46
1 Massachusetts Mathematics and Science Partnerships Program (MMSP) Title IIB Webinar Tuesday April 6, 2010 3:00-4:30 p.m.
1
Massachusetts Mathematics and Science
Partnerships Program (MMSP)
Title IIB
Webinar
Tuesday April 6, 20103:00-4:30 p.m.
2
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
3
POLL
What type of organization do you represent?– District/LEA– Higher Education – STEM Department– Higher Education – Ed Department– Evaluator– Other
4
WEBINAR TIPS
• Please mute your phone using *6
• Feel free to use the Chat Window for Questions
5
FEDERAL PROGRAMTITLE 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
6
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
7
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.
8
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.
9
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
10
Overview of MMSP Partnership Participation Funding Period
Partnership Grouping
MMSP Year 1
Feb04-Aug04
MMSP Year 2
Sep04-Aug05
MMSP Year 3
Sep05-Aug06
MMSP Year 4
Sep06-Aug 07
MMSP Year 5
Sep07-Aug08
MMSP Year 6
Sep08-Aug09
MMSP Year 7
Sep09-Aug10
MMSP Year 8
Sep10-Aug11
Cohort 1 Grant Year 1 6 Math 2 Science
Grant Year 2 6 Math 2 Science
Grant Year 3 6 Math 2 Science
Grant Year 3+ Extended
Cohort 2 Grant Year 1 2 Math
Grant Year 2 2 Math
Grant Year 3 2Math
Cohort 3
Grant Year 1 4 Math 3 Science 2 Both
Grant Year 2 3 Math 3 Science 2 Both
Grant Year 3 3 Math 3 Science 2 Both
Cohort 4 Grant Year 1 4 Math 4 Science
Grant Year 2 4 Math 4 Science
Grant Year 3 4 Math 4 Science
Cohort 5
Grant Year 1
11
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
12
RFP PRIORITIESMathematics• 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
13
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.
14
RFP PRIORITIESEvaluation
a rigorous summative evaluation using a quasi-experimental or a randomized control (experimental) design
15
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
16
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
17
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT DESIGNCOURSES
• 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
18
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT DESIGNSUPPLEMENTAL 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
19
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
20
DEVELOPING A PROPOSAL
21
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
22
ASSESSING NEEDS
• Student Needs• Teacher
– Licensure– Individual Professional Development
Plans• District/School
– STEM Initiatives– Instructional Leadership
23
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
24
DEVELOP ACTIVITIES
• Supplemental activities must be site-based and district led for high need districts
• Integration into high need districts initiatives
• Evidence-based research
25
EVALUATION
• UMass Donahue Institute Roles– Coordinate state-level data
collection– Provide technical assistance to
partnerships– Serve as liaison with USED for
evaluation issues
26
EVALUATION
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
27
EVALUATION
• Components– Participant Tracking System– Formative Evaluation– Summative Evaluation– Multi-pronged Reporting System– External Evaluator
28
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)
29
EVALUATION
Participant Tracking System: In Proposal• Describe system to be used• Describe how system will be maintained
30
EVALUATION
• Formative Evaluation: Purposes– Support program management– Document program
implementation
31
EVALUATION
• Formative Evaluation: In Proposal– Identify specific research
questions– Outline data collection and
analysis plan
32
EVALUATION
• Summative Evaluation: Purpose– Measure progress toward, and
overall attainment of, fundamental project objectives
33
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)
34
EVALUATION
• Summative Evaluation: In Proposal– Identify evaluation design– Outline data collection and
analysis plan
35
EVALUATION
• Required Tools: In Proposal– Indicate familiarity with all required
tools
– Indicate readiness to use required tools
36
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
37
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
38
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
39
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
40
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
41
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
42
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.
43
TIMELINE
Proposals Due June 14th
Review June 15 - July 2Modification or Budget Revision July 6-16Recommendations to the Commissioner July-Early
AugustAnnouncement of Awards AugustGrants Management Processing AugustOfficial Notification and Initial Funds Disbursement Early SeptemberProject Start September
44
Carol Lach, MMSP Coordinator [email protected]
781-338-3532
Roxane Johnson De Lear, Science Assistance Coordinator
[email protected] 781-338-3546
Paula Quinn, MMSP [email protected]
413-587-2409
Contacts
45
QUESTION/ANSWER
46
Thank you for your time and attention!
