2010-2012 TITLEIIA(3) IMPROVING TEACHER QUALITY COMPETITIVE GRANTS PROGRAM 1.

2010-2012

TITLEIIA(3) IMPROVING TEACHER

QUALITY COMPETITIVE GRANTS

PROGRAM

1

Evidence Partners Meet Federal Criteria

Student DataIndication of student needs based on available test scores or other pertinent student data

NEEDS DATA

2

Participant Needs Survey DataStandard Survey Form with place to add project-specific questionsAvailable for four core subject areasAvailable in paper/pencil or electronic formSAMPI compiles and returns data for use in proposal development (electronic survey only)

Submit summary of survey data and any additional data (student test scores, etc.) in narrative portion of proposal

Submit raw data with code numbers in database (data bases available for basic needs survey)

NEEDS DATA

3

Other DataProvide data pertinent to partner needs if available

Previous Research/Evaluation FindingsDescribe previous actions taken by IHE partner to address identified needs

Describe value of proposed intervention based on previous findings

Category 1: Describe results of previous TitleIIA(3) project on which proposal is based

NEEDS DATA

4

Teacher/School Commitment Forms Informal “Understanding of Agreement” for teachers

Informal “Understanding of Agreement” showing partner school principal support

Participation in Technical Assistant Session—Part IIPrior to proposal submission to focus on needs data from survey and other

NEEDS DATA

5

EVALUATION

6

1)Improve programming through use of evaluation data and

2)Determine the impact of project and statewide effort on new and returning participants and identify strengths and limitations of the projects.

EVALUATION GOALS:

7

Use common cross-site pre/post surveys, pre/post lesson observations, interview sample of participants, collect teacher artifacts, gather evidence of impact on students

Use additional instruments/procedures specific to project as desired to determine impact or gather implementation data

Gather and report participation/program dataSupport a person with adequate time dedicated to

evaluationExternal or internal, with appropriate expertise and

without major program coordination duties

PROJECT-LEVEL EVALUATION

8

Coordinated by SAMPI—Western Michigan University

Advise on local project use of pre/post surveys, pre/post lesson observation, interviews, teacher artifact collection, student impact data collection procedures

Advise on evaluation as requestedCoordinate cross-site meetings (see below)Conduct observation of project PD activitiesCompile data from across projectsPrepare periodic statewide reports

CROSS-SITE STATE-LEVEL EVALUATION

9

ELEMENTS OF THE EVALUATION

10

Pre/post surveys (plus comparison with previous survey data for Category 1 projects)

Pre/post lesson observations (plus comparison with previous observation for Category 1 projects)

Sample of interviews of participantsCollect sample of teacher artifacts

DETERMINE IMPACT ON TEACHERS/OTHER PARTICIPANTS

11

Student test data as appropriateProcedures to identify changes in student learning (pre/post tests, pre/post surveys, focus group interviews, assessment of student work)

Collect sample of teacher artifacts to show changes

DETERMINE IMPACT ON STUDENTS OF PARTICIPATING TEACHERS

12

1st six months—one face-to-face meeting in Lansing, one webinar

Remainder of project funding period—two face-to-face meetings in Lansing, two webinars

13

Required Common ReportingParticipation levels and demographics, PD types, overall assessment of progress toward goals

Final evaluation reportEnd of project participant-specific data consistent with cross-site statewide data collection

Sharing findings at cross-site sessions

REQUIRED COMMON REPORTING

14

END-OF-PROJECT REPORTING

Director ReportUse standard report format available in electronic version

SAMPI can provide Access database to projects to maintain participation records and to facilitate report preparation

15

PART #1 SAMPLE REPORTING TABLES

Category Number Major Target Audience (Yes or No)

1. Number of different teachers served by the project

2. Number of different administrators served by the project

3. Number of different paraprofessionals served by the project

4. Number of different parents served by the project

5. Number of “others” served by the project

16

PART #2: DIRECTOR PERCEPTIONS OF PROJECT

ACCOMPLISHMENTS

Rate progress toward outcomes

Provide evaluation/other evidence to support rating

17

PART #2: DIRECTOR PERCEPTIONS OF PROJECT ACCOMPLISHMENTS-SAMPLE FORM

Section A:

#1: Intended Outcome (Type in Outcome Statement):

Rating of Progress Toward Outcome: Rate the degree of progress you believe was made in accomplishing this outcome on a 5-point scale, with 1 = no progress and 5 = fully accomplished.

1 2 3 4 5

Evidence to Support Rating (Type in rational for your rating or, if pertinent, note that there is direct evidence in evaluation report section-see below):

Discussion of Progress in Evaluation Section

Yes No Page No.

Complete the following tables, one for each of your intended outcomes as per your proposal. Outcomes are statements of intended impacts or results that will occur as a result of your professional development programming or other project interventions.

18

PART #3: NATURE OF PROFESSIONAL

DEVELOPMENT/INTERVENTIONS

Hours, participants, schedule by type of intervention

Role of college faculty/content experts

Problems planning, implementing project

Problems recruiting teachers19

PART #3 NATURE OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT/INTERVENTIONS

SAMPLE FORM

PD Format

No. Hrs. of this PD Provided Over Entire

Project

Participants for the PD

(Key: T=Teachers, A=Administrators, PP=Para-

Professionals, P=Parents, O=Others)

When was this PD conducted?

(Key: RSD=Regular School Day, AS=After School, EVE=Evening, SAT=Saturday, SUM=Summer)

Workshops (usually one- or half-day sessions)

Institutes (5 or more days usually in summer)

College course work (for credit)

E-Learning Courses (self paced web-based course) 20

NATURE OF PD/INTERVENTIONS, PART #3,

CONTINUED - SAMPLE FORM

Name Position/

Institution

Primary Role

Hours of Involvement

3. Use the chart below to describe higher education faculty (both content and education faculty) or other external expert.

PARTICIPATION IN YOUR PROJECT.

21

PART #4: REQUIRED COMPONENTS OF EVALUATION REPORT

Data collectionProgress toward project outcomesLesson observation dataTeacher and student artifactsImpacts on participating studentsEffectiveness of project partnershipOther

22

PART #4: REQUIRED COMPONENTS OF A PROJECT EVALUATION REPORT

Prepared by your internal evaluator

Based on their evaluation workEvaluation reports will varyShould be appropriately labeled as Core Evaluation Report Components 1 - 6.

23

PART #4: REQUIRED COMPONENTS OF A PROJECT EVALUATION

REPORT, CONTINUED

Core Evaluation Report Component 1: Data Collection

Describe the data collection activities that occurred over the course of the project.

24

PART #4: REQUIRED COMPONENTS OF A PROJECT EVALUATION

REPORT, CONTINUED

Core Evaluation Report Component 2:

Progress Towards Project OutcomesFor each proposed outcome of the project, briefly summarize progress made toward its accomplishment based on evaluation findings.

25

PART #4: REQUIRED COMPONENTS OF A PROJECT EVALUATION REPORT,

CONTINUED

Core Evaluation Report Component 3:

Lesson Observation DataDetailed findings from lesson observations should be included in the evaluator report

26

PART #4: REQUIRED COMPONENTS OF A PROJECT EVALUATION REPORT,

CONTINUED

Core Evaluation Report Component 4:

Lesson Observation DataDetailed findings from lesson observations should be included in the evaluator report

27

Core Evaluation Report Component 5:

Impacts on Students of Participating Teachers

For those projects that have gathered data related to impact on students, detailed findings should be presented in the evaluator’s report, if not part of the Progress Towards Project Outcomes (#2) above.

PART #4: REQUIRED COMPONENTS OF A PROJECT EVALUATION REPORT,

CONTINUED

28

PART #4: REQUIRED COMPONENTS OF A PROJECT EVALUATION

REPORT, CONTINUED

Core Evaluation Report Component 6:

Effectiveness of Project Partnership

Briefly describe the effectiveness of the partnership in implementing project activities. Provide evidence for your findings.

29

OTHER REPORTING (OPTIONAL)

Report as appendix to core required report

Can include information Director wants to share about intervention, materials used, etc.

Can include additional evaluation or other pertinent data about project

Can include samples of teacher or student materials 30

QUESTIONS?

Contact information: Kristin Everett – SAMPI, Western Michigan Unversity

[email protected], (269) 387-3791

31