1 / 18

NH RESPONDS Evaluation Component

NH RESPONDS Evaluation Component. Pat Mueller David Merves October 6, 2008. Why We Collect Data/Evaluate?. Somebody said you had to Inform instruction School improvement Local, state, and federal accountability Public information Choose/set policy Marketing

tudor
Download Presentation

NH RESPONDS Evaluation Component

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. NH RESPONDSEvaluation Component Pat Mueller David Merves October 6, 2008

  2. Why We Collect Data/Evaluate? • Somebody said you had to • Inform instruction • School improvement • Local, state, and federal accountability • Public information • Choose/set policy • Marketing • Because that’s what all the cool kids are doing…

  3. State Personnel Development Improvement Grants (SIG/SPDGs) SIG/SPDGs are measured against… • OSEP program performance measures • NH RESPONDS performance measures

  4. SPDG Program Performance Measures • % of personnel receiving professional development (PD) on scientific-or evidence-based instructional practices. • % of projects that have implemented PD/training activities that are aligned with improvement strategies in the State Performance Plan (SPP). • % of PD/training activities provided that are based on scientific-or evidence-based instructional/behavioral practices.

  5. SPDG Program Performance Measures • % of PD/ training activities that are sustained through on-going and comprehensive practices (e.g., mentoring, coaching). • % of SPDG projects that successfully replicate the use of scientifically based or evidence-based instructional/behavioral practice in schools

  6. Steps for Conducting an Evaluation SELECT THE CRITERIA AND STANDARDS DEVELOP LOGIC MODEL PREPARE AN EVALUATION PLAN COLLECT DATA ANALYZING DATA & UNDERSTANDING RESULTS COMMUNICATE THE FINDINGS

  7. 1. Define the Criteria to Be Evaluated • Terminology • Goals Long-Term Outcomes or Impact • Objectives Short-term & Intermediate Outcomes • Activities Outputs

  8. Two Types of Evaluation Standards • Process/Formative: Assesses ongoing project activities • Begins at program implementation and continues throughout program • Is the program being delivered as planned? • Is the program progressing towards its goals and objectives?

  9. Two Types of Evaluation Standards • Outcome/Summative: Assesses the program’s success and whether the program or initiative had an impact. • Compares the actual results to projected goals/objectives. • Typically used for decision making purposes • Important to look for unanticipated outcomes

  10. 2. Logic Models • A conceptual model that links an initiative’s goals and objectives, with expected outputs and/or outcomes. • Numerous types of logic models. • There are many other methods of illustrating the conceptual framework of an initiative.

  11. 3. Writing an Evaluation Plan • Components to include: • Program goal/objectives • Evaluation questions • Performance indicators • Data collection procedures • Data analysis method • Person responsible • Timeline

  12. 4. Collecting Data • Process/formative data • Amount and type of PD provided • Satisfaction and utility of PD provided • Products developed • These data tend to be gathered by those providing PD • Outcome/Summative data • Reduced office discipline referrals • Reduced suspensions/expulsions • Improved reading scores • These data tend to be collected from the LEA or SEA

  13. NH RESPONDS Data Collection Tools • PD Activity Log completed by TA/PD providers • Minutes • Leadership Team meetings • Workgroup meetings • School & District Improvement Team minutes/products • Surveys/Interviews/Focus groups • Annual Participating Personnel Survey (March/April) • Workshop surveys

  14. NH RESPONDS Data Collection Tools • Fidelity instruments (for PBIS & Literacy) • Benchmarks of Quality • School-wide Evaluation Tool • Existing data • Office Discipline Referrals • Suspension/expulsion data • Reading scores

  15. 5. Analyzing Data & Understanding Results • SAU/School-Level • Analysis of student performance to improve instruction (i.e. reading scores) • Analysis of school-level data to improve safety and/or climate (i.e. SET) • Project/Grant Level • Analysis of formative data for program improvement purposes • Aggregate analysis of all outcome data to describe impact of NH RESPONDS

  16. 6. Communicate the Findings (Reporting) • Provide on-going feedback to project management (what’s working/what’s not). • Provide on-going data to the NH Bureau related to completion of objectives and success of project efforts. • Provide annual report to the U.S. Department of Education related to completion of objectives and success of project efforts.

  17. Evergreen Educational Consulting WWW.EECVT.COM EEC@GMAVT.NET (802) 434-5607 WWW.SIGNETWORK.ORG

More Related