Mathematics and Science Partnerships Program (MMSP) Massachusetts Mathematics and Science Partnerships Program (MMSP) Title IIB Webinar Tuesday April 6, 2010 3:00-4:30 p.m.

INTRODUCTIONS Carol Lach, MMSP Coordinator Barbara Libby, Director of the Office for Mathematics, Science & Technology/Engineering Roxane Johnson De Lear, Science Assistance Coordinator Paula Quinn, Research Manager, UMass Donahue Institute Also on our ESE MMSP Team: Jake Foster, Director of STE Life LeGeros, Director of Math AGENDA Overview of Federal Program Overview of Massachusetts Program Goals History Design Priorities Eligibility Funding Developing a Proposal Forming a Partnership Assessing Needs Developing Activities Evaluation Designing your Budget Proposal Review Process V. Questions and Answers Optional VI. Rigorous Summative Evaluation Discussion

POLL What type of organization do you represent? District/LEA Higher Education – STEM Department Higher Education – Ed Department Evaluator Other

WEBINAR TIPS Please mute your phone using *6 Feel free to use the Chat Window for Questions

FEDERAL PROGRAM TITLE IIB of No Child Left Behind U.S. Department of Education Mathematics and Science Partnerships (MSP) Program Priorities Encourage collaboration between institutes of higher education and school districts Provide high-quality professional development to increase teacher subject matter knowledge and standards-based instructional practices Improve student academic achievement in mathematics and/or science The Mathematics and Science Partnerships program was authorized by the No Child Left Behind Legislation of 2001 under title II, part B, and is administer nationally by the United state Department of Education Those of you familiar with Title II programs know that they are targeted towards improving teacher quality; In Massachusetts, the Title IIA is Improving teacher Quality Program is run by the Department of Higher Education (formerly the Board of HE) Title IIB Math and Science Partnerships are administered by the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education The federal MSP legislation requires that states support collaborative partnerships between K-12 schools and institutions of higher education to improve teacher professional development in content and standards-based instructional practice in order to increase student achievement in math, science and technology/engineering MSP Funds are distributed to the states by the United States Department of Education .

MASSACHUSETTS TITLE IIB PROGRAM Massachusetts Mathematics and Science Partnerships (MMSP) Three year duration-dependent upon continued funding In-service training to teachers provides at least: Minimum of 45 hours of direct instruction Minimum of 24 hours of supplemental support to ensure implementation in the classroom In Massachusetts, we use the funding available from the USED to fund thee year partnerships between higher end institutions and school districts a Each partnership project is provides in-service training to teachers. Professional development activities provide at least 45 hours of direct instruction and 20 hours of supplemental support to help teachers integrate the knowledge and skills gain in the course into their classrooms

MMSP Title IIB PROGRAM GOALS GOAL I: Develop and implement an effective and sustained course of study for inservice teachers of Science, Technology/Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) by integrating the courses of study into schools of arts and sciences and/or education at institutions of higher education. GOAL II: Increase the number of STEM teachers in the partner districts who are licensed in the subject area(s) and grade level(s) they teach. We have four goals for the MMSP program: Goal w

MMSP Title IIB PROGRAM GOALS (continued) GOAL III: Increase the number of STEM teachers in the partner districts who participate in high quality professional development and advance their content knowledge. GOAL IV: Develop and implement a systemic approach to STEM education by integrating professional development with district and school STEM improvement initiatives.

HISTORY Cohort 1: February 2004, 8 partnerships Cohort 2: September 2004, 2 partnerships Cohort 3: September 2006, 9 partnerships Cohort 4: September 2008, 8 partnerships This RFP will initiate Cohort 5

RFP: REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS Contains information about the program, purpose, priorities, eligibility, general requirements, funding and submission Links to Workbook Required Program Information Narrative Additional Information includes High-Need District List, Definitions, etc. http://finance1.doe.mass.edu/Grants/grants11/rfp/150B.html

RFP PRIORITIES Mathematics adopt the Massachusetts Intel Mathematics Initiative (MIMI) model for teachers in grades K-8. 80-hour course plus district-based learning communities that build on the course with job-embedded professional development OR offer courses or a course of study in algebra for middle and high school teachers that increase depth of teacher content knowledge and provide an understanding of algebraic learning progressions to help students move forward while filling in gaps in algebraic understanding

RFP PRIORITIES Science courses that engage participants in learning science and technology/engineering content through inquiry-based learning experiences AND/OR STE topic immersion course(s) for K-8 teachers, i.e., courses that provide focused study into an STE topic, such as: Force and Motion; Ecology; Energy in the Earth's System; Evolution and Biodiversity; Forms of Energy; Properties of and States of Matter; or Engineering Design.

RFP PRIORITIES Evaluation a rigorous summative evaluation using a quasi-experimental or a randomized control (experimental) design

ELIGIBILITY Include at least a high-need district (LEA), a STEM department from an institution of higher education (IHE), and a local evaluator; Address the Required Program Information Develop proposal collaboratively by the core partners and the local evaluator

General Requirements high-quality, content-specific STEM professional development integration of the local evaluator into the initial program planning, a formative program evaluation, and compliance with state and federal reporting requirements; develop and maintain a web page to communicate and disseminate partnership activities

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT DESIGN COURSES Content-focused courses (rigorous & graduate level) include special education teachers and teachers of English language learners at least 50% of the participating teachers must be from high-need districts Minimum of 45 hours of direct instructional time Developed by Higher Education STEM faculty and district instructional leaders

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT DESIGN SUPPLEMENTAL ACTIVITIES Site-based supplemental activities (follow-up) guide the implementation of course content into standards-based instruction Minimum of 24 hours Encourage active engagement of district or school instructional leaders Promote connections to district STEM initiatives Additional STEM activities for high-need districts

2010-2011 FUNDING $1.2 million for 2010-2011 Approximately 6 MMSP projects Up to $200,000 per year, for 3 years Years 2 & 3 contingent on performance and available funding

DEVELOPING A PROPOSAL

FORMING A PARTNERSHIP High Need School District Higher Education Institution Science, Math, Engineering Department Education Department Local Program Evaluator Other LEAs (Private Schools, Charter Schools or Consortiums) Businesses Nonprofit & For-profit Organizations

ASSESSING NEEDS Student Needs Teacher Licensure Individual Professional Development Plans District/School STEM Initiatives Instructional Leadership

DEVELOP ACTIVITIES Goals and Objectives of the Partnership Methods to identify and enroll teachers in sufficient numbers in courses that address their professional growth needs Content-specific course or course of study Consider sustainability at higher education institution as well as district

DEVELOP ACTIVITIES Supplemental activities must be site-based and district led for high need districts Integration into high need districts initiatives Evidence-based research

EVALUATION UMass Donahue Institute Roles Coordinate state-level data collection Provide technical assistance to partnerships Serve as liaison with USED for evaluation issues

EVALUATION Standard logic model for professional development programs Participant feedback Participant info database PD and Support Activities Teacher Knowledge and Skills Highly Qualified Teachers Better Classroom Instruction Improved Student Achievement Standard logic model for professional development programs Required tools/measures Pre/post test of content knowledge Licensure status HQ status Self-report surveys and/or classroom observation MCAS scores Optional project-specific tests

EVALUATION Components Participant Tracking System Formative Evaluation Summative Evaluation Multi-pronged Reporting System External Evaluator

EVALUATION Participant Tracking System: Elements Participant names Courses completed by each participant Time each participant completed each course Contact information (e.g., school, e-mail, phone, home address)

EVALUATION Participant Tracking System: In Proposal Describe system to be used Describe how system will be maintained

EVALUATION Formative Evaluation: Purposes Support program management Document program implementation

EVALUATION Formative Evaluation: In Proposal Identify specific research questions Outline data collection and analysis plan

EVALUATION Summative Evaluation: Purpose Measure progress toward, and overall attainment of, fundamental project objectives

EVALUATION Summative Evaluation: In Proposal Identify specific research questions Articulate objectives with measures that directly assess: Course availability Changes in teacher knowledge Changes in teacher practice Changes in student achievement Progress toward integrating PD with STEM improvement initiatives (for high-need districts)

EVALUATION Summative Evaluation: In Proposal Identify evaluation design Outline data collection and analysis plan

EVALUATION Required Tools: In Proposal Indicate familiarity with all required tools Indicate readiness to use required tools

EVALUATION External Evaluator: Description Role: Objective collaborator Skilled in systematically gathering, analyzing, and presenting data Proficient using analytic software High level of comfort using online reporting tools Working member of project team, beginning with proposal development

DESIGNING YOUR BUDGET All budgets and budget descriptions must be: Aligned with the program activities and reflect any coordinated uses of resources from other sources Cost-effective: cost per teacher participant should be approximately $2,000 per course So after you have formed a partnership, assessed your needs, developed a program and evaluation you will need to begin designing your budget Your budget needs to be aligned with the program activities and should be coordinated with other resources and funding Cost effective budgets should be less than $2,000 per teacher per course In the back of your packet you should have a white handout , Form E Cumulative budget; use this form develop a three year budget

DESIGNING YOUR BUDGET Funds may be used for Administrative costs Stipends Substitutes Materials for professional development Local program evaluation Program dissemination Travel to state and national Title II-B meetings $5,000 should be included for the state evaluator to support technical assistance activities In the back of your packet you should have two budget forms, a green project expenditures spreadsheet and a white cumulative budget handout For this proposal you will need to submit a detailed budget for year 1 (green) and a three year cumulative budget (white) Taking a look at the forms, you will see that funds may be used for administrative costs stipends. Substitutes, materials. . . The

DESIGNING YOUR BUDGET Funds may not be used for Classroom or other Equipment (single item costing $5,000 or more) Space rental Food Full-time staff positions. Grant funds may not be allocated to pay for both a participant’s graduate credit tuition and to provide a stipend

DESIGNING YOUR BUDGET Indirect costs, may not exceed 8% Administrative costs and indirect costs combined may not exceed 20% of the total budget Consultant fees may not exceed $100 per hour, up to $750 per day

SUBMITTING YOUR PROPOSAL Use the checklist (RFP: Additional Information) Allow time for obtaining necessary signatures Review your proposal (objective reader) Mail 1 complete copy of entire proposal 2 copies of grant signature page Email Workbook (excel file) Required Program Information Narrative (Word doc) Submit on time: must be received by 5 pm on Monday, June 14, 2010 to be considered After you have completed all the components of your application you use the checklist to make sure that you have completed all the required documents You’ll need. . . Purple checklist

REVIEW PROCESS A proposal will be disqualified if: it is late, significantly incomplete, or it does not meet the eligibility requirements. Proposal review is based on the required application components and the scoring rubric (See Additional Information). The results of the review will be reported to the Commissioner for his final determination. Complete, on-time proposal will be reviewed by an expert panel that will evaluate the proposal using the established rubric Proposal will be ranked according to the final score assigned by the review panel; this includes the optional priority points

TIMELINE Proposals Due June 14th Review June 15 - July 2 Modification or Budget Revision July 6-16 Recommendations to the Commissioner July-Early August Announcement of Awards August Grants Management Processing August Official Notification and Initial Funds Disbursement Early September Project Start September Overview of the timeline. . .

Contacts Carol Lach, MMSP Coordinator clach@doe.mass.edu 781-338-3532 Roxane Johnson De Lear, Science Assistance Coordinator rjohnsondelear@doe.mass.edu 781-338-3546 Paula Quinn, MMSP Evaluator pquinn@donahue.umassp.edu 413-587-2409

QUESTION/ANSWER

Thank you for your time and attention!