*ATTACHMENT A*

Statement of Work

Evaluation of the Partnership Program

of Title II of the Higher Education Act

# Introduction and Purpose

The Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants Programs, authorized under Title
II of the Higher Education Act (HEA), are designed to increase student
achievement through comprehensive approaches to improving teacher
quality in America's schools. The Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants
Programs fund three types of programs in the area of teacher quality,
and grants are targeted at states and partnerships. In the authorizing
legislation, Congress mandated an evaluation of the Teacher Quality
Programs by writing that "the Secretary shall evaluate the activities
funded under Title II" and shall "broadly disseminate successful
practices developed by eligible States and eligible partnerships," and
"broadly disseminate information regarding such practices that were
found to be ineffective" (Section 206(d)). The evaluations of the
Teacher Quality Programs will be overseen by the Planning and Evaluation
Service (PES) within the Office of the Under Secretary at the U.S.
Department of Education (ED).

The purpose of this evaluation is to assess the impact, strengths and
weaknesses of one of the three Title II programs: the **Partnership
Grants Program**. More specifically, the evaluation will measure the
impact of grants in helping colleges of education, colleges of arts and
sciences, school districts and other partners to work more closely
together in order to improve the content and structure of the
professional education offered to prospective teachers. In addition, if
ED exercises the optional component of the evaluation[^1] outlined at
the end of this SOW, the evaluation will also measure the impact of two
to three of the most promising pre-service teacher education program
models on the knowledge, skills and early instructional practices of
newly minted, elementary school teachers from a sample of Partnership
programs.

The base contract for the base evaluation will last a total of 52
months. If ED decides to exercise the option after reviewing the
feasibility report submitted under subtask 7.2, the evaluation will last
60 months.

**The Partnership Grants Program.** Through multi-year awards to a
limited number of highly committed partnerships, the Partnership Program
is intended to ensure that new teachers have the content-knowledge and
teaching skills they need when they enter the classroom by:

-   Increasing collaboration between schools of arts and sciences and
    schools of education;

-   Strengthening the vital role of K-12 educators, particularly those
    in high-need local educational agencies (LEAs), in the design and
    implementation of effective teacher preparation programs; and

-   Increasing the intensity and quality of clinical experiences for
    prospective teachers.

The Partnership grantees are also required to improve the education that
they provide to prospective teachers in terms of integrating technology
into instructional practices. Finally, the grantees are required to
provide on-going support and education to the newly minted teachers who
graduate from their teacher education programs. The program is intended
to be a catalyst for the kind of collaboration that can generate
significant and sustainable improvements in teacher preparation across
the nation.

# Background

## **The Need for the Improvements in Pre-service Teacher Education** 

One of the most essential factors in ensuring high achievement levels
and academic success for all students is highly qualified teachers in
our nation's classrooms. Research finds that the quality of teaching is
one of the most important in-school factors in improving students'
learning. However, many policymakers, researchers, and members of the
public perceive that teacher education does not adequately prepare
teachers for the challenges of today's classrooms. This perception is
based on several facts:

-   Only 28 percent of new teachers feel very well prepared to implement
    state or district curriculum and performance standards in their
    classroom, and only 18 percent of new teachers feel very well
    prepared to address the needs of students with limited English
    proficiency or diverse cultural backgrounds.[^2]

-   Universities often do not view teacher education programs as
    prestigious or important components of the university. Many
    educators speculate that the low status of teacher education may
    discourage the most able students from applying.

-   Often, there exists no meaningful collaboration between schools of
    education and schools of arts and sciences, making it difficult for
    education students to gain adequate content knowledge in subject
    areas that they will teach.

-   As the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future
    reported, teacher preparation nationwide still lacks an adequate
    quality assurance system. Professional accreditation is not required
    of teacher education programs as it is in fields such as medicine
    and law.

A.  **The Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants Program**

The Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants Program, authorized under Title
II of the HEA, was created to increase student achievement through
comprehensive approaches to improving teacher quality. Beginning in the
summer of 1999, the Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE) awarded
competitive grants to states and partnerships in the three Title II
programs: 1) State Grants Program; 2) Teacher Recruitment Grants
Program; and 3) Partnership Grants Program.

As noted previously in this work statement, although three programs
comprise the Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants Program, only one of the
programs---the Partnership Grants Program---will be evaluated in this
study.

For FY99, ED awarded 25, five-year Partnership grants at a cost of
\$33.4 million. Grants may be awarded for up to five years. The funding
levels of the grants range from \$177,124 to \$2,557,786. Grantees are
required to match the federal funds with funding or in-kind
contributions from other sources each year -- an amount equal to 25
percent of the grant for the first year, 35 percent of the grant for the
second year, and 50 percent of the grant for each succeeding year. The
size of each of the Partnerships in terms of the number of partner
institutions varies greatly. Some grantees consist of only one
institution of higher education (IHE), a single school district and one
or more additional partners, while other grantees include more than five
institutions of higher education, more than 10 school districts and
several other partners. For example, the Project SUCCEED at the
University of Miami includes three partners -- the university, a single
school district and a science museum. At the other extreme, the
Partnership for Texas Public Schools based at the Texas A & M University
system includes 9 universities, 47 school districts, 2 professional
associations, and 2 business partners. ED will award another set of
five-year Partnership grants in the late summer of 2000; ED predicts
that approximately 5 more Partnership grants will be awarded at that
time.

C.  Related Data Collection Efforts by the U.S. Department of Education
    (ED) for the Teacher Quality Enhancement Programs

In addition to the evaluation described in this work statement, ED
undertook additional background, evaluation efforts to enhance ED's
knowledge of teacher quality issues. These efforts have had three major
goals: first, to provide ED and program grantees with information on
current research, evaluation and implementation of reforms in the areas
of teacher training and teacher recruitment; second, to give technical
assistance to ED through the development of site visit protocols for
grantees, and the development of program performance reports; and third
to produce analytical papers for ED that discuss possible methodologies
for evaluating the effects of Partnership Grants on the achievement of
students of newly minted teachers, as well as the effects of the Grants
on teachers' knowledge, skills, and classroom practices.

To achieve these goals, ED has undertaken the following three specific
background, evaluation efforts:

(1) **A review and summary of research on state and local teacher
    recruitment programs.** A task order is currently in place with the
    Urban Institute to study the research and evaluation literature on
    teacher recruitment programs, especially those that are similar to
    the Teacher Recruitment Program authorized under Title II. This task
    order has two main purposes: first, to help ED learn about the
    complexity of similar recruitment programs and reform efforts and
    focus the research questions and design of the multi-year evaluation
    of Title II; and second, to create a document that will be useful
    for administrators and grantees of Title II programs. This task
    order will also develop site visit protocols for ED to use during
    monitoring and technical assistance visits that program staff will
    make to Teacher Recruitment grantees. As of the spring of 2000, ED
    is getting ready to send the literature review to the Government
    Printing Office for printing. As of the spring of 2000, ED is
    reviewing the second draft of the site visit protocols. The most
    recent draft of the literature review is entitled *Literature Review
    on Teacher Recruitment Programs* and is available at
    ocfo.ed.gov/Coninfo/epphea.htm. (This task order is number 62 on
    contract EA94053001. The title of the task order is *Review and
    Summary of Research on State and Local Teacher Recruitment
    Programs.*)

(2) **A review and summary of state, local and IHE reform efforts in
    teacher quality.** A task order is currently in place with SRI
    International to study efforts to improve teacher quality on the
    state, local and university levels. This task order involves the
    examination of reform efforts in initial teacher certification,
    alternative routes to certification, teacher induction programs, and
    accountability of teacher education programs. This task order has
    two main purposes: first, to help ED learn about the complexity of
    similar programs and reform efforts and focus the research questions
    and design of the multi-year evaluation of Title II; and second, to
    create a document that will be useful for administrators and
    grantees of Title II programs. This task order will also develop
    site visit protocols for ED program staff to use when they conduct
    monitoring and technical assistance site visits to State Program and
    Partnership Program grantees. The second draft of the literature
    review is entitled, *Teacher Development: A Literature Review*, and
    the second draft of the site visit protocols is entitled, *Survey
    and Site Visit Protocols for ED Site Visits to Partnership
    Grantees*. ED is reviewing both as of the spring of 2000, but copies
    are available at ocfo.ed.gov/Coninfo/epphea.htm. (The task order is
    number 27 on contract ED96009001. The official title of the task
    order is *Literature Review of State, Local and IHE Reform Efforts:
    Teacher Quality.*)

(3) **Development of annual performance reports for the three Teacher
    Quality programs and a series of analytical papers on methodologies
    for evaluating the effects of Title II Partnership Grants on student
    achievement and the knowledge, skills, and classroom practices of
    Partnership program graduates.** A task order is currently in place
    with the American Institutes for Research (AIR) for the development
    of six analytical papers that discuss possible methodologies and
    measurement tools that could be used in an evaluation of a program
    like the Partnership program -- an evaluation that would measure the
    effects of the program on various aspects of teacher performance.
    The researchers of these six papers and 4 other experts met at ED on
    February 17, 2000 in order to discuss the issues outlined in the
    papers. The contractor responsible for this task order is also
    developing annual program performance reports for the three Title II
    programs. As of the spring of 2000, the final drafts of the six
    analytical papers and the summary of the February 17^th^ meeting
    have been submitted to ED; copies are available at
    ocfo.ed.gov/Coninfo/epphea.htm. The summary and the papers are
    listed below:

-   *Synthesis and Summary Notes of U.S. Department of Education Expert
    Panel: Strategies for Evaluating Efforts to Improve Pre-service
    Teacher Education, February 17, 2000* prepared by Laura Desimone,
    American Institutes for Research (AIR)*;*

-   *Issues in Designing an Evaluation of the Effects of Pre-service
    Teacher Education* by Andrew Porter, University of Wisconsin,
    Madison and Michael S.Garet, American Institutes for Research
    (AIR)*;*

-   *Memo: Thoughts on Evaluation of Partnership Grants Program* from
    Pamela Grossman, University of Washington;

-   *Assessing Teacher Quality: Insights from School Effectiveness
    Research* by Brian Rowan, University of Michigan;

-   *Evaluating Mosaics: What Counts in Reading Teacher Education?* by
    Gerald G. Duffy, Michigan State University;

-   *The Measurement of Teaching Ability* by Lloyd Bond, University of
    North Carolina, Greensboro;

-   *Teacher Knowledge and its Assessment: A Preliminary Briefing on the
    Case of Elementary and Middle School Mathematics* by Suzanne M.
    Wilson, Michigan State University.

Drafts of the annual performance report forms are being submitted to OMB
during the spring of 2000 for OMB clearance. The final annual
performance reports will be produced after OMB's comments are received
in August or September of 2000. The most recent draft of the Partnership
program annual performance report form is called *Annual Performance
Report for Partnership* Grants and is available at
ocfo.ed.gov/Coninfo/epphea.htm. Finally, as part of the process of
developing the performance reports and commissioning the papers listed
above, AIR created a chart that contains summary information on all of
the Partnership grantees based on the grantee applications. This chart
is entitled *Chart of the Recipients of Partnership Grants* and can also
be found on the same Web site named above. (This work was produced under
subtask 13 on task order 17 under contract 282-98-0029. The title of the
task order is *Design of Higher Education Teacher Education Programs.)*

### The Evaluation of the Partnership Grants Program of Title II

## **Purpose of the Evaluation**

## There are three main purposes of the national evaluation of the Partnership Grants Program of Title II:

(1) Provide program performance data to meet the requirements of the
    Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA).

(2) Identify the program strategies and models that are the most
    effective and the least effective at achieving their goals, and
    disseminate this information. This purpose meets the requirements of
    the Title II statute which states that "The Secretary shall evaluate
    the activities funded under Title II" and shall "broadly disseminate
    successful practices developed by eligible States and eligible
    partnerships," and "broadly disseminate information regarding such
    practices that were found to be ineffective" (Section 206(d)).

(3) Evaluate the impact of grants in helping colleges of education,
    colleges of arts and sciences, districts and other partners to work
    more closely together in order to improve the content and structure
    of the professional education offered to prospective teachers. In
    doing so, the evaluation will evaluate the organizational changes
    that take place within Partnerships, as well as the changes in the
    content and structure of the programs offered to students who are
    studying to become elementary school teachers. In addition, the
    evaluation will also evaluate the impact of the grants on improving
    the responsiveness of universities to the staffing and instructional
    needs of partner districts. Finally, if ED exercises the option, the
    evaluation will also measure the impact of two or three of the most
    promising pre-service teacher education program models on the
    knowledge, conceptions, skills and early instructional practices of
    newly minted teachers from a sample of Partnership programs.

### B. Key Evaluation Questions 

## Based on the purpose and goals of the Partnership Program, there are several key questions that the contractor shall include and address in this evaluation. The contractor shall not be limited by these questions, but may expand upon them as warranted by the scope and direction of the evaluation: 

-   **[(1) Characteristics of high-quality pre-service, teacher
    education]{.underline}:** Based on a review of rigorous research on
    pre-service teacher education, and based on the publications of the
    key, national organizations that focus on teacher quality and
    teacher preparation, what are the characteristics of high-quality,
    pre-service teacher education? What empirical evidence indicates
    that each characteristic of high-quality, pre-service teacher
    education produces teachers who contribute to positive learning
    gains for students? How can these characteristics be used as a
    framework for evaluating the quality of the pre-service teacher
    education offered at Partnership institutions? (The key national
    organizations whose literature shall be reviewed include: (1) the
    National Commission on Teaching and America's Future (NCTAF); (2)
    the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education
    (NCATE); (3) the American Council for Education (ACE); (4) the
    Holmes Group; (5) the Teacher Education Accreditation Council
    (TEAC); (6) The Association of Teacher Educators (ATE); (7) The
    American Association for Colleges of Teacher Education (AACTE); (8)
    Association of Teacher Educators (ATE); (9) The American Association
    for Higher Education (AAHE). The contractor shall review and
    summarize the characteristics of high-quality pre-service teacher
    education as discussed by additional organizations that the
    contractor believes to be important to include in the list above.)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **[(2) Structure and general content of the pre-service teacher
    education programs and the ways that the grantees change the
    structure and general content during the grant
    period:]{.underline}** (The contractor shall answer these questions
    through analysis of data collected through the project director
    survey, the faculty survey and the exploratory and in-depth case
    studies. The contractor shall first answer these questions in the
    first evaluation report due to ED 12 months after the award of the
    contract. The contractor shall update the answers to these questions
    in each of the succeeding evaluation reports and in the evaluation
    memo.) In answering the questions below, the contractor shall answer
    the questions for the entire teacher preparation program at each IHE
    and shall also specify the answers for the parts of the programs
    that prepare future elementary school teachers. The contractor shall
    provide information on the status of each of the issues below for
    the school year before the Partnership grants were awarded (1998-99)
    and on the status of each of the issues at the time the survey is
    administered (spring 2001).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Degrees conferred.** As of the spring/summer of 1999 (before the
    Partnership grants were awarded) and as of the spring of 2001, what
    was/is the subject-area distribution of degrees confirmed on
    teaching students among pre-service teacher education programs,
    particularly for the parts of the programs that train elementary
    school teachers? As of the spring/summer of 1999 and as of the
    spring of 2001, did/do most of the programs offer a bachelor's
    degree and/or a master's degree? Does each grantee plan to change
    the degrees offered over the period of the grant? Is such a change
    one of the reforms being undertaken as part of the Partnership
    grant? Throughout the five-year grant, what kinds of changes do the
    grantees make in terms of the degrees that they offer?

-   **Point of entry.** As of the spring/summer of 1999 and the spring
    of 2001, for the undergraduate programs, at what point during the
    college career did/do students apply for entry into the teacher
    education program? During the year before the Partnership grants
    were awarded (school year 1998-99) what were the requirements for
    entering the teacher preparation program? As of the spring of 2001,
    what are the requirements for entering the teacher preparation
    program? Does each grantee plan to make changes in these areas over
    the 5-year period of the Partnership grant? Are such changes among
    the reforms being undertaken as part of the Partnership grant?
    Throughout the five-year grant, how do the grantees change the point
    of entry and the requirements for entering the teacher preparation
    program?

-   **Number and types of courses required.** During the school year
    before the grants were awarded (1998-99), how many courses were
    required of students who were studying to become teachers? What
    kinds of courses were required? How many courses in mathematics
    content and in the subject area of elementary reading were required
    of prospective elementary school teachers? How many courses in
    pedagogy were required of all students? How did each of these
    requirements change between school year 1998-99 and the spring of
    2001? Throughout the five-year grant, how do the grantees change the
    requirements?

-   **Program models.** Are there clear models or educational
    philosophies of pre-service teacher education programs into which
    each of the grantee programs could be categorized given the form and
    content of the grantee programs in school year 1998-99? Are there
    clear models or educational philosophies of pre-service teacher
    education programs into which each of the grantee programs could be
    categorized given the form and content of the grantee programs *as
    of the spring of 2001*? As of the spring of 2001, do some of the
    programs share a common curriculum or approach to teaching
    instructional practices in mathematics and reading to prospective
    elementary school teachers? Upon receipt of the grant, were some of
    the programs aiming to change their program model or educational
    philosophy as one part of their grant activities? As of the spring
    of 2001, how has this changed? Over the five-year period of the
    grant, how do the programs change their program model?

-   **Quality.** Drawing on the literature on high-quality pre-service
    teacher education for elementary school teachers, what appears to be
    the quality of the education offered to prospective elementary
    school teachers, particularly in the areas of reading and
    mathematics as of the spring prior to grant award (1999) and as of
    the spring of 2001? To the extent that it is possible for the
    contractor to determine retrospectively: as of the spring prior to
    grant receipt (1999), were the grantee institutions offering best
    practice pre-service teacher education in the instruction of
    prospective elementary school teachers? Which components of best
    practices were reflected in the grantee programs at that time? As of
    the spring of 2001 are the grantee institutions offering best
    practice pre-service teacher education in the instruction of
    prospective elementary school students? Which components of best
    practices are reflected in the grantee programs? As of the spring of
    2001, do the grantee institutions plan to improve the education they
    offer with respect to certain dimensions of best practice,
    pre-service teacher education? Throughout the five years of the
    Partnership grants, in which areas of high-quality pre-service
    teacher education do the grantees make the most progress?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **[(3) Organizational Changes and Relationships Among Partners
    within a Grant]{.underline}:** (The contractor shall answer these
    questions through a combination of data provided on the district
    survey, faculty survey, project director survey, and the exploratory
    and in-depth case studies. The contractor shall discuss the answers
    to these questions in all three evaluation reports and in the
    evaluation memo.)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Working relationships across arts & sciences and education
    programs.** Throughout the life of the grant, do faculty and
    administrators from colleges of arts and sciences and colleges of
    education increase their collaboration, communication and working
    relationship during the five-year grant period? Do they coordinate
    their course offerings or do they co-teach courses? As a result of
    the grant, do faculty at the colleges of arts and sciences teach at
    the colleges of education and vice versa? How many and what
    percentage of faculty from the colleges of arts and sciences are
    involved in the efforts to improve the education and training
    offered to prospective teachers? How many and what percentage of
    faculty from the colleges of education closely coordinate their work
    with faculty and administrators from the colleges of arts and
    sciences? How do these numbers (and percentages) of faculty change
    over time throughout the life of the grant? What is the quality of
    these relationships?

-   **Leadership roles.** Which individuals (in which positions) in the
    partner IHEs and in the partner districts play leadership roles in
    the process of implementing the Partnership grants? Which
    individuals from the other Partner institutions have assumed
    leadership roles? How did these individuals (from all partner
    organizations) come to play these leadership roles? How important
    does their leadership appear to be in the process of improving
    pre-service teacher education?

-   **Role of the college president.** Upon receipt of the grant and
    throughout the life of the grant, does the president/chancellor of
    the institution of higher education increase his/her involvement in
    the design and implementation of the education program offered to
    prospective teachers? In what ways does the president/chancellor
    become more involved? How does his/her involvement compare to that
    before the Partnership grant began?

-   **Role of dean of the college of education.** Upon receipt of the
    grant and throughout the life of the grant does the dean of the
    college of education increase his/her involvement in the
    coordination of the programs offered by arts and sciences? In what
    ways does he/she increase his/her involvement?

-   **Role of the dean of the college of arts and sciences.** Upon
    receipt of the grant and throughout the life of the grant does the
    dean of the college of arts and sciences increase his/her
    involvement in the design and implementation of the education
    program offered to students who are training to become teachers? In
    what ways does he/she increase his/her involvement?

-   **Roles of teachers and administrators from partner districts.**
    Upon receipt of the grant and throughout the life of the grant do
    teachers and administrators from partner districts play a more
    active role in the design and implementation of the educational and
    professional training program offered to prospective teachers? In
    what ways? How does this compare to their involvement prior to the
    Partnership award?

-   **Role of faculty from the college of arts and sciences and the
    college of education.** Upon receipt of the grant and throughout the
    life of the grant do faculty from the colleges of arts and sciences
    and from the college of education spend more time observing the
    teaching and learning that takes place in partner school districts?
    Do faculty from the IHEs spend more time providing constructive
    feedback to students who are studying to become teachers? In what
    ways do they incorporate the teaching and learning that takes place
    in partner districts into the courses that they offer at their
    institutions of higher education?

-   **Structural changes within the IHE.** Upon receipt of the grant
    and/or throughout the life of the grant do the Partnership IHEs
    undertake any organizational changes within the colleges and arts
    and sciences and colleges of education in order to improve the
    pre-service teacher education program? What kinds of organizational
    changes?

-   **Accreditation status.** What was the accreditation status of the
    Partnership IHEs when the grants were awarded to the 25 grantees in
    September of 1999? What kind of accreditation (NCATE, state and/or
    other) did each of the institutions have as of September of 1999?
    How did accreditation status change for the teacher education
    programs over the five-year grant period?

-   **Roles of district faculty and college faculty in joint projects.**
    Do faculty from the Partnership IHEs work collaboratively with the
    faculty from Partner districts? Do they work together to redesign
    the content and pedagogy of pre-service teacher education courses?
    Do they work together to evaluate the instructional practices of
    prospective teachers (teaching students)? Do faculty from Partner
    districts co-teach courses with IHE faculty? In which kinds of ways
    do they work collaboratively? Has this collaboration increased since
    the time period before the Partnership grants were awarded?

-   **Professional development for IHE and school district faculty.** Do
    the Partnership grant activities include professional development
    opportunities for faculty at the Partner IHEs and for the faculty in
    the Partner districts' schools? How do these professional learning
    opportunities help to improve the quality of the pre-service teacher
    education programs?

-   **Role of partner businesses.** What roles do partner businesses
    play throughout the grant and how do they assist in efforts to
    improve the education and training of prospective teachers?

-   **Roles of other partners.** Throughout the life of the grant, what
    role do other partners play in efforts to improve the education and
    training of prospective teachers? Businesses? Non-profit
    institutions? State agencies? Teacher unions?

-   **Sharing of funds among partners.** How do partners share the
    federal Title II funds that the Partnership receives throughout the
    life of the grant?

-   **Use of funds.** How do the Partners use the grant funds? What
    kinds of activities are funded under the grant? What proportion of
    funds is used for each of the main types of activities?

-   **Role of governance body.** Is there a governance body that
    oversees the implementation of the Partnership grant? If so, who
    serves on that governance body? What are the responsibilities of
    that governance body throughout the life of the grant? What are the
    accomplishments of the body? How effective is the governance body in
    guiding the reforms in the pre-service teacher education programs?

-   **Status of teacher preparation program on campus.** Over the course
    of the Partnership grant, is the status of the teacher preparation
    program elevated on Partnership campuses? What is the evidence of an
    elevation in status? Is this the result of the Partnership grant
    and/or other factors?

-   **Barriers to effective working relationships.** What kinds of
    barriers do the various Partners encounter as they try to work with
    one another in order to improve pre-service teacher education? How
    do the Partners attempt to overcome these barriers? What strategies
    for overcoming barriers are most successful? What are examples of
    effective Partnerships? What are the components of an effective
    Partnership?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **[(4) Efforts to Institutionalize the Partnership]{.underline}:**
    (The contractor shall answer these questions through an analysis of
    data collected through the district survey, faculty survey, and the
    in-depth case studies.)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Matching funds.** What are the sources of matching funds for the
    federal funds? What amount of funding comes from each source? How
    were these funds acquired?

-   **Efforts to institutionalize.** Throughout the life of the grant,
    what plans are being made to continue the Partnership and its
    reforms after the federal funds have dried up? Among the grantee
    staff, who is undertaking activities to ensure that the reforms are
    continued after the federal funds dry up? What activities are they
    undertaking?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **[(5) Changes to the Content and Structure of the Pre-service
    Teacher Education Program]{.underline}** (The contractor shall
    answer these questions through data provided on the project director
    survey, the faculty survey, the district survey, the exploratory and
    in-depth case studies, the annual performance reports, and the
    institutional accountability reports. The contractor shall discuss
    the answers to all of these questions in all three of the evaluation
    reports and in the evaluation memo. The contractor shall answer all
    of these questions for the overall pre-service teacher education
    programs, but shall also specify the answers for the parts of the
    programs that prepare elementary school teachers.):

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Amount of clinical training.** Upon receipt of the grant and/or
    throughout the life of the grant do the Partnership grantees
    increase the length or intensity of the clinical experience (i.e.,
    student teaching) offered to prospective teachers? How and by what
    amount?

-   **Quality of clinical training.** Upon receipt of the grant and/or
    throughout the life of the grant do the Partnership grantees
    increase the quality of the clinical experience offered to
    prospective teachers? What strategies are used by the Partnership to
    improve the quality? In what ways is the quality improved?

-   **Amount and quality of subject-area training.** Do Partnership
    grantees improve the quality or quantity of subject-area courses
    (e.g. courses in mathematics and reading) that teaching students
    take? Are subject-area courses redesigned both in terms of the
    content covered and in the pedagogy used? What kinds of curriculum
    changes are undertaken? What strategies are used by the grantees to
    improve the quality and quantity of subject-area training in reading
    and mathematics for students who are studying to become elementary
    school teachers? In what ways is the quality improved? What is the
    research base for any changes in the curriculum? Do the programs
    begin to place more emphasis on helping prospective teachers to
    understand how students learn in general and how students learn
    particular content? Do the grantees try to align the teacher
    education *curriculum* with the content standards and/or assessments
    used for K-12 students in Partner districts? Do the grantees try to
    align their *standards for teaching students* with the content and
    performance standards for K-12 students in Partner districts? In
    what ways do they attempt to align these standards? Do the programs
    try to improve the ability of their students to work with K-12
    students who have disabilities or who are English language learners?
    What are examples of high-quality content-area training?

-   **Quality and amount of training on the use of technology.** Do
    Partnership grantees increase the training that teaching students
    receive to effectively integrate technology into their instructional
    practices? What strategies are used to improve the technological
    training? In what ways is the quality of the technological training
    improved? What are some examples of improvements in this area?

-   **Role of faculty.** How do faculty from the colleges of arts and
    sciences contribute to the improved education in reading and
    mathematics content received by students who are studying to become
    elementary school teachers? How do the faculty from the colleges of
    education contribute to improvements in the education of elementary
    school students in the subject areas of mathematics and reading and
    in the pedagogical techniques used to teach mathematics and reading?
    How do the faculty contribute to improvements in the quality and
    amount of the student teaching experience? How do the faculty
    contribute to improvements in the training on the effective use of
    technology in instruction?

-   **Roles of teachers and administrators in Partner districts.** How
    do teachers and administrators from the partner districts contribute
    to the improved education in reading and mathematics content
    received by students who are studying to become elementary school
    teachers? How do the teachers and administrators from the partner
    districts contribute to improvements in the education that students
    receive in mathematics and reading content and in the pedagogical
    techniques used to teach mathematics and reading? How do teachers
    and administrators in partner districts contribute to improvements
    in the quality and amount of the student teaching experience? How do
    teachers and administrators contribute to improvements in the
    training on the effective use of technology in instruction?

-   **Efforts to evaluate teaching students and newly minted teachers.**
    Do faculty from the IHEs that educate prospective teachers evaluate
    students before they graduate from the teacher education program in
    order to ensure that they have the knowledge and skills necessary
    for effective teaching? Do the IHE faculty evaluate the
    instructional practices of teaching students during their student
    teaching experience? What standards/criteria do they use to conduct
    these evaluations? How do these evaluations help teaching students
    improve their knowledge, skills and practices? How do these
    evaluations affect a prospective teacher's grades or ability to
    graduate? Does the Partnership grant bring about an increase in
    these evaluation activities at Partner IHEs? Do faculty who teach in
    the partner school districts evaluate the instructional practices of
    prospective teachers as they participate in the student teaching
    component of their pre-service teacher education? What
    standards/criteria do the faculty use to conduct these evaluations?
    How do these evaluations affect the prospective teachers' grades and
    progression through the pre-service teacher education program? Are
    these evaluations used in a formative way to help prospective
    teachers to improve their knowledge, skills and practices? Does the
    Partnership grant bring about an increase in these evaluations? Do
    faculty who teach in the partner school districts evaluate the
    instructional practices of newly hired teachers who graduated from
    partner IHEs? How are these evaluations connected to any on-going
    support/induction programs for such newly minted teachers?

-   **On-going support for newly minted teachers.** Do Partnership
    grantees increase the amount of support that they provide their
    recent graduates who go to teach in partner districts? What is the
    form and content of this support? How long does this support last
    for each newly minted teacher who graduates from a Partnership
    institution? Who at the institution of higher education (IHE) helps
    provide that support? Who in the district helps to provide that
    support?

-   **Employment rate in partner districts.** What percentage of
    graduates of teacher preparation programs offered at Partnership
    IHEs go to work in partner districts? What percentage of graduates
    of teacher preparation programs offered at Partnership IHEs go to
    work in high-poverty schools or in schools with a shortage of
    teachers, particularly teachers of a certain subject or grade level?
    What percentage of graduates find jobs in schools that have suffered
    from a high rate of teacher turnover in recent years?

-   **Retention rate in partner districts.** What percentage of
    graduates of Partnership institutions who go to work in partner
    districts continue to teach in those districts for at least one year
    and for at least 2 years? What percentage of graduates of
    Partnership institutions who go to work in partner districts
    continue to teach in those districts for at least three years?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **[(6) Effects of Partnership Grants on Districts]{.underline}**:
    (The contractor shall answer these questions through the district
    survey, the annual performance reports, and exploratory and in-depth
    case studies. The contractor shall address these questions in all
    three evaluation reports and in the evaluation memo.)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Effect on staffing needs.** Do the Partnership grants help partner
    districts meet staffing needs? Do they reduce the shortage of
    teachers in high-need subjects, specialty areas (special education,
    bilingual education) or in high-poverty schools? Do the grants
    contribute to a decrease in the percentage of uncertified teachers
    or the percentage of teachers who are teaching out of field?

-   **Effect on teacher attrition.** Do the grant activities help reduce
    the amount of attrition and turnover among newly hired teachers in
    the partner districts?

-   **Effect on the number of highly competent, new teachers.** Is there
    any evidence that the Partnership grants have contributed to an
    increase in the number of highly competent new teachers in the
    partner districts?

-   **Effect on district role in pre-service teacher preparation.** What
    on-going role do district staff play in the development and
    implementation of reforms at the teacher education program offered
    at Partnership IHEs?

#### **C. Evaluation Design**

In this evaluation the contractor shall seek to respond to the three
broad goals outlined in Section III, Part A, of this work statement by
addressing the key research questions. There are seven main components
of the evaluation of the Partnership program: 1) the development of a
framework for evaluating the quality of pre-service teacher education;
2) a set of exploratory case studies of four Partnership grantees and
in-depth case studies of five Partnership grantees; 3) a one-time survey
of Partnership grantee project directors; 4) a two-time survey of a
purposeful sample of faculty from Partnership institutions; 5) a
two-time survey of partner districts; 6) analysis and summary of the
program's Annual Performance Report data; and 7) Review and analysis of
data on grantee institutions from *the institutional report cards on the
quality of teacher preparation* that shall be submitted to ED as part of
the *state report cards on the quality of teacher preparation* in
October of 2001 (and annually thereafter)*.* Offerors should note that
the contractor is required to produce an extremely large amount of work
during the first seven weeks of the evaluation contract. This is because
ED needs the contractor to develop the data collection instruments and
OMB clearance request very fast so that OMB clearance can be obtained in
time for survey data collection in the spring of 2001.

One purpose of this evaluation is to understand how and why some
Partnership grantees are able to make institutional changes that result
in improvements in the pre-service teacher education offered to
prospective teachers while others are not. A second, related purpose is
to understand if and how the grants brought about positive changes in
institutional and organizational relationships between partners within
the grant.

1.  **Review of the research literature on high-quality, pre-service
    teacher education and development of a framework for evaluating the
    quality of pre-service teacher education.** The contractor shall
    develop a framework for evaluating the quality of pre-service
    teacher education based on a review of rigorous research on
    pre-service teacher education, and based on a review of the
    publications of the key, national organizations that focus on
    teacher quality and teacher preparation. The contractor shall
    develop a framework for evaluating the quality of the entire
    pre-service teacher preparation program offered under a grant, as
    well as a more detailed framework for evaluating the quality of the
    part of the program that prepares elementary school teachers.
    Through the reviews, the contractor shall develop a paper that
    summarizes the research and the expert thinking of the key
    organizations. The contractor's paper shall also answer the
    following questions: What are the characteristics of high-quality,
    pre-service teacher education that should be used as criteria for
    evaluating the quality of the pre-service teacher education offered
    at Partnership institutions? What empirical evidence demonstrates
    that these characteristics of programs lead to the development of
    new teachers who are highly competent and who produce learning gains
    for students? The characteristics that are outlined in this paper
    shall guide the development of all of the data collection
    instruments and shall guide the analyses of the evaluation data.

> The contractor shall review the rigorous research literature on the
> characteristics of pre-service teacher education that lead to
> highly-competent beginning teachers who contribute to learning gains
> for students. The contractor shall also review the literature produced
> by the following key organizations: (1) the National Commission on
> Teaching and America's Future (NCTAF); (2) the National Council for
> Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE); (3) the American Council
> for Education (ACE); (4) the Holmes Group; (5) the Teacher Education
> Accreditation Council (TEAC); (6) The National Association of Teacher
> Educators (NTE); (7) The American Association for Colleges of Teacher
> Education (AACTE); (8) Association of Teacher Educators (ATE); (9) The
> American Association for Higher Education (AAHE). The contractor shall
> review and summarize the characteristics of high-quality pre-service
> teacher education as discussed by additional organizations that the
> contractor believes to be important to include in the list of
> organizations above.

2.  **Exploratory and in-depth case studies.** The second component of
    the evaluation is the exploratory and in-depth case studies of a
    sample of program grantees that were awarded Partnership grants in
    September of 1999. The exploratory case studies shall be conducted
    of four of the grantees and the in-depth case studies shall be
    conduced of five of the grantees. There are several purposes to the
    exploratory visits, including: to become familiar with the goals and
    strategies of the Partnership grantee activities; to become
    knowledgeable about the kinds of key individuals and entities
    involved in Partnership reform activities; to identify different
    models of pre-service teacher education funded under the Partnership
    grants; to determine the most appropriate tools and methods for
    collecting data; and to refine the three kinds of surveys and site
    visit and telephone interview protocols for the in-depth case
    studies. The exploratory case studies shall also provide data to
    help answer many of the research questions outlined in section III.B
    of this SOW.

> There are three main purposes of the in-depth case studies:

-   To obtain an in-depth understanding of how grantees undertake
    reforms in pre-service teacher education and to identify effective
    and ineffective strategies for such reforms.

-   To obtain an in-depth understanding of the changing content and
    structure of the pre-service teacher education offered to
    prospective elementary school teachers at several grantee
    institutions.

-   To gain a better understanding of certain models of pre-service
    teacher education that are of particular interest to ED and that
    appear to be particularly strong in preparing highly knowledgeable
    and skilled elementary school teachers. (At least 3 of the grantees
    shall reflect a model of pre-service teacher education that the
    contractor shall propose to examine more closely in the Option
    outlined at the end of this Statement of Work. By "model of
    pre-service education," ED means a pre-service teacher education
    program that contains certain program features that are considered
    to be of high quality.)

For the exploratory case studies, the contractor shall review all of the
25 grantee applications and shall select four grantees that appear to
vary in the content, structure, length, and quality of the education
that they offer to students who are studying to become elementary school
teachers. The contractor shall make this judgement about the variability
through a review of the grantees' applications and through conversations
with the COTR and with staff in the Title II program office in the
Office of Postsecondary Education at ED. To the extent possible, the
contractor shall also make an effort to select grantees that vary along
the following dimensions:

-   Number of partner institutions of higher education (IHEs) within the
    grant;

-   Number of partner districts within the grant;

-   Demographics of the study body at the partner higher education
    institutions and of the student bodies within partner districts;

-   Regional location within the nation;

-   Urbanicity of grantee's local region.

> The case studies shall provide qualitative information and some
> quantitative information about the implementation of the grants and
> shall be a data source for all of the research questions listed in
> Section B of this Statement of Work. The exploratory case studies
> shall include at least the following components:

-   In-person interviews with faculty and administrators in partner
    districts and in partner institutions of higher education.

-   In person interviews with other staff from other partners
    (businesses, non-profit organizations, governmental organizations);

-   If practical, observations of official meetings of Partnership
    members;

-   If practical, one or two observations of a course that is offered to
    students who are training to become elementary school teachers.

-   Reviews of relevant documents regarding the goals and strategies of
    the Partnership grant.

> Each of the four exploratory case study site visits shall be two to
> three days in length.

-   The contractor shall conduct in-depth case studies of five grantees
    beginning in the fall of 2001. Within 10 months of the award of the
    contract the contractor shall propose to ED five grantees that would
    be appropriate for the in-depth case studies. The contractor shall
    use all of the data collected during the first year of the
    evaluation in order to identify a list of five grantees for purposes
    of the in-depth case studies.

> The in-depth case studies shall include the following components:

-   In-person interviews with faculty and administrators in partner
    districts and in partner institutions of higher education.

-   In-person interviews with other staff from other partners
    (businesses, non-profit organizations, governmental organizations);

-   Telephone interviews;

-   Observations of official meetings of Partnership members;

-   Observations of at least two courses that are required of students
    who are studying to become elementary school teachers.

-   Reviews of relevant documents regarding the goals and strategies of
    the Partnership grant.

-   Focus groups with students at Partnership institutions who are
    training to become teachers.

> Each of the in-depth case study site visits shall be between
> three-and-a-half and five days in length.

3.  **One-time survey of the 25 project directors.** The third component
    of the evaluation is a one-time survey of the 25 project directors
    of the 25 Partnership grants. The purpose of the project director
    survey is to collect some basic information on the content and
    structure of each of the teacher preparation programs offered by
    each of the 91 institutions of higher education that are Partners in
    the Partnership grants. This survey shall be primarily designed to
    provide data for all of the research questions under III.B(2) of
    this SOW -- questions pertaining to the structure and general
    content of the pre-service teacher education programs as of the
    spring of 1999 and the spring of 2001. The contractor shall use the
    review of the research literature on high-quality pre-service
    teacher education discussed in "1" above to provide a framework for
    the development of this survey; the contractor shall operationalize
    all of the criteria for evaluating the quality of pre-service
    teacher education programs in order to develop this survey. The
    contractor shall review the 25 applications and the annual
    performance report form for the Partnership program. After reviewing
    the applications and the performance report form, the contractor
    shall only include questions that cannot be answered about the basic
    content and structure of the programs from information supplied in
    the grantee applications or the annual performance reports. This
    survey shall be as short as possible and no more than five pages in
    length.

4.  **A two-time survey of a purposeful sample of faculty.** The fourth
    component of the evaluation is a survey of a purposeful sample of
    faculty at all 91 of the institutions of higher education that were
    included as partners in the 25 Partnership grants awarded in
    September of 1999. The purpose of this survey is to answer the
    following research questions: (a) questions outlined in section
    III.B(2) on how the structure and general content of the pre-service
    teacher education programs change throughout the five-year grant
    period; (b) questions outlined in section III.B(3) on the
    organizational changes and ways in which relationships among
    Partners change throughout the grant period; (c) questions outlined
    in III.B(4) on efforts to institutionalize the Partnership; and (d)
    questions outlined in section III.B(5) on changes to the content and
    structure of the pre-service teacher education program. This survey
    is particularly important for answering the questions outlined in
    section III.B(2) and III.B(5). The contractor shall use the review
    of the research literature on high-quality pre-service teacher
    education discussed in "1" above to provide a framework for the
    development of this survey; the contractor shall operationalize all
    of the criteria for evaluating the quality of pre-service teacher
    education programs in order to develop this survey.

> The population for the first wave of the survey shall include at least
> two faculty members from the college of arts and sciences and at least
> two faculty members from the college of education within each of the
> 91 institutions of higher education (IHE) that were awarded the
> Partnership grants in September of 1999. Thus, the first wave of the
> survey shall be administered to approximately 364 faculty members. In
> identifying faculty for the survey, the contractor shall identify four
> faculty members from each IHE who are involved in the implementation
> of the Partnership grant and who are also involved in the education of
> prospective elementary school teachers. The contractor shall
> administer the first wave of the survey \-- the "baseline" wave in the
> spring of 2001.
>
> The second wave of the survey shall be administered by the contractor
> in the winter/spring of 2003 and shall be administered to a subsample
> of the original sample of 364 faculty members. In selecting the
> subsample, the contractor shall survey the four faculty from each of
> the lead IHEs under each of the 25 Partnership grants who were
> surveyed in the first wave. In addition, the contractor shall propose
> a method for selecting a subsample of faculty from the remaining 66
> IHEs for the rest of the survey sample. (The contractor must survey
> all four faculty members from the baseline wave for each IHE that is
> chosen for the follow-up faculty survey.) One possibility is for the
> contractor to randomly select among the 66 IHEs with a probability
> proportional to the number of IHEs within the grant. Offerors may
> propose other methods for selecting IHEs but the goal is to survey all
> four faculty from at least 35 additional IHEs among the 66 remaining
> IHEs in the grant population.
>
> In addition to administering both waves of the surveys to faculty, the
> contractor shall collect course syllabi (including a list of
> assignments) and samples of the work that prospective teachers
> (teaching students) produce in the key courses taught by the 364
> faculty in the baseline wave. The contractor shall collect these same
> items from all faculty surveyed in the follow-up wave[.]{.underline}
> The purpose of collecting the syllabi and work samples is to obtain
> more information on the content and structure of the courses offered
> to students who are training to become elementary school teachers. ED
> is particularly interested in the courses that focus on the content
> and pedagogy that elementary school teachers need in order to teach
> reading and mathematics.
>
> The faculty survey shall be analyzed by the contractor in conjunction
> with the findings from all of the other data sources. For example, the
> contractor shall use the faculty survey in conjunction with the
> findings and analyses from the other data sources in order to provide
> explanations for the quantitative findings and statistics generated
> through the annual performance reports and the institutional
> accountability reports.

5.  **A two-time survey of partner school districts.** The fifth
    component of the evaluation is a survey of partner school districts.
    The primary purpose of this survey is to answer the research
    questions outlined in sections III.B(3), III.B(4), III.B(5) and
    III.B(6) of this SOW. The contractor shall use the review of the
    research literature on high-quality pre-service teacher education
    discussed in "1" above to provide a framework for the development of
    this survey; the contractor shall operationalize all of the criteria
    for evaluating the quality of pre-service teacher education programs
    in order to develop this survey. The survey of school districts and
    the in-depth case studies shall be the main data sources for
    answering the questions outlined in III.B(6). The population for
    this school district survey shall include at least 10 school
    districts from within each of the Partnership grants. There are 210
    school districts participating as Partners across the 25 grants that
    were awarded in September of 1999, but one of the grantees has 47
    Partner districts. Twenty of the grantees have 10 or fewer Partner
    school districts and five of the grantees have 15 or more Partner
    school districts. Therefore, ED requests that the contractor propose
    a method of sampling a subset of 10 districts from each of the 5
    grantees with 15 or more Partner school districts. The contractor
    shall administer the survey two times to at least 10 of the Partner
    school districts within each of grants \-- once in the spring of
    2001 and again in the winter of 2002-2003. The district survey shall
    be analyzed by the contractor in conjunction with the findings from
    the other data sources.

6.  **Analysis and summary of the grantees' annual performance
    reports.** The sixth component of the evaluation is the analysis and
    summary of data submitted to ED by grantees on their Annual
    Performance Reports (APRs). The purpose of the APRs is to provide ED
    with data on the performance of each Partnership grantee. These data
    shall be used to help answer all of the research questions outlined
    in section III.B of this SOW. The APRs contain qualitative and
    quantitative questions about the grantees' goals, activities and
    performance outcomes. All Partnership grantees are required to
    submit their APRs to ED through the APR Web site by December 30th of
    each calendar year. The contractor shall analyze and summarize the
    data submitted in December of 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 by the
    grantees who received their original Partnership grant awards in
    September of 1999.

7.  **Analysis and summary of the institutional report cards on the
    quality of teacher preparation.** The seventh component of the
    evaluation is the review and analysis of additional data submitted
    by the September 1999 grantees through the *institutional report
    cards on the quality of teacher preparation* that are submitted as
    part of the *state report cards on the quality of teacher
    preparation.* These reports are mandated by Section 207 of Title II
    of the Higher Education Act and all institutions of higher education
    (IHEs) will report their required data to their respective states in
    April of 2001 and all states will report their institutional data
    (submitted by IHEs) and state-level data to ED on an annual basis
    beginning in October of 2001. The National Center for Education
    Statistics (NCES) within ED has developed draft guidelines for all
    of the IHEs and states in the country that must comply with the
    Section 207 reporting requirements. The Office of Postsecondary
    Education OPE within ED will oversee the submission of all of the
    data by the IHEs and states and OPE will make all of the data public
    upon receiving the *state report cards on the quality of teacher
    preparation*. These data shall be used by the contractor to help
    answer all of the research questions outlined in section III.B of
    this SOW. For the Partnership grantees who received their original
    grant award in September 1999, the contractor shall analyze the data
    submitted by these Partnership institutions as part of the state
    report cards in October of 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2005.

**IV. Scope of Work**

This section describes the tasks and subtasks that the contractor shall
perform. There are seven required tasks and four optional tasks (tasks 8
through 4).

**A. Overall Work for the Evaluation of the Partnership Program**

**Task 1: Plan the evaluation and develop a framework for evaluating the
quality of pre-service teacher education**

The purposes of this task are for the contractor to: 1) become familiar
with the purposes, goals, and program mandates of the Partnership
program of Title II of the HEA; 2) become familiar with the grantees
receiving federal funding through the programs; and 3) make necessary
adjustments to the designs of the evaluation based on this additional
knowledge.

**Subtask 1.1: Initial review of materials**.

Within two weeks of the effective date of the contract award, the
contractor shall meet with ED to discuss the work outlined in the
contract. The purpose of the meeting will be to share knowledge about
relevant research literature, discuss the tasks outlined in the
contract, and answer questions that the contractor may have. The
contractor shall provide a contract delivery schedule to the COTR for
approval, and that schedule shall provide for the accomplishment of all
tasks and all draft and final deliverables. Within three weeks of the
effective date of the contract award, the contractor shall submit a
short memo to ED that summarizes the main items discussed at the
meeting.

The contractor shall also review available literature on Title II,
including all work products from ED's three task orders on related data
collection efforts for Title II; these task orders have already been
awarded. (See Section II, Part C of this work statement.) ED will
provide all available final work products from these task orders to the
contractor within two weeks of the effective date of the contract award.
ED will provide additional work products from these task orders to the
contractor as they become available throughout the course of the
evaluation.

The contractor shall also review all grant applications for the
Partnership program. Within one week of the effective date of the
contract award, the contractor shall arrange with ED's Contracting
Officer's Technical Representative (COTR) to obtain one copy of each of
the 25 Partnership Grant Applications.

Deliverable: Memo to ED on meeting.

Deliverable schedule.

**Subtask 1.2: Refine the study design, summarize the research
literature on high-quality, pre-service teacher education and develop a
framework for evaluating the quality of the education offered to
prospective teachers by the Partnership institutions**

Based upon the initial review of materials in Subtask 1.1, the
contractor shall refine the study design submitted in its original
proposal. The contractor shall propose to ED the case study sample group
for the exploratory case studies. The contractor shall provide a
rationale for the sample group selections, including the consideration
of model types and other sample variables among program grantees. Based
on the initial review of the materials in Subtask 1.1, the contractor
shall also propose to ED a more specific methodology for identifying
four faculty members from each IHE within the 25 Partnership grantees.

In addition, as part of the study design, the contractor shall develop a
framework for evaluating the quality of pre-service teacher education
based on a review of rigorous research on pre-service teacher education,
and based on a review of the key publications of the key, national
organizations that focus on teacher quality and teacher preparation.
Through the reviews, the contractor shall develop a paper that
summarizes the research and the expert thinking of the key
organizations. As part of the study design, the contractor shall include
a paper that shall answer the following question: What are the
characteristics of high-quality, pre-service teacher education that
should be used as criteria for evaluating the quality of the pre-service
teacher education offered at Partnership institutions? What empirical
evidence indicates that these characteristics lead to high-quality
instructional practices among beginning teachers? In addition, what
evidence indicates that these characteristics ultimately result in the
increased academic achievement among the students of beginning teachers?
The characteristics that are outlined in this paper shall guide the
development of all of the data collection instruments and shall guide
the analyses of the evaluation data.

As noted above, the contractor shall review the rigorous research
literature on the characteristics of pre-service teacher education that
lead to highly-competent beginning teachers who contribute to learning
gains for students. The contractor shall also review the literature
produced by the following key organizations: (1) the National Commission
on Teaching and America's Future (NCTAF); (2) the National Council for
Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE); (3) the American Council for
Education (ACE); (4) the Holmes Group; (5) the Teacher Education
Accreditation Council (TEAC); (6) The National Association of Teacher
Educators (NTE); (7) The American Association for Colleges of Teacher
Education (AACTE); (8) Association of Teacher Educators (ATE); (9) The
American Association for Higher Education (AAHE). The contractor shall
review and summarize the characteristics of high-quality pre-service
teacher education as discussed by any additional organizations that the
contractor deems to be appropriate to include in the list of
organizations directly above.

Within six weeks of the effective date of the contract award, the
contractor shall submit a draft refined study design to ED. This revised
study design shall include the case study selections for the exploratory
case studies and specific methodologies for selection of the faculty for
the faculty survey. Based on a review of the grantee applications, to
the extent possible, the contractor shall identify the actual faculty
members who should be surveyed and should indicate in the study design
the number of the 364 faculty who have been identified for survey
purposes. ED will provide comments to the contractor on the submission
within 8 weeks of the effective date of the contract award.

Within 10 weeks of the effective date of the contract award, the
contractor shall submit to ED the final version of the study design.
Within 10 weeks of the effective date of the contract award, the
contractor shall also submit a draft *non-technical* summary (five pages
maximum) of the study design suitable for distribution to an audience of
policymakers, educators and program directors for Title II; allowing two
weeks for ED review, the contractor shall submit a final non-technical
summary within 15 weeks of the effective date of the contract award.

Deliverables: Draft and final revised study design, including paper on
framework for evaluating the

> Quality of pre-service teacher education .

Draft and final non-technical summary.

**Task 2: Establish a Technical Working Group**

The contractor shall establish a Technical Working Group (TWG) to
provide the contractor with outside expertise to design and implement a
high-quality evaluation. The TWG shall consist of three to four
researchers and two or three practitioners with analytic and
programmatic experience related to the fields of teacher pre-service
education, institutional change at IHEs, and classroom instructional
practices of elementary school teachers. (The TWG shall have a total of
six members.) The contractor shall identify a list of proposed group
members and submit this list to ED within four weeks of the effective
date of the contract award. Allowing for one week for ED to review and
comment on the list, the contractor shall submit the final list within
eight weeks of the effective date of the contract award.

The contractors shall convene two meetings of the group for assistance
with the evaluations. The first meeting shall be held within the first
four months of the evaluation. The second meeting shall be held in the
late spring of 2003 (by month 33), prior to the release of the
contractor's second major evaluation report to ED. Outside of these
meetings and throughout the course of the evaluation, the group shall
advise the contractor on the design and analysis components of the
evaluation and shall review the following key work products: the draft
study design (Task 1), the first draft of all of the evaluation reports,
and the first draft of the evaluation memo (Task 7).

The contractor shall cover the travel, per diem and honorarium expenses
of group members.

Deliverables: Draft and final list of Working Group members.

Materials for first and second group meetings.

**Task 3: Develop data monitoring system and database**

Prior to the start of data collection, the contractor shall develop a
computer-based monitoring system for each data collection activity to
monitor the flow of collection activities in both evaluations. This
system shall enable the contractor to track the status of all
correspondence conducted through telephone calls, site visits,
interviews, surveys, and other data collection instruments. The
contractor shall transform the raw data into a computerized form in a
manner suitable for data editing and corrective actions to produce
verified and accurate records, and to provide for quality control of
data entry. The contractor shall design a record for each participant
that includes all individual-level data collected from the participant.

All databases developed or modified for the Department of Education will
be modeled in an entity relation (E-R) diagram model for evaluation by
ED for acceptability for compatibility with other ED databases. The
criteria for normalization which will be evaluated by third party IV&V
will be at least 3^rd^ normal form. Acceptable modeling tools for
delivering soft copy of E-R models include ERWin and Oracle Designer
2000 but will be specifically defined by the COTR. The standard
enterprise database environment in use by the Department of Education is
Microsoft SQL/Server 7.0. Access may be used for very small efforts with
little probability of growth; Oracle may be used for very large, high
transaction efforts. The use of Access or Oracle needs to be
specifically approved by the Office of the Chief Information Officer.

The contractor shall have the data system in place by the fourth month
of the effective date of the contract award. The contractor shall submit
to ED a short memorandum describing the implementation and functions of
the data system within four months of the effective date of the contract
award.

If ED does not exercise the option outlined in tasks 8 through 11 of
this SOW, the contractor shall submit three items to ED within 52 months
after the effective date of the contract award: (1) an electronic copy
of the final database containing all data collected as part of this
evaluation; (2) an electronic copy of the database structure; and (3)
written documentation of the database structure. If ED does exercise the
option, then the contractor shall submit an electronic copy of the final
database and the other items listed in above within 60 months of the
effective date of contract award. The contractor shall accompany the
data base with detailed documentation of the contents of the database,
data collection methodology, means of accessing and using the database,
and other instructions necessary for use of the database by ED and by a
future contractor conducting a follow-up study.

Deliverables: Memorandum describing the implementation and functions of
the data system; electronic

> copy of the database; electronic copy of the database structure; and
>
> written documentation of the database structure.

**Task 4: Review, analyze and summarize data from the Annual Performance
Reports submitted by the 25 Partnership grantees and review, analyze and
summarize data from the institutional accountability reports submitted
by the 91 institutions of higher education within the 25 Partnership
grants.**

Beginning in the winter of 2000-01, the contractor shall analyze and
summarize data reported by the 25 Partnership grantees through the
annual performance reporting system developed by ED under a separate
contract. All Partnership grantees are required to report annual
performance data to ED by December 31 each year. The contractor shall
collect, analyze and summarize performance data for the five consecutive
years of program funding (FY99-00, FY00-01, FY01-02, FY02-03, and
FY03-04).

The contractor shall examine the data submitted and shall contact
grantees as needed to complete data and address inconsistencies. The
contractor shall follow-up with grantees that do not submit data to ED
by the deadline established for performance reports. The contractor
shall follow-up first by mail, and if the contractor continues to
receive no response, the contractor then shall follow-up by telephone
once a week for four weeks.

Beginning in late October of 2001, the contractor shall review the data
submitted to ED by all the Partnership grantees through the
institutional accountability report mandated through Section 207 of
Title II of HEA. All higher education institutions in the country will
submit those data to their respective states in April of 2001 and the
states will submit those data and the state report cards to ED in
October of each year, starting in 2001.

The contractor shall analyze and summarize the data submitted by the
grantees through the Annual Performance reports and shall submit this
information to ED within 9 weeks of the Annual Performance Report
deadline established by ED each year. The contractor shall submit the
analysis and summary of data to ED in the form of memoranda. The
memoranda shall include performance indicator data so that ED can
provide program indicator data to Congress, as required under GPRA. The
length of the memoranda shall be determined by the amount of data and
analyses necessary for ED to fully complete the GPRA requirements.

The contractor shall analyze and summarize the data by the IHEs within
the 25 Partnership grants through the Institutional Accountability
Reports, and shall submit this analysis and summary to ED within 9 weeks
of the submission of the Institutional Accountability Reports to ED each
year. As discussed above for the analysis and summary of the Annual
Performance report data, the contractor shall submit the analysis and
summary of data to ED in the form of memoranda. The memoranda shall
include information for ED to provide program indicator data to
Congress, as required under GPRA. The length of the memoranda shall be
determined by the amount of data and analyses necessary for ED to fully
complete the GPRA requirements.

In addition to the memoranda discussed above, the contractor shall
incorporate its analysis and summary of the Annual Performance Reports
and Institutional Accountability Reports into the drafts and final
reports (all reports under Task 7). In addition, the contractor shall
use the statistics and quantitative information that it gathers from the
grantees in their performance reports and Accountability reports in
conjunction with its findings from the surveys and case studies. The
contractor shall use the performance reports and Accountability reports
together with the surveys and case studies to provide qualitative
information and explanations for the statistics and findings generated
through the annual performance reports.

Deliverables: Memoranda submitted each year on the findings from the
performance reports and Institutional Accountability reports.

**Task 5: Develop data collection instruments, select samples and
prepare for data collection**

**Subtask 5.1 Case studies of a sample of grantees: exploratory site
visits**

Following ED's approval of the revised study design and selection of a
sample of sites for the exploratory case studies, the contractor shall
conduct the exploratory site visits. These exploratory site visits shall
take place within the first six months of the contract award. The
contractor shall spend two days at each site. At least one of the four
exploratory case studies shall be conducted within three-and-half months
of the contract award.

There are several purposes to these exploratory visits, including: to
become familiar with the goals and strategies of the Partnership grantee
activities; to become knowledgeable about the kinds of key individuals
and entities involved in Partnership reform activities; to identify
different models of pre-service teacher education funded under the
Partnership grants; to determine the most appropriate tools and methods
for collecting data; and to refine the site visit protocols and
telephone interview protocols for the in-depth case studies. The
exploratory case studies shall also provide data to help answer many of
the research questions outlined in section III.B of this SOW. The
information collected through the exploratory case studies shall also
help the contractor refine the instruments for the survey of faculty and
districts.

The contractor shall submit to ED the proposed list of exploratory sites
within 6 weeks of the effective date of the contract award. ED will
review the list within two weeks, and within 10 weeks of the effective
date of the contract award, the contractor shall submit the final list
of exploratory sites. The contractor shall conduct the site visits
within six months of the effective date of the contract award.

Deliverable: Proposed draft and final list of six exploratory case study
sites.

**Subtask 5.2: In-depth case studies of a sample of grantees:
development of site visit protocols**

The contractor shall begin the in-depth case study component of the
Partnership evaluation by developing site visit protocols to use when
visiting the sample grantees. The purpose of these case studies is to
understand the unique models and strategies that Partnership grantees
are using to reform aspects of teacher preparation programs. The case
studies shall enable the contractor to observe, document and analyze
highly effective and ineffective strategies that grantees use to improve
the content and structure of pre-service teacher education. In addition,
the case studies shall enable the contractor to obtain an in-depth
understanding of the structure and content of different kinds of
pre-service teacher education models used by the grantees. Finally, the
case studies shall enable the contractor to understand whether
organizational and institutional improvements between partner
organizations/entities are really taking place.

The contractor shall design the site visits to provide qualitative and
quantitative information on program grantees and to address the key
research questions in the evaluation as outlined throughout section
III.B of this SOW. In developing the site visit protocols, the
contractor shall take into consideration that there shall be a series of
site visits over several years.

In developing the site visit protocols, the questions need not be
scripted. The contractor shall develop the site visit protocols to
maximize understanding of the unique issues and reform strategies facing
each sample grantee. Some parts of the site visit protocols may differ
according to the kinds of reforms that the Partnership is undertaking.
The contractor shall use the exploratory site visits to further refine
the final site visit protocols.

Within 7 weeks of the effective date of the contract award, the
contractor shall submit to ED a draft of the site visit protocols. ED
will review and comment on the protocols within 9 weeks of the effective
date of the contract award. Within 11 weeks of the effective date of the
contract award, the contractor shall submit to ED the second draft of
the site visit protocols. ED will submit the second draft of the site
visit protocols along with OMB Clearance package and other data
collection instruments to the Information Management Team (IMT) within
one week of receiving the second draft. The purpose of submitting these
instruments and clearance request is to begin the OMB clearance process.
The contractor shall pilot test the in-depth case study protocols by 17
weeks after contract award. After pilot testing the instruments and
within one week of receiving IMT's comments on the instruments, the
contractor shall submit any revised protocols to ED. These revised
protocols will be considered the third draft and will be submitted to
IMT so that IMT can transfer them to OMB for the final stage of the OMB
clearance process. The third draft shall also reflect changes requested
by IMT.

After OMB reviews the OMB Clearance Package (Subtask 5.14) and all of
the data collection instruments (including the site visit protocols),
OMB will ask questions about and will request changes to the data
collection instruments. OMB will present these questions and changes to
the COTR. The COTR will share those questions with the contractor and
the contractor shall provide answers and responses to all of OMB's
comments, questions and suggested revisions to the data collection
instruments. As noted in the previous sentences, OMB may ask the
contractor to make a final set of changes to each of the data collection
instruments, including the site visit protocols. The contractor shall
make any changes requested by OMB within one week of receiving OMB's
changes and suggestions. The contractor shall submit this fourth and
final draft of the site visit protocols to ED within one week of
receiving OMB's requested and suggested changes.

Within 10 months of the award of the contract the contractor shall use
all of the data collected during the first year of the evaluation in
order to propose to ED five grantees that would be appropriate for the
in-depth case studies. In the memo outlining the proposed grantees, the
contractor shall not reveal the exact identity of the five grantee sites
but shall at a minimum describe the number and types of partner
institutions, the pre-service program models offered in by the partners,
the demographics of the students who are enrolled in the partner school
districts, and the demographics of the student population within the
pre-service teacher education programs. The contractor shall propose at
least *two* grantees for in-depth study that offer pre-service teacher
education programs with program components that are of interest to ED
and are considered to be high quality. In addition, the grantees that
have programs with components that are of interest to ED shall be among
the group of grantees that the contractor shall propose for study in the
feasibility report outlined in Subtask 7.2 under Task 7 of this SOW.

In the form of a memo, the contractor shall justify the choice of the
five proposed in-depth case study grantees. ED will review the list and
memo and will provide the contractor with comments within 10.5 months of
the effective date of the contract. Within 11 months of the effective
date of the contract the contractor shall propose a second draft of the
list of in-depth case study grantees. ED will either approve part of the
list or the entire list of in-depth case study grantees within one week
of receiving the second draft. ED may wait to approve the selection of
all five grantees until ED has had a chance to review the contractor's
proposal for the option. However, within 14 months of the effective date
of the contract, ED will approve the selection of all five in-depth case
study sites. Within 14.25 months the contractor will submit the list of
the final set of five grantees approved by ED for purposes of the
in-depth case studies.

Deliverables: 1^st^ draft, 2^nd^ draft, 3^rd^ draft, and 4^th^ draft of
site visit protocols.

1^st^ draft, 2^nd^ draft and final list of in-depth case study grantees
and justification memo.

**Subtask 5.3: Development of telephone interview protocols**

The second piece of the case study component is the development of
telephone interview protocols. The contractor shall conduct in-depth
telephone interviews for a sub-sample of the case study sample grantees
during the fifth of the grants (program year 2003-04.) (The purpose of
the phone interviews is to save costs; the contractor shall conduct
phone interviews of key staff at some sites in year 2003-04 in order to
save the expense of visiting every site both years.) The contractor
shall conduct interviews with at least 3 key individuals at each of the
sample grantee sites. The purpose of these in-depth phone interviews is
to supplement the on-site visits to grantees that shall occur in the
other series of visits. The contractor shall use these phone interviews
to garner information that addresses the key research questions of the
evaluation. To the extent possible, the telephone interviews shall be as
comprehensive and thorough as the on-site interviews.

Similar to the site visits, telephone interviews need not be scripted;
rather, the contractor shall design the interviews around a series of
broad, yet clearly defined issues, ideas and topics. The contractor
shall then tailor each interview to address, for each state, the unique
activities and challenges it faces, and its stage in the reform process.

Within 7 weeks of the effective date of the contract award, the
contractor shall submit the first draft of the telephone protocols to
ED. Within 9 weeks of the effective date of the contract award, ED will
review and comment on these protocols, and within 11 weeks of the
effective date of the contract award, the contractor shall submit the
second draft of the telephone protocols to ED. ED will submit the second
draft of the telephone protocols, along with OMB Clearance package and
other data collection instruments, to the Information Management Team
(IMT) within one week of receiving the second draft. The purpose of
submitting these instruments and Clearance request is to begin the OMB
clearance process. The contractor shall pretest a few of the telephone
protocols by week 17 after contract award. After pilot testing the
instruments and within one week of receiving IMT's comments on the
instruments, the contractor shall submit any revised protocols to ED.
These revised protocols will be considered the third draft and this
third draft shall reflect any changes requested by IMT. The COTR will
submit the third draft of the protocols to IMT so that IMT can transfer
them to OMB for the final stage of OMB clearance.

After OMB reviews the OMB Clearance Package (Subtask 5.14) and all of
the data collection instruments (including the site visit protocols),
OMB will ask questions about and will request changes to the data
collection instruments. OMB will present these questions and changes to
the COTR. The COTR will share those questions with the contractor and
the contractor shall provide answers and responses to all of OMB's
comments, questions and suggested revisions to the data collection
instruments. As noted in the previous sentences, OMB may ask the
contractor to make a final set of changes to each of the data collection
instruments, including the telephone interview protocols. The contractor
shall make any changes requested by OMB within one week of receiving
OMB's changes and suggestions. The contractor shall submit this fourth
and final draft of the project director survey to ED within one week of
receiving OMB's requested and suggested changes.

Deliverable: First draft, second draft, third draft and final draft of
telephone protocols.

**Subtask 5.4: Train case study staff**

The contractor shall develop training materials for staff conducting the
site visits and the telephone interviews. The contractor shall submit to
ED draft training materials to review within 11 months of the effective
date of the contract award. ED will provide comments to the contractor
within 11.5 months of the effective date of the contract. The contractor
shall submit to ED final training materials within 12 months of the
effective date of the contract award.

The contractor shall train the staff conducting the case studies within
13 months of the effective date of the contract award. The training
shall last 1-2 days, be held at a site outside of ED, and shall include
all individuals who will be conducting case studies. These staff,
whether in-house or persons hired specifically for the case study
assignment, shall have experience in conducting qualitative research and
case studies, and shall be knowledgeable about reform in teacher
pre-service education and instructional practice. The training shall
ensure that the case study staff are thoroughly familiar with the study
objectives, evaluation design, and data collection procedures, and
understand the importance of strict adherence to study procedures. A
major purpose of the training shall be to make site visit data
collections as consistent as possible to increase the ability to make
comparisons across sites.

Deliverables: Draft and final training materials for site visits.

Draft and final training materials for telephone interviews.

**Subtask 5.5: Develop Project Director Survey**

The contractor shall develop and design a short one-time survey of the
project directors of all 25 Partnership grantees. The purpose of the
survey is collect some basic information on content and structure of
each of the teacher preparation programs offered by each of the 91
institutions of higher education within each of the Partnership grants.
This survey shall be primarily designed to provide data for all of the
research questions under III.B(2) of this SOW -- questions pertaining to
the structure and general content of the pre-service teacher education
programs as of the spring of 2001. The contractor shall review the 25
applications before developing this survey and the annual performance
report form for the Partnership program before designing the survey. The
contractor shall only include questions that cannot be answered about
the basic content and structure of the programs from information
supplied in the grantee applications or from the data that will be
supplied by grantees on the annual performance report forms. This
project director survey shall be as short as possible, preferably no
more than 2 pages in length. This survey shall be administered at in the
spring of 2001.

The contractor shall develop the first draft of the survey within 7
weeks of the award of the contract. ED will review the draft within two
weeks and will provide comments to the contractor. The contractor shall
submit the second draft within 11 weeks of the effective date of the
contract. ED will submit the second draft of the project director
survey, along with OMB Clearance package and other data collection
instruments, to the Information Management Team (IMT) within one week of
receiving the second draft. The purpose of submitting these instruments
and Clearance request is to begin the OMB clearance process. The
contractor shall pretest the survey (Subtask 5.6) with two project
directors by week 17 after contract award and shall submit any revised
protocols (based on pretesting) to ED after the pretest and within one
week of receiving IMT's comments on the survey. The revised survey will
be considered the third draft and shall reflect the changes due to the
pretest as well as changes requested by IMT. The COTR will submit the
third draft of the survey to IMT so that IMT can submit the survey to
OMB for the final stage of the OMB clearance process.

After OMB reviews the OMB Clearance Package (Subtask 5.14) and all of
the data collection instruments (including the site visit protocols),
OMB will ask questions about and will request changes to the data
collection instruments. OMB will present these questions and changes to
the COTR. The COTR will share those questions with the contractor and
the contractor shall provide answers and responses to all of OMB's
comments, questions and suggested revisions to the data collection
instruments. As noted in the previous sentences, OMB may ask the
contractor to make a final set of changes to each of the data collection
instruments, including the project director survey. The contractor shall
make any changes requested by OMB within one week of receiving OMB's
changes and suggestions. The contractor shall submit this fourth and
final draft of the project director survey to ED within one week of
receiving OMB's requested and suggested changes.

Deliverables: First draft, second draft, third draft and final draft of
survey of project directors.

**Subtask 5.6: Conduct pretest of project director survey**

The contractor shall pretest the baseline and follow-up project director
survey instrument within 17 weeks after of the effective date of the
contract award. The contractor shall select at least two project
directors to survey for the pretest, and to the greatest extent
possible, the grants overseen by these project directors shall reflect
differences in the number of partners within the grant and in the
educational philosophy or focus of the reforms within the grant.

As part of the pretest, the contractor shall elicit comments on the
availability, usefulness, and likely accuracy of the data requested, as
well as the burden associated with providing data for each item in the
survey. The contractor shall also ask pretest subjects to comment on the
form of the survey, the burden, and data items that should be omitted or
added to the survey.

The contractor shall submit a summary of the pretest results to ED,
identifying proposed changes in survey instruments and the rationale for
those changes within 18 weeks of the effective date of the contract
award. The contractor shall incorporate changes in the survey
instruments that result from the pretest into the third draft of the
project director survey instruments submitted to ED. The contractor
shall incorporate the pretest results in the OMB clearance package.

Deliverable: Pretest of data collection instruments.

> Summary of pretest results.

**Subtask 5.7: Letter of introduction**

The contractor shall prepare a letter of introduction from ED to all
Partnership project directors. The letter shall include the following
items:

-   Explanation of the purpose of the survey;

-   Indication that the appropriate OMB approval has been received and
    an estimate of the expected burden of the questionnaire;

-   Statements stressing the importance of the survey and requesting the
    cooperation of all respondents; and

-   Provision of names and phone numbers of both ED staff and contractor
    employees who should be contacted with questions and comments.

The contractor shall submit a draft letter to ED within seven weeks of
the effective date of the contract award. ED will review the letter
within two weeks of the effective date of the contract award. The
contractor shall submit the second draft letter to ED within 11 weeks of
the effective date of the contract award. The contractor shall mail the
letter to all of the Partnership project directors two weeks prior to
administering the survey.

Deliverable: Letter to project directors.

**Subtask 5.8: Develop district survey**

The contractor shall develop and design the district survey to collect
data that shall address the key research questions. This survey shall be
administered at two points during the evaluation: the baseline survey in
the spring 2001, and the follow-up survey in the winter 2002-2003. These
two surveys shall share many similar features and questions, yet contain
slight differences that reflect changes in districts' experiences over
time.

The contractor shall develop the district survey so that it effectively
collects data on the key research questions. The contractor shall use
the data available from Partnership Program grantees' applications, as
well as the data made available from ED's background task orders on
teacher quality, to enhance the design of the survey.

During the baseline year survey, the contractor shall collect data from
the school districts in order to answer the research questions outlined
in sections III.B(3), III.B(4), III.B(5) and III.B(6) of this SOW. The
survey of school districts and the in-depth case studies shall be the
main data sources for answering the questions outlined in III.B(6). The
contractor shall collect data that includes, but is not limited to, the
following issues:

-   Description of the district: types of students in the district;
    economic, geographic and political characteristics of the district;
    descriptions of the education community and leadership within that
    community;

-   Specific areas in which a teacher shortage exists, and description
    of the plans to alleviate these shortages through Partnership
    activities including information on whether the Partnership grants
    help Partner districts to reduce the shortage of teachers in
    high-need subjects, specialty areas (special education, bilingual
    education) or in high-poverty schools. Also information on whether
    the grants contribute to a decrease in the percentage of uncertified
    teachers or the percentage of teachers who are teaching out of
    field. In addition, information on whether the grant activities help
    to reduce the amount of attrition and turnover among newly hired
    teachers in the partner districts. Finally, information on whether
    the Partnership grants have met many of the district's specific
    needs.

-   Types of collaboration efforts undertaken between the district and
    the Partnership program grantee including involvement of staff in
    mentoring and involvement of university faculty in K-12 teacher;

-   The nature and extent of the involvement of district teachers and
    administrators in efforts to improve the pre-service teacher
    education program offered at the partner IHEs. This includes efforts
    to change the content and pedagogy of the courses offered to
    prospective teachers;

-   Changes in the selection and use of supervising teachers for work
    with student teachers from the partner IHEs;

-   Any early impact data on the effect of Partnership efforts on
    bringing high-quality teachers to the district and retaining such
    teachers. For example, do the grants contribute to an increase in
    the percentage of newly minted teachers in the district who are able
    to teach to the state or district standards and to meet other
    district needs?

In the follow-up survey, the contractor shall collect data on districts
that includes, but is not limited to, the following issues:

-   A follow-up to all the issues addressed in the baseline year survey
    collection, indicating where and when changes have occurred;

-   The success of Partnership efforts at reducing the teacher shortage
    in the district and increasing the percentage of highly qualified
    and fully certified teachers in district schools;

-   The ability of newly hired teachers from Partnership IHEs to teach
    to the State and/or district standards;

-   The ability of newly hired teachers from Partnership IHEs to work
    effectively with all students and to help *all students* achieve to
    high standards;

-   The effects of the Partnership on the nature, content, structure and
    quality of the pre-service teacher education offered to teaching
    students at the Partner IHEs;

-   The effects of Partnership efforts on altering teacher working
    conditions within district schools, and the effects on parents,
    students, and educational leaders within the district;

-   Challenges, problems and accomplishments the district faced in
    trying to achieve the goals of the Partnership; and

-   Unanticipated effects of Partnership efforts.

The contractor shall submit to ED a first draft of the survey
instruments for the baseline year survey and follow-up survey seven
weeks after the effective date of the contract award. Allowing two weeks
for ED comments, the contractor shall submit a second draft of the
survey instruments to ED within 11 weeks of the effective date of the
contract award. ED will submit the second draft of the surveys, along
with the OMB Clearance package and other data collection instruments, to
the Information Management Team (IMT) within one week of receiving the
second draft. The purpose of submitting these instruments and Clearance
request is to begin the OMB clearance process. The contractor shall
pretest the survey (Subtask 5.9) with two districts by week 17 after
contract award and shall submit any revised protocols (based on pilot
testing) to ED after the pretest and within one week of receiving IMT's
comments on the surveys. These revised surveys will be considered the
third draft and shall reflect changes requested by IMT. The COTR will
submit the third draft to IMT so that IMT can transfer the survey to OMB
for the final stage of the OMB clearance process.

After OMB reviews the OMB Clearance Package (Subtask 5.14) and all of
the data collection instruments (including the site visit protocols),
OMB will ask questions about and will request changes to the data
collection instruments. OMB will present these questions and changes to
the COTR. The COTR will share those questions with the contractor and
the contractor shall provide answers and responses to all of OMB's
comments, questions, and suggested revisions to the data collection
instruments. As noted in the previous sentences, OMB may ask the
contractor to make a final set of changes to each of the data collection
instruments, including the baseline and follow-up district surveys. The
contractor shall make any changes requested by OMB within one week of
receiving OMB's changes and suggestions. The contractor shall submit
this fourth (final) draft of the district surveys to ED within one week
of receiving OMB's requested and suggested changes.

Deliverables: First draft, second draft, third draft, and fourth draft
of the baseline year survey of

> districts.

First draft, second draft, third draft and fourth draft of the follow-up
survey of districts.

**Subtask 5.9: Conduct pretest**

The contractor shall pretest the baseline and follow-up district survey
instruments within 17 weeks after the effective date of the contract
award. The contractor shall select at least two districts to pretest,
and to the greatest extent possible, these districts shall reflect
differences in the total district population with respect to district
characteristics, such as demographics, economic level and political
factors, and with respect to model of Partnership program. The
contractor shall administer the pretest to the individual(s) selected by
the district to represent Partnership program activities.

Within one week of the pretest, the contractor shall elicit comments on
the availability, usefulness, and likely accuracy of the data requested,
as well as the burden associated with providing data for each item in
the survey. The contractor shall also ask pretest subjects to comment on
the form of the survey, the burden, and data items that should be
omitted or added to the survey.

The contractor shall submit a summary of the pretest results to ED,
identifying proposed changes in survey instruments and the rationale for
those changes within 18 weeks of the effective date of the contract
award. The contractor shall incorporate changes in the survey
instruments that result from the pretest into the final district survey
instruments submitted to ED. The contractor shall incorporate the
pretest results in the OMB clearance package.

Deliverable: Pretest of data collection instruments.

> Summary of pretest results.

**Subtask 5.10: Letter of introduction**

The contractor shall prepare a letter of introduction from ED for all
Partnership districts. The letter shall include the following items:

-   Explanation of the purpose of the survey;

-   Indication that the appropriate OMB approval has been received and
    an estimate of the expected burden of the questionnaire;

-   Statements stressing the importance of the survey and requesting the
    cooperation of all respondents; and

-   Provision of names and phone numbers of both ED staff and contractor
    employees who should be contacted with questions and comments.

The contractor shall submit a draft letter to ED within seven weeks of
the effective date of the contract award. ED will review the letter
within two weeks of the effective date of the contract award. The
contractor shall submit the second draft letter to ED within 11 weeks of
the effective date of the contract award. The contractor shall mail the
letter to all of the Partnership districts two weeks prior to
administering the survey.

Deliverable: Letter to participants.

**Subtask 5.11: Develop faculty survey**

The contractor shall develop and design the faculty survey to collect
data that address the key research questions. This survey shall be
administered at two points during the evaluation: the baseline survey in
the spring 2001, and the follow-up survey in the winter/spring 2003.
These two surveys shall share many similar features and questions, yet
contain slight differences that reflect changes in faculties'
experiences over time.

The contractor shall develop the faculty survey so that it effectively
collects data on the key research questions. The contractor shall use
the framework for evaluating the quality of a pre-service teacher
education program (Task 1, subtask 1.1), data available from Partnership
program grantees' applications, as well as the data made available from
ED's background task order on teacher quality, to enhance the design of
the survey.

During the baseline year survey, the contractor shall collect data on
Partnership activities that includes, but is not limited to, the
following issues:

-   Description of the purposes of the Partnership grant and progress to
    date;

-   Description of changes being made to the content and structure of
    the teacher education program, particularly changes in the programs
    that prepare elementary school teachers to teach reading and
    mathematics;

-   The respondent's perspective on the role of the university president
    and the deans of the schools/colleges of education and the
    schools/colleges of arts and sciences;

-   The respondent's perspective on coordination between partners within
    the grant;

-   The respondent's ideas on challenges or key problems encountered by
    partners within the grant.

In the follow-up survey, the contractor shall obtain an update on the
issues listed above.

The contractor shall submit to ED a draft of the survey instruments for
the baseline year survey and follow-up survey seven weeks after the
effective date of the contract award. Allowing two weeks for ED
comments, the contractor shall submit a second draft of the survey
instruments to ED within 11 weeks of the effective date of the contract
award. ED will submit the second draft of the surveys, along with the
OMB Clearance package and other data collection instruments, to the
Information Management Team (IMT) within one week of receiving the
second draft. The purpose of submitting these instruments and Clearance
request is to begin the OMB clearance process. The contractor shall
pretest the survey (Subtask 5.12) with at least four higher education
faculty at Partnership institutions by week 17 after contract award and
shall submit any revised protocols (based on pilot testing) to ED after
the pretest and within one week of receiving IMT's comments on the
surveys. These revised instruments shall be considered the third draft
and shall reflect changes requested by IMT. The COTR will submit the
revised protocols to IMT so that IMT can submit them to OMB for the last
stage of the OMB clearance process.

After OMB reviews the OMB Clearance Package (Subtask 5.14) and all of
the data collection instruments (including the site visit protocols),
OMB will ask questions about and will request changes to the data
collection instruments. OMB will present these questions and changes to
the COTR. The COTR will share those questions with the contractor and
the contractor shall provide answers and responses to all of OMB's
comments, questions and suggested revisions to the data collection
instruments. As noted in the previous sentences, OMB may ask the
contractor to make a final set of changes to each of the data collection
instruments, including the baseline and follow-up faculty surveys. The
contractor shall make any changes requested by OMB within one week of
receiving OMB's changes and suggestions. The contractor shall submit the
fourth (final) drafts of the baseline faculty survey and follow-up
faculty survey to ED within one week of receiving OMB's requested and
suggested changes.

Deliverables: Draft, second draft and final survey for the baseline year
survey of faculty.

Draft, second draft and final survey for the follow-up survey of
districts.

**Subtask 5.12: Conduct pretest of faculty surveys**

The contractor shall pretest the baseline and follow-up faculty survey
instruments within 17 weeks of the effective date of the contract award.
The contractor shall select at least three faculty members to pretest
across at least two different grantees. To the greatest extent possible,
these grantees shall reflect differences in the pre-service teacher
education program model.

Within one week of the pretest, the contractor shall elicit comments on
the availability, usefulness, and likely accuracy of the data requested,
as well as the burden associated with providing data for each item in
the survey. The contractor shall also ask pretest subjects to comment on
the form of the survey, the burden, and data items that should be
omitted or added to the survey.

The contractor shall submit a summary of the pretest results to ED,
identifying proposed changes in survey instruments and the rationale for
those changes within 18 weeks of the effective date of the contract
award. The contractor shall incorporate changes in the survey
instruments that result from the pretest into the third draft of the
faculty survey instruments submitted to ED (Subtask 5.11). The
contractor shall incorporate the pretest results in the OMB clearance
package.

Deliverable: Pretest of data collection instruments.

> Summary of pretest results.

**Subtask 5.13: Letter of introduction for faculty surveys**

The contractor shall prepare a letter of introduction from ED for all
program participants sampled through the faculty survey. The letter
shall include the following items:

-   Explanation of the purpose of the survey;

-   Indication that the appropriate OMB approval has been received and
    an estimate of the expected burden of the questionnaire;

-   Statements stressing the importance of the survey and requesting the
    cooperation of all respondents; and

-   Provision of names and phone numbers of both ED staff and contractor
    employees who should be contacted with questions and comments.

The contractor shall submit a draft letter to ED within seven weeks of
the effective date of the contract award. ED will review the letter
within eight weeks of contract award. The contractor shall submit the
second draft letter to ED within 11 weeks of the effective date of the
contract award. The contractor shall mail the letter to the sample of
program participants two weeks prior to administering the survey.

Deliverable: Letter to faculty.

**Subtask 5.14: Prepare OMB clearance package for all surveys and
in-depth case study protocols.**

Within seven weeks of the effective date of the contract award, the
contractor shall prepare the necessary forms required for OMB clearance
for: a) the project director survey; b) the baseline and follow-up
district surveys; c) the baseline and follow-up faculty surveys; and d)
in-depth case study protocols. The first draft of the clearance package
shall include the first drafts of all data collection instruments, and
it must justify the necessity for collecting the data and
comprehensively respond to each required item in the instructions. The
clearance package shall include brief concise statements of 1) the study
mandate and objectives, 2) types of information to be required, 3) steps
taken to minimize respondent burden; 4) plans for tabulating data; 5)
the data collection schedule; 6) steps taken to have plans reviewed by
outside persons; 7) estimates of burden for each type of respondent and
how such figures were estimated; and 8) discussion of "sensitive"
questions, if any. The contractor shall append copies of the
instruments, marked to show the study's mandate and the voluntary nature
of the respondent's participation.

The contractor shall devote the time and resources necessary to ensure
that the OMB clearance package will be approved by OMB within 8.5 months
after the effective date of the contract. During the clearance process,
a senior staff member shall be available to respond to questions raised
in the federal review and to clarify and amend the forms clearance
package. The contractor shall be prepared to go through two sets of
revisions to obtain forms clearance. The contractor shall submit a first
draft of the OMB clearance package for all of the survey instruments and
in-depth case study protocols to ED within 7 weeks of the effective date
of the contract award. Allowing two weeks for ED review, the contractor
shall submit the second draft within 11 weeks of contract award. ED will
forward the package and all instruments within one week of receiving the
second draft. The purpose of submitting these instruments and clearance
request is to begin the OMB clearance process. After pilot testing the
data collection instruments and within two weeks of receiving feedback
from IMT and the COTR, the contractor shall submit the third draft of
all data collection instruments and the OMB clearance package

Forms clearance requires approximately 120 days. Data cannot be
collected without OMB approval, and therefore in planning and scheduling
the data collection, the contractor shall take into account the amount
of time required for clearance.

Deliverables: Draft and final OMB forms clearance package.

**Task 6: Collect Data.**

**Subtask 6.1: Conduct in-depth case study visits to grantees and
telephone interviews with grantee staff**

The contractor shall conduct site visits to all case study sample
grantees at least two times during the evaluation. The contractor shall
visit three of the five case study grantees three times throughout the
evaluation and the contractor shall visit two of the case study sample
grantees two times throughout the course of the evaluation. Instead of
visiting the latter group of two grantees a third time, the contractor
shall conduct phone interviews with staff and other key people involved
with the Partnership activities undertaken by those two grantees. (See
chart at the bottom of this subtask).

The contractor shall make the first series of site visits to Partnership
grantees in the fall of 2001. At this time, the contractor shall visit
two of the case study sample grantees (sub-group A). The contractor
shall visit the one case study grantee in sub-group B in the winter of
2001/02. The contractor shall visit the remaining two case study
grantees (sub-group C) in the spring of 2002.

The contractor shall begin the second series of site visits during the
fall of 2002. During this second series, the contractor shall visit the
two subgroup A grantees in the fall of 2002, the one sub-group B grantee
in the winter of 2002-03, and the two sub-group C grantees in the spring
of 2003.

During the third series of site visits from the fall of 2003 through the
spring of 2004, the contractor shall conduct site visits to only three
of the five case study grantees. The contractor shall select three sites
depending on which three grantees may be making changes that will
demonstrate substantial progress between the spring of 2003 and sometime
during the fall, winter or spring of the 2003-04 academic year. In
addition, the contractor shall consult with the COTR in making a
decision on which three grantees to visit. In addition, the contractor
shall conduct telephone interviews with key staff at the other 3 case
study grantees throughout the period of fall 2003 through spring 2004.
Within 34 months after the effective date of the contract the contractor
shall have completed all third-year site visits and phone interviews.

All in-depth case study site visits shall last between three-and-half
and six days in length.

In conducting the telephone interviews, the contractor shall interview
at least 3 key staff from each Partnership grantee. The contractor shall
interview key individuals a minimum of one time, with additional
interviews taking place as necessary to fully assess and analyze the
states' reform processes, strategies, outcomes and effects.

Within 4 weeks of conducting the site visits and telephone interviews,
the contractor shall submit to ED a summary of what the contractor
learned, observed and documented at the site or through the phone
interviews. The contractor shall review basic facts reported in the
summary for accuracy with key respondents.

Deliverables: Summaries of visits to in-depth case study grantees.

  -------------------- ----------------------- ---------------------------
  **Date**             **Site Visit**          **Phone Interviews**

  Fall 2001            2 grantees in           
                       sub-sample A            

  Winter 2001-02       1 grantee in sub-group  
                       B                       

  Spring 2002          2 grantees in sub-group 
                       C                       

  Fall 2002            2 grantees in           
                       sub-sample A            

  Winter 2002-03       1 grantee in sub-group  
                       B                       

  Spring 2003          2 grantees in sub-group 
                       C                       

  Fall 2003            1 site visit to 1       Phone interviews with staff
                       grantee (chosen at      & key individuals at 1
                       later date)             sites

  Winter 2003-04       1 site visit to 1       Phone interviews with staff
                       grantee (chosen at      & key individuals at 1 site
                       later date)             

  Spring 2004          1 site visit to 1       Phone interviews with staff
                       grantee (chosen at      & key individuals at 2
                       later date)             sites
  -------------------- ----------------------- ---------------------------

**Subtask 6.2: Administer surveys**

-   **Project Director survey:** The contractor shall administer the
    one-time project director survey to all 25 Partnership grantee
    project directors within 2 weeks of receiving OMB clearance
    (approximately 8 months after the award of the contract.) The
    contractor shall be responsible for tracking the status of all
    responses. The government anticipates a 90 percent or higher
    response rate to the survey. If the response rate is below 90
    percent, the contractor shall undertake alternative measures in
    consultation with ED to boost response, including follow-up
    telephone calls. The contractor shall examine the data for
    completeness and consistency and shall contact participants as
    needed to complete data and address inconsistencies. Between the
    date when the contractor sends the project director survey and for 3
    months after that date, the contractor shall submit a memo to ED
    twice monthly indicating the current rate of response and any data
    collection problems or related issues. The contractor shall submit
    these memos on the 15^th^ day of the month and on the last day of
    the month. If the contractor obtains a 100 percent response rate to
    the survey before the end of 3 months, the contractor will not need
    to continue to submit the memos to ED.

-   **District survey:** The contractor shall administer the baseline
    survey to all Partnership districts within 2 weeks of receiving OMB
    clearance (approximately 8 months after the award of the contract).
    The contractor shall administer the second wave of the district
    survey approximately 31 months after the award of the contract. With
    both waves of the surveys, the contractor shall be responsible for
    tracking the status of all responses. The government anticipates a
    90 percent or higher response rate to the survey. If the response
    rate is below 90 percent, the contractor shall undertake alternative
    measures in consultation with ED to boost response, including
    follow-up telephone calls. The contractor shall examine the data for
    completeness and consistency and shall contact participants as
    needed to complete data and address inconsistencies. Between the
    date when the contractor first sends the district survey to all
    sample districts and for the 3.5 months after that date, the
    contractor shall submit a memo to ED twice monthly indicating the
    current rate of response and any data collection problems or related
    issues. The contractor shall submit these memos on the 15^th^ day of
    the month and on the last day of the month.

-   **Faculty survey:** The contractor shall administer the baseline
    survey to the sample of faculty within 2 weeks of receiving OMB
    clearance and approximately 8 months after the award of the
    contract. The contractor shall administer the second wave of the
    faculty survey 31 months after the award of the contract. With both
    waves of the surveys, the contractor shall be responsible for
    tracking the status of all responses. The government anticipates a
    90 percent or higher response rate to the survey. If the response
    rate is below 90 percent, the contractor shall undertake alternative
    measures in consultation with ED to boost response, including
    follow-up telephone calls. The contractor shall examine the data for
    completeness and consistency and shall contact participants as
    needed to complete data and address inconsistencies. Between the
    date when the contractor first sends the district survey to all
    sample districts and for the 3.5 months after that date, the
    contractor shall submit a memo to ED twice monthly indicating the
    current rate of response and any data collection problems or related
    issues. The contractor shall submit these memos on the 15^th^ day of
    the month and on the last day of the month.

Deliverables: Twice monthly memo.

Baseline and follow-up surveys.

**Task 7: Conduct Analyses and Prepare Evaluation Reports and One
Evaluation Paper.**

The contractor shall prepare three major reports to ED synthesizing and
analyzing all data collected for the evaluation that is available at the
time of report preparation. The contractor shall prepare reports for
transmission to Congress. In both reports the contractor shall address
the research questions and include findings from all data sources.

**Subtask 7.1: First Evaluation Report.** The contractor shall submit a
first draft of an outline for the first evaluation report within 10
months of the effective date of the contract award. Allowing two weeks
for ED comments and reviews, the contractor shall submit a second draft
of the outline 11 months after the effective date of the contract award.
In this evaluation report the contractor shall answer all of the
research questions under section III.B(2) of this SOW and shall provide
answers on the progress of the grantees from September 1999 through the
spring of 2001 with respect to all of the other research questions
outlined under section III.(B) (questions listed in 3 through 6 of
section IIIB).

The contractor shall submit a first draft of the first evaluation report
within 11.5 months of the effective date of the contract award. Allowing
two weeks for ED comments and reviews, the contractor shall submit a
second draft of the report within 13 months of the effective date of the
contract award. Allowing for three more weeks for ED comments and
reviews, the contractor shall submit the third draft of the first report
within 15 months of the effective date of the contract award. ED staff
will do a less intensive review of the third draft and provide any
remaining comments and requested changes to the contractor within 15.5
months of the effective date of the contract. The contractor shall
submit the fourth and final draft 16 months after the award of the
contract.

**Subtask 7.2: Report on feasibility of studying the relative impact of
two to three of the pre-service teacher education program models on the
knowledge, skills and beginning instructional practices of newly minted
teachers.** Within 12.5 months of the award of the contract the
contractor shall submit a report on the feasibility of studying the
relative impact of two or three pre-service teacher education program
models on the knowledge, skills, conceptions, and early classroom
practices of beginning, elementary school teachers who graduate from a
sample of Partnership institutions. By "program models" ED means
programs that are characterized by certain program components or
features. These components or features can range from the educational
philosophy of the program and the curriculum taught in the pre-service
teacher education courses, to the structure and sequence of courses and
clinical experiences offered in the pre-service teacher education
program.

The contractor shall analyze the data collected from the exploratory
case studies, project director survey, faculty survey, district survey
and annual performance reports to identify at two to three pre-service
program models that would lend themselves to an evaluation of their
relative impact on the knowledge, skills, conceptions and practices of
newly minted teachers. For this part of the evaluation, the contractor
shall compare two or three program models that are of interest to both
the policy and educational communities. For example, ED believes it
would be important for the contractor to compare at least one program
model that is very common in the pre-service teacher education field to
one or two other models that are not as common but are thought to be
very promising in terms of producing highly skilled new teachers.

The contractor shall analyze all of the data from these sources in order
to assess the feasibility of conducting this additional component of the
evaluation. This "optional component of the evaluation" (or "option" as
is it referred to throughout this SOW) would last almost four years --
it would begin 14 months after the effective date of the contract
(October of 2001) and would continue through 60 months after the
effective date of the contract (September of 2005). If ED exercises this
option, the contractor would answer the following research questions in
the evaluation reports discussed in Task 11 of this SOW:

-   **Relative effectiveness of two or three particular models of
    teacher education on teachers' knowledge, teachers' conceptions of
    teaching and of students' abilities, teachers' skills, and teachers'
    classroom practices.** What is the relative effectiveness of one,
    two or three particular models of teacher education on the
    knowledge, conceptions, skills and classroom practices of newly
    minted elementary school teachers? ED is particularly interested in
    aspects of a teacher education model that would affect how newly
    minted elementary school teachers teach mathematics and reading. For
    example, ED is particularly interested in the following research
    question: Compared to students from institutions with a different
    program models, do newly minted teachers who graduate from
    institutions with a particular training approach graduate with a
    better understanding of how students learn in general, a better
    understanding of how students learn to read, and a better
    understanding of how students learn particular content in
    mathematics?

-   **Justification for selection of the two or three particular
    pre-service teacher education program models being proposed for this
    particular part of the evaluation.** What is the justification and
    policy relevance for studying the relative effectiveness of the
    particular pre-service program models being proposed for this part
    of the evaluation? How common is each program model that is being
    proposed for this part of the evaluation? What, if any, educational
    theory or empirical evidence suggests that any of these program
    models are particularly effective in producing highly skilled new
    teachers? Taking into account the findings of this evaluation and
    findings that have been published by other researchers since the
    feasibility report outlined under this subtask was submitted to ED
    within 12 months after the effective date of the contract award,
    what empirical evidence is still needed?

-   **Relative effectiveness of two to three particular models of
    teacher education in placing and retaining newly minted teachers in
    schools and/or districts where they are most needed?** What is the
    relative effectiveness of each of the particular pre-service teacher
    education program models on the placement rate of teachers in
    schools and districts where they are most needed? If possible to
    answer within the timeframe for the evaluation, what is the relative
    effectiveness of the particular models on the retention rates of
    newly minted teachers in the schools where they are first employed
    after graduation?

-   **How have Partnership institutions that have produced effective
    teachers been able to improve their pre-service teacher education
    programs through the Partnership grants?** What distinguishes
    programs producing highly competent teachers from those that produce
    less competent teachers? Did grantee institutions that produce
    highly competent teachers begin their five-year grant period with a
    stronger pre-service teacher education program than programs that do
    not produce highly competent teaches? If so, in what ways? Did
    grantee institutions that produce highly competent teachers make
    more progress in improving their pre-service teacher education
    programs through their Partnership grants than did programs that do
    not produce highly competent teachers? What factors facilitated the
    greater progress of some grantees?

In developing the feasibility report, the contractor shall keep in mind
that ED is particularly interested in program models that place an
emphasis on content knowledge, high-quality clinical experiences
(student teaching), and an emphasis on helping new teachers understand
how students learn particular content and skills in mathematics and
reading. In addition, the contractor shall keep in mind that the ED is
interested in understanding the relative effectiveness of certain
approaches to teacher education that are supported through the
Partnership program. ED would hope to learn about the relative
effectiveness of *two or three models of teacher education* supported
through the Partnership program rather than learn about the
effectiveness of *all* of the models supported by the program. (This is
because the costs of learning about the effectiveness of all of the
models supported by the program would be prohibitive.)

In developing the feasibility report, the contractor shall also keep in
mind that ED is interested in having the contractor follow a cohort of
teaching students through some part of their pre-service teacher
education and possibly through some part of their early teaching career.
Since the collection of data on the cohort of teaching students shall
not begin until April or May of 2002 due to the need for OMB clearance,
the contractor shall only be able to collect data on a cohort of
teaching students over the course of 3 or 4 academic years (2001-2002
through 2003-2004 or 2004-2005). One possibility is for the contractor
to follow a cohort of teaching students longitudinally starting with an
academic year in which they are enrolled in their bachelor's or master's
degree program and ending with their last year of pre-service teacher
education or the first year of teaching. Another possibility is to
follow a cohort of teaching students from sometime near the end of the
pre-service teacher education program and into 2 or more years of their
full-time teaching. Both options have their advantages and disadvantages
given that it would be ideal to follow students through their entire
pre-service teacher education program and through 3 or more years of
full-time teaching. In the feasibility report, the contractor shall
discuss a proposed timeframe for following a cohort of teaching students
longitudinally and shall discuss the pros and cons of the proposed
timeframe.

The contractor shall include a discussion of the following issues in the
feasibility report:

-   A discussion of several Partnership pre-service teacher education
    programs that would lend themselves to analysis of their relative
    impact on the knowledge, skills, conceptions, and early
    instructional practices of recent Partnership graduates. The
    contractor shall explain the methods that were used to identify
    these several promising program models that receive Partnership
    funds and why these particular programs would be ideal for such an
    analysis.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   A discussion of the justification for selection of the two or three
    particular pre-service teacher education program models being
    proposed for this particular part of the evaluation. What is the
    justification and policy relevance for studying the relative
    effectiveness of the particular pre-service program models being
    proposed for this part of the evaluation? How common is each program
    model that is being proposed for this part of the evaluation? What,
    if any, educational theory or empirical evidence suggests that any
    of these program models are particularly effective in producing
    highly skilled new teachers? What empirical evidence is still
    needed?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   A discussion of the methods for selecting one or more samples of
    teaching students at the Partnership institutions of interest in
    order to follow them longitudinally to assess the effect of the
    program on their knowledge, skills and early instructional
    practices. In addition, this discussion shall include a power
    analysis that indicates the minimum size of a sample of pre-service
    teacher education programs and students that would be necessary in
    order to detect possible effects of the program models on such
    pre-service teacher education students. In addition, the contractor
    shall discuss a timeline for selecting a sample of pre-service
    teacher education institutions and pre-service teacher education
    students.

-   A discussion of whether to include *comparison* Partnership
    institutions that do not offer the pre-service program models under
    study. (By "comparison Partnership institutions" ED means
    institutions that received Partnership funds but do not include the
    pre-service teacher education program models being studied.) Also,
    if comparison Partnership institutions are to be included, a
    discussion of a method for selecting such institutions and
    recommendations for specific institutions to include. In addition,
    the contractor shall discuss the methods for selecting one or more
    samples of teaching students at the comparison, Partnership
    institutions in order to follow them longitudinally and to obtain
    from them comparison data on their knowledge, skills and early
    instructional practices. In addition, this discussion shall be tied
    to the discussion described above on a power analysis that indicates
    the minimum size of a sample of teaching students that would be
    necessary to detect possible effects of the program models on such
    students. In addition, the contractor shall discuss a timeline for
    selecting a sample of comparison teaching students.

-   A discussion of whether to include comparison institutions that did
    not receive Partnership funds in this study and a justification for
    the inclusion or exclusion of such institutions. In addition, the
    contractor shall describe the number of such institutions that would
    need to be included. In addition, the contractor shall discuss the
    methods for selecting one or more samples of teaching students at
    the comparison, non-Partnership institutions in order to follow them
    longitudinally and to obtain from them comparison data on their
    knowledge, skills and early instructional practices. In addition,
    the contractor shall tie the discussion described above on the power
    analysis to a discussion of the whether to include non-Partnership
    institutions in the study. In addition, this discussion should
    include a timeline for selecting a sample of non-Partnership
    institutions.

-   A discussion of the methods that would be used to measure the
    knowledge, conceptions, skills and classroom practices of newly
    minted teachers. The contractor shall include in this discussion a
    review of the research literature on the knowledge, conceptions,
    skills and classroom practices of newly minted elementary school
    teachers in the instructional areas of reading and mathematics. The
    contractor shall glean the literature in order to determine what
    kinds of knowledge, conceptions, skills and instructional practices
    are considered "best practice" and which kinds of knowledge, skills
    and instructional practices lead to learning gains for elementary
    school students in reading and mathematics. In addition, based on
    the research literature, the contractor shall discuss the criteria
    or frameworks that would be used to evaluate the knowledge, skills
    and instructional practices of newly minted elementary school
    teachers in the instructional areas of reading and mathematics. The
    skills and instructional practices shall include those that are used
    by teachers as they prepare their lessons and their work with
    students. That is, the skills and instructional practices shall
    include more than those that are used during the time that a teacher
    is directly interacting with students. Finally, to the extent
    possible, the contractor shall discuss possible instruments and
    methods for applying these criteria/frameworks in the evaluation.
    That is, the contractor shall discuss what specific instruments (or
    kinds of instruments) could be used to measure the knowledge, skills
    and instructional practices of newly minted elementary school
    teachers.

-   A discussion of the background characteristics of the teaching
    students that the contractor would need to treat as control
    variables or would need to use in other ways for the analysis. The
    contractor shall include in this discussion an outline of how these
    background characteristics would be measured and used.

-   A discussion of additional data that would need to be collected on
    the pre-service teacher education programs included in this
    analysis. The contractor shall describe the methods and periodicity
    for collecting such data.

-   A discussion of additional data that would need to be collected on
    the educational contexts where the newly minted teachers are
    employed. The contractor shall describe the methods and periodicity
    for collecting such data.

The feasibility report shall be submitted within 12.5 months of the
effective date of the contract. ED will review the feasibility report
and provide comments and questions to the contractor within 13 months of
the effect date of the contract. The contractor shall submit a final
feasibility report within 13.5 months of the effective date of the
contract.

**Subtask 7.3 Evaluation memo.** The contractor shall submit a first
draft of an outline for the evaluation memo within 22 months of the
effective date of the contract award. Allowing two weeks for ED comments
and reviews, the contractor shall submit a second draft of the outline
23 months of the effective date of the contract award. In this
evaluation memo, the contractor shall provide an update to all of the
answers to the research questions listed in section III.B. of this SOW
based on all of the data collected and analyzed during the second full
year of the evaluation.

At the end of the second year of data collection (the end of school year
2001-02), within 24 months of contract award, the contractor shall
submit a paper to ED that summarizes the main findings from the year of
case study data collection that took place between September 2001 and
June 2002. In this paper the contractor shall update ED on many of the
findings discussed in the first evaluation report, the first draft of
which was submitted during the summer of 2001 (within 12 months of
contract award). ED will not put this paper through the official ED
clearance process nor send the final draft to members of Congress. The
purpose of the paper is just to update ED on the evaluation findings.
However, key ED staff will review the first draft of the paper and will
provide comments to the contractor within 25 months of contract award.
The contractor shall submit a second and final draft of the paper within
26 months of contract award.

**Subtask 7.4: Second Evaluation Report.** The contractor shall submit a
first draft of an outline for the second evaluation report within 32
months of the effective date of the contract award. Allowing two weeks
for ED comments and reviews, the contractor shall submit a second draft
of the outline 33 months after the effective date of the contract award.
In this evaluation report the contractor shall provide updated answers
to all of the evaluation questions outlined in section III.B. of this
SOW based on all data collected and analyzed during the third year of
the evaluation.

The contractor shall submit a first draft of the second evaluation
report within 35 months of the effective date of the contract award.
Allowing two weeks for ED comments and reviews, the contractor shall
submit a second draft of the report within 36.5 months after the
effective date of the contract award. Allowing for three more weeks for
ED comments and reviews, the contractor shall submit the third draft of
the second report within 38 months after the effective date of the
contract award. ED staff will do a less extensive review of the third
draft of the report and will provide any remaining comments and
requested changes to the contractor within 38.5 months after the
effective date of the contract. The contractor shall submit the fourth
and final draft of the report 39 months after the effective date of the
contract.

**Subtask 7.5: Third Evaluation Report.** The contractor shall submit a
first draft of an outline for the third evaluation report within 45
months of the effective date of the contract award. Allowing two weeks
for ED comments and reviews, the contractor shall submit a second draft
of the outline 46 months after the effective date of the contract award.
In this evaluation report the contractor shall provide updated answers
to all of the questions listed in III.B. of this SOW based on all data
collected and analyzed during the fourth year of the evaluation.

The contractor shall submit a draft of the 3rd report within 47 months
of the effective date of the contract award. Allowing two weeks for ED
comments and reviews, the contractor shall submit a second draft of the
report within 48.25 months of the effective date of the contract award.
Allowing for three more weeks for ED comments and reviews, the
contractor shall submit the third draft of the third report within 49.75
months of the effective date of the contract award. ED staff will do a
less extensive review of the third draft of the report and will provide
any remaining comments and requested changes to the contractor within
50.25 months of the effective date of the contract. The contractor shall
submit the fourth and final draft 50.75 months after the effective date
of the contract.

Deliverables: First, second, third and final drafts of first report.

First, second, third and final drafts of second report.

> First, second, third and final drafts of third report.

First and second drafts of evaluation paper.

> Please note that all 1^st^ and 2^nd^ drafts of required evaluation
> reports under Task 7 shall be
>
> typed and double-spaced. The first draft of the evaluation paper shall
> be typed and double
>
> spaced.

**Optional Component of the Evaluation**

The overall focus of the feasibility report developed under subtask 7.2
is to determine whether or not it is feasible to undertake a study of
the impact of a few Partnership program models on the knowledge, skills
and instructional practices of a sample of recent Partnership graduates
who are employed as elementary school teachers. Information collected
from the exploratory case studies, the project director survey, the
faculty survey, the district survey and the annual performance reports
shall be analyzed by the contractor to make this determination. Should
the feasibility report indicate that a study of the impact of a few
models on recent graduates could be undertaken, ED will exercise this
option. In all likelihood, ED will be in a position to make this
decision by 14 months after the effective date of the contract. This
additional study or "option" would last almost four years -- it would
begin 14 months after the effective date of the contract (October of
2001) and would continue through 60 months after the effective date of
the contract (September of 2005).

**Task 8: Refine study design.** The contractor shall refine the draft
study design set forth in the feasibility final report. In preparing the
refined study design, the contractor shall flush out more fully the
framework for sample selection, the analysis plan, and an outline for
the third evaluation report and the final evaluation report. The
contractor shall design the analysis to estimate the impact of a few key
program models on the knowledge, skills and instructional practices of
students who are just graduating from their teacher training programs
and are just beginning their teaching careers.

In the sample selection plan, the contractor shall provide a refined
methodology for selecting a sample of Partnership projects and possibly
non-Partnership programs to participate in this study. In addition, the
contractor shall provide a refined methodology for selecting a sample of
students who are studying to become teachers at the sampled Partnership
projects and non-Partnership programs. The contractor shall discuss the
universe of institutions and students that shall be studied in this part
of the evaluation. For example, what is the urbanicity and general
geographic location of the programs being studied, how large are the
programs, and what are the characteristics of the students who are
studying to become teachers at those programs?

The contractor shall submit the draft refined study design to ED and to
the TWG for review by the 15^th^ month after the effective date of the
contract. ED and the TWG will review the refined study design and will
provide comments to the contractor within 15.5 months of the effective
date of the contract. The contractor shall submit the final study design
to ED within 16 months of the effective date of the contract.

Deliverables: Draft and final refined study design.

**Task 9: Develop data collection instruments and OMB clearance
request.** The contractor shall develop appropriate data collection
instruments to evaluate the impact of two to three key program models on
the knowledge, skills and instructional practices of students who
recently graduated from their teacher education programs and who are
beginning their teaching careers in elementary education. The data
collection instruments shall include instruments used to collect
background data on the teaching students, data on the pre-service
teacher education programs being studied (unless sufficient data are
being collected through the base contract) and outcome data on the
impacts of the program models on newly minted teachers.

The contractor shall submit the first drafts of all of the data
collection instruments and OMB clearance request to ED and the TWG
within 15 months. The clearance request shall include concise statements
of 1) the study mandate and objectives; 2) types of information to be
required; 3) steps taken to minimize respondent burden; 4) plans for
tabulating data; 5) the data collection schedule; 6) steps taken to have
plans reviewed by outside persons; 7) estimates of burden for each type
of respondent and how such figures were estimated; and 8) discussion of
"sensitive" questions, if any. The contractor shall append copies of the
instruments, marked to show the study's mandate and the voluntary nature
of the respondent's participation.

ED and the TWG will review the instruments within two weeks and will
provide comments to the contractor. The contractor shall submit a second
draft of all of the instruments and the OMB clearance request within 16
months after the effective date of the contract. ED will submit the OMB
clearance request and all instruments for OMB clearance within three
days of receiving the second draft of the instruments and clearance
request. Between month 16 and month 17.5, the contractor shall pilot all
instruments. After piloting the instruments and within 5 work days of
receiving comments from ED's Information Management Team (IMT), the
contractor shall submit revised instruments and a revised OMB clearance
request based on the lessons of pilot testing and the comments received
from IMT. These revised instruments shall be considered the third draft.
ED shall resubmit the instruments and clearance request to IMT and IMT
will put the instruments back into the OMB clearance process by
transferring the package to OMB.

The contractor shall devote the time and resources necessary to ensure
that the OMB clearance package is approved by OMB by 20 months after the
effective date of the contract. During the clearance process, a senior
staff member shall be available to respond to questions raised in the
federal review and to clarify and amend the forms clearance package.
Forms clearance requires approximately 120 days. Data cannot be
collected without OMB approval, and therefore in planning and scheduling
the data collection, the contractor shall take into account the amount
of time required for clearance. After OMB has reviewed the instruments
and request, OMB will pose questions to ED. ED will share these
questions with the contractor and the contractor shall prepare written
responses to these questions within 2 work days. OMB will review those
answers and either approve the data collection or will pose one or two
more sets of questions. The contractor shall be prepared to develop
written answers to additional sets of OMB questions within two days of
receiving such questions. OMB may also ask the contractor to make a
final set of changes to each of the data collection instruments. The
contractor shall make any changes requested by OMB within one week of
receiving OMB's changes and suggestions. The contractor shall submit the
fourth (final) drafts of the data collection instruments to ED within
one week of receiving OMB's requested changes and OMB's approval of the
data collection request.

Deliverables: First draft, second draft and final OMB forms clearance
package.

**Task 10: Collect data.** Within two weeks of receiving OMB clearance,
the contractor shall begin to collect the data for this part of the
evaluation. The contractor shall be responsible for tracking the status
of all responses to all surveys and other data collection instruments.
The government anticipates a 90 percent or higher response rate to all
surveys and other data collection instruments/methods. If the response
rates are below 90 percent, the contractor shall undertake alternative
measures in consultation with ED to boost response, including follow-up
telephone calls. The contractor shall examine the data for completeness
and consistency and shall contact participants as needed to complete
data and address inconsistencies. During the four months after each data
collection effort begins, the contractor shall submit a memo to ED twice
monthly indicating the current rate of response on all data collection
efforts and any data collection problems or related issues. The
contractor shall submit these memos on the 15^th^ of the month and on
the last day of the month.

Deliverables: Twice monthly memo on data collection status.

**Task 11: Evaluation reports.** During months 32 through 35 and months
45 through 47 when the contractor is conducting analyses for the second
and third evaluation reports described in Subtasks 7.4 and 7.5, the
contractor shall incorporate findings from the analysis of data
collected under Task 10 into those two evaluation reports (Subtasks 7.4
and 7.5). In these evaluation reports the contractor shall describe the
evolution of the program models being studied in this part of the
evaluation. The contractor shall describe the program models and the
ways that they reflect high-quality dimensions of pre-service teacher
education and the ways in which they fall short of reflecting those
dimensions. In the second and third evaluation reports the contractor
shall also describe the pre-service teacher education received by the
students being studied in this part of the evaluation. Finally, the
contractor shall discuss any preliminary findings that answer the
research questions listed under subtask 7.2 of this SOW.

The contractor shall also submit the first draft of an outline of a
fourth evaluation report to ED within 51 months of the effective date of
the contract. This fourth evaluation report shall discuss the answers to
all of the research questions listed under subtask 7.2 of this SOW. ED
will review the draft outline and provide comments within 51.5 months of
the effective date of the contract. The contractor shall submit a final
outline within 52 months of the effective date of the contract. The
contractor shall submit the first draft of this fourth evaluation report
within 54 months of the effective date of the contract. ED will review
the draft and will provide comments within 3 weeks of receiving the
draft. The contractor shall submit a second draft of the report within
55.5 months after the effective date of the contract. ED will review the
draft and provide comments to the contractor within 3 weeks of receiving
the draft. The contractor will submit the third draft within 57 months
after the effective date of the contract. ED will provide comments on
this third draft within 57.5 months after the effective date of the
contract. The contractor will submit the final draft of the contract
within 58 months.

Deliverables: Incorporation of findings from this part of the evaluation
into the 2^nd^ and 3^rd^ evaluation

> reports outlined in subtasks 7.4 and 7.5 of this SOW.
>
> 1^st^ and 2^nd^ drafts of outline for 4^th^ evaluation report and
>
> 1^st^, 2^nd^, 3^rd^ and final drafts of fourth evaluation report.
>
> Please note that all 1^st^ and 2^nd^ drafts of required evaluation
> reports under Task 11 shall be
>
> typed and double-spaced.

D.  **Reporting Requirements**

In addition to the reports that are required for each task, the
contractor shall submit one copy of the following reports to the
contracting officer, with one copy to the COTR:

(1) **Monthly Progress Report/Exception Reports.** The contractor shall
    prepare monthly progress reports due within ten working days of the
    end of each month. They shall summarize the major activities and
    accomplishments for the reporting period. In addition, they shall
    provide information for each project task regarding significant
    findings and events, problems encountered, and staff used. The
    reports shall also specify the extent to which the project is on
    schedule, briefly describe the activities planned for the next
    month, identify and discuss significant deviations from the
    substantive work in the management plan, and identify and discuss
    decisions which may be needed from ED. If there are no exceptions,
    the reports shall state this fact. If there are exceptions to the
    management plan, the contractor shall describe the proposal for
    resolving the problems.

(2) **Monthly Manpower/Expenditure Reports.** The contractor shall
    prepare monthly expenditure reports due within ten working days of
    the end of each month. These reports shall be prepared and signed by
    the project director, and shall summarize the actual personnel
    assignments for the month just completed, showing the hours charged
    by task for each staff member. The report shall project similar
    assignment information for the upcoming month. The reports shall
    also show expenditures, dis-aggregating project costs by individual
    and by task, and specifying for all travel the locations, duration,
    and personnel for each trip.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
E.  Schedule of Deliverables

+----------------+---------------------+----------------+-------+-----+
| **Task**       | **Subtask**         | *              | **D   | *   |
|                |                     | *Deliverable** | ate** | *\# |
|                |                     |                |       | of  |
|                |                     |                | **    | Co  |
|                |                     |                | Due** | pie |
|                |                     |                |       | s** |
+----------------+---------------------+----------------+-------+-----+
| **Task 1: Plan | Subtask 1.1:        | 1\. Initial    | Week  | N/A |
| the            | Initial review of   | meeting with   | 2     |     |
| evaluation**   | materials           | ED             |       | 5   |
|                |                     |                | Week  |     |
|                |                     | 2\. Memo to ED | 3     |     |
+----------------+---------------------+----------------+-------+-----+
|                | Subtask 1.2: Refine | 1\. Draft      | Week  | 5   |
|                | the study design    | study design   | 6     |     |
|                |                     | (including     |       | 10  |
|                |                     | lit. review    | Week  |     |
|                |                     | and evaluation | 10    | 10  |
|                |                     | framework)     |       |     |
|                |                     |                | Week  | 20  |
|                |                     | 2\. Final      | 10    |     |
|                |                     | study design   |       |     |
|                |                     |                | Week  |     |
|                |                     | 3.Draft        | 15    |     |
|                |                     | non-technical  |       |     |
|                |                     | summary        |       |     |
|                |                     |                |       |     |
|                |                     | 4\. Final      |       |     |
|                |                     | non-technical  |       |     |
|                |                     | summary        |       |     |
+----------------+---------------------+----------------+-------+-----+
| **Task 2:      |                     | 1.Draft list   | Week  | 5   |
| Establish      |                     | of members     | 4     |     |
| Technical      |                     |                |       | 5   |
| Working        |                     | 2.Final list   | Week  |     |
| Group**        |                     | of members     | 8     | N/A |
|                |                     |                |       |     |
|                |                     | 3.First group  | By    | N/A |
|                |                     | meeting        | Month |     |
|                |                     |                | 4     |     |
|                |                     | 4\. Second     |       |     |
|                |                     | group meeting  | By    |     |
|                |                     |                | Month |     |
|                |                     |                | 33    |     |
+----------------+---------------------+----------------+-------+-----+
| **Task 3:      |                     | 1.Database     | Month | N/A |
| Develop data   |                     | system in      | 4     |     |
| monitoring     |                     | place          |       | 5   |
| system and     |                     |                | Month |     |
| database**     |                     | 2\. Memorandum | 4     | 10  |
|                |                     | on database    |       |     |
|                |                     | system         | Month |     |
|                |                     |                | 52    |     |
|                |                     | 3.Database     |       |     |
|                |                     | disks and      |       |     |
|                |                     | accompanying   |       |     |
|                |                     | documentation  |       |     |
+----------------+---------------------+----------------+-------+-----+
| **Task 4:      |                     | 1\. Memoranda  | W     | 10  |
| Collect and    |                     | on findings    | ithin | for |
| review         |                     | from annual    | 9     | e   |
| performance    |                     | performance    | weeks | ach |
| reports and    |                     | reports &      | of    | m   |
| Institutional  |                     | institutional  | the   | emo |
| Accountability |                     | accountability | p     | ran |
| Reports**      |                     | reports        | erfor | dum |
|                |                     |                | mance |     |
|                |                     |                | r     |     |
|                |                     |                | eport |     |
|                |                     |                | dea   |     |
|                |                     |                | dline |     |
|                |                     |                | and   |     |
|                |                     |                | the   |     |
|                |                     |                | Ins   |     |
|                |                     |                | titut |     |
|                |                     |                | ional |     |
|                |                     |                | Acco  |     |
|                |                     |                | untab |     |
|                |                     |                | ility |     |
|                |                     |                | R     |     |
|                |                     |                | eport |     |
|                |                     |                | dea   |     |
|                |                     |                | dline |     |
|                |                     |                | e     |     |
|                |                     |                | stabl |     |
|                |                     |                | ished |     |
|                |                     |                | by ED |     |
|                |                     |                | each  |     |
|                |                     |                | year  |     |
+----------------+---------------------+----------------+-------+-----+
| **Task 5:      | Subtask 5.1: Case   | 1.proposed     | Week  | 5   |
| Develop Data   | Studies --          | list of sites  | 6     |     |
| Collection     | Exploratory site    |                |       | 5   |
| instruments**  | visits              | 2\. Final list | Week  |     |
|                |                     | of sites       | 10    | N/A |
|                |                     |                |       |     |
|                |                     | 3\. Conduct    | Month |     |
|                |                     | visits         | 6     |     |
+----------------+---------------------+----------------+-------+-----+
|                | Subtask 5.2: Case   | 1.Draft        | Week  | 10  |
|                | studies \--         | protocols      | 7     |     |
|                | Development of site |                |       | 10  |
|                | visit protocols     | 2\. Second     | Week  |     |
|                |                     | Draft          | 11    | 20  |
|                | Selection of Case   |                |       |     |
|                | Study sites         | 3\. Third      | W     | 10  |
|                |                     | draft of       | ithin |     |
|                |                     | protocols      | one   | 10  |
|                |                     |                | week  |     |
|                |                     | 1.  First      | of    |     |
|                |                     |     draft of   | rece  |     |
|                |                     |     proposed   | iving |     |
|                |                     |     grantees   | IMT's |     |
|                |                     |                | comm  |     |
|                |                     | 2.  Second     | ents. |     |
|                |                     |     draft of   |       |     |
|                |                     |     proposed   | 1.    |     |
|                |                     |     grantees   | Month |     |
|                |                     |                |       |     |
|                |                     | 3.  Final      |    10 |     |
|                |                     |     draft of   |       |     |
|                |                     |     proposed   | 2.    |     |
|                |                     |     grantees   | Month |     |
|                |                     |                |       |     |
|                |                     |                |    11 |     |
|                |                     |                |       |     |
|                |                     |                | 3.    |     |
|                |                     |                |  Moth |     |
|                |                     |                |       |     |
|                |                     |                |  14.5 |     |
+----------------+---------------------+----------------+-------+-----+
|                | Subtask 5.3: Case   | 1.  Draft      | Week  | 10  |
|                | studies --          |     protocols  | 7     |     |
|                | Development of      |                |       | 10  |
|                | phone protocols     | 2.  2^nd^      | Week  |     |
|                |                     |     draft of   | 11    | 10  |
|                |                     |     protocols  |       |     |
|                |                     |                | W     |     |
|                |                     | 3\. Third      | ithin |     |
|                |                     | draft of       | one   |     |
|                |                     | protocols      | week  |     |
|                |                     |                | of    |     |
|                |                     |                | rece  |     |
|                |                     |                | iving |     |
|                |                     |                | IMT's |     |
|                |                     |                | com   |     |
|                |                     |                | ments |     |
+----------------+---------------------+----------------+-------+-----+
|                | Subtask 5.4: Train  | 1.Draft        | Month | 5   |
|                | case study staff    | materials for  | 11    |     |
|                |                     | site visits    |       | 5   |
|                |                     |                | Month |     |
|                |                     | 2\. Final      | 12    | N/A |
|                |                     | materials for  |       |     |
|                |                     | site visits    | Month |     |
|                |                     |                | 13    |     |
|                |                     | 3\. Train      |       |     |
|                |                     | staff          |       |     |
+----------------+---------------------+----------------+-------+-----+
|                | Subtask 5.5:        | 1.  First      | Week  | 15  |
|                | Develop project     |     draft      | 7     |     |
|                | director survey     |                |       | 15  |
|                |                     | 2.  2^nd^      | Week  |     |
|                |                     |     draft      | 11    | 15  |
|                |                     |                |       |     |
|                |                     | 3.  3^rd^      | W     |     |
|                |                     |     draft      | ithin |     |
|                |                     |                | one   |     |
|                |                     |                | week  |     |
|                |                     |                | of    |     |
|                |                     |                | rece  |     |
|                |                     |                | iving |     |
|                |                     |                | IMT's |     |
|                |                     |                | com   |     |
|                |                     |                | ments |     |
+----------------+---------------------+----------------+-------+-----+
|                | Subtask 5.6:        | 1.  conduct    | 17    | 10  |
|                | Pretest project     |     pre-test   | weeks |     |
|                | director survey     |                |       | 10  |
|                |                     | 2.  Summary of | 18    |     |
|                |                     |     results    | weeks |     |
+----------------+---------------------+----------------+-------+-----+
|                | Subtask 5.7:        | 1.  1^st^      | Week  | 15  |
|                | Prepare letter of   |     draft      | 7     |     |
|                | intro.              |                |       | 15  |
|                |                     | 2.  2^nd^      | Week  |     |
|                |                     |     draft      | 11    |     |
+----------------+---------------------+----------------+-------+-----+
|                | Subtask 5.8:        | 1.  1^st^      | Week  | 20  |
|                | Develop district    |     draft      | 7     |     |
|                | survey              |                |       | 20  |
|                |                     | 2.  2^nd^      | Week  |     |
|                |                     |     draft      | 11    | 20  |
|                |                     |                |       |     |
|                |                     | 3.  Third      | W     |     |
|                |                     |     draft      | ithin |     |
|                |                     |                | one   |     |
|                |                     |                | week  |     |
|                |                     |                | of    |     |
|                |                     |                | rece  |     |
|                |                     |                | iving |     |
|                |                     |                | IMT's |     |
|                |                     |                | com   |     |
|                |                     |                | ments |     |
+----------------+---------------------+----------------+-------+-----+
|                | Subtask 5.9:        | 1.  conduct    | Week  | N/A |
|                | Conduct pretest     |     pretest    | 17    |     |
|                |                     |                |       | 10  |
|                |                     | 2\. summary of | Week  |     |
|                |                     | results        | 18    |     |
+----------------+---------------------+----------------+-------+-----+
|                | Subtask 5.10:       | 1.  1^st^      | 7     | 15  |
|                | Letter of           |     draft      | weeks |     |
|                | introduction.       |                |       | 15  |
|                |                     | 2.  2^nd^      | 11    |     |
|                |                     |     draft      | weeks |     |
+----------------+---------------------+----------------+-------+-----+
|                | Subtask 5.11:       | 1.  1^st^      | 7     | 20  |
|                | Develop faculty     |     draft      | weeks |     |
|                | survey.             |                |       | 20  |
|                |                     | 2.  2^nd^      | 11    |     |
|                |                     |     draft      | weeks | 20  |
|                |                     |                |       |     |
|                |                     | 3.  3rd draft  | W     |     |
|                |                     |                | ithin |     |
|                |                     |                | one   |     |
|                |                     |                | week  |     |
|                |                     |                | of    |     |
|                |                     |                | rece  |     |
|                |                     |                | iving |     |
|                |                     |                | IMT's |     |
|                |                     |                | com   |     |
|                |                     |                | ments |     |
+----------------+---------------------+----------------+-------+-----+
|                | Subtask 5.12:       | 1.  Conduct    | 17    | 10  |
|                | Conduct pretest of  |     pre-test   | weeks |     |
|                | faculty surveys     |                |       | 10  |
|                |                     | 2\. Summary of | 18    |     |
|                |                     | results        | weeks |     |
+----------------+---------------------+----------------+-------+-----+
|                | Subtask 5.13:       | 3.  1^st^      | 7     | 15  |
|                | Letter of           |     draft      | weeks |     |
|                | introduction for    |                |       | 15  |
|                | faculty surveys.    | 4.  2^nd^      | 11    |     |
|                |                     |     draft      | weeks |     |
+----------------+---------------------+----------------+-------+-----+
|                | Subtask 5.14:       | 4.  1^st^      | 7     | 20  |
|                | Prepare OMB         |     draft      | weeks |     |
|                | clearance package   |                |       | 20  |
|                | for all surveys and | 5.  2^nd^      | 11    |     |
|                | in-depth case study |     draft      | weeks | 20  |
|                | protocols.          |                |       |     |
|                |                     | 6.  3rd draft  | W     |     |
|                |                     |                | ithin |     |
|                |                     |                | one   |     |
|                |                     |                | week  |     |
|                |                     |                | off   |     |
|                |                     |                | rece  |     |
|                |                     |                | iving |     |
|                |                     |                | IMT's |     |
|                |                     |                | com   |     |
|                |                     |                | ments |     |
+----------------+---------------------+----------------+-------+-----+
| **Task 6:      | Subtask 6.1:        | 1^st^ series   | S     |     |
| Collect        | Conduct site visits |                | chool |     |
| data.**        | and phone           | 2^nd^ series   | year  |     |
|                | interviews          |                | 20    |     |
|                |                     | 3^rd^ series   | 01-02 |     |
|                |                     |                |       |     |
|                |                     | Summary of     | S     |     |
|                |                     | what           | chool |     |
|                |                     | contractor     | year  |     |
|                |                     | learned        | 20    |     |
|                |                     |                | 02-03 |     |
|                |                     |                |       |     |
|                |                     |                | S     |     |
|                |                     |                | chool |     |
|                |                     |                | year  |     |
|                |                     |                | 20    |     |
|                |                     |                | 03-04 |     |
|                |                     |                |       |     |
|                |                     |                | W     |     |
|                |                     |                | ithin |     |
|                |                     |                | 4     |     |
|                |                     |                | weeks |     |
|                |                     |                | of    |     |
|                |                     |                | site  |     |
|                |                     |                | v     |     |
|                |                     |                | isits |     |
|                |                     |                | and   |     |
|                |                     |                | inter |     |
|                |                     |                | views |     |
+----------------+---------------------+----------------+-------+-----+
|                | Subtask 6.2:        | One time       | 8     | N/A |
|                | Administer surveys  |                | m     |     |
|                |                     | Memo           | onths | 4   |
|                | (1) Project         |                |       |     |
|                |     Director Survey | 1^st^ wave     | 2x/   | N/A |
|                |                     |                | month |     |
|                | \(2\) District      | 2^nd^ wave     |       | N/A |
|                | Survey              |                | 8     |     |
|                |                     | Memo           | m     | 4   |
|                | \(3\) Faculty       |                | onths |     |
|                | Survey              | 1^st^ wave     |       | N/A |
|                |                     |                | 31    |     |
|                |                     | 2^nd^ wave     | m     | N/A |
|                |                     |                | onths |     |
|                |                     | Memo           |       | 4   |
|                |                     |                | 2x/   |     |
|                |                     |                | month |     |
|                |                     |                |       |     |
|                |                     |                | 8     |     |
|                |                     |                | m     |     |
|                |                     |                | onths |     |
|                |                     |                |       |     |
|                |                     |                | 31    |     |
|                |                     |                | m     |     |
|                |                     |                | onths |     |
|                |                     |                |       |     |
|                |                     |                | 2x/   |     |
|                |                     |                | month |     |
+----------------+---------------------+----------------+-------+-----+
| **Task 7:      | 1.  First           | 1^st^ outline  | Month | 20  |
| Analysis of    |     Evaluation      |                | 10    |     |
| data and       |     Report          | 2^nd^ draft    |       | 20  |
| production of  |                     | outline        | Month |     |
| evaluation     | 2.  Feasibility     |                | 11    | 30  |
| reports**      |     Report          | Draft 1^st^    |       |     |
|                |                     | report         | Month | 30  |
|                | 7.3 Evaluation Memo |                | 11.5  |     |
|                |                     | Second draft   |       | 30  |
|                | 4.  Second          | 1^st^ report   | Month |     |
|                |     Evaluation      |                | 13    | 80  |
|                |     Report          | Third draft    |       |     |
|                |                     | 1^st^ report   | Month | 30  |
|                | 5.  Third           |                | 15    |     |
|                |     Evaluation      | Final draft    |       | 30  |
|                |     Report          | 1^st^ report   | Month |     |
|                |                     |                | 16    | 30  |
|                |                     | 1^st^ draft    |       |     |
|                |                     |                | Month | 30  |
|                |                     | Final draft    | 12.5  |     |
|                |                     |                |       | 30  |
|                |                     | 1^st^ outline  | Month |     |
|                |                     |                | 13.5  | 30  |
|                |                     | 2^nd^ outline  |       |     |
|                |                     |                | Month | 20  |
|                |                     | 1^st^ draft of | 22    |     |
|                |                     | evaluation     |       | 20  |
|                |                     | memo           | Month |     |
|                |                     |                | 23    | 30  |
|                |                     | Final draft of |       |     |
|                |                     | evaluation     | Month | 30  |
|                |                     | memo           | 24    |     |
|                |                     |                |       | 30  |
|                |                     | 1^st^ draft    | Month |     |
|                |                     | outline        | 26    | 80  |
|                |                     |                |       |     |
|                |                     | 2^nd^ draft    | Month | 20  |
|                |                     | outline        | 32    |     |
|                |                     |                |       | 20  |
|                |                     | 1^st^ Draft of | Month |     |
|                |                     | 2^nd^ report   | 33    | 30  |
|                |                     |                |       |     |
|                |                     | Second draft   | Month | 30  |
|                |                     | 2^nd^ report   | 35    |     |
|                |                     |                |       | 30  |
|                |                     | 3^rd^ draft    | Month |     |
|                |                     | 2^nd^ report   | 36.5  | 80  |
|                |                     |                |       |     |
|                |                     | Final draft    | Month |     |
|                |                     | 2^nd^ report   | 38    |     |
|                |                     |                |       |     |
|                |                     | 1^st^ draft    | Month |     |
|                |                     | outline        | 39    |     |
|                |                     |                |       |     |
|                |                     | 2^nd^ draft    | Month |     |
|                |                     | outline        | 45    |     |
|                |                     |                |       |     |
|                |                     | 1^st^ draft of | Month |     |
|                |                     | 3^rd^ report   | 46    |     |
|                |                     |                |       |     |
|                |                     | 2^nd^ draft of | Month |     |
|                |                     | 3^rd^ report   | 47    |     |
|                |                     |                |       |     |
|                |                     | 3rd draft of   | Month |     |
|                |                     | 3^rd^ report   | 48.25 |     |
|                |                     |                |       |     |
|                |                     | Final draft of | Month |     |
|                |                     | 3^rd^ report   | 49.75 |     |
|                |                     |                |       |     |
|                |                     |                | Month |     |
|                |                     |                | 50.75 |     |
+----------------+---------------------+----------------+-------+-----+
| **OPTION:**    |                     |                |       |     |
+----------------+---------------------+----------------+-------+-----+
| **Task 8:      |                     | Draft          | Month | 30  |
| Refine study   |                     |                | 15    |     |
| design**       |                     | Final          |       | 30  |
|                |                     |                | Month |     |
|                |                     |                | 16    |     |
+----------------+---------------------+----------------+-------+-----+
| **Task 9:      |                     | 1^st^ draft of | Month | 30  |
| Develop data   |                     | instruments    | 15    |     |
| collection     |                     | and OMB        |       | 30  |
| instruments    |                     | clearance      | Month |     |
| and OMB        |                     | package        | 16    | 30  |
| package**      |                     |                |       |     |
|                |                     | 2^nd^ draft of | W     |     |
|                |                     | instruments    | ithin |     |
|                |                     | and package    | one   |     |
|                |                     |                | week  |     |
|                |                     | 3^rd^ draft of | of    |     |
|                |                     | instruments    | rece  |     |
|                |                     | and OMB        | iving |     |
|                |                     | package        | IMT's |     |
|                |                     |                | com   |     |
|                |                     | Final Draft    | ments |     |
|                |                     |                |       |     |
|                |                     |                | W     |     |
|                |                     |                | ithin |     |
|                |                     |                | one   |     |
|                |                     |                | week  |     |
|                |                     |                | of    |     |
|                |                     |                | rece  |     |
|                |                     |                | iving |     |
|                |                     |                | OMB   |     |
|                |                     |                | appr  |     |
|                |                     |                | oval. |     |
+----------------+---------------------+----------------+-------+-----+
| **Task 10:     |                     | Submit         | Begin | 4   |
| Collect data** |                     | bi-weekly      | w     |     |
|                |                     | status memos   | ithin |     |
|                |                     |                | 2     |     |
|                |                     |                | weeks |     |
|                |                     |                | of    |     |
|                |                     |                | obta  |     |
|                |                     |                | ining |     |
|                |                     |                | OMB   |     |
|                |                     |                | clea  |     |
|                |                     |                | rance |     |
|                |                     |                |       |     |
|                |                     |                | Bi-w  |     |
|                |                     |                | eekly |     |
+----------------+---------------------+----------------+-------+-----+
| **Task 11:     | Incorporate         | Draft outline  | Month | 30  |
| Evaluation     | findings from       |                | 35 &  |     |
| reports**      | Option into reports | Final outline  |       | 30  |
|                | listed under        |                | Month |     |
|                | subtask 7.4 and 7.5 | 1^st^ draft    | 47    | 30  |
|                | above               |                |       |     |
|                |                     | 2^nd^ draft    | Month | 30  |
|                | Fourth evaluation   |                | 51    |     |
|                | report              | 3^rd^ draft    |       | 30  |
|                |                     |                | Month |     |
|                |                     | final draft    | 52    | 80  |
|                |                     |                |       |     |
|                |                     |                | Month |     |
|                |                     |                | 54    |     |
|                |                     |                |       |     |
|                |                     |                | Month |     |
|                |                     |                | 55.5  |     |
|                |                     |                |       |     |
|                |                     |                | Month |     |
|                |                     |                | 57    |     |
|                |                     |                |       |     |
|                |                     |                | Month |     |
|                |                     |                | 58    |     |
+----------------+---------------------+----------------+-------+-----+
|                |                     |                |       |     |
+----------------+---------------------+----------------+-------+-----+

\* Unless otherwise specified, due dates are after effective date of
contract award.

\* The contractor shall submit one electronic copy (via email) of all
deliverables in Microsoft Word format to the COTR on their due dates.

\* The contractor shall submit one electronic copy (via email) of all
final deliverables in Microsoft Word format to the Contract Specialist
on their due dates.

[^1]: Throughout this SOW, the "optional component of the evaluation" is
    referred to as the "option."

[^2]: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
    Statistics, *Teacher Quality: A Report on the Preparation and
    Qualifications of Public School Teachers*. Jan. 1999: B-16.