Evaluation for Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development
Evaluation for Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development A Proposal Submitted to Far West Laboratory By Desert Educational AssociatesIntroduction In July of 2011, the Far West Laboratory for Educational Research andDevelopment (FWL) issued a request for proposal (RFP) for the evaluation ofdetermining instructional purpose (DIP). This document is a proposal from DesertEducational Associates of High Desert, Utah submitted in response to the Far WestLaboratory RFP.Far West Laboratory Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development has twopurposes for this request. The primary concern is to provide information andrecommendations for use in making decisions regarding dissemination of the units. Thesecondary purpose is to provide use of information that is useful to the schooladministrators in making decision about purchase and use of the units. FWL has an overall goal to determine whether or not funding should go forwardon marketing and creating the DIP training program package. This is to assure FWL thatthe DIP has marketability and funding should be put in place. The DIP is trainingprogram intended for school administrators and graduate students, and developed byFWL. The DIP contains a coordinators handbook, and three training units. Unit 1 isSetting Goals, Unit 2 is Analyzing Problems, and Unit 3 is Deriving Objectives. Each ofthe units contains four to six modules that provide training on a limited number ofinstructions.
Evaluation Method The initial meeting will include members of the evaluating team, FWL board ofdirectors, lead administrators and lead coordinators. The meeting will have the purposeof identifying three questions that can provide key information to fully conduct aformative and summative evaluation of the DIP. The group was able to come up with the following questions and sub-questionsfor evaluating the DIP. 1. Do unit coordinators receive adequate training? a. To implement a program in a school or district? b. To train faculty of staff in a district or school? c. To be able to support a school or district if additional units are required? 2. How effectively do schools support the implementation of project goals? a. Are the teachers receiving instructional development that supports the use of the unit in the classroom? b. Are administrators receiving instructional development to assist with monitoring the units in use? c. Is the tech support for the district or school receiving training in use and problem solving abilities for assisting the unit coordinators? 3. Does the new technology in the form of DIP units support the funding necessary? a. What kind of cost is involved for additional units? b. What is the replacement cost? c. When the technology goes out of date will support be provided for updating the units to meet the newer technology demands? i. What kinds of cost are expected with updating the units? The questions will be answered in varies ways by faculty, administrators,coordinators, and tech support at the schools and district office. They are to be conductedthrough the process of using surveys sent out through email, questionnaires, interviewsand observations.Task Schedule The task schedule is located on page three of the proposal and assumes a start dateof July 25, 2011. The completion date scheduled for March 25, 2011.Project Personnel Desert Educational Associates has specialized in the development and evaluationof educational programs for 25 years. Our resume includes school districts of more then200,000 students and as few as 3,500 students. We pride ourselves on the ability toconduct a complete and comprehensive evaluation that allows our clients to succeed inaccomplishing their goals.
Task Schedule Evaluation of Far West LaboratoryTask Agency Deadline Responsible Date1. Meeting with primary individuals listed DEA July 25, 2011 in cover page.2. Submit all date collection plans and DEA August 10 instruments intended to be used. This includes survey, interview and questionnaires.3. Provide ETA on feedback for data DEA August 30 collected in phases in order of protocol.4. Revise data collection if necessary to DEA Sept. 10 assure adequate responses.5. Collect all remaining data surveys, DEA Dec. 5 interviews, and questionnaires’.6. Summarize data in all phases and meet DEA Jan. 25, 2012 with FWL client members and discuss summarized data.7. Provide ETA for findings concerning DEA Feb. 15 cost analysis.8. Summarize and analyze data and meet DEA March 5 with FWL client members and present data.9. Write final report and submit to FWL. DEA March 25, 2012
Dr. David Spanton, received his doctoral degree from UCLA school of education inInstructional Design and Program Evaluations, MS from Harvard school of social sciencein Psychology, and BS from Boise State University school of education in SecondaryScience. He will lead the team in conducting the evaluation of FWL. His experience inthis field includes evaluation and program planning for Arizona State University,Tennessee, and Florida State University. He has also conducted evaluations at the statepublic education level for: Clark County School District, LA school district, Wambatschool district and Martinville school district. His resume includes conductingevaluations for companies such as Davis Ed Tech services and J&J Educational ProgramSpecialist.Dr. Mary Larson, received her doctoral degree from University of Utah school ofeducation in Curriculum Development & Evaluation, MS from San Diego StateUniversity school of education in Instructional Design, and BS form Texas A&M schoolof education in Agricultural Science. Her resume includes program evaluations of DixieState College and Mesa Community College. She has also conducted evaluations for aprivate academy Mesa Verde Fine Arts Academy. She was CEO of Special InstructionDevelopment, a company that specialized in alternative source of instruction for specialneeds learners in public education. The evaluation team will also include two technology support staff and twograduate assistances form UCLA.Budget The proposed budget for the evaluation of Far West Laboratory is $38,070. Abreakdown of the proposed budget and payment schedule are shown on the last page.
Proposed Budget and Payment SchedulePersonnel Professional salaries Dr. Spanton: 25 days @ $500/day $12,500 Dr. Jones 20 days @ $350/day $7,000 Tech Support 30 days @ $200/day x2 $12,000 Support Staff 16 days @ $120/day x2 $1,920 Total Personnel: $33,420Travel and per Diem 3 2-day round trip: Denver to Sacramento $1,200 Estimated misc. millage 600 miles @$0.30 per mile $180 3 visits at an estimated travel per Diem of $125 per visit $450 Total Travel: $1,830Communications Telephone (est. average of $110 per month for 7 months) $770 Postage $80 Total Communications: $1,570Supplies, Materials and Photocopies Supplies and photocopies $500 Materials $750 Total Supplies, materials and photocopies $1,250 Total Budget $38,070