themes and forests page i - university of maine

Themes and Forests page i

Themes and Forests page ii

Themes and Forests page iii

Themes and Forests page iv

Proposal Title: Unifying Themes and Forests: Taking Advantage of Maine Resources for

Innovative Approaches to Professional Development and Improved Student Learning in

Science and Mathematics

Prepared by: William H. Livingston, School of Forest Resources, University of Maine; Shelly

Mogul, Auburn School District; Nancy Tremblay, Auburn School District.

May 12, 2008

_____________________________________________________________________________

Abstract

This proposal will develop a Partnership for the Lewiston/Auburn region that will use

Unifying Themes and Forests. Forests and watersheds will be used as a basis for (1)

professional development activities that will facilitate improved teaching to better meet the

revised MLR, and (2) improving scientific and mathematic abilities of students such that their

performance in tests and success after graduation are improved. In addition, the Partnership will

participate in a Professional Development Network of high school teachers, educators,

professional experts, and community resources to support professional development and improve

teaching.

In this Partnership, teachers will be collaborating with field experts to increase their

content knowledge, and this will lead to use of place-based inquiry activities involving forests

and watersheds as an integral part of the new curriculum. This professional development will be

an effective tool to connect their curriculum to the real world and the community in which they

live, and it will facilitate the realignment of the high school science and mathematics curriculum

to the revised MLR. .

Themes and Forests page i

Content Abstract .............................................................................................................................. iv

Evidence of Meaningful Partnerships ............................................................................. 1

1. Sustainability ..................................................................................................... 1

2. Collaboration and Commitment ........................................................................ 2

3. Capacity: ............................................................................................................ 3

Alignment of Project Goals and Objective with Professional Development Needs ....... 6

1. Needs Assessment: ............................................................................................ 6

2. Evidence of Alignment: ..................................................................................... 8

Project Narrative ........................................................................................................... 11

1. Scientifically Based Research & Decision Process for Selection Of Activities11

2. Teacher Instruction in Mathematics and Science Strategies ........................... 14

3. Activities Aligned with MLR .......................................................................... 16

4. Relevance to Maine's Training and Development Quality Standards ............. 17

5. Professional Development Communities ........................................................ 18

Evaluation and Accountability Plan ............................................................................. 18

Bibliography ................................................................................................................. 21

Budget Narrative ........................................................................................................... 23

1. Partnership Coordination with Other Professional Development Opportunities23

2. Demonstration of Alignment with the Activities ............................................ 24

3. High Cost-Effective Ratio ............................................................................... 34

Appendix ....................................................................................................................... 35

Themes and Forests page 1

Evidence of Meaningful Partnerships

1. Sustainability

The Partnership encompasses high school teachers (science, mathematics, special

education, Tech Center, and alternative) and administrators, higher education faculty,

professional experts, and community resources. Working together the partners will develop a

professional development model that is ongoing, comprehensive, classroom focused, and easily

replicated. This model avoids pitfalls common to many content specific professional

development opportunities. It is not uncommon for teachers to attend a workshop that provides

an exciting new technique or activity to enhance student learning. The downfall of this

traditional model of professional development is that it leaves the teacher to go back to the

classroom and figure out how the new activity or technique can be worked into the curriculum.

The problem arises because often curriculum development and content specific professional

development occur independently of each other. This model proposes that the best way to create

true change in the experiences students have in high school science and mathematics is to have

curriculum development occurring as part of the professional development. In this project,

teachers will be working with input from field experts to realign the high school science and

mathematics curriculum to the revised MLR. Collaborating with field experts will increase

content knowledge and provide teachers with an effective tool to connect their curriculum to the

real world and the community in which they live.

As the partners work with the teachers, place-based inquiry activities will be developed

as an integral part of the new curriculum. The development of these new activities will direct the

content specific professional development to be provided by the expert partners.


Sustainability of the project is ensured through: a) creation of activities that are integral to

a rigorous, tightly aligned curriculum; b) closer alignment of curriculum between Lewiston and

Auburn means an easier transition for students moving back and forth between the two

communities (there is a significant amount of student mobility between the two high schools);

c) involvement of partners in curriculum development increases interest in continuation of the

project; d) use of on campus study sites means an ever present location for activities that allows

for access not contingent on having a sufficient transportation budget; e) establishment of

professional learning community consisting of Lewiston and Auburn teachers increases the

interest in continuing the collaboration; f) involvement of representatives from other schools in

Lewiston Regional Technical Center (LRTC) allows for expansion of the work; h) the use of

community resources builds local support for the continuation of the new curriculum and

activities; and i) the abundance of readily accessible forests and watersheds makes the

Partnership activities usable for any site, therefore promoting continuation and expansion of the

Partnership to additional schools.

2. Collaboration and Commitment

An initial meeting to discuss forming a Partnership and apply for the Title II, Part B,

Mathematics and Science Partnerships grant was held on March 30, 2007. Participants included

teachers and administrators from Lewiston High School (LHS) and Edward Little High School

(ELHS) and representatives from the Auburn Land Lab; Lewiston Regional Technical Center

(LRTC); Oxford Hills Regional Technical Center; University of Maine (UMaine) College of

Education; UMaine College of Natural Sciences, Forestry, and Agriculture; US Forest Service;

Lewiston/Auburn Community Forestry Board; Maine Division -Society of American Foresters

(MESAF); Thorncrag Nature Sanctuary (Lewiston), and the Androscoggin Land Trust. The


group discussed the merits of using the forest as a means to teach Standard A: Unifying Themes.

A second meeting was held on April 26 using a workshop format. Participants examined how

forests can provide the basis for teaching unifying themes systems, models & scales in high

school curricula. The group then discussed goals and outcomes for a Partnership that

encompassed the Lewiston/Auburn region. At the end of the meeting, the group decided to

pursue the Title II B funding opportunity. Dr. William H. Livingston, Associate Professor,

School of Forest Resources, UMaine was selected to be the primary writer of the proposal.

Although the proposal was not funded, feedback from the readers was helpful in

determining the strengths and weaknesses of the grant. Partnership representatives met with

Barbara Moody on November 8, 2007, to further discuss the comments made by the reviewers.

On December 13, the Partnership representatives met to discuss the reviews and decided to

revise the proposal and make a second submission. A meeting was held on February 28 to

discuss proposal revisions and to enlist more teachers to participate in the Partnership, especially

the inclusion of teachers from outside the science departments. Teachers wanting to be included

in the first year of the Partnership completed surveys on their experience with field-based

learning and professional development needs. St. Dominic Regional High School, a private

school in Auburn, was invited to join the Partnership on February 29, but declined (their faculty

will be invited again to participate in the project during the second year). A draft of the proposal

was distributed to Partner representatives in April 08 for comment and revision.

3. Capacity:

UMaine: William Livingston, will oversee the project and will recruit faculty from the

College of Natural Sciences, Forestry, and Agriculture to participate in the training workshops.

The faculty are the largest group of scientists in the state and will be available for consultation on


forestry, forest models, forest changes over time, forest measurement and analysis, landscape

management, wildlife, insects, fungi, ecology, earth science, soils, water quality, cell biology,

genetics, and environmental policy. Mary Dickinson Bird, UMaine, will provide pedagogical

support as teachers develop their portfolios and modify their lesson plans. UMaine will be the

fiscal agent for the grant.

Teachers/Administrators: Lewiston High School: 8 science teachers, 3 math, 1 special

education, and 1 administrator (curriculum coordinator); Lewiston Regional Technical Center

(LRTC): 1 teacher and 1 administrator (Assistant Director); Edward Little High School: 7

teachers and 1 administrator (curriculum coordinator) and the Auburn Land Lab: 2 consulting

teachers (Auburn School District.) Teachers/administrators will participate in curriculum

realignment and design, content specific workshops, study of best practices, assessment

development, and professional learning communities. The Auburn Land Lab, an environmental

learning center, will be used as a professional development site and will assist participating staff

in creating study sites at each high school.

Forest Educators: Pat Maloney, Project Learning Tree, Maine Tree Foundation, will act

as a liaison between the forest education resources and the high school teachers. She will identify

needed community resources and facilitate their inclusion in the realigned curriculum. She will

also organize workshops for the Partnership. Olivia Griset is a high school science teacher at

Lisbon High School in Maine. She has successfully used forest study sites as part of her

curriculum and will, also, be available as a consultant to help train teachers.

Other cooperators in forest education who will assist with the professional development

include Tish Carr, Maine Association of Conservation Districts Envirothon; Lisa J. Kane, Maine

Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, Project Wild coordinator; Nancy Coverstone,


Extension Educator, UMCE, Androscoggin and Sagadahoc Counties; Habitat Stewards™

Program; Kevin Doran, Education Coordinator, Maine Forest Service, Augusta; and Susan Cox,

Conservation Education Coordinator, US Forest Service, Durham, NH. Forest educators will

participate in curriculum-realignment and design, identify activities that provide students with

hands-on, inquiry-based, field activities that fit naturally in the curriculum, provide content

specific training, and act as a troubleshooter.

Professional Resources: Bill Zoellick, Acadia Partners for Science and Learning, will

enable Partnership members to participate in an existing web-based professional learning-

community. In addition, the Maine Division of Society of American Foresters (MESAF) will

have members participate in the project through their Forestry Education Network (For Ed), a K-

12 education outreach program.

Community Resources: Androscoggin River Alliance is a nonprofit organization

dedicated to advocacy for the Androscoggin River and its communities. Neil Ward from the

Alliance has already assisted science teachers at Edward Little High School in developing a field

day about the river, and he is willing to work with additional teachers. The Androscoggin Land

Trust’s core mission is to engage the region’s communities in outreach and education programs

aimed at deepening understanding and appreciation of the natural environment. The Trust is

making available several properties within a reasonable distance of Partnership schools.

Thorncrag Nature Sanctuary is a unique natural resource in an urban environment. The

Sanctuary is eager to get involved with education projects at the high school level.


Alignment of Project Goals and Objective with Professional

Development Needs

1. Needs Assessment:

At Edward Little High School, one of the nine science teachers as well as the science

teachers at the alternative high school and in the credit recovery ELPM program are not highly

qualified. All nine of the math teachers at Edward Little are highly qualified, however, the math

teacher at the alternative high school is not. At Lewiston High School, all 12 science teachers are

highly qualified as are all 14 math teachers. The definition of Highly Qualified is not applicable

at LRTC because career and technical education teachers are exempt from this requirement.

Each district conducts a yearly Professional Development Needs Assessment of district

staff as per the requirements of NCLB Title IIA. The most recent needs assessment results that

direct the design of this project are as follows:

Auburn School Department (2006-2007) – teachers were provided a list of 8 areas for

professional development and were asked to indicate their desire for training in each

• 65% of teachers indicated a need for increasing their content knowledge.

• 77% of teachers indicated a need for professional development around effective, research-

based instructional strategies.

• 74% of teachers indicated a need for professional development in the area of effective use of

technology and technology applications in the classroom.

• 77% of teachers indicated a need for professional development around using assessment

data to inform and instruct classroom practice.

Lewiston School Department (2007-2008) - teachers were provided with a list of 30

professional development topics and were asked to check three topics they wished to focus on


Lewiston High School –

• 11% of teachers selected curriculum alignment/development as a focus area.

• 18% of teachers selected effective teaching and instruction as a focus area.

• 9% of teachers selected science/meeting MLR standards as a focus area. (Note: This was

selected by 100% of Lewiston High School science teachers.)

• 30% of teachers selected technology curriculum integration as a focus area.

• 11% of teachers selected assessment/evaluation of students as a focus area.

Lewiston Regional Technical Center (LRTC) –

• 19% of teachers selected curriculum alignment/development as a focus area.

• 35% of teachers selected effective teaching and instruction as a focus area.

• 3% of teachers selected science/meeting MLR standards as a focus area.

• 26% of teachers selected technology curriculum integration as a focus area.

• 32% of teachers selected assessment/evaluation of students as a focus area.

A survey of teachers planning to participate in this project indicate professional development

needs specific to their content areas. These specific needs are as follows: ELHS – incorporating

more hands-on activities in the field, critical thinking teaching techniques, management of

outdoor learning experiences, making connections in the community, soil sampling, general and

geological surveying, and data analysis. LHS – incorporating technologies such as Vernier

probes and GPS in the field, management of outdoor learning experiences and service learning

projects, techniques such as quadrant set-up, aerial photography analysis, soil pit creation, math

and science modeling, inquiry training, forest ecology/watershed ecology. It is important to note

that due to the revised Learning Results, all teachers are faced with the challenge of

understanding the new standards and realigning curriculum to match those standards.


2. Evidence of Alignment:

Content knowledge

Goals/Objectives: To increase teachers’ content knowledge in the areas of math and

science. Short-term: 1). To provide teachers with varied opportunities to strengthen their

content knowledge. 2). To equip teachers with the deeper content knowledge needed to pass the

PRAXIS II. Long-Term: 1). To establish ongoing relationships with expert partners.

Strategies/Activities: 1). Offering content specific courses, workshops and conferences to

participating teachers. 2). Expert partners will act as resources to participating teachers,

providing them with answers to content questions and needed professional development.

Measurable Outcomes: 1). 50% of participating teachers will increase their content knowledge

(PRE/POST-TEST). 2). 75% of participating teachers will attend an outside content specific

professional development activity (DATA-TEACHER PARTICIPATION). 3). 100% of

participating regular education science and math teachers will be highly qualified. (HQT

DATA). 4). 75% of participating alternative and special education teachers will become more

prepared to pass the PRAXIS II (TEACHER SURVEY).

Effective teaching and instruction

Goals/Objectives: To develop a deeper understanding of best practices. Short-term: 1). To

research and discuss current best practices in science and math. 2). To identify applications of

best practices in the classroom. Long-term: 1). To implement best practices in the classroom.

Strategies/Activities: 1). Utilize the structure of the professional learning community to

undertake a study and discussion of current best practices in science and math.


Measurable Outcomes: 1). 75% of participating teachers will demonstrate a deeper

understanding of current best practices (PRE/POST TEST). 2). 75% of participating teachers

will implement current best practices in at least one unit (TEACHER PORTFOLIO).

Curriculum alignment and development

Goals/Objectives: To provide science and math curricula that is aligned to the revised

MLR. Short-term: 1). To revise current curricula to reflect the new MLR. Long-term: 1).

To identify and strengthen cross-curricular connections that exist in the curricula.

Strategies/Activities: 1). Participate in curriculum related workshops offered by MMSA, DOE,

or other organizations. 2). Conduct curriculum topic studies with field experts to gain a deeper

understanding of the new MLR. 3). Design curriculum (with input from field experts) that

demonstrates tight alignment to the revised MLR and incorporates field-based activities.

4). Collaborate between curricular areas to strengthen connections between disciplines.

Measurable Outcomes: 1). 80% of participating teachers will attend at least one curriculum-

related workshop (DATA – TEACHER PARTICIPATION). 2). 75% of the students of

participating teachers will indicate a gain of learning in science and math (STUDENT

SURVEY). 3). 100% of the participating teachers will develop at least one cross-curricular

activity (TEACHER PORTFOLIO).

Goals/Objectives: To use the results of formative and summative assessments to make

decisions about instruction. Short-term:1). To design formative and summative assessment to

accompany new activities. Long-term:1). To use the results of assessments to make

modifications to instruction.

Strategies/Activities: 1). Collaboratively develop formative and summative assessments to

accompany new activities. 2). Administer assessments in the classroom. 3). Participate in the


professional learning community to analyze the results of the assessment and discuss

implications to instruction.

Measurable Outcomes: 1). 90% of participating teachers will develop and administer at least

one assessment of a newly developed activity (TEACHER PORTFOLIO). 2). 100% of teacher

administering an assessment share the results in the professional learning community and make

necessary modifications to future instruction (ASSESSMENT DATA).

Goals/Objectives: To use technology as a tool to enhance instruction and increase student

learning. Short-term: 1). To learn more about scientific and mathematic equipment, digital

information, and other new technologies and their application in field-based experiences and data

analysis. Long-term: 1). To incorporate the use of technologies in inquiry-based experiences.

Strategies/Activities: 1). Participate in professional development in field-based activities

incorporating technology (provided by field experts). 2). Collaborate with field experts to

incorporate technology field-based activities into curricula. 3). Provide students with real-life,

hands-on, field experiences that require the use of technology.

Measurable Outcomes: 1). 80% of participating teachers will increase their comfort level

using a variety of technologies (TEACHER SURVEY). 2). 75% of participating teachers will

increase the number of classroom activities using technology (TEACHER PORTFOLIO).

The professional development needs of these schools will be addressed in the Partnership

by (1) having teachers set the priorities for professional development, (2) use of computer and

web-based technology to make professional development more accessible, sustainable, and

useful, and (3) making classroom instruction more dynamic by offering opportunities to

incorporate environmental, place-based activities into the curricula.


Project Narrative

1. Scientifically Based Research & Decision Process for Selection Of

Activities

The activities are founded on scientifically based research and selected due to their

potential to provide students with more hands-on, inquiry-based, real-life experiences in science

and mathematics, thereby increasing student learning. The project will be based on the unifying

themes of the forest and watersheds and will encompass place-based environmental education.

The combination of unifying themes and forest and watershed study promises to be a powerful,

innovative approach to science and math education ideally suited for the state of Maine.

Place-based education is a method of teaching that combines outdoor education and

environmental education. Activities are centered around meaningful, “in the field” experiences

that are tied to the local community. It requires content specific to attributes of place – its

ecology, geography, sociology and other dynamics. Place-based education has proven to be an

extremely effective approach to get students engaged with education and learning as well as

strengthening ties with the local community (Powers 2004). Environmental education provides a

means for increasing the interest and knowledge of high school students in science and math.

Such an approach has been recommended to deal with the situation where 80% of all students

decide before entering high school to opt out of advanced math & professional scientific pursuit

(Coyle 2005). Environmental education makes science more relevant & appealing to young

prospective scientists, and it can offer a richer scientific experience by integrating science with

student interests in the outdoors (Coyle 2005).

Maine’s environment is dominated by woods and watersheds, which provide the ideal

basis for teaching unifying themes.


1. In Maine, forests are everywhere and are already integrated into our way of life.

Students already have a connection to the forest from many diverse perspectives, such as those

who have family members with livelihoods dependent on the woods and wood products and

those whose fondest memories involve time in the woods playing. Applying classroom content

of science and mathematics to unifying themes and forests will provide an effective way to

transfer abstract concepts to a context with which they are already familiar.

2. Forests encompass a diverse range of topics such as species diversity, ecology, water

quality, soil chemistry, physical properties of wood, and the physics of a falling tree. Forests

provide the infrastructure that can be continually revisited throughout science and math

curricula. Such an approach requires the understanding of multiple systems and models across

a number of scales and time periods; these are the primary themes in the MLR. In addition, the

multiple opportunities for measurements provide excellent opportunities to incorporate data

analysis, geometry, and algebra, the primary mathematic topics in the MLR.

3. Lessons involving almost all aspects of high school science and math, utilizing hands-

on learning, and making real-world connections have already been developed and proven

effective, such as those from Project Learning Tree, Project Wild, and Envirothon. In a survey

of Maine teachers (Iozzi 2003), teachers who attended PLT workshops used their materials in

their teaching from a moderate to great extent. Effective lessons involving forests for teaching

educational themes are already developed and ready for use in professional development.

4. Scientists and experts in the field who can provide expertise for professional

development of teachers and who can participate in the creation of lessons are available in all

locations of the state. Networks between teachers and forest resource scientists and

professionals can be made throughout the state.


5. Access to forests is readily available with woodlots next to schools, woods in nearby

land trusts, and the tree-dominated environment that makes-up much of our urban landscape. In

Maine, connecting education to the forest will connect education to the community.

An example of a place-based activity that’s been developed in Maine is the Forest Inventory

and Growth, (FIG) project. A cooperative effort between Maine Project Learning Tree and the

Maine Forest Service, the project is an interdisciplinary high school and middle school forest

field study. Teachers, students, and a forester partner collect data on plots at a forestry site. Data

from the plots (composition and properties of trees, wildlife, and soils) is entered into an

interactive FIG website where students can make comparisons with other participating schools.

Such sites will be established at each partner school to serve as a nucleus to develop field

activities across the curricula, field activities that won’t be dependent on transportation funds.

Educational research suggests that forest education offers benefits to both students and

teachers. For example, a collaborative forestry education project in Philadelphia allied teachers,

administrators, and forest educators in a series of classroom, urban forest, and rural woodland

learning experiences. Students participating in this program demonstrated greater knowledge of

forest ecology (Broussard and Jones 2001). Similarly, New Hampshire students who

collaborated with forest researchers in the Forest Watch program, studying woodlands on or near

school property, increased their skills in the general MLR theme of scientific investigation. The

students also appreciated the part they can play in the future of their community and their world

(Fougere 1998). Finally, the evaluation of Vermont’s “A Forest for Every Classroom” has

spotlighted the benefits of collaborative, thematic forest study as beneficial to all partners “across

the network of communities, schools, and project collaborators” during the first four years of the

project. Most notably, participating teachers were seen to have improved instructional skills, and


their students increased levels of motivation, achievement, and civic engagement (Program

Evaluation and Educational Research Associates, 2004).

Because of the close connection between forests and the communities, using forests as a

basis for teaching themes has a significant benefit. An Annenberg study conducted by Harvard

Graduate School of Education showed that where curricular goals and strategies are formulated

around local community, "students' academic achievement improves, their interest in their

community increases, teachers are more satisfied with their profession, and community members

are more connected to the schools and to students" (Perrone 1999).

2. Teacher Instruction in Mathematics and Science Strategies

This project allows teachers to realign their curricula to the new standards and develop

and incorporate place-based inquiry experiences with the support and guidance of forestry and

watershed experts. Effective professional development that facilitates change creates

environments where teachers work with other professionals rather than structured sessions with

directions (Lave & Wenger 1991; Randi & Zeichner 2004; Schön 1991, Loucks-Horsley et al.

1998).

Objectives for the first year of the partnership include organizing the group of interested

teachers and field experts and developing an approach for tackling the work. A Planning Institute

will span three days in August or September and will be held at the LRTC . It will introduce the

group to “Unifying Themes” and other aspects of the MLR, establish common professional

development interests among the group, and develop content specific needs for workshops.

Monthly to bimonthly workshops will be held throughout the year on professional development.

In addition to content specific knowledge, workshops will also help with applying content to

place-based inquiry activities and curricular realignment needed for the MLR. This content


specific professional development may include use of technology, establishment of a study site,

data analysis, and trips to the University of Maine campus or other environmental education

sites to learn about latest technology and research that is relevant to their professional

development needs. The year will conclude with a 3 day Summer Institute at the Schoodic

Education and Research Center in Acadia National Park. In addition to reviewing and assessing

the Partnership’s activities, the intent is also to organize the Summer Institute such that teachers

from other Partnerships can attend allowing teachers to learn from each other’s experiences.

Teachers that are not yet highly qualified have a district plan in place to become highly

qualified. The Partnership will provide support to these teachers by providing a list of classes

that would help teachers move toward this goal, including a science class taught by Livingston

using distance education technology.

Objectives for the second year include expanding the work to include additional teachers

and a field site at one more school; St. Dominic’ Regional High School will be invited to join the

Partnership. Also during this second year, the teachers from the first year of the Partnership

will be assessing student learning of the new curriculum through the administration of

assessments and evaluation of the results. Year 2 will have a similar format to year 1, including

monthly professional development opportunities and a 2 day Summer Institute. Potentially, the

Summer Institute can facilitate new opportunities for the math and science teachers from each

high school to work together to identify ways that they can incorporate cross-curricular activities

in their classes and further enhance student learning.

Objectives for the third year include having teachers incorporating cross-curricular

lessons into their classrooms. In addition, Livingston and Maloney will put together a

presentation on the Partnership that will be presented at assorted venues such as school board


meetings, state and regional conferences of science and math teachers, and professional societies.

A final Summer Institute will focus on having Partnership teachers and professional experts

providing 2 days of workshops for representatives from other LRTC sending schools. The

Partnership can share their experiences on realigning curriculum, using place-based activities,

and content-specific professional development needed to incorporate the activities.

At the end of the grant, Partnership teachers will be in an excellent position to serve as

mentors to others within the school and at other schools. Contacts will have been made with

university personnel and community professionals, and we expect this network to continue as a

resource for asking and answering questions, sharing experiences, seeking mentors for student

projects, and sharing resources.

3. Activities Aligned with MLR

The introduction of the revised MLR combined with funding from Title IIB provides a

valuable opportunity. The revised standards include “Unifying Themes” and “Skills and Traits

of Scientific Inquiry and Technological Design.” These standards provide an opportunity for

teachers to increase the rigor of their courses and develop new experiences for students that

organize their learning into broader concepts and provide them the chance to develop their

scientific inquiry skills. At the same time, they provide a challenge that may require content-

specific professional development.

Professional development provided to teachers in this project will be strongly aligned to the

MLR. Place-based activities will be selected based on their ability to help students meet the

revised MLR. Teachers will be receiving professional development specific to these activities;

therefore, their learning is directly tied to the MLR. Although the activities have not yet been


identified, it is safe to assume that they will include performance indicators and descriptors from

Standards A, B, D, and E.

This project also aligns nicely with the recent expansion of the MLTI program to the high

school. The place-based activities will introduce teachers and their students to the uses of

technology in forest and watershed field studies. There will also be a focus on the use of

technology for data analysis.

4. Relevance to Maine's Training and Development Quality Standards

The Standards call for a system of training and development that feature:

• A Cycle of Continuous Improvement: The use of Professional Learning Communities

(PLC’s) promotes a cycle of continuous improvement through study, development of new

activities, administration of student assessments, and analysis of assessment data.

• A Focus on Results that guides professional practices leading to improved learning and

growth for all students: Review and analysis of student assessment data will give teachers

feedback on student learning.

• Allow for differences in learning style and pace. Professional development workshops will

be designed based on expressed teacher needs and ideas. They will provide a variety of formats,

such as lectures, hands-on activities, individual study, team projects, and learning networks.

• Organizational Alignment that ensures training and development initiatives are in concert

with other systems in the school administrative unit. School administration and district curricula

personnel support the Partnership’s goals, outcomes, and activities. In addition, teachers will be

encouraged to incorporate their participation in this project into their individual district

evaluation goals.


• Uses Research Data and bases decision-making on information from local, state and

national sources. Place-based education is being used in this project because it is recognized as

being effective for teaching and learning. In addition, decisions about the objectives of this

project were based on the professional development needs identified by teachers.

• Encourages Participation by defining relevant roles for all stakeholders. The project

focuses on uniting necessary curricular revision with place-based inquiry experiences, making

participation infinitely more relevant for all stakeholders. Teachers are more likely to really use

the knowledge and skills they gain because the activities are integral to their curricula. The field

experts are more likely to remain involved because they have a better grasp of the place of their

activities in the school’s curriculum.

5. Professional Development Communities

Both Edward Little and Lewiston High School currently employ the practice of PLC. All

teachers are required to participate and each PLC consists of teachers from a variety of

disciplines. This interdisciplinary makeup of the PLC means that the focus of the group’s work

is not content specific in nature. This project will establish a PLC that consists of teachers from

Auburn and Lewiston teaching the same content, allowing for a focus on content-specific topics

and tasks. The activities of this PLC will include, group study of best practices, collection and

analysis of student assessment data, and sharing of teacher portfolios.

Evaluation and Accountability Plan

The Evidence of Alignment pages 8-10 clearly outlines the project’s specific goals and

objectives and their alignment to the comprehensive needs assessment. Also included in the

chart are the measurable outcomes for each goal/objective. A variety of tools will be used to

evaluate the outcomes (also indicated in that section). Those tools are as follows:


Teacher Portfolio: All Partnership teachers will be required to maintain a portfolio of their

work. This portfolio will document their activities and new learning. In addition, it will house

samples of teacher developed units, lessons, and/or assessments. The Professional Learning

Community that exists as a result of this partnership will be the forum for the sharing of and

feedback on these teacher portfolios.

Pre-Post Test: This project intends to provide teachers with very specific professional

development in more than one area .The use of a pre-test and post-test will allow for a measure

of increased teacher knowledge.

Data on Teacher Participation in Other Professional Development: Participating teachers will

be encouraged to attend content and/or curriculum workshops apart from those provided by the

Partnership. Data will be collected to evaluate the level to which teachers took advantage of

these outside opportunities.

HQT Data: Initial HQT statistics will be compiled on entering participants. At the conclusion

of the project, this data will be updated to show progress toward HQT status. This data will

include HQT plans for teachers not “highly qualified.”

Teacher Survey: Surveys will be used to gauge the initial and concluding comfort level of

teachers regarding the use of technology. In addition, a survey will be used to determine if non-

HQT teachers feel that their participation in the Partnership has equipped them with knowledge

that will help them pass the PRAXIS II, the most direct route to achieving HQT status.

Student Survey: All participating teachers will administer a student survey to determine the

impact of teacher participation in professional development activities on student learning.

Assessment Data: Participating teachers will be required to create and administer assessments for

newly developed activities. The data from these assessments will be studied by the Professional


Learning Community and used to determine the effectiveness of activities. This data will help to

evaluate the level of student learning as a result of this work. Although the Science

Augmentation test is only administered to juniors, this data will be used for evaluation.

Increase the number of teachers who participate: The projected participation for this first year is

20 teachers from LHS, ELHS, and LRTC. During the second year, the work of the Partnership

will expand to include one more partner school (St. Dominic Regional High School will be

invited), and the projected budget could add another 8 teachers to the Partnership staff. In

addition, we’ll invite teachers from the other four LRTC sending schools to participate in the

workshops, involving at least 15 in year 1 and 20 in year 2. In the year 3, the Partnership will

invite 2-4 representatives from each of the four LRTC sending schools to participate in a

Summer Institute that will allow teachers from the Partnership to share their experiences and

encourage networking with the other LRTC sending schools. Our goal is to involve at least 10

new teachers at this time.

Improved student achievement: The MHSA math and science scores will be used to evaluate the

impact of the project on student achievement. The 2008 scores will serve as a baseline. The

scores from 2009, 2010, and 2011 will be used to check for increased student achievement.

In addition, students from Bates College will help document the field experiences of high

school students with pictures, videos, interviews, and personal observations. These materials

will be used as part of future assessment activities and for developing presentations about

Partnership activities. Livingston and Maloney will give presentations at assorted venues such

as school board meetings, state and regional conferences of science and math teachers, and

professional societies.


Bibliography

Broussard, S.R. and Jones, S.B., 2001. Extension, communities, and schools: results of a

collaborative forestry education project in Philadelphia. Journal of Extension 39.

Accessed online at www.joe.org/joe/2001june/a5.html.

Coyle, K. 2005. Environmental Literacy in America – What Ten Years of

NEETF/Roper Research & Related Studies Say about Environmental Literacy in

the US. National Environmental Education & Training Foundation, Washington,

D.C.

Fougere, M. 1998. The educational benefits to middle school students participating in a

student/scientist project. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 7:25-30.

Iozzi, L.A. 2003. Final Report: Maine PLT State Evaluation. Maine Project Learning

Tree, Augusta, ME.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. 1991. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New

York: Cambridge University Press.

Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P., Love, N., & Stiles, K. 1998. Designing professional

development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Corwin Press.

Perrone, V. 1999. Living and learning in rural schools and communities: a report to the

Annenburg Rural Challenge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of

Education (cited in Program Evaluation and Educational Research Associates,

2004).

Powers, A.L. 2004. An evaluation of four place-based education programs. Journal of

Environmental Education 35:17-30.


Program Evaluation and Educational Research (PEER) Associates, 2004. An Evaluation

of A Forest for Every Classroom: Learning to Make Choices for the future of

Vermont's Forests. Accessed online at

www.peecworks.org/PEEC/PEEC_Reports/S00106777-006037E7

Randi, J., & Zeichner, K. 2004. New visions of teacher professional development. In M.

Smylie & D. Miretzky (Eds.), Developing the teacher workforce: 103rd yearbook

for the national society for the study of education (Vol. 1, pp. 180-227). Chicago:

The University of Chicago Press.

Schön, D. A. 1991. The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New

York: Basic Books.


Budget Narrative

1. Partnership Coordination with Other Professional Development

Opportunities

A key foundation of the Partnership will be the coordination and use of available

resources in forest education (PLT, Envirothon, Project Wild, etc.) for professional development.

In addition, the University of Maine will provide opportunities to the participants in the

Partnership to work with nationally funded research programs that need a linkage to K-12

education, such as the NSF supported research in the Department of Earth Science, Forest

Bioproducts Research Institute, and the Advanced Engineered Wood Composites Center.

Bill Zoellick at Acadia Partners for Science and Learning will integrate the

Lewiston/Auburn Partnership into an existing web-based professional learning community. Web

pages will be created to bring together teachers, professionals, and University faculty with

similar interests. This will allow effective sharing of questions, answers, and new ideas among

all members of the web-based community. Also, the web resource can be used to help with

scheduling and advertising workshops.

The Partnership will coordinate professional development activities with the technology

support that exists in each school. Coordination with other technology training and support

personnel will ensure that teachers have the support they need to implement technology into their

place-based activities.

In addition, the Partnership will coordinate its trainings with offerings by other State

agencies. The plan includes sending participants to the anticipated MMSA workshop on

Standard B. Teachers will also be made aware of other professional development activities and

encouraged to attend.


2. Demonstration of Alignment with the Activities

Year 1 Salaries and Benefits: $15,200

$3,900: William Livingston will lead the project. Dr. Livingston has taught forest biology

to first-year students for over 10 years and has proven field activities that help students learn

about biology. After being department chair for the past 8 years, he has the experience to

administer and oversee the project. Dr. Livingston has a high level of familiarity of expertise on

the Orono campus. In addition, with over 8 years on the Executive Committee of the Maine

Division – Society of American Foresters, he has strong connections with the professionals in the

community.

Dr. Livingston will help plan and attend institutes/workshops and work with teachers

who are not highly qualified to reach their district goals pertaining to the science and mathematic

content areas ($300/13 days). Other efforts during the academic year will be part of his teaching

and out-reach expectation. He will find appropriate experts for conducting the trainings.

University faculty will not be paid stipends for helping with workshops on or off-campus during

the academic year; this will be considered part of their expected out-reach effort.

$2,400: Mary Bird was a k-12 science and environmental education teacher for 8 years,

and has been an instructor of science and environmental education for pre-service and in-service

teachers for 19 years. She was a research associate at the National Science Resources Center

(National Academy of Sciences/Smithsonian Institution) and served on the Maryland State

Board for Environmental Education before joining the faculty at the University of Maine. Ms.

Bird currently leads the Edith Marion Patch Center for Entomology, the Environment, and

Education.


Ms. Bird will attend and help facilitate the institutes/workshops and assist Dr. Livingston

in his work with teachers who are not highly qualified ($300/day, 8 days).

$5,400: Patricia Maloney has a Masters of Education degree from the University of

Southern Maine. She taught grades 4, 5 and 6 from 1982 through 1999 at which time she became

the Maine State Coordinator of Project Learning Tree, a national environmental education

program. Ms. Maloney leads teacher workshops for up to 300 preK-12 teachers each year,

including science and math based field programs. She has presented educator workshops at

statewide and national conferences that tie in math, science and language arts with environmental

educational learning opportunities.

Ms. Maloney will have the primary responsibility of planning and organizing the

institutes/workshops ($300/day, 18 days).

$1,500: Bill Zoellick has extensive experience in working with the public interface of

web pages. He will prepare and deliver presentations to the teachers on web related topics. Mr.

Zoellick will assist Science teachers in creating Web pages to connect to an existing web-based

professional learning community. He will also maintain the web environment ($300/day, 5 days).

$1,000: Yvonne Davis at Acadia Partners will handle logistics and coordination of the

institutes at the Schoodic Education and Research Center ($200/day, 5 days).

$1,000: Jim Chandler, Director and Consulting Teacher in Science, and Cameron Sutton,

Consulting Teacher in Science, will provide technical assistance to the project and assist teachers

in establishing study sites at each high school. The Auburn Land Lab will also be used as a

professional development site for the project. ($200/day, 5 days).


Year 1 Consultant Fees: $4,000 ($200/day, includes benefits)

$1,600: Olivia Griset is a teacher at Lisbon High School in Maine. She has used forest

study sites as part of her class activities and can offer valuable insights for using this new

resource for improving science and math education. Prior to teaching high school science, Olivia

worked at Maine Audubon. She will attend and help facilitate the institutes/workshops

($200/day, 8 days).

$2,400: Professional experts in the field will attend and assist in facilitating institutes/

workshops. A stipend will be paid for their professional services (2 experts x $200/day, 6 days)

Many of the professional experts will act as consultants as part of there job responsibilities and

no expenses will be charged to the grant.

Year 1Teacher Stipends: $15,000 ($125 per day, includes benefits, 6 days per teacher for

Institutes)

Edward Little High School: Karen Boucher, Carolyn Dupee, Brandy McFadden, Peter

Worthington, Andrew Baca, Evan Cyr, Jonathan Morris (Holly Cooney, alternate).

Lewiston High School: Randall Smith, David Holinger, Tyson Reissfelder, Mike Lance, Rhonda

Fournier, Mike McGraw, Laurie Haines, Leah Glazier, Tami Sasseville, Erica Gallant,

Thomas Stocker, Terrance Magee

Lewiston Technical Center: Mario Pascarelli


Year 1 Teacher Substitutes: $5,100 (includes benefits, $85 per day, 3 days per teacher while

attending workshops)

Edward Little High School: $1,785

Lewiston High School: $3,060

Lewiston Technical Center: $255

Year 1 Field Trip Expenses: $500

Pay mileage expenses for 1 trip to University of Maine, Orono, for 5 cars, $0.38/mile, about 270

miles per trip.

Year 1 Travel: $13,260

$1,800: University of Maine: $0.40/mile for mileage reimbursement (10 trips; car pooling; 3

trips for Planning Institutes, 8 more trips for training workshops and site visits), hotel rooms

for University personnel to attend first Planning Institutes (2 rooms for 3 nights, $100 per

night), and meals reimbursement during first Planning Institutes ($30/day, 3 days, 2 people),

$900: Maine Tree Foundation: $0.40/mile for mileage reimbursement (8 trips for training

workshops and site visits), hotel rooms to attend workshops, site visits (1 room for 3 nights,

$100 per night), and meals reimbursement ($30/day, 3 days)

$6,360: Schoodic Teaching and Research Center: $35 lodging/night, $35/day food, $300/day

facility fee, 15 teachers, 3 Partner leaders (Livingston, Bird, Maloney), 3 consultants.

$4,200: Maine Math and Science Alliance Conference: Fifteen partnership teachers will attend

the annual conference for MMSA. The cost is $140 registration, $70 lodging (double

occupancy), and $35 per diem ($70 total) per teacher.


Year 1 Supplies and Materials: $7,000

$3,000: Teacher Allowance - Each teacher is given a $200 allowance for purchasing materials

needed for Professional Development activities such as aerial photographs to learn photo

interpretation, manuals for plant and animal identification, verniers, etc.

$3,000: Workshops expenses: $50 per teacher to cover the cost of providing lunch, materials,

photocopying, and incidentals. Estimate 6 workshops at 10 teachers each.



Lewiston Regional Technical Center: $200

Maine Tree Foundation: $3,000

Year 1 Equipment: $4,400

The majority of professional development will occur at outdoor study sites on the campuses at

ELHS and LHS. LRTC will use the study site at LHS. Equipment (GPS units, soil and water

sampling kits, etc.) will be purchased to support the identified needs of teachers in content

specific areas. Teachers will consult with University faculty and professional experts to select

appropriate equipment and set up the study sites. Study sites on campus will ensure

sustainability of the project for future professional development and implementation of the

project.





$4,500: William Livingston will help plan and attend institutes/workshops; work with teachers

who are not highly qualified to reach their district goals pertaining to the science and

mathematic content areas; compile and analysis data collected from year 1 and submit

required reporting on the grant to the State ($300/day, 15 days). Other efforts during the

academic year will be part of his teaching and out-reach expectation.

$3,000: Mary Bird will attend and help facilitate the institutes/workshops; work with teachers

who are not highly qualified to reach their district goals; and assist Dr. Livingston in compiling

and analyzing data ($300/day, 10 days).

$7,200: Patricia Maloney will have the primary responsibility of planning and

organizing the institutes/workshops and working with the Bates College Students in

documenting the field experiences which will be used as part of the assessment process

($300/day, 24 days).

$1,500: Bill Zoellick will assist Mathematic teachers in creating Web pages to connect to

an existing web-based professional learning community. He will maintain the web environment

($300/day, 5 days).

$1,000: Yvonne Davis will handle logistics and coordination of the institutes at the

Schoodic Education and Research Center ($200/day, 5 days).

$1,000: Jim Chandler and Cameron Sutton will provide technical assistance to the project

and assist teachers in establishing study sites at each high school. The Auburn Land Lab will

also be used as a professional development site for the project. ($200/day, 5 days).


Year 2 Consultant Fees: $3,400 ($200/day, includes benefits)

$1,000: Olivia Griset will attend and help facilitate the institutes/workshops ($200/day, 5

days).

$2,400: Professional experts in the field will attend and assist in facilitating institutes/

workshops. A stipend will be paid for their professional services (2 experts x $200/day, 6 days).

Many of the professional experts will act as consultants as part of there job responsibilities and

no expenses will be charged to the grant.

Year 2 Teacher Stipends: $10,500 ($125 per day, includes benefits, days per teacher for

Institutes)

Eight new teachers can be added to the current 20 teachers in the Partnership.

Year 2 Teacher Substitutes: $7,140 (includes benefits, $85 per day, 3 days per teacher while

attending workshops)

Amount needed for 28 teachers.

Year 2 Field Trip Expenses: $600

Pay mileage expenses for teacher for 2 trips to University of Maine, Orono, for 3 cars per trip,

$0.38/mile, approximately 270 miles per trip.

Year 2 Travel: $13,932

$1,800: University of Maine: $0.40/mile for mileage reimbursement (8 trips for training

workshops and site visits), hotel rooms for University personnel to attend workshops, site


visits (2 rooms for 3 nights, $100 per night), and meals reimbursement ($30/day, 3 days, 2

people)

$900: Maine Tree Foundation: $0.40/mile for mileage reimbursement (8 trips for training

workshops and site visits), hotel rooms to attend workshops, site visits (1 room for 3 nights,

$100 per night), and meals reimbursement ($30/day, 3 days)

$5,632: Schoodic Teaching and Research Center: $37 lodging/night, $37/day food, $300/day

facility fee, 28 teachers, 3 Partner leaders (Livingston, Bird, Maloney), 3 consultants for 2

days.

$5,600: Maine Math and Science Alliance Conference: Twenty partnership teachers will attend

the annual conference for MMSA. The cost is $140 registration, $70 lodging (double

occupancy), and $35 per diem ($70 total) per teacher.


$5,600: Teacher Allowance - Each teacher (28) is given a $200 allowance for purchasing

materials needed for Professional Development activities such as aerial photographs to learn

photo interpretation, manuals for plant and animal identification, kits with basic supplies

(thermometers, clinometers, compasses, safety/pocket vests, etc.)

$4,500: Workshops expenses: $50 per teacher for schools to cover the cost of providing lunch,

materials, photocopying, and incidentals. Estimate 6 workshops at 15 teachers each.

Year 2 Equipment: $2,500

One more school will be given a Professional Development kit for learning how to set-up and

use outdoor study sites. Equipment (GPS units, soil and water sampling kits, etc.) will be


purchased to support the identified needs of teachers in content specific areas. Teachers will

consult with University faculty and professional experts to select appropriate equipment and set

up the study site.


$3000: William Livingston will help plan and attend institutes/workshops; work with

teachers who are not highly qualified to reach their district goals pertaining to the science and

mathematic content areas; compile and analysis data collected from year 2 and submit required

reporting on the grant to the State, and give presentations on the project at professional meetings

($300/day, 10 days). Other efforts during the academic year will be part of his teaching and out-

reach expectation.

$900: Mary Bird will attend the Summer Institute and will review project reports

($300/day, 3 days).

$2,400: Patricia Maloney will plan and organize the Summer Institute and give

presentations on the project at professional meetings ($300/day, 8 days).

$1,500: Bill Zoellick will maintain the web environment ($300/day, 5 days).

Year 3 Consultant Fees: $800 ($200/day, includes benefits)

$800: Two professionals will attend the Institute ($400/day, 2 days).

Many of the professional experts will act as consultants as part of there job

responsibilities and no expenses will be charged to the grant.


Year 3 Teacher Stipends: $7,000 ($125 per day, includes benefits, 2 days per Partnership

teacher for Summer Institute)

Stipends are for 28 teachers, approximately 2-4 teachers from each of the four Partner schools

(LRTC, LHS, ELHS, St. Dominic’s) and the four other high schools in the LRTC region.

Teachers from the Partner schools will help lead the workshops.

Year 3 Travel: $3600

$1800: University of Maine: for reimbursement to give presentations at meetings, visit the high

schools, and to attend the Summer Institute

$1800: Maine Tree Foundation: for reimbursement to give presentations at meetings, visit the

high schools, and to attend the Summer Institute


$1,500: Institute expenses: lunches and meeting materials at LRTC (2 days).


3. High Cost-Effective Ratio

Year 1:

Number of Teachers:

-Directly served: 20

-Others who benefit from

workshops & working with

Partner teachers: 35

Direct Costs: $64,460

Indirect Costs @20%:

$12,892

TOTAL REQUEST YEAR 1:

$77,352

Cost per teacher directly

served: $3,868

Year 2:

Number of Teachers:


-Others who benefit from

workshops & working with

Partner teachers: 48



$12,434


$74,606


served$2,665

Year 3:

Number of Teachers:




$4,140


$24,840


served $654


Appendix

Appendix B NCLB Title II, Part B

Statement of Assurances This form must be included in the proposal.

CERTIFICATIONS REGARDING LOBBYING; DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION AND OTHER RESPONSIBILITY MATTERS; AND DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE REQUIREMENTS

Applicants should refer to the regulations cited below to determine the certification to which they are required to attest. Applicants should also review the instructions for certification included in the regulations before completing this form. Signature of this form provides for compliance with certification requirements under 34 CFR Part 82. "New Restrictions on Lobbying," and 34 CFR Part 85, "Government-wide Debarment and Suspension (Non-procurement)," The Certifications shall be treated as a material representation of fact upon which reliance will be placed when the Department of Education determines to award the covered transaction, grant, or cooperative agreement. 1. LOBBYING As required by Section 1352, Title 31 of the U.S. Code, and implemented at 34 CFR Part 82, for persons entering into a grant or cooperative agreement over $100,000 as defined at 34 CFR Part 82, Sections 82.105 and 82.110, the applicant certifies that: (a) No federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a member of Congress in connection with the making of any federal grant, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any federal grant or cooperative agreement: (b) If any funds other than federal appropriated funds have been or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an employee of Congress, or any employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal grant or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with this instruction; (c) The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subgrants, contracts under grants and cooperative agreements, and subcontracts) and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly. 2. DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION, AND OTHER RESPONSIBILITY MATTERS As required by executive Order 12549, Debarment and Suspension, and other responsibilities implemented at 34 CFR Part 85, for prospective participants in primary or substantive control over a covered transactions, as defined at 34 CFR Part 85, Sections 85.105 and 85.110- A. The applicant certifies that it is its principals: (a) Are not presently debarred, suspended proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from covered transactions by any federal department or agency: (b) Have not within three-year period preceding this application been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against them for convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against them for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (federal, state, or local) transaction or contact under a public transaction violation of federal or State antitrust statutes or commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, or receiving stolen property; (c) Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a governmental entity (federal, state, or local) with commission of any of the offenses enumerated in paragraph (1) (b) of this certification; and (d) Have not within a three-year period proceeding this application had one or more public transactions (federal, state, or local) terminated for cause or default; and B. Where the applicant is unable to certify to any of the statements in this certification, he or she shall attach an explanation to this application. 3. DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE (GRANTEES OTHER THAN INDIVIDUALS) As required by the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988, and implemented at 34 CFR Part 85, Subpart F, for grantees, as defined at 34 CFR Part 85, Sections 85.605 and 85.610- A. The applicant certifies that it will or will continue to provide a drug-free workplace by: (a) Publishing a statement notifying employees that the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in the grantee's workplace and specifying the actions that will be taken against employees for violation of such prohibition. (b) Establishing an on-going drug-free awareness program to inform employees about- (1) The danger of drug abuse in the workplace; (2) The grantee's policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace; (3) Any available drug counseling, rehabilitation, and employee assistance programs; and (4) The penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violations occurring in the workplace; (c) Making it a requirement that each employee to be engaged in performance of the grant be given a copy of t he statement required by paragraph (a); (d) Notifying the employee in the statement required by paragraph (a) that, as a condition of employment under the grant, the employee will- (1) Abide by the terms of the statement; and (2) Notify the employer in writing of his or her conviction for a violation of a criminal drug statute occurring in the workplace no later than five calendar days after each conviction; (e) Notifying the agency, in writing, within 10 calendar days after receiving notice under subparagraph (d) (2) from an employee or otherwise receiving, actual notice of such conviction. Employers of convicted employees must provide notice, including position title, to: Director, Grants, and Contracts Service, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, S.W. (Room 3124, GSA Regional Office Building No. 3), Washington, DC 20202-4571. Notice shall include the identification number(s) of each affected grant; (f) Taking one of the following actions, within 30 calendar days of receiving notice under subparagraph (d) (2), with respect to any employee who is so convicted: (1) Taking appropriate personnel action against such an employee, up to and including termination, consistent with the requirements of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended; or


(2) Requiring such employee to participate satisfactorily in a drug abuse assistant or rehabilitation program approved for such purposes by a federal, state, or local health, law enforcement, or other appropriate agency: (g) Making a good faith effort to continue to maintain a drug-free workplace through implementation of paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f). B. The grantee may insert in the space provided below the site(s) for the performance of work done in connection with the specific grant: Place of Performance (Street address, city, county, state, zip code) ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ Check [ ] if there are workplaces on file that are not identified here. DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE (GRANTEES WHO ARE INDIVIDUALS) As required by the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988, and implemented at 34 CFR Part 85, Subpart F, for grantees, as defined at 34 CFR Part 85, Sections 85.605 and 85.610 a. As a condition of the grant, I certify that I will not engage in the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or use of a controlled substance in conducting any activity with he grant, and b. If convicted of a criminal drug offense resulting from a violation occurring during the conduct of any grant activity, I will report the conviction, in writing, within 10 calendar days of the conviction, to: Director, Grants and contracts Service, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, S.W. (Room 3124, GSA Regional Office Building No. 3, Washington, DC 20202-4571. Notice shall include the identification number(s) of each affected grant. Federal Gun Free Schools Act The federal Gun Free Schools Act, (No Child Left Behind Act of 2002, Public Law 107-110, Title IV, Part A, Section 4141), and Maine state law, (20-A MRSA, Section 1001, subpart-9A, Students Expelled or Suspended under the Requirements of the Federal Gun-Free Schools Act), requires that LEAs: Expel from school for at least one year a student who is determined to have brought a firearm to a school, or to have possessed a firearm at a school, (except that the federal and state laws shall allow the chief administering officer of such educational agency to modify such expulsion requirement for a student on a case-by-case basis), that they report the incident to the criminal justice or juvenile delinquency system, and that they provide the Maine Department of Education with annual documentation of the incidents. Nothing in this subpart shall be construed to prevent a State from allowing a local educational agency that has expelled a student from such a student's regular school setting from providing educational services to such student in an alternative setting. The provisions of this section shall be construed in manner consistent with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Non-Construction Programs Certain of these assurances may not be applicable to your project or program. If you have questions, please contact the awarding agency. Further, certain Federal awarding agencies may require applicants to certify to additional assurances. If such is the case, you will be notified. As the duly authorized representative of the applicant I certify that the applicant: 1. Has the legal authority to apply for Federal assistance, and the institutional, managerial and financial capability (including funds sufficient to pay the non-Federal share of project costs) to ensure proper planning, management and completion of the project described in this application. 2. Will give the awarding agency, the Comptroller General of the United States, and if appropriate, the State, through any authorized representative, access to and the right to examine all records, books, papers, or documents related to the award; and will establish a proper accounting system in accordance with generally accepted accounting standards or agency directives. 3. Will establish safeguards to prohibit employees from using their positions for a purpose that constitutes or presents the appearance of personal or organizational conflict of interest, or personal gain. 4. Will initiate and complete the work within the applicable time frame after receipt of approval of the awarding agency. 5. Will comply with the Intergovernmental Personnel Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C.§§ 4728-4763) relating to prescribed standards for merit systems for programs funded under one of the nineteen statutes or regulations specified in Appendix A of OPM's Standards for a Merit System of Personnel Administration (5 CFR 900, subpart F). 6. Will comply with all Federal statutes relating to nondiscrimination. These include but are not limited to: (a) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-352) which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin; (b) Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended (20 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1683, and 1685-1686), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex; (c) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. § 794), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of handicaps; (d) the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended (42 U.S.C. §§ 6101-6107), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of age; (e) the Drug Abuse Office and Treatment Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-255), as amended, relating to nondiscrimination on the basis of drug abuse; (f) the Comprehensive Alcohol Abuse and Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Prevention, Treatment and Rehabilitation Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-615), as amended, relating to nondiscrimination on the basis of alcohol abuse or alcoholism; (g) §§ 523 and 527 of the Public Health Service Act of 1912 (42 U.S.C. 290 dd-3 and 290ee-3), as amended, relating to confidentiality of alcohol and drug abuse patient records; (h) Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq.), as amended, relating to non-discrimination in the sale, rental or financing of housing; (i) any other nondiscrimination provisions in the specific statute(s) under which application for Federal assistance is being made; and (j) the requirements of any other nondiscrimination statute(s) which may apply to the application. 7. Will comply, or has already complied, with the requirements of Titles II and III of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-646) which provide for fair and equitable treatment of persons displaced or whose property is acquired as a result of Federal or federally assisted programs. These requirements apply to all interests in real property acquired for project purposes regardless of Federal participation in purchases. 8. Will comply with the provisions of the Hatch Act (5 U.S.C. §§ 1501-1508 and 7324-7328) which limit the political activities of employees whose principal employment activities are funded in whole or in part with Federal funds. 9. Will comply, as applicable, with the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. §§ 276a to 276a-7), The Copeland Act (40 U.S.C. § 276c and 18 U.S.C. §§ 874), and the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. §§ 327-333), regarding labor standards for federally assisted construction subagreements. 10. Will comply, if applicable, with flood insurance purchase requirements of Section 102(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-234) which requires recipients in a special flood hazard area to participate in the program and to purchase flood insurance if the total cost of insurable construction and acquisition is $10,000 or more. 11. Will comply with environmental standards which may be prescribed pursuant to the following; (a) institution of environmental quality control measures under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 91-190) and Executive Order (EO) 11514; (b) notification of violating facilities pursuant to EO 11738; (c) protection of wetlands pursuant to EO 11990; (d) evaluation of flood hazards in floodplains in accordance with EO 11988; (e) assurance of project consistency with the approved State management program developed under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. §§ 1451 et seq.); (f) conformity of Federal actions to State (Clear Air) Implementation Plans under Section 176(c) of the Clear Air Act of 1955, as amended (42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq.); (g) protection of underground sources of drinking water under the


Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, as amended, P.L. 93-523); and (h) protection of endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, (P.L. 93-205). 12. Will comply with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. §§ 1271 et seq.) related to protecting components or potential components of the national wild and scenic rivers system 13. Will assist the awarding agency in assuring compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470), EO 11593 (identification and protection of historic properties), and the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 469a-1 et seq.). 14. Will comply with P.L. 93-348 regarding the protection of human subjects involved in research, development, and related activities supported by this award of assistance. 15. Will comply with the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-544, as amended, 7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.) pertaining to the care, handling, and treatment of warm blooded animals held for research, teaching, or other activities supported by this award of assistance. 16. Will comply with the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 4801 et seq.) which prohibits the use of lead based paint in construction or rehabilitation of residence structures. 17. Will cause to be performed the required financial and compliance audits in accordance with the Single Audit Act of 1984. 18. Will comply with all applicable requirements of all other Federal laws, executive orders, regulations and policies governing this program. Sec. 9306 Other General Assurances a. Any applicant shall have on file with the SEA whether applying separately or pursuant to section 9305 a single set of assurances, applicable to each program for which a plan or application is submitted, that provides that-- (1) each such program will be administered in accordance with all applicable statutes, regulations, program plans, and applications (See MDOEs Annual Application Guidance for Title specific assurances); (2)(A) the control of funds provided under each such program and title to property acquired with program funds will be in a public agency or in a nonprofit private agency, institution, organization, or Indian tribe, if the law authorizing the program provides for assistance to such entities; and (2)(B) the public agency, nonprofit private agency institution, or organization, or Indian tribe will administer such funds and property to the extent required by the authorizing statutes; (3) the applicant will adopt and use proper methods of administering each such program, including-- (A) the enforcement of any obligations imposed by law on agencies, institutions, organizations, and other recipients responsible for carrying out each program; and (B) the correction of deficiencies in program operations that are identified through audits, monitoring, or evaluation; (4) the applicant will cooperate in carrying out any evaluation of each such program conducted by or for the SEA, the secretary, or other Federal officials; (5) the applicant will use such fiscal control and fund accounting procedures as will ensure proper disbursement of, and account for, Federal funds paid to such applicant under each such program; (6) the applicant will-- (A) make reports to the SEA and the Secretary as may be necessary to enable such agency and Secretary to perform their duties under each such program; and (B) maintain such records, provide such information, and afford access to the records as the SEA or the Secretary may find necessary to carry out the SEAs or the Secretary's duties; and (7) before the application was submitted, the applicant afforded a reasonable opportunity for public comment on the application and has considered such comment. b. GEPA Provision.--Section 442 of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA) does not apply to programs under this Act.

themes and forests page i - university of maine

Documents