Massachusetts Mathematics and Science Partnership Title IIB
Annual State-level Evaluation Report
Cohort 3 Reporting Period: September 1, 2006, through August 31, 2007
Cumulative Reporting Period: February 2, 2004, through August 31, 2007
Prepared for the Massachusetts Department of Education
September 2008
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Contents
Contents
Program Description................................................................................................................................... 3
Report Organization .................................................................................................................................... 4
Evaluation Plan and Activities ................................................................................................................... 5
State-level Evaluation ............................................................................................ 5
Local Evaluation and Related Technical Assistance ............................................. 5
Cohort 3 Activity: September 1, 2006 through August 31, 2007 ............................................................ 6
State-level Participant Background Data ............................................................... 6
Partnership-level Participant Background Data ................................................... 16
Cumulative Summary: All Cohorts over All Funding Periods .............................................................. 27
Overview: Partnerships and Participating Schools from All Cohorts over All Funding Periods ..... 37
Summary of Findings ............................................................................................................................... 40
Cumulative Findings ............................................................................................ 40
Cohort 3 Findings ................................................................................................. 42
Appendix A: Participant Background Survey – Cohort 3 9/2006-8/2007 ............................................. 44
Appendix B: Timeline for State-level Evaluation and TA Activities ..................................................... 53
Appendix C: Cohort 3 Results of the Participant Background Survey ............................................... 55
Appendix D: High Need District Eligibility Criteria ................................................................................ 64
Appendix E: Cohort 3 Enrollment and Attrition Rates by Course ....................................................... 69
Appendix F: Subject Matter Competency Demonstration Options ..................................................... 72
Appendix G: Cohort 3 Mean Percentage Scores for Pre- & Post-course Tests ................................. 73
Appendix H: School Types of Unique Participants - All Funding Periods .......................................... 75
Appendix I: Criteria that Account for Gain in Highly Qualified Status ................................................ 76
Appendix J: High Need Districts for All Funding Periods, by Partnership ......................................... 77
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
I
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Tables
Tables Index
Table 1: Budgets: Cohort 3 Partnerships ............................................................................................................. 6
Table 2: Teaching Areas: Cohort 3 Participants .................................................................................................. 7
Table 3: Types of Schools of Unique Participants: Cohort 3 Participants ....................................................... 8
Table 4: High Need Status of Unique Participants from Public Schools: Cohort 3 Participants ................... 8
Table 5: High Need Districts: Cohort 3 Partnerships .......................................................................................... 9
Table 6: Reasons for Participation: Cohort 3, All Seats ................................................................................... 11
Table 7: Repeat Participants: Cohort 3 Partnerships ........................................................................................ 11
Table 8: Total Enrollment and Attrition Information: Cohort 3 Partnerships ................................................. 12
Table 9a: Cohort 3 Science and Technology Teaching Areas - Regular Education ...................................... 13
Table 9b: Cohort 3 Science and Technology Teaching Areas - Special Education ....................................... 14
Table 10a: Cohort 3 Mathematics Teacher Levels - Regular Education ......................................................... 14
Table 10b: Cohort 3 Mathematics Teacher Levels - Special Education .......................................................... 14
Table 11: Number of Courses with Statistically Significant and Non-significant Gains in Mean Content
Knowledge Scores for Cohort 3 ........................................................................................................................... 15
Table 12: EduTron Lowell Participant Background Information (M/S) ............................................................ 17
Table 13: EduTron Fitchburg Participant Background Information (M) .......................................................... 18
Table 14: Lesley University Participant Background Information (M) ............................................................. 19
Table 15: North Shore Participant Background Information (S) ...................................................................... 20
Table 16: UMass Amherst Participant Background Information (M/S) ............................................................ 21
Table 17: Salem State College Participant Background Information (M) ........................................................ 22
Table 18: SE/Cape Participant Background Information (S) ............................................................................ 23
Table 19: WPI – Science Participant Background Information (S)................................................................... 24
Table 20: Worcester Public Schools Participant Background Information (M) .............................................. 25
Table 21: Cumulative Partnership Budgets ........................................................................................................ 27
Table 22: Teaching Areas: All Participants, All Partnerships, All Funding Periods ...................................... 28
Table 23: High Need Status of All Unique Participants from Public Schools: All Funding Periods ............ 29
Table 24: Reasons for Participation of Participants: All Seats, All Partnerships, All Funding Periods ...... 30
Table 25: Repeat Participants: All Partnerships, All Funding Periods ............................................................ 31
Table 26: Highly Qualified Status of All Unique Participants: All Funding Periods ....................................... 33
Table 27: MTEL Tests Taken by All Participants – Total to Date ..................................................................... 34
Table 28a: Science and Tech/Engineering Teaching Areas of All Participants - Regular Education .......... 35
Table 28b: Science and Tech/Engineering Teaching Areas of All Participants - Special Education ........... 35
Table 29a: Mathematics Teacher Levels of All Participants - Regular Education.......................................... 36
Table 29b: Mathematics Teacher Levels of All Participants - Special Education .......................................... 36
Table 30: Budgets: All Partnerships, All Funding Periods ............................................................................... 37
Table 31: Types of Schools: All Unique Participants, All Funding Periods .................................................... 38
Table 32: High Need Status of All Unique Participants from Public Schools ................................................. 39
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
II
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Program Description
Program Description
The purpose of the Massachusetts Mathematics and Science Partnership Program (MMSP) is to improve student
achievement in mathematics, science, and technology/engineering through intensive, high-quality professional
development activities that focus on deepening teachers’ content knowledge. This multi-year project is funded by
the U.S. Department of Education as part of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act Title IIB funding stream.
Funding to local partnerships is administered by state education agencies; in Massachusetts this is the
Massachusetts Department of Education (MADOE), which awards funding through a competitive grant process.
Partnerships awarded these grants are required to include 1) a core partner that has been identified as a high need
school district in the subject matter on which the partnership is focusing and 2) a core partner that is a science,
technology and/or engineering, or mathematics (STEM) department from an institution of higher education. The
partnerships are composed of higher education institutions, school districts, and, in some cases, private
organizations involved in providing both pre-service and inservice training to teachers. Partnerships are required
to offer courses that equal at least 45 hours of direct instruction followed by at least 20 hours of follow-up contact
to support the implementation of course content in the classroom. Partnerships are encouraged to tailor the model
used to deliver the professional development and follow-up to best fit the objectives of their programs along with
their resources, expertise, and existing infrastructure. Partnership activities are guided by the following goals1:
Goal I
Develop and implement an effective and sustained course of study for in-service teachers of STEM by
integrating the courses of study into schools of arts and sciences and/or education at institutions of
higher education.
Goal II
Increase the number of STEM teachers in the partner school districts who are licensed in the subject
area(s) and grade level(s) they teach.
Goal III Increase the number of STEM teachers in the partner school districts who participate in high quality
professional development and advance their content knowledge.
The program began in February 2004, and has had four funding periods, defined as follows:

Year 1: February 2, 2004 through August 31, 2004

Year 2: September 1, 2004 through August 31, 2005

Year 3: September 1, 2005 through August 31, 2006

Year 4: September 1, 2006 through August 31, 2007.
The partnerships who received initial funding in Year 1 are referred to as Cohort 1; those who received initial
funding in Year 2 are referred to as Cohort 2; those who received initial funding in Year 4 are referred to as
Cohort 3.
The University of Massachusetts Donahue Institute (Institute) was contracted to coordinate state-level collection
of outcome data and to provide evaluation-related technical assistance to the partnerships.
1
Program goals were modified slightly between the beginning of the program and the beginning of the most recent funding period.
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
3
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Report Organization
Report Organization
The purpose of this report is threefold: 1) to provide an overview of budgets and involvement of high need
districts for all cohorts for all funding periods, 2) to provide details regarding only Cohort 3 participation for the
most recent funding period (details regarding Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 participation are available in another report),
and 3) to provide a cumulative summary regarding participation for all cohorts over all funding periods. Each of
these three purposes is addressed in a separate section of this report.
Data supporting the first and third purposes address the period of February 2, 2004, through August 31, 2007, and
data supporting the second purpose address the period of September 1, 2006 through August 31, 2007. Participant
data were collected through the Participant Background Survey, an instrument developed by the Institute and
administered by partnerships to each participant on the last day of each course. See Appendix A for the survey
used during Year 4. The purpose of this survey is to gather data about participants’ professional backgrounds and
qualifications. This information provides a picture of who the participants are, aids in determining whether the
courses are reaching the teachers who most need professional development, and aids in tracking how teacher
qualifications may change during the MMSP funding period. Data from the survey regarding teacher licensure,
possession of and progress towards earning degrees, and status in terms of Massachusetts Tests for Educator
Licensure (MTEL) exams allows determination of the number of teachers who meet criteria defining highly
qualified status. Unless noted, data from the survey are reported in terms of unique individuals, regardless of the
number of courses taken by each individual.
Data speaking to the strengthening of relationships between partnership members were collected through an item
in the context of an Annual Report Addendum that partnerships were required to submit to the MADOE. For this
item, partnerships were asked to describe the “institutionalization” of their courses, the extent to which their
courses had been integrated into activities of their higher education partners.
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
4
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Evaluation Plan and Activities
Evaluation Plan and Activities
State-level Evaluation
Although not required by the U.S. Department of Education, the MADOE contracted with the Institute to conduct
a state-level evaluation of the MMSP. The Institute’s primary role as state-level evaluator is to coordinate
program-wide collection of outcome data on behalf of the MADOE. Data collection for the state-level evaluation
is organized around a basic logic model for professional development initiatives shown below.
Local Evaluation and Related Technical Assistance
In addition to the state-level data collection, each partnership is required to conduct its own local evaluation. In an
effort to support strong local evaluations, MADOE required that partnerships sub-contract with the Institute to
provide technical assistance on design and implementation of their local evaluations. The timeline listing the
evaluation activities is found in Appendix B.
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
5
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Cohort 3 Activity
Cohort 3 Activity: September 1, 2006 through August 31, 2007
Cohort 3, which began in the 2006-2007 funding period, consisted of nine partnerships. Table 1 shows the
funding received by Cohort 3 partnerships for the period beginning in September 2006 and ending in August
2007.
Table 1: Budgets: Cohort 3 Partnerships
Partnership
Sep06-Aug07
EduTron Lowell (M/S)
$210,000
EduTron Fitchburg (M)
$102,000
Lesley University C3 (M)
$347,911
North Shore (S)
$196,474
UMass Amherst C3 (M/S)
$107,424
Salem State College C3 (M)
$120,882
SE Cape (S)
$129,438
WPI – Science (S)
Worcester Public Schools (M)
TOTAL
$99,586
$231,210
$1,544,925
State-level Participant Background Data
Cohort 3 consisted of nine partnerships, with four of the nine partnerships offering mathematics professional
development, three offering science professional development, and two offering professional development in both
mathematics and science content.
In total, there were 37 courses delivered. Of these 37 courses, 21 were mathematics courses, 13 were science
courses (plus one additional science course with no MMSP participants), two were technology/engineering
courses, and one was a course covering both math and science content. Of those 37 courses, 30 (81%) were
unique, and seven (19%) were repeat offerings. This section of the report summarizes data collected from
participants in these courses. In total for Cohort 3, there were 458 participants, and 161 of them took two or more
courses.
By the end of the 2006-2007 funding period, 458 unique participants completed the Participant Background
Survey on one or more occasions. The term “unique participant” refers to each individual who participated in the
program, regardless of how many courses he or she took. Data for items from the survey that help to convey
participants’ professional backgrounds and motives for participation are discussed in the remainder of this section.
All survey data for this group may be found in Appendix C. The responses to the survey questions are presented
as frequencies and percentages. Not all percentages total 100% because many items allowed multiple responses
and not all of the participants responded to all of the items.
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
6
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Cohort 3 Activity
Position of Participants
At the time of their last completed survey from a Cohort 3 MMSP course, 84% of course participants identified
themselves as teachers. Of all respondents, 71% were regular education teachers; 13% were special education or
special education inclusion teachers; 2% were department heads or curriculum coordinators; 2% were principals,
assistant principals, or headmasters; 3% were support specialists; 1% were paraprofessionals; 1% were long-term
substitutes; <1% were superintendents or assistant superintendents; and 6% indicated that they held “other”
positions.
Content Taught
The distribution of teaching areas of respondents at the time of the survey is shown in Table 2. Because
respondents identified all teaching areas that applied to their positions at the time of the survey, some selected
multiple responses, so frequency totals exceed the number of respondents and percentages exceed 100%.
At the time of their last MMSP course, 33% Cohort 3 participants were teaching mathematics, 31% were teaching
science, and 32% were teaching all subjects at the elementary level.
Table 2: Teaching Areas: Cohort 3 Participants
Sep06-Aug07
Teaching Areas
(Multiple responses permitted)
N =458
%
n
of 538 responses
Mathematics
153
33%
Any science area
151
31%
General Science
72
16%
Biology
24
5%
Earth Science
13
3%
Chemistry
18
4%
Physics
15
3%
9
2%
5
1%
Elementary (all subjects)
148
32%
Elementary Mathematics
41
%
Other
21
5%
Not Currently Teaching
19
4%
Technology/Engineering
Computer Science
Teaching Experience of Participants
At the time of their last completed survey from an MMSP course, the teaching experience of the 458 unique
Cohort 3 participants was as follows: 21% were in their first to third year of teaching, 38% had between four and
ten years experience in education, 26% had between 11 and 20 years of experience, and 15% reported over 20
years of experience.
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
7
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Cohort 3 Activity
Teaching Levels of Participants
For reporting purposes, schools in the participating districts were organized into categories of elementary schools
(grades K-5), K-8 schools, middle schools (grades 6-8), and high schools (grades 9-12). At the time of their last
completed survey from an MMSP course, 34% of Cohort 3 participants were teaching in an elementary or K-8
school, 46% were teaching in a middle school, 10% were teaching in a high school, 1% were teaching at both the
middle and high school levels, and less than 1% were teaching at all levels. Those remaining either were not
currently teaching or were teaching adults.
Types of Schools of Participants
As shown in Table 3, 98% of Cohort 3 participants worked in a public school setting, and 2% worked in a nonpublic school setting.
Table 3: Types of Schools of Unique Participants: Cohort 3 Participants
Sep06-Aug07
School Type
N
Public School (includes public charter schools)
Non-public School
Other or No Response
TOTAL
%
447
7
4
98%
2%
<1%
458
100%
High Need Status of Districts of Participants
MMSP partnerships were required to include at least one high need district. Appendix D identifies the criteria for
the high need designation.
The MADOE expected that at least 50% of participants in each partnership would come from high need districts,
and further, they set an informal goal that at least 75% of participants for each partnership would come from high
need districts. Table 4 shows that for the 2006-2007 funding period, over 75% of participants in the program as a
whole had come from high need districts.
Table 4: High Need Status of Unique Participants from Public Schools:
Cohort 3 Participants
Sep06-Aug07
Item
High Need District
Non-high Need District
Other*
TOTAL
N
343
94
10
447
%
77%
21%
2%
100%
Table 5 presents the number of participants from high need districts organized by each partnership and reveals
that over the course of each partnership’s involvement in MMSP in 2006-2007, six of the nine partnerships had at
least 50% of their participants coming from high need districts, and five of nine partnerships exceeded the
informal goal of having at least 75% of the participants come from high need districts.
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
8
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Cohort 3 Activity
As of their last course in the 2006-2007 funding period, of the 161 Cohort 3 individuals who took multiple
courses, approximately 88% were from high need public school districts, approximately 7% were from other
public school districts, and approximately 1% either were from private schools or did not provide information on
their districts. In addition, approximately 3% were from high need districts for some of the courses they took but
not for others.
Table 5: High Need Districts: Cohort 3 Partnerships
Sep06-Aug07
Number of Participants*
from High Need Districts
Partnership
High Need Districts
EduTron Lowell
(M/S)
Lowell
54
EduTron Fitchburg
(M)
Fitchburg
Gardner
Leominster
17
7
10
Subtotal
34
Lesley University
C3 (M)
North Shore (S)
UMass Amherst
C3 (M/S)
Salem State
College C3 (M)
Brockton
Fairhaven
Fall River
Haverhill Public Schools
Holyoke
Malden
New Bedford
Randolph
Saugus
Subtotal
Somerville
Athol-Royalston
Chicopee
Gateway
Greenfield
Holyoke
Ludlow
New Leadership CS
South Hadley
Springfield
West Springfield
Subtotal
Boston
Chelsea
Everett
Gloucester
Haverhill Public Schools
Lynn
Malden
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
13
3
26
29
29
1
4
13
2
120
16
1
5
1
1
3
2
1
2
3
3
22
1
1
3
6
4
20
1
Percentage of
Participants in
the Partnership
100%
100%
94%
39%
46%
9
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Cohort 3 Activity
Table 5: High Need Districts: Cohort 3 Partnerships
Sep06-Aug07
Partnership
High Need Districts
Salem State
College C3 (M)
Salem
Winthrop
Worcester
Subtotal
Barnstable
Brockton
Horace Mann CS
New Bedford
Subtotal
SE/Cape (S)
WPI – Science (S)
Worcester
Number of Participants*
from High Need Districts
3
1
1
41
1
20
2
8
31
3
Percentage of
Participants in
the Partnership
82%
66%
16%
Worcester Public
Worcester
34
83%
Schools (M)
*Note that if this column is summed, the total will not correspond to relevant data in Table 4 for two
reasons: 1) Table 4 presents data for unique participants across all partnerships while Table 5 presents data
for unique participants only within partnerships (and some participants took courses through multiple
partnerships) and 2) The districts of some of those participants who crossed partnerships were not
consistently classified as high need districts (either because of the content of the course or because of the
cohort of the partnership offering the course).
Reasons for Participation in MMSP Courses
For each course taken, respondents identified all of their reasons for participating. Unlike in the earlier portions of
this report where data were presented for unique participants, data for this issue are presented for all course seats,
since responses are uniquely relevant to each distinct course that a participant took. Table 6 presents findings for
all 632 seats for all courses taken by Cohort 3 participants during the 2006-2007 funding period.
Repeat Participation
Cohort 3 partnerships were successful at encouraging and retaining repeat participants. Seven of the nine
partnerships offered multiple courses, and, of these seven, all had participants who attended more than one course
within that partnership. In all, 108 participants attended multiple courses within Cohort 3. (Three of these
participants took courses from other Cohort 3 partnerships.) Table 7 provides details regarding repeat
participation, including information on the 53 repeat participants who took courses from partnerships from
previous MMSP cohorts.
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
10
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Cohort 3 Activity
Table 6: Reasons for Participation: Cohort 3, All Seats
Sep06-Aug07
Reasons for Participation
(Multiple responses permitted)
%
n
of 632 course
seats
To obtain graduate credit
464
73%
To increase knowledge in content
438
69%
To pursue a personal interest
213
34%
To earn PDPs for recertification
187
30%
To get an additional license (certification)
134
21%
To prepare for the Massachusetts Test for Educator Licensure
(MTEL)
113
18%
To earn PDPs for HOUSSE plan requirement
62
10%
To follow an administrator’s suggestion
41
6%
To obtain a first license (certification)
13
2%
Other
43
7%
Table 7: Repeat Participants: Cohort 3 Partnerships
Partnership
Number
of
Courses
Offered
to Date
Total
Number of
Unique*
Participants
to Date
Number
Taking
Multiple
Courses in
Cohort 3
Number Taking
One Course in
Cohort 3 & One or
More Courses in
Previous Cohorts
Number Taking
Multiple Courses in
Cohort 3 & Previous
Cohorts
EduTron Lowell (M/S)
2
54
12
0
0
EduTron Fitchburg (M)
1
34
0
18
0
Lesley University (M)
10
127 *
66*
0
4
North Shore (S)
9
41
9
0
1
UMass Amherst (M/S)
4
48 *
2*
7
2
Salem State (M)
4
50
9
17
4
SE/Cape (S)
3
47 *
7*
0
0
WPI – Science (S)
1
19
0
0
0
Worcester Public Schools (M)
3
41
6
0
0
38
458
108
42
11
TOTAL
*Three participants took multiple courses across partnerships and are thus double-counted in the body of the table. The “Total” row reflects
only unique participants.
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
11
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Cohort 3 Activity
Attrition
Course attrition rates were generally low and averaged 5%. Of the 37 Cohort 3 courses delivered, 19 had an
attrition rate of 0%, ten had an attrition rate ranging between 2% and 10%, and eight had an attrition rate of
greater than 10%. Table 8 provides a breakdown, by partnership, of enrollment and attrition rates. Appendix E
provides a breakdown, by course, of enrollment and attrition rates.
Table 8: Total Enrollment and Attrition Information: Cohort 3 Partnerships
Partnership
Number of
Courses
Offered
Number of
Participants
Enrolled First
Day
Number of
Participants
Completed
Course
Attrition Rate
EduTron Lowell (M/S)
2
76
76
0%
EduTron Fitchburg (M)
1
36
36
0%
10
271
260
4%
North Shore (S)
9
74
69
7%
UMass Amherst C3 (M/S)
4
57
54
5%
Salem State C3 (M)
4
73
67
8%
SE/Cape (S)
3
57
54
5%
WPI – Science (S)
1
20
19
Worcester Public Schools (M)
3
54
49
9%
37
718
684
5%
Lesley University C3 (M)
All Partnerships
5%
Highly Qualified Status
For Cohort 3 for the 2006-2007 funding period, 11 participants attained highly qualified status. This translates to
between 5% and 6% of those who potentially could have gained highly qualified status2.
Of the 11 who attained highly qualified status, five did so by passing the appropriate MTEL, two did so by
obtaining undergraduate equivalents in content areas, one did so by completing a sufficient number of PDPs on a
HOUSSE plan, and one did so by meeting two or more criteria simultaneously. In addition, two did so merely by
changing their position within the schools or the area in which they were teaching. Of the 11 who attained highly
qualified status, five (out of 52 possible) were from the Lesley University (M) partnership, four (out of 15
possible) were from the Salem State (M) partnership, one (out of 11 possible) was from the EduTron Fitchburg
(M) partnership, and one (out of 20 possible) was from the North Shore (S) partnership. Of the 11 who attained
highly qualified status, nine began participating during Cohort 3 while two began participating prior to Cohort 3.
Of the nine whose participation began during to Cohort 3, five were from the Lesley University (M) partnership,
2
When the 458 unique participants began participating in Cohort 3, 196 were identified as “not highly qualified,” and the highly qualified
status of an additional nine was unknown. The low endpoint of the range of the percentage of those who attained highly qualified status
was calculated by dividing the number attaining highly qualified status by the sum of those who were not highly qualified plus those whose
status was unknown; the high endpoint of the range was calculated by dividing the number attaining highly qualified status by the number
of those who were not highly qualified.
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
12
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Cohort 3 Activity
two were from the Salem State (M) partnership, one was from the EduTron Fitchburg (M) partnership, and one
was from the North Shore (S) partnership. Of the two whose participation began prior to Cohort 3, both were from
the Salem State (M) partnership. An identification of the criteria by which teachers who gained highly qualified
status could demonstrate competency in their subject matter may be found in Appendix F.
Licensure and Degrees Held in Content Area Taught
By the end of the 2006-2007 funding period for Cohort 3, 95 regular education teachers and 13 special education
teachers reported teaching in science or technology/engineering areas. Tables 9a and 9b show how many teachers
taught in each science and technology/engineering area for the 2006-2007 funding period. The tables also show
the percentages of teachers whose survey responses indicated they were licensed in the area in which they taught,
and they show the percentages of teachers whose survey responses indicated they held a degree in the area in
which they taught. Table 9a provides information for regular education teachers and Table 9b provides
information for special education teachers. (The numbers presented in Tables 9a and 9b exceed the number of
teachers who reported teaching in these areas because some teachers taught in more than one area.) For regular
education teachers, the licensing reported by approximately 50% appeared to be appropriate for the content area
taught, and the degrees held by approximately 27% corresponded to content area taught. For special education
teachers, the licensing reported by one teacher (7%) appeared to be appropriate for the content area taught, and the
degree held by one teacher (7%) corresponded to content area taught.
Table 9a: Cohort 3 Science and Technology Teaching Areas - Regular Education
Sep06-Aug07
Content Area
General Science
Biology
Chemistry
Physics
Earth Science
Technology/Engineering
Teach in Area
License in Area Taught
n
Degree in Area Taught
%*
%*
59
59%
20%
21
62%
67%
18
33%
17%
14
43%
14%
11
45%
27%
8
13%
13%
*Of the number of regular education participants teaching in this area for this year
By the end of the 2006-2007 funding period for Cohort 3, 125 regular education teachers and 23 special education
teachers reported teaching non-elementary level mathematics. Tables 10a and 10b show how many teachers
taught at each non-elementary mathematics level for the 2006-2007 funding period. The tables also show the
percentages of teachers whose survey responses indicated they were licensed in the level at which they taught, and
they show the percentages of teachers whose survey responses indicated they held a degree in the area in which
they taught. Table 10a provides information for regular education teachers and Table 10b provides information for
special education teachers. (The numbers presented in Tables 10a and 10b exceed the number of teachers who
reported teaching in these areas because some teachers taught in more than one area.) For regular education
teachers, the licensing reported by approximately 67% appeared to be appropriate for the mathematics level
taught, and the degrees held by 14% corresponded to content area taught. For special education teachers, the
licensing reported by approximately 17% appeared to be appropriate for the level taught, and none of the teachers
held degrees that corresponded to content area taught.
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
13
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Cohort 3 Activity
Table 9b: Cohort 3 Science and Technology Teaching Areas - Special Education
Sep06-Aug07
Content Area
General Science
Biology
Earth Science
Chemistry
Physics
Technology/Engineering
Teach in Area
License in Area Taught
Degree in Area Taught
n
%*
%*
10
10%
10%
3
0%
0%
2
0%
0%
0
0%
0%
0
0%
0%
0
0%
0%
*Of the number of special education participants teaching in this area for this year
Table 10a: Cohort 3 Mathematics Teacher Levels - Regular Education
Sep06-Aug07
Content Area
Elementary School
Teach in Area
License in Area Taught
Degree in Area Taught
n
%*
%*
11
27%
0%
Middle School
High School
MS & HS grades
106
69%
10%
19
79%
42%
0
0%
0%
TOTAL Math
136
67%
14%
*Of the number of regular education participants teaching in this area for this year
Table 10b: Cohort 3 Mathematics Teacher Levels - Special Education
Sep06-Aug07
Content Area
Elementary School
Teach in Area
License in Area Taught
Degree in Area Taught
n
%*
%*
1
0%
0%
Middle School
High School
MS & HS grades
16
25%
0%
6
0%
0%
1
0%
0%
TOTAL Math
24
17%
0%
*Of the number of special education participants teaching in this area for this year
Degrees Currently Pursued
Information on degrees currently being pursued was derived from the most recently completed survey of each
individual. Of the 95 regular education teachers and 13 special education teachers in Cohort 3 for the 2006-2007
funding period who reported teaching in science or technology/engineering areas, eight were pursuing science
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
14
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Cohort 3 Activity
degrees in their current areas of teaching: six general science teachers were pursuing master’s degrees in general
science, one general science teacher was pursuing a master’s degree and a CAGS degree in general science, and
one teacher of biology and chemistry was pursuing a master’s degree in biology. Additionally, three science
teachers were pursuing degrees in areas of science they did not currently teach: One who taught earth science was
pursuing a master’s in general science, one who taught general science was pursuing a master’s in biology, and
another who taught general science was pursuing a master’s in both biology and physics.
Of the 125 regular education teachers and 23 special education teachers who reported teaching non-elementary
level mathematics in Cohort 3 for the 2006-2007 funding period, 12 were pursuing math degrees in their current
areas of teaching: six high school mathematics teachers were pursuing master’s degrees in mathematics, one
middle school mathematics teacher was pursuing a CAGS in mathematics, four middle school mathematics
teachers were pursuing master’s degrees in mathematics, and one middle school mathematics teacher was
pursuing a bachelor’s in mathematics.
Content Knowledge Gains
As a grant condition, MMSP partnerships were required to create a pre-course test and post-course test to assess
participants’ knowledge of the content for each MMSP course. In most cases, the faculty members who developed
the courses also developed the assessments. For each course, the same instrument served as both the pre-course
test and the post-course test. Due to time and resource constraints, partnerships were not required to test their
assessments for validity or reliability. Also, partnerships were not encouraged to locate a previously existing
standardized instrument that had demonstrated validity and reliability because a priority was placed on developing
assessments that would reflect the precise content that would be taught in each of their courses.
Data were analyzed only for participants who completed both pre- and post-course assessments. To determine if
the scores showed statistically significantly changes between pre- and post-course test administrations, a paired
samples t-test was used for each course for which ten or more participants completed both pre- and post-course
assessments, and a Wilcoxon Matched Pairs test was used for each course for which fewer than ten participants
completed both pre- and post-course assessments.
While gains in average percentage of items correct between pre- and post-course test administrations occurred in
all 37 of the 37 courses delivered across all Cohort 3 partnerships during the 2006-2007 funding period,
statistically significant improvements in scores on content knowledge assessments occurred in only 86% of those
courses. Of the five courses not showing statistically significant improvement in scores, though, three had fewer
than six participants, the smallest sample size at which it is possible to detect statistical significance at the level
used for these analyses. Table 11 provides an overview, by subject matter of courses delivered, of the numbers of
courses that did and did not show statistically significant gains. For detailed information on mean pre- and postcourse content knowledge scores by partnership and by course, see Appendix G.
Table 11: Number of Courses with Statistically Significant and Non-significant
Gains in Mean Content Knowledge Scores for Cohort 3
Number of Courses
Type of Course
Math
Science &
Technology/Engineering
Math and Science
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
Delivered
Significant Pre/Post
Gains
No Significant Pre/Post
Gains
21
21
0
15
11
4
1
0
1
15
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Cohort 3 Activity
Partnership-level Participant Background Data
Presented in Table 12 through Table 20, this section offers an overview of selected participant survey data for
each Cohort 3 partnership. These data were collected at the end of each course that was offered by each
partnership. The responses to the survey questions are presented as frequencies and percentages of the total
number of participants in the partnership for the 2006-2007 period. In cases where not all participants responded
to all of the items and in cases where multiple responses were permitted, percentages presented may not total
100%.
The section of each table identified as “Participants Who Took Multiple Courses” contains three categories. Each
is defined as follows: “In Cohort 3” refers to participants who took two or more courses within the context of
Cohort 3 – they participated in no courses that had been offered during previous cohorts. “In previous cohorts”
refers to participants who took one course through Cohort 3 and had taken at least one additional course that had
been offered during a previous cohort. “In Cohort 3 & previous cohorts” refers to participants who took two or
more courses within Cohort 3 and also took at least one additional course during a previous cohort.
The “Highly Qualified” section of each table includes the response option “Private school/Not applicable.”
Participants categorized under this option refer to those who either were teaching at a private school or for whom
highly qualified status would be irrelevant, such as school administrators.
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
16
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Cohort 3 Activity
Table 12: EduTron Lowell Participant Background Information (M/S)
Number of
Participants
Sep06-Aug07
Total Number of Participants
54
Participants Who Took Multiple Courses
In Cohort 3
In previous cohorts
In Cohort 3 & previous cohorts
12
0
0
(22%)
(0%)
(0%)
24
(44%)
7
(13%)
15
(28%)
7
(13%)
16
(30%)
9
(17%)
54
(100%)
11
23
2
1
17
(20%)
(43%)
(4%)
(2%)
(31%)
7
22
10
(13%)
(41%)
(19%)
Have Passed One or More MTEL Exams
17
(31%)
Hold One or More Teaching Licenses
49
(91%)
Teach Regular Education
Teach Special Education (sole and inclusion)
Teach Elementary (all content areas)
Teach Elementary Math
Teach Mathematics Above Elementary
Teach Science or Technology/Engineering
Teach in High Need District
Highly Qualified
Yes
No
In some, but not all areas
Cannot be determined
Private school/Not applicable
Have a HOUSSE Plan
Yes
No
Not Sure
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
17
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Cohort 3 Activity
Table 13: EduTron Fitchburg Participant Background Information (M)
Number of
Participants
Sep06-Aug07
Total Number of Participants
34
Participants Who Took Multiple Courses
In Cohort 3
In previous cohorts
In Cohort 3 & previous cohorts
0
18
0
(0%)
(53%)
(0%)
23
(68%)
8
(24%)
13
(38%)
1
(3%)
17
(50%)
4
(12%)
34
(100%)
19
8
3
2
2
16
2
2
(56%)
(24%)
(9%)
(6%)
(6%)
(47%)
(6%)
(6%)
Have Passed One or More MTEL Exams
17
(50%)
Hold One or More Teaching Licenses
31
(91%)
Teach Regular Education
Teach Special Education (sole and inclusion)
Teach Elementary (all content areas)
Teach Elementary Math
Teach Mathematics Above Elementary
Teach Science or Technology/Engineering
Teach in High Need District
Highly Qualified
Have a HOUSSE Plan
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
Yes
No
In some, but not all areas
Cannot be determined
Private school/Not applicable
Yes
No
Not Sure
18
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Cohort 3 Activity
Table 14: Lesley University Participant Background Information (M)
Number of Participants
Sep06-Aug07
Total Number of Participants
127
Participants Who Took Multiple Courses
In Cohort 3
In previous cohorts
In Cohort 3 & previous cohorts
66
0
4
(52%)
(0%)
(3%)
Teach Regular Education
92
(72%)
Teach Special Education (sole and inclusion)
12
(9%)
Teach Elementary (all content areas)
49
(38%)
Teach Elementary Math
15
(12%)
Teach Mathematics Above Elementary
53
(42%)
3
(2%)
120
(94%)
63
45
2
0
17
32
30
26
(50%)
(35%)
(2%)
(0%)
(13%)
(25%)
(24%)
(20%)
61
(48%)
119
(94%)
Teach Science or Technology/Engineering
Teach in High Need District
Highly Qualified
Have a HOUSSE Plan
Yes
No
In some, but not all areas
Cannot be determined
Private school/Not applicable
Yes
No
Not Sure
Have Passed One or More MTEL Exams
Hold One or More Teaching Licenses
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
19
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Cohort 3 Activity
Table 15: North Shore Participant Background Information (S)
Number of Participants
Sep06-Aug07
Total Number of Participants
41
Participants Who Took Multiple Courses
In Cohort 3
In previous cohorts
In Cohort 3 & previous cohorts
9
0
1
(22%)
(0%)
(2%)
Teach Regular Education
28
(68%)
Teach Special Education (sole and inclusion)
10
(24%)
Teach Elementary (all content areas)
2
(5%)
Teach Elementary Math
0
(0%)
Teach Mathematics Above Elementary
7
(17%)
Teach Science or Technology/Engineering
33
(80%)
Teach in High Need District
16
(39%)
19
14
5
1
2
16
7
9
(46%)
(34%)
(12%)
(2%)
(5%)
(39%)
(17%)
(22%)
Have Passed One or More MTEL Exams
18
(44%)
Hold One or More Teaching Licenses
39
(95%)
Highly Qualified
Have a HOUSSE Plan
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
Yes
No
In some, but not all areas
Cannot be determined
Private school/Not applicable
Yes
No
Not Sure
20
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Cohort 3 Activity
Table 16: UMass Amherst Participant Background Information (M/S)
Number of Participants
Sep06-Aug07
Total Number of Participants
48
Participants Who Took Multiple Courses
In Cohort 3
In previous cohorts
In Cohort 3 & previous cohorts
2
7
2
(4%)
(15%)
(4%)
37
(77%)
Teach Special Education (sole and inclusion)
6
(13%)
Teach Elementary (all content areas)
8
(17%)
Teach Elementary Math
2
(4%)
Teach Mathematics Above Elementary
18
(38%)
Teach Science or Technology/Engineering
20
(42%)
Teach in High Need District
22
(46%)
27
15
2
1
3
14
11
5
(56%)
(31%)
(4%)
(2%)
(6%)
(29%)
(23%)
(10%)
Have Passed One or More MTEL Exams
24
(50%)
Hold One or More Teaching Licenses
46
(96%)
Teach Regular Education
Highly Qualified
Have a HOUSSE Plan
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
Yes
No
In some, but not all areas
Cannot be determined
Private school/Not applicable
Yes
No
Not Sure
21
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Cohort 3 Activity
Table 17: Salem State College Participant Background Information (M)
Number of Participants
Sep06-Aug07
Total Number of Participants
50
Participants Who Took Multiple Courses
In Cohort 3
In previous cohorts
In Cohort 3 & previous cohorts
9
17
4
(18%)
(34%)
(8%)
38
(76%)
Teach Special Education (sole and inclusion)
9
(18%)
Teach Elementary (all content areas)
7
(14%)
Teach Elementary Math
4
(8%)
35
(70%)
8
(16%)
41
(82%)
33
11
0
2
4
17
7
7
(66%)
(22%)
(0%)
(4%)
(8%)
(34%)
(14%)
(14%)
Have Passed One or More MTEL Exams
26
(52%)
Hold One or More Teaching Licenses
47
(94%)
Teach Regular Education
Teach Mathematics Above Elementary
Teach Science or Technology/Engineering
Teach in High Need District
Highly Qualified
Have a HOUSSE Plan
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
Yes
No
In some, but not all areas
Cannot be determined
Private school/Not applicable
Yes
No
Not Sure
22
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Cohort 3 Activity
Table 18: SE/Cape Participant Background Information (S)
Number of Participants
Sep06-Aug07
Total Number of Participants
47
Participants Who Took Multiple Courses
In Cohort 3
In previous cohorts
In Cohort 3 & previous cohorts
7
0
0
(15%)
(0%)
(0%)
42
(89%)
4
(9%)
20
(43%)
Teach Elementary Math
8
(17%)
Teach Mathematics Above Elementary
5
(11%)
Teach Science or Technology/Engineering
22
(47%)
Teach in High Need District
31
(66%)
19
22
6
0
0
23
6
7
(40%)
(47%)
(13%)
(0%)
(0%)
(49%)
(13%)
(15%)
Have Passed One or More MTEL Exams
22
(47%)
Hold One or More Teaching Licenses
45
(96%)
Teach Regular Education
Teach Special Education (sole and inclusion)
Teach Elementary (all content areas)
Highly Qualified
Have a HOUSSE Plan
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
Yes
No
In some, but not all areas
Cannot be determined
Private school/Not applicable
Yes
No
Not Sure
23
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Cohort 3 Activity
Table 19: WPI – Science Participant Background Information (S)
Number of Participants
Sep06-Aug07
Total Number of Participants
19
Participants Who Took Multiple Courses
In Cohort 3
In previous cohorts
In Cohort 3 & previous cohorts
0
0
0
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
16
(84%)
Teach Special Education (sole and inclusion)
0
(0%)
Teach Elementary (all content areas)
4
(21%)
Teach Elementary Math
0
(0%)
Teach Mathematics Above Elementary
2
(11%)
14
(74%)
3
(16%)
5
10
0
1
3
5
3
5
(26%)
(53%)
(0%)
(5%)
(16%)
(26%)
(16%)
(26%)
5
(26%)
17
(89%)
Teach Regular Education
Teach Science or Technology/Engineering
Teach in High Need District
Highly Qualified
Have a HOUSSE Plan
Yes
No
In some, but not all areas
Cannot be determined
Private school/Not applicable
Yes
No
Not Sure
Have Passed One or More MTEL Exams
Hold One or More Teaching Licenses
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
24
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Cohort 3 Activity
Table 20: Worcester Public Schools Participant Background Information
(M)
Number of Participants
Sep06-Aug07
Total Number of Participants
41
Participants Who Took Multiple Courses
In Cohort 3
In previous cohorts
In Cohort 3 & previous cohorts
6
0
0
(15%)
(0%)
(0%)
29
(71%)
4
(10%)
32
(78%)
Teach Elementary Math
5
(12%)
Teach Mathematics Above Elementary
1
(2%)
Teach Science or Technology/Engineering
0
(0%)
34
(83%)
17
16
2
1
5
25
5
3
(41%)
(39%)
(5%)
(2%)
(12%)
(61%)
(12%)
(7%)
Have Passed One or More MTEL Exams
16
(39%)
Hold One or More Teaching Licenses
38
(93%)
Teach Regular Education
Teach Special Education (sole and inclusion)
Teach Elementary (all content areas)
Teach in High Need District
Highly Qualified
Have a HOUSSE Plan
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
Yes
No
In some, but not all areas
Cannot be determined
Private school/Not applicable
Yes
No
Not Sure
25
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Cohort 3 Activity
Course Institutionalization
For systemic change to occur at the higher education institutions, departments of arts and sciences and education
departments are encouraged to work together through MMSP to support stronger content courses in mathematics
and science for teacher preparation, undergraduate and graduate degree requirements, and for in-service teachers
pursuing graduate-level content courses for recertification. Integration of Title IIB courses into graduate programs
at Institutes of Higher Education will ensure sustainability over time. The intent behind encouraging the
partnerships is that the faculty from the Arts and Sciences Departments will bring strong content expertise to the
partnership table. This integration will create greater opportunities for participants to complete coursework
leading to a content-area degree and/or to licensure along with the highly qualified designation.
Asked to describe activities during the 2006 – 2007 funding period related to the institutionalization of their
courses, all nine partnerships in Cohort 3 evinced integration, plans for future integration, or – in the case of
partnerships with previously established involvement with MMSP – work toward sustaining prior integration. As
would be expected in a program involving partnerships with diverse structures and styles, the extent and type of
integration varied across partnerships. To convey a sense of how integration occurred, following are summaries
for each partnership:

Following this program year, two remedial courses, based on the EduTron model for MMSP courses, will
continue to be offered at Fitchburg State College (FSC). EduTron partners supported FSC in designing
three pre-service courses that are optimized for education majors. EduTron has begun working with FSC
to help FSC apply the EduTron model used in MMSP math courses to science courses.

Two courses created through Lesley University’s MMSP now will be offered to Lesley’s on-campus preservice teachers.

As a result of their joint involvement in MMSP through the North Shore partnership and the National
Science Foundation MSP program, Northeastern University has institutionalized all MMSP courses. Eight
MMSP courses can be used to fulfill 80% of the degree requirements toward a Master’s in Education for
Middle School Science. In addition, this degree was developed as a result of these courses.

Two courses developed through the UMass Amherst partnership were approved for graduate level credit.

Salem State College offers courses developed through MMSP as part of a master’s level teaching
program in middle school mathematics. All courses developed by Salem State College through MMSP
can be applied towards earning a degree through that program. (This approach had been developed
through Salem State College’s prior participation MMSP.)

Participants of the three courses offered through the SE/Cape partnership may apply credit for the courses
towards the Master of Arts in Teaching in Physical Science program that is offered through Bridgewater
State College.

The physics department at Worcester Polytechnic Institute is now actively seeking a faculty member who
will work with teachers on deepening their content knowledge, and the MMSP course that was offered
through the WPI-Science partnership will serve as the model for instruction of future courses that will be
offered.

As a result of the experience of working with Worcester Public Schools on MMSP, Clark University has
expressed interest in exploring the institutionalization of courses that were offered through MMSP.
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
26
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Cumulative Summary
Cumulative Summary: All Cohorts over All Funding Periods
Overview of Partnerships, Courses, and Participants
Table 21 shows the funding received by each partnership since the inception of the program.
Table 21: Cumulative Partnership Budgets
Partnership
Total to Date
EduTron (M)
$838,352
Harvard Graduate School of Ed. (M)
$577,324
Lesley University (M)
$854,564
MCLA – Science (S)
$171,439
Salem State College (M)
$585,643
Springfield Public Schools (S)
$574,781
Wareham Public Schools (M)
$442,402
Worcester Polytechnic Institute (M)
$637,411
MCLA – Math (M)
$163,368
UMass Amherst (M)
$443,996
EduTron Lowell (M/S)
$210,000
EduTron Fitchburg (M)
$102,000
Lesley University C3 (M)
$347,911
North Shore (S)
$196,474
UMass Amherst C3 (M/S)
$107,424
Salem State C3 (M)
$120,882
SE/Cape (S)
$129,438
WPI – Science (S)
Worcester Public Schools (M)
TOTAL
$99,586
$231,210
$6,834,205
Cohorts 1, 2, and 3 combined consisted of 19 partnerships, with 12 of the 19 partnerships offering mathematics
professional development, five offering science professional development, and two offering professional
development in both mathematics and science content.
Over the span of MMSP, Cohort 1, 2, and 3 partnerships developed and implemented a total of 131 courses. Of
those 131 courses, 78 (60%) were unique, and 53 (40%) were repeat offerings. Of the 131 courses, 106 (81%) of
the courses offered mathematics content, 21 (16%) offered science content, three (2%) offered
technology/engineering content, and one (<1%) offered both mathematics and science content. This section of the
report summarizes data collected from participants in these courses. In total, there were 1344 participants, and 512
of them took two or more courses.
By the end of the 2006-2007 funding period, 1344 unique participants completed the Participant Background
Survey on one or more occasions.
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
27
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Cumulative Summary
Position of Participants
At the time of their last completed survey from an MMSP course, 87% of course participants identified
themselves as teachers. Of all respondents, 73% were regular education teachers; 14% were special education or
special education inclusion teachers; 2% were department heads or curriculum coordinators; 2% were principals,
assistant principals, or headmasters; 1% were support specialists; 1% were paraprofessionals; <1% were longterm substitutes; <1% were superintendents or assistant superintendents; and 6% indicated that they held “other”
positions.
Content Taught
The distribution of teaching areas of respondents at the time of the survey is shown in Table 22. Because
respondents identified all teaching areas that applied to their positions at the time of the survey, some selected
multiple responses, so frequency totals exceed the number of respondents and percentages exceed 100%. Also,
figures reported in “Total” column may be smaller than figures for any individual year because the total is based
on data from the last survey completed and some repeat participants changed teaching areas over the course of
their participation.
At the time of their last MMSP course, 50% were teaching mathematics, 28% were teaching science, and 25%
were teaching all subjects at the elementary level.
Table 22: Teaching Areas: All Participants, All Partnerships, All Funding
Periods
Total
Teaching Areas
(Multiple responses permitted)
N =1344
n
%
of 1628
responses
Mathematics
666
50%
Any science area
402
28%
191
14%
Biology
68
5%
Earth Science
42
3%
Chemistry
43
3%
Physics
38
3%
Technology/Engineering
20
1%
9
1%
Elementary (all subjects)
335
25%
Elementary Mathematics
88
7%
Other
72
5%
Not Currently Teaching
56
4%
General Science
Computer Science
Types of Schools of Participants
Of all MMSP participants, 97% worked in a public school setting, and 2% worked in a non-public school setting.
These figures are presented in table format in Appendix H.
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
28
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Cumulative Summary
High Need Status of Districts of Participants
MMSP partnerships were required to include at least one high need district. Appendix D identifies the criteria for
the high need designation. In addition, the MADOE expected that at least 50% of participants in each partnership
would come from high need districts, and further, they set an informal goal that at least 75% of participants for
each partnership would come from high need districts. The high need status of some school districts changed
across years. To classify participants from districts that were high need at one point in time but not high need at
another, a process was used that took into account the high need status of participants’ districts from the
beginning of each partnership’s MMSP involvement with the program. A district identified as high-need in the
first year of a partnership’s funding continued to be classified as high-need in subsequent years of the partnership,
even if the district's status changed. Additionally, any districts not on the high-need list in the first year of a
partnership’s funding but subsequently added to the high-need list in later years of the partnership were then
identified as qualifying high-need districts.
Table 23 shows that across all years of funding, 66% of the public school participants in the program as a whole
had come from high need districts. An examination of high need district participation in individual partnerships
reveals that over the course of each partnership’s involvement in MMSP since the beginning of MMSP, 13 of the
19 partnerships had at least 50% of their participants coming from high need districts across all years of their
involvement, and (again, across all years of their involvement) nine of 19 partnerships exceeded the informal goal
of having at least 75% of the participants come from high need districts. If individual years of participation are
examined, it is seen that ten of the 19 partnerships had at least 50% of their participants coming from high need
districts for each and every year of funding, and nine of the 19 partnerships exceeded the informal goal of having
at least 75% of the participants come from high need districts for each and every year of funding.
As of their last course in MMSP, of the 512 individuals who took multiple courses, approximately 69% were from
high need public school districts, approximately 26% were from other public school districts, and approximately
2% either were from private schools or did not provide information on their districts. In addition, approximately
2% were from high need districts for some of the courses they took but not for others3.
Table 23: High Need Status of All Unique Participants from Public
Schools: All Funding Periods
Total
Item
N
%
High Need District
857
66%
Non-high Need District
422
32%
Other*
15
1%
Missing District Information
10
1%
TOTAL
1304
100%
*Includes those who did not identify their districts and public school participants who took
multiple courses whose districts were considered high need for only some of the courses those
participants took.
Reasons for Participation in MMSP Courses
For each course taken, respondents identified all of their reasons for participating. Unlike in most other portions
of this report where data were presented for unique participants, data for this issue are presented for all course
3
Teachers who took MMSP math courses when their districts were considered high need for only science were identified as having come
from a “non-high need” district, and teachers who took MMSP science courses when their districts were considered high need for only
math were identified as having come from a “non-high need” district.
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
29
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Cumulative Summary
seats, since responses are uniquely relevant to each distinct course that a participant took. Table 24 presents
findings for all 2,589 seats for all courses taken by all participants across all funding periods.
Table 24: Reasons for Participation of Participants: All Seats, All
Partnerships, All Funding Periods
Total
Reasons for Participation
(Multiple responses permitted)
%
n
of 2,589 course
seats
To increase knowledge in content
1961
76%
To obtain graduate credit
1716
66%
To earn PDPs for recertification
937
36%
To pursue a personal interest
856
33%
To prepare for the Massachusetts Test for Educator Licensure
(MTEL)
497
19%
To get an additional license (certification)
500
19%
To earn PDPs for HOUSSE plan requirement
331
13%
To follow an administrator’s suggestion
198
8%
82
3%
137
5%
To obtain a first license (certification)
Other
Repeat Participation
Partnerships were very successful at encouraging and retaining repeat participants. Of the 19 partnerships, 17
offered multiple courses, and, of these, all had participants who attended more than one course. In all, 512
participants (38% of all participants) attended multiple courses. Of those participating in multiple courses, 78 took
courses across partnerships (which may have been within or across cohorts). Table 25 provides details regarding
repeat participation.
Highly Qualified Status
To comply with the federal No Child Left Behind legislation, public school teachers were required to meet the
federal definition of highly qualified by the end of the 2005-2006 school year. One of the expectations of the
MMSP is that providing high quality professional development would contribute to teachers’ attainment of
federal highly qualified status.
Information regarding the following areas was used to determine participants’ highly qualified status: licensure,
years in education, subject areas taught, High Objective Uniform State Standard of Evaluation (HOUSSE) plans
held, Professional Development Points (PDPs) held, MTELs passed, degrees held, undergraduate degree
equivalents, and advanced or national certifications.
To be considered highly qualified, a teacher must be licensed and demonstrate subject matter competency in the
areas of teaching. Demonstration of subject matter competency for elementary teachers was satisfied either by
passing the appropriate MTEL (general curriculum MTEL if teaching multiple core subjects or elementary math
MTEL if teaching mainly elementary math) or by having a HOUSSE plan and having earned a particular number
of PDPs. Demonstration of subject matter competency for middle and secondary school teachers was satisfied by
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
30
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Cumulative Summary
Table 25: Repeat Participants: All Partnerships, All Funding Periods
Number of
Total Number
Number Taking
Courses
of Unique*
Multiple Courses
Delivered to
Participants to
within Cohorts
Date
Date
1&2
EduTron (M)
7
128
36
0
18
54
Harvard (M)
8
166
24
0
2
26
19
107
83
0
2
85
3
23
13
0
0
13
26
162
59
0
22
81
7
96
41
0
2
43
Wareham PS (M)
3
43
12
0
0
12
WPI (M)
6
145
47
0
1
48
MCLA (M)
4
16
9
0
0
9
11
76
39
0
13
52
2
54
0
12
0
12
1
34
0
0
18
18
10
127
0
66
4
70
9
40
0
9
2
11
4
48
0
3
12
15
4
49
0
9
21
30
SE/Cape (S)
3
49
0
8
0
8
WPI (S)
1
19
0
0
0
0
Worcester PS(M)
3
41
0
6
0
6
131
1344
346
109
57
512
Partnership
Lesley Univ. C1
(M)
MCLA (S)
Salem State
College (M)
Springfield PS
(S)
UMass Amherst
(M)
EduTron Lowell
(M/S)
EduTron
Fitchburg (M)
Lesley Univ. C3
(M)
North Shore (S)
UMass Amherst
C3 (M/S)
Salem State C3
(M)
TOTAL**
Number Taking
Multiple Courses
within Cohort 3
Number Taking
Total Number
Multiple Courses
Taking
within Cohort 3 &
Multiple
Previous Cohorts
Courses
* Figures in all “Partnership” rows reflect unique participants within that particular partnership.
** Figures in this row refer to totals across all partnerships, so totals will not reflect sums of figures in all preceding rows
one of the following means: passing the appropriate MTEL, completing an appropriate undergraduate major or
graduate degree, completing appropriate coursework comparable to an undergraduate major, holding advanced or
national certification in the appropriate subject area, or by having a HOUSSE plan and having earned a particular
number of PDPs. For all teachers with HOUSSE plans, the minimum numbers of PDPs needed varied in relation
to the date of June 30, 2006: Prior to June 30, 2006, the minimum was 48, and following June 30, 2006, the
minimum was 96. Appendix F outlines options available for demonstrating subject matter competency.
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
31
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Cumulative Summary
A participant was identified as highly qualified if the criteria for meeting highly qualified status were met for all
subjects that a participant taught. If a participant taught multiple subject areas and only met the highly qualified
criteria for some of the subjects taught, he or she was determined to be “highly qualified in some, but not all”
content areas.
In the first MMSP funding period, the Participant Background Survey did not adequately capture information
about teachers that could be used to determine highly qualified status. The survey was re-designed for Year 2 to
capture this information. For the second and subsequent funding periods, though, survey responses indicated that
participants misunderstood the meaning of HOUSSE plans, and some who completed more than one survey
reported inconsistent data across surveys.
The Participant Background Survey permitted determination of the impact of MMSP courses on highly qualified
status only for 1) those participants who held HOUSSE plans and 2) those participants who took more than one
course (i.e., completed more than one survey). Because surveys were administered after participants had
completed MSP courses, if a participant completed only one course and did not have a HOUSSE plan it was not
possible to determine whether that participant became highly qualified prior to or as a result of MMSP course
participation.
Over the span of the program for Cohorts 1, 2, and 3, at least 117 participants attained highly qualified status.
This translates to between approximately 21% and 27% of those who potentially could have gained highly
qualified status4.
Table 26 presents the highly qualified status of participants across all years of the program. This table provides an
unduplicated count of participants. Because the number of courses a participant took was relevant to the process
used to determine how many participants attained highly qualified status while participating in MMSP, the
findings are primarily organized according to number of courses taken (only one vs. multiple). In Appendix I, a
more detailed version of the table is presented in which the data are further broken down by cohort of
participation.
MTEL Information
One method by which teachers may demonstrate subject-matter competency is to pass the Massachusetts Tests for
Educator Licensure (MTEL) in the content areas that they teach. Table 27 cumulatively identifies the tests taken
by public school teachers across all years of the program along with passage rates. Of the 512 participants taking
multiple courses, 26% earned one or more new licenses by the end of the fourth year of MMSP and 12% took and
passed an MTEL test. In addition, 2% of these repeat participants learned that they had passed an MTEL that they
had taken at the time of their first MMSP course.
4
When the 1344 unique participants began participating in the program, 433 were identified as “not highly qualified,” and the highly
qualified status of an additional 127 was unknown. The low endpoint of the range of the percentage of those who attained highly qualified
status was calculated by dividing the number attaining highly qualified status by the sum of those who were not highly qualified plus those
whose status was unknown; the high endpoint of the range was calculated by dividing the number attaining highly qualified status by the
number of those who were not highly qualified.
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
32
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Cumulative Summary
Table 26: Highly Qualified Status of All Unique Participants: All Funding
Periods
Took only one course
n = 832
Took multiple courses
n = 512
12
105
117
0
5
5
420
244
664
34
14
48
206
63
269
Private school or
not teaching
71
43
114
Unknown
89
38
127
Status
Became Highly Qualified
Became Highly Qualified
in only some content
areas
Highly Qualified (unable
to determine when
became HQ)
Highly Qualified in some
content areas but not all
(unable to determine
when became HQ)
Not Highly Qualified
TOTAL
N = 1344
As shown in Table 27, based on data from the last survey completed by each participant, of the 125 participants
who had taken the Mathematics MTEL, 96 (77%) reported passing the test, and six (5%) had not yet received
their scores at the time of survey completion. Of the 261 respondents who had taken the Middle School
Mathematics MTEL, 218 (84%) passed and 15 (6%) had not yet received their scores. Of the 37 participants who
completed the Middle School Mathematics/Science MTEL, 22 (59%) passed and five (14%) had not yet received
their scores. Of the 59 participants completing the General Science MTEL, 55 (93%) passed and two (3%) had
not yet received their scores. Twenty respondents attempted the Biology MTEL, and 16 (80%) passed and one
had not yet received the score. Of the eight participants who took the Chemistry MTEL, seven (88%) passed. Of
the eight who took the Earth Science MTEL, six (75%) passed. Four participants attempted the Physics MTEL,
and three (75%) passed. Two individuals completed the Technology/Engineering MTEL, but neither indicated
whether or not it was passed. Of the 158 participants who reported taking General Curriculum (formerly
elementary) MTEL, 149 (94%) reported passing, and one had not yet received the score.
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
33
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Cumulative Summary
Table 27: MTEL Tests Taken by All Participants – Total to Date
Based on each participant’s last survey
Taking Test
Passing Test
Failing Test
N
%
158
149
94%
5
3%
1
1%
3
2%
8
7
88%
1
13%
0
0%
0
0%
27
22
81%
1
4%
4
15%
0
0%
Mathematics
125
96
77%
20
16%
6
5%
3
2%
Middle School Mathematics
Middle School
Mathematics/Science
General Science
261
218
84%
20
8%
15
6%
8
3%
37
22
59%
7
19%
5
14%
3
8%
59
55
93%
1
2%
2
3%
1
2%
20
16
80%
1
5%
1
5%
2
10%
Chemistry
8
7
88%
1
13%
0
0%
0
0%
Physics
4
3
75%
1
25%
0
0%
0
0%
Earth Science
8
6
75%
2
25%
0
0%
0
0%
Technology/Engineering
2
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
2
100%
138
109
79%
13
9%
8
6%
8
6%
Elementary Mathematics
Biology
TOTAL in STE Areas
%
No Response
n
General Curriculum
(formerly Elementary)
Early Childhood
n
Scores
Unknown
n
%
n
%
Licensure and Degrees Held in Content Area Taught
By the end of the 2006-2007 funding period, 237 regular education teachers and 30 special education teachers
reported teaching in science or technology/engineering areas. Tables 28a and 28b show how many teachers taught
in each science and technology/engineering area over the course of the program. The tables also show the
percentages of teachers whose survey responses indicated they were licensed in the area in which they taught, and
they show the percentages of teachers whose survey responses indicated they held a degree in the area in which
they taught. Table 28a provides information for regular education teachers and Table 28b provides information for
special education teachers. (The numbers presented in Tables 28a and 28b exceed the number of teachers who
reported teaching in these areas because some teachers taught in more than one area.) For regular education
teachers, the licensing reported by approximately 40% appeared to be appropriate for the content area taught, and
the degrees held by approximately 23% corresponded to content area taught. For special education teachers, the
licensing reported by two teachers (5%) appeared to be appropriate for the content area taught, and the degree
held by one teacher (3%) corresponded to content area taught.
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
34
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Cumulative Summary
Table 28a: Science and Tech/Engineering Teaching Areas of All Participants Regular Education
Total
Content Area
License in Area
Degree in Area
Taught
Taught
%*
%*
154
40%
15%
54
65%
67%
38
39%
21%
33
15%
9%
32
28%
9%
16
25%
6%
Teach in Area
n
General Science
Biology
Chemistry
Earth Science
Physics
Technology/Engineering
*Of the number of regular education participants teaching in this area for this year
Table 28b: Science and Tech/Engineering Teaching Areas of All Participants Special Education
Total
Content Area
Teach in Area
n
General Science
Biology
Earth Science
Chemistry
Physics
Technology/Engineering
License in Area
Degree in Area
Taught
Taught
%*
%*
22
5%
5%
9
0%
0%
6
0%
0%
2
50%
0%
1
0%
0%
0
0%
0%
*Of the number of special education participants teaching in this area for this year
By the end of the 2006-2007 funding period, 547 regular education teachers and 86 special education teachers
reported teaching non-elementary level mathematics. Tables 29a and 29b show how many teachers taught at each
non-elementary mathematics level over the course of the program. The tables also show the percentages of
teachers whose survey responses indicated they were licensed in the level at which they taught, and they show the
percentages of teachers whose survey responses indicated they held a degree in the area in which they taught.
Table 29a provides information for regular education teachers and Table 29b provides information for special
education teachers. (The numbers presented in Tables 29a and 29b exceed the number of teachers who reported
teaching in these areas because some teachers taught in more than one area.) For regular education teachers, the
licensing reported by approximately 62% appeared to be appropriate for the mathematics level taught, and the
degrees held by 18% corresponded to content area taught. For special education teachers, the licensing reported
by approximately 23% appeared to be appropriate for the level taught, and the degrees held by three teachers (3%)
corresponded to content area taught.
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
35
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Cumulative Summary
Table 29a: Mathematics Teacher Levels of All Participants - Regular Education
Total
Content Area
Teach in Area
License in Area
Taught
Degree in Area Taught
n
%*
%*
Middle School
High School
MS & HS grades
468
60%
13%
76
78%
43%
3
0%
0%
TOTAL Math
547
62%
18%
*Of the number of regular education participants teaching in this area for this year
Table 29b: Mathematics Teacher Levels of All Participants - Special Education
Total
Content Area
Teach in Area
License in Area
Taught
Degree in Area Taught
%*
n
%*
Middle School
69
19%
1%
High School
MS & HS grades
15
47%
13%
2
0%
0%
TOTAL Math
86
23%
3%
*Of the number of special education participants teaching in this area for this year
Degrees Currently Pursued
Information on degrees currently being pursued was derived from the most recently completed survey of each
individual. Of the 237 regular education teachers and 30 special education teachers over the course of the program
who reported teaching in science or technology/engineering areas, eight were pursuing science degrees in their
current areas of teaching: six general science teachers were pursuing master’s degrees in general science, one
general science teacher was pursuing a master’s degree and a CAGS degree in general science, and one teacher of
biology and chemistry was pursuing a master’s degree in biology. Additionally, three science teachers were
pursuing degrees in areas of science they did not currently teach: One who taught earth science was pursuing a
master’s in general science, one who taught general science was pursuing a master’s in biology, and another who
taught general science was pursuing a master’s in both biology and physics. Three non-science teachers were also
pursuing science degrees: Two were seeking master’s degrees in general science and one was seeking a master’s
degree in biology.
Of the 547 regular education teachers and 86 special education teachers over the course of the program who
reported teaching non-elementary level mathematics, 22 were pursuing mathematics degrees in their current areas
of teaching: One high school and 18 middle school mathematics teachers were pursuing master’s degrees in
mathematics, two high school level mathematics teachers were pursuing bachelor’s degrees in mathematics, and
one middle school math teacher was pursuing a bachelor’s and a master’s in mathematics. Additionally, 13 people
who did not teach math were pursuing mathematics degrees: 12 were pursuing master’s degrees, and one was
pursuing a CAGS.
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
36
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Overview
Overview: Partnerships and Participating Schools from All Cohorts over
All Funding Periods
Overview of Partnerships, Courses, and Participants
Over the course of the project, there have been 19 partnerships. While some partnerships were awarded funding in
more than one funding period, for evaluation purposes, a partnership was identified as a “new” partnership each
time it received funding that resulted from a different competition. Table 30 shows the funding received by each
partnership for each year of the program. Overall, partnerships have been awarded a total of $6,834,205 since the
inception of MMSP.
Table 30: Budgets: All Partnerships, All Funding Periods
Partnership
Feb04-Aug04
Sep04-Aug05
Sep05-Aug06
Sep06-Aug07
TOTAL
COHORT 1
Initially funded February 2004
$210,000
$237,000
$323,000
$68,352
$838,352
$96,743
$188,856
$204,300
$87,425
$577,324
$220,007
$310,110
$280,609
$43,838
$854,564
$30,350
$51,912
$50,930
$38,247
$171,439
Salem State College (M)
$118,395
$209,331
$214,269
$43,648
$585,643
Springfield Public Schools (S)
$175,000
$151,707
$173,337
$74,737
$574,781
Wareham Public Schools (M)
$120,930
$162,122
$115,388
$43,962
$442,402
Worcester Polytechnic Institute (M)
$202,322
$203,257
$196,199
$35,633
$637,411
EduTron (M)
Harvard Graduate School of Ed. (M)
Lesley University (M)
MCLA – Science (S)
COHORT 2
Initially funded September 2004
MCLA – Math (M)
$32,864
$78,630
$51,874
$163,368
UMass Amherst (M)
$88,264
$174,151
$181,581
$443,996
EduTron Lowell (M/S)
$210,000
$210,000
EduTron Fitchburg (M)
$102,000
$102,000
Lesley University (M)
$347,911
$347,911
North Shore (S)
$196,474
$196,474
UMass Amherst (M/S)
$107,424
$107,424
Salem State College (M)
$120,882
$120,882
SE/Cape (S)
$129,438
$129,438
$99,586
$99,586
$231,210
$231,210
$2,214,222
$6,834,205
COHORT 3
Initially funded September 2006
WPI – Science (S)
Worcester Public Schools (M)
TOTAL
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
$1,173,747
$1,635,423
$1,810,813
37
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Overview
Across all 19 partnerships, 12 offered mathematics professional development, five offered science professional
development, and two offered professional development in both mathematics and science. Specifically, Cohort 1
consisted of eight partnerships, with six of the eight partnerships offering mathematics professional development
and two offering science professional development. Cohort 2 consisted of two partnerships, both offering
mathematics professional development. Cohort 3 consisted of nine partnerships, with four of the nine partnerships
offering mathematics professional development, three offering science professional development, and two
offering professional development in both mathematics and science.
In total, there were 131 courses delivered. Of these 131 courses, 106 were mathematics courses, 21 were science
courses, three were technology/engineering courses, and one was a course offering both mathematics and science
content.
By the end of the 2006-2007 funding period, there were 1344 unique participants, and 512 took two or more
courses. The term “unique participant” refers to each individual who participated in the program, regardless of
how many courses he or she took. Data for items from the Participant Background Survey that help to convey
participants’ professional backgrounds and motives for participation are discussed in the remainder of this section.
Types of Schools of Participants
For each funding period of the program, at least 96% of MMSP participants worked in a public school setting.
Over the course of the program to date, 97% of MMSP participants worked in a public school setting, and 2%
worked in a non-public school setting. Table 31 provides a breakdown, by funding period, of the types of schools
in which participants worked. In addition, for the most recent year of funding details are broken down according
to cohort membership.
Table 31: Types of Schools: All Unique Participants, All Funding Periods
School Type
Feb04-Aug04 Sep04-Aug05 Sep05-Aug06
N
Public School (includes
332
public charter schools)
Non-public School
8
Other or No Response
1
TOTAL
341
%
N
%
N
%
Sep06-Aug07 Sep06-Aug07
Cohorts 1 & 2 Cohort 3
N
%
N
%
Total
N
%
97%
448
98%
455
98%
86
91%
447
98%
1304
97%
2%
<1%
7
1
2%
<1%
6
3
1%
1%
5
4
5%
4%
7
4
2%
<1%
30
10
2%
1%
464
100%
95
100%
458
100%
1344
100%
100% 456
100%
High Need Status of Districts of Participants
MMSP partnerships were required to include at least one high need district. Appendix D identifies the criteria for
the high need designation. In addition, the MADOE expected that at least 50% of participants in each partnership
would come from high need districts, and further, they set an informal goal that at least 75% of participants for
each partnership would come from high need districts. The high need status of some school districts changed
across years. To classify participants from districts that were high need at one point in time but not high need at
another, a process was used that took into account the high need status of participants’ districts from the
beginning of each partnership’s MMSP involvement with the program. A district identified as high-need in the
first year of a partnership’s funding continued to be classified as high-need in subsequent years of the partnership,
even if the district's status changed. Additionally, any districts not on the high-need list in the first year of a
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
38
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Overview
partnership’s funding but subsequently added to the high-need list in later years of the partnership were then
identified as qualifying high-need districts.
Table 32 shows that for each year of funding, over 50% of participants in the program as a whole had come from
high need districts. An examination of high need district participation in individual partnerships reveals that over
the course of each partnership’s involvement in MMSP, ten of the 19 partnerships had at least 50% of their
participants coming from high need districts for each and every year of funding, and nine of the 19 partnerships
exceeded the informal goal of having at least 75% of the participants come from high need districts for each and
every year of funding. The table in Appendix J shows the number of participants from high need districts
organized by partnership.
As of their last course in MMSP in the most recent funding period, of the 512 individuals who took multiple
courses, approximately 69% were from high need public school districts, approximately 26% were from other
public school districts, and approximately 2% either were from private schools or did not provide information on
their districts. In addition, approximately 2% were from high need districts for some of the courses they took but
not for others5.
Table 32: High Need Status of All Unique Participants from Public Schools
Item
Feb04-Aug04 Sep04-Aug05 Sep05-Aug06
N
%
N
%
N
%
Sep06-Aug07 Sep06-Aug07
Cohorts 1 & 2 Cohort 3
N
%
N
%
Total
N
%
High Need District
202
61%
276
62%
254
56% 54
63%
343
77%
864
66%
Non-high Need District
129
39%
161
36%
196
43% 32
37%
94
21%
422
32%
Other*
1
<1%
11
2%
5
1%
0
0%
10
2%
18
1%
TOTAL
332
100%
448 100%
455 100% 86
100%
447
100%
1304
99%
*Includes those who did not identify their districts and public school participants who took multiple courses whose districts were
considered high need for only some of the courses those participants took.
5
Teachers who took MMSP math courses when their districts were considered high need for only science were identified as having come
from a “non-high need” district, and teachers who took MMSP science courses when their districts were considered high need for only
math were identified as having come from a “non-high need” district.
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
39
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Summary of Findings
Summary of Findings
The MMSP partnership activities described in this report occurred between February 2, 2004, and August 31,
2007.
Since MMSP began in February 2004, progress has been made towards meeting the goals of the program as
evidenced by the following data for both the program as a whole, since its inception, and for the most recent
cohort, Cohort 3.
Cumulative Findings
Overview of Partnerships, Courses, and Participants

A total of 19 partnerships were funded across the Commonwealth. Of these, 13 were organized around
mathematical content, five were organized around science content, and one was organized around both
mathematical and science content. Of the 19 MMSP partnerships, all delivered courses. Of the 19
partnerships, 17 offered multiple courses, and, of these, all had participants who attended more than one
course.
 Cohort 1 consisted of eight partnerships, with six of the eight partnerships offering mathematics
professional development and two offering science professional development.

Cohort 2 consisted of two partnerships, both offering mathematics professional development.

Cohort 3 consisted of nine partnerships, with five of the nine partnerships offering mathematics
professional development, three offering science professional development, and one offering
professional development in both mathematics and science content.

In total, 131 MMSP courses were delivered by the end of Year 4 of MMSP funding. Of these 131
courses, 106 were mathematics courses, 21 were science courses, three were technology/engineering
courses, and one was a course offering both mathematics and science content.

In total, 1344 unique participants participated in MMSP courses by the end of Year 4.

512 participants (38% of all participants) attended multiple courses. Of the 512 participating in
multiple courses, 78 took courses across partnerships.

2,589 course seats were filled by all participants across all funding periods.
Reaching Targeted Participants

Types of Schools of Participants
 Of all 1344 unique participants, 98% came from public schools (including public charter schools), 2%
came from non-public schools, and less than 1% did not indicate their school type.

High Need Status of Districts of Participants
 The partnerships exceeded the MADOE target of having at least 50% of all participants come from
high need districts, with 64% of all participants in the program coming from high need districts.
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
40
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Summary of Findings

Across all years of their involvement, 13 of the 19 partnerships had at least 50% of their participants
coming from high need districts.

For each and every individual year of funding, ten of the 19 partnerships had at least 50% of their
participants coming from high need districts.

Across all years of their involvement, nine of 19 partnerships had at least 75% of the participants
come from high need districts.

For each and every individual year of funding, nine of the 19 partnerships had at least 75% of the
participants come from high need districts.
As the following data reveal, not all MMSP participants were licensed in their teaching areas or held relevant
degrees, indicating that course participants were, in fact, those in need of the courses:
 Licensure in Mathematics and Science Content Areas for Middle and High School Teachers
 62% of regular education middle and high school MMSP teachers who taught mathematics were
licensed in mathematics.


23% of special education middle and high school MMSP teachers who taught mathematics were
licensed in mathematics.

40% of regular education middle and high school MMSP teachers who taught a science or
technology/engineering content area were licensed in the area in which they taught.

5% of special education middle and high school teachers who taught a science or
technology/engineering content area were licensed in the area in which they taught.
Degrees Held in Content Area in which Teaching
 18% of regular education middle and high school MMSP teachers who taught mathematics held
degrees in mathematics.

3% of special education middle and high school MMSP teachers who taught mathematics held
degrees in mathematics.

23% of regular education MMSP teachers who taught a science or technology/engineering content
area held degrees in the area in which they taught.

One special education teacher (3%) who taught a science or technology/engineering content area held
a degree in the area in which he or she taught.
Highly Qualified Status
MMSP has contributed to increasing the numbers of highly qualified public school teachers.
 Attaining Highly Qualified Status
 By the end of Year 4, of the participants who had entered MMSP as not highly qualified, 117 had
attained highly qualified status.

New Licensures
 Of the 512 participants taking multiple courses, 26% earned one or more new licenses by the end of
the fourth year of MMSP, and 12% took and passed an MTEL test.
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
41
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Summary of Findings
Cohort 3 Findings
Overview of Partnerships, Courses, and Participants

Nine Cohort 3 partnerships were funded in the 2006-2007 funding period. Of these, five were organized
around mathematical content, three were organized around science content, and one was organized
around both mathematical and science content. Of the nine Cohort 3 MMSP partnerships, all delivered
courses. Of the nine partnerships, seven offered multiple courses, and, of these, all had participants who
attended more than one course.

In total, 37 Cohort 3 courses were delivered by the end of Year 4 of MMSP funding. (Plus one additional
course was offered in conjunction with a program with a different funding source, but there were no
MMSP participants.) Of these 37 courses, 21 were mathematics courses, 13 were science courses, two
were technology/engineering courses, and one was a course offering both mathematics and science
content.

By the end of Year 4, 458 unique Cohort 3 participants participated in MMSP courses.
 108 participants (24% of all Cohort 3 participants) attended multiple courses within the 2006-2007
year. Of the 108 participating in multiple courses, three took courses across partnerships.

161 participants (35% of all Cohort 3 participants) attended multiple courses across all MMSP
funding periods.

632 course seats were filled by Cohort 3 participants in 2006-2007.

Course attrition rates were generally low, averaging 5% across Cohort 3 courses.
Reaching Targeted Participants

Types of Schools of Participants
 Of all 458 unique Cohort 3 participants, 98% came from public schools (including public charter
schools), and 2% came from non-public schools.

High Need Status of Districts of Participants
 The Cohort 3 partnerships exceeded the MADOE target of having at least 50% of all participants
come from high need districts, with 75% of all Cohort 3 participants in the program coming from
high need districts.

Six of the nine partnerships had at least 50% of their participants coming from high need districts.

Five of the nine partnerships had at least 75% of the participants come from high need districts.
As the following data reveal, not all Cohort 3 participants were licensed in their teaching areas or held relevant
degrees, indicating that course participants were, in fact, those in need of the courses:
 Licensure in Mathematics and Science Content Areas for Middle and High School Teachers
 70% of regular education middle and high school Cohort 3 teachers who taught mathematics were
licensed in mathematics.

17% of special education middle and high school Cohort 3 teachers who taught mathematics were
licensed in mathematics.
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
42
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation

Summary of Findings

50% of regular education middle and high school Cohort 3 teachers who taught a science or
technology/engineering content area were licensed in the area in which they taught.

One special education middle and high school Cohort 3 teacher (7%) who taught a science or
technology/engineering content area was licensed in the area in which he or she taught.
Degrees Held in Content Area in which Teaching
 15% of regular education middle and high school Cohort 3 teachers who taught mathematics held
degrees in mathematics.

0% of special education middle and high school Cohort 3 teachers who taught mathematics held
degrees in mathematics.

27% of regular education Cohort 3 teachers who taught a science or technology/engineering content
area held degrees in the area in which they taught.

One special education Cohort 3 teacher (7%) who taught a science or technology content area held a
degree in the area in which he or she taught.
Highly Qualified Status
MMSP has contributed to increasing the numbers of highly qualified public school teachers.
 Attaining Highly Qualified Status
 By the end of the 2006-2007 funding period, of the Cohort 3 participants who had entered MMSP as
not highly qualified, 11 had attained highly qualified status.
Content Knowledge Gains
The content knowledge of Cohort 3 participants was increased:
 Statistically significant improvements in scores on content knowledge assessments occurred in 32 of the
37 Cohort 3 courses.

Gains in average percentage of items correct between pre- and post-course test administrations occurred
in all 37 of the 37 courses delivered across all Cohort 3 partnerships
Integrating Courses into Higher Education Institutions
Integration or plans for future integration of courses into institutions of higher education occurred within all
Cohort 3 partnerships.
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
43
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Appendix A
Appendix A: Participant Background Survey – Cohort 3 9/2006-8/2007
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
44
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
Appendix A
45
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
Appendix A
46
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
Appendix A
47
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
Appendix A
48
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
Appendix A
49
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
Appendix A
50
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
Appendix A
51
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
Appendix A
52
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Appendix B
Appendix B: Timeline for State-level Evaluation and TA Activities
The following is a summary timeline of state-level evaluation and technical assistance activities carried out between
February, 2004, and end of Year 3 of the MMSP.
February 2004 Held Kick-off Meeting for all partnerships and their evaluators at the Department of Education
Spring 2004
Conducted individual partnership meetings with local evaluators and partnership leaders to:
Review the Minimum Expectations document along with the local evaluation and data collection plan
And
Explore potential modifications to implementation plans to create opportunities for experimental or quasi
experimental design
Spring 2004
Developed common measures for state-level data collection
June 2004
Attended federal meeting held for MSP projects across the country
Summer 2004 Disseminated and collected end-of-course documents designed to collect course-level data for the
statewide evaluation
Fall 2004
Conducted individual partnership meetings with local evaluators and partnership leaders to:
Review the Minimum Expectations document along with the local evaluation and data collection plan
And
Review the Federal Reporting document to ensure the partnerships were collecting the data needed to
complete that report
Winter 2005
Conducted partnership meetings with the two new partnerships funded in the second round that
constitutes Cohort 2 to:
Introduce the Minimum Expectations document along with the local evaluation and data collection plan
And
Introduce the Federal Reporting document to ensure the partnerships were collecting the data needed to
complete that report
June 2005
Held Technical Assistance Meeting for all partnerships regarding the requirements of the USED Annual
report
June 2006
Participated in USED Annual Conference of MSP State Coordinators
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
53
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Appendix B
August 2006
Held Technical Assistance Meeting for all partnerships regarding evaluation requirements for MMSP
Fall 2006 to
Winter 2007
Conducted partnership meetings with the new Cohort 3 partnerships to:
Introduce the Minimum Expectations document along with the local evaluation and data collection plan
And
Discuss the federal reporting requirements to ensure the partnerships were collecting the data needed to
complete federal report
December 2006 Participated in USED MSP Regional Conference
June 2007
Participated in USED Annual Conference of MSP State Coordinators
September 2007Held Technical Assistance Meeting for all partnerships regarding the requirements of the USED Annual
report
The following activities were on going throughout the life of the project:
Disseminated and collected end-of-course documents designed to collect course-level data for the
statewide evaluation
Managed data collected from partnerships at the end of each course
Provided technical assistance to partnerships in support of local partnership evaluation efforts
Monitored local evaluation plans to see they include both formative and summative research questions
and corresponding activities
Monitored data collection and analysis around the basic logic model of professional development
Served as liaison to the U.S. Department of Education for evaluation and research issues including
participation in national meetings and periodic conference calls
Met with MADOE MSP Team as needed to support integration of evaluation efforts with program goals
Until Steering Committee was disbanded, attended MMSP Steering Committee meetings in role of state
level evaluator and technical assistance
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
54
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Appendix C
Appendix C: Cohort 3 Results of the Participant Background Survey
Item
Cohort 3
2006-2007
n
%
How do you describe yourself?
American Indian or Alaskan native
Asian
Black or African American
Hispanic or Latino
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander
White
Mixed Race
Other
No Response
1
7
12
12
1
405
3
7
10
<1%
2%
3%
3%
<1%
88%
1%
2%
2%
324
35
25
29
11
10
13
3
4
1
3
71%
8%
5%
6%
2%
2%
3%
1%
1%
<1%
1%
What best describes your current position?
Teacher (Regular Education)
Special Education Teacher (Sole Instructor)
Special Education Inclusion Teacher
Other
Department Head or Curriculum Coordinator
Principal/Asst. Principal/Headmaster
Support Specialist (counselor, librarian, etc.)
Long-term Substitute
Paraprofessional
Superintendent or Asst. Superintendent
No Response
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
55
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Appendix C
Item
Cohort 3
2006-2007
n
%
What grades do you currently teach?
Elementary and K-8
Middle School (Grades 6-8)
High School (Grades 9-12)
Middle and High School grades
Adult Education
All levels
None at this time
No Response
157
210
46
4
2
2
31
6
34%
46%
10%
1%
<1%
<1%
7%
1%
41
54
42
133
117
68
3
9%
12%
9%
29%
26%
15%
1%
How many years have you been employed in
education?
1st year
2-3 years
4-5 years
6-10 years
11-20 years
Over 20 years
0 or No Response
Note: Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding error or items in which respondents may respond to
all that apply.
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
56
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Appendix C
Cohort 3
Item
2006-2007
n
%
Which of the following content areas are you
currently teaching?
Mathematics
Elementary (all subjects)
Elementary Mathematics
General Science
Biology
Physics
Earth Science
Chemistry
Any science area*
Technology/Engineering
Other
Computer Science
Do not teach currently
153
148
41
72
24
15
13
18
113
9
24
5
31
33%
32%
9%
16%
5%
3%
3%
4%
25%
2%
5%
1%
7%
445
2
10
1
97%
<1%
2%
<1%
In which type of school do you currently work?
Public School
Public Charter School
Private School or Other Type School
No Response
Currently hold certification through the National
Board for Professional Teaching Standards.
In Mathematics
In General Science
10
8
2%
2%
* Number of unique participants teaching in any science area.
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
57
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Appendix C
Item
Cohort 3
2006-2007
n
Approximately how many students do you teach annually?
0 students
4
1-10 students
11
11-40 students
129
41-150 students
254
24
%
1%
2%
28%
55%
5%
151+ students
No Response
36
8%
Approximately how many students do you teach annually who are
Title I students?
0 students
82
18%
1-10 students
61
13%
11-40 students
70
15%
41-150 students
45
10%
151+ students
6
1%
No Response
194
42%
Approximately how many students do you teach annually who are
academically advanced students?
0 students
106
23%
1-10 students
64
14%
11-40 students
66
14%
41-150 students
6
1%
151+ students
0
0%
No Response
216
47%
Approximately how many students do you teach annually who are
Special Education students?
0 students
17
4%
1-10 students
149
33%
11-40 students
179
39%
41-150 students
26
6%
151+ students
0
0%
No Response
87
19%
Approximately how many students do you teach annually who are
English Language Learners?
0 students
52
11%
1-10 students
141
31%
11-40 students
94
21%
41-150 students
40
9%
151+ students
2
<1%
129
28%
No Response
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
58
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Appendix C
Cohort 3
Item
2006-2007
n
Why did you participate in this course? *
To obtain graduate credit
To increase knowledge in content
To pursue a personal interest
To earn PDPs for recertification
To get an additional license (certification)
To prepare for the Massachusetts Test for
Educator Licensure (MTEL)
To earn PDPs for your HOUSSE plan
requirement
To follow an administrator’s suggestion
To obtain a first license (certification)
Other
No Response
%
464
438
213
187
134
73%
69%
34%
30%
21%
113
18%
62
10%
41
13
43
4
6%
2%
7%
1%
High Need District
Yes
No
Private School (not included)
For some courses taken by participant
No Response
343
94
10
10
1
75%
21%
2%
2%
<1%
Highly Qualified
Yes
No
In some, but not all areas taught
Not enough information to determine
Private School (not included)
Not applicable (not currently teaching)
210
164
22
9
5
48
46%
36%
5%
2%
1%
10%
*Data for this item represents the number of seats filled from all courses, rather than from unique
participants.
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
59
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Appendix C
Cohort 3
Item
2006-2007
n
%
Do you have a High Objective Uniform State
Standard of Evaluation (HOUSSE) plan? (Public
School Teachers Only)
Yes
No
Not Sure
No Response
134
75
63
110
35%
20%
16%
29%
If you do have a HOUSSE plan, how many PDP
hours do you have in your content area(s)?
Less than 48 PDP hours
48 to 100 PDP hours
101 to 250 PDP hours
251+ PDP hours
No Response
8
9
29
56
32
6%
7%
22%
42%
24%
If you teach, were you licensed prior to 1999 in the
subject(s) and grade level(s) you currently teach?
Yes
No
Not Sure
I don’t teach
No Response
191
239
1
10
17
42%
52%
<1%
2%
4%
Please select any of the following licenses you
currently hold.
Vocational Technical
Specialist Teacher
Supervisor/Director
Principal/Asst. Principal
Superintendent/Assistant Superintendent
2
104
8
19
2
<1%
23%
2%
4%
<1%
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
60
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Item – Cohort 3 2006/2007
Appendix C
Bachelors
Masters
CAGS
Doctoral
A degree currently held for each
major.
Education
Math Education
Science Education
Math
General Science
Biology
Chemistry
Earth Science
Physics
Technology
All science/technology combined
Other
161
5
12
25
12
28
5
7
5
12
69
151
192
9
11
2
6
1
1
1
0
6
15
47
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
A degree currently being pursued
for each major.
Education
Math Education
Science Education
Math
General Science
Biology
Chemistry
Earth Science
Physics
Technology
All science/technology combined
Other
3
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
43
78
26
21
11
4
0
0
2
1
18
15
11
20
0
4
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
61
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
MTEL tests taken – Cohort 3
2006/2007
General Curriculum (formerly
Elementary)
Elementary Math
Early Childhood
Mathematics
Middle School Mathematics
Middle School Mathematics/
Science
General Science
Biology
Chemistry
Physics
Earth Science
Technology/Engineering
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
Appendix C
MTEL
MTEL
Scores
Taken
Passed
Unknown
72 (16%)
70 (97%)
1 (1%)
12 (3%)
8 (2%)
41 (9%)
74 (16%)
10 (83%)
7 (88%)
32 (78%)
61 (82%)
1 (8%)
0 (0%)
3 (7%)
6 (8%)
12 (3%)
7 (58%)
2 (17%)
23 (5%)
10 (2%)
5 (1%)
3 (1%)
6 (1%)
1 (<1%)
23 (100%)
9 (90%)
4 (80%)
2 (67%)
4 (67%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
1 (10%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
1 (100%)
62
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Appendix C
Cohort 3
2006-2007
License Areas
n
Academically Advanced PreK-8
Adult Basic Education
Biology 5-8
Biology 8-12
Chemistry 5-8
Chemistry 5-12
Early Childhood PreK-2
Earth Science 5-8
Earth Science 8-12
Elementary 1-6
Elementary Mathematics 1-6
ELL PreK-6
ELL 5-12
General Science 1-6
General Science 5-8
Instructional Technology
Mathematics 8-12
Middle School
Middle School Mathematics 5-8
Middle School Math/Science 5-8
Physics 5-8
Physics 8-12
Students w/ Moderate Disability PreK-8
Students w/ Moderate Disability 5-12
Students w/ Severe Disability
Technology/Engineering 5-12
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
8
2
14
18
4
8
20
11
3
255
28
9
8
4
51
8
36
37
93
16
6
7
45
25
5
4
%
2%
<1%
3%
4%
1%
2%
4%
2%
1%
56%
6%
2%
2%
1%
11%
2%
8%
8%
20%
3%
1%
2%
10%
5%
1%
1%
63
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Appendix D
Appendix D: High Need District Eligibility Criteria
High Need Districts (See list below.):
1. For proposals with a mathematics content focus: A district is considered to be a high need district if it has a
mathematics proficiency index for grades 4-8 that is below the state target for Cycle II for MMSP Year 1projects or
below the state target for Cycle III for MMSP Year 2 projects. Priority will be given to high need districts with two or
more schools identified for improvement in mathematics.
2. For proposals with a science and/or technology/engineering content focus: A district is considered to be a high need
district if it has a science proficiency index for grades 5-8 in 2003 that is at or below the 20th percentile for the state.
In addition, a high need district must demonstrate that there is a high number or percentage of teachers in the district who are
teaching in the academic subject or grade level for which they have not demonstrated subject matter competency through
licensure or completion of the professional development activities in their HOUSSE plans.
An interested district that is not identified as high need is encouraged to contact a high need district to explore becoming a
partner in the proposed program (e.g., vocational technical schools are encouraged to contact feeder school districts).
Year 1 High Need Districts
DISTRICT
AVON
BARNSTABLE
BOSTON
BROCKTON
CAMBRIDGE
CHELSEA
CHICOPEE
CLARKSBURG
EASTHAMPTON
EVERETT
FAIRHAVEN
FALL RIVER
FITCHBURG
FLORIDA
GARDNER
GREENFIELD
HAVERHILL
HOLBROOK
HOLYOKE
HULL
LAWRENCE
LOWELL
LYNN
MALDEN
MEDFORD
METHUEN
NEW BEDFORD
NORTH ADAMS
PITTSFIELD
PROVINCETOWN
RANDOLPH
REVERE
SALEM
SOMERVILLE
SOUTHBRIDGE
SPRINGFIELD
TAUNTON
WALTHAM
WARE
MATH



























UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
SCIENCE
T/E






































DISTRICT
WAREHAM
WEBSTER
WEST SPRINGFIELD
WESTFIELD
WINCHENDON
WINTHROP
WORCESTER
ABBY KELLEY FOSTER CS
ATLANTIS CS
BENJAMIN BANNEKER CS
BOSTON RENAISSANCE CS
CONSERVATORY LAB CS
EDWARD BROOKE CS
FREDERICK DOUGLASS CS
LAWRENCE FAMILY DEV CS
LOWELL COMMUNITY CS
NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE CS
NEW BEDFORD GLOBAL CS
NEW LEADERSHIP HMCS
NORTH CENTRAL REG CS
ROBERT M. HUGHES CS
SABIS INTERNATIONAL CS
SEVEN HILLS CS
SOMERVILLE CS
UPHAMS CORNER CS
ATHOL-ROYALSTON RSD
BERKSHIRE HILLS RSD
FRONTIER RSD
GILL-MONTAGUE RSD
HAMPSHIRE RSD
HAWLEMONT RSD
MOUNT GREYLOCK RSD
RALPH C MAHAR RSD
MATH





















SCIENCE
T/E































64
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Appendix D
Year 2 High Need Districts
DISTRICT
Grade 5
ATTLEBORO
SCI
Grade 8 Grades 4SCI
8 Math


AVON
BOSTON



BOURNE

BROCKTON
CAMBRIDGE






CHELSEA



CHICOPEE



CLARKSBURG



DEDHAM

DRACUT

EAST BRIDGEWATER

EASTHAMPTON

EVERETT



FAIRHAVEN
FALL RIVER



FITCHBURG



FLORIDA

GARDNER

HAVERHILL


GREENFIELD



HOLBROOK
HOLYOKE


HULL


LAWRENCE



LEOMINSTER

LOWELL



LYNN



MALDEN



MEDFORD


METHUEN


NEW BEDFORD



NORTH ADAMS



ORANGE

OXFORD

QUINCY

PITTSFIELD

RANDOLPH

REVERE




Grade 5
Grade 8 Grades 4-
SCI
SCI
8 Math
SOUTHBRIDGE



SPRINGFIELD
TAUNTON
WALTHAM
WARE
WAREHAM
WEBSTER
WESTFIELD
WINCHENDON
WINTHROP
WORCESTER
ACADEMY OF STRATEGIC CS
BENJAMIN BANNEKER CS
FREDERICK DOUGLASS CS
EDWARD BROOKE CS
CONSERVATORY LAB CS
COMMUNITY DAY CS
SABIS INTERNATIONAL CS
NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE CS
ABBY KELLEY FOSTER REG CS
SO.BOSTON HARBOR ACAD CS
ROBERT M. HUGHES ACAD CS
LAWRENCE FAMILY DEV. CS
LOWELL COMMUNITY CS
NEW LEADERSHIP HMCS
NEW BEDFORD GLOBAL HMCS
NORTH CENTRAL CS
BOSTON RENAISSANCE CS
SEVEN HILLS CS
SOMERVILLE CS
PROSPECT HILL ACADEMY CS
UPHAMS CORNER CS
ATLANTIS CS
ADAMS-CHESHIRE
ATHOL-ROYALSTON
BERKSHIRE
FREETOWN-LAKEVILLE
GATEWAY
GILL-MONTAGUE
HAMPSHIRE
HAWLEMONT
NEW SALEM-WENDELL





































































ROCKLAND
SALEM



SOMERVILLE



UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
DISTRICT
65
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Appendix D
Year 3/Extension High Need Districts
DISTRICT
ATTLEBORO
Grade 5
SCIENCE

Grade 8
SCIENCE
Grades 4-8
MATH

AVON
DISTRICT
Grade 5
SCIENCE
WALTHAM

WARE

BOSTON

BOURNE

BROCKTON



WEBSTER
CAMBRIDGE



WESTFIELD
CHELSEA



WINCHENDON
CHICOPEE



WINTHROP

CLARKSBURG



WORCESTER
ACADEMY OF STRATEGIC
CS
BENJAMIN BANNEKER CS


WAREHAM
DEDHAM

DRACUT

EAST
BRIDGEWATER

EASTHAMPTON

EVERETT

FAIRHAVEN

Grade 8
SCIENCE










FREDERICK DOUGLASS CS
EDWARD BROOKE CS

CONSERVATORY LAB CS


COMMUNITY DAY CS


SABIS INTERNATIONAL CS




FALL RIVER



NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE CS


FITCHBURG



ABBY KELLEY FOSTER
REGIONAL CS


SOUTH BOSTON HARBOR
ACADEMY CS


ROBERT M. HUGHES
ACADEMY CS



LAWRENCE FAMILY
DEVELOPMENT CS



LOWELL COMMUNITY CS

FLORIDA

GARDNER

GREENFIELD
HAVERHILL


HOLBROOK

HOLYOKE


HULL


LAWRENCE


Grades 4-8
MATH





NEW LEADERSHIP HMCS


LOWELL





LYNN



NEW BEDFORD GLOBAL
HMCS
MALDEN



MEDFORD


METHUEN


NEW BEDFORD



NORTH ADAMS



ORANGE
OXFORD
QUINCY
LEOMINSTER
NORTH CENTRAL CS


BOSTON RENAISSANCE CS



SEVEN HILLS CS



SOMERVILLE CS

PROSPECT HILL ACADEMY
CS


UPHAMS CORNER CS


ATLANTIS CS


ADAMS-CHESHIRE RSD

ATHOL-ROYALSTON RSD

PITTSFIELD

RANDOLPH

BERKSHIRE HILLS RSD

FREETOWN-LAKEVILLE RSD

REVERE

ROCKLAND





GATEWAY RSD
SALEM




GILL-MONTAGUE RSD
SOMERVILLE




HAMPSHIRE RSD
SOUTHBRIDGE



HAWLEMONT RSD
SPRINGFIELD



NEW SALEM-WENDELL RSD
TAUNTON


UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group





66
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Appendix D
Year 4 High Need Districts
DISTRICT
Science/Tech.
Engineering
ATTLEBORO
Math

*BOSTON

*BROCKTON

BROOKFIELD
Science/Tech.
Engineering
Math
REVERE

ROCKLAND


SALEM


SAUGUS


SEEKONK


BARNSTABLE
DISTRICT
*CAMBRIDGE


SOMERVILLE
*CHELSEA


SOUTHAMPTON
CHICOPEE

*SOUTHBRIDGE
CLINTON

SOUTH HADLEY
DOUGLAS

*SPRINGFIELD
EASTHAMPTON

STOUGHTON

ERVING

TAUNTON

EVERETT

WALTHAM

FAIRHAVEN

WARE

*FALL RIVER

WAREHAM

WEBSTER
FRAMINGHAM

*WESTFIELD

FREETOWN

WESTPORT

GARDNER

WEST SPRINGFIELD

*GLOUCESTER

WINCHENDON

GRANVILLE

WINTHROP

GREENFIELD

*WORCESTER
HAVERHILL

EXCEL ACADEMY CS

HOLBROOK

FOUR RIVERS CS

*HOLYOKE

BERKSHIRE ARTS CS
ACADEMY OF
STRATEGIC CS
SMITH LEADERSHIP
ACAD CS
BENJAMIN BANNEKER CS

*FITCHBURG


HUDSON
*LAWRENCE



LEE

LEICESTER



















METHUEN

MIDDLEBOROUGH

MONSON

NAHANT





NORTHAMPTON

NORTH BROOKFIELD

NORTON

OXFORD

PALMER

*PITTSFIELD

QUINCY
NEW LEADERSHIP HMCS
NEW BEDFORD GLOBAL
CS
NORTH CENTRAL CS










PIONEER VALLEY
PERFORMING
BOSTON RENAISSANCE
CS
SALEM ACADEMY CS






SEVEN HILLS CS
PROSPECT HILL ACAD
CS
SOUTH SHORE CS

UPHAMS CORNER CS

ATLANTIS CS
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group


MASHPEE
RANDOLPH



*NORTH ADAMS

CONSERVATORY LAB CS
SABIS INTERNATIONAL
CS
ROBERT M. HUGHES
ACAD CS
LAWRENCE FAMILY DEV
CS
LOWELL COMMUNITY CS
*MALDEN
*NEW BEDFORD


LUDLOW
LYNN

MURDOCH MIDDLE CS
LEOMINSTER
*LOWELL






67
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
DISTRICT
Science/Tech.
Engineering
Math
ADAMS-CHESHIRE REG.

*ATHOL-ROYALSTON

BERKSHIRE HILLS

FREETOWN-LAKEVILLE

GATEWAY

GILL-MONTAGUE

HAMPSHIRE

MOHAWK TRAIL

NARRAGANSETT

PIONEER VALLEY

RALPH C MAHAR

SILVER LAKE

UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
Appendix D
68
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Appendix E
Appendix E: Cohort 3 Enrollment and Attrition Rates by Course
Enrollment and Attrition Information as Reported for Each Cohort 3 Course
Partnership
EduTron Lowell
Year
Offered
Course Title
Attrition
Rate
Building a Rock Solid Math Foundation
30
30
0%
06/07
Perspectives on Elementary School
Mathematics
46
46
0%
76
76
0%
06/07
The Math Experience
36
36
0%
06/07
Math as a Second Language, Holyoke
32
29
9%
06/07
Math as a Second Language, Haverhill
35
35
0%
06/07
Math as a Second Language, Fall River
31
31
0%
98
95
3%
Summary – Math as a Second Language
Lesley
Number of
Participants
Completed
Course
06/07
Subtotal
EduTron Fitchburg
Number of
Participants
Enrolled
First Day
06/07
Number Theory, Haverhill
34
30
12%
06/07
Number Theory, Holyoke
25
22
12%
06/07
Number Theory, Fall River
24
24
0%
83
76
8%
Summary – Number Theory
06/07
Functions and Algebra, Haverhill
31
30
3%
06/07
Functions and Algebra, Holyoke
15
14
7%
06/07
Functions and Algebra, Fall River
18
18
0%
64
62
3%
28
27
4%
273
260
5%
29
25
14%
9
9
0%
2
2
0%
6
6
0%
Summary – Functions and Algebra
06/07
Exploring Numbers, Randolph
Subtotal
06/07
06/07
North Shore
06/07
06/07
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
Physics I: Forces, Energy & Motion
Biology I: Cell Biology and Genetics-A
Human Approach
Biology III: Regulation and Homeostasis
in Biological Model Systems
Chemistry III: Bio-Organic Chemistry
69
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Appendix E
Enrollment and Attrition Information as Reported for Each Cohort 3 Course
Partnership
North Shore
(continued)
Year
Offered
Course Title
0
0
N/A
06/07
Engineering I: From Science to
Engineering: Pre-Engineering Design
Experience
3
3
0%
06/07
Physics II: Electricity and Magnetism
8
7
13%
06/07
Biology II: Ecology, Evolution, and the
Diversity of Life
7
7
0%
06/07
Chemistry I: Particulate Nature of Matter
4
4
0%
06/07
Chemistry II: Equilibrium and
Thermodynamics
6
6
0%
74
69
7%
06/07
Life Sciences
13
12
8%
06/07
Math, Mind and Matter
14
14
0%
06/07
Algebra/Geometry I
17
15
12%
06/07
Engineering: Making it Better
13
13
0%
57
54
5%
06/07
Patterns, Relations, & Algebra for MST
32
27
16%
06/07
Data, Probability & Statistics for MST
19
19
0%
06/07
Number Systems for MST
12
11
8%
06/07
Geometry & Measurement for MST
10
10
0%
73
67
8%
Subtotal
SE/Cape
06/07
Energy and the Environment, BSC
24
24
0%
06/07
Energy and the Environment, BCC
9
8
11%
33
32
3%
24
22
8%
57
54
5%
20
19
5%
Summary – Energy and the Environment
06/07
Chemistry
Subtotal
WPI - Science
Attrition
Rate
Earth Science II: The Solid Earth
Subtotal
Salem State
Number of
Participants
Completed
Course
06/07
Subtotal
UMass Amherst
Number of
Participants
Enrolled
First Day
06/07
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
The Physics and Engineering of Forces
70
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Appendix E
Enrollment and Attrition Information as Reported for Each Cohort 3 Course
Partnership
Worcester Public
Schools
Year
Offered
Course Title
Number of
Participants
Enrolled
First Day
Number of
Participants
Completed
Course
Attrition
Rate
06/07
Number Sense I (Gr 3-6)
26
23
12%
06/07
Number Sense & Algebra (Gr 3-6)
16
15
6%
06/07
Number Sense (K-2)
12
11
8%
54
49
9%
Subtotal
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
71
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Appendix F
Appendix F: Subject Matter Competency Demonstration Options
How do teachers demonstrate subject matter competency in Massachusetts?
Elementary teachers
Middle and secondary school teachers
may demonstrate competence in reading, writing,
mathematics, and other areas of the basic
elementary school curriculum through one of the
following:
may demonstrate subject matter competence in
each of the areas they are teaching through one of
the following:
Passing the Massachusetts Test for Educator
Licensure (MTEL) Elementary Subject Matter Test:
General Curriculum and the Foundations of Reading
Passing the Massachusetts Test for Educator
Licensure (MTEL) appropriate Subject Matter Test:
Middle School Humanities
Middle School Mathematics
Middle School Mathematics/Science
Subject Title (e.g., History, English, Physics)
Making sufficient progress* on Massachusetts High
Objective Uniform State Standard of Evaluation
(HOUSSE)
Making sufficient progress* on Massachusetts High
Objective Uniform State Standard of Evaluation
(HOUSSE)
Completion of an appropriate academic major
Completion of an appropriate graduate degree
Completion of comparable coursework equivalent to
an undergraduate academic major
Advanced certification or credentialing
*It is the Department's expectation that a teacher will have completed at least half [48] of the content PDPs [96 total] needed to meet HOUSSE
requirements before being considered highly qualified.
Charter School Teachers who teach core academic subjects do not need a Massachusetts license but must
hold a Bachelor's degree and demonstrate competence in the subject area in which they teach. Charter school
teachers may demonstrate subject matter competence through any one of the options available to elementary
and middle/secondary teachers.
Teachers in Vocational Schools who teach core academic courses are required to meet the definition of a
highly qualified teacher. A vocational school teacher who teaches a core academic subject must hold a
Bachelor's degree, be licensed or certified by the state, and demonstrate subject matter competence in order
to be considered highly qualified.
(information obtained from MADOE, 2004)
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
72
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Appendix G
Appendix G: Cohort 3 Mean Percentage Scores for Pre- & Post-course Tests
Cohort 3 Mean Percentage Scores for Pre- & Post-course Tests
Year
Offered
Institute Name – Course
N
Mean
Pre-test
Mean
Post-test
Change in
Mean
p <.05
06/07
EduTron Lowell – Building a Rock
Solid Math Foundation
28
58
73
14
Yes
06/07
EduTron Lowell – Perspectives on
Elementary School Mathematics
42
53
71
19
Yes
06/07
EduTron Fitchburg – The Math
Experience
33
63
76
12
Yes
06/07
Lesley C3 – Math as a Second
Language, Holyoke
26
72
79
7
Yes
32
51
65
14
Yes
28
67
77
10
Yes
06/07
06/07
Lesley C3 – Math as a Second
Language, Haverhill
Lesley C3 – Math as a Second
Language, Fall River
06/07
Lesley C3 – Number Theory, Haverhill
26
17
52
35
Yes
06/07
Lesley C3 – Functions and Algebra,
Haverhill
26
32
66
34
Yes
06/07
Lesley C3 – Number Theory, Holyoke
22
21
58
36
Yes
06/07
Lesley C3 – Number Theory, Fall
River
22
17
51
34
Yes
06/07
Lesley C3 – Functions and Algebra,
Holyoke
14
48
69
21
Yes
06/07
Lesley C3 – Functions and Algebra,
Fall River
18
39
76
37
Yes
06/07
Lesley C3 – Exploring Numbers,
Randolph
27
39
72
33
Yes
06/07
North Shore – Physics I: Forces,
Energy & Motion
19
49
67
19
Yes
06/07
North Shore – Biology I: Cell Biology
and Genetics-A Human Approach
9
44
69
25
Yes
06/07
North Shore – Biology III: Regulation
and Homeostasis in Biological Model
Systems
2
62
84
22
No
06/07
North Shore – Chemistry III: BioOrganic Chemistry
6
43
74
31
Yes
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
73
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Appendix G
Cohort 3 Mean Percentage Scores for Pre- & Post-course Tests
Year
Offered
Institute Name – Course
N
Mean
Pre-test
Mean
Post-test
Change in
Mean
p <.05
06/07
North Shore – Earth Science II: The
Solid Earth
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
06/07
North Shore – Engineering I: From
Science to Engineering: PreEngineering Design Experience
3
43
77
34
No
06/07
North Shore – Physics II: Electricity
and Magnetism
7
58
67
9
No
7
57
72
16
Yes
4
48
73
25
No
6
49
70
22
Yes
12
67
83
16
Yes
14
85
92
8
No
15
35
79
45
Yes
06/07
06/07
06/07
06/07
06/07
06/07
North Shore – Biology II: Ecology,
Evolution, and the Diversity of Life
North Shore – Chemistry I: Particulate
Nature of Matter
North Shore – Chemistry II:
Equilibrium and Thermodynamics
UMass Amherst C3 – Life Sciences
UMass Amherst C3 – Math, Mind and
Matter
UMass Amherst C3 –
Algebra/Geometry I
06/07
UMass Amherst C3 – Engineering:
Making it Better
13
60
92
33
Yes
06/07
Salem C3 – Patterns, Relations, &
Algebra for MST
25
-0.1
0.3
0.4
Yes
06/07
Salem C3 – Data, Probability &
Statistics for MST
19
29
85
56
Yes
06/07
Salem C3 – Number Systems for MST
11
26
87
61
Yes
10
39
83
44
Yes
23
36
59
23
Yes
8
40
75
34
Yes
06/07
06/07
06/07
Salem C3 – Geometry & Measurement
for MST
SE/Cape – Energy and The
Environment, BSC
SE/Cape – Energy and The
Environment, BCC
06/07
SE/Cape – Chemistry
21
55
65
10
Yes
06/07
WPI Science - The Physics and
Engineering of Forces
19
47
74
28
Yes
06/07
Worcester Public Schools – Number
Sense I (Gr 3-6)
18
50
72
22
Yes
06/07
Worcester Public Schools – Number
Sense & Algebra (Gr 3-6)
15
52
81
29
Yes
06/07
Worcester Public Schools – Number
Sense (K-2)
11
59
79
20
Yes
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
74
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Appendix H
Appendix H: School Types of Unique Participants - All Funding Periods
School Types of Unique Participants - All Funding Periods
Total
School Type
Public School (includes public charter schools)
Non-public School
Other or No Response
TOTAL
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
N
%
1304
30
10
97%
2%
1%
1344
100%
75
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Appendix I
Appendix I: Criteria that Account for Gain in Highly Qualified Status
Criteria that Account for Gain in Highly Qualified Status
All unique participants to date*
Criteria Accounting for
Gains in Highly
Qualified Status
Gained
HQ
status
during
Year 1
Gained HQ status
during Year 2
Gained HQ status
during Year 3
Gained HQ status
during Ext/Year 4
Cohort
1
Cohort
1
Cohort
2
Cohort
1
Cohort
2
Cohort
2
Gained HQ
status during
Year 4
Cohort 3
TOTAL
became HQ
over course of
project
MTEL
3
3
0
2
0
1
0
5
14
National Certification
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Degree in Content Area
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
Undergrad Equivalent
HOUSSE
Earned a Teaching License
MTEL/Undergrad Equiv
combined
MTEL/HOUSSE combined
MTEL/HOUSSE/Undergrad
Equiv combined
Changed area taught or
position
MTEL/changed area or
position combined
Degree/changed area or
position combined
Undergrad Equiv /changed
area or position combined
TOTAL
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
2
4
10
46
0
12
1
1
0
1
71
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
3
0
4
0
1
0
0
0
0
5
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
3
1
0
0
2
7
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
3
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
13
58
1
27
3
4
0
11
117
*Participants who took courses across multiple cohorts were included within the first cohort in which they participated, unless it was determined that they gained their HQ status during Year 4 while taking
Cohort 3 courses.
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
76
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Appendix J
Appendix J: High Need Districts for All Funding Periods, by Partnership
High Need Districts for All Funding Periods, by Partnership*
Number of Participants from High Need Districts
Partnership
EduTron (M)
Harvard University (M)
Lesley University (M)
MCLA – Science (S)
Salem State College
(M)
Springfield/Holyoke
Public Schools (S)
Wareham Public
Schools (M)
Worcester Polytechnic
Institute (M)
High Need Districts
Feb04Aug04
Sep04Aug05
Fitchburg
Gardner
Subtotal
Boston
Boston Renaissance CS
Cambridge
Fall River
Lowell
Malden
New Bedford
Somerville
Somerville CS/Prospect
Hill Academy
Southbridge
37
14
51 (79%)
1
3
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
53
4
57 (88%)
3
2
4
0
1
0
1
2
5
0
0
Sep05Aug06
28
9
37 (84%)
10
0
9
4
0
3
0
4
0
1
Sep06Aug07
Cohorts 1
&2
Sep06Aug07
Cohort 3
Partnership
Ended
Not in
Cohort 3
0
2
3
4
0
1
0
2
1
0
Subtotal
9 (39%)
18 (33%)
31 (39%)
13 (54%)
Malden
21 (21%)
16 (19%)
14 (19%)
3 (25%)
5
1
1
0
3
10 (100%)
1
1
16
41
14
0
73 (79%)
19
0
28
47 (96%)
Partnership
Ended
3
0
5
1
2
2
3
13 (93%)
Adams-Cheshire
Clarksburg
Florida
Mount Greylock
North Adams
Subtotal
Boston
Chelsea
Haverhill Public Schools
Lynn
Salem
Somerville
Subtotal
Holyoke
Holyoke Community CS
Springfield
Subtotal
0
0
1
32
18
0
51 (93%)
6
0
32
38 (100%)
6
1
2
0
5
14 (100%)
0
1
20
32
16
0
69 (86%)
17
0
31
48 (100%)
Wareham
17 (46%)
11 (61%)
Abby Kelley Foster CS
Athol-Royalston
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
Planning
year
0
1
2
0
Not in
Cohort 3
Not in
Cohort 3
Not in
Cohort 3
Partnership
Ended
Not in
Cohort 3
Partnership
Ended
Not in
Cohort 3
Partnership
Ended
Partnership
Ended
Not in
Cohort 3
Not in
Cohort 3
77
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Appendix J
High Need Districts for All Funding Periods, by Partnership*
Number of Participants from High Need Districts
Partnership
Worcester Polytechnic
Institute (M)
MCLA – Math (M)
University of
Massachusetts Amherst
(M)
EduTron Lowell (M/S)
EduTron Fitchburg (M)
Lesley University (M)
High Need Districts
Feb04Aug04
Sep04Aug05
Berkshire Hills
Boston
Brockton
Cambridge
Chicopee
Fall River
Fitchburg
Lawrence Fam. Devt. CS
Lowell Community CS
New Bedford
North Adams
Pittsfield
Ralph C Mahar CS
Seven Hills CS
Somerville
Webster
Winchendon
Worcester
Subtotal
Adams-Cheshire
North Adams
Pittsfield
Subtotal
Athol-Royalston
Chicopee
Easthampton
Gateway
Gill-Montague
Greenfield
Holyoke
Holyoke Community CS
Ludlow
North Adams
Ralph C Mahar
Springfield
Westfield
Subtotal
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
4
15 (63%)
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
1
1
8
7
27 (41%)
Started in
Year 2
Planning
Year
Lowell
Fitchburg
Gardner
Leominster
Subtotal
Brockton
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
Started in
Year 2
N/A
Sep05Aug06
0
0
0
0
0
2
5
0
0
0
0
7
2
16 (64%)
0
1
0
1
2
0
1
3
1
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
6
10
32 (43%)
0
1
0
1 (9%)
0
2
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
4
2
13 (37%)
N/A
N/A
Sep06Aug07
Cohorts 1
&2
Sep06Aug07
Cohort 3
Partnership
Ended
Not in
Cohort 3
3
2
1
6 (86%)
1
1
1
1
2
0
3
1
2
1
1
7
2
23 (34%)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Not in
Cohort 3
Not in
Cohort 3
54 (100%)
17
7
10
34 (100%)
13
78
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Appendix J
High Need Districts for All Funding Periods, by Partnership*
Number of Participants from High Need Districts
Partnership
Lesley University (M)
North Shore (S)
UMass Amherst C3
(M/S)
Salem State College
(M)
SE/Cape (S)
High Need Districts
Feb04Aug04
Sep04Aug05
Sep05Aug06
Sep06Aug07
Cohorts 1
&2
Fairhaven
Fall River
Haverhill Public Schools
Holyoke
Malden
New Bedford
Randolph
Saugus
Subtotal
Somerville
Athol-Royalston
Chicopee
Gateway
Greenfield
Holyoke
Ludlow
New Leadership CS
South Hadley
Springfield
West Springfield
Subtotal
Boston
Chelsea
Everett
Gloucester
Haverhill Public Schools
Lynn
Malden
Salem
Winthrop
Worcester
Subtotal
Barnstable
Brockton
Horace Mann CS
New Bedford
Subtotal
Sep06Aug07
Cohort 3
3
26
29
29
1
4
13
2
120 (94%)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
16 (39%)
1
5
1
1
3
2
1
2
3
3
22 (46%)
1
1
3
6
4
20
1
3
1
1
41 (82%)
1
20
2
8
31 (66%)
WPI – Science (S)
Worcester
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3 (16%)
Worcester Public
Schools (M)
Worcester
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
34 (83%)
*If columns for this table are summed, totals will not correspond to relevant data in Table 32 because 1) Table 32 presents data for unique participants across all partnerships
while this table presents data for unique participants only within partnerships (and some participants took courses through multiple partnerships over all four years) and 2)
the districts of some of those participants who crossed partnerships were not consistently classified as high need districts (either because of the content of the course or
because of the cohort of the partnership offering the course).
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
79