BIDDERS CONFERENCE September 16, 2009 Proposals Due: November 12, 2009 RFP: sde.ct

1. BIDDERS CONFERENCESeptember 16, 2009Proposals Due: November 12, 2009RFP: www.sde.ct.gov 2010-2012 Mathematics and Science Partnership Grant Program

2. AGENDA • MSP RFP highlights and elaboration • Questions • Networking

3. MSP Program Cycle Federal MSP Grant ProgramNCLB Title II, Part B Congress Appropriates Funds Based on Impact Funds to States through Formula Grant Projects Submit Yearly Impact Reports to Feds MSP Project PD Occurs State MSP Competition

4. Federal MSP Logic Model Establish partnerships between high-need schools and IHE STEM faculty Provide intensive PD to strengthen teachers’ content knowledge and teaching skills Improve classroom instruction Improve student achievement

5. Partnership K-12 and IHEs equitably share responsibility for PD design, delivery, program improvement and student success Rigor sustained and coherent content-focused (beyond what students learn) with related pedagogy research-based PD design; evidence-based strategies Relevance State standards Comprehensive needs assessment Districts’ research-based instructional materials Impact - Results in measurable impacts to teacher content knowledge, teaching practices and student achievement on state assessments Evaluation and Research projects evaluate effectiveness of PD interventions using experimental research methods MSP Core Principles

6. High Quality PD • Focuses on deep content knowledge; • Emphasizes active learning closely linked to classroom practice; • Relates closely to school curriculum and instructional materials; • Provides many hours of training over time; and • Encourages collaboration.

7. Research & Evaluation Expectations • All MSP projects will hire an external evaluator to oversee research design and data collection. • Projects will use quasi-experimental methods to measure: • gains in teacher content knowledge • changes in teaching practices • studentachievement on state tests • Projects are encouraged to research the effectiveness of their PD interventions

8. Successful MSP Projects Start With… • A vision of what improved teaching and learning in mathematics or science looks like. • An understanding of what needs to change to make the vision a reality. • A commitment to work toward realizing the vision.

9. 2010-12 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS HIGHLIGHTS

10. 2010-12 RFP Category 1:Whole School Improvement Through Instructional Coaching Academies Elementary or Middle School Mathematics, Science or Math/Science

11. Coaching Academy Keys to Success • Recruit individuals with highest potential to be effective teacher leaders • Design a PD plan and partner with PD providers with highest potential to achieve project goals • Link content to pedagogy and coaching techniques • Ensure opportunities to implement coaching model with fidelity over time • Expect impact on teaching and learning in the school • Provide strong principal support and collaboration around MSP and school goals

12. Instructional Coaches Take On New Roles in the District… • Acquire a “toolkit” of useful resources and proven teaching strategies. • Help teachers understand content in state standards, curriculum and materials embraced by the district. • Provide non-evaluative, differentiated, job-embedded professional learning • Support effective use of data to improve student learning.

13. 2010-12 RFP Category 2: Whole School Improvement Through Instructional Resource Collaboratives Elementary or Middle School Mathematics or Science

14. Resource Collaborative Keys to Success • Partnership centers on research-based instructional materials that are performance-centered and experiment-oriented; • PD must focus on content and pedagogy in core instructional materials; • Choose either teacher-leader or direct PD model; • Improved confidence and fidelity in effective use of research-based core instructional materials; • Cost-effective materials acquisition, refurbishment, enhancement, accessibility.

15. Partnerships

16. Partners Required: • STEM faculty • Mathematics or Science Ed Specialist • At least one high-need LEA Eligible: • Other LEAs, IHEs, RESCs, charters, magnets, nonpublic schools, STEM corporations, nonprofits, informal education organizations Ineligible: • Schools that participated in 2006-09 MSP coaching academies.

17. CSDE Roles PRIOR TO FUNDING: • Conduct pre-award advisory meeting • Negotiate modifications to the plan or the budget • Meet with IHE faculty regarding syllabus and assessments. AFTER FUNDING: • Work closely with projects throughout the grant period to assure compliance with federal and state expectations and the project plan. • Make periodic site visits to monitor PD quality and provide feedback. 17

18. Choose Partners Strategically Consider: • Evidence of need, vision and commitment • Compatibility with organizations’ policies and goals • Existing relationships • Proven expertise of PD providers • Geographical proximity

19. Promising Partners for Coaching Academies • Reform-minded IHE STEM faculty; • PD providers with proven expertise; • LEAs with schools whose improvement plans include mathematics or science; • Principals who want an instructional coach; • Principals with clear goals for coaches; • Principals with workable plans to provide time for coaches to practice.

20. Promising Partners for Resource Collaboratives • Reform-minded IHE STEM faculty; • Schools whose improvement plans include mathematics or science; • Schools using the same research-based instructional materials; • Schools committed to sustained and “just-in-time” PD; • Organizations experienced in handling materials.

21. Partnership Structure • Lead Partner is fiscal agent. Can be IHE, LEA or RESC. • 80% of partner LEAs must meet one of the following criteria: • Fewer than 70% of students “At Goal or Above” on 2008 or 2009 CMT (www.cmtreports.com – Performance Level Summary Report); or • Did not achieve AYP in math in 2008 or 2009 (http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/cwp/view.asp?a=2662&Q=322372)

22. Partner Benefits • Districts gain school-based leaders; • School faculty gain on-site support; • Teachers receive the tools they need to be effective and feel confident; • Coaches grow professionally and establish a foundation for endorsement as instructional specialist.

23. Partner Benefits • Universities gain K-12 insights to enhance pre-service preparation programs, undergrad courses and design new programs; • Universities establish ties to potential graduate students; and • Students’ achievement in mathematics and science improves.

24. Grant Information

25. Grant Period • 3-year projects (1-1-2010 to 12-31-2012) • Funded annually based on performance, availability of federal funds, state priorities • Submit 3-year plan with Year 1 budget • January – March 2010: recruitment activities, baseline data and PD syllabus development begins. • Summer 2010: PD begins

26. Fiscal Information • Approximately $800,000 available to fund worthy projects • Number of projects funded depends on quality of proposals submitted • Funding amounts depend on scope and quality of PD activities

27. Important Dates • RFP published 9-1-09 • Notice of Intent to Apply due 10-15-09 • Proposals due by 4:30 p.m. on 11-12-09 • Pre-award Advisory Meeting 12-14-09 • Awards made 1-1-2010 • Mid-year progress report due to CSDE 7-1-2010 • Year 2 continuation application due 12-1-2010 • Year 1 activities end 12-31-2010 • 1st Annual Performance Report due 2-1-2010

28. Application Information

29. Going Virtually Paperless • Applications will be submitted electronically and in paper copy. • Electronic and paper copies must arrive at CSDE no later than 4:30 p.m. on November 12, 2009 • Complete application electronically using pages and forms included in the RFP • Use active links embedded in RFP to access support documents and resources • Applications must adhere to the 6-section format in the RFP to be eligible for consideration • Paper copies should be stapled, clipped or bound; no 3-ring binders

30. Application Evaluation

31. Review Process • Panel includes teachers, administrators, IHE faculty, professional organization reps, CSDE staff, past MSP project coordinators • Multiple reads of each application • Panel discussion results in identification of leading proposals • Panel makes recommendations to MSP Program Managers • MSP Program Managers notify leading proposal coordinators of requested modifications and extend invitations to attend Pre-Award Advisory Meeting • Formal award letters e-mailed to lead partners

32. Evaluation Criteria • Needs assessment • Partnership commitment and capacity • Goals and objectives • PD program design and quality • Project management and monitoring • Project evaluation and research plan • Budget documentation and cost effectiveness

33. Your Questions

34. Networking

35. Finding Partners • 122 respondents to CSDE PD interest survey e-mailed in June • Spreadsheets available showing names of districts that expressed interest in instructional coaching academies and resource collaboratives • Time for networking!

36. MSP Program Managers Science: Elizabeth Buttner Elizabeth.buttner@ct.gov 860-713-6849 Mathematics: Charlene Tate Nichols Charlene.tate.nichols@ct.gov 860-713-6757