Public Burden Statement:
According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless such collection displays a valid OMB control number. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 30 hours per response, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. The obligation to respond to this collection is required to obtain or retain benefit (Title II, Part D, Subpart 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended. Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20210-4537 or email ICDocketMgr@ed.gov and reference the OMB Control Number 1810-0702. Note: Please do not return the completed evaluation report to this address.
Report Due Date: Annually beginning on September 30, 201X
Report Period Covered: Fiscal year (FY) 201X/school year (SY) 201X-201X sub-recipient awards.
The State Evaluation Report should cover Title II, Part D (Ed Tech) activities1 funded with FY 20XX regular allocations and/or FY 201X allocations awarded under the American Recovery and Investment Act of 2009 (ARRA). The report should include evaluation of Ed Tech-funded activities that were initiated during SY 201X using FY 201X funds and activities that were continued from prior awards using FY 201X funds.
Qualification: The Department recognizes that for the evaluation report due by September 30, 201X, evaluations of FY 201X Ed-Tech-funded activities may not have produced sufficient evaluative data to report findings, conclusions and recommendations. Nonetheless, States are expected to have planned and initiated evaluations of FY 201X Ed Tech-funded activities well in advance of the report due date. States should report on the details and status of their evaluations as of the report due date. In addition, evaluations of activities begun in a prior year and continued with FY 2009 funds should be at a stage in their implementation to, at minimum, produce preliminary findings, conclusions and recommendations.
Purpose: Sections 2402(a)(7) and 2413(b)(4) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended (ESEA) require States and local educational agencies (LEAs) that receive Ed Tech funds to conduct rigorous evaluation of the effectiveness of Ed Tech formula and competitive grant-funded projects, activities and strategies in integrating technology into curricula and instruction and improving student achievement. The purpose of this reporting requirement is to identify from the results of those evaluations innovative projects, activities and strategies that effectively infuse technology with curriculum and instruction, show evidence of positive impacts for student learning, and can be widely replicated by State educational agencies and LEAs in the State and in other States.
Report Template: The Evaluation Report Template that follows provides instructions to States for preparing their annual report on the evaluation of ESEA Title II, Part D-funded activities.2 In general, the evaluation report will:
Detail the activities being evaluated,
Explain the process and measures used to evaluate the effectiveness of the activity,
Present findings and conclusions supported by evidence about the activities’ effectiveness, and
Propose concrete and usable recommendations for disseminating, replicating and scaling of effective projects, activities and practice, as appropriate, based on the evidence and lessons learned.
The detailed instructions are designed to support the Department’s plans for (a) compiling and analyzing the information extracted from the 52 State evaluation reports and (b) presenting the information in a way that is meaningful and useful to the Department, States, school districts and other users.
Page Limitations: The Department is not imposing restrictions on the number of pages of the report. The numbers of pages indicated for each section are suggestive. Font for body text is to be 12 point, Times New Roman for readability.
Report Submission: Reports are to be submitted to the Department via e-mail no later than 5:00 PM ET on September 30, 201X. Each State must submit its report in two electronic forms: one in Microsoft Word version and one as a PDF containing the authentic signature of the submitting official. E-mail reports to the Ed Tech program mail box which can be accessed at: www.eett.ed.gov. Questions concerning the reports should be addressed to: Dr. Edward Smith Edward.smith@ed.gov
Report Template and Specific Instructions:
Title Page
The title and opening pages of the report should include the following information.
Title of the report
Date (date submitted)
Name and location of State department of education
Key State officials responsible for the report (Chief State School Officers, Technology Director, others as appropriate)
Names and organizations of evaluators (if external)
Names and organizations of report preparers
Acknowledgements
Signature line for State Official submitting the report
Table of contents
The Table of Contents lists the “Titled Sections” (and sometimes sub-sections) of the report in the order of their location in the report and indicates the beginning page number for each section. The Table of Contents also should include a section with page references for tables, graphs, figures and appendices.
Executive Summary (suggested 2-3 pages)
The Executive Summary is a stand-alone section that summarizes the evaluation. It should contain enough information to familiarize the reader with the main points of the evaluation without having to read through all of the report details. It should:
Identify the activities and initiative being evaluated
Explain the purpose and objectives of the evaluation
Describe the key aspects of the evaluation approach and methods
Summarize the main findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
Introduction (suggested 2-4 pages)
This section introduces the reader to the evaluation and the report contents.
Briefly describe the activity that is being evaluated, whom the activity is intended to benefit and how it is intended to benefit them. Explain the importance of the activity in meeting the instructional improvement and student achievement goals and purposes of Ed Tech.
Discuss the purpose3 and objectives of the evaluation (i.e., why the evaluation was conducted and what it was and was not intended to accomplish).
Explain the evaluation approach that the State used to meet this reporting requirement, the rationale for selecting that approach, and how the State expects that the approach selected will contribute to the evaluation purposes.
Examples of Possible Approaches |
|
|
|
|
Identify the evaluation team and whether the evaluation was conducted wholly or in part by internal (district or State officials) or by external sources; identify who prepared the report.
Evaluation timetable
The total cost allocation for the evaluation and amount expended at the time of the report.
Introduce the reader to the structure of the report.
II. State Ed Tech Program Context (suggested 3-5 pages)
This section of the report should provide the reader with an overall picture of the Ed Tech grant program as context for understanding what is being evaluated and why.
Summary: State Ed Tech Allocations and Awards
Total amount of FY 201X funding for the State.
FY 2____ ARRA Allocation |
FY 2___ Regular Allocation |
Total FY 2___Allocation |
|
|
|
The number, percent and amounts of FY 201X grants awarded competitively and by formula based on the total FY 201X appropriation (the combined total of ARRA and regular funds).
Type of Award |
Number of Awards |
Percent of Awards |
Range of Award Amounts (Lowest –Highest) |
Average (Median) Award Amount |
Formula |
|
|
|
|
Competitive |
|
|
|
|
Competitive Grant Program Description
Describe the overall goal(s) of the State’s competitive grant program (i.e. what the program sought to achieve).
Describe how the goals and objectives of the State’s Ed Tech competitive program are aligned with the State’s strategic goals for education reform and improvement.
Briefly describe how the goals, objectives and activities funded under the State’s Ed Tech competitive program are expected to achieve the objectives of the Ed Tech program:
Improve student achievement
Improve teaching
Integrate technology with curriculum, instruction, and professional development.
Briefly describe how the goals and objectives of the State’s Ed Tech competitive program support(s) the U.S. Department of Education’s strategic priorities for education reform and improvement:
Improving the quality of teachers and school-leaders
Adopting career and college-ready standards for students
Using data to support and improve instruction and assess school and teacher effectiveness
Implementing high quality, high intensity effort to reform struggling schools
Implementing School and classroom innovations
Formula Grant Program Description
Briefly describe how the goals, objectives and activities funded under the State’s Ed Tech formula grant program are expected to achieve the objectives of the Ed Tech program to:
Improve student achievement
Improve teaching
Integrate technology with curriculum, instruction, and professional development.
Briefly describe how the goals, objectives and activities funded under the State’s Ed Tech formula grant program support(s) the U.S. Department of Education’s strategic priorities for education reform and improvement:
Improving the quality of teachers and school-leaders
Adopting career and college-ready standards for students
Using data to support and improve instruction and assess school and teacher effectiveness
Implementing high quality, high intensity effort to reform struggling schools
Implementing School and classroom innovations.
III. The Activity (suggested 5-7 pages each for formula and competitive)
This section of the report describes in detail the activity that is being evaluated. Whether the evaluation is of a single activity, a cluster of activities, or whether the activity is being implemented in different ways in different settings, the activity must be described in sufficient detail so that the average reader will understand what the activity is, its scale and complexity, what it seeks to achieve for whom, and the “Theory of Action” that explains why the activity is expected to achieve the intended results. A full description of what is being evaluated is not only critical to understanding the evaluation and its results, but provides the context for assessing the extent to which the activity can be replicated and under what conditions. Include a detailed discussion of each of the following aspects of the funded activity:
Features
Nature of the activity and the educational/instructional issue it seeks to address.
The specific programs, services, technology, strategies, etc. involved in the activity.
The specific outcomes that the activity seeks to achieve and for whom.
“Theory of Action,” i.e. how the activity is expected to produce the desired outcomes. Explain the key assumptions (including the expected “results chain”) underlying the relationship between activities and expected outcomes.
The planned duration of the activity and the status of its implementation at the time of the report.
Resources Allocated
The total Ed Tech funded amount for the activity per annum
Who provides the services/activities (e.g., any partners, outside vendors, district, school or State officials)
The total resources for the activity from all sources, including human resources and budget(s) (i.e., per pupil expenditures from State, federal, local funds)
The percent/proportion of funds accounted for by Ed Tech funding.
Scale and Complexity
The number of districts, schools, classrooms, teachers, and students involved in the activity (i.e., either participate directly or are expected to benefit).
The demographics of the participating districts, schools and classrooms, including: the locale, size, percentage of families in poverty, number/percentage of districts/schools in “improvement” status, number/percentage of the lowest performing schools in the district/State identified by the State for Title I, Part A School Improvement Grant funding.
Other contextual variables that have or could have an impact on the program and its results.
IV. The Evaluation (suggested 3-5 pages each for formula and competitive)
Scope
Make clear which aspect(s) of the activity and which intended outcomes of activity are covered by this evaluation report and which are not.
Define the unit of analysis covered by the evaluation (e.g., evaluation of a single project, a series of individual project evaluations, a cluster of related activities across projects, a cluster of projects, a subcomponent, process or strategy within a project, etc.)
Explain the evaluation parameters for this report (i.e., which of the expected outcomes will be addressed in the report and which will not be addressed).
Explain the rationale for selecting the specific focus for this report.
Objectives and Questions
Provide a clear explanation of the evaluation’s primary objectives, evaluation criteria and key questions.
Specify the primary objective(s) of the evaluation and how that (those) objective(s) contributes (contribute) to the evaluation purpose.
Define the evaluation criteria (the performance measures or success standards) that will be used to assess the extent to which the intended results of the activity were achieved.
Explain the rationale for selecting the particular criteria.
Detail the key evaluation questions the evaluation addresses and explain how the answers to those questions will satisfy the evaluation objectives. Also, point out any key questions that the evaluation does not address and why.
Evaluation Methods
Describe in detail the data collection methods and analyses selected for the evaluation, and the rationale for their selection. Discuss each of the following:
The sources of information (e.g. State assessments, classroom observations, interviews, student records) and the rationale for their selection.
Explain how the data will be used to answer the evaluation questions.
Describe the criteria and process for selecting the sample for the evaluation (e.g., random, purposive), the extent to which the sample is representative of the entire target population, and the rationale for using the sample selection criteria and process. If applicable, explain how comparison and treatment groups were assigned.
The procedures (i.e., who collected the data, how, the timeframe and circumstances) and the instruments (e.g. interview protocols, observation tools) used to collect the data. Discuss their appropriateness for the data source and evidence of their reliability and validity.
Methods used for data analysis.
Any major limitations of the methodology and the resulting implications for the evaluation and how to interpret findings.
Complete the evaluation matrix provided below.
Evaluation Matrix |
||||
Key Questions |
Data Sources |
Data collection Methods / Instruments |
Performance Indicators/ Success Standards |
Methods for Data Analysis |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Results (suggested 3-5 pages each for formula and competitive)
Findings4
Specify the actual results of the data collection, including rates of return and missing data;
Describe the procedures for analyzing the data, including the steps evaluators took to confirm the accuracy of the data;
Discuss the statistical analysis, if appropriate;
First present findings as objective facts free of interpretations; then interpret findings to give meaning to the objective data;
Structure findings and interpretations around the evaluation questions so that it is easy to make the connection between the questions the evaluation sought to answer and what was learned;
Present positive and negative findings, unanticipated findings, as well as identify questionable findings;
Identify potential weaknesses in the data and the possible influence on the way findings should be interpreted and conclusions drawn; and
Use graphics (e.g.: charts or tables) to illustrate the information, as appropriate.
Conclusions
Present the conclusions based on the interpretation of findings around each of the key questions. Conclusions reported should be well substantiated by the evidence and logically connected to evaluation findings.
Recommendations and Lessons Learned (suggested 3-5 pages each for formula and competitive)
Based on the results of evaluation, propose concrete and usable recommendations for dissemination, replication and scaling of the activity, as appropriate.
Discuss what lessons were learned and why those lessons are meaningful and applicable for scaling the activity in other contexts.
Appendices
The following should be included as Appendices, as appropriate:
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
Evaluation timetable
Bibliography of references
Instruments used to collect data: questionnaires, surveys, student assessments, observation protocols, sample student and/or teacher portfolio, interview protocols, etc. Include evidence or attestation as to their reliability and validity.
Detailed results chain associated with the “Theory of Action”
Tables of findings
1 The term “Activities” refers to the projects, programs, activities, services, strategies, hardware and software, etc. for which LEAs received Title II, D formula or competitive grant funds. States need only report on those funded activities that are of a sufficient size to be effective, consistent with the purposes of this part.
2 The reports submitted September 30, 201X and September 30, 201X should include activities funded with FY 2009 ARRA Ed Tech funds.
3 Consistent with the purposes and requirements in sections 2402(a)(7), 2413(b)(4) and other goals and purposes of ESEA Title II, Part D, the purposes of this evaluation are (1) to conduct rigorous evaluation of the effectiveness of Title II, Part D formula and competitive grant-funded projects, activities and strategies in integrating technology into curricula and instruction, and (2) to identify effective practices that can be widely replicated by State educational agencies and local educational agencies in the State and in other States.
4 The Department recognizes that for the evaluation report due by September 30, 201X, evaluations of FY 201X Ed Tech- funded activities may not have produced sufficient evaluative data to report findings, conclusions and recommendations. However, evaluations of activities begun in a prior year and continued with FY 201X funds should be at a stage in their implementation to, at minimum, produce preliminary findings, conclusions and recommendations.
| File Type | application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document |
| File Title | Template for the Evaluation Report |
| Author | Marshall, Enid |
| File Modified | 0000-00-00 |
| File Created | 2021-01-29 |