CONTENTS
1. Report of selection committee THANKS, committee members!
2. New Request for Proposals
3. Re-opening the RFP process
REPORT OF SELECTION COMMITTEE
The selection committee for ESI97 TORCH met in Newark on October 11th to
advise WWLPT. While the teachers' ideas were extremely important to the
decision process, it is up to WWLPT/ WWNFF to make the final decisions.
What follows is very close to, but not exactly what the committee
suggested.
I've emailed all of the teams that submitted proposals to set
up an appointment for a (conference) phone call.
-Nine proposals for NSF TORCH funds were studied.
-The committee definitely found one TORCH team for Summer 1998.
-Two other designs met the standards, but posed budget problems. The
committee was optimistic that something could be worked out with these
two teams.
-Several of the other teams were also fairly close to meeting the
standards in institute design and budget requirements. The committee was
sure something could be worked out with these teams, too.
-Some teams need to resubmit (see parts 2 and 3 below).
---The proposal from Long Beach was selected because
-the institute design met the standards published earlier on this listserv; -the budget was complete, clear to the committee, cost effective, and -the site provided significant matching funds and in-kind support.
"Met the standards" does not mean that any of the institute designs met all of the standards, but that the three noted above met most of them.
-The three designs will be published on the web when/ if we get the permission of the institute creators. We'll let you know when they (and any others) are posted to the web.
We plan discussions on this listserv for you to assist each other in meeting all of the standards. Everyone should be able to contribute to the discussion as you think about and carry out your 20-hour commitment.
--- 2 New Request for Proposals1) We invite
a) teams whose designs did not meet the standards to apply again after they talk with me, and b) everyone in the 1997 ES institute to submit a site-specific proposal no later than December 8, 1997.
December 8th is the deadline for receipt. You may submit your proposal at any time. If you submit your proposal before November 15, the committee will provide feedback within three weeks.
Those who submit their proposals after November 15, 1997, but by December 8, 1997, will be notified in January 1998.
Follow the original RFP (part 2, locator-provider only) except for submittal date and as noted below.
If there are other problems with the original RFP, we will -answer them as they come up -publicize any major changes on this listserv.
People not on the listserv will need to call or fax periodically to keep us with the status.
We'll mail a letter similar to this to everyone in the institute in the next week or so by surface mail.
--- Important clarification/ reminders/ revisions :You may adapt the designs published on the web for your institute. To be competitive, proposals need to provide a *local* institute for around $350 (or less) per participant in NSF funds.
NSF money cannot replace school or district or state money. It is meant to enhance programs. In other words, you can't use NSF money to replace funding for something you were going to do anyway.
There are not enough NSF funds to pay participants to attend or to provide lodging for them. If you can find school, district, state funds, Eisenhower funds, or private funds for these purposes, that's great. But please don't include participant stipends in the NSF portion of your budget.
Every TORCH participant traditionally gets a thick book of activities engaged in during the workshop. It's up to the TORCH team to create it, but something like that could be included in your budget as a gift for participants.
NSF funds can't be used to buy equipment. They can buy some materials, but local funds should provide most of that money. "Supplies and materials" are consumable. "Equipment" is stuff that will stay around after the workshop.
An evaluation is a vital part of every TORCH institute. WWLPT will conduct an evaluation for your proposed institutes.
Participants will complete a demographic questionnaire at the beginning of the workshop. They will evaluate the workshop at the end. In the spring of the following year, they will complete another questionnaire on the impact of what they learned on their classes and student outcomes.
Please, please email questions to me as you prepare your proposal.
Committee members agreed not to discuss specific details of the meeting, but they would be good sources of information about the ideas outlined above. Their names were emailed to the list a few days ago.
--- 3.NOTE: Reopening the Process
The turnaround time was short. We want those who were "almost there" to have time to apply. We want more people to have the opportunity to apply.
Even though we would prefer to have ALL site specific institutes in order to meet the NSF quota of 400 more teachers, we don't have to meet the quota that way.
WWLPT can also attempt to book teams with ESSE (and other) colleges and through the regular TORCH process to reach more teachers. The three designs that "met the standards" could be exported to other sites with intensive collaborative work between the team and the site coordinator. We will provide this booking option to any teams selected so we're actually looking for more cost effective site-specific (provider & locator) proposals through this second RFP process.
Don't forget to ask questions. This is the first time we've been through this process. We're all learning.
Special thanks to the committee! You know how important you were to the success of this effort!
Mary
Mary Apodaca, Director Woodrow Wilson Leadership Program for Teachers The Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation CN 5281 Princeton NJ 08543 609-452-7007 extension 19; FAX: 609-452-0066 apodaca@woodrow.org apodaca@www.woodrow.org Web site: www.woodrow.org/teachers/