Attachment_B_-_Vendor_Communication_slides.pptx

Impact Evaluation of Departmentalized Instruction in Elementary Schools

Fiscal year 2017 Tracking #IESE170055AP Solicitation Number ED-IES-17-R-0019

Webinar Agenda Introductions: The U.S. Department of Education’s Acquisition Team

Vendor Collaboration Webinar Protocol

Overview: Departmentalized Instruction Study

Closing Remarks and Next Steps

Introductions Thomas Wei, Contracting Officer’s Representative – Institute of Education Sciences(IES)/National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE)

Veronica L. Price, Sr. Contracting Officer – OCFO/Contracts and Acquisitions Management (CAM)

Pavan Mehrotra, Contract Specialist – OCFO/Contracts and Acquisitions Management (CAM)

Motivation More elementary schools are trying out departmentalized instruction as a relatively low-cost improvement strategy, but little evidence on whether it is effective or not.

Allows teachers to specialize in the subject they are best at, but may hinder 1-on-1 connections with students.

Study Objectives Provide evidence on the impact of switching from self-contained classrooms to departmentalized classrooms in upper elementary schools.

Help policymakers make more informed decisions about departmentalization as an improvement strategy for low-performing schools

Key Research Question What is the impact of switching from self-contained instruction to departmentalized instruction in upper elementary school (grades 4 and 5) on student achievement in math and reading?

Central Tasks Designing the Evaluation (Base) Process for identifying districts and schools that have the greatest potential gains to departmentalization Rules for assigning teachers to subjects if their school is randomly assigned to departmentalized instruction

Recruiting districts, schools, and teachers (Base) 200 schools, including low-performing schools Must obtain agreement from relevant stakeholders

Central Tasks (cont.)

Implementation and Data Collection (Option 1)

Must limit teacher attrition and mobility; ensure compliance with random assignment Follow fourth-grade cohort of students Two years of implementation and data collection, primarily administrative records of student achievement and other relevant outcomes such as attendance Survey of teachers at end of first year Optional task for instructional quality outcomes at end of first year

Analysis and Reporting (Option 2)

Report on impacts, describing the implementation process, and possible mechanisms for impacts

Period of Performance Cost reimbursement contract, consisting of a 18 month base period and two, overlapping option periods (48 month period of performance, if all option periods are exercised) Optional task to collect and analyze data on instructional quality

(Months 1-18) Option Period 1 Random assignment, implementation, and data collection 24 months (Months 12-35) Option Period 2 Analysis of data and reporting of findings 20 months (Months 29-48)

Study Considerations This is a large-scale impact evaluation, which will require demonstrated experience carrying out evaluations of a similar nature and scope A key challenge will be identifying the most relevant districts, recruiting them, and determining teaching assignments in schools that are randomly assigned to departmentalized instruction (all under tight timeframes), which will require knowledge and skill in teacher assignment policies, district and school contexts, and calculating teacher effectiveness using value-added or related techniques.

Closing Remarks & Next Steps All webinar related questions must be submitted to the CS & CO by 3 pm (ET) on April 17, 2017.

Responses will be posted on www.FBO.gov on April 20, 2017.

Capability Statements are due 12:00 noon (ET), April 17, 2017.

RFP’s anticipated release date: Late May 2017 image2.png image3.tiff image4.tiff