Web view... Word (.doc or .docx), ... Foundations for long term relationships of community partners...

OREGONMATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE

PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM(ESEA Title IIB MSP)

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 2001Public Law 107-110

Title II, Part B

COMPETITIVE GRANT APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS

ANDINFORMATION ON SCORING

Partnership Applications Due:June 4, 2012

This Request for Proposals and support materials are available on the Oregon Department of Education’s Title IIB website: www.ode.state.or.us/search/results/?id=103

Issued by theOregon Department of Education

Office of Educational Improvement and Innovation255 Capitol Street NE

Salem, OR 97310-0203

http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/results/?id=103

Oregon Mathematics and Science Partnerships Program (ESEA Title IIB MSP)Competitive RFP –2012-2014

Table of ContentsPage

I. Background Information.......................................................................................................3

A. Title IIB Mathematics and Science Partnerships.....................................................................3B. Purpose of Title IIB Program...................................................................................................3C. Goals of Oregon Title IIB Program..........................................................................................4D. Contacts....................................................................................................................................6

II. General Information..............................................................................................................7

A. Eligibility..................................................................................................................................7B. Program Requirements.............................................................................................................7C. Reporting Requirements.........................................................................................................10D. Funding...................................................................................................................................11

III. Application Process..............................................................................................................13

A. Application Review and Scoring............................................................................................13B. Timeline and Important Dates................................................................................................14C. Application Requirements......................................................................................................15D. Instructions for Submission....................................................................................................15

IV. Appendices............................................................................................................................16

Appendix A: Definitions...............................................................................................................16Appendix B: Required Documentation - List and Forms.............................................................18Appendix C: Option 1 Budget Worksheets and Scoring Rubric..................................................23Appendix D: Option 2 Budget Worksheets and Scoring Rubric..................................................30Appendix E: Resources.................................................................................................................37

of 37


I. Background Information

A. TITLE IIB MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE PARTNERSHIPS

In January of 2002, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 2001 became law. The Improving Teacher Quality Grant Programs (Title II) are major components of the Elementary and Secondary Education legislation. These programs encourage scientifically-based professional development as a means for improving student academic performance. As schools are responsible for improving student learning, it is essential to have highly qualified teachers leading the way.

Title II, Part B of the ESEA authorizes a Mathematics and Science Partnerships competitive program within each state. The Oregon Department of Education (ODE) is responsible for the administration of this program. The program is intended to increase the academic achievement of students in mathematics and science by enhancing the content knowledge and teaching skills of classroom teachers. Title I and Title IIA funds may be used to support the partnership’s activities to demonstrate progress towards meeting the district partner’s Title I Adequate Yearly Progress goals.

The ODE is responsible for conducting this competitive grant program and will make awards to partnerships of high-need school districts and science, mathematics, and engineering departments within institutions of higher education. The overall goal is to give districts, and mathematics and science higher education faculty, joint responsibility for improving mathematics and science instruction through the process of implementing high-quality professional development.

B. PURPOSE OF TITLE IIB PROGRAM

The purpose of this program is to improve the academic achievement of students in the areas of mathematics and science by encouraging State educational agencies (SEAs), institutions of higher education, local educational agencies (LEAs), elementary schools, and secondary schools to participate in programs that:

(a)(1) 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 recruiting, training, and advising mathematics and science teachers;

(a)(2) Focus on the education of mathematics and science teachers as a career-long process that continuously stimulates teachers' intellectual growth and upgrades teachers' knowledge and skills;

(a)(3) Bring mathematics and science teachers in elementary schools and secondary schools together with scientists, mathematicians, and engineers to increase the subject matter knowledge of mathematics and science teachers and improve such teachers' teaching skills through the use of sophisticated laboratory equipment and work space, computing facilities,

of 37


libraries, and other resources that institutions of higher education are better able to provide than the elementary schools and secondary schools;

(a)(4) Develop more rigorous mathematics and science curricula that are aligned with challenging state and local academic content standards and with the standards expected for postsecondary study in engineering, mathematics, and science; and

(a)(5) Improve and expand training of mathematics and science teachers, including training such teachers in the effective integration of technology into curricula and instruction.

C. GOALS OF OREGON TITLE IIB PROGRAM

The Oregon Department of Education will award the 2012-2014 Title IIB MSP funding to improve student achievement and teacher content knowledge in science and mathematics in support of the Oregon Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education Initiative through two options. Option 1 will provide funding for partnerships to establish a program of STEM Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) in Oregon schools. Option 2 will provide funding for partnerships to broaden their program to incorporate a regional approach to STEM teaching and learning in Oregon schools.

1. Option 1: Improve Student Achievement and Teacher Content Knowledge in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics through the use of STEM Professional Learning Communities and the inclusion of the components of effective STEM education outlined in the Oregon STEM Education Initiative.

Awardees under this option submit a proposal that details how they will develop STEM Professional Learning Communities. Descriptions should include how the proposal will meet the required elements of a STEM Professional Learning Community (STEM PLC) which include: (A) Effective Instructional Planning using Interconnected Lessons; (B) Effective Instructional Modeling; (C) Effective Instructional Refinement & Dissemination Appendix C includes the specific scoring rubric that details the requirements and scoring for Option 1 proposals. See Appendix E for additional STEM Professional Learning Communities Resources.

2. Option 2: Improve Student Achievement and Teacher Content Knowledge in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics through the use of a regional approach and the inclusion of the components of effective STEM education outlined in the Oregon STEM Education Initiative.

Awardees under this option submit a proposal that details how they will build upon a developed MSP partnership to deepen the program to incorporate research-based science, mathematics, and STEM teaching and learning, address the components outlined in the Oregon STEM Education Initiative, and broaden the partnership to provide a regional STEM Education Partnership. Appendix D includes the specific scoring rubric that details the requirements and scoring for Option 2 proposals. See Appendix E for additional STEM Education Partnership Resources.

3. Options 1 and 2: All proposals must address the components of effective STEM Education detailed in the Oregon STEM Education Initiative and also include alignment to and provide

of 37

http://www.ode.state.or.us/wma/stem/stem-education-initiative-draft-for-public-review-11-3-11-.pdf







support for implementation of the Common Core State Standards and the Oregon Science Standards. The Oregon STEM Education Initiative is intended to catalyze the formation of regional STEM Education Partnerships and state-wide networking between regional STEM Partnerships to support improvement of student and teacher STEM content knowledge.

Oregon’s STEM Education Initiative defines STEM as: “An approach to teaching and lifelong learning that emphasizes the natural interconnectedness of the four separate STEM disciplines. The connections are made explicit through collaboration between educators resulting in real and appropriate context built into instruction, curriculum, and assessment. The common element of problem solving is emphasized across all STEM disciplines allowing students to discover, explore, and apply critical thinking skills as they learn.”

The professional development given with Title IIB funding must provide mathematics and science content knowledge and skills, and the outcomes specified in the proposal must include improving teacher content knowledge in mathematics and science and improving student achievement in mathematics and science. To incorporate STEM teaching and learning, teachers need to develop knowledge and pedagogy to link the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics whenever it is appropriate and in a manner that is as authentic as possible. In the Oregon STEM Education Initiative, the foundation of STEM education is the content of each discipline. The definition, however, responds to the growing call to help students see the connections among the separate STEM disciplines and to address more authentic questions and problems that frequently cross the discipline boundaries. The professional development provided should build upon the traditional science and mathematics disciplines in this approach, and should also focus on how discipline knowledge can be connected and reinforced across the four disciplines through real-world context.

STEM partnerships must be designed to help forge connections to Oregon’s Education Initiatives including: The Oregon Diploma, Common Core State Standards, Next Generation Science Standards, Next Generation of Accountability, Teacher Effectiveness, Oregon Technology Standards, Career and Technology Education Skill Sets, Credit for Proficiency, and School Improvement which all have connections to STEM. See Appendix E for additional Oregon Education Initiatives Resources.

Regional STEM Partnerships will be encouraged to follow the Carnegie model of Networked Improvement Communities (Bryk, Gomez, & Grunow, 2010) where partners with diverse expertise within the region come together to solve complex problems. Each region will be asked to describe how STEM education resources are deployed and opportunities are seized to increase student achievement and teacher knowledge and skills in science, mathematics, and STEM content areas; increase student interest and skill in science, mathematics, and STEM; and provide opportunities for students to become proficient in science, mathematics, and STEM concepts.

Under the Network Improvement Communities model, partners will establish:

A Common Agenda for the Oregon STEM Education Partnership to transform PK-12 education so that all students experience science, mathematics, and STEM curricula that keep them on a successful pathway for college, careers, and citizenship.

of 37



http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?id=1628



http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/Standards_Framework_Homepage.html

http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/Standards_Framework_Homepage.html



http://www.ode.state.or.us/teachlearn/subjects/science/curriculum/2009_adopted_k-h_science_standards_updated(11.13).pdf

http://www.ode.state.or.us/teachlearn/subjects/science/curriculum/2009_adopted_k-h_science_standards_updated(11.13).pdf



The following student outcomes shall be considered a central objective for all

STEM partnerships: (1) Improving teacher knowledge and skills and student performance in mathematics, science, and STEM related content; (2) Increasing interest in and improved preparation for mathematics, science, and STEM careers; and (3) Becoming proficient in mathematics, science, and STEM concepts necessary to make personal and societal decisions.

Common Outcomes and Measures on program evaluation and reporting of progress. Common indicators across all participating organizations ensure that efforts are

aligned and allow each to learn from the other participant’s results. Funded STEM Partnerships will be required to assist in the identification and establishment of common outcomes and measures to be used in Oregon STEM Partnerships.

Mutually Reinforcing Activities which are the power of collective impact. Each participant in the partnership brings a unique action to the collective. The

multiple actions working in concert with each other brings together a symphony of opportunities, solutions, and support for science, mathematics, and STEM education. Partnership activities for improving science, mathematics, and STEM outcomes will focus on instructional systems, information infrastructure, student support systems, human resource systems, and governance.

See Appendix E for additional Network Improvement Communities Resources.

D. CONTACTS

For assistance related to the Oregon Mathematics and Science Partnerships Program (ESEA Title IIB) applications, please contact:

Mark Freed, Mathematics Education Program SpecialistOffice of Educational Improvement and [email protected] 503.947.5610

OR

Cheryl Kleckner, Science Education Program SpecialistOffice of Educational Improvement and [email protected] 503.947.5794

of 37

mailto:[email protected]



II. General Information

A. ELIGIBILITY

Eligible partnerships must include as core partners a high-need school or district (LEA), and the mathematics, science, and/or engineering faculty in institutions of higher education (IHE).

The term “high-need” means a school, district, or regionally-based consortium of small rural schools:

• that has a lower than statewide average percentage of students performing at or above meets in mathematics and/or science on the Oregon statewide Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (OAKS).

-and/or-

• that has a lower than median state graduation rate.

To be eligible for a Title IIB MSP Grant, an applicant LEA must demonstrate a need for improvement in student performance in mathematics and/or science and a need for improving STEM learning opportunities for students. An analysis of Oregon Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (OAKS) student achievement data must be part of the needs assessment. In addition, the proposal must demonstrate that participating teachers serve a sufficient number of students exhibiting this need.

B. PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS

1. Required Partners

• One or more high-need school(s) or district(s) (see definition in Appendix A).

• PK-12 Partner(s): The role of a PK-12 partner is to support teachers to continually learn how to improve their practice and identify leadership within their system to support school improvement efforts in STEM Education. At least one of the K-12 partners must also support the research and evaluation responsibilities of the Oregon STEM Partnership. Examples of potential PK-12 Partners include (but are not limited to): local school districts, educational service districts (ESDs), private schools, charter schools, and teacher organizations.

• Post-Secondary Education Partner(s): The role of a post-secondary partner is to ensure access to high quality science, mathematics, and STEM content and pedagogical knowledge is disseminated to educators to improve science, mathematics, and STEM content knowledge and practice. This may include providing courses or workshops focused on the needs of the PK-12 institutions within their partnership. At least one of the post-secondary partners must also support the research and evaluation responsibilities of the Oregon STEM Partnership. At least one of the post-secondary education partners must be from the mathematics or science department. Examples of potential Post-Secondary Partners include: Public and Private Universities or Community Colleges.

of 37


• Community (and/or Business) Partner(s): The role of a community partner is to support the work of PK-12 and post-secondary partners. A community partner’s support could be financial in nature by providing needed funds to carry out the work described by the Oregon STEM Partnership. A community partner could also support the Partnership in the form of in-kind support such as providing access for students and teachers to quality applications of STEM work at reduced or no cost to help control the expenses of maintaining a quality partnership. In some cases a community partner may serve as a contractor to the Oregon STEM Partnership. Examples of potential Community Partners include (but are not limited to): local businesses, parent organizations, informal educators (e.g. museums), and other educational organizations (publishers, non-profit professional development businesses).

• An External Evaluator: The role of the evaluator is to design and manage an evaluation and accountability system that includes measurable objectives related to BOTH process evaluation (implementation) and outcome evaluation. The evaluator is an active partner from the planning stages through completion of the final reports. The external evaluator may be affiliated with the partnering institution of higher education (IHE), but must not be working in the same department as the participating IHE faculty nor take an active role in the program delivery. All funded project evaluators must participate in the required Evaluation Leadership Meetings to collaboratively set and refine the Common Outcomes and Measures for the Oregon STEM Partnerships.

2. Other STEM partners may include:• public charter schools;• education department faculty in an institution of higher education;• private career schools;• apprenticeship programs;• additional schools or districts; and/or • one or more Education Service Districts, professional organizations, centers of

informal mathematics and/or science learning, and other non-profit or for-profit organizations concerned with mathematics and/or science education.

All partners must engage in the partnership to share goals, responsibilities, and accountability for the grant award. There must be an active and well-defined partnership between the IHE faculty and LEAs in all aspects of the grant, including planning, delivery, and evaluation of the professional development.

3. Equitable participation for private schools: Section 9501 of the ESEA requires equitable participation for private schools. LEAs and eligible local entities must engage in timely and meaningful consultation with appropriate private school officials, in private schools located in areas served by the grant recipient, during the design and development of programs and continue the consultation throughout the implementation of these programs. This consultation must take place during the development of the partnership application to ensure that it occurs before any decision is made that affects the opportunities of eligible private school children, teachers, and other educational personnel to participate. Evidence must be included in the application showing that private schools in the areas served by the grant applicant were invited to participate.

of 37


5. Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR): EDGAR sections 74, 76, 77, 80, 81, 82, 85, 86, 98, 99 apply to this program (www.ed.gov/policy/fund/reg/edgarReg/edgar.pdf).

6. Readiness to Implement a STEM Regional Partnership Partnerships are required to provide a description of their readiness to implement STEM Regional Partnerships that incorporates the components of effective STEM Education as detailed in the Oregon STEM Education Initiative and included below.

• A multidisciplinary approach to STEM• Effective Instruction• Effective Learning Environments• Coherent Standards and Policies• Effective Leadership• Community Engagement• Research and Evaluation

• STEM Definition: An approach to teaching and lifelong learning that emphasizes the natural interconnectedness of the four separate STEM disciplines. Developing and deepening content knowledge and skills in science and mathematics is the foundation of STEM teaching and learning. The natural connections among science, mathematics and STEM are made explicit through collaboration between educators resulting in real and appropriate context built into instruction, curriculum, and assessment. The common element of problem solving is emphasized across all STEM disciplines allowing students to discover, explore, and apply critical thinking skills as they learn.

• Effective Instruction: Significant increase in science, mathematics, and STEM student achievement requires profound changes in teacher capacities to implement science, mathematics, and STEM education principals. Partnerships must identify how they plan to build the professional capacity of teachers. This should include, but not be limited to: developing deep science and mathematics content and pedagogical knowledge; positively orienting beliefs to innovative practices; and providing ongoing professional development opportunities focused on science, mathematics, and STEM education.

• Effective Learning Environments: It is essential that science, mathematics, and STEM instruction provides a safe, welcoming, stimulating, and nurturing environment for all students. Potential partnerships will need to identify how they plan to engage students in the learning process though innovative learning environments and activities.

• Coherent Standards & Policies: Coherent academic standards and policies provide the opportunity for all students to have equitable access to science, mathematics, and STEM learning environments that prepare them for career, college, and citizenship. Partnerships need to identify how they intend to align their curriculum and instruction to the content standards within the STEM disciplines. Additionally, partnerships should describe how they will help align policies and remove potential barriers to proposed science, mathematics, and STEM teaching and learning.

of 37


http://www.ed.gov/policy/fund/reg/edgarReg/edgar.pdf


• Effective Leadership: Effective leadership is critical to ensuring equitable access to high quality science, mathematics, and STEM teaching and lifelong learning. Skillful leadership will foster development in the other four essential supports (effective instruction, effective learning environments, coherent standards and policies, and community engagement). Partnerships must identify how they will address supporting school, district, and community leadership in implementing and improving science, mathematics, and STEM teaching and learning.

• Community Engagement: Engagement of the community in science, mathematics, and STEM education requires communication, collaboration and partnerships to leverage resources (National Governors Association, 2011). Community engagement can increase opportunities for students to engage in a wide range of science, mathematics, and STEM activities that are locally relevant. Applicants need to identify how they plan to strengthen relationships and engage the community in the STEM Education Partnership.

• Research and Evaluation: An Oregon STEM Education Partnership must commit to the development and use of common outcomes and measures that allow network partners to share, test, and generalize local learning across the STEM Education Network. Partnerships agree on meeting common targets, and over time set new targets to more ambitious goals as targets are met.

7. Grant Activity Requirements:All funded STEM Partnerships are required to participate in an ODE-hosted Evaluation Leadership Workshop on July 10-11, 2012 in Salem to collaboratively set the Common Outcomes and Measures for the Oregon STEM Partnerships and a follow up Evaluation Leadership Workshop in Summer 2013 to review and re-evaluate the Common Outcomes and Measures. All STEM Partnership proposals must include in their budgets estimated travel costs for team participation in these workshops. The team must include, at a minimum, the project director, external evaluator, and representative science, mathematics, and STEM teachers, administrators, and community partners.

Option 1: In addition to the Evaluation Leadership Workshops detailed above, Oregon STEM Partnerships funded under Option 1 are required to provide a minimum of 80 hours participant professional development contact time in mathematics, science, and STEM content knowledge and skills including one 40 hour summer workshop and 40 hours of school year follow up for each year of the grant. Partnerships may also provide additional professional development contact time beyond the minimum requirement.

Option 2: In addition to the Evaluation Leadership Workshops detailed above, Oregon STEM Partnerships funded under Option 2 are required to provide a minimum of 80 hours participant professional development contact time in mathematics, science, and STEM content knowledge and skills including one 40 hour summer workshop and 40 hours of school year follow up for each year of the grant. Partnerships may also provide additional professional development contact time beyond the minimum requirement.

C. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

1. The U.S. Department of Education

of 37


All partnerships are required to complete the online Annual Performance Report (APR) http://apr.ed-msp.net/users/login providing project information and reporting the partnership's progress in meeting the objectives described in the evaluation and accountability plan. These objectives must include measures of student and teacher content knowledge in mathematics and/or science. The last five percent of funds will be withheld annually and released when the APR has been submitted and approved.

2. Monitoring

The Oregon Department of Education Title IIB Math Science Partnership Program State Coordinators will monitor all projects on an ongoing basis to ensure compliance with all requirements. Monitoring will include project professional development activity site visits at least twice a year, once during the planned summer events and once during the school year follow-up events.

D. FUNDING

1. Amount of Grant AwardsThe Oregon Department of Education will award up to four Title IIB grants in 2012. Funding for each individual partnership will be dependent on the number of teachers involved in the STEM Partnership. There is funding available to award no more than two grants under Option 1 and no less than two grants under Option 2. Each grant may be funded for up to $225, 000 per year for two years.

Future funding for each grant may be possible, but is contingent upon the Oregon Department of Education receiving funding from the U. S. Department of Education in the FY13 federal budget.

2. DurationFirst year grant funds are to be used between May 2012 and September 2013. Second year grant funds must be used by September 2014.

3. Use of FundsGrant funds shall be used to supplement, and not supplant, state and/or local funds that would otherwise be used for proposed activities. Grantees must be able to spend funds correctly and provide evidence of this (Section 76.702 of EDGAR). Accounting records must be supported by cancelled checks, paid invoices, payroll, time, and attendance records. Costs must be necessary and reasonable, be allocable, and be authorized or not prohibited under State or local laws or federal grant regulations.

Reasonable costs will not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person, are ordinary, and necessary for the operation of the program, and represent sound business practices.

Lack of documentation is a primary reason for audit findings. Documentation must be available to support each expenditure. Funds may be used for the following:

• Stipend and travel reimbursement for teachers attending summer workshops and quarterly STEM professional learning communities.

of 37

http://apr.ed-msp.net/users/login


• Release time during school year for planning activities that connect project activities to district curriculum, lesson planning, and student assessment.

• Stipend and travel reimbursement for teachers attending approved professional development opportunities with a strong alignment to the project goals.

• Higher education faculty summer salary reimbursement, travel reimbursement, and other project-related costs.

• Materials for classroom implementation related to the content of project activities by teachers in the cohort.

• Project Director expenses to coordinate teacher recruitment, teacher support, faculty retention and support, and coordination with the Oregon Department of Education.

• Evaluation service expenses.• Education consultation services.• Support of professional development programs and content development in mathematics

and/or science.• Reasonable expenditures for food at professional development sessions – not to exceed

the state per diem.

It is acceptable for the partnership to charge indirect costs (up to 8%). 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. Projects 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 Title IIB MSP funds) must maintain time and effort documentation.

Funds may not be used for:

• costs associated with writing the proposal• materials for general classroom use • space rental• supporting the research of individual scholars or faculty members• computers, projectors, smart boards, or other similar equipment• supporting travel to out-of-state professional meetings/conferences (other than the

U.S. Department of Education’s Title IIB Mathematics and Science Partnership Conferences), unless it is demonstrated that attendance will directly and significantly advance the project.

of 37


III. Application Process

A. APPLICATION REVIEW AND SCORING

Proposals will be reviewed by ODE staff for completeness and compliance with the requirements set forth in Title II, Part B of ESEA to determine applicant eligibility. Any questions about significant omissions from a proposal or about applicant eligibility will be referred to the proposing organization. If, in the judgment of the ODE, a proposal is late, significantly incomplete, or an applicant cannot establish its eligibility, the proposal will be omitted from the competition. Applicants submitting proposals withdrawn due to incompleteness or ineligibility will be notified.

Expert review teams will score eligible applications. Review will be based on specific criteria listed in this RFP and scored using the scoring rubric provided in Appendix C or D. All applications will be reviewed and scored by review teams during June 5-14, 2012. Announcement of grant awards will be made on June 15, 2012.

The Oregon Department of Education may require revision of grant proposals and budget prior to approval, award, or release of funds. Decisions of the Oregon Department of Education on funding and awarding of grants shall be final.

of 37


B. TIMELINE AND IMPORTANT DATES

April 3, 2012 Request For Proposals posted on ODE website and disseminated statewide.

April 18, 2012Technical assistance WebEx session for interested parties, on 4/18 from 10:00-11:00 AM PDT. Connection information posted on the ODE website.

June 4, 2012 All applications must be RECEIVED at ODE by 5:00 PM June 5-14, 2012 Application scoring process conducted.June 15, 2012 Grant awards announced via email and news release.July 9, 2012 Grant funds released to grantees.July 2012 Feedback provided to non-funded grant applicants.

July 10-11, 2012Evaluation Leadership Meeting held to determine common outcomes and measures. Mandatory participation for all funded grantees.

October 31, 2013 Baseline Annual Performance Reports (APR) Due.

September 2012 – June 2013Each STEM partnership provides at least 40 hours of professional development contact time to plan and/or carry out partnership activities.

November 2012 Fall STEM Directors Meeting March 2013 Spring STEM Directors Meeting

July 2013 – August 2013Each STEM Partnership carries out at least 40 hours of professional development contact time to plan and/or carry out partnership activities.

October 31, 2013 Year 1 Annual Performance Reports (APR) Due.

September 2013 – June 2014Each STEM partnership provides at least 40 hours of professional development contact time to plan and/or carry out partnership activities.

November 14, 2013 Final claims for Year 1 due in EGMS grant management system.

November 2013 Fall STEM Directors Meeting. March 2014 Spring STEM Directors Meeting.August 31, 2014 Final Grant Activities Completed.October 31, 2014 Final Annual Performance Reports (APR) Due.

November 14, 2014 Final claims for Year 2 due in EGMS grant management system.

This is a federally-funded program. Project timeline, reporting dates, and requirements are contingent upon the Oregon Department of Education receiving future funding from the U. S. Department of Education and are subject to change as federal requirements change.

of 37


C. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS

Appendix B details the required components of an application, in the order they must be submitted. Narrative sections (excluding appendices) must be typed, double-spaced, and type no smaller than Arial 12 point font must be used. There must be one inch side, top, and bottom margins. Charts, graphs, and tables may be single spaced with type no smaller than Arial 12 point. Any supporting charts, graphs, and tables must be placed in the Appendix and referenced in the narrative. The application, not including the Appendix, shall not exceed a total of 20 pages. Application must be submitted in Rich-Text (RTF), Word (.doc or .docx), or PDF format. The specific criteria used to score each section and points possible are listed in Appendix C (Option 1) and D (Option 2).

D. INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMISSION

The Title IIB Application must be received NO LATER THAN 5:00 P.M. June 4, 2012

An envelope containing the original and three copies of the completed grant application must physically arrive at the Oregon Department of Education by 5:00 PM on June 4, 2012.

AND

An electronic version of the completed grant application in Rich Text (RTF), Word (.doc or .docx), or PDF format must be received by 12:00 PM on June 4, 2012. It is the applicant’s responsibility to contact Stephanie Parks to verify receipt of documents. Due to the size of the applications please use the Secure File Transfer Process outlined below to submit the electronic version of the grant application.

BECAUSE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF FACSIMILE FAILURE, FAXED APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.

Address your application packets to:

Stephanie ParksOffice of Educational Improvement and Innovation Oregon Department of Education255 Capitol Street NESalem, OR 97310-0203mailto:[email protected]

Secure File Transfer Process

An electronic version of the complete application must be submitted to Stephanie Parks ([email protected]) using the online Secure File Transfer application available on the ODE district web site https://district.ode.state.or.us/apps/xfers/. Follow the instructions provided at the bottom of the page to complete the submission of the file.

Contact the ODE helpdesk at 503-947-5715 if you need assistance with the Secure File Transfer Process.

of 37

https://district.ode.state.or.us/apps/xfers/




Appendix ADefinitions

The following definitions A-C are based on the definitions included in the Elementary and Secondary Act of 2001 and Oregon educational priorities.

A. High-Need: The term “high-need” means a school, district, or regionally-based consortium of small rural schools:

i. that has a lower than statewide average percentage of students performing at or above meets in mathematics and/or science on the Oregon statewide Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (OAKS).

-and/or-

ii. that has a lower than median state graduation rate.

B. High Quality Professional Development: The term “professional development” means instructional activities that:

i. Are based on scientifically-based research and align with the Oregon Common Core State Standards, science academic content standards, technology standards, engineering skills sets, K-12 Framework for Science Education, and enable teachers to prepare students to meet the Oregon Diploma requirements, teach students at different developmental levels, and/or effectively teach students with various demographic backgrounds;

ii. Improve and increase teachers’ knowledge of the academic subjects they teach;iii. Enable teachers who fall under the designation of not highly qualified to become

highly qualified; andiv. 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.

C. 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:

i. Employs systematic, empirical methods that draw on observation or experiment and involve rigorous data analyses that are adequate to test the stated hypotheses and justify the general conclusions drawn;

ii. 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;

iii. 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

of 37


random-assignment experiments or other designs to the extent that those designs contain within-condition or across-condition controls;

iv. 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; and

v. Can be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal or gain approval from a panel of independent experts through a comparably rigorous, objective, and scientific review.

D. *Science is the study of the natural world, including the laws of nature associated with physics, chemistry, and biology and the treatment or application of facts, principles, concepts, or conventions associated with these disciplines. Science is both a body of knowledge that has been accumulated over time and a process—scientific inquiry—that generates new knowledge. Knowledge from science informs the engineering design process.

E. *Technology comprises the entire system of people and organizations, knowledge, processes, and devices that go into creating and operating technological artifacts, as well as the artifacts themselves. Throughout history, humans have created technology to satisfy their wants and needs. Much of modern technology is a product of science and engineering, and technological tools are used in both fields.

F. *Engineering is both a body of knowledge—about the design and creation of human-made products—and a process for solving problems. This process is design under constraint. One constraint in engineering design is the laws of nature, or science. Other constraints include such things as time, money, available materials, ergonomics, environmental regulations, manufacturability, and repairability. Engineering utilizes concepts in science and mathematics as well as technological tools.

G. *Mathematics is the study of patterns and relationships among quantities, numbers, and shapes. Specific branches of mathematics include arithmetic, geometry, algebra, trigonometry, and calculus. Mathematics is used in science and in engineering.

* STEM subjects definitions from: National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council (2009). Engineering in K-12 Education: Understanding the Status and Improving the Prospects.

of 37


Appendix BRequired Documentation - Lists & Forms

Applications will be scored only if they contain these documents.

Application Cover Page - Complete and include the form provided in this appendix.

List of Partners - Complete and include the form provided in this appendix.

Statement of Commitment – Fiscal Agent and School District Student Assessment Data Provider complete and sign the forms provided in this appendix and include in the application.

Signed Assurances - Each partner must complete and sign the Statement of Assurances and Statement of Commitment two-sided form provided in this appendix and include in the application.

Documentation showing that equitable participation in grant activities was offered to private schools in the area served by the partner school districts.

Evidence that the partnership meets the eligibility requirements - The partnership must include one or more “high-need school or district and one or more higher education institutions with engaged mathematics, science, and/or engineering faculty as core partners. See Appendix A for the definition of a “high-need” school or district.

Abstract - Provide a one-page summary briefly describing the project vision, goals, activities, key features, and expected benefits of the project.

Narrative - Narrative sections must be typed, double-spaced, and type no smaller than Arial 12 point font must be used. There must be one inch side, top, and bottom margins. Charts, graphs, and tables may be single spaced with type no smaller than Arial 12 point. The application, not including the Appendix, shall not exceed a total of 20 pages.

Budget Worksheet and Budget Narrative - The budget worksheet should clearly reflect activities in the grant and represent reasonable costs associated with the activities. Budget worksheets are provided in Appendix C (Option 1) and D (Option 2). The budget narrative should provide clarity to the budget worksheet by describing how the amounts in the worksheet were determined. Major single expenditures should be itemized and linked to specific grant activities.

Appendix – Not required, however, any supporting charts, graphs, and tables must be placed in the Appendix and referenced in the narrative.

of 37


APPLICATION COVER PAGE (Please Print or Type – All Fields Must Be Completed)

REQUESTED FUNDING

TOTAL # OF TEACHERS THAT WILL BE SERVED:

TEACHER-DISCIPLINARY-FACULTY CONTACT TIME (per Teacher):

DISTRICT:

COUNTY:

Project Name:

Project Director:

Mailing Address:

City: State: Zip:

Phone: FAX: E-mail

Grant Fiscal Agent Name and Title:

Phone: FAX: E-Mail

Superintendent

Mailing Address (if different from above):

City: State: Zip:

2012-2014 Statement of Assurances

The district assures and certifies compliance with the regulations, policies, and requirements as they relate to the acceptance and use of federal funds for programs included in this application.

The district assures and certifies compliance with the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) regulations, policies and requirements.

The district assures that timely and meaningful consultation with appropriate private school officials during the design and development of programs has occurred and that continued consultation throughout the implementation of these programs will occur.

The district agrees to carry out the project as proposed in the application. None of the monies received through Mathematics and Science Partnerships Program (Oregon Title IIB MSP) Grants shall be

used to replace funds for existing programs that are a responsibility of the school district. Oregon Title IIB MSP Funds may be used to supplement not supplant regular education programs.

On or before October 31, 2013 and 2014, the district will submit a final evaluation report to the Oregon Department of Education as outlined in the RFP. Reports will include the submission of data requested by US Department of Education.

The District assures that the project director will attend all required meetings as published in the application timeline. Violations of the rules or laws may result in sanctions which may include but are not limited to reduction or revocation of grant

award. The applicant certifies that to the best of his/her knowledge the information in this application is correct; that the filing of this

application is duly authorized by the governing body of this organization, or institution, and that the applicant will comply with the general statement of assurances.

The applicant certifies to the best of his/her knowledge the guidelines for Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) (20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99) are being followed. It is a Federal law that protects the privacy of student education records. The law applies to all schools/districts that receive funds under an applicable program of the U.S. Department of Education.

Please Print Name of Superintendent Signature of Superintendent Date

Please Print Name of Project Director Signature of Project Director Date

of 37


Mathematics and Science STEM PartnershipList of Partners

The following individuals and/or organizations have reviewed, discussed, and agreed to their part in implementing the MSP STEM Plan proposed in this grant application:

Name Title Organization Role/Responsibilities

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

A signed commitment form is required for each individual listed.

of 37


STATEMENT OF COMMITMENT(Note: This is the first side of the two-sided form)

(Please Print or Type)

Applicant Project Name:

Partner Organization:

Contact Name: Title:

Mailing Address:

City: State: Zip:

Phone: FAX: E-mail:

Please explain the role of this partner in the proposed Mathematics and Science STEM Partnership, contributions that this partner will make, and evidence that the proposed activities are integral to this partnership’s plan:

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. (Note: expand narrative box as necessary)

of 37


STATEMENT OF COMMITMENT(Note: This is the second side of the two-sided form)

Partner Name

The partnership member assures and certifies compliance with the regulations, policies and requirements as they relate to the acceptance and use of federal funds for programs included in this application and for those items that the partner is responsible.

The partnership member assures and certifies compliance with the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) regulations, policies and requirements.

The partnership member assures that timely and meaningful consultation with appropriate private school officials during the design and development of programs has occurred and that continued consultation throughout the implementation of funded activities will occur.

The Partnership member agrees to carry out the project as proposed in the application.

None of the monies received through Mathematics and Science Partnership Program (Oregon Title IIB MSP) Grants shall be used to replace funds for existing programs that are a responsibility of the school district. Oregon Title IIB MSP Funds may be used to supplement not supplant regular education programs.

On or before October 31, 2013 and 2014, the partnership member will cooperate in collecting data for a final evaluation report to the Oregon Department of Education as outlined in the RFP. In addition, the partnership member will submit data requested by the US Department of Education.

All requested information related to grant activities will be provided to ODE in a timely manner.

Violations of the rules or laws may result in sanctions which may include but are not limited to reduction or revocation of grant award.

The applicant certifies that to the best of his/her knowledge the information in this application is correct; that the filing of this application is duly authorized by the governing body of this organization, or institution, and that the applicant will comply with the general statement of assurances.

The applicant certifies to the best of his/her knowledge the guidelines for Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) (20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99) are being followed. It is a Federal law that protects the privacy of student education records. The law applies to all schools/districts that receive funds under an applicable program of the U.S. Department of Education.

Print Name of Authorized Agent Signature of Authorized Agent Date

of 37


Appendix C

Option 1 Budget Worksheets and Scoring Rubric

2012-13 Title IIB MSP BUDGET WORKSHEETOption 1 STEM Professional Learning Communities

Year 1 July 1, 2012 – June 30, 2013

Project: Date:

Object Description

InstructionRegular

1XXX

InstructionalStaff

Development2240

Evaluation, Research and

Statistical Services 2620

CommunityServices

33XX

District/Local Contributions

Total by Object Code

(InstructionalStaff

Development)

(Evaluator and Evaluation

Costs)

(Services toPrivate

Schools)1XX Salaries 2XX Benefits

31X

Instructional, Professional & Technical Services

34X Travel

34X

Travel for Evaluation Leadership Meeting (See Requirements)

390

Other general Professional & Technical Services

310Evaluation Services

4XXSupplies & Materials

460

Non-Consumable Items

690

Administrative Costs @ ________ %No more than 8% allowed

Total by Function $ $ $ $ $ $

of 37



Year 2 July 1, 2013 – June 30, 2014

Project: Date:

Object Description

InstructionRegular

1XXX

InstructionalStaff

Development2240



CommunityServices

33XX



(InstructionalStaff

Development)


Costs)

(Services toPrivate

Schools)

1XX Salaries 2XX Benefits

31X


34X Travel

34X

Travel for Evaluation Leadership Meeting (See Requirements)

390




460


690



of 37



Combined Budget Years 1 and 2 July 1, 2012 – June 30, 2014

Project: Date:

Object Description

InstructionRegular

1XXX

InstructionalStaff

Development2240



CommunityServices

33XX



(InstructionalStaff

Development)


Costs)

(Services toPrivate

Schools)


31X


34X Travel

34X

Travel for Evaluation Meeting (See Requirements)

390




460


690



of 37


Option 1 STEM Professional Learning Communities Application Scoring Rubric

I. Project Readiness for STEM Regional Partnerships45 total points distributed as described below.

Provide explanations that are clear, concise, and thorough. Descriptions should include: (1) past science, mathematics, and/or STEM related professional development (Readiness); (2) how the work could be adapted to support STEM Regional Partnerships (Growth); and (3) how the work could establish a culture of change beyond the grant’s funding (Sustainability).

A. Community Partnerships: (12 points)Partnerships with business, industry, labor, and postsecondary education must be an important part of the project. It should be clear that the partners are actively engaged in the project. Letters of support, alone, are not considered to be active engagement. Active partnership may come in the form of (but are not limited to):

Readiness (4 points): Evidence of past partnerships with teachers to plan and support lessons with one, or more, science,

mathematics, and/or STEM related content areas. Evidence of past involvement with instruction related activities of science, mathematics, and/or STEM related

teaching and learning.Growth (4points):

Partnership assistance in developing the project and proposal. Ongoing partnership engagement in monitoring and implementing the project. Establishing new partners to help support science, mathematics, and/or STEM related content areas not

previously addressed.Sustainability (4 points):

Describe financial support for program activities related to partnerships. Describe commitment of partners to involvement beyond the grant. Describe an existing process for sustaining partnerships

B. Selection and Communication: (12 points)Partnerships need to describe how teachers, administrators, post-secondary, and community partners will be selected for this project. The project description should indicate how the partnership will select members who are ready to focus on STEM teaching and learning, which would include:

Readiness (4 points): Evidence of a majority of recommended school staff with past professional development experience

deepening their content knowledge in science, mathematics, and/or one or more STEM disciplines. Evidence of recommended school staff participating in designing project based lessons focused on student

problem solving.Growth (4 points):

Expand opportunities for educators to deepen their knowledge of science, mathematics, and/or STEM disciplines

Expand lesson planning opportunities to interconnected science, mathematics, and STEM lesson planning with community partners.

Sustainability (4 points): Communication plan to non-participants to generate interest in future professional development opportunities Find new sources of funding to support activities beyond the grant year.

of 37


C. Support between professional development sessions: (12 points)The partnership will need to support educators between professional development opportunities. A proposal will be considered to have strong support between sessions if it:

Readiness (4 points): Describes examples of providing followed-up on previous activities, such as conferences, district or regional

professional development, summits, etc. Describes systems it has in place to communicate with groups of teachers or other partners on a regular basis.

Growth (4 points): Provides examples of ongoing collaboration among teachers for improvement of instructional practice (e.g.

PLC, common planning time, etc) Describes methods for teachers to develop, refine, and share instructional resources (e.g. Web repository,

sharing sessions, webinars, etc.)Sustainability (4 points):

Fiscal investment in additional planning time, mentoring, and group collaboration. Has established policies and practices that support ongoing collaboration among teachers, administrators, and

community partners. Includes a reorganization of existing practices and/or infusion of new ideas or practices. Promotes ongoing change and refinement. Is a purposeful attempt to address issues or a vision.

D. Outcomes: (5 points)Identify science, mathematics, and STEM related outcomes that are important to the partnership and region addressing the components described in the Oregon STEM Education Initiative:

Student engagement in science, mathematics, and STEM (Effective Learning Environments) Teacher science, mathematics, and STEM content and pedagogical knowledge (Effective Instruction) Effective science, mathematics, and STEM Leadership Rigorous science, mathematics, and STEM content (Coherent Standards and Policies) Building STEM partnerships (Community Engagement)

E. Communication and Dissemination: (4 points)Identify communication and dissemination strategies and venues the partnership shall use to provide:

Statewide and national communication and dissemination of the project description, outcomes, and measures Statewide and national sharing of project developed materials, resources, and best practices.

II. Project Readiness for STEM Professional Learning Communities40 total points distributed as described below.

Provide explanations that are clear, concise, and thorough. Descriptions should include how the proposal will meet the required elements of a STEM Professional Learning Community (STEM PLC) which include: (A) Effective Instructional Planning using Interconnected Lessons; (B) Effective Instructional Modeling; (C) Effective Instructional Refinement & Dissemination

A. Effective Instructional Planning using Interconnected Lessons: (16 points total)The partnership shall facilitate at least four (4) shared lesson planning sessions among teachers, post-secondary, and community partners. Additionally, partnerships will be expected to plan interconnected STEM lessons focused on problem solving using science and mathematics content knowledge and skills. The description of the partnership activities should include how it proposes to:

Design lessons around an authentic problem of practice (8 points): An integral element of the STEM PLC will be the development of lessons where students participate in STEM career-related learning experiences that draw out deep

of 37


learning in mathematics and science content. STEM PLC teams shall design lessons around authentic (e.g. career-related) problems of practice that develop student content knowledge in mathematics and science through problem solving experiences. An authentic problem of practice that also requires engineering design principals and access to actual industry technologies is encouraged as appropriate. Teaching teams should consider consulting with experts in STEM fields in their region, and possibly throughout the world, to explore complex and relevant interconnected problem solving projects.

Foster collaboration among K-12, post-secondary, and community partners (4 points): Planning and development of STEM lessons needs to be done collaboratively among the teaching team, post-secondary, and community/business partners. Content knowledge in mathematics and science will need to be provided to teachers as needed to support effective implementation of the STEM lesson. Learning teams should also incorporate access to appropriate communication, digital, and manufacturing technologies as needed.

Pilot the lesson before a “live presentation” (4 points): The lesson will need to be practiced during a pilot session before it is attempted in a classroom environment. This practice could include modeling of the lesson with adult participants first. It could also include walking a few students through the lesson to gain their perspective on the proposed lesson. Changes from the lesson “pilot” should be incorporated before it is provided to a class.

B. Effective Instructional Modeling: (12 points; 4 points for each of the three areas identified below)The partnership shall facilitate at least four (4) model lessons that carry out the designed lessons. Partnerships will be expected to collect instructional and student artifacts of mathematics and science content knowledge during the lesson. The description of the partnership activities should include how it proposes to:

Model the lesson with a master teacher and supported by an instructional coach: A key component of a STEM PLC is the modeling of instruction by a teacher selected from the STEM learning team where the lesson developed during the planning phase is implemented in an authentic classroom experience. The modeling teacher shall be supported by an instructional coach (e.g. post-secondary or professional coach) during the lesson. Ideally, the teacher modeling the lesson should be the same throughout the year. More than one modeling teacher may be used from a learning team if the team is too large to observe a lesson in a classroom.

Support observations by the STEM learning team, including the principal and other school/district leaders: The modeled lesson shall also be observed by all members of the STEM learning team using standardized protocols that the learning team is trained on ahead of time. Observations shall also include building leadership, which may be the principal or other instructional leader. Ideally, this would involve all members of the STEM learning teams watching the modeled lesson in person making observations using the protocols. Practical considerations of observing group size may require rotating observations, or possibly a video recording of the lesson to be observed by the learning team at a later time.

Collect lesson artifacts of student mathematics and science content knowledge: During the modeled lesson, artifacts of student content knowledge shall be collected for later discussion among teacher learning teams. Student artifacts may include, but are not limited to, student content work, reflections, video recording, conversation transcripts, assessments, and/or surveys. Appropriate permission shall be obtained from students, parents, schools and district as needed to use student work. Work collected by learning team review shall be used to improve instruction and FERPA regulations shall be followed to protect student’s privacy.

C. Effective Instructional Refinement and Dissemination: (12 points; 4 points for each of the three areas identified below)The partnership shall support at least four (4) post-modeling sessions for STEM teaching teams to review artifacts collected, refine/improve the lesson, and disseminate lessons to non-participating teachers. The description of the partnership activities should include how it proposes to:

of 37


Regroup STEM learning team to analyze lesson artifacts: STEM PLCs shall hold a post-modeling session meeting to debrief the events of the modeling section. Discussions should include studying student learning of mathematics and science content and the instructional strategies the elicited the desired student outcomes. Artifacts collected should be used to inform the learning community’s discussions.

Refine and improve lesson based on review of the model session: STEM learning communities review of the modeling lesson should lead to refinement and/or improvement of the lesson created. If possible, the designed lesson should be implemented in more classrooms than the model lesson, so that as many students as possible can benefit from the learning community’s work.

Disseminate and share materials to stakeholders not in the STEM PLC: STEM PLCs shall have a strategy to share and disseminate lessons to those not within the given learning community. This would include teachers within the same district, but also publicly disseminated to a larger STEM community in the state and/or public.

III. Budget15 total points distributed as described below.

A. Budget Worksheet: (5 points)The budget worksheet should clearly reflect activities in the grant and represent reasonable costs associated with the activities that supplement and do not supplant district responsibilities. Matching funds are optional, but should be included if they are committed at the time the application is submitted and are essential to understanding the full implementation of the project.

B. Budget Narrative: (5 points)The budget narrative should align with project outcomes and activities. The narrative should provide clarity to the budget worksheet by describing how the amounts in the worksheet were determined. Major single expenditures should be itemized and linked to specific grant activities.

C. Sustainability: (5 points)The intent of this grant program is to support projects that will exist and grow beyond 2014. A sustainability plan should describe how the partnership will maintain and/or expand:

Student involvement. Involvement of partners. Financial support. Ongoing evaluation, monitoring, and improvement.

of 37


Appendix DOption 2 Budget Worksheets and Scoring Rubric

2012-13 Title IIB MSP BUDGET WORKSHEETOption 2 STEM Regional Partnerships

Year 1 July 1, 2012 – June 30, 2013

Project:

Date:

Object Description

InstructionRegular

1XXX

InstructionalStaff

Development2240



CommunityServices

33XX



(InstructionalStaff

Development)


Costs)

(Services toPrivate

Schools)


31X


34X Travel

34X


390




460


690



of 37



Year 2 July 1, 2013 – June 30, 2014

Project:

Date:

Object Description

InstructionRegular

1XXX

InstructionalStaff

Development2240



CommunityServices

33XX



(InstructionalStaff

Development)


Costs)

(Services toPrivate

Schools)


31X


34X Travel

34X


390




460


690



of 37



Combined Budget Years 1 and 2 July 1, 2012 – June 30, 2014

Project:

Date:

Object Description

InstructionRegular

1XXX

InstructionalStaff

Development2240



CommunityServices

33XX



(InstructionalStaff

Development)


Costs)

(Services toPrivate

Schools)


31X


34X Travel

34X


390




460


690



of 37


Option 2 STEM Regional Partnership Application Scoring Rubric

I. Project Readiness for STEM Regional Partnerships45 total points distributed as described below.

Provide explanations that are clear, concise, and thorough. Descriptions should include: (1) past science, mathematics, and/or STEM related professional development (Readiness); (2) how the work could be adapted to support STEM Regional Partnerships (Growth); and (3) how the work could establish a culture of change beyond the grant’s funding (Sustainability).

A. Community Partnerships: (12 points)Partnerships with business, industry, labor, and postsecondary education must be an important part of the project. It should be clear that the partners are actively engaged in the project. Letters of support, alone, are not considered to be active engagement. Active partnership may come in the form of (but are not limited to):

Readiness (4 points): Evidence of past partnerships with teachers to plan and support lessons with one, or more, science,

mathematics, and/or STEM related content areas. Evidence of past involvement with instruction related activities of science, mathematics, and/or STEM related

teaching and learning.Growth (4points):

Partnership assistance in developing the project and proposal. Ongoing partnership engagement in monitoring and implementing the project. Establishing new partners to help support science, mathematics, and/or STEM related content areas not

previously addressed.Sustainability (4 points):

Describe financial support for program activities related to partnerships. Describe commitment of partners to involvement beyond the grant. Describe an existing process for sustaining partnerships

B. Selection and Communication: (12 points)Partnerships need to describe how teachers, administrators, post-secondary, and community partners will be selected for this project. The project description should indicate how the partnership will select members who are ready to focus on STEM teaching and learning, which would include:

Readiness (4 points): Evidence of a majority of recommended school staff with past professional development experience

deepening their content knowledge in science, mathematics, and/or one or more STEM disciplines. Evidence of recommended school staff participating in designing project based lessons focused on student

problem solving.Growth (4 points):

Expand opportunities for educators to deepen their knowledge of science, mathematics, and/or STEM disciplines

Expand lesson planning opportunities to interconnected science, mathematics, and STEM lesson planning with community partners.

Sustainability (4 points): Communication plan to non-participants to generate interest in future professional development opportunities

Find new sources of funding to support activities beyond the grant year.

of 37


C. Support between professional development sessions: (12 points)The partnership will need to support educators between professional development opportunities. A proposal will be considered to have strong support between sessions if it:

Readiness (4 points): Describes examples of providing followed-up on previous activities, such as conferences, district or regional

professional development, summits, etc. Describes systems it has in place to communicate with groups of teachers or other partners on a regular basis.

Growth (4 points): Provides examples of ongoing collaboration among teachers for improvement of instructional practice (e.g.

PLC, common planning time, etc) Describes methods for teachers to develop, refine, and share instructional resources (e.g. Web repository,

sharing sessions, webinars, etc.)Sustainability (4 points):

Fiscal investment in additional planning time, mentoring, and group collaboration. Has established policies and practices that support ongoing collaboration among teachers, administrators, and

community partners. Includes a reorganization of existing practices and/or infusion of new ideas or practices. Promotes ongoing change and refinement. Is a purposeful attempt to address issues or a vision.

D. Outcomes: (5 points)Identify science, mathematics, and STEM related outcomes that are important to the partnership and region addressing the components described in the Oregon STEM Education Initiative:

Student engagement in science, mathematics, and STEM (Effective Learning Environments) Teacher science, mathematics, and STEM content and pedagogical knowledge (Effective Instruction) Effective science, mathematics, and STEM Leadership Rigorous science, mathematics, and STEM content (Coherent Standards and Policies) Building STEM partnerships (Community Engagement)

E. Communication and Dissemination: (4 points)Identify communication and dissemination strategies and venues the partnership shall use to provide:

Statewide and national communication and dissemination of the project description, outcomes, and measures Statewide and national sharing of project developed materials, resources, and best practices.

II. Project Readiness for STEM Teaching and Learning36 total points distributed as described below.

Provide explanations that are clear, concise, and thorough. Descriptions should include: (1) past science, mathematics, and STEM related professional development (Readiness); (2) how the work could be adapted to support science, mathematics, and STEM teaching and learning (Growth); and (3) how the work could establish a culture of change beyond the grant’s funding (Sustainability).

A. Effective Instruction using Interconnected Lesson Planning: (12 points)The partnership shall facilitate shared lesson planning sessions among teachers, post-secondary, and community partners. Additionally, partnerships will be expected to plan interconnected STEM lessons focused on authentic problem solving using science and mathematics content knowledge and skills. The description of the partnership should indicate how:

of 37


Readiness (4 points): The project has demonstrated common planning in science, mathematics, or at least one STEM discipline in

the past. The partnership has documented how past projects have worked to created science, mathematics, and/or

STEM interconnected lessons focused on problem solving.Growth (4 points):

Partnerships propose how they will expand their project to incorporate science, mathematics, and STEM teaching and learning..

Partnerships identity how activities will extend to interconnected lesson planning in two or more science, mathematics, and STEM disciplines (e.g. math and CTE, etc).

Sustainability (4 points): Foundations for long term relationships of community partners are identified. Lessons are shared with non-participating teachers.

B. Instructional Leadership: (12 points)Partnerships will need to identify how they plan to support the professional capacity of teachers. A partnership description of developing teacher leadership may include, but not be limited to:

Readiness (4 points): Demonstrations of helping teachers master the needed content and pedagogical knowledge in science,

mathematics, or at least one STEM discipline. History of positively orienting administrator, teacher, higher education faulty, and community partner beliefs

to innovative practices.Growth (4 points):

Expand current content support to all science, mathematics, and STEM disciplines Include new partnerships, or expand existing partnerships, to support interconnected science, mathematics,

and STEM learning approach. Sustainability (4 points):

Embed ongoing professional development opportunities throughout the year. Develop teacher leadership practices that will continue beyond the grant funding.

C. STEM Learning Environments: (12 points)It is essential that science, mathematics, and STEM instruction creates a safe, welcoming, stimulating, and nurturing environment for all students. Potential partnerships will need to identify how they plan to engage students in the learning process though innovative learning environments and activities.

Readiness (4 points): Evidence of providing professional development for teachers including, but not limited to, the effective use of

interactive digital content and virtual environments for learning. Teachers have experience including, but not limited to, using interactive digital content and virtual

environments to help students expand conceptual understanding and to problem solve.Growth (4 points):

Increase student access to communication, digital, and manufacturing technologies. Students participate in science, mathematics, and STEM career related learning experiences.

Sustainability (4 points): Students establish relationships with experts in science, mathematics, and STEM fields in their region to

investigate the local needs, challenges, and opportunities. Students consult with experts in science, mathematics, and STEM fields throughout the world to explore

complex problem solving projects.

of 37


III. Budget15 total points distributed as described below.

A. Budget Worksheet: (5 points)The budget worksheet should clearly reflect activities in the grant and represent reasonable costs associated with the activities that supplement and do not supplant district responsibilities. Matching funds are optional, but should be included if they are committed at the time the application is submitted and are essential to understanding the full implementation of the project.

B. Budget Narrative: (5 points)The budget narrative should align with project outcomes and activities. The narrative should provide clarity to the budget worksheet by describing how the amounts in the worksheet were determined. Major single expenditures should be itemized and linked to specific grant activities.

C. Sustainability: (5 points)The intent of this grant program is to support projects that will exist and grow beyond 2014. A sustainability plan should describe how the eligible recipient will maintain and/or expand:

Student involvement. Involvement of partners. Financial support. Ongoing evaluation.

of 37


Appendix EResources

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

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

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

National Academies Press “Successful K-12 STEM Education” report - http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13158

WestEd “STEM Teachers in Professional Learning Communities: A Knowledge Synthesis” report - http://www.wested.org/cs/we/view/rs/1097

Network Improvement Communities - http://knowledgecenter.completionbydesign.org/resource/339http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/elibrary/getting-ideas-action-building-networked-improvement-communities-in-educationhttp://www.carnegiefoundation.org/spotlight/webinar-bryk-gomez-building-networked-improvement-communities-in-education

Oregon Diploma - http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/results/?id=368

Oregon Common Core State Standards - http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?id=2860

Oregon Science Standards - http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?id=1577

Oregon Technology Standards - http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?id=1880

Oregon Industrial and Engineering Systems Skill Sets - http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/results/?id=311

International Technology and Engineering Educators Association ITEA - http://www.iteaconnect.org/

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

Center on Instruction Scientifically-based Research and Resources - www.centeroninstruction.org/index.cfm

National Center on Response to Intervention - www.rti4success.org/

National Staff Development Council - www.nsdc.org/index.cfm

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

Horizon Research Reports and Presentations – www.horizon-research.com/

of 37

http://www.horizon-research.com/

http://www.ccsso.org/projects/Improving_Evaluation_of_Professional_Development/

http://www.nsdc.org/index.cfm

http://www.rti4success.org/

http://www.centeroninstruction.org/index.cfm

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

http://www.iteaconnect.org/






http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/spotlight/webinar-bryk-gomez-building-networked-improvement-communities-in-education

http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/spotlight/webinar-bryk-gomez-building-networked-improvement-communities-in-education

http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/elibrary/getting-ideas-action-building-networked-improvement-communities-in-education

http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/elibrary/getting-ideas-action-building-networked-improvement-communities-in-education

http://knowledgecenter.completionbydesign.org/resource/339

http://www.wested.org/cs/we/view/rs/1097

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13158

http://hub.mspnet.org/index.cfm/resources

http://hub.mspnet.org/index.cfm/library

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

Web view... Word (.doc or .docx), ... Foundations for long term relationships of community partners...

Documents

Transcript of Web view... Word (.doc or .docx), ... Foundations for long term relationships of community partners...