2.  AKA CIPP  Evaluators: Elaine Carlson and Tom Munk  Assist in summative evaluation of the center  Helped develop standardized logic model  Helped develop summative evaluation plan  Helped develop evaluation instruments  Will conduct data analysis of summative evaluation data

3. Inputs Funding Expertise Lessons learned Evidence-based practices Research base Time Materials and technology OSEP priorities SEA/LEA needs State readiness Goals 1.Increase the awareness of policymakers, administrators, and practitioners about dropout prevention, reentry, and school completion. 2.Increase the number of states that set and meet reasonable and rigorous performance targets for Indicators 1 and 2. Other Federal activities, OSEP policy environment, Clemson’s experience with the previous NDPC-SD, general education reforms, and economic trends that influence labor markets. External Factors/Context ActivitiesOutputs Direct Intermediate Long-term Outcomes A.Provide knowledge development. Increase the awareness of policymakers, administrators, and practitioners about school completion. Number and quality of comprehensive reviews completed on schedule Number of contacts with general TA providers on incorporating school completion models and practices Decrease the number of students with disabilities who drop out of school. Number of training activities developed and delivered Number of forums held Number/type/content/timing of TA activities Type/number/audience of TA&D activities Type/number/content of materials produced Number of APR support materials developed Amount of TA delivered and outcomes reported Number of high-quality data systems developed Increase the number of providers incorporating school completion in the school improvement context. Improve and increase SEA/LEA use of data- based improvement planning, including developing and improving data systems to track students at risk of dropping out. Implement and evaluate effective, comprehensive school-completion models, practices, and systems. Increase the number of students with disabilities who re- enter high school or enter other credentialing or training programs. 3. Help SEAs and LEAs develop and improve data systems to track students at risk of dropping out. 4.Help SEAs and LEAs implement and evaluate effective, comprehensive school-completion models, practices, and systems for students with disabilities. C.Provide technical assistance & dissemination. Improve and increase SEA/LEA use of SPP/APR indicators to drive school completion activities. Improve SEA/LEA school- completion policies and procedures. Increase the number of students with disabilities who graduate. Increase the number of states that propose SPP/APR activities for IDEA Part B Indicator1 and Indicator 2 that are aligned with their performance targets for those indicators. Number of SPR, APR, and performance data analyses completed Number/attendance of advisory committee meetings Number/type/intensity of collaboration activities with OSEP TA & D network and Comprehensive Centers Extent of participation in Exiting CoP B.Provide leadership and coordination.

4.  Increase awareness of policymakers, administrators and practitioners about dropout, school completion and reentry  Increase the number of states that set and meet reasonable and rigorous performance targets for Indicators 1 and 2  Help SEAs and LEAs develop and improve data systems to track students at risk of dropping out  Help SEAs and LEAs implement and evaluate effective, comprehensive school-completion models, practices, and systems for students with disabilities

5.  Knowledge Development  Leadership and Coordination  Technical Assistance and Dissemination

6.  Number & quality of comprehensive reviews completed on schedule  Number of contacts with general TA providers on incorporating school completion models and practices

7.  Number of SPR, APR, and performance data analyses completed  Number/attendance of advisory committee meetings  Number/type/intensity of collaboration activities with OSEP TA & D network and Comprehensive Centers  Extent of participation in Exiting CoP

8.  Number of training activities developed and delivered  Number of forums held  Number/type/content/timing of TA activities  Type/number/audience of TA&D activities  Type/number/content of materials produced  Number of APR support materials developed  Amount of TA delivered and outcomes reported  Number of high-quality data systems developed

9.  Increase the number of providers incorporating school completion in the school improvement context  Increase the awareness of policymakers, administrators, and practitioners about school completion  Improve and increase SEA/LEA use of data- based improvement planning, including developing and improving data systems to track students at risk of dropping out

10.  Improve SEA/LEA school-completion policies and procedures  Improve and increase SEA/LEA use of SPP/APR indicators to drive school completion activities  Increase the number of states that propose SPP/APR activities for IDEA Part B Indicator1 and Indicator 2 that are aligned with their performance targets for those indicators

11.  Decrease the number of students with disabilities who drop out of school  Increase the number of students with disabilities who re-enter high school or enter other credentialing or training programs  Increase the number of students with disabilities who graduate

12.  User surveys for Big IDEAs, website, teleseminars  TA/training surveys  TA log (who, what, where, when…)  Counts of activities for monthly reports  School Implementation Survey  SEA and LEA Impact Surveys

13. Purpose 1.Determine where a school is in the development and implementation of its school-completion initiative. The first administration will establish a baseline. Subsequent administrations should show the school progressing through the stages of implementation. 2.Assesses school practices supporting school completion 3.Determine how much knowledge of the school-completion initiative individual respondents have

14.  Completed by individuals in schools implementing a school-completion initiative based on the NDPC-SD framework  Collects school-level information about:  Training  School team  Planning process  School data collection and analysis  Selection of evidence-based practices  Professional development  Evaluation of the initiative  Implementation and progress of interventions

15.  Survey was first administered in Georgia & Maryland in fall 2009 to establish baselines  Will be administered in all new training sites in the future  Will be re-administered annually

16. 1. School performance data 2. Demographic data 3. Information about policies & procedures 4. Academic engagement data 5. Information about instructional systems 6. Behavioral engagement data 7. Affective engagement data 8. Information about professional development

17. (N = 391 respondents)

18. Number of Responses

19. (N = 391 respondents) Number of Responses

21.  Should we split our sample into 2 groups:  School Team Leader  Everyone else who is surveyed in the school  Does the School Implementation Survey appear to be measuring what we need?  How could we improve its effectiveness?

22.  Under development!  We need to assess the impact of NDPC-SD’s technical assistance on SEA and LEA practices and policies around school completion

23. One survey or two? Who should complete it/them? Draft survey – what to add, delete or revise?