Mathematics and Science Partnership Grants

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

2. Technical Assistance MeetingMarch 16, 2006 • Overview of grant • Partnerships • Eligibility • Professional development • Application • Evaluation • Budget • Review • Frequently asked questions

3. General Purpose • To improve academic achievement of students in mathematics and science by strengthening the quality of mathematics and science instruction Overview

4. General Purpose (continued) • Encourage partnerships between institutions of higher education and high-needs schools • encouraging institutions of higher education to assume greater responsibility for improving mathematics and science teacher education. Overview

5. Specific purpose for 2006-2007 Michigan proposal • Design a program to prepare a mathematics or science teacher at a school to provide professional development to other mathematics or science teachers at the school and to assist beginning and other teachers at the school (Title II, Part B, Mathematics and Science Partnership, Section 2202, (c) ) Overview

6. Rationale • Fund a coherent, more sustainable professional learning plan for schools Research seems to support the following: • Learning communities allow for in-depth and sustainable professional development • Site-based teacher specialists can facilitate the learning and teaching of mathematics and science in a school

7. Targeted Activities teachers • Preparing and qualifying mathematics and/or science to provide professional development to other mathematics or science teachers at the school; and • Provide school with information on establishing and supporting learning communities within their buildings; and • Establish and maintain a structured communication for teacher leaders administrators network

8. Proposal There will be two RFPS: • Part A: The designing of a teacher leader program development • This is the current RFP • Part B: The selection, development and support of site-based teacher leaders at high-needs schools. • This application will be written in conjunction with the developer of the teacher leader program Overview

9. 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 Partnerships

10. Partnerships • Encouraging institutions of higher education to assume greater responsibility for improving mathematics and science teacher education 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. Partnerships

11. Partnerships • STEM can be an agent of change in schools and vice versa. • As such we be looking for a description of how the partners will share the work and how their work will be integrated into the on-going work of both the local schools and the STEM faculty • STEM faculty must be a member of the science, technology, engineering or mathematics departments but may be a member of the Education department Partnerships

12. 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 dedicated to improving the quality of math/science teachers. Partnerships

13. In Michigan…. • Proposals that involve Mathematics and Science Centers will receive priority in the selection. Partnerships

14. Eligible Applicants • Part A: • Any Institution of Higher Education or any other organization or agency with the ability to develop, deliver and sustain high quality professional development to regional centers across the state of Michigan • Part B: • High needs districts and schools Eligibility

15. MDE Expectations • Expect that the grant application will take into account the quasi-experimental design and evaluation desires of the USDoE • Expect that the project will be able to accommodate eligible LEAs from across the state. Criteria

16. MDE Expectations • Expect that the grant application will describe a proposal for a teacher leader development module • If accepted may be asked to make modifications to plan and budget • If accepted will have time to develop materials and protocols before implementation Criteria

18. Project Criteria • Active and unambiguous partnership between STEM faculty and schools/districts • Priority points given for active and unambiguous partnership with Math/Science Center • Aligned to the Michigan’s Mathematics or Science Content Standards. • Aligned with the Michigan Professional Development Vision and Standards Criteria

19. Professional Development 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

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

21. Letters of Intent • Not mandatory, but appreciated • Submit electronically: (hodgesra@michigan.gov) by March 31 • Should include: • Brief description of proposal • Anticipated partners • Approximate amount of grant $’s Application

22. Application Requirements • Cover page, assurances, partner sign-off • All in MEGS • Abstract - allow readers to get an overview of the proposal Application

23. Application Requirements • Program Narrative (limit to 20 pages) • Plan of Work • Research or Evidence Base • Management Capability • Partnerships • Evaluation Application

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

25. 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

26. Management Capability • Project leaders have the capability of managing a state-wide project • Staff delivering the PD are qualified • Description of how the partners will share the work Application

27. Research • Use research to justify proposal and selection of activities • This project will add to the body of knowledge surrounding the proposed activities.

28. Evaluation • Each party will have a role in the evaluation planning, implementation and reporting. • The grantee will also be responsible for reports to MDE and USDoE outside of the statewide evaluation. • Within the proposal, the grantee should indicate a commitment and capacity to do these things. Evaluation

29. Role of State Evaluator Moore & Associates, Inc. will conduct an evaluation of this project for MDE with the cooperation of the grantee. • Plan and conduct the project evaluation for MDE • Meet with grantee(s) • Design an evaluation plan • Work with grantee(s) to select instruments and develop a data collection plan • Data analyses and reporting Evaluation

30. Role of Grantee in Evaluation • Complete all reporting requirements of the USDoE (see Project Profile on MSP website) • Meet and consult with Moore & Associates staff during the development of the evaluation plan, and as needed throughout the project • Help with the selection of instruments • Develop tools for documentation of professional development progress • Provide required data and/or facilitate its collection by others Evaluation

31. Project Planning Considerations for Evaluation • How can the goals and objectives of the project be measured? • How can the impact on STEM faculty and their institutions be measured? • How can the impact on teacher leaders be measured? • How can the impact of teacher leaders on teachers be measured? • How will this impact student achievement and how can that be measured? Evaluation

32. Budget Considerations Plan for 5% of your total budget to be devoted to evaluation costs, such as staff time to meet with Moore & Associates and MDE staff, time devoted to review of instruments and development of tools for documenting ongoing progress. Evaluation

33. Budget • Budget from 8/1/06-8/1/08 • Funds can be spent on: • Expenses associated with delivery of PD including salaries, travel expenses, workshop expenses, evaluation • Materials are limited to those necessary for delivery of PD –cannot buy classroom sets of materials Application

34. Budget • Match from partners • Not required but often considered by reviewers when looking at sustainability and dedication to PD by stakeholders Application

35. Professional Development Packet • Include components necessary for replication of the professional development activities • Products developed with Title IIB monies do not have proprietary rights Application

36. Appendix • Must have: • Resumes of key faculty • Letters of interest from STEM faculty • Narrative is limited to 20 pages so use the appendix for charts, references, etc.

37. Electronic Application Submission • Application must be submitted through MEGS – (Michigan Electronic Grants System) • Due date is May 26, 2005, by 11:59 pm • Notification of selection in July • MDE may negotiate program and budget issues Application

38. How to access MEGS • http://megs.mde.state.mi.us/megsweb • MDE has MEGS support system in place • Judy Byrnes, byrnesj@michigan.gov 517.241.3895 Application

39. MEGS – Two types of data collection Input Upload Application

40. MEGS • Application should be available April 1. • Some sections will pertain only to the continuation grants Application

41. Review • Grants will be awarded through a competitive process • An expert panel will review proposals using the rubric • Scheduled for June 14 • After the initial review modifications may be required Review

42. Scoring Rubric • Proposals will be scored with a conjunctive model • requires the applicant to attain a minimal level of performance on all attributes assessed. • All the criteria in Part 1 must be met. • If met, then scored with 1, 2 or 3 with 1 indicating a poor rating and 3 indicating an ideal condition. • Further points can be earned in Part II, for a total of 200 points. • Reviewers will be required to explain in detail reasons for their scores. Review

43. 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.

44. Frequently Asked Questions • Can we work with our local mathematics or science education faculty? • Yes, but you must also include faculty from the STEM departments.

45. Frequently Asked Questions How important is the research design aspect of this grant? • Extremely- improvement must be attributable to the professional development • Data must be gathered related to pre-and post- intervention for both teachers and students. • Designs need to use experimental(control groups) or quasi-experimental (comparisons groups) • The information learned from these grants will have impact on future PD for mathematics and science teachers in this state.

46. Frequently Asked Questions What mathematics and science benchmarks will be used to guide the content focus? • Use the most recent version of the Michigan Curriculum Framework Content Standards and Benchmarks.

47. Frequently Asked Questions What are the parameters on administrative costs? • Indirect costs are 8% for IHEs; restricted indirect for LEAs/ISDs • Administrative costs must be reasonable and directly linked to the grant activities and costs

48. Frequently Asked Questions Who can serve as the fiscal agent for the grant? • Any one of the partners, they must be able to show capacity to manage the finances and work promised.

49. Frequently Asked Questions Are there restrictions on allowable costs for teacher stipends, consultant fees? • There is no federally imposed limit. However the test of “reasonable and necessary” will be used as a guide for readers.

50. Frequently Asked Questions How much of a match is required? • There is no set amount, however, the readers will look for a financial commitment of the partners