Shifting into High
Gear: Accelerating
the Common Core
through Teacher
Networks
Request for Proposal
Guidelines
Applications due April 22, 2013
1
Background Information
While nearly every state in the country has adopted the Common Core Standards in mathematics and literacy, most
teachers are uncertain about how to put them into practice. At the same time, we know that informal and formal
teacher networks are perhaps the most trusted and often-cited source of information for teachers in accessing
instructional resources. The Common Core calls for teachers and local administrators to understand some
fundamental changes which lead to instructional shifts in both literacy and mathematics. While there have been
some good models of implementation of the common core in discrete areas, there is a need to support the
spreading and scaling of good tools that can be used by teachers across the country.
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation would like to challenge organizations with robust teacher networks to
accelerate the impact of their efforts to support Common Core implementation. Through this RFP, the Foundation
seeks to reach hundreds of thousands of teachers – as measured by a corresponding increase in the number of
teachers who collectively who state that they “have the resources necessary to implement CCSS.” We hope to help
accelerate the Common Core implementation efforts of organizations that work with large numbers of teachers by:
 Building on early Common Core math and literacy direct implementation strategies (i.e.,
Foundation-supported Literacy Design Collaborative/Math Design Collaborative work) to leverage
lessons learned and broaden the impact to the organization’s entire network.
 Supporting an innovative approach to understanding the Common Core that could be scaled across an
organization’s network (e.g. through participation and use of materials that are part of the Basal Alignment
Project).
 Creating more scalable solutions that travel across networks quickly and broadly. All participating
organizations will commit to strategies that can be used across multiple networks rather than boutique
solutions that can only be used in one place.
This RFP is issued by the College Ready Work team as part of the College Ready strategy. Our work focus on
teachers and our attention is on creating systems that support good teachers, that help average teachers get
better, and new teachers learn the profession so they can be good. We continue to focus where the Common
Core focuses us. And we seek to be responsive to teachers by scaling the kinds of supports they seek to help them
improve their effectiveness. The CRW team’s LDC and MDC investments paint a powerful picture of what it means
to align the work that teachers and students do with college-ready competencies, as well setting a strong vision for
what it means to support teachers every time they step into the classroom. From the LDC and MDC investments,
we know that well designed common core implementation strategies will support teachers in the following
manner:
 Help set the context for teachers to do their best work
 Meet articulated needs that have come from teachers already in our LDC and MDC network
 Broaden our reach to greater numbers of teachers, while maintaining a focus on classroom level change,
not just awareness
 Understand new and innovative methods networks use to reach and support teachers
Goals
To that end, we seek, through this RFP to work with new and existing Foundation partners, primarily those that
would consider themselves to be networks of teachers, to dramatically accelerate the work that they have
underway to support their members in successfully implementing the Common Core. Our goals are:
 To support organizations in scaling the awareness of the instructional shifts of the Common Core State
Standards across their networks to large numbers of teachers through non-traditional means. To learn
from this work we will use common metrics identified in Appendix A (see Outcome 1) to look at the spread
and scale impact.
2


To increase teacher awareness of the shifts required by the Common Core State Standards by working
through a variety of teacher networks using creative and innovative methods and modes. We will measure
success of this goal using a survey administered to teachers in each participating network to understand
their awareness of the shifts (Outcome 2 in Appendix A)
To learn how the changes required by the Common Core impact teacher instructional practices and how
those changes are demonstrated and can be documented through evidence. We will ask participants to
identify specific measures they will use to evaluate the change in teacher practice across their networks for
all participating teachers (Please specify in Outcome 3 in Appendix A).
As respondents consider what activities they might undertake to meet these goals in partnership with the
foundation, we invite you to think about strategies that would help spread teacher knowledge of implications the
Common Core has for their classrooms. In doing so, you may want to consider the following questions:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
What organizations are most like you?
What networks do you belong to?
Who complements your work?
Are there opportunities for partnership?
If you launch a strategy around the Common Core, who would follow?
What can we do in common for the benefit of many?
How do you think about rapidly scaling successful pilot projects in your network to very large
numbers of teachers?
While your organization may support teachers in K-12 systems, we will be funding work with a focus on the middle
grades and high schools.
Key Dates





March 13 – Release of RFP
March 20, 10am PST –RFP Webinar and Q/A
April 22– RFP Proposals Due to the Foundation
May 6 – Phone interviews, as needed with applicants
May 15 – Proposed Notification to Districts about Awards
Applicant Eligibility
We are looking for organizations that have as part of their core mission and activity to engage with large numbers
of teachers around educational topics, issues, practices, research and/or reform.
Implementation Grant Application
9-10 pages (or less) proposal plus appendices
Requirements
Applicants MUST agree to the following:
 Robust Implementation of the Common Core by 2015
o Have a rigorous plan and evidence that the majority of teachers in your network have access to
supports to drive the instructional shifts required by the Common Core by the second year of this
grant. Your proposal should clearly describe the theory of scale and reach that adds credibility to
this goal.
o Use a set of common measures for tracking and improving implementation/impact on teacher
practice and student achievement as described in Outcomes 1 and 2 in Appendix A, and which will
3

be standard across all selected applicants. At a minimum, applicants must provide the Foundation
with evidence that teachers in the network understand the shifts in the Common Core as a result of
this grant opportunity.
Scalable Solutions: Has high potential to reach thousands of teachers and tens of thousands of students at a
reasonable cost.
o Participate in knowledge-sharing activities with other RFP grant recipients; including a
commitment to a summer 2014 convening that will include both network staff and participating
teachers.
o Cooperate in the research/measurement of your work
o Formally document and share learnings with your peers (e.g., via existing collaboration networks,
presentations at professional conferences)
o Secure additional funding to support this work during and beyond the grant period from other
sources as needed
o A sustainability plan that describes how systems will/can continue post BMGF funding (to be
explicitly addressed in Section VI: Budget Narrative)
Award
$100,000 – $250,000 over 2 years to support implementation of the Common Core across a robust teacher
network. We anticipate that applicants who request higher budget amounts will create plans that reach larger
numbers of teachers. Funding will be awarded proportionately to potential reach and scale.
Selection Criteria
Applicants will be evaluated and awards issued on the strength of their proposals and supporting materials.
4
BILL AND MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION
Shifting into High Gear:
Accelerating the Common Core through Teacher Networks
Grant Application
Table of Contents
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
Executive Summary: Be Brief
Use Case: Tell us a Story
Current to Future State
a. Problem and Theory of Action
b. The Work Plan: Get Real and Actionable
Measurement, Learning, and Evaluation
Risks: Where Are You Pushing on the Edges?
Budget Narrative: Show Me the Money
Appendices
5
Cover Page with Your Project Name
Please provide a name for this project that reflects the vision and energy of the project.
Section I: Executive Summary
One page
Be sure to include the name of your organization, how much money you are requesting over two years, and a
summary of your goals and project outcomes. Provide high level details of your vision and the primary drivers in
your thinking about the work. Highlight anything particularly innovative about your approach. Include a
description of how you segment your teachers and how you will address the teachers in the different segments.
Section II: Use Case
One page
Create a use case that introduces us to your most important resource: your network, its members, and the contexts
within which they operate. Describe your teachers in any way that you think would be helpful for us to get a
complete picture of the professional, social and capacity you have. Please write a use case from the teacher
perspective. At the top of the use case write the name of your project and the name of the user you are describing.
What types of teachers in your network? How would you characterize them and how are they organized or how
would you segment them? As you write the case study, make sure to situate the individual within the context of
both their school/district as well as your network.
A good use case…
 Can be read and understood by someone without detailed systems expertise
 Clearly articulates the specific user involved and the benefits to them, e.g. how they will use data to drive
decision making
 Describes the current and future state in a narrative way from the user perspective that is readily
understood
A shorthand reference for the case
A description of the individual who will be the users interacting with the system
Actor
in a new way. Be specific about characteristics like # of years teaching, grades,
the type of school do they teach in, etc.
A narrative description of how the user interacts with the system today and what
their needs are. This does not get into the nuances of the systems – it treats them
as a “black box.” It does explain the current steps and interactions that the user
Current state
has to accomplish the given task today, highlights the problem that currently
exists. Describe the current state in the context of teacher evaluation, Common
Core implementation or any of the goals of the challenge.
A narrative description of how the user will accomplish the same task in the
future with the improved system/technology improvements. (These will often
Future state
reference new collaborations, technologies etc. but may also reference new
processes and systems in place within the district).
Change enabled and A brief description of the improvement realized and expected benefits and how
#s influenced
many teachers this use case represents in your system (i.e. x percent).
Teacher use cases help us understand the range of possibilities you envision through the eyes of a teacher.
Describe the teacher in detail and in a way that resonates with the experiences of others in your members’
geographies. We want people to read your use case and think: “Hey! That sounds like me” or “I know that teacher!”
Make sure to situate your teacher in the context of their school and their peers.
6
Give your use case a name and describe how they go through the system now and how you envision they would go
through your ideal strategy. You can format the use case any way you want. Below are two sample use cases to get
your thinking going.
Project Wildfire
The Teacher: Carlos Lopez
Actor
Current
state
Carlos Lopez is a high-performing veteran English teacher working in Hillsborough Florida. He has taught
for 10 years, loves his work, and is trying to make the shift to designing instruction based on the Common
Core Standards. He’s an active member of the Florida Council of Teachers of English.
Carlos lives in a district that is part of the Literacy Design Collaborative (LDC)
(http://literacydesigncollaborative.org), and last year was one of the high school teachers who
participated in a year-long cycle of training. He learned to design strong tasks and build lesson plans using
a module format, He taught using LDC and found it to be very engaging to his students. Although Carlos
has been collaborating with other teachers in his school and district using LDC, he thinks it would be of
great interest to the teachers he met with last year at the annual NCTE conference—both others from
Florida and from around the country.
He knows that there are likely other NCTE members using LDC, but he doesn’t know who they are.
NCTE’s support of the Common Core has been great—but he wants more opportunities to connect with
teachers interested in leveraging a common instructional design, and common guidance around scoring
student work. He would also like to connect with other English teachers who are doing this work around
the country. The rubric components of the LDC system were really compelling to him—after all, isn’t that
what Common Core is after—sending consistent messages to students about what college ready
expectations are across state lines?
FCTE has identified 50 other teachers in Florida that are currently using LDC and want to share their
success and grow the work within their own state and with other NCTE members. They set an ambitious
target for the fall: each Florida teacher volunteers to work with 5 other teachers interested in using the
LDC system in their state. Carlos is one of the 50 teachers and those teachers form a network to support
each other in reaching their goal of spreading LDC to 5 other teachers by using the collaborative platforms
to share work and best practices as LDC coaches. To judge the success of the effort, each of those teachers
will bring in the student work they obtained after teaching a full module to a mid-year face to face
conference for discussion. They’ve invited more experienced LDC teachers from within the network to
facilitate a scoring session and talk about scaling. Their goal is that, during the spring semester, at least
200 of these teachers each reach out to 5 NCTE members nationally to help them implement a module in
their school. They use the same network connection shared by the initial 50 teachers to build and support
their network. By the end of the year, this network will have grown from 50 to 10,000.
Future
state
Change
enabled
and #s
influenced
To facilitate the sharing, the participants relied on free, easily available technologies ranging from
EdModo to Skype to Adobe Connect. The LDC website was also tremendously helpful in keeping people in
touch with the broader LDC community and other teachers in Florida in particular. Some teachers even
began to upload videos of themselves to share with others so that they can comment on one another’s
practice and provide feedback as part of a virtual PLC. Teachers begin to spread the work through their
formal and informal networks in their home districts as well as with the virtual community of practice
they have engaged in across the state.
By the time of the next NCTE annual convention, word of the success has gotten around. Carlos and his
colleagues are invited to do a session about their work. Carlos agrees—but only on the condition that
attendees try out a module themselves and report back to the panelists. Carlos hopes to challenge them to
undertaking this same sort of tack to implement the Common Core in their own networks. He’s confident
that he can double the number of teachers working with LDC to 20,000 by the end of the following school
year.
In less than one year, FCTE was able to grow a community of practice from 50 to 10,000 by leveraging a
powerful instructional design and creating virtual learning communities. Anchoring implementation in
analysis of student work, FCTE also was able to crack the nut of “implementation fidelity.” The focus is on
designing high-quality assignments and lesson plans that are “classroom-ready”. By working together,
teachers are able to improve their ability to design instruction. The network has found a new approach to
scaling Common Core implementation supports and they can’t wait to mentor other state affiliates in this
new approach.
7
Project Flashmob
The Teacher: Harper Wainwright
Actor
Current
state
Harper is a 7th grade Mathematics teacher from San Jose, California. She’s been working with the Silicon
Valley Math Initiative and is using new resources to implement the Common Core in his classroom. She’s
one of 2 teachers in her school teaching in the same grade and subject.
She’s eager to connect with teachers around the country working on Common Core implementation, but
mostly he wants to meet up with others nearby. She knows that other teachers in Silicon Valley are using
the Classroom Challenges (http://map.mathshell.org/materials/lessons.php) and probably even more
would if they knew about them. But Harper’s having a problem that many other teachers might be able to
help with—she needs help crafting good questions to use during discussions when her kids get stuck—
what will provoke them, and help them think, but not lead them to the answer?
She recently heard about TeachMeets,
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=cgbf16Ggk8E) and wondered if
launching one in the Silicon Valley might be an answer. She’s never done anything like this before so
doesn’t quite know how to begin. She wonders if her local union might be a good place to start. They
seem to have a consistent point of view around Common Core implementation and the lessons she likes so
much, but the trainings and support they offer don’t quite meet her needs. And, she realizes, they already
work for her as an active dues paying member.
The local union decides to try out sponsoring TeachMeets for its members. It’s support is minimal—just
maintaining a website and calendar of events with some basic guidance about how to host your own
TeachMeet. Harper is the first to try it out. It turns out to be a small gathering, held one Sunday afternoon
in the local Starbucks. About 8 additional teachers attend. A couple of weeks later, one of those teachers
hosts one around his problem of practice and 15 teachers show up. The following week, 3 teachers
contact the union for support in scheduling and hosting a TeachMeet. The local Starbucks won’t do as a
meeting space anymore so the union staff finds an outside space for the teachers to use. This time 50
teachers show-up.
Future
state
Change
enabled
and #s
influenced
To get a handle on things, the Union decides to facilitate monthly teach-meets, collaborating with
TeachMeet organizers in Australia to figure out how to facilitate and support while still staying true to the
original format and power of the concept. They only thing that they keep tabs on is attendance. But soon
they are getting calls from neighboring locals—their members want to do TeachMeets as well. Looking at
the conference topics, the unions see two big themes emerge: teachers are really interested in
implementing the Common Core and also in looking at student work. In fact, EdModo recently sponsored
the first “virtual” TeachMeet to great success. The union decides to ask some of the TeachMeet hosts to
talk about the change in practice that’s been enabled by this format of professional support. These tech
savvy teachers are also brining these topics to other active threads on twitter and Facebook. Some have
even begun collaborating online on whatever platforms their school district is providing.
In less than one year, the California unions calculated that 50% of their members had either hosted or
attended a TeachMeet. These teachers were engaging in professional development that they saw as
directly tailored to their needs in implementing the Common Core and responsive to the challenges and
conditions in their classrooms.
Section III: Current to Future State
Two pages
a. Problem and Theory of Action
The first two sections described your vision from the teacher perspective. In this section we’d like you to describe
the current state of your Common Core implementation among your members from a systems perspective. What is
the problem you are planning to address and your theory of action for addressing the problem?
Your theory of action should explain the underlying assumptions. Explain how your work will advance and scale
the implementation of the instructional shifts in the Common Core. Describe the current state of your support
8
system for teachers. It should align to your use cases and summarize the pain points that your teachers experience
today. Be sure to include information about the current state of each of the core components of your
implementation strategy. Include any relevant information from your theory of action in your problem statement.
You will be asked to complete a summary table of the current and future state in Appendix C. In addition, you
should include information regarding data and technology supports.
To make your theory of action specific and measurable, be certain that it is:




Is comprehensive - Clearly identifies causes and effects between inputs and outcomes
Is measurable - Articulates assumptions that can be tested and measured
Is goal-oriented - Frames initiatives as “What do we want to achieve?” rather than “What do we do?”
Is plausible and logical - Evidence suggests that the identified interventions will bring about the desired
outcomes
b. The Work Plan
One - two pages
Describe how you will get from your current state to the future state you articulate through your theory of action.
Please articulate your theory of action first before diving into the work plan. Your work plan should explain
to us how you will seek to bring your theory of action to life. In addition to providing us with more details around
each element of your plan, we’d also like for you to organize the work you propose by phases. Depending on the
quality of your proposals and our resources, we may only be able to fund Phase 1 and 2, for example, so we want to
be sure we understand how you would like to sequence your work.
Key elements you should address in your work plan:
 How long will each phase of work be? What components will you work on during each phase? What will
be the outputs of each phase of work?
 What resources will you need in each phase? These can be human, financial, and technological.
 Who will be leading the work in each phase? Who is responsible for overall coordination across phases?
 How does your work plan build in flexibility, create opportunities for adjustment, and re-focus based on
real-time learning and feedback from teachers?
Section IV: Measurement, Learning, and Evaluation
One page
In the previous section you described your work plan by phases. Describe the practical and useful measures you
will use to monitor your progress overall and by phase (if there is differentiation) and the process you will use to
collect the necessary data. Be sure to include information regarding what systems you have in place or will have to
create to measure your progress and numbers reached. We will also be looking for the explicit measures that your
network will use to track teacher understanding of the shifts in the Common Core. We recommend using a basket
of measures including pulse surveys and samples of student work.
Section V: Challenges and Risks
One page
What are the top three or four challenges to the success of this project, including ability to achieve the intended
results within the planned timeframe? What keeps you up at night? How will you plan to overcome or address
them? In addition to identifying the challenges, tell us what risks you are taking to do this work. What do you
consider the most innovative or most disruptive change you are making?
9
Section VI: Budget Narrative
One page
Please describe the costs associated with implementing your plan including other resources allocated towards this
project, including any anticipated grants and philanthropic resources over the course of the two year period.
Your budget narrative should include the following information
 Explain specifically how your outcomes and milestones are supported by the proposed budget.
 Identify any factors that could significantly affect your organization’s ability to operate within the proposed
budget, and describe how your organization will manage or mitigate those factors.
 To the extent that your organization will be relying on additional funding, describe:
o
The proposed sources of funding (e.g., a grant from another organization or earned revenue
generated by the project)
o
The status of the funding sources (e.g., proposal submitted or grant awarded)
o
The assumptions used to generate any estimates
o
Strategies and timeline for securing the necessary additional funding
Example Budget Narrative Template: Project X
Direct Cost Details: In your responses below, include total project costs including funds requested from the Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation as well as other funds being applied to the proposed project. If necessary, feel free to include the direct cost
information requested below as an attachment to the proposal narrative.
Provide the foundation with a description of the direct cost categories of the budget and how you arrived at the proposed
expenses. Feel free to omit any categories in which there are no budgeted expenses.

Personnel and Benefits: What are the roles and responsibilities of each full-time equivalent (FTE) or group of FTEs
supporting the project, the rationale for the number of requested FTEs, and the methodology for estimating the base
salaries (e.g., actual salaries or estimates based on similar job descriptions)? To the extent this project provides
majority funding support for personnel that will be fulfilling functions important to the district after the life of this
project, how will the district support that work after the life of this grant?

Consulting and Professional Fees: Include a brief description of the work to be performed in support of the overall
project, the current status of the contract(s) (e.g., confirmed or projected), and the cost assumptions used (including
estimates of the number of days to be worked and the daily rate).

Materials and Supplies: Describe the item(s) being requested, the business purpose of the item(s) as it relates to
the project, and the cost assumptions used to generate the cost estimate.

Computers and Equipment: Describe the item(s) being requested, the business purpose of the item(s) as it relates
to the project, and the cost assumptions used to generate the cost estimate.

Printing and Publications: Describe the item(s) being requested, the business purpose of the item(s) as it relates to
the project, and the cost assumptions used to generate the cost estimate.

Travel and Accommodations: Include a brief description of the travel required for this project. Include the
methodology used to calculate the total cost estimates for each trip, the assumptions used to determine the
appropriate number of trips, and the rationale for how those trips will support achievement of the results.

Conferences, Conventions, and Meetings: Include a brief description of the meetings required for this project.
Include the methodology used to calculate the total cost estimates for each meeting, including the estimated number
of attendees and total cost per attendee. What is the rationale for how those meetings will support project results?

Direct Facilities: Facility-related costs are typically covered by indirect costs and should not be included within the
direct cost details. However, in rare cases, facility-related expenses can be included as a direct cost when a grantee
requires additional building expenses in order to execute the grant (e.g., starting up an organization or creating a
new regional office).

Other Direct Costs: Describe the item(s) being requested, the business purpose of the item(s) as it relates to the
project, and the cost assumptions used to generate the cost estimate.
10

Subgrants: Describe the work to be conducted by the subgrantees and the anticipated budget for the work. If any
subgrant exceeds $100,000 or represents 25% or more of the project cost, provide a detailed budget showing the
proposed subgrant expenses.
Section VII: Appendices
Please include the following documents along with the proposal.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Outcomes and Milestones
Budget Template
System View: Current State and Future State
Organizational Capacity
Intellectual Property Questions
Letters of Support
Appendix A
Please use the attached Outcomes & Milestones excel template
Appendix B
Please use the attached Project Support Budget excel template
Appendix D: Organizational Capacity
Describe your organization’s strengths and capacity to implement, manage, and monitor progress of this project,
including:

Briefly explain any changes you foresee to your current year’s organizational budget.

Depict any steps your organization would need to take to increase its capacity in order to successfully
implement this project, the plan for doing so, and the organization’s plan for maintaining that capacity
once funding for this project is complete.

Explain any potential financial impact or risk to your organization associated with implementing this
project.

Describe any prior Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation grants your organization has received that are
relevant to this proposal, and the results of those grants.

With regard to any key partner organizations, subcontractors, and subgrantees that you have
previously identified, describe what has made you comfortable with their capacity to perform as will be
necessary for successful execution of this project.

Describe specifically how your organization will administer and manage funds for this project, either
directly or through a third party.
Appendix E: Intellectual Property Questions
To meet its charitable objectives, the foundation requires that the innovations, products and information
developed with foundation funding are both created and managed so that they are available and affordable to
people most in need. The foundation refers to this concept as “Global Access.” To further this Global Access
principle, US Program requires that our grantees commit to conduct and manage their projects in a manner to
ensure (i) the broad and prompt dissemination of data and information gained during the project and (ii) the
intended products are made available and accessible for free or at a minimal cost for educational and charitable
purposes.
11
Copy and paste the following questions into your proposal and answer YES or NO. For those questions receiving a
YES response, complete the corresponding module linked below and submit it to your foundation contact along
with your proposal documents. The information provided in these modules will have no bearing on whether the
foundation will decide to approve or decline your request. Note: If your proposal addresses the foundation’s Pacific
Northwest strategy, please connect with your foundation contact prior to completing the modules linked below.





Will your project involve the use and/or further development of technology, a product, software, material
or data owned or to be provided by a third party?
Will your project involve the creation of software, drawings, or written material (such as an analysis, a
curriculum, guidelines, or policy recommendations) other than internal working documents, reports to the
foundation, or publications?
Will your project involve the creation of a new technology, formulation, or product, or the further
development of any existing technology, formulation, or product?
Will your project involve the creation of digital media and/or audio/visual content?
Will your project involve research using human subjects (i.e., students)?
If you responded YES to questions 1, 2, or 3 please complete the following module: Global Access: Technology and
Information Management.
If you responded YES to questions 1, 2, or 3 please complete the following module: Global Access: Technology
and Information Management.
If you responded YES to question 3 you will also need to complete the following module: Global Access: Planning
for Technology Uptake.
Appendix F: Evidence of Support
The Foundation would like to see evidence that the majority of teachers in your network believe that the theory of
action in this proposal, as well as the specific activities proposed, are both relevant and impactful. Compelling
evidence might be results of a Survey Monkey sent to all members in the network, alignment of proposed activities
to feedback received through other means or that the proposal itself was heavily informed by teachers. If the
majority of teachers you plan to work with are concentrated in a single district and/or state, it would also be
helpful to include evidence of support from district/state leadership as a way to ensure that efforts undertaken as
part of this grant will be coherent with other system-driven common core implementation activities.
12