated.


NOTE: All attachments and forms required for your proposal submission are found in a separate document, “ITQ 2015 Initiative Grants – Application Materials.”

11. PROPOSAL CONTENTS AND FORMAT

A. Proposal Checklist A complete proposal package will contain the following items, in the order presented. Guidelines for content and format of each item can be found in following sections.

Introductory Material:

___ 1. Cover Sheet (Attachment A)

___ 2. Partners’ Commitment Document (Attachment B)

___3. Table of Contents

___4. Project Summary

Project Narrative: Up to 10 double-spaced pages

___ 5. Description of Need or Opportunity

___ 6. Statement of Intended Impact

___ 7. Program Design

___ 8. Key Staff

___ 9. Collaboration Plan

___10. LEA Administrative Participation

___ 11. Evaluation Plan

___ 12. Systemic Impact

Budget Documents:

___ 13. Consolidated Project Budget (Attachment C)

___ 14. 50% Special Rule – Single Partner Use of Funds (Attachment D; one for each partner)

___ 15. Budget Justification

Attachments and Assurances:

___ 16. Curriculum Vitae (for Project Director and project team leaders; no more than 1 page each)

___ 17. Collaboration Document (Attachment E)

___ 18. Certificate of Assurances: Project Director (Attachment F)

___ 19. Certification Regarding Governmentwide Debarment, Suspension (Nonprocurement), and Other Responsibility Matters (Attachment G)


B. Introductory Material (NOT included in the 10-page limit)

1. Cover Sheet (Attachment A):

• The Cover Sheet should be completed as directed on the form.

• The Project Director and an authorized signatory of the submitting organization must both sign the original proposal. These signatures constitute a commitment on the part of the submitting organization to the goals and objectives contained in the proposal, and are viewed by the grantor as a contract that cannot be altered without prior approval of the Arizona Board of Regents Grants Program Office.

• Only one Cover Sheet should be submitted for the project. Additional partners (including multi-university or multi-campus projects) will sign copies of Attachment B, “Partners’ Commitment Document.”

2. Partners’ Commitment Document (Attachment B):

• The Partners’ Commitment Document (Attachment B) should be downloaded and completed as directed on the form.

• The first two pages are to be signed by the ranking representatives of the three statutorily-mandated project partners. Please note, the Project Director may not be one of the statutory-partner signators.

• The third page is to be completed and signed by all other key partners on the project, including other IHEs, LEAs, nonprofits, schools, tribal organizations, businesses, etc.

• These signatures constitute a commitment on the part of the partnering organizations to the goals and objectives contained in the proposal, and are viewed by the grantor as a contract that cannot be altered without prior approval of the Arizona Board of Regents Grants Program Office.

3. Table of Contents: Begin with a Table of Contents for your narrative, following the headings given below and showing the starting page number for each section. (The Table of Contents is not included in the 10-page limit.)

4. Project Summary:

• The Project Summary is not included in the 10-page limit.

• The Project Summary must be limited to 200 words.

• It should clearly, directly and specifically reflect all the key elements of your proposal.

• The Project Summary will serve as the reviewers’ first impression of your proposal and will be used in future communications, press releases, presentations, etc.

• Your Project Summary should include at least one sentence addressing each of the sections in the Project Narrative.

• It is not an introduction to your proposal. Rather, it serves as a “snapshot” or “thumbnail” of your entire proposal, providing an at-a-glance overview of what your project is about, why it’s important, and how it will work.


C. Project Narrative

Your Project Narrative should be no more than 10 double-spaced pages. Please follow the format below for your narrative, using the same headings in your proposal as are listed below. Use page numbers in the bottom right corner of each page of your narrative.

5. Description of Need or Opportunity: Clearly and directly describe the need among partnering LEAs for the teacher/principal professional development you are proposing. (Please keep this section focused on the LEAs you are serving, and their need for professional development in the academic area you are proposing. Please do not discuss the general need for teacher/principal professional development.)

For each partnering LEA, briefly specify:

• The poverty level of the LEA;

• The number of classroom teachers in the LEA (in any subject) who are not “highly-qualified” in the subject they teach;

• The number of classroom teachers in the LEA who are teaching in your project’s content-area focus and, of those, the number who are not “highly-qualified” in that subject;

• Relevant information about recent student performance in the academic area;

• Any other factors that make this LEA a high-need or high-priority candidate for participation in this project.

6. Statement of Intended Impact: Clearly and directly cite the specific impacts or outcomes that

you intend to achieve through your project. Use the following impact areas to construct specific statements of the “success indicators” that will serve as the basis for your project activities and evaluation.

Here is what “success” will look like for our project:

A. Principal/Assistant Principal Impact: The review team will give special preference to

proposals that include principals/assistant principals in the professional development approach. If your project will include principals/assistant principals in the professional development:

• How many principals/assistant principals will complete the training? How many contact hours?

• As a result of their participation in this project, what specifically will the principals have learned?

• As a result of their participation in this project, what will principals specifically do differently in supporting effective classroom instruction?

B. Teacher Impact

• How many teachers will complete the training? How many contact hours?

• As a result of their participation in this project, what specifically will the teachers have learned?

• As a result of their participation in this project, what will teachers specifically do differently in the classroom?


C. Classroom Impact

• How many classrooms will be impacted by this project? How many students?

• How will the professional development for principals and teachers translate into improved learning outcomes for students?

D. Systemic Impact: If relevant to your project, please address:

• What will be the impact of this project on the IHEs’ future approach to preparing teachers and educational leaders for AZCCRS instruction? How will the project serve to:

o Embed successful professional-development strategies into the ongoing curriculum of the partnering IHE’s teacher/leadership preparation program? and/or

o Improve specific aspects of the teacher/leadership preparation program? 7. Program Design: Describe the project activities that will be undertaken toward the intended

impacts. Give a clear sense of the work that will be performed, how that work will be organized, how that work will take place over time, and how the activities relate to the intended outcomes and broader goals of the project.

• Give a clear description of the Professional Development Approach you propose, including curriculum you intend to use; number of hours of contact; and number of participants you intend.

• Make it clear what portions of the PDA will serve teachers, and which (if any) will include or serve principals/assistant principals.

• Explain the rationale behind each key element of the program design.

• Also include a project benchmark timetable using this example as a model:

Key Activity or Benchmark (brief description)

Estimated Start Date:

Estimated Completion Date:

Responsible Team Member:

8. Key Staff: Provide a brief description of the relevant qualifications of each key project team member, including the Project Director.

9. Collaboration Plan: In a separate section, describe the collaboration that supports the project.

• Explain the roles and responsibilities of each partner, including how each will participate in the project and how each will benefit.

• In this section, also state whether any private K-12 schools fall within the geographic boundaries of the participating LEAs, include their names, and offer evidence of their participation (or evidence that they were offered the opportunity to participate and declined).

10. LEA Administrative Participation: In this section, describe the specific processes or plans for

direct, ongoing participation of principals and/or administrators from partnering LEAs in the project. Specifically, explain how the project will meet the following requirements:

• Principals and district administrators will participate, up front, in identifying the ITQ-related needs within their LEAs, identifying the underlying causes and conditions, and designing strategies to address these issues successfully.


• The project presents a formal structure for project leaders and administrators from all partners to meet regularly for ongoing dialogue, oversight, review and project support.

• The project plan includes a training/orientation session for administrators at the project start.

11. Evaluation Plan: You will not submit an evaluation plan with your initial proposal. Successful proposers will work with the assigned external evaluator to submit a detailed evaluation plan within 30 days of the notice of funding. In your proposal, please include a statement attesting that all partners are willing to work with the external evaluator team on all activities in support of the evaluation process; specifically:

• Clarify project outcomes

• Develop a project Logic Model

• Identify meaningful progress and success measures

• Design data collection processes and tools

• Participate in necessary data collection, reporting, etc. 12. Systemic Impact: If relevant, describe plans for sustaining the project beyond the funding

period, including long-term systemic impact of the project or ways in which project structures, goals, and activities can become an ongoing part of Arizona’s educational system. (NOTE: Because ITQ funds can directly support professional development for in-service professionals only, the actual delivery of training to pre-service principals must take place outside the scope of ITQ project funding.)

D. Budget Documents

13. Consolidated Project Budget (Attachment C)

14. 50% Special Rule – Single Partner Use of Funds (Attachment D; one for each partner)

15. Budget Justification

See “Project Budget,” earlier in this document, for complete guidelines and instructions for preparing the three budget documents.

E. Attachments and Assurances

16. Curriculum Vitae: For the Project Director and other project team leaders, attach a summary of relevant professional qualifications of no more than one page each.

17. Collaboration Document (Attachment E): Use this form to document the cooperative planning

that took place among the IHE arts and science faculty, IHE teacher education faculty, LEA(s), and any other entities, in the preparation of this proposal.

18. Certificate of Assurances: Project Director (Attachment F): By signing this Certificate of

Assurances, the Project Director assumes responsibility on behalf of the partnership for assuring that the project will be operated in compliance with applicable Federal regulations, Arizona Department of Education guidelines, and the priorities and directions of the ITQ Advisory Council.


19. Certification Regarding Governmentwide Debarment, Suspension (Nonprocurement), and

Other Responsibility Matters (Attachment G): This Certification does not require a signature but does become part of the contractual obligations of the submitting organization and all project partners. Please include the Certification in your proposal submission.

F. Other Attachments

Please do not submit any attachments other than those that have been specifically required in this Request For Proposals. It is important to the review process that all the information that is relevant to thorough and thoughtful consideration of your proposal be incorporated into the proposal narrative, documents, and

required attachments.


APPENDIX: Arizona LEAs by High-Poverty

(“High-poverty’ = at least 20% of school-aged children live in poverty households)

Source: U.S. Census SAIPE (2012 data, released Dec. 2013)

A. District Name

B. High-poverty

LEA? (E>=20%)

C. Estimated Population

5-17

D. # of children age 5-17 in poverty

who live in poverty

households

E. % of children 5-17

who live in poverty

households (D/C)

Agua Fria Union High School District no 7638 1003 13.1%

Aguila Elementary District YES 200 59 29.5%

Ajo Unified District YES 431 157 36.4%

Alhambra Elementary District YES 14848 6106 41.1%

Alpine Elementary District YES 51 13 25.5%

Altar Valley Elementary District YES 1366 479 35.1%

Amphitheater Unified District YES 19356 3955 20.4%

Antelope Union High School District no 377 73 19.4%

Apache Elementary District YES 24 6 25.0%

Apache Junction Unified District YES 7291 1535 21.1%

Arlington Elementary District YES 253 133 52.6%

Ash Creek Elementary District YES 52 24 46.2%

Ash Fork Joint Unified District YES 278 81 29.1%

Avondale Elementary District YES 7307 1565 21.4%

Bagdad Unified School District no 479 81 16.9%

Balsz Elementary District YES 3598 1675 46.6%

Beaver Creek Elementary District no 780 148 19.0%

Benson Unified School District no 1229 230 18.7%

Bicentennial Union High School District YES 326 111 34.0%

Bisbee Unified District YES 845 316 37.4%

Blue Ridge Unified District YES 2625 564 21.5%

Bonita Elementary District no 52 10 19.2%

Bouse Elementary District YES 48 18 37.5%

Bowie Unified District YES 88 30 34.1%

Buckeye Elementary District no 5754 982 17.1%

Buckeye Union High School District no 4224 744 17.6%

Bullhead City School District YES 3877 1754 45.2%

Camp Verde Unified District YES 1880 679 36.1%

Canon Elementary District YES 352 179 50.9%

Cartwright Elementary District YES 20859 7592 36.4%

Casa Grande Elementary District YES 8909 1797 20.2%

Casa Grande Union High School District YES 5258 1516 28.8%

Catalina Foothills Unified District no 4728 298 6.3%

Cave Creek Unified District no 8507 701 8.2%

Cedar Unified District YES 1688 678 40.2%

Chandler Unified District no 44604 5544 12.4%

Chevelon Butte School District YES 29 14 48.3%

Chinle Unified District YES 5224 2149 41.1%

Chino Valley Unified District YES 3633 746 20.5%


A. District Name

B. High-poverty

LEA? (E>=20%)


5-17


who live in poverty

households


who live in poverty

households (D/C)

Clarkdale-Jerome Elementary District no 350 67 19.1%

Clifton Unified District no 554 93 16.8%

Colorado City Unified District YES 2622 925 35.3%

Colorado River Union High School District YES 3028 947 31.3%

Concho Elementary District YES 313 99 31.6%

Congress Elementary District no 217 41 18.9%

Continental Elementary District no 698 106 15.2%

Coolidge Unified District no 7848 1398 17.8%

Cottonwood-Oak Creek Elementary District YES 3076 1025 33.3%

Crane Elementary District YES 7008 1939 27.7%

Creighton Elementary District YES 9267 4438 47.9%

Crown King Elementary District YES 15 3 20.0%

Deer Valley Unified District no 47046 5515 11.7%

Double Adobe Elementary District YES 89 23 25.8%

Douglas Unified District YES 4646 1804 38.8%

Duncan Unified District no 528 54 10.2%

Dysart Unified District no 32689 4997 15.3%

Eagle Elementary District no 2 0 0.0%

Elfrida Elementary District YES 128 33 25.8%

Eloy Elementary District YES 1050 333 31.7%

Empire Elementary District no 71 10 14.1%

Flagstaff Unified District YES 13995 3026 21.6%

Florence Unified School District no 12760 1585 12.4%

Flowing Wells Unified District YES 5252 1494 28.4%

Fort Huachuca Accommodation District no 735 93 12.7%

Fort Thomas Unified District YES 1347 512 38.0%

Fountain Hills Unified District no 2622 330 12.6%

Fowler Elementary District YES 5500 1729 31.4%

Fredonia-Moccasin Unified District YES 500 118 23.6%

Gadsden Elementary District YES 4632 1790 38.6%

Ganado Unified District YES 1733 627 36.2%

Gila Bend Unified District YES 511 168 32.9%

Gilbert Unified District no 42335 4058 9.6%

Glendale Elementary District YES 15540 5043 32.5%

Glendale Union High School District YES 19373 4737 24.5%

Globe Unified District no 1775 354 19.9%

Grand Canyon Unified District no 214 37 17.3%

Hackberry School District YES 111 41 36.9%

Hayden-Winkelman Unified District YES 215 107 49.8%

Heber-Overgaard Unified District YES 511 165 32.3%

Higley Unified District no 15183 1273 8.4%

Hillside Elementary District YES 23 5 21.7%

Holbrook Unified District YES 2389 822 34.4%

Humboldt Unified District YES 8705 2050 23.5%

Hyder Elementary District YES 117 35 29.9%

Indian Oasis-Baboquivari Unified District YES 1665 617 37.1%


A. District Name

B. High-poverty

LEA? (E>=20%)


5-17


who live in poverty

households


who live in poverty

households (D/C)

Isaac Elementary District YES 7896 3426 43.4%

J. O. Combs Unified School District no 8690 850 9.8%

Joseph City Unified District YES 445 106 23.8%

Kingman Unified School District YES 9627 2537 26.4%

Kirkland Elementary District YES 148 57 38.5%

Klondyke Elementary District YES 6 4 66.7%

Kyrene Elementary District no 18234 1653 9.1%

Lake Havasu Unified District YES 7339 1700 23.2%

Laveen Elementary District YES 6783 1358 20.0%

Liberty Elementary District no 3942 562 14.3%

Litchfield Elementary District no 11059 1486 13.4%

Littlefield Unified District YES 646 208 32.2%

Littleton Elementary District no 6607 1281 19.4%

Madison Elementary District no 5131 988 19.3%

Maine Consolidated School District no 165 23 13.9%

Mammoth-San Manuel Unified District YES 1104 341 30.9%

Marana Unified District no 15762 1909 12.1%

Maricopa Unified School District no 10579 1110 10.5%

Mayer Unified District YES 739 218 29.5%

McNary Elementary District YES 171 71 41.5%

McNeal Elementary District YES 112 29 25.9%

Mesa Unified District YES 79892 18713 23.4%

Miami Unified District YES 1317 457 34.7%

Mingus Union High School District no 1543 282 18.3%

Mobile Elementary District YES 24 5 20.8%

Mohave Valley Elementary District YES 2163 539 24.9%

Mohawk Valley Elementary District YES 185 53 28.6%

Morenci Unified District no 709 112 15.8%

Morristown Elementary District no 268 31 11.6%

Murphy Elementary District YES 2067 915 44.3%

Naco Elementary District YES 399 120 30.1%

Nadaburg Unified School District no 1693 291 17.2%

Nogales Unified District YES 5281 2318 43.9%

Oracle Elementary District no 1013 198 19.5%

Osborn Elementary District YES 3822 1726 45.2%

Owens-Whitney Elementary District YES 63 20 31.7%

Page Unified District YES 3051 1065 34.9%

Palo Verde Elementary District YES 439 95 21.6%

Paloma School District YES 81 59 72.8%

Palominas Elementary District YES 1769 533 30.1%

Paradise Valley Unified District no 39501 6220 15.7%

Parker Unified School District YES 1735 626 36.1%

Patagonia Elementary District YES 139 54 38.8%

Patagonia Union High School District no 143 21 14.7%

Payson Unified District YES 2907 734 25.2%

Peach Springs Unified District YES 318 131 41.2%


A. District Name

B. High-poverty

LEA? (E>=20%)


5-17


who live in poverty

households


who live in poverty

households (D/C)

Pearce Elementary District YES 123 35 28.5%

Pendergast Elementary District YES 10972 2468 22.5%

Peoria Unified School District no 37993 5196 13.7%

Phoenix Elementary District YES 6764 3593 53.1%

Picacho Elementary District YES 129 26 20.2%

Pima Unified District no 882 107 12.1%

Pine Strawberry Elementary District no 237 47 19.8%

Pinon Unified District YES 1869 916 49.0%

Pomerene Elementary District no 174 23 13.2%

Prescott Unified District no 5893 1093 18.5%

Quartzsite Elementary District YES 309 68 22.0%

Queen Creek Unified District no 6727 708 10.5%

Ray Unified District YES 742 218 29.4%

Red Mesa Unified District YES 2213 719 32.5%

Red Rock Elementary District no 569 93 16.3%

Redington Elementary District YES 15 6 40.0%

Riverside Elementary District YES 1287 315 24.5%

Roosevelt Elementary District YES 16411 5875 35.8%

Round Valley Unified District YES 1587 359 22.6%

Sacaton Elementary District YES 1176 392 33.3%

Saddle Mountain Unified School District no 2008 291 14.5%

Safford Unified District YES 3201 774 24.2%

Sahuarita Unified District no 5890 721 12.2%

Salome Consolidated Elementary District YES 136 53 39.0%

San Carlos Unified District YES 1367 531 38.8%

San Fernando Elementary District no 6 0 0.0%

San Simon Unified District no 87 12 13.8%

Sanders Unified District YES 1456 545 37.4%

Santa Cruz Elementary District YES 466 173 37.1%

Santa Cruz Valley Unified District YES 4752 1578 33.2%

Santa Cruz Valley Union High School District YES 703 224 31.9%

Scottsdale Unified District no 31114 3946 12.7%

Sedona-Oak Creek Joint Unified District YES 1327 334 25.2%

Seligman Unified District no 149 18 12.1%

Sentinel Elementary District YES 25 6 24.0%

Show Low Unified District YES 2818 707 25.1%

Sierra Vista Unified District no 7771 1163 15.0%

Skull Valley Elementary District no 113 19 16.8%

Snowflake Unified District YES 2841 680 23.9%

Solomon Elementary District YES 373 113 30.3%

Somerton Elementary District YES 3407 1274 37.4%

Sonoita Elementary District YES 133 32 24.1%

St. David Unified District YES 556 139 25.0%

St. Johns Unified District YES 892 229 25.7%

Stanfield Elementary District YES 789 192 24.3%

Sunnyside Unified District YES 20056 7489 37.3%


A. District Name

B. High-poverty

LEA? (E>=20%)


5-17


who live in poverty

households


who live in poverty

households (D/C)

Superior Unified School District YES 566 145 25.6%

Tanque Verde Unified District no 1952 126 6.5%

Tempe School District YES 12353 3569 28.9%

Tempe Union High School District no 15134 1910 12.6%

Tolleson Elementary District YES 2651 718 27.1%

Tolleson Union High School District no 11962 2382 19.9%

Toltec Elementary District YES 1892 381 20.1%

Tombstone Unified District no 1128 221 19.6%

Tonto Basin Elementary District YES 110 59 53.6%

Topock Elementary District YES 170 70 41.2%

Tuba City Unified District YES 3904 1292 33.1%

Tucson Unified District YES 74255 17993 24.2%

Union Elementary District no 2712 489 18.0%

Vail Unified District no 11182 745 6.7%

Valentine Elementary District YES 41 10 24.4%

Valley Union High School District YES 187 49 26.2%

Vernon Elementary District YES 296 101 34.1%

Walnut Grove Elementary District YES 1 1 100.0%

Washington Elementary District YES 27720 7895 28.5%

Wellton Elementary District no 376 68 18.1%

Wenden Elementary District YES 106 42 39.6%

Whiteriver Unified District YES 2814 1227 43.6%

Wickenburg Unified District YES 1360 335 24.6%

Willcox Unified District YES 1605 337 21.0%

Williams Unified District YES 946 237 25.1%

Williamson Valley Elementary School District no 61 12 19.7%

Wilson Elementary District YES 588 284 48.3%

Window Rock Unified District YES 2758 1054 38.2%

Winslow Unified District YES 2278 575 25.2%

Yarnell Elementary District YES 69 19 27.5%

Young Elementary School District YES 102 25 24.5%

Yucca Elementary District YES 52 20 38.5%

Yuma Elementary District YES 11498 3104 27.0%

Yuma Union High School District YES 12795 4229 33.1%