1 / 29

Welcome!!!!

Welcome!!!!. GEAR UP Continuous Improvement Evaluation Planning Awards. Provided by the U.S. Department of Education Maggie Cahalan James Maxwell Sandra Furey Administered by RTI International Beth Glennie Karen Charles. Agenda. Overview/Background/History Priorities Phases

lane
Télécharger la présentation

Welcome!!!!

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. Welcome!!!!

  2. GEAR UP Continuous Improvement Evaluation Planning Awards Provided by the U.S. Department of Education Maggie Cahalan James Maxwell Sandra Furey Administered by RTI International Beth Glennie Karen Charles

  3. Agenda • Overview/Background/History • Priorities • Phases • Statement of Interest • Intervention • Evaluation Requirements • Management/Anticipated Costs

  4. Purpose of Planning Awards • Promote rigorous studies of promising interventions • Foster program innovation and improvement • Support continuous program improvement

  5. Priority Areas: Services to support… • …transition of 8th grade GEAR UP cohort members into high school and support for achieving 9th grade success. • …the achievement of successful completion of grade appropriate math or other services to promote math mastery. • …GEAR UP cohorts in high school in their readiness to enter college without the need for remedial coursework.

  6. Eligibility Questions • Who is eligible? • Current grantees received announcement • Those grantees for whom implementation of the evaluation and/or intervention is feasible for cohort

  7. Pause… • Am I eligible? • Do I understand the priorities? • Does my current program fit the requirements? ……continued

  8. Three Phases: Phase 1 • SOIs for planning awards • Must describe implementation plan • Time to complete ~ 1 month • Due August 21, 2009 • Awarded October 2009 • Award of $25,000 • Used to develop full proposal FOCUS: Getting a planning award

  9. Three Phases: Phase 2 • Proposal development period • Use of $25,000 planning award • Due March 15, 2010 • Focus is rigorous evaluation • 5 month duration • Writing to win an implementation award of approximately $100,000 FOCUS: Writing a promising plan Engaging the players

  10. Three Phases: Phase 3 • Duration of intervention and evaluation • Leverage award w/other funding • Awards announced June 15, 2010 • Intervention must begin no later than Summer 2011 • To include 1 or 2 years of student data FOCUS: Implementing a promising plan Delivering services Gathering evaluation data

  11. SOI Narrative • The Intervention • The Evaluation • The Management • The Anticipated Costs To be awarded the planning funds, you will submit a brief narrative of your proposed plan.

  12. The Intervention • Project Objectives – what do you hope to accomplish; which priority • Methods • What - new, modified, current • Who – target and comparison groups • How – delivery method(s) • When - timeline • Why – how does intervention address objectives

  13. The Intervention: Algebra Bridge Project Project Objectives -70% of students participating in both the Saturday Academies and Summer Bridge Program will pass the End of Grade/End of Course algebra test administered by the district/state Priority – provide services to support the transition of 8th grade GEAR UP cohort members into high school and support for achieving 9th grade success

  14. The Intervention: Algebra Bridge Project • Methods • What – we will modify & expand our current summer bridge program to focus on understanding algebraic concepts • Who – we will recruit the 8th grade students of 2010/11 who are enrolled in a pre-algebra/general math class and who will enroll in Algebra I as 9th graders. • How • – we will offer Saturday academies monthly throughout the 2010/11 school year to interested students to support their understanding of algebraic concepts • - we will offer a Summer Bridge program for 6 wks in 2011 to continue the work of the Saturday academies • - we will gather mid-term and final algebra grades at the end of the 9th grade (June 2012) and analyze results • When – June 2010 – June 2012 • Why – by supporting the students while they are in 8th grade, we feel we will give them greater capacity to build a solid foundation for algebra before they enter high school

  15. Examples of Measurable Objectives Algebra Bridge Project • Behavioral - A human action is anticipated. • Example: 75% of participating students will learn basic algebraic concepts. • Performance - A specific time frame within which a behavior will occur, at an expected proficiency level, is expected. • Example: 75% of participating students will learn basic algebraic concepts during the Saturday Academies and the six weeks summer bridge program and will pass the 9th grade EOC algebra test. • Process - The manner in which something occurs is an end in itself. • Example: Project staff will document the teaching methods and activities utilized, and will identify those with the greatest success. • Product - A tangible item results. • Example: An evaluation report will be submitted to document outcomes of the program and proficiency of the cohort.

  16. Evaluation Requirements • conduct NEW evaluations of current services • modify current services and evaluate outcomes • implement new intervention and evaluate EVALUATION OPTIONS EVALUATION OUTCOMES • rely on short-term outcomes from 1 or 2 academic years • use readily available, objective indicators/scores • relate measureable outcomes to objectives EVALUATION SUBJECTS • target group receiving intervention • comparison group with no intervention

  17. The Evaluation • The Cohorts – must have a target and a control group for full proposal • The Measures – must identify the student data to be used to measure success; must define ‘success’ • Data Collection – must describe how, when the student data will be collected • The Method – must describe why the data collected is evidence of success, how the data was analyzed • The Report – must indicate how and with whom the program data will be shared

  18. Comparison Group Examples • Cohort A gets 2 program components while cohort B gets only 1 component (A gets Saturday Academies & Summer Bridge; B gets only Summer Bridge) • Cohorts A and B get 2 different types of services (A gets Saturday Academies and B gets Summer Bridge) • Cohorts A and B get 2 different deliveries (A studies Algebra w/interactive activities with others; B studies algebra on the computer • Cohort A gets the entire program while cohort B is a former cohort who received limited math services but for whom you have EOC scores from a previous year

  19. The Management: Phase 2/Specific • Preparation of full proposal – do you have staff to prepare a full proposal in 5 months? Who? • Teaming – will you be teaming with other GEAR UP grantees? Encouraged!! • Roles/Responsibilities – who will be doing what during Phase 2

  20. The Management: Phase 3/General • Key Personnel – Project contact, fiscal agent, GEAR UP coordinator, school liaisons, evaluator, other partners, possible teams • Staff – technical assistance providers, teachers, volunteers • Roles/Responsibilities – who will be doing what • Project Schedule – narrative description of tasks and table of task implementation

  21. Schedule Example by Month: Algebra Bridge Project July Aug June Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug

  22. The Anticipated Costs Personnel – Refers to salaries and wages, as well as to fringe benefits and health insurance. Evaluation – Refers to services of evaluator, data collection costs, analysis, reporting, etc. Equipment/Materials – Refers to equipment needs, supplies, manipulatives, software, student incentives

  23. Estimating Costs Any supplemental funding can be mentioned here.

  24. Estimating Costs: Algebra Bridge Project $25,000 in kind software available.

  25. Cost Justification: Algebra Bridge Project Staff: we will hire 2 district middle school math teachers to help design and deliver the content of the Saturday Academies and Summer Bridge Project; they will work full-time for 4 weeks summer 2010, 2 days/mo Sept-May 2010/11, and 8 weeks summer 2011. Project managers will be paid from other funds. Evaluation: we expect the project evaluator to need 12 weeks across the life of the project to design/complete the evaluation and prepare the final report. Equipment/Materials: we will purchase manipulatives and provide snacks for students; we will purchase materials for the evaluation

  26. Writing Your SOI FOLLOW the RULES • submit as a single PDF, Adobe or Post Script • page limit – 10 pages including budget • single spaced, Times New Roman, 12 pt font • four sections in the statement narrative

  27. Winning Tips • Capacity of the Applicant to Implement • Can you deliver, evidence of success? • Description of Need • who, why, what • Soundness of Intervention & Delivery Approach • provide rationale for program and delivery strategies • exude quality, appropriateness, alignment w/needs • Leveraging of Resources • available resources • possible partnerships, collaborations • Achieving Results & Program Evaluation • list available outcome measures • describe data collection, variables, groups

  28. SOIs: What Makes Them Convincing • is capable of developing strong, feasible, useful, replicable full proposal • understands the purpose of awards • has described a promising intervention • presents a rigorous evaluation plan • intends to share results Reviewer must believe that the grantee:

  29. Contact Information GEARUPtechsupport@rti.org https://edsurveys.rti.org/GEARUP

More Related