1. MSP Summary of First Year Annual Report FY 2004 Projects

2. Conceptual Model Develop partnerships of high-need schools and IHE’s math, science and engineering faculty Provide PD to strengthen teachers’ content knowledge and teaching skills Improve classroom instruction Improve student achievement

3. MSP Funding Cycle Exhibit 2. MSP Program Funding Federal Fiscal Year Federal MSP Funding 2002$12.5 million 2003$100 million 2004$150 million 2005$180 million 2006$183 million

4. MSP Project Budgets $110,644 or less $110,645 to $225,799 $225,800 to $465,985 $465,986 to $879,622 $879,622 or more 25% 15% 10%

5. Project Grant Duration

6. Fiscal Agents

7. Total Number of Teachers Served by MSP 25 or fewer 26-48 49-101 102-214 215 or more 25% 15% 10%

8. Participants Estimated 49,500 teachers participated in MSP professional development About ¾ of teachers were highly qualified by States’ standards Median number of teachers per project was 48 On average, 2-3 special education teachers attended per grade span On average 4-5 administrators in each grade span participated

9. Method of Selection Exhibit 14. Participation Selection Criteria for Schools and Teachers (N=257) SchoolsTeachers Based on need69%54% Volunteer 41%72% Administrative selection25%41% Random assignment for experimental design evaluation 3% Note: Projects provided one or more responses to this question.

10. Professional Development Models: Summer Institutes Most Institutes ranged from 41-80 hours Most included follow-up activities of 31- 60 hours Institute providers typically were IHE STEM faculty 84% of projects implemented summer institutes 76% reported school based professional development

11. Professional Development Models: On-line Professional Learning Experience Study Groups Short Term PD College Course Work Distance Learning Networks Resource Development

12. Evaluation Designs Exhibit 16. Percent of Projects Using Various Types of Evaluation Designs (Reported by 257 projects) Evaluation Design Categories Percent of Projects Experimental design – using random assignment of schools, teachers, and/or students to MSP (Treatment) vs. no-MSP (Control) groups 9% Quasi-experimental design – using various methods, other than random assignment to compare schools, teachers, and/or students with and without MSP services (e.g., pre-post comparisons, matched comparison groups) 32% No control/comparison groups – using post-PD-test only and/or other one-time data collection methods 50% Other (e.g., case studies, formative research) 28% Note: The percentages do not total 100 percent because some projects provided more than one responses to this question, reflecting the use of multiple evaluation approaches.

13. Commonly Used Data Collection Tools-Teachers State teacher certification tests or instruments based on certification tests (e.g., Praxis); Teacher self-report surveys to examine teacher attitudes and confidence about teaching mathematics or science; teacher self-assessments of their content knowledge; teacher descriptions of their classroom practices; Principal surveys and interview protocols to collect principals’ assessments of teacher content knowledge; Class observation instruments to assess teachers’ instructional practices; and Teacher journals or portfolios to record their use of content knowledge, preparation for instruction, lesson delivery strategies, student engagement, and assessment of their own professional growth and growth of students.

14. Data Collection: Students Locally designed tests of students’ content knowledge in mathematics and science, developed by K-12 teachers and/or IHE faculty participating in MSP; District-developed tests of mathematics and science knowledge aligned to State benchmarks; and Student surveys to examine student attitudes about and interest/confidence in mathematics and science.

15. Findings Teachers Student Achievement Schools and Collaboration Among Partners

16. Lessons Learned Encourage in-depth involvement from IHE partners Encourage district administrators to participate Ensure enough face-to-face communication in large, or rural areas Reexamine the scope of the partnerships Emphasize the important role of States

17. Suggestions for strong teacher participation Implement strategies to enhance teacher recruitment Provide clear definitions of program activities, participant requirements, and expectations Refine the mentoring, teacher leader model Genuinely address high need teachers and schools