2.  How is the program being implemented at the secondary level?  Is the program effective in meeting the anticipated expectations of program management?  Is the program equally effective for any specific subgroups at the secondary level (ex/ special education students, economically disadvantaged)?

3. Evaluation Design

4. InputsOutputsOutcomes Resources for the evaluation: -access to staff and students. -access to AR data. -time Participation Client/Central Office Administrators English teachers Librarians Students Activities Data Collection -Initial Client Meeting (early Jan.) -Staff Interviews (Mid-Jan. – Mid. Feb.) -AR Data collection and disaggregation (Mid-Jan. – Mid. Feb.) -Client Interval Report and Input (Late Feb.) -Student Surveys (Late Feb. – March) Report out final results to client (Early April) Deliverables (Short term) Clearer understanding of current practices Strengths of the program Deficiencies of the program Recommendations (Long term) Improve the overall reading program Improve the overall reading success in the secondary setting. Assumption: Participants will be open and honest as well as assuming that the AR program is the intended reading program. External Factors: Preconceived knowledge, researcher bias, stakeholder bias, participant involvement, and availability of data.

5. Clearer understanding of the AR reading program, implementation practices, and scaffolding to strengthen instructional practices leading to reading success.