Section Ii: Grant Program Information s2

Notice of Grant Opportunity

MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

TITLE II, PART B OF THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT OF 2001 (NCLB)

YEAR THREE OF THREE

Lucille E. Davy Commissioner of Education

Jay Doolan Assistant Commissioner Division of Educational Standards and Programs

Sandra Alberti Director Office of Math and Science Education Division of Educational Standards and Programs

February 2009

Application Due Date: March 27, 2009

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION P.O. Box 500 Trenton, NJ 08625-0500

http://www.state.nj.us/education

STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION

JOSEPHINE E. HERNANDEZ ……………………………………. Union President

ARCELIO APONTE ……….……………………………………… Middlesex Vice President

RONALD K. BUTCHER ………………………………………….. Gloucester

KATHLEEN A. DIETZ ……………………………………………. Somerset

EDITHE FULTON …………………………………………………. Ocean

ROBERT P. HANEY ……………………………………………… Monmouth

ERNEST P. LEPORE ……..………………………….……………. Hudson

FLORENCE McGINN …………………………………………….. Hunterdon

DOROTHY S. STRICKLAND …………………………….………. Essex

Lucille E. Davy, Commissioner Secretary, State Board of Education

It is a policy of the New Jersey State Board of Education and the State Department of Education that no person, on the basis of race, color, creed, national origin, age, sex, handicap or marital status, shall be subjected to discrimination in employment or be excluded from or denied benefits of any activity, program or service for which the department has responsibility. The department will comply with all state and federal laws and regulations concerning nondiscrimination.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

When responding to this Notice of Grant Opportunity (NGO), applicants must use the Electronic Web Enabled Grant (EWEG) online application system. See http://homeroom.state.nj.us/ to access this system.

SECTION 1: GRANT PROGRAM INFORMATION PAGE 1.1 Description of the Grant Program 4 1.2 Eligibility to Apply 6 1.3 Federal Compliance Requirements (DUNS, CCR) 7 1.4 Statutory/Regulatory Source and Funding 7 1.5 Dissemination of This Notice 7 1.6 Technical Assistance 8 1.7 Application Submission 8 1.8 Reporting Requirements 10 1.9 Assessment of Statewide Program Results 11

SECTION 2: PROJECT GUIDELINES 2.1 Project Design Considerations 13 2.2 Project Requirements 13 2.3 Budget Design Considerations 19 2.4 Budget Requirements 19

SECTION 3: COMPLETING THE APPLICATION 3.1 General Instructions for Applying 23 3.2 Review of Year Three Continuation Applications 23 3.3 Application Component Checklist 24

APPENDICES Appendix A: U.S. Department of Education Gateway Resources 25 Appendix B: Criteria for Classifying Designs of MSP Evaluations 31

ATTACHMENTS – TO BE COMPLETED, SCANNED AND UPLOADED TO EWEG Attachment A: Documentation of Collaboration 39 Attachment B: Nonpublic Equitable Participation Summary and Affirmation of Consultation Form 40

3 SECTION 1: GRANT PROGRAM INFORMATION

1.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE GRANT PROGRAM

In January 2002, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) became law. The Improving Teacher Quality Grant Programs (Title II) are a major component of the No Child Left Behind legislation. These programs encourage scientifically-based professional development as a means for improving student academic performance in mathematics and science. As schools are responsible for improving student learning, it is essential to have highly qualified teachers leading the way.

Title II, Part B of NCLB authorizes a Mathematics and Science Partnerships (MSP) competitive grant program within each state. New Jersey received funding from the U.S. Department of Education that is intended to increase the academic achievement of students in mathematics and science by enhancing the content knowledge and teaching skills of classroom teachers (http://www.ed-msp.net).

The New Jersey Mathematics and Science Partnership Program focuses on the academic achievement of students in grades 3 through 8. There is a strong body of evidence that supports the need to increase the content knowledge and pedagogy of practicing elementary and middle school teachers (Ball, 2004, and Weiss, 2004). The Department of Education recognizes the need to provide ongoing professional development for teachers of mathematics and science as one strategy to insure that all students are prepared to take rigorous college and work-ready coursework in high school.

This Notice of Grant Opportunity (NGO) is for the third year of a three-year competitive grant program. The MSP project begins July 1, 2009 and ends June 30, 2010.

The New Jersey MSP program is designed to provide all mathematics and science teachers in grades 3-8, including teachers in general education, special needs, bilingual, and gifted and talented programs, opportunities to: enhance their content knowledge in mathematics and technology and science and technology (Technological Literacy standards 8.1 and 8.2); meet the NCLB federal definition of Highly Qualified Teachers; and/or receive undergraduate or graduate hours of academic credit toward the attainment of the New Jersey Teacher of Elementary School with Subject Matter Specialization certificate.

Partnerships between high-need LEAs and the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) faculty in institutions of higher education are the core of these improvement efforts. Other partners may include public charter schools, other public schools or private schools, businesses, federal, state, or local agencies, and nonprofit or for-profit organizations concerned with mathematics and science education.

As a result of this program, partnerships will: 1) improve the academic achievement of students in mathematics and science; 2) improve teachers’ subject content knowledge, skills and classroom

4 practices; 3) provide follow-up activities, such as curriculum alignment, distance learning, and activities that train teachers to utilize technology in the classroom; 4) increase the number of highly qualified teachers in mathematics and science; and 5) include learning opportunities that are aligned to the Professional Standards for Teachers as they are defined in N.J.A.C. 6A:9-3.3 and correlated with the revised New Jersey Core Curriculum Content Standards.

The NJDOE has established a three-year project using federal funds, as follows: Year One, July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008; Year Two, July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2009; and Year Three July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010. Year Three awards are contingent upon successful completion of funded program goals and objectives.

As part of the grant process, applicants were required to develop and include in the Year One application a three-year comprehensive professional development plan for the three year-cycle. This plan provided the conceptual framework for the achievement of the Mathematics and Science Partnership Program requirements that are described in Section 2 of this NGO. As part of this year’s application process, applicants must describe the professional development plan for Year Three that is consistent with the three-year comprehensive plan. This plan will provide the conceptual framework for the implementation of the above-mentioned requirements and for all proposed objectives and activities for the third year of the project.

Purpose The purpose of the New Jersey Mathematics and Science Partnership Program is to improve the academic achievement of students in the areas of mathematics and science by encouraging institutions of higher education (IHE) and local educational agencies (LEA) to participate in partnerships that:

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;

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;

3. Bring mathematics and science teachers in elementary and secondary schools together with scientists, mathematicians, and engineers to increase the subject matter knowledge of mathematics and science teachers and improve their teaching skills through the use of sophisticated laboratory equipment and work space, computing facilities, libraries, and other resources that are typically found in institutions of higher education;

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 science, technology, or mathematics; and

5 5. Improve and expand training of mathematics and science teachers, to include the effective integration of technology into curricula and instruction.

1.2 ELIGIBILITY TO APPLY

The eligible candidates for the Year Three of Three of this continuation grant are limited to the six Lead Agencies, and their partner local education agencies, that were competitively awarded funding in Year One.

These eligible institutions of higher education are Montclair State University, William Paterson University, Rowan University, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Stevens Institute of Technology, and The Richard Stockton College of New Jersey, and

 A “high need” LEA – For the purposes of this grant, high need LEA is defined as a) those schools with at least 20% of children from families with incomes below the poverty line and/or b) those LEAs with schools that have not met AYP in mathematics for a minimum of four years.

In addition, the following agencies may be included:

 Additional LEAs, another engineering, mathematics, science, or teacher training department of an IHE, public charter schools, public or private schools, or a consortium of such schools;  a business;  a nonprofit or for-profit organization with demonstrated effectiveness in improving the quality of mathematics and science teachers; and  a federal, state, or local agency with demonstrated effectiveness in improving the quality of mathematics and science teachers. Examples of these organizations include, but are not limited to, NASA, NOAA, USGS, and NJ Department of Environmental Protection.

Each IHE may only submit one application.

Applicants must include the Documentation of Collaboration for each of the partnership members. Completed and signed forms must be scanned, attached/uploaded to the EWEG Application. The Documentation of Collaboration form is submitted to verify that the named partners have agreed to enter into a partnership for year Three. Specific roles and responsibilities for each partner should be developed by all partners, initialed, and attached to the Documentation of Collaboration. Specific language regarding the LEA’s responsibility for providing student achievement data must be included. The Documentation of Collaboration form can be found at the end of this NGO document Attachment A.

6 1.3 FEDERAL COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS (DUNS, CCR)

In accordance with the Federal Fiscal Accountability Transparency Act (FFATA), all grant recipients must have a valid DUNS number and must also be registered with the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) database. DUNS numbers are issued by Dun and Bradstreet and are available for free to all entities required to register under FFATA.

 To obtain a DUNS number, go to http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform/

 To register with the CCR database, go to www.ccr.gov

Applicants are required to provide their DUNS number and certify that they are registered with the CCR database as part of the EWGG Application. No award will be made to an applicant not in compliance with FFATA.

1.4 STATUTORY/REGULATORY SOURCE AND FUNDING

The applicant’s project must be designed and implemented in conformance with all applicable state and federal regulations. The MSP Grant is 100% funded under Title II Part B of NCLB, P.L. 107- 110. Each agency whose proposal was funded in Year One is eligible for a continuation in Years Two and Three, pending attainment of stated goals and objectives in Year Two and receipt of federal funds. Additionally, agencies must demonstrate effective fiscal management each year.

The New Jersey Department of Education will award approximately $3,150,000 in MSP Competitive Grants in Year Three. A total of up to six awards will be made. Each applicant may apply for a Year Three award of up to $525,000. This award period is July 1, 2009 –June 30, 2010.

Year One awards in the amount of up to $675,000 were allocated for the period of July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008; Year Two awards in the amount of up to $510,250 are for the period of, July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2009; and Year Three awards in the amount of up to $525,000 are for the period of July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010. Final awards are subject to the availability of Mathematics and Science Partnership Program funds.

1.5 DISSEMINATION OF THIS NOTICE

The Office of Math and Science Education will make this notice available to all eligible agencies identified in Section 1, subsection 1.2, to the county superintendents of the regions and counties in which the eligible agencies are located.

Important: This NGO does not constitute the complete application package. All applicants must use this NGO in combination with the Discretionary Grant Application (DGA), which contains required guidance, application forms and instructions necessary to prepare a complete application.

7 The DGA is available at http://www.nj.gov/njded/grants/discretionary/apps/ or by contacting the Application Control Center at the New Jersey Department of Education, 100 River View Plaza, P.O. Box 500, Trenton, NJ 08625-0500; telephone (609) 633-6974; fax (609) 777-1051.

Additional copies of the NGO are also available on the NJDOE web site (above) or by contacting the Office of Math and Science Education, New Jersey Department of Education, 100 River View Plaza, P.O. Box 500, Trenton, NJ 08625-0500. For information please call (609) 984-7453.

1.6 TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

The Department of Education will not provide a Technical Assistance Workshop. Technical assistance for the Year Three NGO will be provided via telephone or email. Current MSP grantees may contact the Office of Math and Science education at (609) 984-7453 with any questions they may have. E-mail inquiries may be directed to Michael Heinz, science coordinator, at [email protected].

1.7 APPLICATION SUBMISSION

The New Jersey Department of Education operates discretionary grant programs in strict conformance with procedures designed to ensure accountability and integrity in the use of public funds and, therefore, will not accept late applications.

The responsibility for a timely submission resides with the applicant. The Application Control Center (ACC) must receive the complete application through the online EWEG system at http://homeroon.state.nj.us/ NO LATER THAN 4:00 P.M. ON March 27, 2009 Without exception, the ACC will not accept, and the Office of Grants Management cannot evaluate for funding consideration, an application received after this deadline. An applicant agency will lose the opportunity to be considered eligible for an award if the application is received after the due date.

Receipt by the due date and time is required. Complete applications are those that include all elements listed in Section 3.3, Application Component Checklist of this notice. Applications received by the due date and time will be screened to determine whether they are, in fact, eligible for evaluation. The Department of Education reserves the right to reject any application not in conformance with the requirements of this NGO.

Paper copies of the grant application will not be accepted in lieu of the electronic EWEG application submission.

8 1.8 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

Grant recipients are required to submit periodic project and fiscal progress reports to the New Jersey Department of Education. For additional information about post award requirements, see the Grant Recipient’s Manual for Discretionary Grants at: http://www.nj.gov/njded/grants/discretionary/management. The reports will be reviewed to ascertain the degree of the grantee’s progress within the scope of work appropriate to the current agreement period and its conformance with program regulations and enabling legislation. The grantee is expected to complete all of the MSP program requirements and to make satisfactory progress toward the completion of the comprehensive plan. Failure to do so may result in the withdrawal of current and/or continued funding by the Department of Education.

The fiscal and program reports will be submitted online through EWEG.

Fiscal and Program Reports are due:

Report Reporting Period Due Date Submit VIA 1st Interim 7/1/09 – 9/30/09 10/15/09 EWEG 2nd Interim 7/1/09 – 12/31/09 01/14/10 EWEG 3rd Interim 7/1/09– 3/31/10 04/15/10 EWEG Final 7/1/09 – 6/30/10 09/30/10 EWEG

Additional Report: United States Department of Education’s Annual Project Report

United State Department of Education Annual Project Report (Project Profile, Project Narrative, and External Evaluation): According to the guidelines of Title II, Part B of No Child Left Behind, each project director is required to submit a complete on-line Annual Project Report demonstrating progress towards achieving the goals specified in their proposal. If a project has been discontinued, the project director should submit a Final Project Report in lieu of an Annual Project Report. The Annual Project Report is due 30 days after Cycle of Funding (07/30/10). Tools and resources for completing the USED reports can be found at http://www.ed.gov/programs/mathsci/resources.html.

Additional Report is due:

Report Reporting Period Due Date Submit To United States Reports are submitted using the Department of 7/1/09 – 6/30/10 07/30/10 web based USED APR form. The Education’s Annual NJMSP Program Officer reviews Project Report and gives final approval prior to submission to the USED.

9 1.9 ASSESSMENT OF PROGRAM RESULTS

Each partnership project shall develop an external evaluation plan for activities of the project that include rigorous objectives that measure the impact of the activities. Measurable objectives to increase the number of mathematics and science teachers who participate in content-based professional development activities must be included. Additionally, measurable objectives for improved student academic achievement are required. Projects must, at a minimum, address the USED GPRA evaluation questions. The project director shall report the results of the external evaluation in the US Department of Education’s Annual Project Report and the New Jersey Department of Education’s Final Program Report. MSP applicants are encouraged to build a high-quality randomized controlled trial (RCT) into the design of their project in order to rigorously evaluate its effectiveness. RCTs are considered the gold standard for measuring a project’s impact based on persuasive evidence that (i) they are superior to other evaluation methods in producing valid estimates of a project’s impact; and (ii) the most commonly-used nonrandomized methods often produce erroneous conclusions. MSP applicants which, by themselves, may have not have the required minimum sample of teachers to carry out an RCT, can propose to partner with other MSP applicants to carry out a cross-site RCT. Applicants partnering in this way would need to implement the same MSP model (e.g., the same summer institute program providing the same teacher training). Applicants should include the following items in their Evaluation Plan: A. A short statement of the research questions that the external evaluation seeks to answer (e.g., “Does the MSP project increase student math achievement; if so, by how much?”) Projects must, at a minimum, address the USED GPRA evaluation questions. B. Identification of an external researcher, or research team, who (i) has agreed to carry out the external evaluation, and (ii) who has previous experience in carrying out a high-quality education research. C. A brief description of the plan, developed by the applicant and researcher, for recruiting the required sample of teachers to participate in the external evaluation. Minimum sample size requirements are discussed on page 5 of the U.S. Education Department’s User-Friendly Guide to RCTs in the MSP program, at http://www.ed.gov/programs/mathsci/resources.html. The applicant’s plan for recruiting teachers into the study should:  Provide assurance that the participating school district(s) have agreed to the random assignment process; and  Describe what steps the study will take to recruit the required sample of teachers.

10 D. Brief assurances that the applicant and researcher will ensure the integrity of the randomization through the following steps:  Having someone independent of the MSP project carry out the lottery or other process for random assignment of teachers.  Asking teachers in the intervention group not to share MSP program materials with teachers in the control group (so as to avoid contamination of the control group).  Ensuring that the schools’ assignment of teachers to their classes is unaffected by whether the teachers are in the intervention or control group.  Collecting and analyzing outcome data for all teachers assigned to the intervention and control groups, even those intervention-group teachers who do not actually complete the MSP intervention. (This is known as an “intention-to-treat” approach, and is designed to ensure that the intervention and control groups remain equivalent over the course of the study – i.e., have no systematic differences other than those caused by the intervention.)  Making every effort to obtain outcome data for at least 80 percent of the teachers originally selected, and the students entering their classes. As part of such assurance, describe briefly the steps the applicant and researcher will take to maximize sample retention, such as obtaining test scores for students in the study who transfer to another school within the same district or state.

E. A brief description of how the study will measure project outcomes.

 The study should use existing data collection instruments that have already been deemed valid and reliable; or data collection instruments developed specifically for the study are sufficiently pre-tested with subjects who were comparable to the study sample.

11 SECTION 2: PROJECT GUIDELINES

The intent of this section is to provide the applicant with the framework within which it will plan, design, and develop its proposed project to meet the purpose of this grant program. Before preparing applications, potential applicants are advised to review Section 1.1, Description of the Grant Program, of this NGO to ensure a full understanding of the state’s vision and purpose for offering the program. Additionally, the information contained in Section 2 will complete the applicant’s understanding of the specific considerations and requirements that are to be considered and/or addressed in their project.

Please note that the passage of the School District Accountability Act (A5 or Chapter Law 53) places additional administrative requirements on the travel of school district personnel. The applicant is urged to be mindful of these requirements as they may impact the ability of school district personnel to participate in activities sponsored by the grant program.

When submitting an application, the agency must use the EWEG online application system located at http://homeroom.state.nj.us/.

2.1 PROJECT DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

In the third year of the three-year comprehensive plan, applicants should continue to include the following important characteristics: (1) Scientifically-based Research; (2) Needs Assessment; (3) Continued enhancement of Year Two teacher participants’ content knowledge and attainment of highly qualified status; and (4) Inclusion and expansion of a distance learning component.

2.2 PROJECT REQUIREMENTS

Project Update/Abstract

In order to move forward with the planning of the Year Three activities, it is necessary to assess and reflect upon the results of the activities that took place during Year Two. To that end, applicants are required to provide in the Project Update section a progress report on the implementation of the first and second years’ approved professional development activities. The applicant may propose any enhancements or improvements to the project for the upcoming third grant agreement period. These might include additional LEA partners and/or expansion of professional development summer institutes to meet the specific needs of participating teachers. In this section, the applicant will:

 Provide evidence of achievement of years one and two project goals. The narrative should provide quantitative evidence of findings;

 Describe any unanticipated outcomes (positive and/or negative) resulting from the implementation of the program plan and the program requirements in year two;

12  Identify any unforeseen obstacles or challenges that may have had an impact upon desired progress to date toward achievement of the goals and objectives, program requirements, budget, etc. for the previous and current contract years. Describe actions taken to address those obstacles or challenges and the outcomes of those efforts; and

 Describe how the applicant will build upon the successes of the current contract year in support of the achievement of the approved three-year plan for the third year.

Project Description for Year Three Applicants will identify in the project description the key activities that will be undertaken during the third project period as well as timeframes, resources, responsible persons and how external evaluation will be accommodated. The narrative must provide a description of the number, type, duration and intensity of professional development experiences, including the number of teachers engaged.

Professional development activities must be supported by scientifically-based research and support the New Jersey Professional Standards for Teachers. The application must focus on the deep mathematical and scientific content that teachers need to understand in order to provide effective instruction in the revised New Jersey’s Core Curriculum Content Standards. Professional development activities must utilize technology/distance learning programs to support the achievement of stated goals. Additionally, professional development opportunities will provide activities that train teachers to utilize technology/distance learning programs that are designed to improve teacher content knowledge and/or student achievement in mathematics or science.

The year three project description must include the following descriptions of how:

 The applicant will ensure that all partners in the partnership will be actively involved in the development and implementation of the project plan and activities, as well as how the partnership and partnership activities will be coordinated;  High quality professional development activities are tied to increased student achievement in mathematics and/or science as well as enhanced teacher content knowledge in mathematics and/or science;  The partnership will ensure that services provided are increasing the number of “highly qualified teachers” in mathematics and science;  The partnership will ensure that services provided are increasing the numbers of teachers working toward the attainment of the New Jersey Teacher of Elementary School with Subject Matter Specialization certificate;  Lessons learned from Years One and Two are incorporated into the partnership’s proposal for Year Three;  Clearly explain the link between professional development work and the revised New Jersey Core Curriculum Content Standards. The professional development experiences must be clearly linked to the revised Core Curriculum Content Standards and statewide assessment data; and  How the partnership will ensure that services are offered on an equitable basis to nonpublic as well as public schools, where applicable.

13 The Year Three project description must address the following requirements:

. Improved teachers’ subject content knowledge, pedagogical skills, and classroom practices; . Increased numbers of highly qualified teachers in mathematics and science. . Increased student content knowledge that is aligned to the teacher professional development activities; and . Evidence of growth in teacher content knowledge through the use of technology integration in mathematics and/or science. . An Activity Plan and Budget for Year Three of the three-year plan.

Project Activity Plan for Year Three The overarching goal of the MSP Grant program is to increase the number of highly qualified teachers and/or certified middle school teachers in science and mathematics by conducting professional development activities tied to the revised Core Curriculum Content Standards and the Professional Standards for Teachers. Therefore, the following activities are required.

Required Activities:  Conducting a summer institute for a period of not less than 2 weeks (10 days/80 hours) that focuses on the development of content knowledge and models standards based pedagogy;  Follow-up training during the academic year that is conducted in the participant teachers’ classroom for not less than 4 days. Follow-up training must be based on the New Jersey Professional Development Standards for Teachers N.J.A.C. 6A:9-15.2;  A program component that provides direct interaction between Grade 3-8 teachers of mathematics and/or science and higher education mathematics, science, and/or engineering faculty;  Training on how to meaningfully integrate technology into mathematics and science classrooms;  A program component that develops and supports novice mathematics, science and special education content area specialists in grades 3-8;  Development or redesign of more rigorous mathematics and science curricula that are based on the revised New Jersey Core Curriculum Content Standards and with the standards expected for secondary study in mathematics and science;  Electronic resource(s) for teachers and project partners to efficiently communicate, collaborate, and disseminate information; and  A specific plan for an external evaluation.

Permitted Activities  Utilization of an existing digital learning networks and/or distance learning programs for mathematics and science teachers that include innovative programs grounded in scientifically-based research that support achievement of the revised New Jersey’s mathematics and science Core Curriculum Content Standards;  Inclusion of a program that provides direct interaction between Grade 3-8 teachers of mathematics and/or science and business, industry, scientific, or engineering organizations;  Inclusion of a program that provide teachers and prospective teachers with opportunities to work under the guidance of experienced teachers and/or college faculty;

14  Instruction in the use of data and assessments to inform and instruct classroom practice;  Professional development activities, including supplemental and follow-up activities, such as curriculum alignment and activities that train teachers to utilize technology in the classroom; and  Establishment and maintenance of programs that bring mathematics and science teachers into contact with working scientists, mathematicians and engineers, to expand such teachers’ knowledge of and research in science and mathematics; and  Support membership and participation in professional organizations such as NSTA and NCTM.

Goals, Objectives, and Indicators for Year Three The narrative must clearly describe the measurable goals and objectives indicating measurable outcomes correlated to the identified needs. The overarching goal of the MSP Grant Program is to improve student academic achievement in the areas of mathematics and science. The program aims to improve 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 supporting current and future mathematics and science teachers.

In designing a three-year comprehensive plan, applicants are required to address the following important characteristics: . Shared responsibilities between IHE and partner LEAs. . Content knowledge focus; . Emphasis on standards based instructional practices; . Coherent sequence of professional development; . Collective participation among teachers; . Sufficient program duration and frequency to facilitate change in practices; and . Rigorous external evaluation

Goals and Objectives: . Improve teachers’ subject content knowledge, pedagogical skills, and classroom practices; . Increase student achievement in mathematics and science; . Increase numbers of highly qualified teachers in mathematics and science; . Increase student content knowledge that is aligned to the teacher professional development activities; . Provide evidence of growth in teacher content knowledge through the use of technology integration in mathematics and science; and . Reduce the attrition rate of novice mathematics, science, special education, and elementary grades content area specialists in grades 3-8.

External Evaluation Plan for Year Three Each partnership project shall develop an external evaluation plan for activities of the project that include rigorous objectives that measure the impact of the activities. Measurable objectives to increase the number of mathematics and science teachers who participate in content-based professional development activities must be included. Additionally,

15 measurable objectives for improved student academic achievement are required. The project director shall report annually to the US Department of Education and New Jersey Department of Education regarding progress in meeting the objectives described in the evaluation and accountability plan. The Evaluation Plan must include the following components: A. A short statement of the research questions that the external evaluation seeks to answer (e.g., “Does the MSP project increase student math achievement; if so, by how much?”) Projects must, at a minimum, address the USED GPRA evaluation questions. B. Identification of an external researcher, or research team, who (i) has agreed to carry out the external evaluation, and (ii) who has previous experience in carrying out a high- quality education research. C. A brief description of the plan, developed by the applicant and researcher, for recruiting the required sample of teachers to participate in the external evaluation.

Participation of Students Enrolled in Nonpublic Schools In accordance with federal requirements (NCLB, Sec 9501), agencies applying to receive federal financial assistance are required to provide services to eligible private school children, teachers and other personnel consistent with the number of eligible children enrolled in private elementary and secondary schools in the LEA, or in the geographic area served by another entity receiving federal financial assistance. These services and other benefits must be comparable to the services and other benefits provided to public school children and teachers participating in the program and they must be provided in a timely manner.

To ensure equitable participation, the applicant must assess, address and evaluate the needs of private school students and teachers; spend an equal amount of funds per student to provide services; provide private school students and teachers with an opportunity to participate in activities equivalent to the opportunity provided public school students and teachers; and offer services that are secular, neutral and non-ideological.

Federal regulations contain requirements for timely and meaningful consultation between appropriate public and private school officials. The goal of the consultation process is to design and implement a program that will provide equitable services and meet the needs of eligible private school students and/or teachers and other education personnel. Consultation requires meetings between the applicant (lead) agency and the private schools. Consultation between the entity receiving federal financial assistance and private school officials must occur before any decision is made that could affect the ability of private school students, teachers and other education personnel to receive benefits under the grant and must continue throughout the implementation and assessment of activities. Consultation generally must include discussion on such issues as: how children's needs will be identified; what services will be offered; how and where the services will be provided; who will provide the services; how the services will be assessed and how the results of assessment will be used to improve those services; the amount of funds available for services; the size and scope of the services to be provided; and how and when decisions about the delivery of services will be made.

16 In addition, a thorough consideration of the views of private school officials on the provision of contract services through potential third-party providers must take place, and, where the entity receiving assistance disagrees with the views of the private school officials on the provision of services through a contract, the entity must provide a written explanation of the reasons why the entity has chosen to use or not to use a contractor.

Agencies are required to provide documentation of consultation with private school officials as part of their discretionary grant applications. In addition, documents accepting or declining participation, signed by officials of each private school eligible for services, must be submitted as part of the grant application.

Use of Funds Requirements (EDGAR 76.650 - 76.662)

When providing benefits to nonpublic school students with federal funds, the following must be addressed:  The grantee must maintain administrative control over all funds and property. (No funds can flow directly to the nonpublic school via a subgrant).  The grantee may place equipment and supplies in the nonpublic school for the period of time needed for the grant. The grantee must ensure that the materials are used only for the purposes of the grant and can be removed from the nonpublic school without remodeling the nonpublic school facility.  Funds can not be used for construction of nonpublic school facilities.  Funds must be used to meet specific needs of students and staff. (Funds can not supplant benefits normally provided by the nonpublic school).  Funds may be used to pay for services of an employee of the nonpublic school if the employee performs the services outside of his or her regular hours and the employees performs the services under the supervision of the grantee.  All benefits provided, including equipment and materials, must be secular, neutral and nonideological. (IASA, Sec 14503) ______*A nonpublic school is defined in N.J.A.C. 18A:46A-1 as an elementary or secondary school within the State, other than a public school, offering education for grades kindergarten through 12, or any combination of them, wherein any child may legally fulfill compulsory school attendance requirements and which complies with the requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-352). A list of nonpublic schools by LEA district can be found on the New Jersey Department of Education website at http://www.nj.gov/njded/nonpublic/.

Forms The applicant must scan and upload, as part of the EWEG application the signed Nonpublic Equitable Participation Summary and Affirmation Of Consultation. An applicant agency may be disqualified if it fails to include this form in its grant application after receiving the grant award and throughout the grant program.

17 2.3 BUDGET DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

Grant applications will be evaluated on their fiscal efficiency and a design that reflects a spending priority on instructional services that most directly impacts teachers’ content knowledge, pedagogy, and student achievement.

BUDGET REQUIREMENTS

For any staff member whose duties include both administrative and instructional services, create separate budget entries showing the grant requested amount for each set of services.

The provisions of A-5/Chapter Law 53 contain additional requirements concerning prior approvals, as well as expenditures related to travel. It is strongly recommended that the applicant work with their business administrator when constructing the budget. The NJDOE applies the A-5 restrictions uniformly to all grantees. Unless otherwise specified, the following restrictions apply to all grant programs:

 No reimbursement for in-state overnight travel (meals and/or lodging)  No reimbursement for meals on in-state travel  Mileage reimbursement is capped at $.31/mile

The applicant must provide a direct link for each cost to the goals, objectives and activities in the project Activity Plan that provides programmatic support for the proposed cost.

For each budget entry, applicants must include a brief description of the grant-related purpose for it. Applicants must be sure to construct an appropriate cost basis that makes sense and fits the timeline of the grant

A maximum of ONE formal round pre-award revision will be conducted. Grant award amounts will be based on the budget entries that are appropriately qualified and approvable after that one round. General guidance on how to construct the budget and how to construct budget entries are provided in the Discretionary Grants Application document, which is available at: http://www.nj.gov/njded/grants/discretionary/apps/dga.pdf.

The Department of Education will remove from consideration all ineligible costs, as well as costs not supported by the Project Activity Plan. These funds will not be eligible for reallocation.

Grant funds must be used to supplement and not supplant existing efforts of the organization. Federal funds cannot be used to pay for anything that a grant applicant would normally be required to pay for with either local, state, or federal funds or aid. This requirement also covers services previously provided by a different person or job title. The exceptions are for activities and services that are not currently provided or statutorily required, and for component(s) of a job or activity that represent an expansion or enhancement of normally provided services.

18 MAXIMUM ELIGIBLE COSTS:

Faculty salary/release time: Reimbursement for faculty release time will be provided on the basis of reduced course work, at the rate defined by the IHE’s contracted salary guide, up to a maximum of 12 credits per semester. Reimbursement for release time from an institution for persons who provide educational services for the project will be provided only if their contribution is the equivalent of one credit (15 hours) or more. Documentation of the faculty member’s placement on the IHE salary guide as well as the IHE’s salary guide must be provided annually.

Non-faculty salary/release time: Non-faculty personnel will be reimbursed at a rate less than or equal to that of faculty of comparable levels of responsibility, education, and experience; i.e., $60,000 is the maximum reimbursement for a person working full-time on a project for two semesters; $30,000 is the maximum for a person working half-time on a project for two semesters, etc. Documentation of the IHE’s salary guide must be provided annually.

Clerical/support personnel salaries and wages: Salaries will be considered only in those instances where existing staff will not be adequate. Teachers’ Compensation: Institutions and nonprofit agencies are encouraged to seek funding for teachers from sources other than this grant program for K-12 teachers participating in grant program projects. In any case, the grant program's allowable contribution to teacher compensation for time spent on program activities will be $1750 for each participant who completes the professional development training. The $1750 includes any mileage reimbursements and/or hospitality services.

Tuition: Annual tuition reimbursement for up to 12 undergraduate and/or graduate course credits is permissible if the participant meets all four of the following criteria: 1. the course is directly related to the MSP participants’ professional development plan; 2. the course will lead to the completion of an accredited undergraduate or graduate education program; 3. the participant successfully completes the course; and 4. the tuition for a course is not already provided by the LEA.

Travel: Travel expense reimbursement is limited to the state-approved rate per mile of 31 cents per mile. Other travel arrangements should be made by the least expensive means available. In-state lodging is prohibited. A-5 Travel regulations apply to both project employees and participants.

Instructional equipment: Purchase of equipment will be considered only if the equipment is essential to the program and will be used primarily and extensively by participating teachers. The institution/nonprofit agency should consider allowing the LEAs continued use of the equipment after the project has ended.

Software: Pricing should reflect standard educational and/or volume discounts and should not be based on manufacturer’s suggested list prices. Project plans for the use of software must comply with copyright laws.

19 Other instructional materials: Library and other materials directly related to instructional and other objectives of the specific project can be supported if fully justified.

Restricted Indirect Costs: Restricted Indirect Costs are only allowable with current documentation of a federally approved indirect cost rate from the applicant’s cognizant federal agency submitted with the application. Eight percent is the maximum restricted, indirect cost rate allowed and that eight percent of the modified total direct cost for the project (total direct costs minus equipment and sub grants) is the maximum amount of restricted, indirect costs allowed.

Refer to the Discretionary Grants Application document, page 18 – Form F, for more information on requesting indirect costs. However, institutions are strongly encouraged to maximize the use of grant funds for direct services.

Dissemination efforts: Funding may be requested to support dissemination of the project's results in the form of print and non-print publications and in the form of in-state faculty and presentations by participants. Funding out-of-state dissemination efforts will only be considered when fully justified. All materials, publications, and announcements developed and disseminated as program activity must be acknowledged as supported by the United States Department of Education Mathematics and Science Partnership Program and the New Jersey Department of Education and the Office of Math and Science Education.

INELIGIBLE COSTS:  Costs associated with writing the application;  Supporting the research of individual scholars or faculty members;  Supporting faculty leave. The support of release time for faculty to participate in the project is permissible as described under Maximum Eligible Costs;  Providing funding for academic year salaries of current employees of the recipient institution submitting a proposal; (Institutions/nonprofit agencies will be reimbursed for such services only on a release-time basis.)  Providing compensation for IHE faculty attending workshops or conferences other than U.S. Department of Education Mathematics and Science Partnership Conferences;  Supporting travel to out-of-state professional meetings, unless it is demonstrated that attendance at a meeting will directly and significantly advance a project;  Costs that are not directly related to the educational program and that are unsupported by the NGO;  Paying tuition costs of graduate or undergraduate students staffing a project;  Purchasing non-instructional equipment;  Computers, projectors, Smart Boards or similar equipment for the exclusive use of individual teacher participants or project staff;  Workshops of less than 2 days/16 hours in duration  Fees or stipends for Praxis exams;  Entertaining; and also  Expenditures for meals at professional development workshops and institute training sessions.

20 Use of Funds Requirements (EDGAR 76.650 - 76.662)

When providing benefits to nonpublic school students with federal funds, the following must be addressed: . The grantee must maintain administrative control over all funds and property. (No funds can flow directly to the nonpublic school via a subgrant). . The grantee may place equipment and supplies in the nonpublic school for the period of time needed for the grant. The grantee must ensure that the materials are used only for the purposes of the grant and can be removed from the nonpublic school without remodeling the nonpublic school facility. . Funds can not be used for construction of nonpublic school facilities. . Funds must be used to meet specific needs of students and staff. (Funds can not supplant benefits normally provided by the nonpublic school). . Funds may be used to pay for services of an employee of the nonpublic school if the employee performs the services outside of his or her regular hours and the employees performs the services under the supervision of the grantee. . All benefits provided, including equipment and materials, must be secular, neutral and nonideological. (IASA, Sec 14503)

21 SECTION 3: COMPLETING THE APPLICATION

3.1 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLYING

To apply for a grant under this NGO, you must prepare and submit a complete application. You must submit the Year 3 application using the online EWEG system found at http://homeroom.state.nj.us/: paper copies of the application will not be accepted.

3.2 REVIEW OF YEAR THREE CONTINUATION APPLICATIONS

Department staff will review each continuation grant application on the basis of quality and comprehensiveness, including consistency with the comprehensive project plan selected and approved in the application under Years One and Two NGO. Applicants will be reviewed for completeness, accuracy, and appropriates of response to each of the items identified in Section 2. Applications will also be reviewed based on the appropriateness of budget requests.

Special attention should be given to the external evaluation requirements. Projects that propose evaluation plans that do not meet or exceed the criteria specified in the U.S. Department of Education’s MSP document titled Criteria for Classifying Designs of MSP Evaluations will not be eligible for funding. Criteria for Classifying Designs of MSP Evaluations are provided as Appendix B.

Please be advised that in accordance with the Open Public Records Act P.L. 2001, c. 404, all applications for discretionary grant funds received September 1, 2003 or later, as well as the evaluation results associated with these applications, and other information regarding the competitive grants process, will become matters of public record upon the completion of the evaluation process, and will be available to members of the public upon request.

22 3.3 APPLICATION COMPONENT CHECKLIST

The following components are required (see Required  Column) to be included as part of your application. Failure to include a required component may result in your application being removed from consideration for funding. Use the checklist (see Included  Column) to ensure that all required components have been completed.

Required Included () EWEG TAB/SUBTAB ()  Contact Information   Budget  Narrative (Update, Description, Objectives, Activities, etc.)

 Board Approval

 Assurances

 Document Upload (*see below)

 NGO * Documentation of Collaboration

 NGO * Nonpublic Equitable Participation Summary and Affirmation of Consultation form

23 Appendix A U.S. Department of Education Gateway Resources

The American Association for the Advancement of Science http://www.aaas.org/ This site provides a description of AAAS programs, including sections for schools, teachers and librarians and higher education, as well as links to pertinent publications and AAAS events.

Center for the Development of Teaching, Education Development Center, Inc. http://www2.edc.org/MLT/CDT.asp This site details the work of the center that focuses on transforming elementary mathematics teaching so that all students can develop more conceptual and flexible mathematical knowledge. The center offers professional development and leadership institutes in mathematics and professional development publications are available to order online.

Center for Mathematics Education, Education Development Center, Inc. http://www2.edc.org/MLT/CME.asp This site explains the projects and program underway in the center, which include research- informed improvements in teacher education, professional development and curriculum, as well as building collaborations among various communities in mathematics education.

Center for Science Education, Education Development Center, Inc. http://cse.edc.org This site describes the three focus areas of the Center for Science Education: instructional materials development, professional development and technical assistance, and research and evaluation. The detailed Resources for Educators section includes: print and video resources, Web resources, online courses and curriculum programs.

Eisenhower National Clearinghouse (ENC) for Mathematics and Science Education http://www.goenc.com This site is the largest and most comprehensive resource for K–12 math and science educators. Professional development planning tools are available to subscribers as well as a searchable catalog of math and science curriculum resources.

Materials for the Professional Development of Science and Mathematics Teachers (TE-MAT) http://te-mat.org/ This site was developed for professional development providers to support the design and implementation of programs for pre-service and in-service K–12 mathematics and science teachers. Included is a searchable collection of reviews of professional development materials to assist in the selection of appropriate resources.

24 MSPnet http://hub.mspnet.org/index.cfm This site provides the MSP community with a space where projects can share resources, library articles, emerging research, tools, best practices and challenges. MSPnet provides each of the MSP projects with its own interactive website to enable communication and the sharing of resources.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics http:// www.nctm.org/ This site provides the NCTM standards, links to research, publications and professional development resources for teachers of elementary through higher education.

National Research Council http://www.nationalacademies.org/nrc/ This site includes detailed information about the National Academies, including current projects and publications.

National Science Teachers Association http://www.nsta.org/ This site provides teacher resources for K–12 and higher education; professional development opportunities, including information about national and regional conferences; and a discussion board.

National Science Digital Library http://www.nsdl.org/ This site provides a free online library for education and research in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. It includes resources for K–12 teachers and university faculty.

National Science Foundation http://www.nsf.gov/ This site provides information about funding opportunities, including a description of the NSF Math and Science Partnership program. In addition, this site contains science and engineering statistics, a searchable publications database, and news releases concerning discoveries from NSF research.

U.S. Department of Education http://www.ed.gov/ This site includes information about grants and contracts, policy, programs, research and statistics. No Child Left Behind is highlighted and integrated into all aspects of the site. The teachers’ section contains information on teacher quality, as well as teacher resources from federal agencies and lesson ideas.

25 What Works Clearinghouse http://www.whatworks.ed.gov/ The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) collects, screens, and identifies studies of the effectiveness of educational interventions (programs, products, practices, and policies).

SUGGESTED RESOURCES

Professional Development—General Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15. Borko, H. (2005). Professional development for all teachers: Achieving educational excellence and equity in the era of accountability. Presented on April 15, 2005 at the AERA Annual Meeting held in Montreal, Quebec. Fenstermacher, G. D. & Richardson, V. (2005). On making determinations of quality in teaching. Teachers College Record, 107(1), 186–213. Hassel, E. (1999). Professional development: Learning from the best. Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL). www.ncrel.org. A toolkit for schools and districts based on the national awards program for model professional development. Horsley, S. L. (1995). Professional development and learner centered schools. Theory into Practice, 34(4), 265–271. Joyce, B. & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Resnick, L.B. (2005). Teaching teachers: Professional development to improve student achievement. Research Points: Essential Information for Education Policy, 3(1), 1–4. Spillane, J. (2005). Primary school leadership practice: How the subject matters. School Leadership & Management, 25(4), 383–397. See also http://www.northwestern.edu/ipr/people/spillane.html Mathematics Ball, D.L., Hill. H.C., & Bass, H. (2005). Knowing mathematics for teaching: Who knows mathematics well enough to teach third grade and how can we decide? American Educator, 14– 46. Cohen, S. (2004). Teachers’ professional development and the elementary mathematics classroom: Bringing understandings to light. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

26 Grant, C.M., Nelson, B.S., Davidson, E., Sassi, A., Weinberg, A.S., Bleiman, J. & Holland, S.B. (in press). Lenses on learning: Classroom observation and teacher supervision in elementary mathematics. Parsippany, NY: Pearson Learning. Grant, C.M., Nelson, B.S., Davidson, E., Sassi, A., Weinberg, H.S. & Bleiman, J. (in press). Lenses on learning: A new focus on mathematics and school leadership. Parsippany, NJ: Pearson Learning. Hill, H.C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D.L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2). Kelemanik, G., Janssen, S., Miller, B., & Ransick, K. (1997). Structured exploration: New perspectives on mathematics professional development. Newton, MA: Education Development Center, Inc. Mathematical Sciences Education Board. (2001). Knowing and learning mathematics for teaching. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Washington. Miller, B., Moon, J., Elko, S. & Spencer, D.B. (2000). Teacher leadership in mathematics and science casebook and facilitator’s guide. West Port, CT: Heinemann. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics: An overview. Reston, VA: NCTM. Wilson, L.D. & Blank, R.K. (1999). Improving mathematics education using results from NAEP and TIMSS. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. Science Annenberg Media. (2006). The private universe project in science: Interactive workshop series. Available at http://www.learner.org/channel/workshops/privuniv/ Center for Science Education, Education Development Center, Inc. (2003). Selecting professional development videos: A guide for elementary and middle school science facilitators. Available at http://cse.edc.org/products/pd_videos/ Arzi, H. J. (consultant, Tel Aviv) & White, R. T. (Monash University, Australia). (2004). Seeking change in teachers’ knowledge of science: A 17-year longitudinal study. Paper Presented at AERA in 2004, San Diego, CA. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Chapter 4: Standards for professional development for teachers of science. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Available at http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/nses/html/4.html Rhonton, J. & Shane, P. (Eds.). (2005). Teaching science in the 21st century. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press. Texley, J. & Wild, A. (Eds.). (2004). NSTA pathways to the science standards (2nd High School Edition). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

27 Yager, R. E. (Ed.) (2005). Exemplary science in grades 5–8: Best practices in professional development. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press. Mathematics and Science Eisenhower National Clearinghouse (ENC) for Mathematics and Science Education. Ideas that work: Mathematics professional development. http://www.goenc.org Horsley, S. L. (1996). Principles of effective professional development for mathematics and science education: A synthesis of standards. NISE Brief 1(1). Madison, WI: National Institute for Science Education. PDF available at http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/nise/Publications/ Briefs/NISE_Brief_Vol_1_No_1.pdf Horsley, S.L., Love, N., Stiles, K., Mundry, S. & Hewson, P. (2003). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Love, N. (2000). Using data—getting results: Collaborative inquiry for school-based mathematics and science reform. Cambridge, MA: The Regional TERC Alliance for Mathematics and Science Education Reform. http://www.terc.edu/ West Ed, WGBH-TV, & the Museum of Science, Boston. Teachers as learners: Professional development in science and mathematics. Stoneham, MA: WestEd. This collection of video and print material is available for purchase. Partnership Resources Cole, D.J., Ryan, C.W., Serve, P. & Tomlin, J.A. (2001). Developing, sustaining and assessing collaborative structures with education, science, mathematics and English. Paper presented at the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education Annual Conference. Eisenhower Mathematics and Science Consortia and Clearinghouse Network. (2004). What experience has taught us about collaboration: Facilitating mathematics and science reform: Lessons learned. Available at http://www.sedl.org/pubs/ms91/experience_collaboration.pdf. Goodnough, K. (2004). Fostering collaboration in a school-university partnership: The TRIBS project. Teaching Education, 15(3), 329–340. Goodnough, K., Bencze, L., Pedretti, E., Hodson, D., DiGiuseppe, M., & Mylchreest, L. (2001). Building collaboration in a university-school district partnership: Strategies adopted in the STAR project. Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), St. Louis, MO. Hirota, J.M. (2005). Practicing partnership: Lever for reform in public schools. In Reframing education: The partnership strategy and public schools. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New York. Katz , P. (2001). History and theory you can use: Community connections for science education. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

28 Kingsley, G. & Waschak, M. R. (2005). Finding value and meaning in the concept of partnership. Paper presented at the MSP Evaluation Summit: Evidence-Based Findings from MSPs, Minneapolis, MN. Labov, J., Garton, J., Shapiro, N. & Maloney, P. (2005). Using formative evidence and formal collaboration to evaluate and improve the efficacy of an MSP/RETA project. Paper presented at the MSP Evaluation Summit: Evidence-Based Findings from MSPs, Minneapolis, MN. McRobbie, J. (2004, March). School and college partnerships: The missing link. WestEd Policy Brief. Minner, D. & Hiles, E. (2005). Rural school-community partnerships: The case of science education. Issues in Teacher Education, 14(1), 81–94. Phillips, M. (2001). Evaluating partnership models in science education. Paper presented at the 2nd annual California K–16 Partnerships and Student Success Conference, Long Beach, California. RAND Corporation. (2004). The challenges of building local collaboratives for sustaining educational improvement. RAND Education Research Brief. Available at http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9075/RAND_RB9075.pdf. Ravid, R. & Handler, M. G. (2001). The many faces of school-university collaboration: Characteristics of successful partnerships. Englewood, CO: Teacher Ideas Press. Robertson, W.C. (2001). Building successful partnerships: Community connections for science education. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press. Stephens, D. & Boldt, G. (2004). School/university partnerships: Rhetoric, reality, and intimacy. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(9), p. 703. Weiss, I.R., Heck, D.J., Miller, B.A. & Cress, K. (2004). Handbook for enhancing strategic leadership in the math and science partnerships. Available at http://www.horizon- research.com/reports/2004/ mspta_handbook.pdf. Westbrook, S.L., Wheatley, J. & Rogers, L.N. (2000). University-high school partnerships for science education: Multiple perspectives. Paper presented at the 1999 Annual International Conference of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science, Austin, TX. Available at http://www.ed.psu.edu/CI/Journals/1999AETS/Westbrook_Wheatley_.rtf. Winkler, A. & Frechtling, J. (2005). Evaluating new versus mature partnerships: How evaluation questions may change based on partnership longevity. Paper presented at the MSP Evaluation Summit: Evidence-Based Findings from MSPs, Minneapolis, MN.

29 Appendix B Criteria for Classifying Designs of MSP Evaluations1

 Experimental study—the study measures the intervention’s effect by randomly assigning individuals (or other units, such as classrooms or schools) to a group that participated in the intervention, or to a control group that did not; and then compares post-intervention outcomes for the two groups

 Quasi-experimental study—the study measures the intervention’s effect by comparing post-intervention outcomes for treatment participants with outcomes for a comparison group (that was not exposed to the intervention), chosen through methods other than random assignment. For example:

. Comparison-group study with equating—a study in which statistical controls and/or matching techniques are used to make the treatment and comparison groups similar in their pre-intervention characteristics

. Regression-discontinuity study—a study in which individuals (or other units, such as classrooms or schools) are assigned to treatment or comparison groups on the basis of a “cutoff” score on a pre-intervention measure used for the assignment

 Other

. The study uses a design other than a randomized controlled trial or comparison- group study with equating, including pre-post studies, which measure the intervention’s effect based on the pre-test to post-test differences of a single group, and comparison-group studies without equating

1 To be used for addressing following MSP GPRA measure: The percentage of MSP projects that use an experimental or quasi-experimental design for their evaluations.

30 Criteria for Assessing whether Experimental Designs Were Conducted Successfully and Yielded Scientifically Valid Results2

A. Sample size3

 Met the criterion—sample size was adequate (i.e. based on power analysis with recommended significance level=0.05, power=0.8, and a minimum detectable effect informed by the literature or otherwise justified)

 Did not meet the criterion —the sample size was too small

 Did not address the criterion

B. Quality of the Measurement Instruments

 Met the criterion—the study used existing data collection instruments that had already been deemed valid and reliable; or data collection instruments developed specifically for the study were sufficiently pre-tested with subjects who were comparable to the study sample

 Did not meet the criterion —the key data collection instruments used in the evaluation lacked evidence of validity and reliability

C. Quality of the Data Collection Methods

 Met the criterion—the methods, procedures, and timeframes used to collect the key outcome data from treatment and control groups were the same

 Did not meet the criterion—instruments/assessments were administered differently in manner and/or at different times to treatment and control group participants

2 To be used for addressing the following GPRA measure for studies that use an experimental design: The percentage of MSP projects that use an experimental or quasi-experimental design for their evaluations that are conducted successfully and that yield scientifically valid results. For each criterion listed, reviewers should check “Meet the criterion,” “Did not meet the criterion” or “Did not address the criterion”. For an evaluation to be considered having been conducted successfully and yield scientifically valid results, it has to meet all the criteria. 3 The critical sample size here is related to the unit of assignment. For example, if the assignment is made at the school level, the relevant sample size is the number of schools involved.

31 D. Data Reduction Rates (i.e. Attrition Rates , R esponse Rates )

 Met the criterion—(1) the study measured the key outcome variable(s) for at least 70% of the original study sample or there is evidence that the high rates of data reduction were unrelated to the intervention, AND (2) the proportion of the original study sample that was retained in follow-up data collection activities (e.g., post-intervention surveys) and/or for whom post-intervention data were provided (e.g., test scores) was similar for both the treatment and control groups (i.e. less or equal to a 15-percent difference), or the proportion of the original study sample that was retained in the follow-up data collection was different for the treatment and control groups, but sufficient steps were taken to address this differential attrition in the statistical analysis

 Did not meet the criterion—(1) the study failed to measure the key outcome variable(s) for 30% or more of the original study sample, and there is no evidence that the high rates of data reduction were unrelated to the intervention; OR (2) the proportion of study participants who participated in follow-up data collection activities (e.g., post-intervention surveys) and/or for whom post-intervention data were provided (e.g., test scores) was significantly different for the treatment and control groups (i.e. more than a 15-percent difference) and sufficient steps to address differential attrition were not taken in the statistical analysis

E. Relevant Statistics Reported

 Met the criterion—the final report includes treatment and control group post-test means, and tests of statistical significance

 Did not meet the criterion—the final report does not include treatment and control group post-test means, and/or tests of statistical significance

32 Criteria for Assessing whether Quasi-Experimental Designs Were Conducted Successfully and Yielded Scientifically Valid Results4

A. Baseline Equivalence of Groups

 Met the criterion—there were no significant pre-intervention differences between treatment and comparison group participants on variables related to the study’s key outcomes; or adequate steps were taken to address the lack of baseline equivalence in the statistical analysis

 Did not meet the criterion—there were statistically significant pre-intervention differences between treatment and comparison group participants on variables related to the study’s key outcomes; and no steps were taken to address lack of baseline equivalence in the statistical analysis

B. Sample size5

 Met the criterion—sample size was adequate (i.e. based on power analysis with recommended significance level=0.05, power=0.8, minimum detectable effect size informed by the literature or otherwise justified)

 Did not meet the criterion —the sample size was too small

C. Quality of the Measurement Instruments

 Met the criterion—the study used existing data collection instruments that had already been deemed valid and reliable; or data collection instruments developed specifically for the study were sufficiently pre-tested with subjects who were comparable to the study sample

 Did not meet the criterion —the key data collection instruments used in the evaluation lacked evidence of validity and reliability

4 To be used for addressing the following GPRA measure for studies that use a quasi-experimental design: The percentage of MSP projects that use an experimental or quasi-experimental design for their evaluations that are conducted successfully and that yield scientifically valid results. For each criterion listed, reviewers should check “Meet the criterion,” “Did not meet the criterion” or “Did not address the criterion”. For an evaluation to be considered having been conducted successfully and yield valid results, it has to meet all the criteria. 5 The critical sample size here is related to the unit of grouping. For example, if the grouping is made at the school level, the relevant sample size is the number of schools involved.

33 D. Quality of the Data Collection Methods

 Met the criterion—the methods, procedures, and timeframes used to collect the key outcome data from treatment and comparison groups were the same

 Did not meet the criterion—instruments/assessments were administered differently in manner and/or at different times to treatment and comparison group participants

E. Data Reduction Rates (i.e. Attrition Rates , R esponse Rates )

 Met the criterion—(1) the study measured the key outcome variable(s) for at least 70% of the original study sample or there is evidence that the high rates of data reduction were unrelated to the intervention, AND (2) the proportion of the original study sample that was retained in follow-up data collection activities (e.g., post-intervention surveys) and/or for whom post-intervention data were provided (e.g., test scores) was similar for both the treatment and comparison groups (i.e. less or equal to a 15-percent difference), or the proportion of the original study sample that was retained in the follow-up data collection was different for the treatment and comparison groups, and sufficient steps were taken to address this differential attrition were not taken in the statistical analysis

 Did not meet the criterion—(1) the study failed to measure the key outcome variable(s) for 30% or more of the original study sample, and there is no evidence that the high rates of data reduction were unrelated to the intervention; OR (2) the proportion of study participants who participated in follow-up data collection activities (e.g., post-intervention surveys) and/or for whom post-intervention data were provided (e.g., test scores) was significantly different for the treatment and comparison groups (i.e. more than a 15-percent) and sufficient steps were not taken to address differential attrition in the statistical analysis

F. Relevant Statistics Reported

 Met the criterion—the final report includes treatment and comparison group post- test means, and tests of statistical significance

 Did not meet the criterion—the final report did not include treatment and comparison group post-test means, or tests of statistical significance

34 Attachment A Documentation of Collaboration New Jersey Mathematics and Science Partnerships Program

Year Three: 2009-2010

Instruction to Applicant/Lead Agency: Please have each partner complete this form, including all LEAs, the Institute of Higher Education’s (IHE) engineering, mathematics, or science department(s), as well as any other partners.

Instruction to Partner: This document is to be signed by an eligible partner and included with the application as evidence of the collaboration between the applicant/lead agency and the eligible partner in the planning and implementation of the Mathematics and Science Partnerships Program Grant. The chief executive officer (CEO) or chief school administrator (CSA) or Dean (STEM Department) of the partnering agency must sign the statement below.

I,______certify that a designated representative of (CEO/CSA/Dean of Partner Agency) (Print)

______collaborated in the development of this application, and (Name of Partner Agency) (Print) furthermore, I attest that we agree to be a participating partner in the Mathematics and Science

Partnership Program Grant as described in the application.

Signature of CEO/CSA/Dean from Partner Agency Date

Print Name of CEO/CSA/Dean from Partner Agency

35 Attachment B NONPUBLIC EQUITABLE PARTICIPATION SUMMARY and AFFIRMATION of CONSULTATION FORM

(Complete one form for each participating nonpublic school. Use additional page if necessary.)

In the space below, the applicant agency is to briefly respond to each of the five items listed. Please ensure that what is described on this form is directly related to the components of timely and meaningful consultation and the equitable participation of nonpublic school students/teacher(s) in this grant program, as required (EDGAR 76.650-76.662). For each nonpublic school, this Summary Form must be signed and dated by the applicant CSA/CEO and the nonpublic school official. The LEA/applicant agency must submit with the grant application a copy of this form for each nonpublic school.

1. Describe the consultation process that took place including meeting date, those in attendance and agenda. 2. Describe the needs of the eligible nonpublic school students/teachers and how these needs have been/and will continue to be identified? 3. What identified services will be provided? Explain how, when, where, and by whom the services will be provided. 4. How and when will the services be assessed and how will the results of the assessment be used to improve the services? 5. What is the amount of estimated grant funding available for the agreed upon services?

RESPONSES:

By our signatures below we agree that timely and meaningful consultation occurred before the LEA/applicant agency made any decision that affected the participation of eligible nonpublic school children, teachers or other educational personnel in the Mathematics and Science Partnership program.

□ Yes, we wish to participate in this grant opportunity or □ No, we do not wish to participate in this grant opportunity

Official – LEA/Applicant Agency Date Nonpublic School Representative Date

Name of LEA/Applicant Agency Name of Nonpublic School

36 NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION NOTICE OF GRANT OPPORTUNITY - TITLE PAGE SECTION I: 09 MS06 G03 FY NGO# WKL TITLE OF NGO: Mathematics and Science Partnership Program (Year 3/3)

DIVISION: Educational Standards and Programs OFFICE: Math and Science Education

SECTION II: COUNTY: LEA/OTHER: SCHOOL:

COUNTY NAME:______

APPLICANT AGENCY

AGENCY ADDRESS

CITY STATE ZIP ( ) ( ) AGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBER AGENCY FAX #

SCHOOL NAME

PREVIOUS FUNDING: Agency received funding from the NJ Department of Education within the last two years of submission of this application. YES NO PROJECT DIRECTOR (Please print or type name): ______

TELEPHONE NUMBER: (____)______FAX#: (____)______E-MAIL______

BUSINESS MANAGER: ______PHONE#: (____)______E-MAIL______

DURATION OF PROJECT: FROM: 07/01/09 TO: 06/30/10

TOTAL AMOUNT OF FUNDS REQUESTED: $______

APPLICATION CERTIFICATION: To the best of my knowledge and belief, the information contained in the application is true and correct. The document has been duly authorized by the governing body of this agency and we will comply with the attached assurances if funding is awarded. I further certify the following is enclosed: AGENCY TITLE PAGE SIGNED STATEMENT OF ASSURANCES BOARD RESOLUTION TO APPLY APPLICATION NARRATIVE* BUDGET SUMMARY AND BUDGET DETAIL FORMS* ORIGINAL AND FOUR COPIES OF THE COMPLETE APPLICATION PACKAGE

______SIGNATURE OF CHIEF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATOR TITLE DATE OR EQUIVALENT OFFICER

______(Please print or type name)

*FAILURE TO INCLUDE A REQUIRED APPLICATION COMPONENT CONSTITUTES A VIOLATION OF THE NGO AND WILL RESULT IN THE APPLICATION BEING ELIMINATED FROM CONSIDERATION (See NGO Section 3.3 for itemized list).

SECTION III: SEND OR DELIVER APPLICATIONS TO: APPLICATIONS MUST BE RECEIVED BY: NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION APPLICATION CONTROL CENTER 4:00 P.M., ON 03/27/09 RIVER VIEW EXECUTIVE PLAZA BLDG. 100, ROUTE 29 – PO Box 500 TRENTON, NJ 08625-0500

NO FACSIMILE SUBMISSION WILL BE ACCEPTED. NO LATE APPLICATIONS WILL BE ACCEPTED REGARDLESS OF THE DATE POSTMARKED. NO ADDITIONAL MATERIALS CAN BE SUBMITTED AFTER RECEIPT OF THIS APPLICATION.