Teacher Quality Partnership Grants Program Recovery Act (ARRA) CFDA 84.405A | Apply Online

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1) What is this grant opportunity?

The Teacher Quality Partnership (TQP) Grants Program Recovery Act (ARRA), CFDA 84.405A, was a discretionary U.S. Department of Education grant competition that used Recovery Act resources to strengthen the pipeline of effective educators, especially in high-need settings.

2) What was the overall purpose of the ARRA-funded TQP competition?

The central purpose was to improve student achievement by improving the quality of new and prospective teachers. The opportunity emphasized strengthening pre-service preparation, supporting new teachers once they begin teaching, and providing meaningful professional development for novice teachers.

3) What specific problems was the program designed to address?

Based on the notice description, the program targeted several connected challenges: weak alignment between educator preparation programs and the staffing realities of high-need schools, insufficient clinical preparation and induction for new teachers, and limited accountability for whether preparation program graduates become highly qualified and effective teachers.

4) How did the program define its main approach or strategy?

The program required formal partnerships between educator preparation providers (IHEs) and the high-need school systems where graduates would teach. Through these partnerships, applicants were expected to reform existing IHE teacher preparation programs and create or expand model programs.

5) What kinds of programs or activities could be supported?

The notice described support for (a) model teacher preparation programs at the pre-baccalaureate level or fifth-year level, (b) model teaching residency programs, and (c) school leadership development (training for superintendents, principals, early childhood education program directors, and other school leaders) serving high-need or rural LEAs.

6) What is meant by a "model teacher preparation program" in this context?

The opportunity described model programs as being created or expanded by reforming existing IHE teacher preparation programs, at either the pre-baccalaureate level or the fifth-year level, through the required partnership structure with high-need LEAs and schools (and, where applicable, high-need early childhood education programs).

7) What is a teaching residency program under this opportunity?

The notice referenced model teaching residency programs as a pathway particularly suited for candidates who have strong academic records and/or substantial professional experience but lack prior teaching experience.

8) Did the program include support for school leaders, not just teachers?

Yes. The opportunity allowed support for school leadership development, including training for superintendents, principals, early childhood education program directors, and other school leaders serving high-need or rural LEAs.

9) Who was eligible to apply?

Eligibility hinged on applying as an "eligible partnership" as defined in section 200(6) of the Higher Education Act. The partnership itself (not a single standalone entity acting alone) was the applicant.

10) Is the partnership structure optional?

No. The partnership structure was not optional; the notice described the partnership as the applicant and set required partner categories that had to be included.

11) What partners were required in an eligible partnership?

The required partners included: (1) a high-need LEA; (2) a high-need school (or a consortium of high-need schools) served by that LEA, or where applicable a high-need early childhood education program; and (3) a partner institution (an IHE).

12) What IHE components had to be included within the partnership?

The partnership also had to include both: (1) the school, department, or program of education within the partner institution (which could include a proven teacher professional development program within a four-year IHE that demonstrates intensive, sustained collaboration with LEAs); and (2) the school or department of arts and sciences within the partner institution.

13) Could a proven teacher professional development program at a four-year IHE count toward the required education component?

Yes. The notice stated that the school, department, or program of education could include a proven teacher professional development program within a four-year IHE that demonstrates intensive, sustained collaboration with LEAs.

14) Who could serve as the fiscal agent for the grant?

The fiscal agent could be any of the partners described in section 200 of the Higher Education Act, allowing the partnership to decide which partner would handle grant administration.

15) What additional organizations could be included as optional partners?

The notice listed a wide range of optional partners, including (as examples): the Governor; State educational agencies; State boards of education; State higher education agencies; businesses; public or private nonprofit educational organizations; educational service agencies; teacher organizations; high-performing LEAs that could serve as a resource; charter schools (as defined in ESEA); and additional IHE units such as psychology and human development departments or other departments with expertise in teaching and learning and child and adolescent development.

16) Were alternative route-to-certification providers allowed to participate?

Yes. The notice allowed inclusion of entities operating alternative routes to State teacher certification, indicating openness to multiple evidence-based pathways as long as the partnership and program design met statutory requirements.

17) What populations or settings were emphasized?

The competition emphasized high-need settings. It also referenced high-need or rural LEAs in the context of allowable leadership development activities, and it highlighted high-need schools and, where applicable, high-need early childhood education programs as required partnership elements.

18) Did the program address recruitment into teaching?

Yes. The program explicitly targeted recruitment, including bringing more highly qualified individuals into teaching from underrepresented groups and attracting talent from other careers and professional backgrounds.

19) What does the notice say about accountability for preparation outcomes?

The opportunity emphasized accountability by intending to push institutions of higher education to take responsibility for whether their graduates are actually becoming highly qualified, effective teachers.

20) Which Federal Register notice governed the competition?

The opportunity reflected an updated Federal Register notice that replaced an earlier FY 2009 application notice after Public Law 111-39 made technical amendments to the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 (the authorizing statute for TQP). Applicants were expected to rely on the revised notice for controlling requirements, priorities, performance measures, and submission rules.

21) Why was there an updated notice?

The update occurred because Public Law 111-39 made technical amendments to the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008. The revised notice replaced an earlier FY 2009 application notice and was described as controlling for requirements and application rules.

22) When was the opportunity posted and when were applications available?

The opportunity was posted on August 4, 2009, and applications were available on the same date.

23) What were the application deadlines?

The listing referenced two deadlines: an earlier July 23, 2009 deadline and a second deadline of October 6, 2009. October 6, 2009 was identified as the current closing date in the listing.

24) How many awards were expected?

The program anticipated approximately 25 awards.

25) What was the estimated total funding level?

The estimated total funding level listed was $143,000,000.

26) Was there a cost-sharing or matching requirement?

Yes. A cost-sharing or matching requirement applied, meaning grantees were expected to contribute non-federal resources consistent with the official notice and authorizing statute.

27) How were applications required to be submitted?

Applications were required to be submitted electronically through the U.S. Department of Education's e-Application system via the e-Grants website (http://e-grants.ed.gov).

28) Could applicants submit by email?

No. The notice emphasized that applicants could not submit an application by emailing an electronic copy. Submission had to occur through the designated electronic platform where applicants would enter data online that would be stored in a database.

29) What should an applicant do if they have technical issues accessing the announcement or systems?

The notice indicated that a Grants.gov/FIND systems contact was provided for access or technical issues with the announcement.

30) Who should be contacted for program-related questions?

The notice indicated that a program manager contact at the U.S. Department of Education was listed for program-related questions.

31) What kinds of educator preparation reforms were encouraged by the program?

Based on the description, the program encouraged deep, collaborative reform in educator preparation by tying IHEs more tightly to high-need LEA and school staffing realities, strengthening clinical preparation models (including residencies), and reinforcing induction and professional development for novice teachers through partnership governance.

32) What role did arts and sciences play in the partnership?

The partnership had to include the IHE's school or department of arts and sciences in addition to the school, department, or program of education, signaling an expectation that content-area and broader academic departments would be engaged in teacher preparation reform.

33) Could charter schools be involved?

Yes. Charter schools (as defined in ESEA) were listed among the examples of optional partners that could be included to strengthen design and implementation.

34) Did the opportunity mention early childhood education programs?

Yes. As part of the required partnership structure, the notice referenced that, where applicable, a high-need early childhood education program could be included in place of a high-need school or consortium of high-need schools served by the high-need LEA.

35) What is CFDA 84.405A?

CFDA 84.405A was the catalog identifier associated with this Teacher Quality Partnership (TQP) Grants Program Recovery Act (ARRA) discretionary grant competition.