RFP Number: GT-06 (Archived/Bidding Closed)

 

Model Induction Program 2011–2014


For ease of coordination with the high needs schools in New York City, any potential applicant who would like to partner with a designated high needs school in NYC is advised to contact:

Shuvi Santo
Director, Teacher Recruitment Programs
Office of Teacher Recruitment & Quality
NYC Department of Education
65 Court Street, Room 320
718-935-4168
ssanto@schools.nyc.gov


RFP Documents

All RFP documentation can be downloaded in a single file from the following:


Table of Contents:

I. INTRODUCTION
II. PURPOSE
III. DEFINITIONS
IV. APPLICANT ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS
V. PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
VI. ADDITIONAL EXTRA CREDIT PROGRAM COMPONENTS
VII. NARRATIVE
VIII. PROPOSAL FORMAT
IX. APPLICATION REVIEW AND SCORING
X. AWARDS AND ALLOWABLE USES OF FUNDS
XI. METHOD OF DETERMINING AWARD AMOUNTS
XII. NARRATIVE SCORING RUBRIC (80 points maximum)
XIII. BUDGET AND BUDGET NARRATIVE SCORING (20 points maximum)
XIV. POST SELECTION PROCEDURES
XV. BIDDERS CONFERENCE, QUESTIONS, CORRESPONDENCE, SUBMISSION
XVI. ASSURANCES
XVII. PROPOSAL EVALUATION RUBRIC
XVIII. APPLICATION COVER PAGE
ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT A: SAMPLE MOU
ATTACHMENT B: ASSURANCE OF JOINT COMMITMENT FORM
ATTACHMENT C: PARTICIPATING SCHOOL DATA
ATTACHMENT D:
ATTACHMENT E: NYS MENTORING STANDARDS

The State Education Department does not discriminate on the basis of age, color, religion, creed, disability, marital status, veteran status, national origin, race, gender, genetic predisposition or carrier status, or sexual orientation in its educational programs, services and activities.  Portions of this publication can be made available in a variety of formats, including Braille, large print or audio tape, upon request.  Inquiries concerning this policy of nondiscrimination should be directed to the Department’s Office for Diversity, Ethics, and Access, Room 530, Education Building, Albany, NY 12234. Requests for additional copies of this publication may be made by contacting the Publications Sales Desk, Room 309, Education Building, Albany, NY 12234.

Back to top


I. INTRODUCTION

Evidence demonstrates that teacher quality is a crucial determinant of student achievement. High teacher turnover in districts can impact student achievement, and can also lead to an influx of inexperienced educators who need mentoring and induction programs. Districts also face high costs when they must recruit, hire, and train new teachers. One of the most significant challenges facing public schools in New York State is the persistent achievement gap between students of low socio-economic backgrounds in low performing schools and their more affluent peers. This problem is magnified for English language learners (ELLs) and students with disabilities. Additionally, New York State faces a labor shortage of highly-skilled teachers in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Many districts across New York State struggle to attract and retain effective teachers in low performing schools and shortage areas, such as STEM, teachers of ELLs, and teachers of students with disabilities.

The New York State Education Department (NYSED) will leverage the federal support from Race to the Top to provide funds to districts to improve the readiness of early career educators in low performing schools and shortage teaching areas by supporting selecthigh quality induction programs (Under Part 100 of the Commissioner's Regulations school districts in New York State are required to provide one-year of mentoring to all new teachers unless the candidate has successfully completed two years of teaching experience prior to such teaching in the public schools.  Candidates for professional certification must provide verification from their districts that they received mentoring as prescribed in Part 80-3.4 of the Commissioner’s Regulations as one requirement for professional certification. This RFP, however, is designed to strengthen and enhance mentoring for specific early career educators.). NYSED is offering a Request for Proposal (RFP) for Model Induction Programs. This RFP includes a planning period for applicants beginning in January 2012 and running until July 2012. The programs run from July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2014. A total of $20,000,000 is allocated for this grant program.

Back to top


II. PURPOSE

The purpose of NYSED’s Model Induction Program is to provide competitive funds to develop and support early career educators in low performing schools and specific teacher shortage areas to become effective or highly effective, increase retention rates, and improve student learning results.  This includes enhancing support provided to early career teachers working in these areas currently, as well as encouraging other early career educators to seek certification in specific shortage areas by providing them with differentiated supports and incentives. This program also seeks to build a cadre of carefully-selected mentors who can continue to support early career teachers after the end of the grant period.

Specifically, this program intends to provide grants to school districts to create, or scale up, induction models that serve teachers working in high poverty schools (as defined below) and teachers in these shortage areas including:

  • Teachers of English language learners, especially in bilingual classrooms and secondary grades and subjects;
  • Teachers of students with disabilities, especially in secondary grades and subjects;
  • Teachers of STEM disciplines in secondary grades; and
  • Common Branch teachers with strong math and science pedagogical and content knowledge in low performing elementary schools.

Rather than prescribe specific approaches to how mentors and early career teachers interact (minimum periods of mentoring time, number of sessions, etc), this RFP requests applicants to provide plans that ensure differentiated support is provided to each early career educator based upon assessment of his or her skills and abilities, and to describe the outcomes in terms of level of proficiency of practice and student learning goals.

NYSED is interested in proposals for programs that are innovative and use research-based practices to achieve their desired outcomes.  In addition, extra credit will be granted to proposals that provide incentives and structures to obtain additional or new, full-certification in specific shortage areas, and/or pilot the usage of “Impact Awards.” NYSEDexpects proposals to also demonstrate plans to sustain the programs beyond the end of the grant period.

Back to top


III. DEFINITIONS

Board of Education: governing board of any public school or public school district.

  • Board Of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES): a public organization that provides shared educational programs and services to component school districts as a formally recognized middle or intermediate unit in New York State's public education system. There are currently 37 BOCES incorporating all but nine of the 697 school districts in New York State. 
  • Certified Teacher: a teacher who holds a state teaching certificate appropriate to his/her teaching position, including the subject area in which employed.
  • Early Career Educator: any teacher who has not yet received tenure.
  • Eligible Grant Recipient:  a school district; a BOCES in partnership with one or more of its component school districts; and/or an eligible partnership or consortium of eligible recipients; each of which must have at least one eligible school (as defined in Section IV of this RFP) identified in the application that will participate in the Model Induction Program.  
  • Eligible Partnership or Consortium: an eligible partnership or consortium consists of an eligible grant recipient in partnership with one or more other eligible grant recipients, a non-profit organization, or an Institution of Higher Education in New York State with a registered program in either the subject content area or in teacher preparation in the specific area of focus within the application.  A Network Team within New York City will be considered, for this RFP, as a consortium. An eligible partnership or consortium is defined through a signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), as a formal agreement among the members of the partnership or consortium and the MOU must be submitted with the application.
  • High Poverty School: a school in which at least 50 percent of students are eligible for free or reduced-price lunches under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act or in which at least 50 percent of students are from low-income families as determined using one of the criteria specified under section 1113 (a) (5) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).
  • Low Performing School: one of the schools designated as either:
    1. Schools Under Registration Review (SURR) http://www.p12.nysed.gov/accountability/APA/SURR/SURR_home.html
    2. Schools identified as Persistently Lowest Achieving (PLA) http://www.p12.nysed.gov/irs/accountability/LowAchieve/2009/PLASchools-d3tod6.pdf
    3. Schools designated as Schools in Improvement Status (SINI) http://www.p12.nysed.gov/irs/accountability/designations/home.html
  • Memorandum of Understanding (MOU):  An MOU is a written document or agreement between each of the partners that delineates all roles and responsibilities to which the parties will commit in the contract resulting from this RFP.
  • School District: is a public school LEA (Local Education Agency), as defined in Title 2 of the NYS Education Law: a common, union free, central, central high school, enlarged, consolidated, or city school district.
  • Teacher Shortage Area: grade/content area in which there was a shortage of certified teachers in the prior school year and in which there is a projected shortage in the current school year as evidenced by the district and/or school.

Back to top


IV. APPLICANT ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS

ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS:

Each application must be submitted by a school district, a BOCES in partnership with one or more of its component school districts, and/or a consortium or partnership of eligible recipients, which have at least one eligible school that will participate. Each applicant must complete Attachment C: Participating School Data listing, by name, the specific school(s) that will be served by this grant. An “eligible” school must be high-poverty under the definitions described within the RFP and meet at least two of the following additional characteristics:

  1. Low performing school, classified as a SINI, PLA, SURR;
  2. High concentrations of English language learners, as defined by percent of students that are above the State average (New York State average for English language learners is 7% (see: http://www.p12.nysed.gov/biling/docs/NYSLEP-ELLDataJune2011WebDoc.pdf).);
  3. High concentrations of students with disabilities, as defined by percent of students that are above the State average (New York State average for students with disabilities is 13% (see: http://www.p12.nysed.gov/sedcar/state.htm).); and/or
  4. Evidence of difficulty in attracting and retaining effective teachers in at least one of the following priority areas:
    1. Teachers of English language learners, especially in bilingual classrooms and/or secondary grades and subjects;
    2. Teachers of students with disabilities, especially in secondary grades;
    3. Teachers of STEM disciplines, especially in secondary grades; and
    4. Elementary Common Branch teachers with strong math and science pedagogical and content knowledge.

Evidence of difficulty in attracting and retaining these teachers includes district and/or school data, which is above the State average (New York State average teacher turnover rate is 13%; the average experience level (percentage with fewer than three years) is 6%; the average percentage of teachers teaching out of certification is 3% (see Statewide: https://www.nystart.gov/publicweb-external/2010statewideAOR.pdf and School District: https://www.nystart.gov/publicweb/AllDistrict.do?year=2010).), in the following categories: turnover rate, average experience level, and/or teaching out of certification. Additionally, evidence may include district and/or school data that demonstrates the magnitude of teacher and/or subject area shortages through data such as the number of applicants per vacancy in these areas compared to other areas within the district.

Note:  Applications will be rejected and will not be reviewed or scored if they do not name each of the eligible participating school(s) in Attachment C and do not list all partnership or consortium entities in the application, if applicable.

ALLOWABLE PARTNERSHIPS AND PARTNERSHIP ELIGIBILITY:

NYSED Consortium Policy for State and Federal Discretionary Grant Programs:

A group of eligible grant recipients can form a partnership or consortium to apply for the grant.  In order to do so, the partnership or consortium must meet the following requirements:

  1. The partnership or consortium must designate one of the participants to serve as the applicant and fiscal agent for the grant. The applicant agency must be an eligible grant recipient. All other consortium members must be eligible grant participants and must be identified on the application cover page. The specific services that each participant will provide must be outlined in the application and the partnership/consortium MOU, and a copy of the MOU must be included with the application.
  1. In the event a grant is awarded to an eligible partnership/consortium, the grant or grant contract will be prepared in the name of the applicant agency/fiscal agent, not the partnership/consortium, since the group is not a legal entity.
  1. The applicant agency/fiscal agent must meet the following requirements:
    1. Must be an eligible grant recipient as defined by this RFP; 
    2. Must receive and administer the grant funds and submit the required reports to account for the use of grant funds;
    3. Must require consortium partners to sign an agreement with the fiscal agent that specifically outlines all services each partner agrees to provide.
    4. Is PROHIBITED from subgranting funds to other recipients.  The fiscal agent is permitted to contract for services with other consortium partners or consultants to provide services that the fiscal agent cannot provide itself.
    5. Must be responsible for the performance of any services provided by the partners, consultants, or other organizations and must coordinate how each one plans to participate. 

Collective Bargaining Agreement: Applicants must ensure, where applicable and in accordance with law and regulation that new initiatives described in their application are allowable under collective bargaining agreements. Part of Attachment B, Assurance of Joint Commitment form, certifies this is true and must be completed and included in application submitted.

Implement Teacher Evaluation in Compliance with Education Law §3012-c in participating schools: If applicants have not already implemented teacher evaluation by the start of the 2012-13 school year, they must provide a letter of commitment in the form of a signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) from their collective bargaining unit(s) that confirms the applicant will implement teacher evaluation consistent with the Commissioner’s Regulations and Education Law §3012-c in schools participating in this grant  by the start of the 2012-13 school year for all of the teachers and principals in the schools. (See Attachment B).

Back to top


V. PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS

MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS:

The following requirements are mandatory. Please note that applications will not be considered if they fail to meet any of the following mandatory eligibility requirements:

  1. Participating districts or BOCES programs must implement teacher evaluation in compliance with Education Law §3012-c in the participating schools. Applications will not be considered if the school district has not already implemented teacher evaluation in compliance with Education Law §3012-c, or if the applicant fails to provide a letter of commitment between the district and the collective bargaining unit(s), as applicable, confirming agreement to implement teacher evaluation in the schools participating in this grant, in compliance with Education Law §3012-c for the 2012-13 school year. (If, after the 2011-12 planning period, the applicant fails to implement Education Law §3012-c for the 2012-13 school year in the participating schools, NYSED will withhold future payments related to the Model Induction Program).

Note: Complete Attachment B to provide evidence of meeting this criterion.

  1. Applicants must describe how they meet the applicant eligibility requirements under this grant by proposing an induction program that:
    1. Serves schools that meet the definition of high-poverty as described within this RFP; and
    2. Serves schools that meet at least two of the additional characteristics as described in Section IV.

Note: Complete Attachment C to provide evidence of meeting this criterion.

  1. As a condition of receiving awards for the Model Induction Program, applicants must agree to participate in a research study conducted by NYSED that will evaluate the efficacy of the proposed model induction program compared with non-participating programs within the district both during and following the grant period.

Note: Complete Attachment B to provide evidence of meeting this criterion.

  1. Applicants must ensure, where applicable and in accordance with law and regulation that new initiatives described in their application are allowable under collective bargaining agreements. Applications will not be considered that do not include certification that this is true.

Note: Complete Attachment B to provide evidence of meeting this criterion.

  1. For applications that include a partnership or consortium, an MOU delineating the roles and responsibilities of each entity must be included in the application and signed by all parties.

Note: Complete Attachment A, and where applicable, attach additional required supporting documents.

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS:

Summary:

The applicant must provide a narrative summary for the teacher induction and mentoring approach being proposed that describes:

  1. The current, existing induction and mentoring approach(es) used within the district and explains how any initiative funded by this award will enhance or complement the existing induction and mentoring already provided for all early career educators;
  2. The theoretical foundation and relevance in peer reviewed scholarly literature, NYS mentoring standards and/or other best practices;
  3. The method(s) used for implementation at school level;
  4. The methods that will be used for assessing and evaluating the program activities and outcomes, and how/when the results of formative and summative evaluations of the program activities and outcomes conducted by the applicant and/or any partners will be reported to NYSED (results must be reported, at a minimum, on an annual basis).

Applicant Capacity and Sustainability:

  1. Applicants must provide an overall project plan, including a timeline for the planning period, that describes their capacity to oversee and manage the proposed program, including evidence of adequate human, organizational, and professional resources and associated abilities to meet the needs of their proposed programs, as well as their ability to deliver results (any track record of successful induction and mentoring program results by the applicant and/or partners should be included and discussed here).
  2. Applicants must describe how they will involve key stakeholders (e.g., unions, key teachers, school leaders) in any initiative funded by this award to ensure there is support, particularly for specific programmatic components (e.g., common planning time, collaborative efforts and opportunities) and to build internal school capacity, and describe how school leaders will lead the program as part of a coherent school-wide development initiative.
  3. Applicants must describe a sustainability plan for how they will continue this induction program, including the additional proposed services and components, after the expiration of this grant, and demonstrate how the program will be maintained fiscally by identifying sources of potential funds.

PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS FOR EARLY CAREER EDUCATORS:

Applicants must meet the following requirements for the services provided to the participating early career educators:

Formative Assessment and Differentiated Programs and Supports:

  1. Applicants must describe how their program will provide differentiated programmatic offerings based on initial and ongoing formative assessment results of each educator and their student learning data, and how the applicant will determine whether the effectiveness of each early career educator has improved as a result of the program.
  2. Applicants must describe in what other ways supports provided to early career educators utilize NYS Mentoring Standards (see Attachment E), other research-based innovations, or best practices.

Assessment and Development of Shortage Area Skills:

For teachers of English language learners, students with disabilities, and/or any STEM discipline, including enhancing math and science content pedagogy of Common Branch teachers, applicants must describe how they will assess and develop the specific skills and knowledge needed to advance student learning and ensure student growth for these students (English language learners, students with disabilities, and students in STEM disciplines) in the participating early career educators.

Best practices for induction programs specifically focused on teachers of these areas have important differences from more generalized approaches to teacher induction.  Applicants must explain how their proposed approach is rooted in research or has otherwise been shown to have good results for students in these specific areas.

PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS FOR MENTORS:

Applicants must meet the following requirements within their programs for mentors:

Mentor Selection:

  1. Applicants must establish rigorous and challenging mentor selection criteria that ensure high quality mentors and explain how selected mentors and early career educators will be matched for the proposed program. For the mentor selection criteria, applicants will:
    1. Describe their mentor candidate eligibility requirements and mentor selection process in the planning period and beyond:
      1. Explain their selection process and how they will ensure that only mentors who are specialists (i.e., English language learners, students with disabilities, STEM disciplines) and able to achieve significant student achievement gains in their particular grade/content areas are allowed to mentor the participating early career educators, including the type of evidence relied upon to make this selection;
      2. Explain what level of performance under the teacher evaluation system is required to become a mentor and to remain a mentor once the full evaluation system is established in the school;
      3. Describe how their selection criteria incorporate recommendations from the recently adopted New York State Mentoring Standards (Attachment E) and/or other best practices in mentoring selection.

Mentor Training, Supports, and Development:

  1. Applicants must provide mentors selected for their program any additional professional development supports that they need to be proficient and able to support participating early career educators with:
    • Common Core Standards;
    • Data-driven inquiry;
    • Evidence-based observation aligned with district evaluation models, including the district’s selected teacher practice rubric;
    • Student growth goal-setting process, as required by the district’s evaluation process;
    • Current best practices and specific strategies for English language learners and students with disabilities, with specific focus on instruction in literacy, research based practices in the provision of specialized instruction for students with disabilities, Response to Intervention, and Positive Behavioral Intervention and Supports, as well as native language development.
      1. Applicants must include a detailed description of the types of individualized supports, differentiated professional development, and training that will be provided during the planning period of this grant (and ongoing) to selected mentors on the above components, as well as the New York State Mentoring Standards (Attachment E).
      2. Applicants must explain the tools (e.g., mentor skill rubrics, performance assessments, surveys of mentored teachers, etc) that will be used to continuously evaluate mentors and inform the individualized supports and ongoing professional development, as well as describe their plans for removing ineffective mentors.

Use of technology

Applicants must describe in detail how the program incorporates the use of technology, including one or more of the following:

    • Exemplar videos of outstanding teachers for professional development (Exemplar videos that are produced in the course of this grant program will be deemed to be owned by the New York State Education Department or, in the alternative, the applicants will grant to the Department a perpetual, royalty free license to duplicate, distribute, make derivatives or otherwise use the videos in any manner, solely for the Department’s educational purposes.);
    • Video as a tool for teacher reflection;
    • Coaching by mentors through collaborative inquiry such as review of videos of teachers, online interactions;
    • Remote mentoring via technology such as Skype, or satellite;
    • Blended mentoring (remote mentoring from content experts and on-site mentoring from school-based experts);
    • On-line classroom modules, On-line professional learning communities, virtual simulation exercises, etc for collaboration amongst content specific teachers across the state.

The applicant must describe how the program will incorporate the use of technology, any research to support their approach, and how they will evaluate the effectiveness of the technology usage (e.g., types of data and metrics that will be collected). The proposal explains why there is a demonstrated need for an investment in this approach to technology for this induction model (e.g., without remote mentoring, the district could not provide content expert mentors to their new science teachers).

Back to top


VI. ADDITIONAL EXTRA CREDIT PROGRAM COMPONENTS

Presentation of a program that meets the standards set forth above will result in a rigorous and research based induction programs for early career educators.  However, through this Model Induction Program RFP, NYSED also desires to encourage applicants to leverage the Race to the Top funds to pilot innovative practices. 

  • Applicants whose program provides incentives and structures to enable early career educators who are not yet certified in shortage areas to obtain the requisite credentials that will allow them to become eligible and prepared to teach as a fully certified New York State teacher in that shortage area.

Within the overall project narrative and budget narrative, applicants must include an additional section that describes the specific incentives and structures the program will provide to early career educators to provide incentives to them to seek additional or new, full-certification in specific shortage areas. Applicants should describe how they will ensure educators complete their certification, and what, if any, commitments will be required of applicants after they complete their certification, such as remaining within low performing schools in the district.

  • Applicants who structure their program to pilot the usage of “Impact Award” funding, meaning financial or other incentives, to reward individuals, schools, and/or third party partners who achieve key benchmarks:
    • Reward success based on achievement of key interim benchmarks at various stages over the course of the grant, such as:
      • Percentage of mentored teachers, receiving ratings of Developing or better, retained in their school/the district.
      • Percentage of mentored teachers who receive evaluation ratings above Developing.
      • Number of new teachers, receiving ratings of Developing or better, who seek new certification in a shortage area.

Within the overall project narrative and budget narrative, applicants must include an additional section that describes how their proposed Model Induction Program will incorporate the use of Impact Awards, and which key interim benchmarks will be used by the district at which points in time. Applicants should explain how they will ensure that the benchmarks selected are ambitious and challenging, how rewards will be made before the end of the grant period, and a sustainability plan for how remaining awards will be funded after the conclusion of the grant period June 30, 2014.

Back to top


VII. NARRATIVE

The narrative should describe the 2012 – 2014 proposed activities of the Model Induction Program in detail, including the overall objectives, strategies, planning, implementation, and evaluation of all proposed activities, and the elements within the Model Induction Program.

The narrative should present a cohesive document with each individual section related to all other sections and must adhere to the format described in this section. The narrative must not exceed 25 pages, double spaced, with 1” margins on all sides on 8 ½” x 11” size pages. (Other submission documents are not counted toward this page limit.) The name of the applicant must appear in the top right corner of each page. All pages must be numbered.

Applicants must include the following in the proposal narrative:

  • Document how application meets the mandatory requirements set forth in Section V.
  • Detailed responses to the program requirement criteria set forth in Section V.
  • Detailed responses to additional extra credit program component criteria set forth in Section VI, as applicable.

Back to top


VIII. PROPOSAL FORMAT

A complete proposal application consists of one package that includes the following:

  1. Application Cover Page (see Section XVIII)
  2. Table of Contents
  3. Proposal Narrative
  4. FS-10: Proposed Budget for a Federal or State Project (http://www.oms.nysed.gov/cafe/forms/)
  5. Budget Summary for entire grant period (Attachment D)
  6. Budget Narrative
  7. Additional Required Attachments:
    1. Partnership/Consortium MOU, if applicable (sample Attachment A)
    2. Attachment B, Assurance of Commitment form
    3. Attachment C, Participating School Data form
    4. Payee information form, (http://www.oms.nysed.gov/cafe/forms/), if required
  8. Required Assurances (see Section XVIII)

Back to top


IX. APPLICATION REVIEW AND SCORING

Applicants will be evaluated using the criteria set forth in this Model Induction RFP. Proposals will be listed in rank order of average score received and funds will be awarded to the top proposals by region until all funds are allocated. In case of a tie score the applicant with a higher score in the additional extra credit program component criteria will be awarded the grant.

Applications must first meet the mandatory requirements set forth in Section V to advance to the programmatic scoring. The Program Narrative and attachments will be reviewed to confirm that the mandatory requirements have been met. If an application fails to meet any of the mandatory requirements set forth in Section V then the applicant will be notified, via email, and will then have 5 business days to re-submit any missing and/or incomplete materials in order to meet the mandatory requirements.

The General, Early Career Educator and Mentor requirement components of each application will be scored for all applicants meeting the mandatory requirements.

Two technical reviewers will review each application. A third review will be performed if there is a difference of more than ten (10) points between the two scores. When a third review is necessary, the lowest score will be dropped and the score on this portion will be based on the average of the remaining two evaluations.

Applicants may receive up to 70 points for this portion of the proposal and must receive an average score of 53 (75% of available points) to move to the budget review and Additional Extra Credit Program Components review. In cases where a third review is necessary and the application meets the minimum score for the section, the remainder of the application will be evaluated by those technical reviewers giving the two highest scores in that section. The reviewer providing the dropped score will not continue the evaluation of the application.

Twenty points is available for the review of the budget and budget narrative. An additional 10 points is available to those applicants who meet the above minimum and propose program models that include either or both of the additional extra credit program component criteria.

Final scores will be determined by adding the scores from the General, Early Career Educator and Mentor components to any score for the additional extra credit program component section and the budget score. Refer to the evaluation rubric in Section XVII for further details on how the narrative is scored.

Applications must receive a final average score of 67 or above to be eligible to receive an award.

All reviewers will be trained on all aspects of the Model Induction program with specific reference to Section XII Narrative Scoring Rubric, and Section XIII Budget and Budget Narrative Scoring.

Back to top


X. AWARDS AND ALLOWABLE USES OF FUNDS

PROJECT PERIOD:

NYSED anticipates granting awards for The Model Induction Program in December 2011. The program period starts January 1, 2012 and end June 30, 2014.  Districts will commence their planning periods in January 2012, with programs for early career educators beginning in the Summer of 2012. This RFP will provide funds for programs through June 2014.

AWARD SIZE:

Applicants may request awards for up to $500,000 per application; however, in no case will an award exceed $50,000 per participating school.  It is understood that the funds will not all be spent directly in each participating school and the needs may vary from school to school, but the $50,000 per school maximum is a mechanism to set allowable grant size. The awards requested will vary depending on the number of estimated mentors and early career educators served, and the type of program proposed. As such, applicants may request up to $500,000 for their overall proposed Model Induction Program and up to $50,000 per participating school, but this request must be justified within the budget and budget narrative.

ALLOWABLE USES OF FUNDS:

Applicants must submit a detailed budget accompanied by a budget narrative that describes how they intend to use up to $50,000 per participating school within their proposed Model Induction Program. Each application may not request total awards over $500,000. Applicants may not request awards over $50,000 per school. Within these funds there are categories of allowable expenses which include the following:

  • Design costs for the program structure
  • Expenses related to mentor selection and training during the planning period
  • District expenses related to residency or internship experiences that districts conduct with new teacher employees before they take over a classroom as the teacher of record 
  • Ongoing support and tools for selected mentors and early career educators, including equipment, supplies, and materials
  • Release time or per-session costs for mentors and/or early career educators
  • Costs related to use of technology
  • Costs related to the additional extra credit program criteria components for the proposed Model Induction Program model:
    • Incentives for early career educators to seek additional or new, full-certification in shortage areas; and/or
    • “Impact Awards” based on achievement of specified targets.

The budget will be reviewed and adjustments will be made by the program office to eliminate non-allowable budgeted items and any other items deemed to be inappropriate (costs will be examined to determine if they are necessary, reasonable, and allowable under applicable guidelines, statutes, and regulations).  The review of the projected budget will determine whether the applicant can achieve the objectives of the project with reasonable efficiency and economy under the proposed budget. There is no guarantee that an applicant will be funded for the full amount requested in their application.

Back to top


XI. METHOD OF DETERMINING AWARD AMOUNTS

Awards will be made to successful applicants in one of two regions: New York City and Rest of State, who meet the requirements set forth in this RFP. Applicants will be ranked in order of score received, by region, until available funds are exhausted.

The available funds allocated to each region are based on the percentage of schools in need of improvement per region.  Applicants from New York City are eligible to receive up to 50% of the overall awards granted. If funds remain from either of the two funding regions after all successful applicants have been awarded in that region, the remaining funds will be added to the other region to be awarded.

Back to top


XII. NARRATIVE SCORING RUBRIC (80 points maximum)

  1. PROGRAM OBJECTIVES, STRATEGIES, ACTIVITIES, SERVICES, AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES/DATA SOURCES (Maximum 70 points)

Summary (Up to 10 points):

The proposal provides for the teacher induction and mentoring approach being proposed a narrative summary that describes:

  1. The current, existing induction and mentoring approach(es) used within the district, and explains how any initiative funded by this award will enhance or complement the existing induction and mentoring already provided for all early career educators;
  2. The theoretical foundation and relevance in peer reviewed scholarly literature, NYS mentoring standards and/or other best practices;
  3. The method(s) used for implementation at the district or school level; and
  4. The methods that will be used for assessing and evaluating the program activities and outcomes and how and when the results of formative and summative evaluations of the program activities and outcomes conducted by the applicant and/or any partners will be reported to NYSED (results must be reported, at a minimum, on an annual basis).

Applicant Capacity and Sustainability (Up to 10 points):

  1. The proposal provides an overall project plan, including a timeline for the planning period, that describes the applicant’s capacity to oversee and manage the proposed program including evidence of adequate human, organizational, and professional resources and associated abilities to meet the needs of their proposed program, as well as their propensity to deliver results (any track record of successful induction and mentoring program results by the applicant and/or partners should be included and discussed here).
  2. The proposal describes how any initiative funded by this award will aim to involve key stakeholders (e.g., unions, key teachers, school leaders) to ensure there is support, particularly for specific programmatic components (e.g., common planning time, collaborative efforts and opportunities) and to build internal school capacity, and describes how school leaders will lead the program as part of a coherent school-wide development initiative.
  3. The proposal describes a sustainability plan for how the applicant will continue this induction program, including many if not all of the additional proposed services and components, after the expiration of this grant, and demonstrate how the program will be maintained fiscally by identifying sources of potential funds.

Program Requirements For Early Career Educators (Up To 20 Points):

Formative Assessment and Differentiated Programs and Supports (Up to 10 points):

  1. The proposal must describe how the program will provide differentiated programmatic offerings based on initial and ongoing formative assessment results of each educator and their student learning data, and how the applicant will know whether and how the effectiveness of each early career educator improves.
  2. The proposal describes in what other ways supports provided to early career educators utilize NYS Mentoring Standards (see Attachment E), other research-based innovations, or best practices.

Assessment and Development of Shortage Area Skills (Up to 10 points):

For teachers of English language learners, students with disabilities, and/or any STEM discipline, including enhancing math and science content pedagogy of Common Branch teachers, for which the applicant focuses, the proposal describes how specific skills and knowledge needed to advance student learning and ensure student growth for these students (English language learners, students with disabilities, and students in STEM disciplines) will be assessed and developed in early career educators. (Best practices for induction programs specifically focused on teachers of these areas have important differences from more generalized approaches to teacher induction, and applicants must explain how their proposed approach is rooted in what is known to have good results for students in these specific areas.)

Program Requirements for Mentors (Up To 20 Points):

Mentor Selection (Up to 15 points):

  1. The proposal establishes rigorous and challenging mentor selection criteria that ensures high quality mentors, and explains how selected mentors and early career educators will be matched for the proposed program. For the mentor selection criteria, the proposal:
    1. Describes the mentor candidate eligibility requirements and mentor selection process in the planning period and beyond:
      1. Explains the selection process and how the applicant will ensure that only mentors who are specialists (i.e., English language learners, students with disabilities, STEM disciplines) and able to achieve significant student achievement gains in their particular grade/content areas are allowed to mentor early career educators, including the type of evidence relied upon to make this selection;
      2. Explains what level of performance under the teacher evaluation system is required to become a mentor and to remain a mentor once the full evaluation system is established in the school;
      3. Describes how the selection criteria incorporates recommendations from the recently adopted New York State Mentoring Standards (Attachment E) and/or other best practices in mentoring selection.

Mentor Training, Supports, and Development (Up to 5 points):

  1. The proposal provides mentors selected for the program any additional professional development supports that they need to be proficient, and able to support early career educators, with:
      • Common Core Standards;
      • Data-driven inquiry;
      • Evidence-based observation aligned with district evaluation models, including the district’s selected teacher practice rubric;
      • Student growth goal-setting process, as required by the district’s evaluation process;
      • Current best practices and specific strategies for English language learners and students with disabilities, with specific focus on instruction in literacy, research based practices in the provision of specialized instruction for students with disabilities, Response to Intervention, and Positive Behavioral Intervention and Supports, as well as native language development.
    1. The proposal includes a detailed description of the types of individualized supports, differentiated professional development, and training that will be provided during the planning period of this grant (and ongoing) to selected mentors on the above components, as well as the New York State Mentoring Standards (Attachment E).
    2. The proposal explains the tools (e.g., mentor skill rubrics, performance assessments, surveys of mentored teachers, etc) that will be used to continuously evaluate mentors and inform the individualized supports and ongoing professional development, as well as describe their plans for removing ineffective mentors.

Use of Technology (Up To 10 Points):

The proposal describes in detail how the program incorporates technology, including one or more of the following:

    • Exemplar videos of outstanding teachers for professional development (Exemplar videos that are produced in the course of this grant program will be deemed to be owned by the New York State Education Department or, in the alternative, the applicants will grant to the Department a perpetual, royalty free license to duplicate, distribute, make derivatives or otherwise use the videos in any manner, solely for the Department’s educational purposes.);
    • Video as a tool for teacher reflection;
    • Coaching by mentors through collaborative inquiry such as review of videos of teachers, online interactions;
    • Remote mentoring via technology such as Skype, or satellite;
    • Blended mentoring (remote mentoring from content experts and on-site mentoring from school-based experts);
    • On-line classroom modules, On-line professional learning communities, virtual simulation exercises, etc for collaboration amongst content specific teachers across the state.

The proposal describes how the program will incorporate the use of technology, any research to support their approach, and how they will evaluate the effectiveness of the technology usage (e.g., types of data and metrics that will be collected). The proposal explains why there is a demonstrated need for an investment in this approach to technology for this induction model (e.g., without remote mentoring, the district could not provide content expert mentors to their new science teachers).

B. ADDITIONAL EXTRA CREDIT PROGRAM CRITERIA (Maximum 10 points)

  1. Proposals whose program provides incentives and structures to enable additional or new full-certification in shortage areas (0 or 5 points):

The proposal describes how the program will provide incentives and structures to enable early career educators who are not yet certified in shortage areas to obtain the requisite credentials that will allow them to become eligible and prepared to teach as a fully certified New York State teacher in that shortage area.

The proposal describes the specific incentives and structures the program will provide to early career educators to provide incentives to them to seek additional, or new, full-certification in specific shortage areas. The proposal describes how the applicant will ensure educators complete their certification, and what, if any, commitments will be required of applicants after they complete their certification, such as remaining within low performing schools in the district.

  1. Proposals whose program pilots the usage of “Impact Award” funding (0 or 5 points)

The proposal describes how the program will pilot the usage of “Impact Award” funding, meaning financial or other incentives, to reward individuals, schools, and/or third party partners who achieve key benchmarks:

    • Reward success based on achievement of key interim benchmarks at various stages over the course of the grant, such as:
      • Percentage of mentored teachers, receiving ratings of Developing or better, retained in their school/the district.
      • Percentage of mentored teachers who receive evaluation ratings above Developing.
      • Number of new teachers, receiving ratings of Developing or better, who seek new certification in a shortage area.

The proposal describes how the program will incorporate the use of Impact Awards, and which key interim benchmarks will be used by the district at which points in time. The proposal explains how the applicant will ensure that the benchmarks selected are ambitious and challenging, how rewards will be allocated before the end of the grant period, and a sustainability plan for how remaining awards will be funded after the conclusion of the grant period in July 2014.

Back to top


XIII. BUDGET AND BUDGET NARRATIVE SCORING (20 points maximum)

The budget section of the proposal represents 20 points of the overall score (See Section X for allowable uses of award funds). Applicants who submit a budget and budget narrative that requests awards over $500,000 total per application and/or over $50,000 per school will automatically receive a score of zero for this section.

The budget and budget narrative must comply with the following:

    1. Complete an FS-10 that shows in detail all expenses requested from the Model Induction Program funds during the six-month planning period. Also complete a Budget Summary form (Attachment D) including summary expenses of requested funds from the grant for the entire grant period. A summary of any district and other source contributions, if any, should be listed on the chart where requested.
    2. Provide a budget narrative that justifies all proposed expenditures and indicates the basis of calculation for each cost during the six-month planning period and the two year grant period. For each item, provide the information in a manner that will allow reviewers to clearly understand the basis of calculation for each proposed expenditure. The budget narrative expenditure descriptions should also include a description of any district and other source contributions. 
    3. Describe how proposed expenditures are appropriate, reasonable and necessary to support the project activities and goals.
    4. Describe how the expenditures and activities are supplemental to and do not supplant or duplicate services currently provided.

Criteria for submitted budgets:

  • The budget is thorough, specific, and supports the proposed project.
  • The proposed project budget presents expenses that are allowable, realistic, accurate, cost-efficient, and clearly relate to and reflect project activities, objectives, and outcomes.
  • The costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives, design, and potential significance of the proposed project.
  • The estimated number of mentors and early career educators to be served in each school is stated, and the costs per school are reasonable and cost-efficient in relation to the number of estimated mentors and early career educators to be served and to the anticipated results and benefits.
  • The required personnel, professional and technical services, and/or travel for the proposed project are clearly and adequately explained.
  • The justifications for expenditures are reasonable and clearly explained.
  • The costs for equipment, supplies, and materials are reasonable and adequately justified.
  • The costs related to any additional extra credit program components selected, such as technology, incentives, and/or impact awards are reasonable and clearly explained.
  • The costs do not exceed the maximum of $500,000 per application and $50,000 per school proposed to be supported.

Back to top


XIV. POST SELECTION PROCEDURES

DEBRIEFING PROCEDURES:

All unsuccessful vendors may request a debriefing within five (5) business days of receiving notice from NYSED.  Vendors may request a debriefing letter on the selection process regarding this RFP by submitting a written request to the Fiscal Contact person at:

NYS Education Department
Attn: Lynn Caruso, RFP #GT-06
Contract Administration Unit
89 Washington Avenue
Room 505W EB
Albany, NY  12234

The Fiscal Contact person will make arrangements with program staff to provide a written summary of the proposal’s strengths and weaknesses, as well as recommendations for improvement.  Within ten 10 business days, the program staff will issue a written debriefing letter to the vendor.

PROTEST PROCEDURES:

Applicants who receive a notice of non-award may protest the NYSED award decision subject to the following:

  1. The protest must be in writing and must contain specific factual and/or legal allegations setting forth the basis on which the protesting party challenges the contract award by NYSED.
  1. The protest must be filed within ten (10) business days of receipt of the debriefing letter.  The protest letter must be filed with:

NYS Education Department
Attn: Lynn Caruso, RFP #GT-06
Contract Administration Unit
89 Washington Avenue
Room 505W EB
Albany, NY  12234

  1. The NYSED Contract Administration Unit (CAU) will convene a review team that will include at least one staff member from each of NYSED’s Office of Counsel, CAU, and the Program Office.  The review team will review and consider the merits of the protest and will decide whether the protest is approved or denied.  Counsel’s Office will provide the applicant with written notification of the review team’s decision within seven (7) business days of the receipt of the protest.  The original protest and decision will be filed with OSC when the contract procurement record is submitted for approval and CAU will advise OSC that a protest was filed.
  2. The NYSED Contract Administration Unit (CAU) may summarily deny a protest that fails to contain specific factual or legal allegations, or where the protest only raises issues of law that have already been decided by the courts. 

RESERVATION OF RIGHTS:

NYSED reserves the right to: (1) reject any or all proposals received in response to the RFP; (2) withdraw the RFP at any time, at the agency’s sole discretion; (3) make an award under the RFP in whole or in part; (4) disqualify any bidder whose conduct and/or proposal fails to conform to the requirements of the RFP; (5) seek clarifications of proposals; (6) use proposal information obtained through site visits, management interviews and the state’s investigation of a bidder’s qualifications, experience, ability or financial standing, and any material or information submitted by the bidder in response to the agency’s request for clarifying information in the course of evaluation and/or selection under the RFP; (7) prior to the bid opening, amend the RFP specifications to correct errors or oversights, or to supply additional information, as it becomes available; (8) prior to the bid opening, direct bidders to submit proposal modifications addressing subsequent RFP amendments; (9) change any of the scheduled dates; (10) waive any requirements that are not material; (11) negotiate with the successful bidder within the scope of the RFP in the best interests of the state; (12) conduct contract negotiations with the next responsible bidder, should the agency be unsuccessful in negotiating with the selected bidder; (13) utilize any and all ideas submitted in the proposals received; (14) unless otherwise specified in the solicitation, every offer is firm and not revocable for a period of 90 days from the bid opening; (15) require clarification at any time during the procurement process and/or require correction of arithmetic or other apparent errors for the purpose of assuring a full and complete understanding of a bidder’s proposal and/or to determine a bidder’s compliance with the requirements of solicitation; (16) to request best and final offers.

Back to top


XV. BIDDERS CONFERENCE, QUESTIONS, CORRESPONDENCE, SUBMISSION

A. Bidders Conference by Webinar:

The New York State Education Department will host a Bidders Conference by Webinar on September 20, 2011 from 1:00 to 3:00 pm.  To reserve a spot in the webinar, send an e-mail to:  inductionrfp@mail.nysed.gov by September 15, 2011
Subject: Bidders Webinar Reservation.

All interested bidders should consider attending this webinar because critical project information will be shared, followed by a question and answer period.

Model Induction Webinar Recording from September 20, 2011 external link icon

B. Important Dates:

Information on how to connect to the webinar will be sent to registered participants on September 16, 2011.

The Bidders Webinar is scheduled for September 20, 2011.

Proposals must be postmarked by October 14, 2011 or hand delivered no later than 5:00 p.m. on October 14, 2011. 

Applicants will be informed of funding decisions on or about December 15, 2011.

Project start date: January 1, 2012

Planning Period: January 1, 2012 to June 30, 2012

C. Correspondence:

Questions regarding this RFP must be submitted by email to inductionrfp@mail.nysed.gov no later than the close of business September 23, 2011.

Questions regarding this request should be identified as Program or Fiscal, and submitted to the appropriate individual listed here:

Program Matters

Fiscal Matters

Amy Cox

Lynn Caruso

 

 

Email address
inductionrfp@mail.nysed.gov

Email Address inductionrfp@mail.nysed.gov

A Questions and Answers Summary PDF icon (50 KB) is now posted.

For ease of coordination with the high needs schools in New York City, any potential applicant who would like to partner with a designated high needs school in NYC is advised to contact:

Shuvi Santo
Director, Teacher Recruitment Programs
Office of Teacher Recruitment & Quality
NYC Department of Education
65 Court Street, Room 320
718-935-4168
ssanto@schools.nyc.gov

D. Submission:

Applications must be postmarked or hand delivered to the following address by October 14, 2011:

NYS Education Department
Attn: Lynn Caruso, RFP #GT-06
Contract Administration Unit
89 Washington Avenue
Room 505W EB
Albany, NY  12234

Institutions must submit one original, three copies and one electronic copy in MS Word CD format of the application for funding as described in the Narrative Format section of this RFP. The original must be clearly identified with original signature of the CEO or designee.

(Facsimile or emailed submission of the proposals are NOT acceptable).

Back to top


XVI. ASSURANCES

New York State Education Department

Assurances for Federal Discretionary Program Funds

The following assurances PDF icon are a component of your application.  By signing the certification on the application cover page you are ensuring accountability and compliance with State and federal laws, regulations, and grants management requirements. 

Federal Assurances and Certifications, General:

  • Assurances – Non-Construction Programs
  • Certifications Regarding Lobbying; Debarment, Suspension and Other Responsibility Matters
  • Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion – Lower Tier Covered Transactions
  • General Education Provisions Act Assurances

Federal Assurances and Certifications, NCLB (if appropriate):

The following are required as a condition for receiving any federal funds under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.

  • NCLB Assurances
  • School Prayer Certification

New York State Assurances and Certifications: (For discretionary grant programs only.)

  • Appendix A
  • Appendix A-1G
  • Appendix A-2

Assurance Documents: PDF PDF icon (120 KB) | Word Word document icon (151 KB)

Back to top


XVII. PROPOSAL EVALUATION RUBRIC

Proposal Evaluation Rubric Document in PDF PDF icon (94 KB)
Proposal Evaluation Rubric Document in Word Word document icon (178 KB)

Back to top


XVIII. Application Cover Page

Application Cover Page Document in PDF PDF icon (37 KB)
Application Cover Page Document inWord Word document icon (74 KB)

Back to top


ATTACHMENTS

Attachments in PDF PDF icon (93 KB)
Attachments in Word Word document icon (186 KB)

Back to top


RFP Documents

All RFP documentation can be downloaded in a single file from the following:

Back to top

Last Updated: July 15, 2013 5:54 PM