ResponsesNatlSciFnd - Emergent Wiki

Instructions

Please respond to each of the questions below. To respond, click on the "edit text" at the bottom of the page. Find the appropriate question and insert your answer following it. At the end of your answer please give your name. To complete your response put four dashes on a new line. Click on "Save Changes" at the bottom.

1. The Partnership and Its Management/Governance Plan

1.1.

Sizeable numbers of disciplinary faculty members seem to already be committed to the Partnership’s proposed effort, but how well does the capacity of the Partnership’s cadre of faculty match the vast scope of the work proposed for professional development of teachers in the partner school districts and for new enhancements to higher education preservice programs? How will the Partnership recruit additional disciplinary faculty when needed?

Disciplinary faculty capacity refers to both sheer person-power and the skill sets of such faculty matched to secondary teacher needs. Thus far, 69 disciplinary faculty have submitted applications to be consultants to partner school districts in secondary 6-12 mathematics and science. They include the following disciplines: 23 mathematicians, 19 biologists, 12 chemists, 10 physicists, 4 geologists and 1 civil engineers. Based on the ratio of mathematicians to the number of 6-12 mathematics teachers we serviced in our previous 5 year LSC project, we believe we presently have more than sufficient capacity in terms of numbers to service the professional development needs of partner secondary math and science teachers. Should the schools require more disciplinary consultants we anticipate it would be relatively easy to recruit within our partners IHEs by word-of-mouth. Indeed, we could have recruited more for this proposal but we were sensitive to having too many and thus over promising the availability of consulting opportunities for disciplinary faculty, and thus disappointing and discouraging them. For example In the Lehigh Valley the two coordinators (Dennis Ebersole for mathematics and David Smith of the Discovery Center for science) will be responsible for recruiting the disciplinary faculty as needed. Dennis has a close working relationship with the regional colleges having worked with them on previous grants. The Discovery Center has a cadre of science presenters they have used in the past.

In terms of skill sets matched to partners needs, we expect that disciplinary faculty already possess extensive content knowledge but will need orientation and training to the world of 6-12 education particularly as it relates to state standards, assessments, specific 6-12 curricular materials and the psychology and politics of the change process. We plan to have a five day orientation program for each type of disciplinary faculty to prepare them to be 6-12 consultants. To assist in this 6-12 orientation process, we have the service of 4 math and 6 science educators, 9 additional education professors and supporting consultants and partners such as Mark Driscoll from EDC and Lucy West from NYC.

We anticipate using disciplinary faculty in five main areas: 1) to provide customized content specific in-services, e.g. AP level Statistics, 2) to provide content expertise in individual mentoring and collaborative group reflection and analysis of practice, 3) to challenge and guide teachers to reform think about what is means for their students to think mathematically and think scientifically, 4) to provide teachers, administrators and parents the collegiate point of view in terms of preparing students for expectations, and 5) assisting in the recruitment of prospective pre-service secondary mathematics and science teachers from high schools and with their university departments.

In addition to disciplinary faculty providing content in-service to teachers, we have an extensive network of secondary teacher leaders to provide curriculum specific training, e.g STC or FOSS kits usage, MiC, Core Plus training. For example, from our previous LSC project we have a cadre of 160 6-12 math presenters. While disciplinary faculty will need to become familiar with such 6-12 curricula we do not expect them to provide practitioner training in such materials unless they have taught it.

The team management structure of the MSPMP and how each school district is categorized in respect to their place on the journey to reform will assure efficient utilization of disciplinary faculty to match the particular personalities, politics and needs of each school and district.

In terms of the capacity of disciplinary faculty to enhance their own institution’s pre-service programs we see them at receiving professional development in course and instruction redesign and enhancement rather than providing it. Part of their training will be the practicum of working in the field as 6-12 consultants and part will be in the context of their own university teaching at the pre-service level. The university subawards are directed toward this component of the project. -Joe

Thoughts from Victor

In addition to disciplinary faculty consultants from partner IHEs, our management model also includes the option of having disciplinary faculty from non-partner IHE serve as consultants. We have several already signed up and expect that if we have a need for more disciplinary consultants, we could recruit them from the large number (XX) of regional IHEs by making use of our professional contacts, the regions professional organizations such as EPADEL (Eastern Pennsylvania ??? section of MAA), ??? , and the regional chapter of PKAL. Indeed, the regional PKAL chapter has, in addition to its traditional charge of reforming math and science education in Higher Eds, is working to form K-16 partnerships.

Re: Curriculum specific instruction. In our earlier LSC project, we started with XX presenters and over a period of 5 years grew this grew to 160 people. We expect a similar trajectory with the our science presenters. We are aware that science reform is at a less developed stage than mathematics reform and particularly at the secondary level that there are fewer "reform" science curricular that have been developed. Hence our cadre of science presenters will start out small (numbers XX) but we project it will grow (numbers each year). The expertise we developed in the LSC about growing presenters will mitigate the less developed state of science reform and lead to a satisfactory number of science presenters.

Issue: Geographic connection of disciplinary faculty vs. school districts that are doing reform in that discipline. Our model allows for flexibility: can have disciplinary facutly from various IHEs working with single school district. IHE is not paired directly with school district - although there can be IHE - SD pairings in some aspects. But still. we can not have disciplinary faculty commuting too far.

1.2.

2. While comprehensive in its solution to an open-loop model, the MSPGP is not all-inclusive of every school district and university in the region. How will the university partners ensure that the districts that are currently in the Partnership will receive services when other districts make competing demands? While providing a general answer prospective answer to this question, please also specifically describe how LaSalle University will maintain its commitment to the Philadelphia Urban Systemic Program, with which LaSalle University has a subaward, while also taking on the Lead Institution role within the MSPGP.

Partner school districts will receive first priority. Specifically partner school districts will receive first priority from the university partners in the field placement of secondary pre-service teachers for student teaching assignments. Secondly, teachers from partner school districts will receive first priority from the university partners to become members of a 6-12 teacher advisory panel to assist faculty redesigning and enhancing secondary pre-service education as detailed in the university sub-award proposals. While LaSalle University through its previous IMP Regional Dissemination subgrant (1994-1998) and its more recent LSC grant (1998-2003) provided professional development to Philadelphia teachers in the use of IMP and CORE-Plus in partnership with the Philadelphia Urban Systemic Initiative and Urban Systemic Program, the extent of professional development its has been minimal in the past two years. This was due to the administrative turmoil at the district since the departure of Superintendent David Hornbeck. Presently LaSalle does not have subaward with the Philadelphia Urban Systemic Program nor do we anticipate being offered one in the future as the district has decided to revert to a more traditional high school math program for Sept 2004.

Nonetheless the MSPMP will gladly collaborate with the PUSP and any future NSF projects in the Philadelphia school district to the extent possible. In addition, we anticipate secondary benefits accruing to Philadelphia through our preservice and recruitment work with our 13 university partners, especially Lincoln University, the oldest Historically Black College.

joe

1.3.

3. One of the proposed MSPGP’s co-PIs, Vicki Phillips, has taken on an important new role within Pennsylvania. Who will replace her as a co-PI and serve on the MSP Partnership Leadership Team as a significant voice for the partner school districts?

Secretary Phillip’s replacement will be Dr. Vicki Gehrt, superintendent of the Bensalem School District. Dr. Gehrt has had extensive experience implementing CORE-Plus in Delaware school districts. As superintendent of Bensalem, a low income, low performing district, she has been extremely supportive of K-12 mathematics and science reform. Her district for example is using Everyday Math, MiC and IMP system wide and she has two top level administrators with sciecne backgrounds.

1.4.

4. How would the Phillipsburg (NJ) School District, one of the proposed MSPGP’s school district partners, manage its involvement in two MSP projects as it already is a partner in the previously awarded Comprehensive New Jersey Math and Science Partnership.

Phillipsburg will partner with Rutgers University’s for K-5 math and science and partner wiothj the MSPGP for grades 6-12. This year we trained all of Phillipsburg middle school teachers in Connected Math in 6th grade. We will continue this year. ---Joe

1.5.

5. The subaward budget justifications indicate many projects that seem like mini-projects that are reflective of past efforts between the college/university partners and local school districts or of new efforts to enhance preservice programs. How will the MSPGP broker these specifically to match the needs of the broad array of partner school districts? Is there flexibility in the budgets to drawn in additional faculty members from the institutions of higher education when needs are identified by the school district partners?

Answers'

Victor

The sub-award proposals of the partner IHEs are a starting point for the reform efforts of the IHEs. These projects will be reviewed annually and continued funding will depend on these annual reviews. This mechanism will allow flexibility in the IHE projects. We expect that as the partnerships between School Districts and HEs develops and deepens, the interact with the SD will cause the HEs to modify their plans and to find more opportunities for collaborative engagment with the SDs (such as more placements, teachers serving as placement mentors, SD people involved with HE pre-service reform, recruitment). We have set aside funds (?) for these future collaborative efforts . (How might this effect the funding we have "promised" for the initial plans?). Also, as the region wide program develops momentum, we will identify particular needs in the region (such as more physics teachers?) and can work with the IHEs to address these needs.

1.6.

6. What particular project management challenges or obstacles, if any, do you foresee in your proposed Partnership? With what consequences? What strategies do you propose to address or manage these challenges/obstacles?

Answers'

2. Teacher Quality, Quantity and Diversity

2.1.

1. The professional development commitment for teacher participants is proposed to be 130 hours over 5 years. What is the rationale/evidence that there is enough intensity in the professional development effort for each teacher to result in significant change since the 26 hours/year average is likely to not be significantly different than the 3-5 days of professional development that most teachers routinely participate in within past programs? What is the value-added of the MSPGP to current professional development in the partner school districts?

Answers'

2.2.

2. Please provide a mathematics example and a science example of what professional development will look and feel like for partner secondary school teachers, discussing how 130 hours of professional development, 50 hours of mentoring, and participation in Lesson Study will lead to significant changes in participating teachers’ content knowledge and classroom practice.

Answers'

2.3.

3. Provide evidence of how teachers have bought into participating in the proposed MSPGP. What commitments exist to ensure or encourage teacher participation (e.g., commitments from districts/schools, teacher unions or other teacher organizations)? What incentives will be offered, either by the project or by their districts/schools? Is the proposed $75/day rate for involvement in professional development commensurate with rates that are currently negotiated in teachers’ contracts with the various school district partners?

Answers'

Victor

Good question. Our approach is to get the Administration of the School District to buy into the project at the start. What mechanism do we use for getting teachers involved? Sample lesson plans, teachers are involved in choosing which curriculum to adopt??

2.4.

4. Please explain how proposed revisions in the mathematics and science curricula for preservice students are expected to lead to a more qualified teacher workforce in the partnering school districts. In what ways will strengthening of the preservice programs result in preservice students being prepared to teach challenging courses and contribute to a challenging curriculum for all students?

Answers'

2.5.

5. To what degree will the MSPGP’s goals for a 50% increase in newly certified teachers (including 100% increase in new teachers from underrepresented groups) match the partner districts’ needs? Please justify your answer using Appendices Q and J. For example, indicate how a 50% increase in the yield of new Physics teachers (2 undergraduate and 0 graduate students certified in 2002) satisfies some part of the "Just elementary certified" (middle school teachers) or "Not science certified" (high school teachers) need.

Answers'

2.6.

6. What kinds of incentives will be in place to ensure that a significant number of newly certified teachers will practice in partner school districts as opposed to districts elsewhere in the region or in the nation?

Answers'

Victor

Will work to build better recruiting pathways between IHEs and SDs. ?SDs will give preference to qualified pre-service teachers from partner IHES? We have identified as a problem with new teacher recruitment, the timing of job hires - usually in June. We will work with partner districts to try to shift the hiring time table earlier in the spring so that teacher job hires at public schools are commensurate with the private school hiring (??? ) and with hiring in other jobs available to graduating college students. By building strong connections between SDs and IHEs, we will have pre-service teachers working in the schools from an earlier stage, they will make more connections with the SD and become familiar from an early stage with the job hiring process.

2.7.

7. Please describe specific strategies to support the goal of enhanced teacher diversity?

Answers'

Victor

?Give seed money for scholarships for programs that target minority students? Work with the IHEs, the business community and SDs to find ongoing supoort for such programs. Lincoln University.

3. Challenging Courses and Curricula

3.1.

1. In what ways do existing science and mathematics courses and curricula in partnership schools and districts address the needs of all students? Are there specific plans for curricular revision to meet the needs of particular groups of students? In general, what is the value-added of the proposed MSP Partnership in curricular/course improvement in mathematics and science, grades K-12?

Answers'

3.2.

2. In what ways will the planned professional development curriculum enhance teachers’ content knowledge and pedagogical skills to reach all students? To reach those who are traditionally underserved in mathematics/science? To reach those who are mathematically/scientifically gifted?

Answers'

4. Institutional Change and Sustainability

4.1.

1. What specific changes are proposed in organizational/institutional policies and practices to support improved mathematics and science learning and teaching in (a) core higher education partners, and (b) core K-12 partners?

Answers'

4.2.

2. What are the incentives for recruitment and sustained involvement of college/university faculty, especially faculty in the disciplinary departments (e.g., rewards and recognitions, policy changes)?

Answers'

5. Evidence-based Design and Outcomes

5.1.

1. What is the proposed project’s value-added to work in the region that will extend beyond the substantial prior efforts, many funded by NSF, in which many partners have been engaged?

Answers'

5.2.

2. In what ways is your proposed project innovative? In what ways does your project extend beyond commonplace approaches to improve mathematics and science education? What rationale/evidence leads you to expect that your proposed innovations will accelerate the attainment of your project’s desired outcomes?

Answers'

5.3.

3. In what domains do you expect your project’s formative evaluation to be especially useful in guiding your decision-making? What kinds of data will you need to collect?

Answers'

6. Project Evaluation

6.1.

1. Your project proposes a project-specific evaluation that links important evaluation questions to some of the key features of Partnerships, but does not sufficiently address other important features. Significantly, your proposal does not include a section on "Outcome Goals and Annual Benchmarks" as required in the MSP Solicitation and that would drive the MSPGP’s efforts towards specific outcomes. Please add depth to the few proposed benchmarks (identified on page 3 of the proposal) and provide details of the evaluation that will inform success within your proposed for the following:

6.1.1. a. Overall

– The School Reform Rubric (Appendix G) and Self-Assessment (Appendix I) are informative. Please provide benchmarks on how the profile in Appendix I is expected to change annually as a result of the MSPGP and how it will look different at the end of 5 years.

Answers'

6.1.2. b. Student achievement

6.1.2.1.

Assessments: Is the MSPGP committing to a 0.2 standard deviation gain on a variety of assessments after 3 years as the outcome indicator? Please translate this to the types of assessments indicated in Appendix D so that it is possible to determine what an increase in student achievement as a result of the MSPGP will look like for students in the partner school districts. Also, define annual benchmarks leading to 5-year summative goals, and provide expected outcomes for disaggregated student subpopulations.

Answers'

6.1.2.2.

ii. The Partnership offers some outcomes for student participation in challenging mathematics and science courses, but does not provide baseline data. Please provide baselines and offer annual benchmarks leading to 5-year summative goals (including outcomes for disaggregated student subpopulations) for:

1. hours of mathematics and sciences courses being taken – proposed to increase 10% after 4 years; and 2. hours in advanced mathematics and science courses (which ones?) – proposed to increase 30%, generally, and 50% for advanced placement courses.

Answers'

6.1.3. c. Teacher professional development

– Beyond counting numbers of teachers served for significant quantities of hours in professional development, what commitments will the Partnership make to improved teacher quality as evidenced by growth in teachers’ content knowledge and changes in classroom practice? How will you measure these?

Answers'

6.1.4. d. Support for teachers

– How will the Partnership measure quality in and benchmark:

6.1.4.1.

the Teacher Leader portion of the project?

Answers'

6.1.4.2.

ii. the administrator support and training activities?

Answers'

6.1.5. e. Teacher preparation and institutional change in higher education

– The "Rubric for Higher-Education Self-Assessment" (Appendix L) and "Institutions of Higher Education Pre-service Self-Assessment" (Appendix K) are informative. Please provide benchmarks on how the profile in Appendix K is expected to change annually as a result of the MSPGP and how it will look different at the end of 5 years. Further, in the section "Implementation of Pre-service Teacher Program Enhancement" (page 11), the proposal notes a variety of qualities expected in pre-service education as a result of the MSPGP. How will the Partnership benchmark and measure quality in:

6.1.5.1.

the content knowledge of new teachers (please translate 0.3 standard deviation in scores of new teachers on PA and NJ teacher tests)?

Answers'

6.1.5.2.

ii. mentoring by faculty and 6-12 teachers?

Answers'

6.1.5.3.

iii. redesigned college/university courses?

Answers'

6.1.5.4.

iv. use of "appropriate research-based pedagogies" in preservice courses?

Answers'

6.1.5.5.

v. faculty involvement in the MSPGP?

Answers'

6.1.6. f. The Partnership

How will you measure effectiveness of the partnership, itself?

Answers'