Mathematics and Science Partnerships Grants

Request for Proposal (RFP) Mathematics and Science Partnerships Grants Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 2001 Title II, Part B 2012 2015 Competitive Grant Application Application & Selection Timeline: Letter of Intent to Apply due: November 2 nd, 2012 RFP Due to OSPI by: November 21 st, 2012 Award Notification: December 14 th, 2012 Project Period (for successful applicants): January 1 st, 2013 Sept. 30, 2015 Division of Teaching and Learning Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction Randy Dorn, State Superintendent OSPI provides equal access to all programs and services without discrimination based on sex, race, creed, religion, color, national origin, age, honorably discharged veteran or military status, sexual orientation including gender expression or identity, the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability, or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability. Questions and complaints of alleged discrimination should be directed to the Equity and Civil Rights Director at (360) 725 6162 or P.O. Box 47200 Olympia, WA 98504 7200. 1

I. Introduction/Background In January of 2002, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) became law. The Improving Teacher Quality Grant Programs (Title II) are a major component of the ESEA legislation. ESEA programs encourage scientifically-based professional development as a means for improving student academic performance. Title II, Part B of ESEA authorizes the Mathematics and Science Partnerships (MSP) program. MSP is intended to increase the academic achievement of students in mathematics and science by enhancing the content knowledge and teaching skills of classroom teachers. Partnerships between high need local education agencies (LEAs) and the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) faculty in institutions of higher education (IHEs) are at the core of these improvement efforts. Additional partners may include other LEAs, educational service districts (ESDs), public charter schools, businesses, and nonprofit or for profit organizations concerned with mathematics and science education. Private schools are encouraged to participate in the program. Private schools within the boundaries of any high need LEA may participate directly in the program through their local public school district. Other private schools may participate as a secondary partner with any high need LEA. Funds for new three year partnerships through this 2012 2015 MSP competitive grant program will be awarded by the Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI). Approximately $1.7 million is available for five to six new MSP projects. This money will be available from Jan. 2013 through Sept. 2015 pending availability of federal funding, evidence of project effectiveness and compliance to program requirements. II. III. Purpose 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 and LEAs to partner in providing high-quality, content based professional development programs. Application Process All applicants interested in applying for the Math and Science Partnership Grant should submit a Letter of Intent, as outlined in igrants, by November 2 nd, 2012 to Anne Gallagher. An optional Bidders webinar will be hosted on October 25 th, 2012 and November 1 st, 2012 to answer questions regarding the project and application process. All proposals are to be submitted through igrants (no hard copies) by November 21 st, 2012. Questions regarding math proposals should be directed to Anne Gallagher. Questions regarding science proposals should be directed to Ellen Ebert. Awards will be announced December 14 th, 2012. 2

IV. Washington s MSP Priorities Math With the adoption and implementation of the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSSM) in 2011 and full adoption within all grades by 2014, there is a great need to support implementation efforts around the CCSSM. The focus of MSP projects should align with the state wide and national implementation efforts that reflect a systemic approach and an ongoing collaboration of ideas, resources and lessons learned. A key component in the implementation of the CCSSM is an understanding of the vision and the shifts within the new CCSSM that guide the teaching of mathematics. The MSP program is designed to focus on increasing the content knowledge of teachers and to increase student achievement in math and science. The priorities of Washington s MSP for math is to ensure the MSP programs provide opportunities for mathematics teachers to engage with both the CCSSM content and the CCSSM practices in a focused and integrated way (Sztajn, Marrongelle, & Smith, 2012) which should include the implementation and development of rich tasks focused on the application of content knowledge, development of formative assessments, and collaboration with and learning from teachers and administrators. Proposals should build professional learning programs that focuses on developing supports and resources within one or more of the following areas: 1. Grades K 2 CCMMS domains of counting and cardinality and number and operations in base 10; 2. Grades K 5 CCMMS domains of operations and algebraic thinking; 3. Grades 3 5 CCMMS domains of number and operations-fractions; 4. Grades 6 7 CCMMS domains of ratios and proportions; and/or; 5. Grade 8 CCMMS domains of equations and expressions, functions and/or geometry. Based on the report: Supporting Implementation of the Common Core Standards for Mathematics: Recommendations for Professional Development, See Resources in igrants Science In science, Washington State K 12 Science Learning Standards were revised and adopted in 2009. The focus of MSP projects should reflect a systemic approach toward alignment of state science standards and The Framework for K 12 Science Education implementation efforts, including an ongoing collaboration of ideas, resources and lessons learned. The Washington s MSP for science has two main priorities: 1. Address how to develop and integrate STEM lessons at K 5 through effective use of existing science kits. 2. Secondary level focus on teacher professional development centering on examination and implementation of the Systems and Application of WA Science Learning Standards/Essential Academic Learning Requirements (EALRs) (http://www.k12.wa.us/science/standards.aspx). In addition, Washington is currently considering the connection of the Next Generation Framework in relation to implementation of the 2009 science standards; as well as potential adoption of the NGSS once finalized in 2013 2014. 3

Proposals must offer a professional learning program that offers science classes or courses of study in one or more of the following areas: 1. STEM lesson development using 2009 WA K 12 Science Learning Standards, The Framework for K 12 Science Education, Common Core English Language Arts Standards and existing K 5 curricula to increase the depth of teacher content knowledge, model a formative assessment process, and develop an understanding of both the science crosscutting concepts and the practices of science and engineering. 2. Engaging teachers in the development of secondary STEM curricula and supports that emphasize the 2009 WA K 12 Science Learning Standards and The Framework for K 12 Science Education, which increases the depth of teacher content knowledge, models a formative assessment process, and develops an understanding of both the science crosscutting concepts and the practices of science and engineering. All math and science proposals must include each of the following: 1. The materials produced must be developed for online use and made available for educators throughout Washington State and nationally with the understanding that materials will be integrated into the future professional development of teachers in the state of Washington. Each project will be expected to create and maintain an online resource library that disseminates all resources developed through the MSP project. 2. A clear plan outlining how the work of the grant will align with the district s implementation plan for 2009 WA K 12 Science Learning Standards /The Framework for K 12 Science Education and the CCSSM. 3. Evidence of a strong commitment of involvement from school district leaders and educators towards supporting the grant project and continuation of project elements beyond funding. 4. A clear plan on how the project will be designed to build capacity beyond the end of grant funding and ways in which the project can be replicated in other districts. V. Key Features of Grant A. Partnerships Partnerships are required for all successful MSP proposals. There are four key areas to consider, three of which are required. 1) Core Partners Required Partnerships eligible to apply for an MSP grant must include: a) a high need LEA (as defined in the next section), b) the science, technology, engineering, or math (STEM) department of an accredited two or four year university, and, c) opportunity for non-public school partner(s) NOTE: A LEA may only be part of one proposal. 4

2) Lead Partner Required One of the core partner organizations must be identified as the lead partner and identify a project director from this organization. The lead partner submits the MSP proposal on behalf of the partnership. The lead partner accepts management and fiduciary responsibility for the project. 3) External Evaluator Required An external evaluator, which can be an organization or an individual, must be selected to be an objective collaborator with the partnership regarding issues of planning, executing, and reporting on findings from both formative and summative evaluations of the programs. The evaluator should be a working member of the project team from the earliest stages of proposal development through the completion of a final cumulative report. The external evaluator is expected to provide quantitative and qualitative data for the annual progress report (APR). 4) Additional Partners Optional Additional partners may include: a) other school districts, public charter schools, public or private schools or a consortium of such schools. (including participating teachers from high need LEAs) b) the STEM department of other institutions of higher education c) the education department of the same or another institution of higher education d) educational service districts (ESDs) e) a business or f) a nonprofit or for profit organization of demonstrated effectiveness in improving the quality of STEM teachers. B. District/Local Education Agency (LEA) Eligibility A high need LEA in the Washington MSP program is considered to be one in which at least 40% of its students qualify for the free and reduced meal program as determined by the most recent data collected by OSPI. Use the data from the Public Schools Free and Reduced Price Application (found in the Resource section within igrants or within school report cards) to support this eligibility requirement. C. Content-Based Professional Development Successful MSP projects will focus on professional development and materials that explicitly address the mathematics and science content and practices of the 2009 WA K 12 Science Learning Standards/The Framework for K 12 Science Education and the CCSSM. Successful projects will provide vivid examples of teaching and learning that are consistent with 2009 WA K 12 Science Learning Standards/The Framework for K 12 Science Education and the CCSSM. The professional learning programs will focus on the deep science and mathematics content knowledge that teachers need to understand for effective instruction, assessment, and evaluation. All LEAs who participate in the project will, in 5

part, implement the professional learning in classrooms and provide feedback on its impact on student learning and teacher instruction. The proposed MSP partnership must produce by the end of the project: a) High quality, content specific professional development for teachers, including special education teachers and teachers of English language learners; b) at least 80 hours of professional development (including 1 2 week summer institute) and support throughout the year to guide the integration of the course content within teachers classrooms (such as Professional Learning Communities); c) a virtual library/web page to communicate and share partnership activities and professional development materials that is maintained throughout the project; d) evidence of increased student learning and shifts in content knowledge and teaching practices that align with 2009 WA K 12 Science Learning Standards/The Framework for K 12 Science Education and the CCSSM. D. LEA Needs Assessment The goals and objectives for the proposal must be based on the results of a needs assessment from all participating districts that includes the following: an assessment of teacher content knowledge, and/or professional development needs, and/or student achievement needs with respect to the standards based teaching and learning of mathematics, science, technology, and/or engineering. The assessment should also reflect the needs within the district related to district wide implementation of 2009 WA K 12 Science Learning Standards/The Framework for K 12 Science Education and the CCSSM. E. Research Based Design Project design must be informed by recent research and studies on teaching and learning. Scientifically based research involves the application of rigorous, systematic, and objective strategies to obtain reliable and valid knowledge relevant to education activities and programs. This research base should provide a rationale for the chosen professional learning module framework and activities. F. Private Schools Consultation Grantees must adhere to regulations 76.652 and 76.656 of the US Department of Education s General Administration Requirements (EDGAR) and Section 9501 of the ESEA as authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act which states that: the MSP project must include and provide services to nonpublic school teachers and students within the LEA s attendance area. The applicant agency must identify and contact, prior to submitting a grant proposal, all appropriate nonpublic school officials and report on this meaningful consultation by filling out and submitting the Equitable Participation of Non public Schools Certification form (Appendix D) with the project proposal. The purpose of 6

this regulation is to ensure that teachers of all students (public or private) are able to benefit from this provision of federal funding. For assistance in identifying all of the nonpublic schools located within its geographic boundaries, the applicant should visit OSPI s website at: http://www.k12.wa.us/privateed/privateschools/default.aspx,which includes a list of nonpublic schools by district. G. Project Evaluation Each successful applicant is required to hire an external evaluator. Projects must develop a plan that identifies and uses valid and reliable (research based) measurement tools and strategies to describe how it will guide project progress throughout the year and how they will measure the impact of the work described in the project plan. The project evaluation should be ongoing and include both formative and summative assessment methods identifying the instruments to be used. Formative assessment should be used to access the strengths and weaknesses of the project and should help the project partners identify the degree in which lessons learned are being applied within the classroom. This could include classroom observations of students using content knowledge to construct and communicate arguments based on mathematical or scientific evidence or assessment of student work. Summative evaluation should focus on quantitative (such as pre and post testing) and qualitative data (such as pre and post videography) that gauges the effectiveness of student and teacher outcomes as stated in the evaluation and accountability plan. In addition, the external evaluator of the project will coordinate the administration of the teacher content measures and student achievement measure twice during the year: before professional development begins, and again after all professional development has been completed. If the project includes teachers in grades K 2, since there is no state testing for math or science at these grade levels, the project must explicitly state how it will monitor student growth. The project proposal should identify and describe the qualifications of the external evaluating agency and/or individuals responsible for executing the evaluation plan. The project must indicate how it is following IRB protocols. H. Reporting Requirements Each partnership will be expected to complete two reports each year due the end of September and the end of February. 1) an interim report to OSPI (emailed to Anne Gallagher), 2) an Annual Performance Report (APR) to be submitted to USDOE through the MSP website at the projects yearly reporting date. 7

These reports will share the project s progress in meeting the objectives and targets described in the partnership s evaluation plan. The annual report (APR) follows specific guideline/formats for reporting content and data which will be communicated during meetings and/or via email from OSPI. I. Budget and Budget Narrative The partnership budget must reflect the goals and objectives of the overall project. Partnerships must complete a budget summary with supporting narrative for the entire proposed project identifying costs for each year of the grant. The estimated cost in each budget category must be commensurate with the proposed activities. The amounts requested in each line item must be documented and justified in the budget narrative. Uses of Funds MSP grant funds should be used to supplement, not supplant, state and/or local funds that would otherwise be used for proposed activities. 1) Funds may be used for administrative costs, stipends, substitutes, tuition, materials for professional development, program evaluation, program dissemination, travel to state and national Title II B meetings, etc. Note: Grant funds may not be allocated to pay for both a participant's graduate credit tuition and to provide a stipend. 2) Indirect costs, if charged, must be at the institutions approved rate and may not exceed a rate of 8% (see OSPI s Indirect Rate Policy). 3) Consultant fees may not exceed $100 per hour, up to $750 per day. 4) All budgets must fund an external evaluator. At least 10 % of grant must be spent on external program evaluation. 5) Travel should be provided for key partnership staff to participate in at least two state MSP meetings and one federal MSP meeting. 6) Funds may not be used for costs associated with writing the proposal; materials or equipment for students of participating teachers; space rental; expenditures for any food ; supporting the research of individual scholars or faculty members; full time staff positions; any technology equipment such as computers, projectors, interactive white boards, or other similar equipment; supporting travel to out of state professional meetings/conferences (other than the USDOE Mathematics and Science Partnership meetings and/or conferences). J. Professional Development Materials Projects are expected to create an online resource library/website to disseminate materials created and used with MSP funds. This resource library must be updated twice a year and have open access. OSPI will post the link on the MSP webpage. The project s resource library will include all participant materials, instructor notes, any curriculum developed, formative assessments, video of students and/or teachers, student work and any other 8

necessary components that would enable replication of the professional development designed by the MSP project. OSPI expects to review and receive copies of professional development materials and resources uploaded to the online resource library. All materials (e.g. handouts, activities, and references) developed through the MSP projects will be licensed through the Creative Commons license. VI. Selection of Successful Partnerships A. Review Process Grants will be awarded through a competitive review process. If a proposal is submitted late, is incomplete, fails to submit through and follow the igrants format or a project cannot establish its eligibility, the proposal will be omitted from the competition. An expert panel will evaluate eligible applications using the established criteria reflected in the scoring rubric. The expert panel will review each eligible application and determine approval. Following the review, OSPI staff will contact successful project directors to discuss any modifications of the project plan and/or budget that may be required. In order to maximize the effects of limited funds, applicants may be asked to revise the project budget and/or scope of work. If a project is not chosen, there will be an opportunity for debrief of unsuccessful proposals. B. Review Criteria The complete scoring rubric (see Appendix F) that will be used by reviewers is provided in the Appendix. OSPI will emphasize specific criteria that encompass the Washington MSP priorities in meeting overall professional development and teacher education goals. Scoring Rubric Categories Points Possible Commitment and Capacity of Partnership 9 Demonstration of Need and Research Base 20 Alignment of Goals and Objectives with Professional Learning Needs 18 Efficacy of Plan 32 Evaluation and Accountability Plan 20 Budget and Cost Effectiveness 9 Priority Scoring Points 9 C. Notification of Grant Awards Once the review process is completed, all applicants will be notified of the status of their proposal. Notification is anticipated by December 14 th, 2012. 9

Application Instructions Proposals must be received at OSPI through igrants by 12:00 p.m. on November 21 st, 2012 Application Preparation Checklist for Submission This checklist is provided for project director s convenience and should not be uploaded as part of the proposal. Fill out these sections in given fields within igrants: Partnership Needs Assessment Research/Evidence Base to Program Partnership Work Plan Partnership Evaluation and Accountability Plan Commitment and Capacity of Partnership Partnership Budget and Cost Effectiveness Complete and upload the following forms within igrants: Title and Abstract (Appendix A) Contact Information (Appendix B) Partnership Contributions and Commitments Form A (Appendix C) Partnership Contributions and Commitments Form B (Appendix C) Partnership Contributions and Commitments Form C (Appendix C) Partnership Contributions and Commitments Form D, (Appendix C) Equitable Participation of Non-public Schools (Appendix D) Assurances signed through igrants Program Budget Summary with Narrative Uploaded Vita of Key Partnership staff 10

Required Proposal Components A. Title and Abstract Provide a title and abstract of the proposal that briefly and concisely describes the MSP project s goals and objectives as well as anticipated activities. Provide a timeline of activities covering the entire length of the project. Please include the partnership participants (IHE participating faculty, high need LEAs, and other partners), activities, key features (model of delivery), number of participating teachers, and the project s intended results. Include specific grade band(s) and content area(s) the project will target. The abstract should be no more than 1,000 words. Complete forms and upload to igrants: Title and Abstract Form (Appendix A) Contact Information Form (Appendix B) B. Partnership Needs Assessment Describe identified, specific, and prioritized professional development needs of participant teachers that are based on data derived from a needs assessment. Provide evidence of student learning needs based on student achievement data from available sources. Describe how the results of the needs assessment established the goals and objectives for this project. C. Research/Evidence Base to Program Provide a description of prior efforts to improve teacher content knowledge and student achievement in mathematics and/or science, lessons learned from these prior efforts, and how this project will relate to and build on those efforts. Provide a review of how this project reflects current research based best practices, and provide an explanation of how the project activities are expected to improve student academic achievement and strengthen the quality of mathematics/science instruction. Cite research based evidence that the professional development will be rigorous and challenging in academic content and will develop pedagogical content knowledge. 11

D. Partnership Work Plan Goals and Objectives Provide a description of measurable project goals and objectives of the plan and how they are aligned to the needs assessment. Describe recruitment and retention strategies that will be used with the teacher cohort group. Objectives should be written in year long increments so projects may assess progress towards goals qualitatively and quantitatively on an annual basis. Project Action Plan The project action plan should describe the proposed creative and strategic activities that extend beyond commonplace approaches and model content specific instructional strategies that will provide teachers with the methodologies to effectively improve student achievement; and describe how the professional learning sessions specifically target critical areas of focus within the Common Core State Standards, big ideas in science, and the goals and objectives of the project. The narrative should provide evidence of (a) an effective partnership among all organizations that work together to realize the project s vision and goals, (b) the participation of all project members in planning, design, and implementation, and (c) sufficient capacity of the partners to support the scale and scope of the project and how the project aligns with the district s implementation plan for the Next Generation Science Standards and the Common Core State Standards. It should describe in detail how the partnership will achieve the goals and anticipated quantitative outcomes by means of a coherent plan. It should describe how many schools and teachers will participate in the project and the level of need at those schools. Furthermore, it should describe how each partner will contribute to the proposed work. Provide a description of how the professional development for the project incorporates site based support in applications of new learning and opportunities for continuous reflection and collaboration on the part of participating teachers. Provide a timeline of the professional development activities including the number, types, duration, responsible parties, and targeted concepts for each professional development activity. 12

E. Partnership Evaluation and Accountability Plan The federal program requires that each partnership develop and implement an annual 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). Provide a detailed description of the instruments/metrics to be used within the evaluation design (include both formative and summative assessment methods) which will measure progress toward meeting the goals and objectives established in response to the identified needs. Identify quasi experimental or experimental design using comparison or control groups. Describe the formative and summative assessment methods to be used to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the project and help the partnership identify the extent to which the lessons learned from the sessions are being applied by teacher participants at the classroom level. Summative evaluation should give an objective analysis of qualitative and quantitative data, thus measuring the effectiveness of the project on student and teacher outcomes (including teacher content knowledge and student achievement). F. Commitment and Capacity of Partnership Provide evidence that all partners participated in the long term planning for and development of this proposal and that all partners will play a role in the ongoing planning, delivery, and evaluation of the proposed project. Identify all staff and their roles in carrying out the goals and objectives of the project. Include any institutional resources that will be used to support the activities of the plan. Vitas (maximum of 2 pages) for each key partner s staff (including the external evaluator) should be uploaded. Provide clear evidence of a strong commitment and involvement from administrators and the district(s) towards supporting the grant project and continuation of project beyond funding. Include a clear plan on how the project will be designed to build capacity beyond the grant funding and ways in which the project can be replicated in other districts. Provide a description and evidence of how private schools were informed of this project. List any participating private school. 13

Complete forms and upload to igrants Partner Contributions and Commitments Form A (Appendix C) Partner Contributions and Commitments Form B (Appendix C) Partner Contributions and Commitments Form C (Appendix C) Partner Contributions and Commitments Form D, as needed (Appendix C) Equitable Participation of Non-public Schools (Appendix D) Program Budget Summary Grant Assurances Leadership team vitas (maximum of 2 pages) G. Budget and Budget Narrative Provide a project budget summary for each year of support requested. The amounts requested for each budget line item must describe in detail the basis for determining each amount listed on the budget form and each line item should be documented in the budget narrative. The project budget narrative should be aligned with the proposed work plan and should show evidence of effective, appropriate, and efficient use of funds. Annual reapplication is required for continuation of funding for all MSP Program grants. Required annual performance reports (APR s) must include an itemized breakdown of these budget categories showing actual costs and a budget narrative explaining costs for each line item. The initial and annual budget form is a required element of the MSP Program grant. The project budget summary is to be completed and uploaded within igrants. 14

Summary of Project Budget Fiscal Agent Funding Request Applicant: Project Title: Direct Costs Requested 1/2013 9/2013 2013 2014 2014 2015 1. Salary/wages-project director(s) administrative 2. Salary/wages-other administrative (specify) 3. Employee benefits-administrative (director & other) 4. Purchased services-evaluator contracts 5. Instructional Materials & supplies (no equipment) 6. Travel-OSPI/US Department of Education meeting 7. Travel-Administrators 8. Travel-Teachers 9. Other Administrative (include classified personnelspecify) 10. Classified Employees benefits 11. Purchased instructional services (Consultants and Contracts) 12. Teacher Stipends 13. Substitutes 14. Tuition 15. Other: 16. Indirect Costs Total Budget Narrative: 15