In order for our J.W. Killam School to become a success, we will be looking for the following items to be supported by your grant funding. In order to achieve the optimum level of choice, our school will need:
-updated technology for all grades, i.e. tablets, laptops, internet access
-staff to maintain the technology
-more staff in the arts/technology areas, i.e. drama teacher, band teacher, Lego engineering teacher
21 st century skills quote 122- things need to be supported
It is extremely important to us that this grant be successfully implemented at our school. In order to determine it's effectiveness, we will be partner with a grant evaluator. This grant evaluator, Sun Associates, has extensive experience being an outside set of eyes to determine whehter adopted grants have been successful.
Information from Kara Gleason- re Sun Associates Sun Associates actually does evaluation for technology integration so their website might be helpful to you. The right hand side of their home page has a bunch of links for “evaluation” and many include district technology plans or curriculum technology integration. http://www.sun-associates.com/
Sun Associates is the independent evaluator for our grant. They actually are helpful in many steps of the grant process from writing/reviewing the grant, helping the project to fine-tune its objectives, evaluating how the grant is meeting its goals (presenting evaluation findings), providing the project (and the US DOE) with an evaluation report, and providing recommendations to the project.
A summary of their evaluation practice and instruments used for TAH is as follows: Sun Associates, History Connected external evaluators, work throughout the project year to observe project activities, attend project meetings, collect qualitative and quantitative data, and to make formative findings and recommendations based on the project’s indicators. Upon analysis, this data leads to a set of evaluation findings and related recommendations which are reported to the project via monthly formative evaluation meetings and annually in a summative written annual evaluation report.
Evaluation instruments developed and used include:
oThe pretest was taken by all participants on October 28, 2010. oThe post-test was taken by “completers” on July 15, 2011. oPart-time participants took their post-test on their final day in the project which varied depending on their final activity.
Focus group questions
Participant online surveys
Professional development observation protocol
Participant work product review protocol
Classroom Observation protocol
I also attached the narrative for our 2011 TAH proposal (which you may have already looked at). Competitive preference priority #3 describes data based decision making (ie evaluation data to be collected) and Section 5 (p47) presents the evaluation plan.
In order for our J.W. Killam School to become a success, we will be looking for the following items to be supported by your grant funding.
In order to achieve the optimum level of choice, our school will need:
-updated technology for all grades, i.e. tablets, laptops, internet access
-staff to maintain the technology
-more staff in the arts/technology areas, i.e. drama teacher, band teacher, Lego engineering teacher
21 st century skills quote 122- things need to be supported
It is extremely important to us that this grant be successfully implemented at our school. In order to determine it's effectiveness, we will be partner with a grant evaluator. This grant evaluator, Sun Associates, has extensive experience being an outside set of eyes to determine whehter adopted grants have been successful.
Information from Kara Gleason- re Sun Associates
Sun Associates actually does evaluation for technology integration so their website might be helpful to you. The right hand side of their home page has a bunch of links for “evaluation” and many include district technology plans or curriculum technology integration.
http://www.sun-associates.com/
Sun Associates is the independent evaluator for our grant. They actually are helpful in many steps of the grant process from writing/reviewing the grant, helping the project to fine-tune its objectives, evaluating how the grant is meeting its goals (presenting evaluation findings), providing the project (and the US DOE) with an evaluation report, and providing recommendations to the project.
A summary of their evaluation practice and instruments used for TAH is as follows:
Sun Associates, History Connected external evaluators, work throughout the project year to observe project activities, attend project meetings, collect qualitative and quantitative data, and to make formative findings and recommendations based on the project’s indicators. Upon analysis, this data leads to a set of evaluation findings and related recommendations which are reported to the project via monthly formative evaluation meetings and annually in a summative written annual evaluation report.
Evaluation instruments developed and used include:
- Participant content test[1]
oThe pretest was taken by all participants on October 28, 2010.oThe post-test was taken by “completers” on July 15, 2011.
oPart-time participants took their post-test on their final day in the project which varied depending on their final activity.
I also attached the narrative for our 2011 TAH proposal (which you may have already looked at). Competitive preference priority #3 describes data based decision making (ie evaluation data to be collected) and Section 5 (p47) presents the evaluation plan.