1. 11 Mathematics and Science Partnership Grants Title II, Part B No Child Left Behind

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

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

4. 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.

5. 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) )

6. 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. 7 Targeted Activities 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 teachers administrators network

8. Overview 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

9. Partnerships 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

10. 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.

11. 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

12. 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.

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

14. Eligibility 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

15. Criteria 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.

16. 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

17. 17

18. 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

19. Professional Development 19 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. 20 National Staff Development Council Standards (2001) www.nsdc.orgwww.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

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

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

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

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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 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.

29. 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

30. 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

31. 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?

32. 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.

33. Application 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

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

35. 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

36. 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. Application 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

38. 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 byrnesj@michigan.gov 517.241.3895

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

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

41. Review 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

42. 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.

43. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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

51. 51 Frequently Asked Questions Can a consortium be developed to deliver services?  Yes, as long as the intent of the grant is met.

52. 52 Frequently Asked Questions Can tuition be paid for teachers from grant funds?  No. Teachers may receive a stipend to participate, which they can use for any number of purposes, including tuition if taking the course for credit. Matches are encouraged from the partners; this is an area where a tuition waiver can be included as a match.

53. 53 Thanks for your Interest For additional assistance, contact:  Ruth Anne Hodges hodgesra@michigan.gov (517) 241-2219  Rodger Epp eppr@michigan.gov (517) 373-1931 Michigan MSP website: www.michigan.gov/mspartnership