Massachusetts Mathematics and Science Partnership Title IIB
Annual State-level Evaluation Report Appendices
Cohort 4 Reporting Period: September 1, 2008, through August 31, 2010
Cumulative Reporting Period: February 2, 2004, through August 31, 2010
Prepared for the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and
Secondary Education
June 2011
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Summary of Findings
Contents
Appendix A: Participant Background Survey – September 2009–August 2010 .................................. 3
Appendix B: Timeline for State-level Evaluation and Technical Assistance Activities .................... 11
Appendix C: Results of the Participant Background Survey for 2009–2010 ...................................... 14
Appendix D: High Need District Eligibility Criteria ............................................................................... 20
Appendix E: Enrollment and Attrition Rates by Course ...................................................................... 26
Appendix F: Subject Matter Competency Demonstration Options ..................................................... 30
Appendix G: Mean Percentage Scores for Pre- & Post-course Tests ................................................. 31
Appendix H: High Need Districts for All Funding Periods, by Partnership ........................................ 35
Appendix I: Criteria that Account for Gain in Highly Qualified Status .............................................. 42
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Appendix A
Appendix A: Participant Background Survey – September 2009–August 2010
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
3
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
Appendix A
4
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
Appendix A
5
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
Appendix A
6
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
Appendix A
7
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
Appendix A
8
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
Appendix A
9
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
Appendix A
10
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Appendix B
Appendix B: Timeline for State-level Evaluation and Technical Assistance
Activities
The following is a summary timeline of state-level evaluation and technical assistance activities carried out between
February, 2004, and end of Year 7 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
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
11
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Appendix B
June 2006
Participated in USED Annual Conference of MSP State Coordinators
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 2007 Held Technical Assistance Meeting for all partnerships regarding the requirements of the USED annual
report
January 2008
Participated in USED MSP Regional Conference
April 2008
Participated in technical assistance workshop for bidders pursuing MSP funding for 2008-2009
April 2008
Participated in USED the Massachusetts MSP Statewide Conference
June 2008
Participated in USED MSP State Coordinators’ Meeting
October 2008
Held Technical Assistance Meeting for all partnerships regarding evaluation requirements for MMSP
Fall 2008 to
Winter 2009
Conducted partnership meetings with the new Cohort 4 partnerships to:
Discuss evaluation expectations data collection plans
And
Discuss the federal reporting requirements to ensure the partnerships were collecting the data needed to
complete federal report
March 2009
Participated in USED MSP Regional Conference
May 2009
Participated in USED the Massachusetts MSP Statewide Conference
September 2009 Participated in Technical Assistance Meeting for all partnerships regarding reporting requirements
January 2010
Participated in USED MSP Regional Conference
April 2010
Participated in technical assistance workshop for bidders pursuing MSP funding for 2010-2011
Spring 2010
Participated in continuation conferences for select partnerships
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
12
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Appendix B
The following activities were ongoing 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 USED for evaluation and research issues including participation in national
meetings and periodic conference calls
Met with ESE 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
13
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Appendix C
Appendix C: Results of the Participant Background Survey for 2009–2010
Cohort 4
Item
2009–2010
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
What best describes your current primary position?
Teacher (Regular Education)
Special Education Teacher (Sole Instructor)
Special Education Inclusion Teacher
Other
Principal/Asst. Principal/Headmaster
Support Specialist (counselor, librarian, etc.)
Long-term Substitute
Paraprofessional
ELL, ESL, or Sheltered English Immersion Teacher
Gifted or Talented Teacher
Math Coach (Non-Teaching)
Math Coach (Teaching)
Science Coach (Non-Teaching)
Science Coach (Teaching)
Instructional Technology Director
Advanced Placement or Int’l Bacc. Program Teacher
Title 1 Teacher
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
1
17
57
26
0
484
18
8
414
69
47
20
2
0
6
1
26
5
2
12
1
3
1
2
7
<1%
3%
9%
4%
0%
77%
3%
1%
66%
11%
8%
3%
<1%
0%
<1%
<1%
4%
<1%
<1%
2%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
1%
14
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Appendix C
Cohort 4
Item
2009–2010
n
%
What grades do you currently teach?
Pre-K
Elementary and K-8
Pre-K and Elementary
Middle School (Grades 6-8)
High School (Grades 9-12)
Middle School and High School
NA (doesn’t teach)
No Response
1
237
2
265
106
5
12
2
<1%
38%
<1%
42%
17%
<1%
2%
<1%
3
81
76
177
179
87
27
<1%
13%
12%
28%
29%
14%
4%
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.
Cohort 4
Item
2009–2010
n
Which of the following content areas are you currently
teaching?
Mathematics
Elementary (all subjects)
Elementary Mathematics
General Science
Biology
Physics
Earth Science
Chemistry
Technology/Engineering
Any science area*
Other
Do not teach currently
%
184
197
55
123
52
34
25
31
13
213
26
12
29%
31%
9%
20%
8%
5%
4%
5%
2%
34%
4%
2%
614
16
98%
3%
6
5
<1%
<1%
In which of the following are you currently employed?
Public School (includes public charter schools)
Non-public School
Currently hold certification through the National Board for
Professional Teaching Standards.
In Mathematics
In General Science
*Number of unique participants teaching in any science area.
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
15
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Appendix C
Cohort 4
Item
2009–2010
n
%
171
25
195
192
15
32
27%
4%
31%
31%
2%
5%
248
19
131
190
23
25
38%
3%
21%
30%
4%
4%
229
68
110
77
11
135
36%
11%
18%
12%
2%
21%
328
84
68
29
0
121
52%
13%
11%
5%
0%
19%
50
230
263
39
3
45
8%
37%
42%
6%
<1%
7%
118
248
132
45
5
82
19%
39%
21%
7%
<1%
13%
Approximately how many math students do you teach annually?
0 students
1-10 students
11-40 students
41-150 students
151+ students
No Response
Approximately how many science students do you teach annually?
0 students
1-10 students
11-40 students
41-150 students
151+ students
No Response
Approximately how many students do you teach annually who are
Title I students?
0 students
1-10 students
11-40 students
41-150 students
151+ students
No Response
Approximately how many students do you teach annually who are
academically advanced students?
0 students
1-10 students
11-40 students
41-150 students
151+ students
No Response
Approximately how many students do you teach annually who are
Special Education students?
0 students
1-10 students
11-40 students
41-150 students
151+ students
No Response
Approximately how many students do you teach annually who are
English Language Learners?
0 students
1-10 students
11-40 students
41-150 students
151+ students
No Response
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
16
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Appendix C
Cohort 4
Item
2009–2010
n
%
565
603
239
217
123
67%
72%
29%
26%
15%
74
9%
105
29
37
8
13%
4%
4%
<1%
412
218
0
65%
35%
0%
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 follow an administrator’s suggestion
To obtain a first license (certification)
Other
No Response
High Need District
Yes
No
Unknown
Highly Qualified
Yes
No
In some, but not all areas taught
Not enough information to determine
Not applicable (not currently teaching)
352
206
32
28
12
56%
33%
5%
4%
2%
*Data for this item represents the number of seats filled from all courses, rather than the
number of unique participants.
Cohort 4
Item
2009–2010
n
%
43
27
36
20
504
7%
4%
6%
3%
80%
2
106
5
16
1
<1%
17%
<1%
2%
<1%
How many PDP hours do you have in your content area(s)?
(SPED and ELL teachers only)
Less than 48 PDP hours
48 to 100 PDP hours
101 to 250 PDP hours
251+ PDP hours
No Response/Not Applicable
Please select any of the following licenses you currently
hold.
Vocational Technical
Specialist Teacher
Supervisor/Director
Principal/Asst. Principal
Superintendent/Assistant Superintendent
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
17
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Appendix C
Cohort 4 2009–2010
Item
Bachelors
n
%
Masters
n
%
CAGS
n
%
Doctorate
n
%
A degree currently held for each major.
Education
Math Education
Science Education
Math
General Science
Biology
Chemistry
Earth Science
Physics
Technology/Engineering
All science/technology combined
Other
159
11
17
36
11
68
21
3
8
13
124
188
25%
2%
3%
6%
2%
11%
3%
<1%
1%
2%
20%
30%
315
22
21
3
15
9
5
1
1
3
34
73
50%
4%
3%
<1%
2%
1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
5%
12%
6
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
4
1%
<1%
0%
0%
<1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
<1%
<1%
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
<1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
<1%
0%
0%
0%
1
5
<1%
<1%
4
4
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
<1%
<1%
0%
<1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
<1%
<1%
<1%
48
70
49
6
10
5
0
1
0
0
6
15
8%
11%
8%
1%
2%
<1%
0%
<1%
0%
0%
<1%
2%
9
9
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1%
1%
<1%
<1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
<1%
7
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1%
<1%
<1%
0%
0%
<1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
<1%
0%
A degree currently being pursued for each major.
Education
Math Education
Science Education
Math
General Science
Biology
Chemistry
Earth Science
Physics
Technology/Engineering
All science/technology combined
Other
Cohort 4 2009–2010
Item
MTEL
Taken
n
%
MTEL
Passed
n
%
Scores
Unknown
n
%
MTEL tests taken
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
129
33
14
51
87
27
64
40
27
17
5
1
21%
5%
2%
8%
14%
4%
10%
6%
4%
3%
<1%
<1%
127
29
13
41
69
16
57
39
22
15
5
1
20%
5%
2%
6%
11%
2%
9%
6%
4%
2%
<1%
<1%
0
1
0
5
8
4
3
0
2
0
0
0
0%
<1%
0%
<1%
1%
<1%
<1%
0%
<1%
0%
0%
0%
18
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Appendix C
Cohort 4
2009–2010
Item
n
%
7
1
31
54
3
24
9
7
7
260
51
21
16
7
91
3
56
26
94
17
2
17
100
1%
<1%
5%
9%
<1%
4%
1%
1%
1%
41%
8%
3%
3%
1%
14%
<1%
9%
4%
15%
3%
<1%
3%
16%
8%
2%
<1%
License Areas
Academically Advanced PreK-8
Adult Basic Education
Biology 5-8
Biology 8-12
Chemistry 5-8
Chemistry 8-12
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
47
11
4
19
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).
MA FY2004 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































20
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Appendix D
MA FY2005 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
21
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Appendix D
MA FY2006 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



WESTFIELD
CAMBRIDGE



WINCHENDON
CHELSEA



WINTHROP

CHICOPEE






WORCESTER
ACADEMY OF STRATEGIC
CS
BENJAMIN BANNEKER CS

CLARKSBURG


DRACUT


EASTHAMPTON

EVERETT

FAIRHAVEN
WAREHAM
WEBSTER
DEDHAM
EAST
BRIDGEWATER












EDWARD BROOKE CS

CONSERVATORY LAB CS

COMMUNITY DAY CS

SABIS INTERNATIONAL CS


NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE CS



FALL RIVER



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


LEOMINSTER

LOWELL



LYNN



NORTH CENTRAL CS
MALDEN



BOSTON RENAISSANCE CS

MEDFORD


SEVEN HILLS CS

METHUEN


SOMERVILLE CS
PROSPECT HILL ACADEMY
CS

UPHAMS CORNER CS

ATLANTIS CS

ADAMS-CHESHIRE RSD

ATHOL-ROYALSTON RSD


NEW BEDFORD



NORTH ADAMS



ORANGE

OXFORD
QUINCY


PITTSFIELD

RANDOLPH

REVERE

ROCKLAND
SALEM









SOUTHBRIDGE



SPRINGFIELD



TAUNTON


SOMERVILLE
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
Grades 4-8
MATH


FREDERICK DOUGLASS CS

Grade 8
SCIENCE




NEW LEADERSHIP HMCS


NEW BEDFORD GLOBAL
HMCS












BERKSHIRE HILLS RSD
FREETOWN-LAKEVILLE RSD

GATEWAY RSD

GILL-MONTAGUE RSD

HAMPSHIRE RSD

HAWLEMONT RSD
NEW SALEM-WENDELL RSD




22
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Appendix D
MA FY2007 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
FITCHBURG


HUDSON
LAWRENCE


LEE

LEICESTER



















METHUEN

MIDDLEBOROUGH

MONSON

NAHANT





NORTHAMPTON

NORTH BROOKFIELD

NORTON

OXFORD

PALMER

PITTSFIELD

QUINCY
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
SMITH LEADERSHIP
ACAD CS
BENJAMIN BANNEKER CS

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





23
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
DISTRICT
Science/Tech.
Engineering
Math
ATLANTIS CS

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
24
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Appendix D
MA FY2008 and FY2009 High Need Districts
MA FY2009 and FY2010 High Need Districts (same as MA FY2008 and FY2009 High Need Districts)
Criteria: A high-need district in science and technology/engineering is a district that has a grade 8 and a high school science
CPI of less than 60. A high-need district in mathematics is a district that has been identified for corrective action in
mathematics, or districts with one or more Commonwealth Priority Schools identified for mathematics.
DISTRICT
Science
Math


NEW BEDFORD

NORTH ADAMS
BOSTON
BRIDGEWATER-RAYNHAM
DISTRICT
Science
Math



BROCKTON


NORTH BROOKFIELD

CAMBRIDGE


PEABODY
CHICOPEE


PITTSFIELD
EASTHAMPTON

EVERETT


RANDOLPH


FALL RIVER







PLYMOUTH

REVERE
FALMOUTH

SALEM
FITCHBURG

SOMERVILLE



SOUTHBRIDGE


SPENCER-EAST BROOKFIELD


GARDNER

GATEWAY


GLOUCESTER

SPRINGFIELD
GREENFIELD

WAREHAM

HAVERHILL

WESTFIELD

HOLBROOK


WOBURN
HOLYOKE


WORCESTER

HULL

BERKSHIRE ARTS CS

LAWRENCE


LOWELL





MARLBOROUGH

NEW BEDFORD GLOBAL CS

MEDFORD

METHUEN



LYNN
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group


BENJAMIN BANNEKER CS
COMMUNITY CS OF
CAMBRIDGE
NEW LEADERSHIP HMCS
LUDLOW



25
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Appendix E
Appendix E: Enrollment and Attrition Rates by Course
Enrollment and Attrition Information as Reported for Each Cohort 4 Course
Partnership
Lesley Springfield
Year
Offered
Course Title
Number of
Participants
Completed
Course
Attrition
Rate
08/09
Number Theory (Cohort I)
20
20
0%
08/09
Number Theory (Cohort II)
17
17
0%
37
37
0%
Subtotal – Number Theory
08/09
Number and Operations (Cohort I)
13
13
0%
08/09
Number and Operations (Cohort II)
13
13
0%
09/10
Number and Operations (Cohort IV)
21
21
0%
47
47
0%
Subtotal – Number and Operations
08/09
Functions and Algebra I (Cohort III)
12
9
25%
09/10
Functions and Algebra I (Cohort IV)
22
19
14%
09/10
Functions and Algebra I (Cohort IV)
23
23
0%
09/10
Functions and Algebra I (Cohort IV)
13
13
0%
70
64
9%
Subtotal – Functions and Algebra I
09/10
Geometry and Measurement I
21
21
0%
09/10
Geometry and Measurement I
23
23
0%
09/10
Geometry and Measurement I
23
23
0%
67
67
0%
Subtotal – Geometry and Measurement I
09/10
Probability
12
12
0%
09/10
Probability
17
17
0%
09/10
Probability
13
13
0%
42
42
0%
263
257
2%
Subtotal – Probability
Subtotal
Boston Public
Schools
Number of
Participants
Enrolled First
Day
08/09
Building a System of Tens
133
115
14%
09/10
Building a System of Tens
12
12
0%
09/10
Building a System of Tens
13
13
0%
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
26
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Appendix E
Enrollment and Attrition Information as Reported for Each Cohort 4 Course
Partnership
Year
Offered
09/10
Course Title
Building a System of Tens
Subtotal – Building a System of Tens
Number of
Participants
Completed
Course
Attrition
Rate
22
22
0%
180
162
10%
08/09
Making Meaning of Operations
69
69
0%
09/10
Making Meaning of Operations
20
20
0%
09/10
Making Meaning of Operations
30
30
0%
09/10
Making Meaning of Operations
15
15
0%
09/10
Making Meaning of Operations
10
10
0%
09/10
Making Meaning of Operations
15
15
0%
159
159
0%
Subtotal – Making Meaning of Operations
09/10
MIMI
20
20
0%
09/10
Patterns, Functions and Change
13
13
0%
09/10
Patterns, Functions and Change
19
19
0%
09/10
Patterns, Functions and Change
17
17
0%
49
49
0%
Subtotal – Patterns, Functions and Change
09/10
Reasoning about Algebraic Operations
12
12
0%
09/10
Reasoning about Algebraic Operations
17
17
0%
29
29
0%
417
399
4%
22
22
0%
24
22
8%
21
21
0%
67
65
3%
12
12
0%
11
10
9%
24
24
0%
47
46
2%
18
17
6%
Subtotal – Reasoning about Algebraic Operations
Subtotal
Brockton Public
Schools
Number of
Participants
Enrolled First
Day
Intel Math for Teachers Parts I and II
(Bridgewater State College)
Intel Math for Teachers Parts I and II
09/10
(Bridgewater State College)
Intel Math for Teachers Parts I and II
09/10
(Bridgewater State College)
Subtotal – Intel Math for Teachers Parts I and II
(Bridgewater State College)
Intel Math for Teachers Parts I and II
08/09
(Bristol Community College)
Intel Math for Teachers Parts I and II
09/10
(Bristol Community College)
Intel Math for Teachers Parts I and II
09/10
(Bristol Community College)
Subtotal – Intel Math for Teachers Parts I and II (Bristol
Community College
08/09
08/09
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
Intel Math for Teachers Parts I and II
(Cape Cod Community College)
27
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Appendix E
Enrollment and Attrition Information as Reported for Each Cohort 4 Course
Partnership
Year
Offered
09/10
Brockton Public
Schools
(continued)
Course Title
Intel Math for Teachers Parts I and II
(Cape Cod Community College)
Subtotal – Intel Math for Teachers Parts I and II (Cape
Cod Community College)
09/10
Intel Math for Teachers Parts I and II
(North River Collaborative)
Subtotal
Gateway Regional
School District
Brockton Public
Schools
(continued)
Boston University
Attrition
Rate
18
15
17%
36
32
11%
24
24
0%
174
167
4%
Earth Systems: Learning Science by
Doing Science
47
47
0%
09/10
Earth Systems Science II: Energy in
Natural and Human Sciences
55
49
11%
102
96
6%
08/09
Watershed
6
6
0%
08/09
Chemistry
22
22
0%
09/10
Special Topics in Physics: Force &
Energy
27
26
4%
09/10
Earth Science
13
13
0%
09/10
Technology & Engineering
22
22
0%
90
89
1%
Subtotal
Springfield
College
Number of
Participants
Completed
Course
08/09
Subtotal
Randolph Public
Schools
Number of
Participants
Enrolled First
Day
08/09
Best Practices in Teaching Life Science
14
14
0%
08/09
Best Practices in Teaching Life Science
13
13
0%
Subtotal – Best Practices in Teaching Life Sciences
Best Practices of Teaching Physical
09/10
Science
Best Practices of Teaching Physical
09/10
Science
Subtotal – Best Practices in Teaching Physical Science
27
27
0%
14
14
0%
16
16
0%
30
30
0%
Subtotal
57
57
0%
21
21
0%
21
21
0%
42
42
0%
Uncovering the Fundamentals of
Arithmetic
Uncovering the Fundamentals of
09/10
Arithmetic
Subtotal – Uncovering the Fundamentals of Arithmetic
08/09
08/09
PROMYS for Teachers: Number Theory
48
46
4%
09/10
PROMYS for Teachers: Number Theory
14
14
0%
62
60
3%
104
102
2%
Subtotal – PROMYS for Teachers: Number Theory
Subtotal
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
28
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Appendix E
Enrollment and Attrition Information as Reported for Each Cohort 4 Course
Number of
Participants
Enrolled First
Day
Number of
Participants
Completed
Course
Partnership
Year
Offered
Greater North
Shore*
08/09
Mathematics I
22
20
9%
08/09
Mathematics I
7
7
0%
09/10
Mathematics I
32
28
13%
61
55
Course Title
Subtotal – Mathematics I
Chemistry B: The Energetics of Chemical
08/09
Change
08/09
Physics II: Waves, Electricity, and
Magnetism
Biology I: Cell Biology and Genetics-A
Human Approach
Biology I: Cell Biology and Genetics-A
09/10
Human Approach
Subtotal – Biology I: Cell Biology and Genetics- A
Human Approach
Biology II: Ecology, Evolution, and the
08/09
Diversity of Life
Chemistry II: Equilibrium and
08/09
Thermodynamics
Chemistry II: Equilibrium and
09/10
Thermodynamics
Subtotal – Chemistry II: Equilibrium and
Thermodynamics
08/09
Data Not
Submitted
Attrition
Rate
10%
Data Not
Submitted
Data Not
Submitted
4
4
0%
6
6
0%
21
21
0%
27
27
0%
4
4
0%
8
6
25%
21
19
10%
33
25
2%
08/09
Earth Science I: Weather and Water
5
5
0%
09/10
Earth Science I: Weather and Water
18
18
0%
Subtotal – Earth Science I: Weather and Water
Engineering I: From Science to
08/09
Engineering: Pre-Engineering Design
Experience
Engineering I
09/10
23
23
0%
3
3
0%
14
14
0%
Subtotal – Engineering I
17
17
0%
08/09
Physics I: Forces, Energy, & Motion
9
9
0%
09/10
Physics I: Forces, Energy, & Motion
30
29
3%
Subtotal – Physics I: Forces, Energy, & Motion
39
38
3%
08/09
Earth Science II: The Solid Earth
6
5
17%
09/10
Energy I
21
15
29%
09/10
Chemistry I: Particulate Nature of Matter
26
26
0%
268
246
8%
Subtotal (excluding data for Chemistry B course)
* The numbers of enrolled participants for courses offered by this partnership are small due to the fact that additional participants in these courses were funded by other
sources and, therefore, not included in the evaluation of MSP.
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
29
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); prior to 2007
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 ESE, 2004)
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
30
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Appendix G
Appendix G: Mean Percentage Scores for Pre- & Post-course Tests
Mean Percentage Scores for Pre- & Post-course Tests: Cohort 4
Year
Offered
Institute Name – Course
N
Mean
Pre-test
Mean
Post-test
Change in
Mean
p <.05
08/09
Lesley C4 – Number Theory (Section 1)
17
17
45
28
Yes
08/09
Lesley C4 – Number Theory (Section 2)
13
13
41
28
Yes
13
32
73
41
Yes
8
68
81
13
Yes
12
38
67
29
Yes
17
21
50
29
Yes
15
53
71
19
Yes
19
42
72
30
Yes
11
45
69
24
Yes
08/09
08/09
08/09
09/10
09/10
09/10
09/10
Lesley C4 – Number and Operations
(Section 1)
Lesley C4 – Functions and Algebra I
(Section 3)
Lesley C4 – Number and Operations
(Section 2)
Lesley C4 – Number and Operations
(Section 3)
Lesley C4 – Functions and Algebra
(Section 4)
Lesley C4 – Functions and Algebra
(Section 4)
Lesley C4 – Functions and Algebra
(Section 4)
09/10
Lesley C4 – Geometry and Measurement
11
45
60
15
Yes
09/10
Lesley C4 – Geometry and Measurement
19
46
72
26
Yes
09/10
Lesley C4 – Geometry and Measurement
22
36
61
25
Yes
09/10
Lesley C4 – Probability
12
30
65
35
Yes
09/10
Lesley C4 – Probability
16
29
52
23
Yes
09/10
Lesley C4 – Probability
12
31
61
31
Yes
25
0
45
45
Yes
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2
56
72
16
NA
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
2
68
68
0
NA
08/09
08/09
09/10
09/10
09/10
Boston Public Schools C4 – Building a
System of Tens and Making Meaning of
Operations
Boston Public Schools C4 – Making
Meaning of Operations
Boston Public Schools C4 – Building a
System of Tens
Boston Public Schools C4 – Building a
System of Tens
Boston Public Schools C4 – Building a
System of Tens
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
31
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Appendix G
Mean Percentage Scores for Pre- & Post-course Tests: Cohort 4
Year
Offered
09/10
09/10
09/10
09/10
09/10
09/10
09/10
09/10
09/10
09/10
09/10
08/09
08/09
08/09
09/10
09/10
09/10
09/10
Institute Name – Course
Boston Public Schools C4 – Making
Meaning of Operations
Boston Public Schools C4 – Making
Meaning of Operations
Boston Public Schools C4 – Making
Meaning of Operations
Boston Public Schools C4 – Making
Meaning of Operations
Boston Public Schools C4 – Making
Meaning of Operations
Boston Public Schools C4 – MIMI
Boston Public Schools C4 – Patterns,
Functions, and Change
Boston Public Schools C4 – Patterns,
Functions, and Change
Boston Public Schools C4 – Patterns,
Functions, and Change
Boston Public Schools C4 – Reasoning
about Algebraic Operations
Boston Public Schools C4 – Reasoning
about Algebraic Operations
Brockton Public Schools C4 – Intel Math
for Teachers Parts I and II, Bridgewater
State College
Brockton Public Schools C4 – Intel Math
for Teachers Parts I and II, Bristol
Community College
Brockton Public Schools C4 – Intel Math
for Teachers Parts I and II, Cape Cod
Community College
Brockton Public Schools C4 – Intel Math
for Teachers Parts I and II, Bridgewater
State College
Brockton Public Schools C4 – Intel Math
for Teachers Parts I and II, Bridgewater
State College
Brockton Public Schools C4 – Intel Math
for Teachers Parts I and II, Bristol
Community College
Brockton Public Schools C4 – Intel Math
for Teachers Parts I and II, Bristol
Community College
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
Mean
Pre-test
Mean
Post-test
Change in
Mean
p <.05
1
59
72
13
NA
1
76
64
-12
NA
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
1
66
79
13
NA
9
68
79
11
No
3
51
60
9
NA
7
61
68
7
No
2
67
69
2
NA
5
55
59
4
NA
4
61
70
9
NA
22
52
79
26
Yes
12
61
81
20
Yes
17
68
82
15
Yes
22
62
79
17
Yes
20
70
88
18
Yes
10
76
91
15
Yes
24
63
83
20
Yes
N
32
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Appendix G
Mean Percentage Scores for Pre- & Post-course Tests: Cohort 4
Year
Offered
09/10
09/10
08/09
09/10
08/09
08/09
09/10
09/10
09/10
08/09
08/09
09/10
09/10
08/09
08/09
09/10
09/10
Institute Name – Course
Brockton Public Schools C4 – Intel Math
for Teachers Parts I and II, Cape Cod
Community College
Brockton Public Schools C4 – Intel Math
for Teachers Parts I and II, North River
Collaborative
Gateway Regional School District C4 –
Earth Systems: Learning Science by
Doing Science
Gateway Regional School District C4 –
Earth Systems Science II: Energy in
Natural and Human Sciences
Randolph Public Schools C4 –
Watershed
Randolph Public Schools C4 – Chemistry
Randolph Public Schools C4 – Special
Topics in Physics: Force & Energy
Randolph Public Schools C4 – Earth
Science
Randolph Public Schools C4 –
Technology & Engineering
Springfield College C4 – Best Practices
in Teaching Life Science
Springfield College C4 – Best Practices
in Teaching Life Science
Springfield College C4 – Best Practices
of Teaching Physical Science
Springfield College C4 – Best Practices
of Teaching Physical Science
Boston University Trustees C4 –
Uncovering the Fundamentals of
Arithmetic
Boston University Trustees C4 –
PROMYS for Teachers Number Theory
Boston University Trustees C4 –
Uncovering the Fundamentals of
Arithmetic
Boston University Trustees C4 –
PROMYS for Teachers Number Theory
N
Mean
Pre-test
Mean
Post-test
Change in
Mean
p <.05
15
61
75
14
Yes
24
71
81
10
Yes
45
57
66
9
Yes
47
53
73
20
Yes
6
18
72
54
Yes
22
68
82
13
Yes
26
39
89
50
Yes
13
57
75
18
Yes
22
49
67
19
Yes
14
55
75
20
Yes
11
59
67
8
No
14
56
67
11
Yes
16
61
74
13
Yes
21
65
75
10
No
5
82
74
-8
No
19
71
91
21
Yes
14
49
88
39
Yes
08/09
Greater North Shore C4 – Mathematics I
20
52
68
15
Yes
08/09
Greater North Shore C4 – Chemistry B:
The Energetics of Chemical Change
20
17
56
39
Yes
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
33
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Appendix G
Mean Percentage Scores for Pre- & Post-course Tests: Cohort 4
Year
Offered
Institute Name – Course
N
Mean
Pre-test
Mean
Post-test
Change in
Mean
p <.05
08/09
Greater North Shore C4 – Physics II:
Waves, Electricity, and Magnetism
4
50
66
16
No
08/09
Greater North Shore C4 – Mathematics I
6
63
72
8
No
08/09
Greater North Shore C4 – Biology I
6
51
69
18
No
08/09
Greater North Shore C4 – Biology II
4
56
69
13
No
08/09
Greater North Shore C4 – Chemistry II
8
44
67
23
Yes
08/09
Greater North Shore C4 – Earth Science I
4
69
72
3
No
08/09
Greater North Shore C4 – Engineering I
3
56
91
35
No
08/09
Greater North Shore C4 – Physics I
9
71
91
21
Yes
08/09
Greater North Shore C4 – Earth Science
II
5
60
82
21
No
09/10
Greater North Shore C4 – Mathematics I
28
61
76
15
Yes
09/10
Greater North Shore C4 – Biology I
21
63
79
16
Yes
09/10
Greater North Shore C4 – Engineering I
14
60
86
26
Yes
09/10
Greater North Shore C4 – Chemistry II
18
52
67
15
Yes
09/10
Greater North Shore C4 – Earth Science I
19
46
73
27
Yes
09/10
Greater North Shore C4 – Physics I
29
64
80
16
Yes
09/10
Greater North Shore C4 – Energy I
15
50
68
17
Yes
09/10
Greater North Shore C4 – Chemistry I:
Particulate Nature of Matter
26
50
74
24
Yes
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
34
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Appendix H
Appendix H: 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)
High Need
Districts
Fitchburg
Gardner
Subtotal
Boston
Boston Renaiss. CS
Cambridge
Fall River
Lowell
Malden
New Bedford
Somerville
Somerville CS/
Prospect Hill
Academy
Southbridge
Subtotal
Malden
Adams-Cheshire
Clarksburg
Florida
Mount Greylock
North Adams
Subtotal
Boston
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
Feb04–
Aug04
Sep04–
Aug05
37
14
51 (79%)
1
3
5
0
0
0
0
0
53
4
57 (88%)
3
2
4
0
1
0
1
2
0
0
9 (39%)
21 (21%)
Planning Year
0
5
0
18 (33%)
16 (19%)
6
1
2
0
5
14 (100%)
0
Sep05–
Aug06
28
9
37 (84%)
10
0
9
4
0
3
0
4
0
1
31 (39%)
14 (19%)
5
1
1
0
3
10 (100%)
1
Sep06–
Aug07
Cohorts
1&2
N/A
N/A
N/A
0
2
3
4
0
1
0
2
1
0
13 (54%)
3 (25%)
5
1
2
2
3
13 (93%)
N/A
Sep06–
Aug07
Cohort 3
Sep07–Aug08
Cohort 3
Sep08–
Aug09
Cohort 3
Sep08–
Aug09
Cohort 4
Sep09–Aug10
Cohort 4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
35
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Appendix H
High Need Districts for All Funding Periods, by Partnership
Number of Participants from High Need Districts
Partnership
Salem State College (M)
Springfield/Holyoke
Public Schools (S)
Wareham PS (M)
WPI – Math (M)
High Need
Districts
Chelsea
Haverhill PS
Lynn
Salem
Somerville
Subtotal
Holyoke
Holyoke Comm. CS
Springfield
Subtotal
Wareham
Abby Kelley
Foster CS
Athol-Royalston
Berkshire Hills
Boston
Brockton
Cambridge
Chicopee
Fall River
Fitchburg
Lawrence Fam.
Devt. CS
Lowell
Community CS
New Bedford
North Adams
Pittsfield
Ralph C. Mahar
Seven Hills CS
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
Feb04–
Aug04
Sep04–
Aug05
0
1
32
18
0
51 (93%)
6
0
32
38(100%)
17 (46%)
1
20
32
16
0
69 (86%)
17
0
31
48(100%)
11 (61%)
Sep05–
Aug06
1
16
41
14
0
73 (79%)
19
0
28
47 (96%)
N/A
Sep06–
Aug07
Cohorts
1&2
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Sep06–
Aug07
Cohort 3
Sep07–Aug08
Cohort 3
Sep08–
Aug09
Cohort 3
Sep08–
Aug09
Cohort 4
Sep09–Aug10
Cohort 4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0
2
3
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
2
0
1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0
0
3
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0
0
1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2
2
0
2
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
36
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Appendix H
High Need Districts for All Funding Periods, by Partnership
Number of Participants from High Need Districts
High Need
Districts
Feb04–
Aug04
Sep04–
Aug05
MCLA – Math (M)
Somerville
Webster
Winchendon
Worcester
Subtotal
Adams-Cheshire
0
0
0
4
15(63%)
Started: Year 2
1
1
8
7
27 (41%)
Planning Year
UMass Amherst (M)
North Adams
Pittsfield
Subtotal
Athol-Royalston
N/A
N/A
N/A
Started: Year 2
Chicopee
Easthampton
Gateway
Gill-Montague
Greenfield
Holyoke
Holyoke
Community CS
Ludlow
North Adams
Ralph C. Mahar
Springfield
Westfield
Subtotal
Lowell
Fitchburg
Gardner
Leominster
Subtotal
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Partnership
WPI – Math (M)
EduTron Lowell (M/S)
EduTron Fitchburg (M)
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0
Sep05–
Aug06
0
0
6
10
32 (43%)
0
Sep06–
Aug07
Cohorts
1&2
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3
Sep06–
Aug07
Cohort 3
Sep07–Aug08
Cohort 3
Sep08–
Aug09
Cohort 3
Sep08–
Aug09
Cohort 4
Sep09–Aug10
Cohort 4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1
0
1 (9%)
0
2
1
6 (86%)
1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0
0
0
0
2
5
2
0
0
0
0
5
1
1
1
2
0
3
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0
0
1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
72 (100%)
19
12
34
65 (97%)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0
0
0
7
2
16 (64%)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0
0
0
4
2
13 (37%)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
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
N/A
N/A
54(100%)
17
7
10
34 (100%)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
66(100%)
20
7
26
53 (98%)
37
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Appendix H
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)
Feb04–
Aug04
Sep04–
Aug05
Sep05–
Aug06
Attleboro
Brockton
Fairhaven
Fall River
Haverhill PS
Holyoke
Malden
Middleborough
New Bedford
Northampton
Randolph
Revere
Saugus
Silver Hill Charter
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Sep06–
Aug07
Cohorts
1&2
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Somerville
Taunton
Ware
Subtotal
Boston
Fitchburg
Holyoke
Lynn
Revere
Somerville
Lowell Comm. CS
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Subtotal
Athol Royalston
Chicopee
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
High Need
Districts
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
Sep06–
Aug07
Cohort 3
Sep07–Aug08
Cohort 3
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0
13
3
26
29
29
1
0
4
0
13
0
2
0
0
0
0
120 (94%)
0
1
0
0
0
16
0
1
3
1
18
23
18
0
0
0
0
14
2
5
0
11
0
1
97 (90%)
0
0
0
3
9
14
1
N/A
N/A
N/A
17 (41%)
1
5
27 (40%)
0
3
Sep08–
Aug09
Cohort 3
1
5
1
15
22
17
1
1
0
1
11
8
3
1
Sep08–
Aug09
Cohort 4
Sep09–Aug10
Cohort 4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
17
2
0
106 (95%)
4
1
1
0
8
13
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
27 (53%)
0
3
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
38
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Appendix H
High Need Districts for All Funding Periods, by Partnership
Number of Participants from High Need Districts
Partnership
UMass Amherst C3 (M/S)
Salem State College (M)
High Need
Districts
Easthampton
Gateway
Greenfield
Gill-Montague
Holyoke
Ludlow
Lynn
New Leadership LS
North Adams
Pittsfield
South Hadley
Springfield
West Springfield
Subtotal
Boston
Chelsea
Everett
Gloucester
Haverhill PS
Lynn
Malden
Methuen
Peabody
Revere
Salem
Winthrop
Worcester
Subtotal
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
Feb04–
Aug04
Sep04–
Aug05
Sep05–
Aug06
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Sep06–
Aug07
Cohorts
1&2
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Sep06–
Aug07
Cohort 3
0
1
1
0
3
2
0
1
0
0
2
3
3
22 (46%)
1
1
3
6
4
10
1
0
0
0
3
1
1
41 (82%)
Sep07–Aug08
Cohort 3
1
0
0
1
4
0
0
0
1
1
0
9
0
19 (38%)
0
0
1
3
3
10
2
1
2
1
3
0
0
26 (65%)
Sep08–
Aug09
Cohort 3
1
1
0
1
2
0
1
0
1
2
0
12
1
25 (47%)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Sep08–
Aug09
Cohort 4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Sep09–Aug10
Cohort 4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
39
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Appendix H
High Need Districts for All Funding Periods, by Partnership
Number of Participants from High Need Districts
Partnership
SE/Cape (S)
WPI – Science (S)
Worcester PS (M)
Boston PS (M)
Brockton PS (M)
Gateway RSD (S)
Gateway RSD (S)
Lesley Springfield (M)
High Need
Districts
Barnstable
Brockton
Fall River
Horace Mann CS
Lawrence
New Bedford
Subtotal
Worcester
Southbridge
Subtotal
Worcester
Boston
Brockton
Fall River
Falmouth
Plymouth
Quincy
Seekonk
Swansea
Freetown/Lakeville
Subtotal
Easthampton
Gateway
Holyoke
Springfield
Subtotal
Chicopee
Holyoke
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
Feb04–
Aug04
Sep04–
Aug05
Sep05–
Aug06
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Sep06–
Aug07
Cohorts
1&2
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Sep06–
Aug07
Cohort 3
1
20
0
2
0
8
31 (66%)
3 (16%)
0
3 (16%)
34 (83%)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Sep07–Aug08
Cohort 3
Sep08–
Aug09
Cohort 3
Sep08–
Aug09
Cohort 4
Sep09–Aug10
Cohort 4
5
0
N/A
22
32
N/A
5
10
N/A
0
0
N/A
0
1
N/A
8
2
N/A
40 (51%) 45(50%)
N/A
7 (54%)
3
N/A
0
1
N/A
7 (54%)
4 (22%) N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
40 (100%)
N/A
N/A
21
N/A
N/A
9
N/A
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
30 (59%)
N/A
N/A
1
N/A
N/A
6
N/A
N/A
2
N/A
N/A
8
N/A
N/A
17 (39%)
N/A
N/A
1
N/A
N/A
9
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
174 (100%)
28 (55%)
12 (24%)
1 (2%)
3 (6%)
2 (4%)
1 (2%)
1 (2%)
3 (6%)
51 (45%)
3 (16%)
7 (37%)
9 (47%)
0 (0%)
19 (100%)
1 (1%)
6 (9%)
40
Annual Report of the MMSP State-level Evaluation
Appendix H
High Need Districts for All Funding Periods, by Partnership
Number of Participants from High Need Districts
Partnership
Lesley Springfield (M)
Greater North Shore (S)
Randolph PS (S)
Springfield College (S)
Boston University (M)
High Need
Districts
Feb04–
Aug04
Sep04–
Aug05
Sep05–
Aug06
Springfield
Westfield
Subtotal
Boston
Lynn
Malden
Pioneer Charter
School of Science
Randolph
Revere
Somerville
Subtotal
Randolph
Springfield
Boston
Cambridge
Falmouth
Haverhill
Lawrence
Lowell
Salem
Somerville
Woburn
Worcester
Subtotal
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Sep06–
Aug07
Cohorts
1&2
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
Sep06–
Aug07
Cohort 3
Sep07–Aug08
Cohort 3
Sep08–
Aug09
Cohort 3
Sep08–
Aug09
Cohort 4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
35
4
49 (94%)
26
3
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1
0
0
31
6
26
3
0
2
2
7
0
1
0
0
1
16
Sep09–Aug10
Cohort 4
59 (83%)
5 (7%)
71 (84%)
26 (50%)
4 (7%)
1 (2%)
0
(50%)
(25%)
(96%)
(39%)
(0%)
1 (2%)
8 (15%)
12 (23%)
52 (46%)
18 (41%)
30 (100%)
3 (30%)
1 (10%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
1 (10%)
2 (20%)
1 (10%)
1 (10%)
1 (10%)
0 (0%)
10 (29%)
41
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
Cohort Cohort
1
2
Gained HQ status
during Year 3
Gained HQ status
during Year 4
Cohort
1
Cohort
2
Cohort
2
Cohort
3
Gained HQ
status during
Year 5
Cohort 3
Gained HQ
status during
Year 6
Cohort Cohort
3
4
Gained HQ
status
during Year
7 4
Cohort
TOTAL
became HQ
over course
of project
MTEL
3
3
0
2
0
0
1
4
5
1
3
22
National Certification
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Degree in Content Area
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
Undergrad Equivalent
0
1
0
1
0
0
3
12
1
70
HOUSSE
10
46
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
Earned Teaching License
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
1
4
1
0
9
Changed area or position
Changed area or
position/license comb.
MTEL/Undergrad Equiv
comb.
MTEL/HOUSSE comb.
MTEL/Earned Teaching
License comb.
MTEL/changed area or
position comb.
Degree/changed area or
position comb.
Undergrad Equiv
/changed area or position
comb.
MTEL/Licensure/changed
area/position
TOTAL
0
1
0
3
1
0
0
5
5
3
3
21
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
4
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
3
4
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
5
10
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
13
58
1
27
3
0
4
12
16
5
19
158
*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
42