21st Century Community Learning Center Program Evaluation
21ST CENTURY COMMUNITY LEARNING CENTER PROGRAM EVALUATIONREQUEST FOR PROPOSALSOVERVIEWThe Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) requires all grantees to conduct periodic evaluation of the 21stCCLC program. Title IV, Part B of ESSA states:The program or activity shall undergo a periodic evaluation in conjunction with the Stateeducational agency’s overall evaluation plan as described in section 4203(a)(14), to assess theprogram’s progress toward achieving the goal of providing high-quality opportunities foracademic enrichment and overall student success. (B) USE OF RESULTS.—The results ofevaluations under subparagraph (A) shall be—(i) used to refine, improve, and strengthen theprogram or activity, and to refine the performance measures; (ii) made available to the publicupon request, with public notice of such availability provided; and (iii) used by the State.After-School All- Stars Las Vegas is pleased to present this request for proposals for program evaluation services of our 21stCentury Community Learning Center after school programs for Cohort Four and Cohort Six and ASAS funded schools. Thefederal 21st Century Community Learning Center (21st CCLC) grant program supports the creation of community learningcenters that provide academic enrichment opportunities during non-school hours for children, particularly students who attendhigh-poverty and low-performing schools. The grant program aims to help students meet state and local student standards incore academic subjects, such as reading and math; offer students a broad array of enrichment activities that can complementtheir regular academic programs; and offer literacy and other educational services to the families of participating children.PurposeThe purpose of evaluation in this context is to improve the program, not to make judgments on calling the program a success orfailure. The evaluator provides program support in documenting program activities, developing performance measures,collecting additional data, interpreting evaluation findings, and recommending strategies for program improvement. Theexternal evaluation should be meaningful, providing grantees actionable and relevant information. Thus, the externalevaluators should focus on the following: Using Collaborative processes. Collaboration among grant management, center-level staff, external evaluators,families, youth, and other stakeholders helps to ensure relevant information is being collected and used. An externalevaluation team is recommended to facilitate this process. Membership may include key center staff, partners, andthe external evaluator. Documenting the intentionality of the program design. Programs grounded in a sound theory of change andillustrated by a logic model facilitate a shared understanding of intentional connections among needs, programcomponents, processes, and outcomes. Assessing program quality. Ongoing assessment of program delivery and quality guides improvement efforts andfacilitates understanding of outcomes. This includes measuring core aspects of fidelity (e.g., adherence, exposure,quality, and engagement). Emphasizing best practices. Measures are most effective for understanding progress on selected performanceindicators when they are informed by best practices, focused, easily accessible, and limited in scope.
Focusing on center capacity. Evaluation capacity is achieved when center staff possess the knowledge andunderstanding to participate in evaluation planning and implementation (e.g., informing measures, collecting data),and when they have access to resources and tools that support evaluation capacity. Evaluators are a key support ascoaches in this work.SCOPE OF SERVICEThe selected evaluator will work with the 21st CCLC Program Director, Program Managers, Grant Coordinator, SchoolAdministrators, District Data Coordinator, and Site Coordinators to develop a plan for and conduct periodic evaluation of allfunded 21st CCLC subgrantees and sites to fulfill the federal requirement for periodic evaluation. The selected evaluator willconduct evaluation services for After-School All- Stars Las Vegas subgrantee(s) which include(s) 15 site(s).Cohort Four: West Preparatory Academy Elementary School West Preparatory Academy Secondary School Reynaldo Martinez Elementary School Josh Stevens Elementary School Jim Bridger Middle SchoolCohort Six: Ed Von Tobel Middle School Helen Herr Elementary School Elaine Wynn Elementary School Elbert Edwards Elementary School Diaz Elementary School Hickey Elementary School Roundy Elementary SchoolASAS Funded Schools: Fremont Middle School Petersen Elementary School Thomas Elementary SchoolOur goal is to secure a high-quality evaluation for the entire length of our 5-year funding cycle. Therefore, the maximumcontract period will be one year, with the option to renew up to four times pending a satisfactory annual performance review.The annual performance review will assess the extent to which the external evaluator has carried out the followingresponsibilities for each year: Assist the subgrantee in meeting the NDE requirements for external evaluation. These requirements are detailed in anexternal evaluation guide1, developed by American Institutes for Research (AIR), the Nevada 21st CCLC statewideevaluator. Develop an evaluation plan to conduct an overall process and outcome evaluation. The evaluation plan must include acenter-level logic model, a description of the evaluation methods, a list of data to be used in the evaluation, and atimeline. To develop the evaluation plan the external evaluator will meet with the project director to review the Nevada1To review the External Evaluation Guide please click here. To review the accompanying External Evaluation Toolkit click here.
Department of Education’s (NDE) evaluation requirements and to determine what additional data will be collectedalongside of the data collected through the Nevada 21st CCLC state-level evaluations. The statewide evaluations will bemade available to external evaluators, as applicable. Lead the implementation of the evaluation plan including data collection. This may require conducting on-site qualityobservations. Quality assessment strategies and the frequency of observation will be identified by the external evaluator. Include the YPQA process:oThe Youth Program Quality Assessment (PQA) is a validated instrument designed to measure the quality ofyouth programs and identify staff training needs. It has been used in community organizations, schools,camps, and other places where youth have fun, work, and learn with adults. ASAS has utilized thisevaluation tool for the past 5 years. Our goal is to conduct the assessment at all 15 ASAS schools.oThe Youth PQA is an evidence-based assessment tool. Evidence is gathered through observation andinterview. Program staff or an outside specialist observe program activities, take notes, and then conductan interview with a program administrator. Notes, observations, and interview data are used as evidence toscore items. Item scores are combined to create an overall program quality profile.oYPQA assesses safe environment, supportive environment, interaction, engagement, youth-centeredpolicies and practices, high expectations for you and staff and access.oTwo observations will be conducted (fall & spring) with a minimum of four randomly selected classes. Ayouth work methods training will be conducted with staff after the first observation. Conduct quantitative and qualitative data analysis and assist centers in understanding evaluation results. Document process and outcome results in an annual report to guide decision-making. The annual report must include anexecutive summary. To comply with NDE reporting requirements, the grantee will submit the executive summary and fullannual report to NDE and publicly post the full report. Assist in building the skills, knowledge, and abilities of center staff and stakeholders to implement center-level evaluationactivities and to understand and use evaluation for program improvement. Participate in 2-4 in-person trainings per year, alongside program staff Assist in presentation and interpretation of evaluation findings.Due to COVID-19 and the precautions that subgrantees will have to take to ensure the safety of staff, children, and familiesAfter-School All- Stars Las Vegas reserves the right to revise the scope of work to accommodate mandates, safety guidelines, orother regulations related to COVID-19 and district reopening.Current Statewide Data Collection ActivitiesNDE is currently engaged in statewide data collection to meet federal requirements and to conduct a statewide evaluation. Aspart of these efforts, the following data may be available to external evaluators:The 21st CCLC programs use the Cayen AfterSchool data system to collect information on program activities, programobjectives, Nevada Performance Indicators, and Nevada Department of Education State Goals. Each 21st CCLC site entersa variety of data into the Cayen AfterSchool Data system, including demographic information on students and parents, aswell as program activities, staff, attendance, survey responses, test scores, success stories, and more. The CayenAfterSchool Data System includes a variety of reports that summarize the data entered which will be available for use inthis program evaluation.Teacher Survey – the teacher survey collects data from classroom teachers about the students who participate in the afterschool program regularly (30 days or more). The teacher survey addresses three Government Performance and ResultsAct (GPRA) performance indicators, developed for the 21st CCLC program.Student Survey – the student survey obtains feedback from students about their participation in the 21st CCLC activities.
Parent Survey – the parent survey obtains feedback from parents about their participation in the 21st CCLC activities.Grant data or student data is maintained in a school data system. This data combined with fiscal information is reported tothe Nevada Department of Education through an ePage and is available for use in this program evaluation.Assurances to maintaining security of data and adherence to the federal FERPA Guidelines. Complete and sign a data sharingagreement.Project DeliverablesFollowing is a complete list of all project deliverables due annually:DeliverableDescriptionFinal Due DateEvaluation Planand Logic ModelThe external evaluator creates the logic model, collaboratively withthe center staff, as part of the evaluation plan. Grantees submit theevaluation plan and logic model to NDE.Tentatively due on the firstMonday in October 2020.The external evaluator prepares a comprehensive evaluation reportannually. While grantees have flexibility to decide what goes intothis report, it is required that it include both grantee and centerlevel informationDue annually on the firstMonday of Novemberstarting in 2021.ComprehensiveEvaluation ReportThis due date may beadjusted based oncompletion of the RFPprocess by the subgrantees.Grantees are required to submit an annual evaluation report(including an executive summary) to NDE in Year 1 and Year 5. Inyears 2-4, grantees are required to post the report on the grantee’swebsite to assist stakeholders’ understanding of results associatedwith the program.Note: The Evaluation Plan and Logic Model are included in thisreport with an Executive Summary.ExecutiveSummaryUsing the results of the Comprehensive Evaluation Report,evaluators will create an Executive Summary that includes bothgrantee and center-level information. Grantees are required tosubmit the Executive Summary to NDE on an annual basis.Due annually on the firstMonday of Novemberstarting in 2021.AdditionalDeliverablesIdentified after the evaluation plan and logic model are developedand throughout the process.TBD
Timeline for ExecutionKey project dates are outlined below. Dates are estimates and are subject to change until a contract is executed.DescriptionStart DateEnd DateDurationRequest for Proposal Release & Response8/17/20209/4/202017 calendardaysRequest for Proposal Review9/4/20209/14/202010 calendardaysAward Announcement9/15/20209/18/20204 calendar daysProject Performance Period9/21/20209/30/202154 weeksDeliverables Due9/21/20209/30/202154 weeksQUALIFICATIONSWell-qualified evaluators will be considered for selection. Respondents must meet the following minimum qualifications to beconsidered:Post-secondary degree in social sciences, such as psychology, sociology, criminal justice, public administration, or education.Experience collecting and analyzing both quantitative and qualitative methodsExperience conducing both formative and summative evaluations (required) related to education and/or out-of-school time(OST) programs (preferred).Excellent oral and written communication skills. Evaluators must be able to communicate effectively with a broad range ofpeople, including parents, program staff, other evaluators, community members, the media, and other stakeholders.Excellent interpersonal skills. Able to execute a team-oriented, collaborative, and culturally competent approach toevaluation.No Evaluator may participate in this grant-funded project in any capacity or be a recipient of funds designated for this projectif the person or company has been debarred or suspended or otherwise found to be ineligible for participation in federalassistance programs under Executive Order 12549, “Debarment and Suspension” (se 45 CFR 92.53). Prior to issuingcontracts under this RFP, the district will refer to the Excluded Parties List System to ensure that persons or companiesunder consideration are not ineligible.
RFP LOGISTICSResponse RequirementsResponses to this RFP must address the following items at minimum:Scope of ServicesProject DeliverablesBudgetQualificationsReview CriteriaResponses to the RFP will be reviewed on the following criteria using a three-point scale (0 points – did not respond oraddress criteria, 1 point – minimally addressed criteria, 2 points – meets criteria, 3 points – exceeds criteria):Scope of ServicesProject DeliverablesBudgetQualificationsAdditional information or services provided at the discretion of the Evaluator.CONCLUSIONWe look forward to receiving your proposals. We are excited to use the evaluation process and findings to improve our 21stCentury Community Learning Centers.If you have questions about this request for proposals, feel free to contact Jennifer Bulloch at 702-610-4526 or by email atjennifer.bulloch@asaslv.org.Thank you,Jennifer Bulloch
center-level logic model, a description of the evaluation methods, a list of data to be used in the evaluation, and a timeline. To develop the evaluation plan the external evaluator will meet with the project director to review the Nevada 1 To review the External Evaluation Guide please click here. To review the accompanying External Evaluation .
concept “21st OR twenty-first century skills”, this has, also, been searched through the terms: “21st OR twenty-first century competencies”, “21st OR twenty-first century literacy”, “21st OR twenty-first century learn*”. The search action returned 116 results. The references sections of these texts were
To understand the 21st Century Life and Career Standards To gain knowledge in the Framework for 21st Century Inter-disciplinary themes To develop skills in planning cross-curricular activities related to the 21st Century skills To learn practical strategies in how to infuse 21st Century skills
21st Century Assessment to Promote 21st Century Learning: The Benefits of Blinking Valerie J. Shute, Vanessa P. Dennen, Yoon-Jeon Kim, Oktay Donmez, & Chen-Yen Wang Abstract What competencies do kids need to succeed in the 21st century, and how do these skills differ from those reflected in current state standards?
Table 1.1. 21st Century Community Learning Centers Cycles 8 10 Grantees, by Grant Years Represented in This Evaluation Report 2 . Table 1.1. 21st Century Community Learning Centers Cycles 8 10 Grantees, by Grant Years Represented in This Evaluation Report 2 . Table 2.1. Texas ACE Centers Key Measures of Program Implementation 9 . Table 2.2.
The 21st Century Teaching Learning, and Leading (CTLL) Technical Working Group (TWG) developed a set of tools that provide principals a means to understand the shift from a 20th century principal to a 21st Century School Principal. The platform of the 21st CTLL is collaboration throughou t the school,
with the definition, demand and delivery of 21st Century Skills, with a particular focus on low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). In looking at definitions of ‘21st Century Skills’, Section 2 of this study finds that there is a broad range of available literature discussing 21st Century Skills, including a number of key synthesis studies.
“21st century skills” and “college and career readiness” have recently become watchwords in education. The Partnership for 21st century skills advocates adoption of local, state, and federal policies that support explicit integration of 21st century skills into instruction for all students (P21, 2009).
districts or state departments of education implementing 21st century skills now rely on the Partnership for 21st Century Skills’ list or some variation of it, though there are exceptions. We also identified one up-and-coming list, the Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills (ATC21S) initiative, sponsored by Microsoft and Cisco Systems.
