Post on 08-Feb-2016
description
BIDDERS CONFERENCESeptember 16, 2009
Proposals Due: November 12, 2009RFP: www.sde.ct.gov
2010-20122010-2012
Mathematics and Mathematics and Science Partnership Science Partnership
Grant ProgramGrant Program
AGENDA
• MSP RFP highlights and elaboration
• Questions
• Networking
2
MSP Program
Cycle
Congress Appropriates Funds Based
on Impact Funds to States
through Formula Grant
State MSP Competition
MSP Project PD Occurs
Projects Submit Yearly
Impact Reports to
Feds
Federal MSP Grant ProgramNCLB Title II, Part B
Federal MSP Logic Model
Establish partnerships between high-need schools and IHE STEM faculty
Provide intensive PD to strengthen teachers’ content knowledge and teaching skills
Improve classroom instruction
Improve student achievement
4
MSP Core Principles Partnership
– K-12 and IHEs equitably share responsibility for PD design, delivery, program improvement and student success
Rigor – sustained and coherent
– content-focused (beyond what students learn) with related pedagogy
– research-based PD design; evidence-based strategies
Relevance – State standards
– Comprehensive needs assessment
– Districts’ research-based instructional materials
Impact
- Results in measurable impacts to teacher content knowledge, teaching practices and student achievement on state assessments
Evaluation and Research
– projects evaluate effectiveness of PD interventions using experimental research methods
High Quality PD
• Focuses on deep content knowledge;
• Emphasizes active learning closely linked to classroom practice;
• Relates closely to school curriculum and instructional materials;
• Provides many hours of training over time; and
• Encourages collaboration.
Research & Evaluation Expectations
• All MSP projects will hire an external evaluator to oversee research design and data collection.
• Projects will use quasi-experimental methods to measure:
• gains in teacher content knowledge
• changes in teaching practices
• student achievement on state tests
• Projects are encouraged to research the effectiveness of their PD interventions
Successful MSP Projects Start With…
• A vision of what improved teaching and learning in mathematics or science looks like.
• An understanding of what needs to change to make the vision a reality.
• A commitment to work toward realizing the vision.
2010-12 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
HIGHLIGHTS
2010-12 RFP Category 1:Whole School Improvement Through
Instructional Coaching Academies
10
Elementary or Middle School Mathematics, Science or Math/Science
Coaching Academy Keys to Success
Recruit individuals with highest potential to be effective teacher leaders
Design a PD plan and partner with PD providers with highest potential to achieve project goals
Link content to pedagogy and coaching techniques
Ensure opportunities to implement coaching model with fidelity over time
Expect impact on teaching and learning in the school
Provide strong principal support and collaboration around MSP and school goals
11
Instructional Coaches Take On New Roles in the District…
• Acquire a “toolkit” of useful resources and proven teaching strategies.
• Help teachers understand content in state standards, curriculum and materials embraced by the district.
• Provide non-evaluative, differentiated, job-embedded professional learning
• Support effective use of data to improve student learning.
12
2010-12 RFP Category 2: Whole School Improvement Through Instructional Resource Collaboratives
13
Elementary or Middle SchoolMathematics or Science
Resource Collaborative Keys to Success
Partnership centers on research-based instructional materials that are performance-centered and experiment-oriented;
PD must focus on content and pedagogy in core instructional materials;
Choose either teacher-leader or direct PD model;
Improved confidence and fidelity in effective use of research-based core instructional materials;
Cost-effective materials acquisition, refurbishment, enhancement, accessibility.
14
Partnerships
15
PartnersRequired:
• STEM faculty
• Mathematics or Science Ed Specialist
• At least one high-need LEA
Eligible:
• Other LEAs, IHEs, RESCs, charters, magnets, nonpublic schools, STEM corporations, nonprofits, informal education organizations
Ineligible:
• Schools that participated in 2006-09 MSP coaching academies.
16
CSDE Roles
PRIOR TO FUNDING:
• Conduct pre-award advisory meeting
• Negotiate modifications to the plan or the budget
• Meet with IHE faculty regarding syllabus and assessments.
AFTER FUNDING:
• Work closely with projects throughout the grant period to assure compliance with federal and state expectations and the project plan.
• Make periodic site visits to monitor PD quality and provide feedback.
17
Choose Partners Strategically
Consider:
• Evidence of need, vision and commitment
• Compatibility with organizations’ policies and goals
• Existing relationships
• Proven expertise of PD providers
• Geographical proximity
18
Promising Partners for Coaching Academies
• Reform-minded IHE STEM faculty;• PD providers with proven expertise;• LEAs with schools whose improvement
plans include mathematics or science;• Principals who want an instructional
coach;• Principals with clear goals for coaches;• Principals with workable plans to
provide time for coaches to practice.19
Promising Partners for Resource Collaboratives
• Reform-minded IHE STEM faculty;• Schools whose improvement plans
include mathematics or science;• Schools using the same research-
based instructional materials;• Schools committed to sustained and
“just-in-time” PD;• Organizations experienced in handling
materials.20
Partnership Structure
• Lead Partner is fiscal agent. Can be IHE, LEA or RESC.
• 80% of partner LEAs must meet one of the following criteria:– Fewer than 70% of students “At Goal or
Above” on 2008 or 2009 CMT (www.cmtreports.com –
Performance Level Summary Report); or– Did not achieve AYP in math in 2008 or 2009 (
http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/cwp/view.asp?a=2662&Q=322372)
21
Partner Benefits
• Districts gain school-based leaders;
• School faculty gain on-site support;
• Teachers receive the tools they need to be effective and feel confident;
• Coaches grow professionally and establish a foundation for endorsement as instructional specialist.
Partner Benefits
• Universities gain K-12 insights to enhance pre-service preparation programs, undergrad courses and design new programs;
• Universities establish ties to potential graduate students; and
• STUDENTS’ ACHIEVEMENT IN MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE IMPROVES.
Grant Information
24
Grant Period
• 3-year projects (1-1-2010 to 12-31-2012)
• Funded annually based on performance, availability of federal funds, state priorities
• Submit 3-year plan with Year 1 budget
• January – March 2010: recruitment activities, baseline data and PD syllabus development begins.
• Summer 2010: PD begins
25
Fiscal Information
• Approximately $800,000 available to fund worthy projects
• Number of projects funded depends on quality of proposals submitted
• Funding amounts depend on scope and quality of PD activities
26
Important Dates
• RFP published 9-1-09• Notice of Intent to Apply due 10-15-09• Proposals due by 4:30 p.m. on 11-12-09• Pre-award Advisory Meeting 12-14-09• Awards made 1-1-2010• Mid-year progress report due to CSDE 7-1-2010• Year 2 continuation application due 12-1-2010• Year 1 activities end 12-31-2010• 1st Annual Performance Report due 2-1-2010
27
Application Information
28
Going Virtually Paperless
• Applications will be submitted electronically and in paper copy.
• Electronic and paper copies must arrive at CSDE no later than 4:30 p.m. on November 12, 2009
• Complete application electronically using pages and forms included in the RFP
• Use active links embedded in RFP to access support documents and resources
• Applications must adhere to the 6-section format in the RFP to be eligible for consideration
• Paper copies should be stapled, clipped or bound; no 3-ring binders
29
Application Evaluation
30
Review Process
• Panel includes teachers, administrators, IHE faculty, professional organization reps, CSDE staff, past MSP project coordinators
• Multiple reads of each application• Panel discussion results in identification of leading
proposals• Panel makes recommendations to MSP Program
Managers• MSP Program Managers notify leading proposal
coordinators of requested modifications and extend invitations to attend Pre-Award Advisory Meeting
• Formal award letters e-mailed to lead partners
31
Evaluation Criteria
• Needs assessment• Partnership commitment and capacity • Goals and objectives• PD program design and quality• Project management and monitoring• Project evaluation and research plan• Budget documentation and cost
effectiveness
32
Your Questions
33
Networking
34
Finding Partners
• 122 respondents to CSDE PD interest survey e-mailed in June
• Spreadsheets available showing names of districts that expressed interest in instructional coaching academies and resource collaboratives
• Time for networking!
35
MSP Program Managers
Science:Elizabeth ButtnerElizabeth.buttner@ct.gov860-713-6849
Mathematics:Charlene Tate NicholsCharlene.tate.nichols@ct.gov860-713-6757
36