1 / 38

No Child Left Behind Act, 2001

No Child Left Behind Act, 2001. Title II, Part B Mathematics and Science Partnership Grants. Overview. Technical Assistance Meeting October 24, 2003 Michigan Department of Education. General Purpose.

teagan-franco
Download Presentation

No Child Left Behind Act, 2001

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. No Child Left Behind Act, 2001 Title II, Part B Mathematics and Science Partnership Grants

  2. Overview Technical Assistance Meeting October 24, 2003 Michigan Department of Education

  3. General Purpose • To improve academic achievement in mathematics and science by encouraging partnerships between State educational agencies, institutions of higher education, local educational agencies, and schools.

  4. Specific Outcomes • Increased content knowledge, skills in mathematics for teachers, HQT • Increased student achievement in mathematics grades 3-8 • Identification of successful PD and curriculum models

  5. Partnerships must include • An institution of higher education engineering, mathematics, or science department, at 2 or 4 year institutions • A high-need local educational agency- district, school

  6. 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 of demonstrated effectiveness in improving the quality of math/science teachers.

  7. In Michigan…. • The Mathematics and Science Centers involvement will receive priority in the selection. • This does not replace the involvement of a higher education mathematics department.

  8. Michigan Priorities • Teachers of mathematics, grades 3-8 • Schools in need of improvement, missed AYP school-wide, or Ed YES, D or F grade due to low achievement in mathematics • Teachers that are not highly qualified • Content is aligned to the MCF

  9. Michigan Priorities, cont. • Partner with a Mathematics and Science Center • Alignment to the Michigan Professional Development standards • School not currently involved in competing school reform initiative, show how this connects to current reform efforts

  10. Targeted Activities • Opportunities for enhanced and on-going professional development to improve mathematics subject matter knowledge • Establishing summer workshops and institutes with follow-up training, or the same time equivalency

  11. Application Requirements • Cover page, assurances, partner sign-off • Abstract • Program Narrative • Demonstration of Need • Research or Evidence Base • Plan of Work • Management Capability • Sustainability

  12. Application Requirements, cont. • Evaluation plan • Address needs based goals • Increase number of teachers of mathematics in content-based knowledge • Increase student achievement • Research design

  13. Application Requirements, cont. • Budget • Budget through 8/31/03 • Independent evaluator • Funds to participate in state technical assistance meetings • Match from participating districts • Limitations

  14. Application Submission • Must be postmarked by November 25, 2003 • Include the original and 4 copies • Verification of Receipt form (optional) • MDE may negotiate program and budget issues • Notify of selection in January

  15. In-depth Information • Professional Development Standards • Research-based design • Successful mathematics resources • State and federal evaluation design • On-going technical assistance • Scoring rubric

  16. Professional Development • State Board of Education’s Updated Vision of Professional Development • August 28, 2003

  17. 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

  18. Starts with Student Learning Data

  19. National Staff DevelopmentCouncil Standards (2001) www.nsdc.org

  20. http://www.michigan.gov/mde Click on EducatorsClick on Professional PreparationClick on Professional Development Under “Standards”(or email PooleCL@michigan.gov)

  21. Criteria for Selection of Professional Development • content-based; • practice-based; • research or evidence-based; and • grounded in pedagogical content.

  22. Research-based design Attribution of effects to program processes Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Design Randomized Field Trials Internal and External Validity Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Design Campbell & Stanley, 1991

  23. State and federal evaluation design • Program evaluation standards • Utility • Feasibility • Propriety • Accuracy The Program Evaluation Standards 2nd Ed. ISBN: 0-8039-5732-7

  24. Successful mathematics resources • Dana Center, Austin, Texas http://www.utdanacenter.org/mathematics/index.html • Vermont Mathematics Partnership http://www.emba.uvm.edu/~gross/ • Hung-His Wu, U of CA, Berkley wu@math.berkley.edu

  25. Scoring Rubric • Grants will awarded through a competitive process • An expert panel will review proposals using the rubric • The rubric has 8 parts for 200 total points • Points vary among the parts, reflecting relative emphasis • Priority for Math - Science Centers involvement is included in the rubric

  26. Frequently Asked Questions • Can we work with our local mathematics education faculty? • Yes, but you must also include mathematics faculty from the Arts and Sciences/Mathematics Department. • 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.

  27. Frequently Asked Questions • Clarify the priority for school selection. • One - Schools that are in need of improvement (NCLB definition) and did not make AYP in mathematics for 2 years • Two – Schools that did not make AYP school –wide, because of mathematics (not just for sub-groups) • Three – Schools that received a D or F in Ed YES! and did not do well in mathematics • Have a high number of teachers not –highly qualified

  28. Frequently Asked Questions • What data do we use to make the school eligibility determination? • Use the MEAP data the LEAs/ISDs have recently received for 2002-03 and previous years. • The preliminary School Report card data will be available to schools/ISDs next week

  29. Frequently Asked Questions • How important is the research design aspect of this grant? • It is extremely important. Data must be gathered related to pre-and post- intervention for both teachers and students. • The information learned from these grants will have impact on future PD for mathematics teachers in this state.

  30. Frequently Asked Questions • What mathematics benchmarks will be used to guide the content focus? • Use the areas of need determined by local assessment data • What is the status of the grade level benchmarks in mathematics? • They will be sent to the SBE for approval in November

  31. 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

  32. 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. A general guide is up to $200/day for participant stipends, up to $800/day for consultant fees, no purchase of classroom materials or unexpendable supplies.

  33. 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, in particular the high needs schools • How do you enter clerical object codes? • Be sure they are justified and linked to the grant activities. Enter under, Other expenses- miscellaneous

  34. Frequently Asked Questions • Can a consortium be developed to deliver services? • Yes, as long as the intent of the grant is met • Can a partner work with teachers from both high needs and non-high needs schools? • The applicant will have a make a case of the need and it will be up to the readers to make a recommendation for acceptance.

  35. Frequently Asked Questions • Can the hours of professional development from this effort count to help a teacher become highly qualified related under NCLB. • Yes, the Michigan HOUSE guidelines say teachers can become highly qualified with 90 hours of PD in the content of the teaching assignment.

  36. Frequently Asked Questions • Can tuition be paid for teachers from grant funds? • NO, direct tuition cannot be paid; however, 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.

  37. Other Issues

  38. Thanks for your Interest • Contact any of the team for additional assistance • Nancy Mincemoyer is the lead contact, MincemoyerN@michigan.gov or (517) 373-4990

More Related