1. Mathematics and Science Partnerships: Summary of the FY2006 Annual Reports U.S. Department of Education

2. Conceptual Model of Mathematics and Science Partnerships Program Develop partnership of high-need school districts and an IHE’s science, technology, engineering, mathematics faculty Improve classroom instruction Provide professional development to strengthen teachers’ content knowledge Improve student achievement in mathematics and science

3. MSP Grant and Funding Cycle States distribute funds on a competitive basis to partnerships consisting of Arts and Science faculty at an IHE and a “high need” local education agency. Congress appropriates funds for the program. Projects submit annual/final reports to USED within 60 days of cycle completion. U.S. Department of Education (USED) Program Cycle States send to USED abstracts and program descriptions of funded projects. Funds are released to the States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico through a formula grant.

4. Mathematics and Science Partnerships at a Glance  Over 3,000 Institutions of Higher Education (IHE) faculty participated in USED MSP projects.  Approximately 3,800 organizations partnered to form 501 projects across the country.  Over 49,000 hours of professional development was provided to more than 56,000 teachers.  Enhanced the quality of classroom instruction for over 2 million students.

5. MSP Funding FY 2006  USED MSP provided $181 million dollars through a formula to the states.  State received awards ranging from $906,246 to over $25 million dollars.  Projects received awards ranging from $24,000 to 3.6 million. Project Budgets from State MSP Grants, FY 2006 Project budgetsFY 2006 Percent (no.) of projects $100,000 or less17%(82) $100,001 to $200,00036%(179) $200,001 to $500,00026%(128) $500,001 to $1,000,00015%(73) $1,000,001 or more5%(26) Did not report1%(5) Total100%(493)

6. Characteristics of Project Participants  More than 3,000 faculty from IHEs participated (with an average of 6 faculty per project).  More than 56,000 elementary, middle, and high school teachers participated; The number of teachers served by an individual MSP project ranged from less than 10 to over 1,000. The average number of teachers served by MSP projects was 113. The median number of teachers served was 44.  These teachers, in turn, taught over 2 million students!

7. Profession Development  MSP projects reported using one of two main models for providing professional development (PD) for teachers: 1. The individual teacher model (83 percent) – when teachers from a set of school or school districts participate as individuals in order to improve their own content knowledge and teaching skills. 2. The teacher leader model (17 percent) – when teachers are trained to become mathematics or science leaders in their schools/districts.

8. Professional Models  43 percent of projects focused on mathematics  25 percent of projects focused on science  30 percent of projects focused on mathematics and science. Average Professional Development Hours, by Professional Development Model Type, FY 2006 Professional Development Model Percent (no.) of projects (n =493 ) Total Average Hours Average Hours: Summer Institute Average Hours: Follow-Up Activities Summer Institute3%(12)82 -- Summer Institute with Follow -up 62%(306)12566 59 Other34%(168)83-- Did not report1%(7)--

9. Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Teacher Knowledge 1. The percentage of MSP teachers who significantly increase their content knowledge as measured by project- administered pre- and post-tests. Student Knowledge 2. The percentage of students of MSP teachers who score at the basic level or above in State assessments of math or science. 3. The percentage of students of MSP teachers who score at the proficient level or above in State assessments of math or science.

10. Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Evaluation Design 4. The percentage of MSP projects that report using an experimental or quasi-experimental design for their evaluations. 5. The percentage of MSP projects that report using an experimental or quasi-experimental design for their designs that are conducted successfully and yield scientifically valid results. Efficiency 6. The percentage of states that submit complete and accurate data on MSP performance measures in a timely manner.

11. GPRA- Teachers’ Content Knowledge Results Percent of Teachers with Significant Gains In Content Knowledge, of Those Teachers with Pre-Post Content Assessments, Summed Across All Projects, FY 2006 Content area Number of teachers assessed Number of teachers with significant gains Percent of teachers with significant gains Mathematics content knowledge 11,6938,31671% Science content knowledge 6,6895,32880%

12. GPRA- Students’ Content Knowledge Results Percent of Students Scoring at Basic or Proficient or Above, of Students Taught by MSP Teachers And Assessed In Each Content Area, FY 2006 (New Form Projects Only) Content area Total number of students taught by MSP teachers* Percent (no) of students with assessment data Percent (no.) of assessed students scoring at basic level or above Percent (no.) of assessed students scoring at proficient level or above Mathematics content knowledge 1,198,46447%(558,129)64%(358,349)47%(260,195) Science content knowledge 568,57122%(123,162)41%(50,408)29%(36,201)

13. GPRA- Students Content Knowledge Results Average of Project-Reported Percents of Students Who Scored at Proficient or Above in Mathematics and/or Science State Assessments, FY 2005 – 2006 (Old Form Projects Only) School levelAverage percent proficient Average percent change from previous assessment FY 2005FY 2006FY 2005FY 2006 All (Elementary, Middle, and High) 55%68%6%7% MSP classrooms made a six (6) percent gain between the 2005 and 2006 school years, whereas the national average from data collected from all of the states on their mathematics achievement across all grades was 3.5 percent. While these are both gross measures, it is worth noting that the MSP classrooms improved at almost twice the rate of the national average

14. GPRA- Evaluation Design (Projects that Reported Results). Quasi-Experimental, 173 Did not Report, 24 Other, 290 Experimental, 6 Quasi-Experimental Did not Report Other Experimental Evaluation Designs, Old and New Form Projects, FY 2006

15. GPRA- Data Quality Rubric Applied After a rigorous screening process, 29 projects were identified as having a quasi-experimental design with a matched comparison group. Of those 29 projects, 8 projects were classified as having a strong quasi-experimental design in one or more categories:  Content Knowledge  Teacher Classroom Practice  Student Achievement

16. Regression Analysis on Project Characteristics Associated with Gains in Teacher Content Knowledge Project Characteristics Significantly Associated with Gains in Teacher Content Knowledge, FY 2006 CharacteristicMathematicsScience Individual Teacher Modelpositive **n.s. “Other” Program Leadpositive *positive *** Number of Participating Teachers negative ***n.s.

17. MSP Federal Fiscal Year 2006  $181 million in federal resources were granted to projects to provide professional development to K-12 educators. The average MSP grant was $337,015, and the median was $200,000.  The typical project provided professional development to 113 teachers, and the median number of teachers that participated in professional development per project was 44. The number of teachers that participated in individual MSP projects ranged from 5 to 1,549 teachers.  The majority (84 percent) of teachers who participated in MSP projects were elementary and middle school teachers.

18. MSP Federal Fiscal Year 2006  Sixty-five percent (65 percent) of projects provided summer institutes, with almost all of these projects providing follow- up throughout the school year.  Of the projects that provided summer institutes with follow- up, teachers were provided an average of 125 hours of professional development; 66 hours during the summer and 59 hours during the school year.  Thirty-four percent (34 percent) of the projects used other professional development models, besides summer institutes, and provided an average of 83 hours of professional development over a 12-month period.

19. MSP Federal Fiscal Year 2006  In mathematics, among the 11,693 teachers who were pre/post tested on their content knowledge, 71 percent made statistically significant gains in content knowledge.  In science, among the 6,689 teachers who were pre/post tested in their content knowledge, 80 percent made statistically significant gains in content knowledge.

20. MSP Federal Fiscal Year 2006  Among the projects that have a four tier student assessment data system in mathematics (below-basic, basic, proficient, and advanced), 64 percent of students scored at the basic level or above.*  Among all the projects that have student assessment data in mathematics, 47 percent scored at the proficient level or above.*  Among the projects that have a four tier student assessment data system in science (below-basic, basic, proficient, and advanced), 41 percent of students scored at the basic level or above.*  Among all the projects that have student assessment data in science, 29 percent scored at the proficient level or above.* * These numbers will serve as a baseline for future trend analysis.

21. MSP Federal Fiscal Year 2006  In mathematics, among the projects that reported on the percentage of students scoring as proficient before their teachers benefited from professional development as compared with how their students performed after participation—overall there was a six (6) percent increase in students scoring as proficient. This can be compared with the 3.5 percent increase in the national average across all of the states.  In science, there was a seven (7) percent gain in proficiency from one year to the next in participating teachers’ classrooms. There are no comparable national data in science.