oeef grant application - ohio epaepa.ohio.gov/portals/42/documents/s18g/s18g-052 case western...

OEEF Grant Application

Application Type: GeneralGrant Application #: S-18G-052Revision from previous application:

Previous grant received: S16G-045

Organization InformationName: Case Western Reserve University - Leonard Gelfand STEM Center

Web Address: http://gelfand.case.eduAddress: 10900 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44106County: Cuyahoga

Project InformationProject Title: Protecting Our Great Lake

Educational Priority: Education on Innovative StormwaterManagement Practices

Requested Grant Amount: $47,134.00

Target Audience: Pre-school to University - Primary

Project Description:We are in the process of translating the work of the Kelleys Island Collaborative (S16G-045) into a formal classroom unit consisting ofa minimum of 20 lessons. We propose to use this newly developed unit as the basis for a two week professional developmentprogram with Cleveland Metropolitan School District teachers and teachers from other local school districts. This will enable us tobring the Kelleys Island Collaborative experience to a much larger audience.

Anticipated List of Collaborators:Cleveland Metroparks, Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District, Cleveland Metropolitan School District, Alliance for the Great Lakes,Kelleys Island Field Station

Additional InformationHave you ever attended an OEEF grant-writing workshop? No Proposed Start Date: 06/04/2018

Will this project have statewide impact? No Proposed Completion Date: 05/31/2019Which Ohio counties will the activities take place in? Cuyahoga, Erie

Audience Category

Formal Education: Secondary: 9-12

Project Issues

Water Issues: Surface Water/Watersheds, Drinking Water, Non-point Source Pollution, Water Quality Monitoring

Waste Issues: Solid Waste

Land Issues: Land Laboratories/Outdoor Classrooms

Other Issues: Environmental Health, Environmental Justice

Executive SummaryAudience Need:There is a significant need for high quality teacher professional development, particularly professional development that models themultidisciplinary elements STEM professionals use in the real world. To model authentic STEM workplace experiences, we use aproblem based lesson model to develop a curriculum that is investigative, allows participants to work in teams to engage in a range ofstudent-driven inquiries that involve asking their own questions, plan and carry out investigations, analyze and interpret data, andengage in arguments from evidence. Our curriculum is authentic - it incorporates data students and teachers collected as part of theKelleys Island Collaborative, additional data sets available through the Great Lakes Observing System (GLOS) and other sources, andincludes consideration of societal implications and public policy.

$43,360------------

Key Personnel:The Kelleys Island Collaborative includes the Leonard Gelfand STEM Center at Case Western Reserve University, the ClevelandMetropolitan School District, the Cleveland Metroparks, the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District, the Alliance for the Great Lakes,and the Kelleys Island Field Station. Each organization has expertise in environmental education and a demonstrated commitment tothe youth of Ohio. This project represents an additional step in a larger effort to integrate Lake Erie and freshwater issues in to thescience curriculum in schools in northeast Ohio.

Overall Project Objectives:The first objective for Protecting Our Great Lake is to use the experiences gained from the Kelleys Island Collaborative to immerse acritical mass of teachers (24) in fresh water environmental issues that impact our region.

The second objective is to broaden participation of local high school students in important fresh water issues through implementationof a 20 lesson interdisciplinary unit.

The third objective is to build upon previous work to continue cultivating students who care about the environment (including access toclean fresh water) in the places they live and go to school.

Major Activities:A two-week professional development institue led by faculty from CWRU and supported by staff from the Northeast Ohio RegionalSewer District, Cleveland Metroparks Watershed Stewardship Center at West Creek, Alliance for the Great Lakes, and CMSD teacherleaders who participated in the Kelleys Island Collaborative. The first week will take place at the Kelleys Island Field Station and theStewardship Center and the second week will take place at one of the participating school buildings.

The program will provide materials and classroom supplies for implementation of classroom lessons using common protocols and datasharing. The program will also provide ongoing support in the form of professional development refreshers and undergraduateteaching assistants during the implementation of the units in the classrooms. A symposium on the campus of Case Western ReserveUniversity at the conclusion of the academic year will close the program.

Overall Cost:Overall cost for the project is $124,607 with requested grant funds of $47,134 and a match of $77,473.

Project DescriptionAudience Need:Twenty-four teachers from Cleveland and surrounding inner ring suburbs will be recruited to participate with priority given to thoseschools that send interdisciplinary teams. A minimum of 14 slots will be reserved for CMSD teachers.

The program will begin with a week of field work. The first three days will be spent on Kelleys Island. The content focus will be harmfulalgal blooms, drawing multiple lessons from the Greats Lakes in My World curriculum, facilitating HAB related discussions based onDan Egan's The Death and Life of the Great Lakes, leading teachers through an in depth discussion of the Lake Erie ecosystem andharmful algal blooms, developing experiments to be conducted during the field cruise, analyzing and presenting experimental results,and completing a water filtration engineering design challenge. Collectively, this series of activities covers the entirety of the urbanwater cycle and serves as preparation for work that follows.

The next two days at the West Creek will focus on the storm water management strategies in evidence on the property. Metroparksnaturalists will lead teachers through several standardized protocols (QHEI, BHEI, HHEI) as part of their study of storm watermanagement in the West Creek watershed. In addition, Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District staff will address issues related to dataliteracy in the watershed.

The second week of the program will take place at one of the participating school sites using the curriculum unit derived from theKelleys Island Collaborative. The curriculum is based on our experience that the field work raises questions appropriate for additional,more in depth, investigation in the classroom. For instance, the impact of strategies farmers are using to reduce phosphorus runoff canbe investigated in simple microcosms set up in the classroom. This same model system can also be used to investigate the impacts ofstorm events on soil composition and structure, and so on. Four CWRU undergraduate near peer mentors who will serve as teachingassistants during the academic year will join the program this week.

Teachers will have the freedom to implement the lessons at the time of year that makes sense for the scope and sequence of thecourse they are teaching. All program staff will be available via phone, email, or web conferencing for "just in time" professionaldevelopment refreshers throughout the year.

We will create a website to serve as the central organizing location for the project. All curricular materials will be housed in a commonand easily accessible web-based format. This site will also serve as the data depository so that all teachers and students involved inthe program will (a) use common formats, and (b) easily share data among sites.

Case Western Reserve University undergraduate students trained by the Gelfand STEM Center will provide laboratory prep support aswell as serve as teaching assistants in the classroom. It is reasonable to assume the lessons will be taught at different times during theyear, so four students should be able to service all the schools on a rotating basis.

We will provide a full day field experience at West Creek for participating teachers and one class of their students through theCleveland Metroparks' bus voucher program. These visits will be linked to work in the classroom, so we expect they will take placethroughout the school year. The Gelfand STEM Center will host a closing symposium for up to 500 students and teachers in May2019.

Qualification:Jim Bader, executive director of the Leonard Gelfand STEM Center at Case Western Reserve University will serve as the PrincipalInvestigator. Mr. Bader holds a masters degree in ecology and is a trained aquatic biologist who has taught courses in aquatic biology,microbiology, and ecology in the Department of Biology at CWRU since 1985. Mr. Bader has been involved in outreach since 2000,first as director of the Center for Science and Mathematics Education and now as executive director of the Gelfand STEM Center.

Kirsten Mahovlich joined the Cleveland Metropolitan School district in 1998 where she taught physical science, biology, forensics,chemistry, honor and inclusion science classes. In 2011, she became CMSD's Curriculum & Instruction Manager for ScienceEducation Grades 7-12. She holds degrees in both secondary education and biology. She is a co-creator of the Learn, Protect andStay Place Based Learning Collaboration and BEST model, and was instrumental in the development of the North East Ohio RegionalSewer District storm water curricula for grades 3, 5, 7 and 10.

Five CMSD teachers who participated in the Kelleys Island Collaborative worked with the Gelfand STEM Center and the NortheastOhio Regional Sewer District to develop the lessons. Each of these teachers demonstrated a commitment to their students and theenvironment throughout the project. They all have a thorough understanding of the interdisciplinary complexity of the issues we areaddressing and the ability to construct lessons that make that complexity accessible to their students. We will recruit two of theseteachers to join the instructional team.

Beth Witte is the Director of the Kelleys Island Field Station. Her previous experience is in STEM teaching, outdoor education, andfacilitating teacher professional development. She has been a coordinator on a number of large scale grant projects including theSTEM Outdoor Innovation Labs funded by the Ohio Straight A Fund, South Dakota Innovation Lab funded by the Clinton GlobalInitiative and STEM Design Challenge funded by Time Warner Cable. Her degree is in secondary education and mathematics.

The Cleveland Metroparks will designate a naturalist for this program. All West Creek naturalists are well versed in the storm waterstrategies in use on the property and have extensive experience with the relevant standardized protocols used to quantify the impactsof storm events on the watershed.

Continuation and Replication Plan:A healthy environment is critical to the quality of life and economic vitality of Cleveland. Understanding complex environmental issuesthat affect community health requires environmentally literate citizens. This begins with education. Environmentally literate citizens areaware of the consequences of their actions and they make informed choices that will protect their health and the environment. Ourvision is for the region's students to learn about their community and connect to it, becoming informed citizens and the next generationof environmental stewards. Cleveland and northern Ohio are unique in that there is access to multiple watersheds feeding into LakeErie, providing excellent opportunities for place-based learning in watersheds.

The initial investment that allowed us to work at the Watershed Stewardship Center and Kelleys Island has already been made and willlive on through the new curriculum unit. Unfortunately, only 138 students were able to work at the Kelleys Island Field Station andfewer than 300 spent a day at West Creek. We anticipate as many as 2,500 students in northeast Ohio could be directly impactedannually by participation in the Protecting Our Great Lake program.

Budget Narrative:Salaries : Salaries and fringe for Bader (CWRU), Witte (Kelleys Island Field Station), Mahovlich (CMSD), Hinton (Alliance for the GreatLakes), and Hood (NEORSD) will be provided as matches. We are requesting grant funds to support the naturalist from West Creek,the two CMSD teacher leaders, and the four CWRU undergraduate near peer mentors.

Substitutes: Each participating school will cover the cost of a substitute teacher for the one day visit to West Creek.

Materials: We are requesting grant funds of $500 each for 24 teachers for classroom supplies to implement the curriculum.

Travel: The travel budget includes one boat charter ($825) and ferry transportation to the island ($490). We will use matching funds forthese charges.

Housing: We will use matching funds to room teachers and staff while on Kelleys Island (30 people for 2 nights at $15/night).

Subsistence: We will use $780 of matching funds to feed teachers and staff while on Kelleys Island.

Symposium: We will use $5,000 of matching funds to host the culminating symposium.

Stipends: We are requesting stipends of $80/day for 24 teachers for 10 days. We are requesting grant funds for $60/day/per teacherand will use matching funds for $20/day/teacher.

Project Objectives and Associated Activities & Outcome MeasurementsObjective Title: Plan and execute a two-week intensive and standards-based professional development program for 24 te

Objective Description:The two-week professional development institute will set the tone for the entire Protecting Our Great Lake program. Our pastexperience suggests a few teachers will have some prior knowledge of watersheds, Lake Erie, harmful algal blooms, and storm watermanagement. However, most will not. In addition, very few teachers will have the full interdisciplinary understanding of these complexecological and political problems. However, the on site and first hand intensive two-week format coupled with "just in time" support andlinks to relevant resources allows us to accelerate the learning curve on these important issues.

Activity Title: Program staff plans the professional development institute

Start Date: 06/04/2018 End Date: 07/02/2018 % of Budget: 1.0%

Activity Description:Program staff will use Ohio's Professional Development Standards and Designing Professional Development for Teachers ofScience and Mathematics, 3rd ed (Loucks-Horsley et al 2010) to ensure the professional development institute aligns with statestandards and nationally recognized best practices

Outcome Title: Creating the framework

Initial Outcome:Before developing the professional development institute, program staff will commit to a common vision, analyze studentlearning, and set goals.

Long-Term Effects:The properly structured institute will lead to long term knowledge retention and systemic change.Outcome Title: Leadership

Initial Outcome:Align student learning and professional learning.

Long-Term Effects:Prioritize, monitor, and coordinate resources for educator learning.Outcome Title: Prioritize, monitor, and coordinate resources for educator learning.

Initial Outcome:The professional development institute ensures that all teachers have the resources (time, materials, technology, funding,partnerships) necessary to maximize their own learning.

Long-Term Effects:Teachers value professional learning and pursue additional opportunities.

Teachers will not receive $500, but will receive $500 worth of equipment. Specific items are listed in the budget section.

Activity Title: Field work at Kelleys Island and West Creek


Activity Description:The program will begin in summer 2018 with a week of field work at the Kelleys Island Field Station and Watershed StewardshipCenter at West Creek. The first three days will be spent on Kelleys Island with instruction provided by CWRU faculty (Bader),CMSD administrators (Mahovlich), CMSD teacher leaders, and Alliance for the Great Lakes staff (Hinton). Harmful algal bloomswill be the focus during these three days, with the instructional team drawing multiple lessons from the Greats Lakes in MyWorld curriculum, facilitating HAB related discussions based on Dan Egan's The Death and Life of the Great Lakes, leadingteachers through a crash course in the Lake Erie ecosystem and harmful algal blooms, developing experiments to be conductedduring the field cruise, analyzing and presenting experimental results, and completing a water filtration engineering designchallenge. Collectively, this series of activities covers the entirety of the urban water cycle and serves as preparation for workthat follows.

The first week will conclude with two days at the Watershed Stewardship Center at West Creek focused on the ecologicalimpact of storm water and the various management strategies in evidence on the property. Cleveland Metroparks naturalists willlead the instructional team; teachers will complete several standardized protocols (Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index, BankErosion Habitat Index, and Headwaters Habitat Evaluation Index) as part of their study of storm water management in the WestCreek watershed. In addition, Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District staff will address issues related to data literacy in thewatershed.

Outcome Title: Teacher interdisciplinary content knowledge

Initial Outcome:Teachers develop increased knowledge in physical, earth, and life science content related to the Lake Erie watershed,harmful algal blooms, and storm water management.

Long-Term Effects:Teachers become content experts on Lake Erie and Great Lakes issues.Outcome Title: Common Core connections

Initial Outcome:Teachers identify strategies to incorporate technical reading and writing standards as well as social studies standards asthey investigate and attempt to solve complex environmental issues using a problem based learning approach.

Long-Term Effects:Teachers are able to build interdisciplinary units that address multiple standards in a unified context.

Activity Title: Introduction to curriculum and laboratory extensions to field work


Activity Description:The second week of the program will take place at a school site where participants will be introduced to the curriculum derivedfrom the Kelleys Island Collaborative. The instructional team will consist of CWRU faculty (Bader) and CMSD teacher leaderswho developed the curriculum; participants will be joined by four CWRU undergraduate Near Peer Mentors who will serve asteaching assistants for the implementation of the lessons during the academic year.

During the field experience, we anticipate that participants will make many, many observations that lend themselves toadditional, more in depth, investigation. For instance, much of the work on harmful algal blooms focuses on runoff from farms inthe Maumee River watershed where farmers are experimenting with various practices to reduce the amount of phosphorusentering rivers and streams. The impact of many of these strategies can be investigated in a microcosm set up in the classroom.A model system consisting of 2 liter bottles cut horizontally and filled with soil can be used to investigate the impacts of differentfarming practices such as till vs no till, manure application on frozen ground, etc. They could also be used to investigate theimpacts of storm events on soil composition and structure, and so on. These questions and many more related to harmful algalblooms and storm water management are included in the curriculum and will be covered during the second week of the teacherprofessional development program.

Outcome Title: Teachers strengthen laboratory skills

Initial Outcome:Teachers expand their repertoire of laboratory techniques to include model systems and multi-part investigations toexamine complex problems.

Long-Term Effects:Teachers have the confidence to incorporate inquiry-based laboratories in more of their classes.Outcome Title: Interdisciplinary inquiry and application

Initial Outcome:Teachers design and conduct investigations that model inquiry across disciplines (science, social studies, ELA)

Long-Term Effects:Teachers are able to build interdisciplinary units that address multiple standards in a unified context.

Objective Title: Each of the 24 teachers will implement all lessons of the unit during the 2018-2019 academic year.

Objective Description:Teachers will have the freedom to implement the lessons at the time of year that makes sense for the scope and sequence of thecourse they are teaching. All necessary equipment and materials required to complete each of the investigations will be suppliedthrough existing resources, grant funds, or matching funds. In addition, CWRU undergraduates trained to work productively in highschool classrooms will provide prep support and serve as teaching assistants.

Activity Title: Train undergraduate near peer mentors/teaching assistants


Activity Description:For the last 10 years, the Gelfand STEM Center has run a program that sends CWRU undergraduate students (GelfandFellows) to high needs schools to assist students through each step of the science fair process. We have developed a 9-hourtraining program to prepare Fellows to work in schools. We provide a crash course in science education in general and sciencefairs in particular, sharing tools and strategies they can use to model best practices.

The program includes discussions of inquiry and design, three dimensional learning as advocated by the Next GenerationScience Standards, experimental design, assessment, cultural competence in the classroom, stereotype threat, andunconscious bias. We will modify the Fellows training program to reflect the focus on laboratory preparation and investigationsof watershed issues.

Outcome Title: CWRU students complete training

Initial Outcome:CWRU undergraduate students will successfully complete the science education training program and demonstrate theability to successfully prep for each of the lessons.

Long-Term Effects:In the process of understanding how people learn, CWRU students will deepen their understanding of their own learning.Outcome Title: Equity in the classroom

Initial Outcome:CWRU students will model best practices in classroom inclusion and equity during their work with high school studentsduring the academic year.

Long-Term Effects:CWRU students may be viewed as role models who could inspire students in ways unforeseen.

Activity Title: Resources


Activity Description:Students cannot be expected to learn without appropriate materials, particularly in the sciences where specialized tools arerequired. Each teacher will be allotted $500 for the purchase of materials to implement the 20 lessons. In order to standardizethe materials in use across the different schools and to stretch the budget with bulk orders as much as possible, all materialrequests will be funneled through the PI. This will also minimize redundancy and allow us to share more expensive items,stretching the budget even further.

We will create a website that will serve as the central organizing location for the project. All curricular materials including teacherguides, student handouts, sample assessments, and administrator "look for" sheets for each lesson will be housed in a commonand easily accessible web-based format. This will also be the location where resources are stored such as relevant reports andjournal articles and links to articles from print resources throughout the Great Lakes. Finally, this site will serve as the datadepository so that all teachers and students involved in the program will (a) use common formats, and (b) easily share dataamong sites.

Outcome Title: Materials

Initial Outcome:All classrooms will have the materials they need to complete the lessons in the unit.

Long-Term Effects:Durable goods will be available for use in other investigationsOutcome Title: Web site

Initial Outcome:A central location will be created that will house all curricular materials and serve as a data depository.

Long-Term Effects:Additional teachers will have access to both the lessons and the data generated by students.

Activity Title: Academic year implementation of curriculum unit


Activity Description:Teachers will have the freedom to implement the lessons at the time of year that makes sense for the scope and sequence ofthe course they are teaching. All necessary equipment and materials required to complete each of the investigations will besupplied through existing resources, grant funds, or matching funds.

Case Western Reserve University undergraduate students trained by the Gelfand STEM Center will provide prep support aswell as serve as teaching assistants in the classroom. Based on conversations with Kelleys Island Collaborative teachers, it isreasonable to assume the lessons will be taught at different times during the year, so four students should be able to service allthe schools on a rotating basis.

Participating teachers and one class of their students will have we a full day field experience at West Creek. These visits will belinked to work in the classroom, so we expect they will take place throughout the school year.

Outcome Title: Student content knowledge

Initial Outcome:Students develop increased knowledge in physical, earth, and life science content related to the Lake Erie watershed,harmful algal blooms, and storm water management.

Long-Term Effects:Students become advocates for the environmental health of the places they live and go to school.Outcome Title: Student skills

Initial Outcome:Students demonstrate the ability to be independent thinkers, process and vet information from a variety of sources, designexperiments, and work productively as part of a team.

Long-Term Effects:Students develop transferrable workplace skills

Activity Title: Symposium


Activity Description:The Leonard Gelfand STEM Center at Case Western Reserve University will host a closing symposium for up to 500 studentsand teachers in May 2019. This will be a full day of panels, presentations, celebration, and reflection that will provide a fittingconclusion for the program.

Outcome Title: Symposium presentations

Initial Outcome:Students demonstrate the ability to analyze and present data and communicate effectively.

Long-Term Effects:Students develop transferrable workplace skills.Outcome Title: What is next?

Initial Outcome:Teachers and students participate in a facilitated discussion that identifies goals for the next academic year

Long-Term Effects:Students become advocates for the environmental health of the places they live and go to school.

Budget SummaryCategory OEEF Grant % Total OEEF Grant Amount Applicant Match Total

A.1. Salary or Wages 40.0 $18,950.00 $11,032.00 $29,982.00

A.2. Benefits 4.0 $1,784.00 $3,318.00 $5,102.00

A.3. Substitute Teachers 0.0 $0.00 $3,600.00 $3,600.00

B.1. Supplies 25.0 $12,000.00 $0.00 $12,000.00

B.2. Equipment 0.0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

B.3. Printing 0.0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

B.4. Other Costs 31.0 $14,400.00 $59,522.00 $73,922.00

C.1. Contractual 0.0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

D.1. Administrative 0.0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Total Budget $47,134.00 $77,472.00 $124,606.00

A.1. Salary or Wages

Employee Name Title Grant # ofHours

GrantHourlyRate

Matching #of Hours

MatchingHourlyRate

GrantAnnualSalary

Grant % ofSalary

MatchingAnnualSalary

Matching% of

Salary

OEEFGrant

Amount

ApplicantMatchingAmount

Beth Witte Kelleys Island FieldStation

0 $0.00 24 $23.00 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 $552.00

Undergraduate NearPeer Mentors

CWRU 520 $12.50 0 $0.00 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 0.0 $6,500.00 $0.00

Destinee Hinton Alliance for the GreatLakes

0 $0.00 8 $24.00 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 $192.00

Ebony Hood NEORSD 0 $0.00 4 $24.00 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 $96.00

Naturalist Cleveland Metroparks 156 $37.50 0 $0.00 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 0.0 $5,850.00 $0.00

Kirsten Mahovlich CMSD ScienceManager

0 $0.00 24 $36.00 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 $864.00

James Bader CWRU 0 $0.00 212 $44.00 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 $9,328.00

Teacher Leaders CMSD 240 $27.50 0 $0.00 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 0.0 $6,600.00 $0.00

Subtotal: $18,950.00 $11,032.00

A.2. BenefitsBenefits Description Rate or % of Salary OEEF Grant Amount Applicant Matching Amount

Bader fringe 30.0 $0.00 $2,798.00

Witte fringe 30.5 $0.00 $168.00

Metroparks naturalist fringe 30.5 $1,784.00 $0.00

Mahovlich fringe 30.5 $0.00 $264.00

Hinton fringe 30.5 $0.00 $59.00

Hood fringe 30.5 $0.00 $29.00

Subtotal: $1,784.00 $3,318.00

$15,176

A.3. Substitute TeachersSubstitute Teachers Description Personnel Name OEEF Grant Amount Applicant Matching Amount

Substitute teachers TBD $0.00 $3,600.00

Subtotal: $0.00 $3,600.00

B.1. SuppliesSupplies Description Quantity Unit Price OEEF Grant Amount Applicant Matching Amount

Temperature probes 24 $29.00 $696.00 $0.00

Optical dissolved oxygen probes 10 $299.00 $2,990.00 $0.00

Turbidity sensors 10 $112.00 $1,120.00 $0.00

Conductivity probe 24 $95.00 $2,280.00 $0.00

10 gal aquaria 24 $46.50 $1,116.00 $0.00

pH probes 24 $99.00 $2,376.00 $0.00

Lamotte urban water quality test kit 24 $59.25 $1,422.00 $0.00

Subtotal: $12,000.00 $0.00

B.4. Other CostsOther Costs Description OEEF Grant Amount Applicant Matching Amount

Travel $0.00 $1,315.00

Housing $0.00 $900.00

Indirect costs on in-kind contribution $0.00 $18,447.00

Subsistence $0.00 $780.00

Indirect costs on OEEF grant amount $0.00 $28,280.00

Teacher stipends $14,400.00 $4,800.00

Symposium $0.00 $5,000.00

Subtotal: $14,400.00 $59,522.00

Applicant ContactContact Type: Authorizing Agent Job Title: Executive Director

Name: James NULL BaderPrimary Phone: (216) 368-5289 Primary Fax:Primary Email: [email protected]

Primary Address: 10900 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44106Alternate Phone: Alternate Fax:Alternate Email:

Alternate Address:Alternate Start Date: Alternate End Date:

Contact Type: Fiscal Agent Job Title: Assistant VP for Sponsored ProjectsName: Dianne Domanovics

Primary Phone: (216) 368-5930 Primary Fax:Primary Email: [email protected]



Contact Type: Project Director Job Title: Executive DirectorName: James Bader

Primary Phone: (216) 368-5289 Primary Fax:Primary Email: [email protected]



Chief Executive Officer

Eric S. Gordon

Board of Education

Anne E. Bingham Board Chair

Robert M. Heard, Sr.

Vice Chair

Louise P. Dempsey, Esq.

Jasmine Fryer

Denise W. Link

Willetta A. Milam

Shaletha T. Mitchell

Justin L. Monday, Esq.

Lisa Thomas, Ph.D.

Ex Officio Members

Ronald M. Berkman, Ph.D. Alex Johnson, Ph.D.

Kirsten M. Mahovlich Content Manager-Science Education, grades 7-12

Curriculum and Instruction

January 11, 2018 Re: Letter of Support for Protecting our Great Lake To Whom It May Concern: The Cleveland Metropolitan School District takes pride in its sense of place, understanding the value of Lake Erie and surrounding watershed as integral to the environmental health and economic well-being of Cleveland and Northeast Ohio. Moving our students towards environmental sustainability is a social as well as academic challenge that can be met by expanding a child’s education beyond the confines of a classroom. To sustain the education ecosystem, teachers need to evolve, not only in their craft, but their content knowledge as well. By participating in Protecting Our Great Lakes, 24 CMSD teachers will receive intensive professional development that includes a 20 lesson unit developed by other CMSD educators. Teachers will participate in a learning community with researcher and education specialists and peers, providing them with an opportunity to connect real world science to classroom practice potentially impacting 2,500 urban high school students. We are pleased to be a partner with the Leonard Gelfand STEM Center at Case Western Reserve University, Kelleys Island Field Station, West Creek Watershed Stewardship Center, Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District and the Alliance for the Great Lakes. Sincerely,

Kirsten M. Mahovlich

East Professional Center• 1349 East 79th Street • Cleveland, OH 44103 • Office: 216.838.0294 • Cell: 216.849.8070 [email protected]

OEEF Grant Staff ChecklistApplication #: S-18G-052 Organization Name: Case Western Reserve University - Leonard Gelfand

STEM Center

Application Type: GeneralGrant Project Title: Protecting Our Great Lake

A. Overall

1. Yes Project eligible?

2. Not selected Project meets which of OEEF's Educational Priorities: Education on Innovative Stormwater Management Practices

3. Yes Organization eligible?

4. JM Initials of staff member who provided pre-review, if any

Overall Comments:

OEEF Points were awarded for Match, Support and Collaboration. No specific examples of alignment to the standards are included. Stipends were

categorized in the wrong budget area, but are eligible. Case Western Reserve University has submitted closing reports for a project that recently

closed. The project will be closed prior to the OEEF Advisory Council Meeting.

B. Application Cover Sheet

5. Yes Collaborators identified on cover sheet appear to be correct based on their role as described in the proposal

Comments: Letters from three of the five collaborators are included.

6. Yes Time lines and start date are realistic and consistent with OEEF Guidelines

Comments: Not entered

7. Yes Grant duration 30 months or less

8. Yes Audience identified by applicant is correct for the project. If not, re-assign to audience: Not selected

9. 0 points Under-served Audience: Award 10 extra points if the proposed project targets a regulated community primary audience.

10. Yes List of counties identified by applicant appears correct based on activities in project description


11. 0 points Under-served Counties: Award 5 points if the applicant organization is located in (OR all the proposed activities will take

place in) a county/counties that OEEF has defined as under-served (i.e., where fewer than two grants have been

awarded). Award 3 points if some of the proposed activities will take place in counties that OEEF has defined as under-

served.

12. No Is this a revision of a previous application? (check last 2 cycles) If yes, OEEF ID#: Not entered

13. Yes Has applicant previously received OEEF grant(s)? If yes, OEEF ID#: S16G-045

14. No Was previous grant awarded in the past twelve months?

15. Yes Is any previous grant still open?

Yes If yes, is previous grant likely to close before the Council meeting for this current grant cycle?

C. Audience Categories and Project Issues

16. Comment if applicant appears to have made assignments in error


D. Contact Information

17. Yes One person is not serving in all 3 roles (director, fiscal, authorizing)


E. Project Description - Overall

18. Yes Project does not include political advocacy

19. Not selected Project includes adequate safeguards for any potentially dangerous activities

20. No If this is a K-12 formal education project, it includes specific examples or a satisfactory explanation of the process that will

be used to align student learning activities with New Learning Standards

Comments: Applicant explains activities will be aligned to the standards, but specific examples are not included.

F. Budget Narrative

21. Yes Itemized detail is provided

22. Yes Figures are accurate

G. Budget Spreadsheet

Personnel

23. Yes Salary

24. Not selected Benefits: Explanation of how calculated and % used for fringe.

25. Yes Stipends or Substitute: OEEF is not asked to pay for both for the same teacher for the same day

Comments on Personnel section of budget:

Stipends should be categorized in the Substitute Teachers budget category.

Non-Personnel

26. Yes Supplies: Identified, grouped, unit priced, and totaled

27. Not selected Equipment: Itemized, grouped, unit priced and totaled

28. Not selected Printing: Itemized, # of copies, unit price, and totaled

29. Yes Other: Categorized, method of calculation, and totaled

Comments on Non-Personnel section of budget:

Teacher stipends will be moved to the Substitute teachers line item.

Contractual

30. Not selected Name of party, organization, # of hours, hourly wage, total

31. No The combination of Personnel and Contractual costs does not exceed 35% of the budget. (If it does, add comment and

note percentage)

Comments on Contractual section of budget:

Salary is 40% of total OEEF request.

32. Yes There are no ineligible expenses

33. Yes There is no unacceptable pass-through of grant funds to a third party

34. Yes Overall, expenses are reasonable (if questionable, add comment)


35. 5 points Award five extra points if the applicant (with their collaborators) has provided a strong, well-documented cash or in-kind

match that greatly exceeds 10% of the funds requested from OEEF. (Do not assign extra points for less than a 50% match)

Comments: Not all matching funds listed on the application are eligible as match through OEEF; however, more than

$24,000 is eligible. The total is over 50%.

H. Letters of Collaboration and Support

36. No Collaboration does not appear to be needed for this project to succeed


37. Yes If the project is collaborative, documentation letters have been received from all, partial or none of the collaborators

38. 5 points Award five extra points for projects with very strong, well-documented collaboration


39. 5 points Award five extra points if the applicant has provided documentation of support for the project from members or appropriate

representatives of the target audience. (Letters or applications from teachers of the targeted grade level will meet this

criteria for the pre-school to university audience. Letters or applications from an established trade or professional

association will meet this criteria for the regulated community audience.)


40. Not selected Attachments, if any, are relevant to the applicant's ability to successfully complete the proposed project

41. Not selected Other


Checklist completed: Yes Total Points Awarded: 15 out of 30

OEEF Grant Reviewer Score Sheet with CommentsApplication #: S-18G-052 Organization Name: Case Western Reserve University - Leonard Gelfand

STEM Center

Grant Type: GeneralGrant Project Title: Protecting Our Great Lake

Primary Target Audience: Pre-school to University Application Status: Scoring Complete

Reviewer 1

A. Audience Need (up to 20 points)Points

Awarded

Maximum

Score

1. The target audience is well described. 5 5

2. The need is a documented need of the target audience, not the applicant/provider organization. 5 5

3. The need for the project was determined in a valid way. 5 5

4. Meeting this need will yield substantial benefits to the target audience. 5 5

20 20

Reviewer Comments on Need Statement:

Not entered

B. Organizational Qualifications (up to 10 points)Points

Awarded

Maximum

Score

1. The applicant organization and/or its collaborators are experienced and well-qualified to work with this audience. 5 5

2. The applicant organization and/or its collaborators have appropriate expertise to conduct this project and ensure that the

project information is scientifically valid and unbiased.

5 5

10 10

Reviewer Comments on Organizational Qualifications:

Not entered

C. Project Objectives (up to 35 points)Points

Awarded

Maximum

Score

1. The objectives define specifically who will benefit and what will be learned. 5 5

2. The objectives address the need of the target audience as presented in the Statement of Need. 5 5

3. The objectives are consistent with the mission of the applicant organization. 5 5

4. The objectives meet one of OEEF's educational priorities. 5 5

5. The objectives are measurable. 5 5

6. The objectives are realistic for the age group or audience being targeted. 5 5

7. The project does not appear to duplicate other available environmental education resources and programs. 5 5

35 35

Reviewer Comments on Objectives:

Not entered

D. Project Activities (up to 35 points)Points

Awarded

Maximum

Score

1. The project activities are specific, and the sequence of activities is appropriate. 5 5

2. The project activities are appropriate for meeting the stated project objectives. 5 5

3. Reasonable steps are taken to ensure that the project information is scientifically valid and unbiased. 5 5

4. The project activities are (or will be) aligned with the Ohio Department of Education's Academic Content Standards for K-

12 education. (for pre-school or university audience projects, award 5 points)

0 5

5. The activities are age-appropriate. 5 5

6. The project does more than disseminate information: learners will engage in hands-on activities, problem solving, and/or

skill-building.

5 5

7. The project makes good use of existing environmental education materials, or provides good justification for the decision

to develop new materials.

5 5

30 35

Reviewer Comments on Activities:

The application states the project will conform with the Ohio Department of Education's Academic Content Standards but no specific examples are

provided.

E. Timetable (up to 10 points)Points

Awarded

Maximum

Score

1. The start and end dates are realistic for completion of the activities. 5 5

2. The start and end dates show that activities will be carried out in a logical sequence. 5 5

10 10

Reviewer Comments on Timetable:

Not entered

F. Outcome Measurement (up to 15 points)Points

Awarded

Maximum

Score

1. The measurements are scientifically and educationally valid for determining if the project objectives were achieved. 0 5

2. The measurements describe success indicators, tools being used to measure, methods of analyzing the data, and who

will be conducting the evaluation.

0 5

3. The measurements address both short-term and long-term effects of the project. 0 5

0 15

Reviewer Comments on Outcome Measurements:

The application did not include and measurements.

G. Continuation/Replication Plan (up to 15 points)Points

Awarded

Maximum

Score

1. The project includes a realistic plan for sharing the results with other educators. 5 5

2. The plan describes how the project can continue once OEEF funding ends. 5 5

3. The plan describes how the project can serve as a model for replication with similar audiences. 3 5

13 15

Reviewer Comments on Continuation/Replication Plan:

This project is specific to this area. There will be a web site with all handouts and lesson plans developed as a result of this project which can be used

by others, if appropriate.

H. Budget (up to 20 points)Points

Awarded

Maximum

Score

1. The budget table and narrative clearly explain all expenditures to be funded by the OEEF. 5 5

2. The budget is appropriate for this type of project. 5 5

3. Salary costs are reasonable as a proportion of the overall budget. (In general, salary costs should not exceed 50% of

the total OEEF budget for the project. Higher amounts should be very well justified by the applicant)

5 5

4. Equipment costs are reasonable as a proportion of the overall budget. (In general, equipment costs should not exceed

50% of the total OEEF budget for the project. Higher amounts should be very well justified by the applicant)

5 5

20 20

Reviewer Comments on Budget:

Not entered

I. Discretionary Points (up to 10 points)Points

Awarded

Maximum

Score

Up to 10 discretionary points may be awarded by the peer reviewer in cases where the applicant has demonstrated that the

project has unique characteristics and excellent overall quality, where this distinction does not appropriately fit into the

categories previously listed. The reviewer must explain in the comment section why the discretionary points were awarded.

5 10

5 10

Reviewer Comments on Awarding of Discretionary Points:

No measurements of success were provided for this project. However, the project provides support for the participants along the way to ensure

success. CWRU will also provide 4 undergraduate students trained by the Gelfand STEM Center to provide laboratory prep support and serve as

teaching assistants in the classroom when the teachers teach the material in the classroom. There will also be a symposium at the end of the year for

up to 5000 students and teachers in May. This will be planned to be a full day of panels, presentations, reflection and celebration to conclude the

project.

Total points awarded by reviewer 1: 143 out of 170

Reviewer 2


Awarded

Maximum

Score





20 20


The potential to reach a greater audience through educator training is clear.


Awarded

Maximum

Score




5 5

10 10


Not entered


Awarded

Maximum

Score








31 35


The objectives state what will be learned but do not demonstrate the exact learning standards that will be addressed. Additionally, the objectives are

measurable but the measurement method or tool is not fully identified.


Awarded

Maximum

Score






3 5



skill-building.

5 5



5 5

33 35


Standards alignment is mentioned but not specifically outlined.


Awarded

Maximum

Score



10 10


Not entered


Awarded

Maximum

Score




3 5


9 15


Expected outcomes are clearly outlined but a measurement tool is not detailed. How will these expected outcomes be appropriately measured and

demonstrated?


Awarded

Maximum

Score




13 15


The initial purchase plan for educator supplies does not contain a concrete plan for replenishment of supplies. Will each school be responsible for the

upkeep, maintenance, and resupply of necessary classroom materials? How will consistency between all the schools be maintained?


Awarded

Maximum

Score





5 5



5 5

20 20


Not entered


Awarded

Maximum

Score




10

10


Not entered


Reviewer 3


Awarded

Maximum

Score





18 20


Not entered


Awarded

Maximum

Score




5 5

10 10


The expertise is diverse and complementary to one another.


Awarded

Maximum

Score








33 35


Not entered


Awarded

Maximum

Score






5 5



skill-building.

5 5



5 5

35 35


The plan was very detailed and logical.


Awarded

Maximum

Score



10 10


Not entered


Awarded

Maximum

Score




3 5


11 15


The short and long term outcomes are difficult to quantify. Will any of the lessons include assessments that reflect the outcomes?


Awarded

Maximum

Score




11 15


The plan clearly states how students will be impacted from year to year and that the lessons will be web-based. There is no explanation of how the

lessons will be promoted to other audiences.


Awarded

Maximum

Score





5 5



5 5

20 20


Not entered


Awarded

Maximum

Score




10 10

10 10


This project has three very important components that will aid in its success. First an established lesson plan is being updated instead of starting

from scratch. Secondly, the letter of support from Cleveland Schools promising 24 teacher participants. Most important is the two weeks of training.

Most research reflects the need for at least 80 hours of comprehensive training for it to have impact on the teachers instruction.


Reviewer 4


Awarded

Maximum

Score





20 20


Not entered


Awarded

Maximum

Score




5 5

10 10


Not entered


Awarded

Maximum

Score








29 35


I have some concern that the need listed is clearly additional "high quality teacher professional development" which includes STEM, but the

objectives extend beyond that need. I would understand outcomes extending beyond, but the objectives extend to the point that I question whether

or not they are realistic. There is a lack of clarity in exactly what will be learned by the teachers. To say that the teachers will be become "content

experts" is not realistic, either. The subject of HABs is so complex that one could not possibly fully understand it within 1 week. I need to see specific

data collection skills that will be taught to the teachers relative to the equipment (listed under supplies) being requested, as part of their first week of

PD. I do not see evidence that all of the objectives are truly measurable.


Awarded

Maximum

Score






5 5



skill-building.

5 5



5 5

35 35


Not entered


Awarded

Maximum

Score



3 10


I have concerns with the timing of implementation in the fall. The timeline listed as not adequate for teachers to begin implementation of the

curriculum within 2 weeks of the start of school, even if school would not begin until early September. The timeline for training of the undergrad

Fellows is probably dictated by when CWR starts in the fall; however, that timeline is inconsistent with when teachers will likely need to begin

implementation. If implementation is started on 9/28/18, it is not reasonable to assume that students will be ready for field experiences in the fall. It

is questionable that six weeks is adequate for teachers to submit an equipment list, equipment be ordered and arrive (assuming nothing is on back

order), and then sent on to teachers. Finally, I question a timeline of 6 weeks to create a website that not only provides access to resources, but also

houses a database, especially with no details of who will create that website.


Awarded

Maximum

Score




0 5


3 15


There are not very many measurable outcomes in this proposal. We can measure how many teachers attend the institute, how many of there

students participate, how many lessons are taught. What I don't see are measurable long-term outcomes. If a student participates as a 9th grader,

we could compare standardized test scores from 8th grade (or early 9th grade) to end of year 9th grade, or 10th grade. Even if that is not included in

final grant reports, teachers can use that information. There is absolutely no mention of how outcomes will be measured, which is disappointing. I

was also disappointed to see that the long-term effect for Equity in the Classroom did not include greater participation of minorities and women in

STEM careers, or greater engagement of those populations in science classes.


Awarded

Maximum

Score




10 15


Not entered


Awarded

Maximum

Score





5 5



5 5

16 20


I have many budgetary concerns. If Cleveland MetroParks is donating facility use, etc., and fringe is a separate item, $37.50 seems very high. The

costs of the equipment listed (see "supplies") is not consistent (it is very low) with my experience. Why is over $1400 being spent on Lamotte kits that

are rated for ages 6 and up, when the audience is grades 9-12? I do not see calibration solutions included for pH or conductivity; that is a must for

that type of equipment. "Probes" are generally used with a meter. There is no meter listed as being purchased. Is Cleveland MSD donating use of

a building for a week? Who is hosting the website? Who is designing and maintaining the website? Finally, it is misleading to indicate that teachers

will each receive $500 of supplies for a classroom, but later, in the details to indicate that all material requests will be funneled through the PI so as to

"share more expensive items" to stretch the budget.


Awarded

Maximum

Score




10

10


Not entered


oeef grant application - ohio epaepa.ohio.gov/portals/42/documents/s18g/s18g-052 case western...

Documents