Nh responds evaluation component
Download
1 / 18

NH RESPONDS Evaluation Component - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 67 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

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

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha

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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


NH RESPONDSEvaluation 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

  • Because that’s what all the cool kids are doing…


State Personnel Development Improvement Grants (SIG/SPDGs)

SIG/SPDGs are measured against…

  • OSEP program performance measures

  • NH RESPONDS performance measures


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.


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


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


1. Define the Criteria to Be Evaluated

  • Terminology

    • Goals Long-Term Outcomes or Impact

    • Objectives Short-term & Intermediate Outcomes

    • Activities Outputs


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?


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


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.


3. Writing an Evaluation Plan

  • Components to include:

    • Program goal/objectives

    • Evaluation questions

    • Performance indicators

    • Data collection procedures

    • Data analysis method

    • Person responsible

    • Timeline


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


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


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


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


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.


Evergreen Educational Consulting

WWW.EECVT.COM

EEC@GMAVT.NET

(802) 434-5607

WWW.SIGNETWORK.ORG


ad
  • Login