1. Illinois Evaluation Tools SIG/SPDG Regional Meeting Kansas City, MO October 5 & 6, 2009 Kathryn Cox Illinois State Board of Education kcox@isbe.net 217-782-5589

2. Illinois Evaluation Framework 1.If people are trained, do they implement? 2.If people implement, do they do so with fidelity? 3.If people implement with fidelity, do they sustain the practice(s) over time? 4.If people sustain the practice(s), what is the impact on student outcomes (school, group, individual)?

3. IL ASPIRE Evaluation of Implementation, Fidelity & Sustaining Practices  Self-Assessment of Problem Solving Implementation (SAPSI) Assesses the degree of implementation of the problem solving process at the building level as self-reported by the schools Increases in and maintaining implementation levels over time can also provide a measure of fidelity and degree to which practices are being sustained  Fidelity of Implementation Checklist Allows for external evaluation by ASPIRE regional staff of implementation in the school sites

4. Illinois SAPSI  http://www.luc.edu/cseit/pdfs/Aspire_Documents/ASPIRE _SAPSIv2.4_200.doc http://www.luc.edu/cseit/pdfs/Aspire_Documents/ASPIRE _SAPSIv2.4_200.doc  Areas of Assessment Comprehensive Commitment and Support Three-Tiered System Establish and Maintain Team Process Self-Assessment Implementing Evidenced-Based Practice Monitoring and Action Planning  Rating Scale Maintaining: All components of definition implemented consistently for 2 or more school years Achieved: All components of definition implemented consistently for at least one school year In Progress: At least one of the components of definition implemented consistently for at least 3 months Not Started: No components of definition have been implemented

7. IL ASPIRE Fidelity of Implementation Checklist  http://www.luc.edu/cseit/pdfs/Aspire_Documents/Aspire_Fid elityToolv4.6_20090805.pdf http://www.luc.edu/cseit/pdfs/Aspire_Documents/Aspire_Fid elityToolv4.6_20090805.pdf  Designed to monitor the adherence of implementation of problem solving activities and products at the school level  Involves a review of products: School Improvement Plan/Action Plan Instructional Planning Forms Screening data (CBM, SWIS) Evidence of progress monitoring (Tier 2, Tier 3 Graphs; Benchmark Data for Tier 1) Training (Training Logs or Sign in Sheets)