Title IIB Massachusetts Mathematics and Science Partnerships Program (MMSP) Information Session - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Title IIB Massachusetts Mathematics and Science Partnerships Program (MMSP) Information Session PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 64e022-N2I2M



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Title IIB Massachusetts Mathematics and Science Partnerships Program (MMSP) Information Session

Description:

Title IIB Massachusetts Mathematics and Science Partnerships Program (MMSP) Information Session Friday, January 10, 2014 1:00-3:30 p.m. The department will contract ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:35
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 40
Provided by: ESE77
Learn more at: http://www.doe.mass.edu
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Title IIB Massachusetts Mathematics and Science Partnerships Program (MMSP) Information Session


1
Title IIB Massachusetts Mathematics and Science
Partnerships Program (MMSP)Information Session
  • Friday, January 10, 2014
  • 100-330 p.m.

2
INTRODUCTIONS
  • Anne DeMallie, MMSP Coordinator
  • Jake Foster, Assistant Director of STEM

3
POLL
  • What type of organization do you represent?
  • District/LEA
  • Higher Education STEM Department
  • Higher Education Education Department
  • Charter School or Private School
  • Other

4
Agenda
  • Overview of the Federal Program
  • Overview of the Massachusetts Program
  • The Request for Proposals RFP
  • Developing a Proposal
  • Evaluation
  • Budget
  • Questions
  • Networking and Collaboration

5
FEDERAL PROGRAMTITLE IIB of No Child Left Behind
  • U.S. Department of EducationMathematics and
    Science Partnerships 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
  • Investigate institutional change in partner
    organizations

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
    support implementation in the classroom

7
MMSP Title IIB PROGRAM GOALS
  • GOAL I Develop and implement an effective and
    sustained course of study for in-service
    educators 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 Identify credible, instructionally
    useful measures of student growth and select,
    develop, and pilot District Determined Measures
    (DDMs) that measure student growth relative to
    subject matter standards.

8
MMSP Title IIB PROGRAM GOALS (continued)
  • GOAL III Increase the number of STEM educators
    in the partner school districts who participate
    in effective professional development and advance
    their knowledge of subject matter standards,
    disciplinary practices, and student learning.
  • 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
  • Cohort 5 September 2010, 2 partnerships
  • Cohort 6 February 2012, 5 partnerships
  • This RFP will initiate Cohort 7

10
MMSP Title IIBCohort 7
  • Develop and deliver rigorous Professional
    Development (PD) for middle school STEM
    educators.
  • Develop DDMs to measure student growth resulting
    from the PD.
  • Integrate PD into the Districts/LEA STEM
    initiatives and course offerings of Institutes of
    Higher Education.

11
RFP REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
  • Contains information about the program, purpose,
    eligibility, general requirements, funding, and
    submission
  • Contains links to
  • Workbook
  • Additional Information
  • Required Program Information
  • High-Need District List,
  • Definition of Terms,
  • Technical Guide B Measuring Student Growth,
  • Massachusetts Standard for Professional
    Development,
  • Syllabus Guidance,
  • Links to Rubric, Frameworks, Key Practices, etc.
  • http//www.doe.mass.edu/grants/grants14/rfp/150-B.
    html

12
ELIGIBILITY
  • Include at least one high-need district (LEA) and
    a STEM department from an institution of higher
    education (IHE)
  • Develop middle school STEM DDMs and Professional
    Development
  • Address the Required Program Information
  • Develop proposal collaboratively by the partners

13
General Requirements
  • high-quality, content-specific middle school STEM
    professional development (PD) in accordance with
    the Massachusetts Standards for Professional
    Development
  • development and implementation of
    District-Determined Measures of student learning
    growth related to this PD
  • at least 50 of the participating teachers are
    from high-need districts
  • integration of the state evaluator into planning
    and compliance with state and federal reporting
    requirements
  • regular collaborative meetings of partners
  • a web page to communicate and disseminate
    partnership activities

14
PD DESIGN COURSES
  • Meet Massachusetts Standard for Professional
    Development
  • Standards-focused courses
  • Rigorous graduate level
  • Minimum of 45 hours of direct instructional time
  • Responsive to identified district needs

http//www.doe.mass.edu/pd/standards.html
15
PD DESIGN SUPPLEMENTAL ACTIVITIES
  • supplemental activities (follow-up)
  • guide the implementation of PD course(s) into
    standards-based instruction
  • facilitate connections between PD course(s) and
    DDMs
  • Minimum of 24 hours
  • encourage active engagement of district or school
    instructional leaders
  • promote connections to district STEM initiatives
  • facilitate the development and analysis of DDMs

16
FUNDING
  • 900,000 for 2013-2014
  • Approximately 4-5 MMSP projects
  • Up to 200,000 per year, for up to 3 years
  • Years 2 and 3 contingent on performance and
    available federal funding

17
  • DEVELOPING A PROPOSAL

18
FORM A PARTNERSHIP
  • High Need School District
  • Institution Higher Education
  • Science, Math, Engineering Department
  • Education Department
  • Other LEAs (Private Schools, Charter Schools or
    Consortiums)
  • Businesses
  • Nonprofit For-profit Organizations

19
ASSESS NEEDSMiddle School STEM
  • DDMs
  • Areas to develop or improve
  • Student Achievement
  • DDMs, MCAS, and/or benchmark assessments
  • Teacher
  • Licensure
  • Individual Professional Development Plans
  • District/School
  • STEM Initiatives
  • Instructional Leadership

http//profiles.doe.mass.edu/
20
DDMs
  • Measures of student learning, growth, and
    achievement related to the Massachusetts
    Curriculum Frameworks.
  • Comparable across the district for all educators
    in a grade or subject.
  • Selecting DDMs gives districts a long-sought
    opportunity to broaden the range of what and how
    knowledge and skills are assess.
  • The results of which will lead to improved
    educator practice and student learning.

21
DEVELOP ACTIVITIES
  • Align with the goals of the partnership
  • Meet the needs of the district(s)
  • Describe the methods to identify and enroll
    teachers in sufficient numbers in courses that
    address their professional growth needs and DDMs
    development
  • Standard-specific course or course of study
  • Course syllabus and sample session
  • Align with MA Frameworks revised STEM standards
  • Consider sustainability
  • Integration of educators experiences into
    initiatives at the school/district level
  • Integration of courses or course components into
    the higher education institutions on-going
    program, department or regional offerings

22
EVALUATION Logic Model
22
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and
Secondary Education
23
EVALUATION
  • One State-Wide Evaluator
  • Role Objective collaborator
  • Skilled in systematically gathering, analyzing,
    and presenting data
  • Proficient using analytic software
  • High level of comfort using online reporting
    tools

24
EVALUATION Program-Level
  • Evaluator will
  • Coordinate partnership data collection
  • Evaluate impact and design of the full program
  • Provide technical assistance to partnerships
  • Serve as liaison with USED for evaluation issues

25
EVALUATION Course-Level
  • Evaluator will
  • Analyze and summarize course and impact data
  • Changes in teacher knowledge and teacher practice
  • Changes in student Achievement
  • Progress toward integrating PD with STEM
    improvement initiatives (for high need districts)

26
EVALUATION Course-Level
  • Partnerships will
  • Ensure PD courses Meet Massachusetts Standard for
    Professional Development
  • Formative Evaluation
  • Summative Evaluation
  • Tools
  • Develop, administer, and analyze DDMs
  • Maintain Participant Tracking System

http//www.doe.mass.edu/pd/standards.html
27
EVALUATION In proposal
  • Articulate objectives with measures that directly
    assess
  • Changes in teacher knowledge
  • Changes in teacher practice
  • Progress toward integrating PD with STEM
    improvement initiatives (for high need districts)
  • Formative and Summative Assessments
  • Outline data collection and analysis plan

28
EVALUATIONTools
  • Description/identification
  • Pre/post content knowledge test
  • Course Participant Survey
  • Self-selected measure of change in teacher
    practice (survey/interview)
  • Measure of student achievement (e.g., DDMs MCAS,
    district/school benchmark tests, or unit tests)
  • Formative feedback measures
  • In proposal
  • Indicate familiarity with tools
  • Indicate readiness to use tools

29
EVALUATION Participant Tracking System
  • Contents
  • Participant names
  • Courses completed by each participant
  • Time each participant completed each course
  • Contact information (e.g., school, e-mail, phone,
    home address)
  • In your proposal, include an assurance that your
    partnership will maintain a participant tracking
    system (electronic format)

30
DESIGN 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
  • 10 should be allocated for the state evaluator
    to support local and program evaluation and
    technical assistance activities

http//finance1.doe.mass.edu/grants/grants12/rfp/d
oc/150-B.xls
31
DESIGN YOUR BUDGET
  • Funds may be used for
  • Administrative costs
  • Stipends
  • Substitutes
  • Materials for professional development
  • Local program data collection
  • Program dissemination
  • DDMs analysis
  • Travel to state and national Title II-B meetings

32
DESIGN YOUR BUDGET
  • Funds may not be used for
  • Equipment (single item costing 5,000 or more)
  • Instructional materials or equipment for use by
    students of participating educators
  • Space rental
  • Food
  • Full-time staff positions.
  • Grant funds may not be allocated to pay for both
    a participants graduate credit tuition and to
    provide a stipend

33
DESIGN 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
  • Please request ONLY what you actually intend to
    spend

34
SUBMIT YOUR PROPOSAL
  • Review your proposal (objective reader)
  • Allow time for obtaining necessary signatures
  • Mail
  • 1 complete copy of entire proposal
  • 2 copies of grant signature page
  • Email
  • 1 complete copy of entire proposal
  • Workbook (excel file)
  • Syllabus with sample session
  • Submit on time must be received by 5 pm on
    Monday, February 24, 2014 to be considered

Email ademallie_at_doe.mass.edu Subject "2014
MMSP Competitive Application"
35
REVIEW PROCESS
  • A proposal will be disqualified if it is late,
    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.

36
TIMELINE
  • Proposals Due February 24
  • Review February 25 March 26
  • Recommendations to the Commissioner Early April
  • Announcement of Awards Early April
  • Grants Management Processing Mid April
  • Official Notification and
  • Initial Funds Disbursement Mid April
  • Project Start Mid April

37
Contacts
  • Anne DeMallie, MMSP Coordinator
  • ademallie_at_doe.mass.edu
  • 781-338-3527
  • Jake Foster, Assistant Director of STEM
  • jfoster_at_doe.mass.edu
  • 781-338-3510

38
QUESTION/ANSWER
39
  • Networking and Collaboration
  • Time
About PowerShow.com