11 Mathematics and Science Partnership Grants Title II, Part B No Child Left Behind

2 Technical Assistance Meeting February 25, 2005 Overview of grant Eligible schools Criteria Application Professional development Evaluation/Research-based Review Frequently asked questions

3 Overview General Purpose To improve academic achievement in mathematics and science by encouraging partnerships between State educational agencies, institutions of higher education, local educational agencies, and schools.

Overview 4 Specific Outcomes Increased content knowledge and teaching skills in mathematics and science for teachers; HQT Increased student achievement in mathematics and science Identification of successful PD and curriculum models

Overview 5 Targeted Activities Opportunities for enhanced and on-going professional development to improve mathematics or science subject matter knowledge Establishing summer workshops and institutes with follow-up training

Overview 6 Partnerships must include An institution of higher education science, technology, engineering, or mathematics department (STEM), at 2 or 4 year institutions. A high-need local educational agency- district, school

Overview 7 Partnerships The partnership between STEM faculty and LEA’s is a major focus of this grant  STEM can be an agent of change in schools and vice versa.  Fosters improved dialogue and understanding between K-12 and Higher Education regarding systemic reform.

Overview 8 Partnerships may include Another higher education institution, department; Additional LEAs, charter schools, public or private schools, or a consortium of schools; A business; or An organization of demonstrated effectiveness in improving the quality of math/science teachers.

Overview 9 In Michigan…. The Mathematics and Science Centers involvement will receive priority in the selection.

Eligible Schools 10 Eligible Schools Low/unchanging scores/AYP Teachers with limited mathematics or science content knowledge Over 35% low-income (SES) students REAP score of 6 or higher High drop-out rates or high drop-out predictor levels

Eligible Schools 11 Eligible schools (cont.) Each proposal must provide adequate data summaries and analyses which clearly and thoroughly substantiate the extent of the need within the schools’/districts’ project setting.

Criteria 12 Project Criteria Focus on mathematics or science –not both Participating schools should not be involved in a mathematics/science reform initiative.  Districts with successful programs that need to be expanded and validated are encouraged to apply.  Others must clearly articulate how these projects will integrate with each other to develop a positive/useful PD experience for teachers. Research based design

Criteria 13 Project Criteria Aligned to the Mathematics or Science Content Standards in the Michigan Curriculum Framework. Aligned with the Michigan Professional Development Vision and Standards Active and well-defined partnership between STEM faculty and schools/districts Priority points given for active partnership with Math/Science Center

Application 14 Letters of Intent Submitted electronically by March 14 and should include:  Continuing/new project  An outline of proposed training model  Expected number of schools, STEM faculty, teachers and students involved  Approximate amount of grant $’s

Application 15 Electronic Application Submission Application must be submitted through MEGS – (Michigan Electronic Grants System) Due date is May 2, 2005, by 11:59 pm Notification of selection in June MDE may negotiate program and budget issues Monies awarded in September

Application 16 MEGS In order to use MEGS you must first obtain a MEIS account. MEIS-Michigan Education Information System. This can be done by going to the following URL and clicking Create a MEIS Account: Your MEIS account must be entered in MEGS by your authorized official (level 5).

Application 17 How to access MEGS If your MEIS account is entered in MEGS, you can log in: Your Level 5 person will allow you a level of access to your application  These people will guide you through MEGS MDE has MEGS support system in place  Judy Byrnes,

18 MEGS – User Flow Authorized Official (Level 5) Initiates Application (Opens) Assigns Users to Application (At least one Level 4 user) Grant Administrator (Level 4) Completes Application Authorized Official (Level 5) Submits Application

Application 19 ADDING NEW USERS TO MEGS Authorized Officials (level 5’s only) All new users must be entered into the MEGS system Select the Add Users to MEGS link Key in the MEIS number (up to ten users can be added) Click on Verify If the information is correct, click on Save

Application 20 MEGS – basic look Information General Information Budget Pages Program Information Management Activities

Application 21 MEGS – Two types of data collection Input Upload

Application 22 Application Requirements Cover page, assurances, partner sign-off Abstracts  Project  Evaluation

Application 23 Application Requirements Program Narrative  Demonstration of Need  Research or Evidence Base  Plan of Work  Management Capability  Sustainability

Application 24 Demonstration of Need Eligible schools prior efforts to improve teacher content knowledge and student achievement in mathematics or science and how this program will relate to those efforts how various on-going grants will coordinate with each other.

Application 25 Plan of Work clearly describes in detail the goals and objectives of the program clear and detailed description of the professional development activities

Application 26 Plan of Work includes a list of the corresponding school improvement goals of each participating school how this professional development program is integrated into that goal

Application 27 Plan of Work clearly describes in detail the roles and responsibilities of each partner; shows evidence of strong relationship with STEM faculty in all aspects of grant timeline of activities and who is doing what

Application 28 Plan of Work Align to MCF content standards and benchmarks Align to NSDC Staff Development Standards

Professional Development 29 It is the vision of the Michigan Department of Education that quality professional development results in the improvement of student learning. Quality professional development is characterized by meaningful, collegial dialogue that:  Explores current content knowledge, inquiry learning processes, and student thinking.  Contributes to a school culture that promotes learning at high levels for both students and educators. State Board of Education August 28, 2003 Professional Development

30 National Staff Development Council Standards (2001) More information can also be found at michigan.gov/mde>educators> professional preparation>professional development Cheryl Poole Professional Development Standards

Professional Development 31 Professional Development Professional development must: Start with student learning data Be content-based Be practice-based Be grounded in pedagogical content Be research or evidence-based (will look for this under Plan of Work)

Professional Development 32 Successful mathematics resources Handout has a list of websites where you can find information or links to professional development ideas See also links on MSP page

Professional Development 33 It is the vision of the Michigan Department of Education that quality professional development results in the improvement of student learning. Quality professional development is characterized by meaningful, collegial dialogue that:  Explores current content knowledge, inquiry learning processes, and student thinking.  Contributes to a school culture that promotes learning at high levels for both students and educators. State Board of Education August 28, 2003 Professional Development

34 National Staff Development Council Standards (2001) Professional Development Vision and Standards for Michigan Educators Professional Development Standards

Professional Development 35 Professional Development Professional development must: Start with student learning data Be content-based Be practice-based Be grounded in pedagogical content Be research or evidence-based (will look for this under Plan of Work)

Professional Development 36 Successful mathematics resources See MSP webpage for links to professional development information More information can also be found at: michigan.gov/mde>educators> professional preparation>professional development Cheryl Poole

Application 37 Plan of Work (continued) how the activities will help build “a rigorous, cumulative, reproducible, and usable body of findings” and what you will produce to put in our library

Application 38 Management Capability Project leaders have the capability of managing the project Staff delivering the PD are qualified Description of how the partners will share the work and how it will be integrated into the school

Application 39 Sustainability Continued PD after the project ends Effect on student achievement

Application 40 Budget Budget from 9/1/05-8/31/07 Funds can be spent on:  Expenses associated with delivery of PD including salaries, travel expenses, workshop expenses  Materials are limited to those necessary for delivery of PD –cannot buy classroom sets of materials

Application 41 Budget Also budget for:  Independent evaluator  State and national meetings: 3-4 state meetings for lead people and evaluator One national meeting for project director and evaluator  Match from participating districts Not required but often considered by reviewers when looking at sustainability and dedication to PD by stakeholders

Evaluation 42 Research-based Evaluation Design Purpose of an Evaluation Design:  Attribution of effects of the PD program to the processes of the PD program  Internal and External Validity Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Design Campbell & Stanley, 1991

Evaluation 43 Evaluation Guide It is often helpful to identify the project’s independent evaluator early on and involve them in developing your evaluation plan in your proposal (MDE has retained Moore & Associates to assist projects with their evaluation design and operations).

Evaluation 44 Program evaluation standards Project evaluation design should consider:  Utility (stakeholder interests)  Feasibility (possible? Control v Comparison)  Propriety (Ethics, confidentiality)  Accuracy (scientific – research based) The Program Evaluation Standards 2nd Ed. ISBN: Research-based Evaluation Design

Evaluation 45 Describe the design (experimental or quasi-experimental) in enough detail to determine how it measures the impact of the project on participants in relation to project goals specified. Research-based Evaluation Design

Evaluation 46 List characteristics/elements used to match comparison and treatment groups.  Consider and present methods which control or minimize “contamination” of treatment and comparison groups. Control/Comparison Groups

Evaluation 47  What instruments will be used to determine possible impact?  What is the validity and reliability of instruments and data collection procedures?  Are the data collection procedures feasible and appropriate? Data Collection

Evaluation 48 Instruments to measure the effects of PD include:  SAMPI (  Survey of Enacted Curriculum (  Learning Mathematics for Teaching (  Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP)  ( Data Collection

Evaluation 49 In reviewing your evaluation plan ask yourself:  Does the pre assessment and post assessment instrument measure the intervention?  Will the pre assessment be administered BEFORE the intervention and the post assessment AFTER the intervention?  Will I be able to compare the pre data with the post data and arrive at a meaningful information? If the answer to any of these questions is “no,” revise the plans before including them in your proposal. Evaluation Review

Evaluation 50  Provide a general timeline for key evaluation activities.  Describe the roles of key staff and the independent evaluator in relation to all evaluation activities planned. Evaluation Review

Review 51 Review Grants will be awarded through a competitive process An expert panel will review proposals using the rubric  Scheduled for May 23 After the initial review modifications may be required

Review 52 Scoring Rubric The rubric has 7 parts, reflecting the sections in the project narrative, for 200 total points Points vary among the parts, reflecting relative emphasis  Some parts will state a minimum needed for grant approval 30 priority points for Math - Science Centers above the 200

53 MSP is not your grandfather’s grant anymore …(Not a Traditional State Grant) More interactive with MDE and others  MDE supports the development of quality PD Provides ongoing technical assistance Will establish a Michigan MSP library as a resource for educators. Cohort groups form learning communities Share results What content and pedagogy worked

54 Thanks for your Interest For additional assistance, contact:  Ruth Anne Hodges (517)  Rodger Epp (517)