05-10-052

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001Title II, Part B

Mathematics and Science Partnership GrantRequest for Applications

Essential information guiding application for and award of this grant is contained in this Request for Applications (RFA).

Applications are due at the Department of Education & Early Developmentno later than May 14, 2010, 4:30 p.m. Alaska Daylight Time

For additional information about this RFA or this grant, contact:Sondra Meredith, MSP Program Manager

E-mail: [email protected]: (907) 465-8663FAX: (907) 465-2441

Copies of this RFA are available electronically athttp://www.eed.state.ak.us/forms/home.cfm

http://www.eed.state.ak.us/forms/home.cfm

mailto:[email protected]

Title II, Part B Mathematics & Science Partnership (MSP)Competitive Grant Application

Table of Contents

Section I: RFA Summary

Program Overview 1

Grant Focus 1

Project Design 2

Eligible Partnerships 3

Available Funding and Award Considerations 4

Application Review Process 4

Award Process 5

Assurances and Required Forms 6

Continuation of Funding 6

Fiscal Procedures 6

Required Reporting 8

Appeals Process 8

Assurance of Nondiscrimination 8

Disallowable Costs 8

Subcontracts 9

Ownership of Copyright and Patents 9

News Releases and Publications 9

Indemnification 9

Insurance 10

Timeline 10

Technical Assistance 10

Section II: Application

Application Procedures 11

Application Cover Page 16

Program Abstract 17

Partner Contributions and Commitments 18

Teacher Assurance Form 21

Certificate of Assurances 22

Non-Profit Organization Effectiveness Document 23Form # 05-10-052

Title II-B MSP Competitive Grant ApplicationAlaska Department of Education & Early Development

page i


General Education Provisions Act (GEPA) Statement 24

Private School Participation Form 25

Section III: Attachments

Definitions 26

Resources 28

Application Scoring Rubric 29

Application Rating Sheet 37

Form # 05-10-052Title II-B MSP Competitive Grant Application

Alaska Department of Education & Early Developmentpage ii


Section I: RFA Summary

Program Overview

In January of 2002, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) became law. The Improving Teacher Quality Grant Programs (Title II) are a major component of the No Child Left Behind legislation. NCLB programs encourage scientifically-based professional development as a means for improving student academic performance.

Title II, Part B of NCLB authorizes a Mathematics and Science Partnership (MSP) competitive grant program. The intent of this program is to increase academic achievement of students in mathematics and science by enhancing the content knowledge and teaching skills of classroom teachers. Core partners in these grants must include mathematics, science, and/or engineering departments/faculty from institutions of higher education (IHE), including community colleges. Partnerships of higher education, high-needs Local Education Agencies (LEAs), and other stakeholders will draw upon the strong disciplinary expertise of the mathematicians, scientists, and engineering faculty from higher education institutions to develop professional development activities that will increase student achievement by providing teachers with strong mathematics and/ content knowledge.

The Alaska Department of Education & Early Development (EED) is responsible for the administration of the MSP Program. Available funds will be awarded by EED to support successful proposals submitted by eligible partnerships comprised of high-need LEAs and departments/faculty of mathematics, science, or engineering at Alaska institutions of higher education.

The Mathematics and Science Partnership Program supports improved academic achievement of students in the areas of mathematics and science by encouraging state educational agencies, institutions of higher education, local educational agencies, elementary schools, and secondary schools to partner in high-quality professional development programs, including programs that:

Improve and upgrade the status and stature of mathematics and science teaching by encouraging institutions of higher education to assume greater responsibility for improving mathematics and science teacher education through the establishment of a comprehensive, integrated system of professional development that continuously stimulates teachers’ intellectual growth and upgrades teachers’ knowledge and skills;

Focus on ways to deepen teachers’ content knowledge, increase teachers’ knowledge of how students learn particular content, provide opportunities for engaging learning, and establish coherence in teachers’ professional development experiences.

Grant Focus

After careful review of the state standard-based assessments and the number of mathematics credits necessary for K-8 teacher certification, the Alaska Department of Education & Early Development (EED) has targeted the area of elementary & middle school mathematics (K-8). Each project will be required to implement a model of professional development which includes a minimum of 120 contact hours over 18 months. The professional development may be designed with sessions occurring both during the academic year and summer, or another comparable structure. The selected structure must


Alaska Department of Education & Early Developmentpage 1


dedicate significant time and intensity to deepening teacher content knowledge. Projects may focus on the same cohort of teachers and may add additional cohorts during the life of the grant.

A cohort may be made up of K-8 teachers within one eligible school district. Alternatively, a cohort may be made up of teachers selected from throughout the state. Up to 10% of the cohort may be teachers from non-eligible schools if the LEA uses other funding sources to support those teachers’ participation in grant activities. A cohort should contain at least 30 teachers. Each cohort will engage with higher education mathematics faculty in professional development that directly relates to the mathematics that form the foundation for Alaska’s academic standards and enhances the ability of K-8 teachers to teach students these standards.

Project Design

Projects must also meet the following requirements: Projects must focus on mathematics (K-8). Projects must address the results of a comprehensive assessment of the teacher quality and

professional development needs of selected schools that comprise the eligible partnership with respect to the teaching and learning of mathematics.

Participating schools must not be involved in a mathematics school reform initiative; or the proposal must clearly articulate how this program will integrate with ongoing reform efforts.

The six components of scientifically-based research must be employed (see definitions). Alignment to the Alaska Mathematics Content and Performance Standards, Alaska Professional

Teaching Standards, and the National Staff Development Council Standards (see resources) must be well defined.

Projects must provide opportunities for enhanced and ongoing professional development to improve mathematics subject matter knowledge, including pedagogical content knowledge, for a total of 120 contact hours over 18 months.

The professional development design must incorporate the following four elements: Learn the Content, Reinforce the Content Learning, Consolidate the Content, and Implement the Content (see definitions).

There must be an active and well-defined partnership between IHE faculty and LEAs in all aspects of the grant, including planning, delivery, and evaluation of the professional development.

Each project must include an evaluation and accountability system that includes measurable objectives. These measures should address the effect of the activities on student achievement and teacher performance. Local evaluation must include tools that will be used to assess the program’s progress and measure the effect of professional development. Each project is required to use measurement tools selected by the state so projects can be compared statewide. Teacher content knowledge will be pre-assessed by using the Applied Mathematics WIN or Key Train program. ACT WorkKeys® in Applied Mathematics will be used as the post assessment. Teachers will also be required to submit pre and post self-assessments of their teaching performance. Growth in student content knowledge will be evaluated using Standards Based Assessment results.

Individual projects are required to report to EED and the U.S. Department of Education regarding progress in meeting the objectives described in the evaluation plan.

Projects will electronically compile and deliver a professional development packet to EED at the conclusion of the grant. The professional development packet will include all participant



http://www.act.org/workkeys/training


materials (e.g. handouts, activities, and references), instructor notes, and any other necessary components that would enable replication of all professional development sessions.

Eligible Partnerships

Partnerships must include an Alaska high-needs LEA, as defined below, and the mathematics department/faculty of an IHE. The partnership must focus on teachers who teach grades K-8. Other partners may include businesses, colleges of teacher education, additional local educational agencies, public charter schools, public or private elementary or middle schools, a consortium of such schools, local parent organizations, and nonprofit or for-profit organizations with demonstrated effectiveness in improving the quality of mathematics teachers. All parties involved share responsibility, goals, and accountability for project implementation and outcomes. Grantees need to adhere to regulations 76.652 and 76.656 of the U.S. Department of Education’s General Administration requirements (EDGAR) and Section 9501 of ESEA as reauthorized by NCLB. These regulations state that meaningful consultation must occur between the LEA and any private schools within that LEA’s attendance area. This consultation must occur prior to submitting a grant proposal. The purpose of this regulation is to ensure that teachers of all students (public or private) are able to benefit from the provision of federal funding. Special Note: The fiscal agent must be a high-needs LEA.

High-Need Local Education Agency: A school district is designated as a high-needs local education agency if the district’s school(s) selected for this projected is an eligible school for the purpose of the MSP grant. In addition, the school(s) must meet one set of the criteria listed in the definition of an eligible school.

Eligible School: A school is designated as an eligible school if--

1. There is evidence of teachers with limited mathematics content knowledge or who are not endorsed in mathematics and the school has not achieved the annual measurable objective (AMO) for mathematics composite scores school-wide for the purpose of AYP during the last two years.

OR

2. There is evidence of teachers with limited mathematics content knowledge or who are not endorsed in mathematics and the school has a history of low test scores in mathematics (SBAs) and 35% or more of students identified in the proposal scored below proficient on assessments of student achievement in mathematics (SBAs).

The evidence used to establish eligibility must use recent data on student academic achievement and teacher qualifications. Mathematics assessment data must be used.

Individual Schools and Classrooms: Each competitive grant is funded at the district level. Individual schools and classrooms must apply as part of the district competitive grant.

Charter Schools: Alaska charter schools are classified as public schools and are part of the district granting the charter. Districts with charter schools that meet the criteria of a district's competitive grant application may include those charter schools in the federal competitive grant.




Private Schools: Private schools are eligible to participate if they are part of an Eligible Local Partnership. Districts must contact private schools in their area about participation.

Available Funding and Award Considerations

1. Projected Total Amount Available for AwardsApproximately $960,000 is the available funding amount for the Title II, Part B Mathematics and Science Partnership Grant program. The state anticipates awarding three to six grants. The grant amounts will be based on the number and quality of applications submitted. The state reserves the right to award a smaller or larger amount of grant funds than requested based upon available funding and the recommendations of the review panel.

2. Grant AmountsThe maximum amount of an eligible partnership award is $150,000 for the duration of each grant period. Eligible Partnerships involving both rural and urban high-needs districts may apply for a maximum amount of $350,000 for the duration of the grant period. The level of funding will depend upon the number of teacher participants and the number of students who will benefit. (If funds requested by the original application are decreased upon award, the eligible partnership may adjust accordingly.)

3. Grant PeriodDuration of the first competitive grant period will be July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2011. Continuation of the grant is possible depending on success of activities, compliance with grant procedures, and the availability of federal funding for two additional years.

4. Fund UseFunds received shall be used to supplement, and not supplant, state and/or local funds that would otherwise be used for proposed activities. Funds may be used for the following:

support of professional development programs and content development in mathematics administrative costs stipends for participating teachers, control-group teachers, and substitutes (a minimum of

$20/instructional hour for teacher participants is recommended for summer and weekend sessions)

materials for professional development use, program evaluation, etc. travel costs and expenses to attend in-state MSP technical assistance meetings and

regional USDOE MSP meetings.

No more than 10% of the project budget should be allocated to project evaluation, which may include stipends to control or comparison teachers for their time and effort in evaluation. It is acceptable for the partnership to charge indirect costs. Please refer to the following regulations for guidance: EDGAR Sec. 75.562 - Indirect cost rates for educational training projects, EDGAR 80.30 - Changes, and EDGAR Section 80.36 - Procurement. However, institutions are strongly encouraged to maximize the use of grant funds for direct services. All budgets and budget descriptions must be aligned with the activities described in the proposal narrative and reflect any coordinated uses of resources from other sources. All LEAs who receive federal funds (including MSP funds) must




maintain time and effort documentation. This requirement is included in the General Assurances and the MSP Assurances that LEAs must submit.




5. Ineligible Costs: costs associated with writing the proposal materials for classroom use space rental expenditures for food at professional development sessions supporting the research of individual scholars or faculty members computers, projectors, SMART Boards, or other similar equipment supporting travel to in- or out-of-state professional meetings/conferences (other than the

in-state MSP technical assistance meetings and USDOE Mathematics and Science Partnership Meetings and/or Conferences as specified), unless it is demonstrated that attendance will directly and significantly advance the project

Application Review Process

Proposals will be reviewed by EED staff for completeness and compliance with the requirements set forth in Title II, Part B of NCLB to determine applicant eligibility. If, in the judgment of the EED, a proposal is significantly incomplete, or an applicant cannot establish its eligibility, the proposal will be omitted from the competition.

Grants will be awarded through a competitive review process. The review and scoring of each application will be based on criteria that support sustained and intensive high-quality professional development, based on the most current research. Using a numerical scoring system, this process is intended to identify the applications that meet the needs of Alaska’s eligible schools.

A panel of reviewers composed of a minimum of three department staff and/or other educators will read all grants submitted and received by the deadline. Applications will be scored independently using the scoring form and rubric included in this RFA. Reviewers will then conference to clarify the accuracy of reviewers’ understanding. Each reviewer will assign a rating to each of the components published in this RFA. The reviewer may, for each section, use the entire range of scores including zero. The reviewers’ total scores will be averaged to determine the order by which applications will be considered for funding; funds will be awarded to the highest average scoring application(s).

Review panelists will be asked for recommendations for improving the application and commenting on the feasibility of the budget. These comments may form the basis for adjustments negotiated to the application prior to issuance of the grant award.

Award Process

The state retains the right to refrain from making any awards if it determines that to be in its best interest. This RFA does not, by itself, obligate the state. The state reserves the right to add terms and conditions during grant negotiations. These terms and conditions will be within the scope of the RFA and will not affect the application reviews.




By May 24, 2010, the state will issue a written Notice of Intent to Award (NIA) and send copies to all applicants. The NIA will identify the application(s) selected for award. The NIA will be followed by an intent to award letter with any changes recommended by the review panel.

Assurances and Required Forms

Each of the assurances and forms referenced in this application must be completed. The cover page and the assurances specific to this grant must be signed by the project’s fiscal agent and each member involved in the partnership.

All applicants need to take the necessary actions for this grant application to complete both the GEPA 427 Statement (page 26) and Private School Participation Form (page 27).

Continuation of Funding

In awarding the grant, the state expects the grantees to conduct all activities and evaluation measures as written or negotiated in the approved grant application. Failure to provide the requested performance reports; report and evaluate on all activities as proposed; and implement the grant as written, could result in the loss of funding. Any changes to the original funded application must receive prior approval by the state.

The state reserves the right to withhold funding, reduce funding, or terminate funding if the application is not meeting program reporting requirements, performance goals, and measures. This includes access to carry over (unexpended funds at the end of the fiscal year) funds.

After it has been awarded, the Alaska Department of Education & Early Development may terminate a grant by giving the grantee written notice of termination. In the event of termination after award, the Alaska Department of Education & Early Development shall reimburse the grantee for approved grant expenses incurred up to the notification of termination. This grant is subject to federal appropriations and may be reduced or terminated based on federal appropriated funds in any given fiscal year.

Fiscal Procedures

All federal funds for the Mathematics and Science Partnership grants must be assigned to individual accounts that can be readily identified and verified.

All payments will be made on a reimbursement basis for expenditures incurred by the grantee. Reimbursement requests must be submitted to EED at least quarterly and be listed on Form 165d (supplied by EED) and a computer printout indicating the date of obligation, vendor name, accounting object code, and exact amount of the transaction. Form 165b may be used for reporting transactions instead of computer printouts. The final payment will not be made until after the grant activity has been concluded and the required end-of-year report has been submitted to EED. Expenditures in excess of approved budget amounts will be the responsibility of the grantee.




Eligible expenditures will be limited to those directly necessary and essential to the accomplishment of the proposed grant activity. These will customarily include personnel salaries, benefits, consultant fees, materials and supplies, travel, telephone and postage. Indirect expenses may be charged only by the fiscal agent provided the applicant has a state-approved indirect cost rate. The eligibility of any disputed item shall be determined by EED, and the sponsoring school district or agency shall be responsible for any disputed expenditure. Changes in budgets for approved grant applications shall be conditional on written approval from the department.

The authorization to encumber grant monies will expire at the scheduled conclusion of the approved grant. The final financial statement should be submitted not later than 60 days after the grant expiration date.

School district grantees are responsible for ensuring that audit and accounting procedures are in compliance with OMB Circular A133. Nonprofit agencies’ and school districts’ regular audit must include a separate schedule of receipts and expenditures by expense object codes for each grant.

REIMBURSEMENT REQUESTS Send reimbursement requests to Melissa Bell, Grants Manager, Alaska Department of Education & Early Development, 801 West 10th Street, Suite 200, P.O. Box 110500, Juneau, AK 99811-0500.

Grant Year One Due Date

July 1 – July 31 August 31, 2010

August 1 – August 31 September 30, 2010

September 1 – September 30 October 31, 2010

October 1 – December 31 January 31, 2011

January 1 – March 31 April 30, 2011

April 1 – June 30 Final Report August 31, 2011

Grant Years Two & Three Due Date

July 1 – September 30 October 31

October 1 – December 31 January 31

January 1 – March 31 April 30

April 1 – June 30 Final Report August 31

Special note: Monthly billing for the first quarter is required. Final payment will be withheld until all reports, including project, have been submitted.




Required Reporting

USDOE reporting requirements change periodically as the federal grant funding legislation changes. Competitive grant awardees will receive a reminder of required reports approximately four to six weeks prior to the report due date. The reminder will include required reporting forms and requests for the latest information required by the grantor.

Grant Year One Due Date

Interim progress report September 30, 2010

Interim progress report April 30, 2011

Final report August 31, 2011

Grant Years Two & Three Due Date

Interim progress report October 31

Interim progress report April 30

Final report August 31

Send narrative reports to Sondra Meredith, MSP Program Manager, at [email protected] Alaska Department of Education & Early Development, 801 West 10th Street, Suite 200, P.O. Box 110500, Juneau, AK 99811-0500

Appeals Process

Chapter 40 of the Alaska Administrative Code governs the process of appeals. This information is available on the Alaska Legislative website at http://www.legis.state.ak.us/folhome.htm.

a. Scroll down to Alaska Information and select “The Alaska Administrative Code,”b. Select “Title 4 Education and Early Development,”c. Scroll down to and select “Chapter 40. Review and Appeals of Actions and Decisions

Regarding Funding. (4 AAC 40.010 - 4 AAC 40.050).”

Assurance of Nondiscrimination

The Alaska Department of Education & Early Development is an equal opportunity employer and will not discriminate in the Department employment, supervision, practices, services, or educational programs on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, age, sex, handicap, marital status, changes in marital status, pregnancy, parenthood, veteran’s status, veteran’s disability, or political affiliation.

Disallowable Costs

The following are costs not allowed under OMB Circular A-87. Bad debts, contingencies, contributions and donations, entertainment costs, fines and penalties, interest and other financial costs, expenses of local governmental bodies such as school boards and city councils, undercover of costs under grant agreements, and/or application preparation costs.



http://www.legis.state.ak.us/folhome.htm



Items that may be considered to be educational incentives for students or staff are assumed to be extraneous to the conduct of a federally funded program. If an applicant plans to use these federal funds for items such as t-shirts, banners, stickers, pencils, pizza parties, gift certificates, or other similar purposes, a written justification must be filed with MSP Program Manager and approved prior to reimbursement.

Subcontracts

The Department of Education & Early Development retains the right to establish the following procedures for subcontracting within a project resulting from this RFA.

a.A grantee may sub-contract for services up to $15,000 without prior approval from EED.b. A copy of sub-contracts of $15,000 or more must be sent to the MSP Program Manager.

Ownership of Copyright and Patents

Ownership of any copyrights, patents, or other proprietary interests that may result from grant activities shall be governed by applicable federal regulations. EED retains the rights for no-cost use or replication of any materials, designs, or programs developed through the use of these funds.

News Releases and Publications

The State of Alaska encourages agencies to publicize approval of these projects and their activities. Every local recipient of funds under this RFA must, in any publication or public announcement, clearly identify any program assisted under this title as a federally funded program under the No Child Left Behind Act, Title II funded through a grant from the Alaska Department of Education & Early Development. All press releases concerning this project must be approved by the MSP Program Manager prior to release.

The following disclaimer must be printed on materials resulting from work supported by the grant: "The contents of this publication (or book, report, film, etc.) were developed with the assistance of Mathematics and Science Partnership Grant, Title II, Part B federal funds from the Alaska Department of Education & Early Development. However, these contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the Department of Education & Early Development, nor endorsement by the Federal Government."

Indemnification

Any contractor shall indemnify, save harmless and defend the state, its officers, agents and employees from all liability, including costs and expenses, for all actions or claims resulting from injuries or damages sustained by any person or property arising directly or indirectly as a result of any error, omission or negligent act of the contractor, subcontractor or anyone directly employed by them in the performance of this contract.

All actions or claims including costs and expenses resulting from injuries or damages sustained by any person or property arising directly or indirectly from the contractor’s performance of this contract, which are caused by the joint negligence of the state and the contractor, shall be apportioned on a Form # 05-10-052

Title II-B MSP Competitive Grant ApplicationAlaska Department of Education & Early Development

page 10


comparative fault basis. Any such joint negligence on the part of the state must be a direct result of active involvement by the state.

Insurance

During the life of this grant, any contractor shall purchase and maintain insurance with a carrier or carriers satisfactory to the Department of Administration, Division of Risk Management, covering injury to persons or property suffered by the State of Alaska or a third party, as a result of errors or omissions or operations which arise both out of and during the sub-contractor engaged in work under this grant. A 30-day prior notice to the Contracting Officer is required before cancellation, non-renewal or breach and ground for termination of the contractor’s services.

Timeline

RFA Released April 16, 2010Audio for Applicants April 26, 2010, 3:30-4:30 p.m.Intent to Apply Received by EED April 30, 2010, by 4:30 p.m.Applications Received by EED May 14, 2010, by 4:30 p.m.Notice of Intent to Award May 24, 2010, by 4:30 p.m.Grant Award Issuance July 1, 2010Grant Periods

Year One July 1, 2010 – June 30, 2011Year Two July 1, 2011 – June 30, 2012Year Three July 1, 2012 – June 30, 2013

Technical Assistance

EED personnel are available to provide technical assistance and answer questions about the Title II, Part B program and the competitive grant application. Please contact Sondra Meredith at (907) 465-8663 or [email protected].

An audio conference for all applicants will be held April 26, 2010, from 3:30 to 4:30 p.m. Representatives of your partnership may participate, though participation is not required. To register for the audio conference, please contact Maureen Leiter at (907) 465-6459 or [email protected] no later than 3 p.m., April 23, 2010.






Section II: Application

Application Procedures

Each eligible partnership must complete all of the following steps:

Step 1: Please send a letter stating your intent to submit an application for an MSP grant by April 30, 2010. In this letter, please provide a brief description of the proposal. In addition, list the anticipated project’s partners, targeted schools/districts, the anticipated number and grade levels of teachers who will receive the intervention, the approximate number of students who will be affected, and an estimate of the funds needed. Notification of intent to apply is required by April 30, 2010 at 4:30 p.m. Submit your intent to apply by via e-mail to [email protected].

Step 2: Meet with members of the partnership and identify the high-needs LEA that will act as the fiscal agent for the subgrant. Also, determine who will act as the project director. The project director will be the main EED contact during the grant program and be responsible for completing all required reports.

Step 3: Assemble the application. The following (A-L) lists the required components of an application in the order they must be submitted. Narrative sections must be type written, double-spaced and the font used must not be smaller than 12 point. There must be one-inch side, top, and bottom margins. Charts, graphs, and tables may be single spaced with type no smaller than 10 point. Any supporting charts, graphs, and tables must be placed in an appendix and referenced in the narrative.

A. Application Cover Page

B. Project Abstract Provide an abstract of the proposal that briefly and concisely describes the partnership, project goals, activities, key features, and its intended results. The abstract should not be longer than one page.

C. Partnership Needs Assessment (Rubric Section 1)

This section shall include a description and the results of a comprehensive assessment (multiple sources) of teacher quality and professional development needs with respect to the teaching and learning of mathematics from selected schools in the partnership. Partners must collectively identify and prioritize the baseline professional development needs of involved teachers and the academic needs of their students, including:

The number and percentage of teachers in the schools that comprise the partnership who have sufficient and insufficient mathematics knowledge. This data should be disaggregated by grade level;

Specific student learning needs in the schools that comprise the partnership based on student achievement data from multiple sources; and

The number and percentage of students to be affected by this partnership.

This baseline data must be determined using a current assessment of teacher quality and professional development needs. This section will include a description of the methods used to





collect this information. The results of this comprehensive assessment must be used in the establishment of the goals and objectives for this proposal.

D. Partnership Project Goals and Objectives (Rubric Section 2)

Describe the specific long-term and short-term goals and objectives of the program. Link these goals and objectives to the professional development needs of the teachers. This section must include time-sensitive measurable objectives that will be accomplished and indicate progress toward:

Reducing the number of teachers who are not adequately prepared to teach mathematics, while increasing the number of teachers who are adequately prepared to teach mathematics; and

Increasing the academic achievement of students taught by the teachers involved in the program.

E. Research/Evidence Base and Efficacy of Plan to Increase Student Achievement (Rubric Section 3)

Partnership implementation plans must include: A description of prior efforts to improve teacher content knowledge and student

achievement in mathematics, lessons learned from these prior efforts, and how this project will relate to and build on those efforts;

Evidence that the planned activities will address identified measurable outcomes through clear strategies that provide roadmaps to achieving both the long- and short-term goals and objectives of the project;

A description of how the activities to be carried out by the eligible partnership will be based on a review of scientifically based research, and an explanation of how the activities are expected to improve student academic achievement and strengthen the quality of mathematics instruction;

A description of the targeted concepts and a timeline of all the professional development activities including the number, types, duration, intensity, and responsible party;

An explanation of how these activities will be aligned with the targeted Alaska Mathematics Content & Performance Standards, the Alaska Professional Teaching Standards, and the National Staff Development Council Standards;

A description that illustrates how the design of the professional development provides for work-embedded application of new learning, continuous reflection, and ongoing support;

Evidence that the professional development is rigorous and challenging in academic content and also develops pedagogical content knowledge (evidence of rigor and challenge should be present in the sample lesson plan, description, and timeline); and

Evidence that the design includes the following elements: Learn the Content, Reinforce the Content Learning, Consolidate the Learning, and Implement the Content. Include a sample activity plan that addresses all four elements.




F. Partnership Evaluation and Accountability Plan (Rubric Section 4)

The federal program requires that each partnership develop and implement an evaluation plan that serves both formative and summative functions. Rigorous evaluations and accountability have become central aspects of programs funded by the United States Department of Education (USDOE). In particular, the USDOE strongly encourages the use of random assignment evaluation designs in which intervention and comparison groups are constructed by randomly assigning some teachers to participate in the program activities and others to not participate. Random assignment from a pool of volunteers to intervention and comparison groups (at least 30 participants in each group) is an acceptable form of randomization for the purposes of this evaluation. Adequate recruitment must take place to compensate for attrition rates.

In cases where random assignment is not practical, USDOE suggests the use of a comparison group of teachers that are carefully matched (prior to the implementation of the intervention) to the targeted population. Matching characteristics should include academic achievement levels, demographics, and other characteristics thought to be relevant to the intervention (e.g. teachers’ years of classroom experience). Comparison groups should not be comprised of teachers that had the opportunity to participate in the intervention but declined.

Each partnership will report at least annually to EED and to the USDOE regarding its progress in meeting the objectives and annual targets described in the partnership’s accountability plan. Local evaluation must include tools that will be used to assess the program’s progress and measure the effect of the professional development. The annual report will include documents and tools developed by the partnership.

Grantees are expected to participate in EED’s overall evaluation of Alaska’s MSP Program. Participation includes meeting at designated times during the year and working with the state’s MSP Program Manager (e.g. using common data tools, providing data, submitting reports). Each project must use the required state instruments. Teacher content knowledge will be pre-assessed by using the Applied Mathematics WIN or KeyTrain program. ACT WorkKeys® in Applied Mathematics will be used as the post assessment. This requirement includes pretesting and post testing both intervention and comparison groups. The submission of a self-assessments of pre- and post- videotaped classroom mathematics lessons by the intervention group is required. Growth in student content knowledge will be evaluated using standards-based assessment results. In addition, each grantee must provide required data to the USDOE.

Describe the experimental design in detail, including the implementation. The plan will include evaluation procedures that measure:

Student academic achievement in mathematics; Teacher content knowledge and implementation efforts; Progress toward meeting the goals and objectives established in response to the identified

needs.

Include plans for both formative and summative evaluation. In the formative sense, evaluation should provide evidence of the strengths and weaknesses of the project, informing the partnership’s understanding of what works and what does not in order to guide project



http://www.act.org/workkeys/training


modifications as needed. The evaluation should also be designed to respond to the summative need for an objective analysis of data in order to determine the effectiveness of the project in contributing to student and teacher growth.

Identify and describe the qualifications of the organization and/or individuals responsible for executing the evaluation plan both internally and externally. The evaluation plan must also clearly articulate how the activities will help the MSP Program build a rigorous, cumulative, reproducible, and usable body of findings. Due to the significance of this section, if any indicators are scored below “Meets Standard” (see rubric), the grant proposal may be rejected.

G. Commitment and Capacity of Partnership (Rubric Section 5)

This section must show evidence of meaningful partnerships that exhibit characteristics including, but not limited to, the following:

Evidence that all partners participated in long-term planning for and development of this proposal;

Evidence that all partners will play a role in the ongoing planning, delivery, and evaluation of the proposed project;

Identification of all staff who will carry out the proposed activities and the specific institutional resources to support the activities. Vitas for each key partner’s staff will be submitted along with a completed Partner Contributions and Commitments for Each Participating Partner Form. Include a narrative of the roles of the partners and their duties and responsibilities related to the goals and the objectives of the project;

Recruitment of teacher participants must begin by the LEA before submitting the proposal. Evidence of a good-faith effort of recruitment by the partners must be submitted using the Teacher Assurance Form;

Description of the partnership’s governance structure specific to decision-making, communication, and fiscal responsibilities;

Description included on the Private School Participation Form how the private schools were consulted; and

A detailed description of how the partnership will continue the activities funded under this proposal after the grant period has expired. This description must include a plan for building leadership capacity both at the principal and teacher levels.

H. Partnership Budget and Cost Effectiveness (Rubric Section 6)

Submit one budget and narrative for the partnership showing how the funds will be spent during the first grant period. The budget should be tied to the scope and requirements of the project and provide sufficient detail for each partner. A 12-month project budget (7/1/10 through 6/30/11) must be submitted on the form available at http://www.eed.state.ak.us/forms/Grants/05-07-071.xls.

The budget must include detailed line-item descriptions. The amount contained in each budget category must be commensurate with the services or goals proposed, and the overall cost of the project must match the professional development provided and the number of teachers served. The budget must fund an evaluation and key partnership staff to participate in at least two state technical assistance meetings in Anchorage and one regional MSP meetings. A brief summary of



http://www.eed.state.ak.us/forms/Grants/05-07-071.xls

http://www.eed.state.ak.us/forms/Grants/05-07-071.xls


the budget outlining the costs of each category with totals for each partner must be provided in the narrative portion. Matching and in-kind contributions are taken into positive consideration during review for project funding. Include descriptions of all such contributions in the narrative.

I. Certification of Assurances

J. Non-Profit Organization (NPO) Demonstrated Effectiveness Document (if appropriate)

K. General Education Provisions Act (GEPA) 427 Statement

L. Private School Participation Form

Step 4: Submit the application electronically as an e-mail attachment in PDF format. Electronic applications are due by 4:30 p.m., Alaska Daylight Time, on May 14, 2010. Send e-mail with attached application to [email protected].

Alternatively, applicants may submit one original application for receipt at the Alaska Department of Education & Early Development by 4:30 p.m., Alaska Daylight Time, on May 14, 2010. Send or deliver hard copy application items to:

Maureen LeiterDivision of Teaching & Learning SupportAlaska Department of Education & Early Development801 West Tenth Avenue, Suite 200 • PO Box 110500Juneau, Alaska 99811-0500

Step 5: Complete and sign the Mathematics and Science Partnership Application Assurance Sheet included in this application package. Complete and submit both the GEPA 427 and Private School Participation Forms. The original signed Application Assurance Sheet must be faxed in time for receipt at EED by 4:30 p.m. on May 14, 2010. A hardcopy can follow in the regular mail.

Note: Applications, either hard copy or electronic, that are received after this time/date will not be considered unless applicant can provide an independent verification from U.S. Post Office or delivery service that the delivery would have met the required deadline, but was unavoidably detained by weather, the carrier’s mechanical failure, or unavoidable catastrophe. It is strongly recommended that applicants use a delivery method that produces a dated delivery receipt. The Department of Education & Early Development is not responsible for the failures of transmission, either to occur or to occur correctly, of electronically submitted applications. It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify that an electronic application has been received at the Alaska Department of Education & Early Development by the due date and time.





Application Cover Page

Project Title:

Project Director:

District Fiscal Agent for the Partnership:

Address:

Phone: Fax:

E-mail:

Principal Partners:

School of Arts & Sciences:

High-Needs LEA:

Funds requested for year one of this project: $

Anticipated Number of Participants:

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total

Teachers to be served directly

Students to be served

Title I-A students to be served

Postsecondary faculty

Signatures by Authorizing Officials:

Dean of School of Arts & Sciences Signature Date

Superintendent of High Needs Local Education Agency Signature Date




Program Abstract

Project Title:

Project Director:

District Fiscal Agent for the Partnership:

In one page or less, please state the goals and objectives of the project, the major activities, the planned participants, and the anticipated outcomes.




Partner Contributions and Commitments

REQUIRED PARTNERS

High-Needs LEA (Required):

District (Schools):

Primary Contact:

Title:

Mailing Address:

Phone:

Fax:

E-mail:

Describe how the high-needs LEA will support the partnership activities, such as: assist with identifying and recruiting teachers who need to increase content knowledge, provide detailed teacher and/or student data to the partnership for purposes of analysis/evaluation, supply materials for classroom use, link MSP content work to individual teachers’ professional development plans, provide time for teachers to meet and plan, or arrange for release time for teachers to take pre-tests and post-tests, meet with other administrators and teacher partners to assess future professional development needs, etc.

Printed Name and Signature of Superintendent of High-Needs LEA

Signature Date

Printed Name Title

Department

Phone Number Fax Number




E-mail Address




REQUIRED PARTNERS – continued

Mathematics Department/Faculty of an Institution of Higher Education (Required)

Institution:

Department:

Primary Contact:

Title:

Mailing Address:

Phone:

Fax:

E-mail:

Describe what supports the institution will provide to enhance partnership activities; such as: faculty to plan, present, and evaluate professional development, onsite support for teachers during school year, etc.

Printed Name and Authorized Signature of Chairperson of the Mathematics Department of partner institution:

Signature Date

Printed Name Title

Department


E-mail Address




ADDITIONAL PARTNERS (Duplicate this form for each additional partner)

Partner:

Primary Contact:

Title:

Mailing Address:

Phone:

Fax:

E-mail:

Describe the role of this partner and describe specific ways that this partner will support the partnership activities.

Printed Name and Authorized Signature of partner organization:

Signature Date

Printed Name Title

Department


E-mail Address




Teacher Assurance Form

Please complete one form for each selected school meeting high-needs criteria. (Expand or duplicate form as needed.)

School Name: LEA Name:

The following teachers have reviewed, discussed, and agreed to their part in implementing the MSP Plan that is being proposed by their LEA:

Name Title Signature

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.




Certificate of Assurances

The Certificate of Assurances must be completed by the Chief Executive Officer of each member of the partnership applying.

I hereby provide assurances to the Alaska Department of Education & Early Development (EED) that if the partnership receives an award under the terms of the Title II, Part B Mathematics and Science Partnership competitive grant program of the No Child Left Behind Act 2001, my organization will:

1. Conduct the professional development activities as described in this proposal;

2. Provide institutional/organization funding and resources as stated in this application;

3. Comply with state requirements regarding the audit of a grant-funded program;

4. Keep all records necessary for fiscal and program auditing and give EED, the Federal Agency, or the State Auditor access to and the right to examine all records, books, papers, or documents, related to this grant;

5. Retain all fiscal records for a period of seven years;

6. Comply with all regulations and requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act;

7. Comply with the administrative procedures and fiscal guidelines of EED and the United States Department of Education, including submission of final performance reports;

8. Use grant funds to supplement, and not supplant, funds from non-federal sources;

9. Comply with Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 USC 2000d) prohibiting employment discriminatory practices will result in unequal treatment of persons who are or should be benefiting from the grant aided activity; and

10. Ensure equitable participation of personnel from non-public schools to the extent feasible.

Partner Organization

Name

Title

Signature Date




Non-Profit Organization Effectiveness Document

If a non-profit organization (NPO) is part of the Eligible Partnerships Grant, then under federal regulations, each NPO must furnish the following written evidence: 1) past demonstrated effectiveness in providing professional development for teachers, paraprofessionals, and/or principals 2) financial stability as outlined below.

1. Documentation of Past Effectivenessa. Name of Project

b. Dates of Operation

c. City/State of Operation

d. Number of Participants

e. One-Page Summary of Course/Workshop Content and Activities

f. Evidence of Project Outcomes, e.g., such as a final evaluation report of project effectiveness or documentation of improved student outcomes

2. Documentation of Financial Stabilitya. Complete Copy of Organization’s most recent independently reviewed financial statement

b. Evidence of nonprofit corporate status from the Alaska Secretary of State.

I hereby provide assurances that the attached evidence accurately reflects the fiscal stability and demonstrated effectiveness of this organization.

Organization

Name of Chief Executive Officer

Signature/Date




General Education Provisions Act (GEPA) Statement

A new provision, Section 427, in the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA) applies to applicants for new grant awards under federal programs. This provision requires each application for funds to include a description of the steps the applicant proposes to take to ensure equitable access to, and participation in, its federally-assisted program for students, teachers, and other program beneficiaries with special needs. The statute highlights six types of barriers that can impede equitable access or participation: gender, race, national origin, color, disability, or age. It allows applicants discretion in developing the required description. Examples that may help illustrate how an applicant may comply with Section 427 can be found at http://www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/gepa427.doc.

The following two questions are provided to assist applicants in developing this statement:

1. What are the identified barriers from the six types above or others preventing access or participation in the federally funded project based on local circumstances?

2. What actions are planned to overcome these identified barriers (this need not be lengthy; a clear, succinct description to address those barriers as applicable to local circumstances is anticipated)?



http://www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/gepa427.doc


Private School Participation Form

Under NCLB, districts must conduct timely and meaningful consultations with appropriate officials of private schools in order to determine what services, if any, will be provided to eligible children, families, and teachers in those schools under the Mathematics and Science Partnership program funded by this application.

Districts must maintain a written record, signed by the private school official, of the required consultations with participating private schools. Private schools refusing participation should be asked to do so by written response. Records declining participation must be kept on file in the district office. The records must be made available to the state for monitoring purposes.

The Title IX Guidance on Equitable Services to Eligible Private School Students, Teachers, and Other Educational Personnel is located on the U.S. Department of Education’s website at http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/equitableserguidance.doc.

1. Are any nonpublic schools in your district participating in federal program(s) covered by this application?

Yes No N/A

2. Describe how the district consulted with private school representatives during all phases of the development and design of projects covered by the application. For those schools choosing to participate, describe how the children to receive benefits were identified, how the children’s needs will be identified, and what benefits will be provided.

3. If the answer to #1 is yes, list all the private schools in your district and the number of students who have been identified as eligible to benefit from projects included in this application (low-achieving students, not necessarily low-income students).

Name/LocationWilling toParticipate

Total Number

Enrolled K-12

# of StudentsIdentified to

Benefit

# of TeachersIdentified to

Benefit



http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/equitableserguidance.doc


Section III: Attachments

DefinitionsEligible Partnership: This term includes a private or public institution of higher education school of arts and sciences; and a high-needs local educational agency. It may include another LEA, a private school, a public elementary or secondary school, a community or technical college, an educational service agency, a nonprofit educational organization, another institution of higher education, a school of arts and sciences within such an institution, the division of such an institution that prepares teachers and principals, a nonprofit cultural organization, an entity carrying out a pre-kindergarten program, a teacher organization, a principal organization, or a business.

Eligible School: A school is designated as an eligible school if--

1. There is evidence of teachers with limited mathematics content knowledge or who are not endorsed in mathematics and the school has not achieved the annual measurable objective (AMO) for mathematics composite scores school-wide for the purpose of AYP during the last two years.

OR

2. There is evidence of teachers with limited mathematics content knowledge or who are not endorsed in mathematics and the school has a history of low test scores in mathematics (SBAs) and 35% or more of students identified in the proposal scored below proficient on assessments of student achievement in mathematics (SBAs).

The evidence used to establish eligibility must use recent data on student academic achievement and teacher qualifications. Mathematics assessment data must be used.

Four Elements of the Professional Development Design: The four elements are described below:

During “Learn the Content,” teachers are actively engaged in doing mathematics. Teachers view the content in terms of problem-solving and reasoning. Teachers are involved in a content-based workshop each day of the professional development. The topics are chosen according to need and are taught by college faculty or a combination of college faculty and other qualified personnel. The workshop portion of the day involves a mixture of whole-group instruction and small-group activity that provides teachers with a supportive learning environment.

During “Reinforce the Content Learning,” teachers work in small groups on a set of problems or an activity based on the topic of the workshop. Participants begin developing their discourse in both spoken and written forms of communication. They learn precision in language as they are expected to explain and defend their thinking among peers, and they experience that mathematical or scientific thinking can occur without the instructor. Each small group is expected to share some of their findings with the whole group.

During “Consolidate the Learning,” teachers experience different ways of learning the content in the context of doing mathematics so they understand the different learning styles of their students. Journal writing can be used as a means to experience quiet introspection. Participants reflect and write about their learning. In addition to individual introspection, learning is enhanced through acknowledgement of content that remains unclear and continued discussions




about the content. Alternative ways of thinking about the content are also explored during this time.

During “Implement the Content,” teachers are given the opportunity to experience teacher-tested, age-appropriate classroom demonstrations and/or lessons on the topics they just learned, and to discuss other ways of bringing the content into their classrooms. Teachers may examine their adopted mathematics program during this time to determine how their new content knowledge/materials will integrate with their required teaching materials. Connections to others strands and concepts and curricular areas can also be explored at this time.

High-Quality Professional Development: The term “high-quality professional development” means instructional activities that

1. are based on scientifically based research and state academic content standards, student academic achievement standards and assessment;

2. improve and increase teachers’ knowledge of the academic subjects they teach;3. enable teachers to become highly qualified; and4. are sustained, intensive, and classroom-focused in order to have a positive and lasting impact

on classroom instruction and the teacher’s performance in the classroom.

High-Needs Local Education Agency: A school district is designated as a high-needs local education agency if the district’s school(s) selected for this projected is an eligible school for the purpose of the MSP grant. In addition, the school(s) must meet one set of the criteria listed in the definition of an eligible school.

Scientifically Based Research: The term “scientifically based research” means research that involves the application of rigorous, systematic, and objective procedures to obtain reliable and valid knowledge relevant to education activities and programs and includes research that:

Employs systematic, empirical methods that draw upon observation or experiment; Involves rigorous data analyses that are adequate to test the stated hypotheses and justify the

general conclusions drawn; Relies on measurements or observational methods that provide reliable and valid data across

evaluators and observers, across multiple measurements and observations, and across studies by the same or different investigators;

Is evaluated using experimental or quasi-experimental designs in which individuals, entities, programs, or activities are assigned to different conditions, with appropriate controls to evaluate the effects of the condition of interest and with a preference for random-assignment experiments or other designs to the extent that those designs contain within-condition or across-condition controls;

Ensures that experimental studies are presented in sufficient detail and clarity to allow for replication or, at minimum, to offer the opportunity to build systematically on their findings;

Has been accepted by a peer-reviewed journal or approved by a panel of independent experts through a comparably rigorous, objective, and scientific review.




Resources The following resources have been identified as containing information that may be beneficial when developing MSP grant proposals. However, each partnership team will need to assess and select resources/references that best align to the needs of their targeted population.

Alaska Career Ready for information concerning KeyTrain, WIN, and WorkKeys®http://www.careerready.alaska.gov/

Alaska Mathematics Content and Performance Standardshttp://www.eed.state.ak.us/standards/pdf/standards.pdf

Alaska Professional Teaching Standardshttp://www.eed.state.ak.us/standards/pdf/teacher.pdf

Council of Chief State School Officers: Improving Evaluation of Professional Development Project - http://www.ccsso.org/projects/Improving_Evaluation_of_Professional_Development/

Data Interaction for Alaska Student Assessments (DIASA) https://solutions1.emetric.net/Alaska/Default.aspx

Ma, Liping Knowing and Teaching Elementary Mathematics: Teacher’s Understanding of Fundamental Mathematics in China and the United States, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1999, Mahwah, NJ.

MSPNet Library - http://hub.mspnet.org/index.cfm/library

MSPNet Resources - http://hub.mspnet.org/index.cfm/resources

National Staff Development Council Standards http://www.nsdc.org/standards/

Title IIB Mathematics and Science Partnerships Program Description from the U.S. Department of Education - http://www.ed.gov/programs/mathsci/index.html

What Works Clearing House – http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/

Wu, Hung-Hsi. “Professional Development of Mathematics Teachers” Notices of the AMS, Vol. 46, Number 5, May 1999. (p. 535-542) Available at http://www.ams.org/notices/199905/fea-wu.pdf



http://www.ams.org/notices/199905/fea-wu.pdf

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/%20

http://www.ed.gov/programs/mathsci/index.html

http://www.nsdc.org/standards/

https://solutions1.emetric.net/Alaska/Default.aspx

http://www.eed.state.ak.us/standards/pdf/teacher.pdf

http://www.eed.state.ak.us/standards/pdf/standards.pdf

http://www.careerready.alaska.gov/


Application Scoring Rubric

Incentive points: Although not a federally mandated requirement for the grant, Alaska will award incentive points to proposals submitted by partnerships which include two or more high-needs districts representing both rural and urban. *Up to 4 points can be added at the discretion of the review team based on the quality of the partnership which includes two or more high need districts representing both rural and urban Alaska.

1. Partnership Needs AssessmentThe needs assessment should indicate a clear statement of needs derived from multiple sources and multiple years, if available.Criteria Exceeds Standard Meets Standard Below Standard1a. Baseline data 5 points

There is clear evidence of baseline data from 3 or more teacher and/or student sources (i.e., norm-referenced assessments, SBA results, district benchmark assessments, college transcripts) to support mathematics education needs of the school population. Both teacher and student data are provided. Number and percentage of students to be affected per site is indicated. Specific student learning needs are provided. Data is disaggregated by concept and school.

4 pointsThere is clear evidence of baseline data from 2 teacher and/or student sources (i.e., norm-referenced assessments, SBA results, district benchmark assessments, college transcripts) to support mathematics education needs of the school population. Both teacher and student data are provided. Number and percentage of students to be affected per site is indicated. Specific student learning needs are provided. Data is disaggregated by concept and school.

0 points Limited baseline data is given. Needs identified are not adequately supported by evidence.

1b. Identification of professional development needs

4 pointsIn addition to the criteria for “Meets Standard,” the needs assessment also includes a correlation between teachers’ content knowledge in mathematics and student achievement.

3 pointsProvides information on the number of teachers lacking sufficient content knowledge in mathematics.

0 points Vague or limited information is given about the number of teachers lacking sufficient content knowledge in mathematics.

1c. Prioritization of professional development needs

3 pointsThere is clear evidence included that partners have collectively determined which professional development needs are of the highest priority and will be addressed by the project.

2 pointsSome evidence is provided to show that the targeted professional development needs were selected with input from project partners.

0 points Limited or no evidence is given to indicate why the partnership selected the targeted professional development needs.




2. Partnership Project Goals and Objectives:The project goals and objectives should be closely linked to the professional development needs of the teachers.Criteria Exceeds Standard Meets Standard Below Standard2a. Description of the project’s goals and objectives

5 pointsGoals are clear and objectives are specific, measurable, attainable, results-oriented, time bound.

4 pointsGoals and objectives are well defined and measurable.

0 points Goals or objectives are poorly designed and/or not measurable.

2b. Project is designed to achieve goals and objectives

5 pointsGoals and objectives are specifically linked to the individual professional development needs of the teachers.

4 pointsGoals and objectives are linked to the professional development needs of the teachers.

0 points Goals or objectives are poorly correlated with the needs assessment.




3. Research/Evidence Base and Efficacy of Plan to Increase Student Achievement:The plan for professional development should be guided by research and the Alaska Content and Performance Standards, Professional Teaching Standards and the National Staff Development Council Standards. The carefully designed activities should link to the goals and objectives of the plan with emphasis on content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge.Criteria Exceeds Standard Meets Standard Below Standard3a. Connecting prior professional development efforts to proposed project

3 pointsProvides detailed description of prior efforts to improve teacher content knowledge and student achievement in mathematics, lessons learned from these prior efforts, and how this project will build on those efforts.

2 pointsDescribes prior efforts to improve teacher content knowledge and student achievement in mathematics and relates how this project will build on those efforts.

0 points Does not adequately address prior efforts to improve teacher content knowledge and student achievement in mathematic and/or how this project will build on those efforts.

3b. Activities are linked to goals and objectives of proposal

5 pointsProvides specific and clear activities that link the goals and objectives stated in the project and the data provided by the needs assessment.

4 pointsEvidence is provided that activities will lead to achievement of the goals and objectives.

0 points Little or no correlation is made between activities and achievement of the project’s goals or objectives.

3c. Supporting research linking professional development strategies and increased student achievement in mathematics

6 pointsClearly outlines how the professional development strategies are valid and reliable, based on cited evidence-based research and how the project will enable teachers to improve instruction and increase student academic achievement in mathematic.

5 pointsIncludes clearly documented evidence-based research that the professional development strategies will improve instruction and increase student achievement in mathematics.

0 points Proposal includes references but provides little evidence of research linking professional development strategies to increased student achievement in mathematics.

3d. Description and timeline of professional development activities

4 pointsIncludes a clear and detailed description and timeline of all the professional development activities including the number, types, duration, intensity and responsible partner.

3 pointsIncludes a general description and timeline of all the professional development activities including the number, types, duration, intensity and responsible partner.

0 points Includes an incomplete description and/or timeline.




Criteria Exceeds Standard Meets Standard Below Standard3e. Planned activities are aligned with Alaska Content and Performance Standards

5 pointsIncludes a clear and detailed description of how the proposed professional development will incorporate the targeted Alaska Mathematics Standards.

4 pointsDescribes professional development that is aligned to the Alaska Mathematics Standards.

0 points Provides a limited description of how the professional development is aligned to the Alaska Mathematics Standards.

3f. Planned activities are aligned with Alaska Professional Teaching Standards and the National Staff Development Council Standards

3 pointsDescribes a detailed plan that clearly illustrates how the proposed professional development is aligned with the Alaska Professional Teaching Standards and the National Staff Development Council Standards, and provides for work-embedded application of new learning, continuous reflection, and ongoing support.

2 pointsDescribes how the proposed professional development is aligned with the Alaska Professional Teaching Standards and the National Staff Development Council Standards, and provides for work-embedded application of new learning, continuous reflection, and ongoing support.

0 points Does not provide sufficient evidence describing how the proposed professional development is aligned with the Alaska Professional Teaching Standards and the National Staff Development Council Standards, or does not provide for work-embedded application of new learning, continuous reflection, and ongoing support.

3g. Planned activities contain rigor and challenging content and develop pedagogical content knowledge

6 points Includes evidence that the professional development is rigorous and challenging in academic content and explicitly addresses knowledge of content and students and knowledge of content and teaching. (Evidence of rigor and challenge should be in the sample lesson plan, description and timeline.)

5 pointsIncludes evidence that the professional development is rigorous and challenging in academic content and also develops pedagogical content knowledge. (Evidence of rigor and challenge should be in the sample lesson plan, description and timeline.)

0 points Provides limited evidence that the professional development is rigorous or challenging in academic content and/or focuses mainly on pedagogy.

3h. Design elements for planned activities

3 pointsProposed plan is aligned to a professional development design that fully develops these 4 elements (see Definitions):

Learn the Content Reinforce the Content Learning Consolidate the Learning Implement the Content

Provides within sample lesson plan evidence that all four elements are addressed. Description of activities

2 pointsProposed plan is aligned to a professional development design that includes these 4 elements (see Definitions):


Provides within sample lesson plan evidence that all four elements are addressed. Description of activities

0 points Proposed plan is aligned to a professional development design that is missing one or more of these 4 elements (see Definitions):


Or, sample lesson plan does not provide evidence that all four elements are addressed and/or do not indicate




Criteria Exceeds Standard Meets Standard Below Standardand timelines demonstrate the implementation of the 4 elements and indicate that all offerings (summer and academic year) contain Learn the Content and Reinforce the Content Learning.

and timelines demonstrate the implementation of the 4 elements and indicate that some offerings contain Learn the Content and Reinforce the Content Learning.

that all sessions contain Learn the Content and Reinforce the Content Learning.

*Up to 4 points can be added by the review team based on the quality and quantity of professional development activities planned for summer and fall 2010.




4. Partnership Evaluation and Accountability Plan:*Identify evaluation methods that the project will use and explain why those methods are appropriate for the identified needs the proposal addresses. A proposal must make a compelling case for the activities of the project and describe how the activities will help the MSP program build a rigorous, cumulative, reproducible, and usable body of findings.*If one or more indicators in this section are scored “Below Standard,” the grant proposal may be rejected.Criteria Exceeds Standard Meets Standard Below Standard

4a. Design of evaluation plan is based on quasi-experimental or experimental design

5 pointsDescribes a detailed evaluation plan based on experimental design, with defined treatment and comparison groups with adequate sample sizes (at least 30 teachers) in each group, in which intervention and comparison groups are constructed by randomly assigning some teachers to participate in the project activities and others to not participate. A short statement of the research questions to be answered is included.

4 points Describes a detailed evaluation plan based on a quasi-experimental design in which intervention and carefully matched comparison groups are constructed, with adequate sample sizes (at least 30 teachers) in each group. A short statement of the research questions to be answered is included.

0 points Describes an evaluation plan that is not based on experimental or quasi-experimental design.

4b. Measurable evidence for impact of project on student achievement and teacher effectiveness goals

5 pointsRequired state measures (WIN, KeyTrain, WorkKeys and SBA) and additional measures (e.g. district measures) are used to show the effect of the professional development on student achievement and teacher effectiveness. The evaluation plan includes both a self-assessed pre and post video recorded classroom observations for the intervention group, and WIN or KeyTrain pretesting and Workkeys post testing of the intervention and comparison groups. Description of both summative and formative assessment procedures and an analysis of results are included.

4 pointsRequired state measures (WIN, KeyTrain, WorkKeys and SBA) and additional measures (e.g. district measures) are used to show the effect of the professional development on teacher effectiveness. The evaluation plan includes both a self-assessed pre and post video recorded classroom observations for the intervention group, and WIN or KeyTrain pretesting and Workkeys post testing of the intervention and comparison groups. Description of both summative and formative assessment procedures and an analysis of results are included.

0 points Required state measures (WIN, KeyTrain, WorkKeys and SBA) are not included and/or summative or formative assessment procedures are not described and/or an analysis of results is inadequate.

4c. Contribution to research 3 pointsEvaluation plan clearly articulates how the activities will help the MSP Program build a rigorous, cumulative, reproducible, and usable body of findings. Appropriate qualifications of the internal and external organization or individuals responsible for executing the plan are included.

1 pointsEvaluation plan describes how the activities will help the MSP Program build a rigorous, cumulative, reproducible, and usable body of findings. The internal and external organization or individuals responsible for executing the plan are referenced.

0 points Evaluation plan inadequately articulates how the activities will help the MSP Program build a rigorous, cumulative, reproducible, or usable body of findings and/or the internal and external organization or individuals responsible for executing the plan are not referenced.




5. Commitment and Capacity of Partnership:The project description must clearly demonstrate the submitting partnership has the capability of managing the project, organizing the work and meeting deadlines.Criteria Exceeds Standard Meets Standard Below Standard

5a. Partnership’s role in planning and development of proposal and project development, delivery, and evaluation

4 pointsEvidence is provided that clearly describes each partner’s role in the planning and development of the proposal and each partner’s role in the development, delivery, and evaluation of the proposed project.

3 pointsEvidence is provided that outlines each partner’s role in the planning and development of the proposal and each partner’s role in the development, delivery, and evaluation of the proposed project.

0 points Little or no evidence is provided to indicate the role of one or more partners.

5b. Duties and responsibilities related to the goals and objectives of the project

5 pointsThe proposal includes a detailed description of the duties and responsibilities and how they are aligned to the goals and objectives of the proposal.

4 pointsThe proposal includes an outline of the duties and responsibilities and how they are aligned to the goals and objectives of the proposal.

0 points Inadequate information on the duties and responsibilities is provided.

5c. Capacity of partnership 4 pointsEvidence of the number and quality of staff to carry out the proposed activities, a description of the institutional resources, vitas for key partners’ staff and Teacher Assurance Forms are provided.

3 pointsEvidence of the number and quality of staff to carry out the proposed activities and a description of the institutional resources are not clearly detailed. Vitas for key partners’ staff and Teacher Assurance Forms are provided.

0 points Explanation of capacity is inadequate and may be missing one or more of the criteria.

5d. Partnership governance 3 pointsThe partnership’s governing structure specific to decision-making, communication, and fiscal responsibilities is well defined and linked to the goals, objectives, and project activities. If applicable, the proposal includes a description of how the private schools were informed.

2 pointsThe partnership’s governing structure specific to decision-making, communication, and fiscal responsibilities is well defined. If applicable, the proposal includes a description of how the private schools were informed.

0 points Inadequate information is provided related to partnership governance or how the private schools were informed.

5e. Sustainability 3 pointsThere is a clear and specific plan for project continuation. The plan addresses the obstacles to future funding, how assessment data will be used, how the project will be promoted within the school and school districts, and how leadership capacity at the principal and teacher levels will be fostered.

2 pointsDescription of how the project will be sustained and continue when state funding is no longer available is outlined in the plan. The plan does address all of the following within the outline: how assessment data will be used, how the project will be promoted within the school and school districts and how leadership capacity at the principal and teacher levels

0 points There is an inadequate plan for how the partnership will continue when the state funding is no longer available.




will be fostered.




6. Partnership Budget and Cost Effectiveness:*The budget justification should clearly be tied to the scope and requirements of the project. The budget narrative should describe the basis for determining the amounts shown on the project budget page. All proposals should include provisions for evaluation of the activities.Criteria Meets Standard Below Standard6a. Budget details 4 points

The proposal provides a general summary of the budget outlining specific costs of each category over the duration of the project; the proposal includes a budget summary for each partner; and the budget supports the scope and requirements of the project.

0 points The proposal provides insufficient budget information regarding specific costs of each category over the duration of the project; the proposal provides insufficient information for each partner; or the budget does not support the scope and requirements of the project.

6b. Cost effectiveness 5 pointsThe amount included in each budget category is detailed and commensurate with the services or goods proposed, and the overall cost of the project is appropriate for the professional development provided and the number of teachers served.

0 points The amount included in each budget category is not commensurate with the services or goods proposed, or the overall cost of the project is not appropriate for the professional development provided and the number of teachers served.

6c. Provisions for evaluation and required meetings

3 pointsThe budget includes provisions for an evaluation, funds for key staff to participate in 2 state technical assistance meetings and 1 regional MSP meeting.

0 points The budget does not include adequate provisions for an evaluation, funds for key staff to participate in 2 state technical assistance meetings or 1 regional MSP meeting.

*Up to 2 incentive points will be awarded if one or more partners provide additional funding for the project beyond that requested in the MSP proposal.



Application Rating Sheet

Project Title:

Fiscal Agent for the Partnership:

School of Arts & Sciences:

High-Needs LEA:

Other Partners:

For EED use only:

Reviewer: Total Score:

Narrative TopicsPoints

PossiblePoints

AssignedIncentive

PointsScore

Partnership Needs Assessment 12

Partnership Project Goals and Objectives 10

Research/Evidence Base and Efficacy of Plan 35

Partnership Evaluation and Accountability Plan

13

Commitment and Capacity of Partnership 19

Partnership Budget and Cost Effectiveness 11

Total Score

Comments:

Form #05-09-005


05-10-052

Documents