1. Mathematics and Science Partnerships Program (MMSP)
Massachusetts
Mathematics and Science Partnerships Program (MMSP)
Title IIB
Webinar
Tuesday April 6, 2010
3:00-4:30 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
AGENDA
Overview of Federal Program
Overview of Massachusetts Program
Goals
History
Design
Priorities
Eligibility
Funding
Developing a Proposal
Forming a Partnership
Assessing Needs
Developing Activities
Evaluation
Designing your Budget
Proposal Review Process
V. Questions and Answers
Optional
VI. Rigorous Summative Evaluation Discussion

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 PROGRAM TITLE 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
The Mathematics and Science Partnerships program was authorized by the No Child Left Behind Legislation of 2001 under title II, part B, and is administer nationally by the United state Department of Education
Those of you familiar with Title II programs know that they are targeted towards improving teacher quality;
In Massachusetts, the Title IIA is Improving teacher Quality Program is run by the Department of Higher Education (formerly the Board of HE)
Title IIB Math and Science Partnerships are administered by the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
The federal MSP legislation requires that states support collaborative partnerships between K-12 schools and institutions of higher education to improve teacher professional development in content and standards-based instructional practice in order to increase student achievement in math, science and technology/engineering
MSP Funds are distributed to the states by the United States Department of Education .

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
In Massachusetts, we use the funding available from the USED to fund thee year partnerships between higher end institutions and school districts a
Each partnership project is provides in-service training to teachers.
Professional development activities provide at least 45 hours of direct instruction and 20 hours of supplemental support to help teachers integrate the knowledge and skills gain in the course into their classrooms

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.
We have four goals for the MMSP program:
Goal w

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

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.

12. RFP PRIORITIES Mathematics
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 PRIORITIES Evaluation
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 DESIGN COURSES
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 DESIGN SUPPLEMENTAL 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 Standard logic model for professional development programs
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, , 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
So after you have formed a partnership, assessed your needs, developed a program and evaluation you will need to begin designing your budget
Your budget needs to be aligned with the program activities and should be coordinated with other resources and funding
Cost effective budgets should be less than $2,000 per teacher per course
In the back of your packet you should have a white handout , Form E Cumulative budget; use this form develop a three year budget

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
In the back of your packet you should have two budget forms, a green project expenditures spreadsheet and a white cumulative budget handout
For this proposal you will need to submit a detailed budget for year 1 (green) and a three year cumulative budget (white)
Taking a look at the forms, you will see that funds may be used for administrative costs stipends. Substitutes, materials. . .
The

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
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
After you have completed all the components of your application you use the checklist to make sure that you have completed all the required documents
You’ll need. . . Purple checklist

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.
Complete, on-time proposal will be reviewed by an expert panel that will evaluate the proposal using the established rubric
Proposal will be ranked according to the final score assigned by the review panel; this includes the optional priority points

43. TIMELINE Proposals Due June 14th Review June 15 - July 2
Modification or Budget Revision July 6-16
Recommendations to the Commissioner July-Early August
Announcement of Awards August
Grants Management Processing August
Official Notification and
Initial Funds Disbursement Early September
Project Start September
Overview of the timeline. . .

44. Contacts Carol Lach, MMSP Coordinator
Roxane Johnson De Lear, Science Assistance Coordinator
Paula Quinn, MMSP Evaluator

45. QUESTION/ANSWER

46. Thank you for your time and attention!