1. Evaluation of the Determining Instructional Purposes program
A Proposal Submitted to the Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and
Development
by
Kevin McManamon
Introduction
In June of 2011, Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development
issued a request for proposal (RFP) for an evaluation of its training program, “Determining
Instructional Purposes. This document is a proposal from McManamon Evaluation Consultants
(MEC) of Portland, OR submitted in response to the RFP from FWL.
Determining Instructional Purposes program
The Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development (FWL) created the
Determining Instructional Purposes (DIP) program aimed at training school administrators and
graduate students working in the field of school administration the necessary skills pertaining to
planning effective school programs.
The DIP program contains a Coordinator’s handbook and three individual training units
(Setting Goals, Analyzing Problems, and Deriving Objectives). Each unit consist of four to six
modules. Each module contains reading materials on the specific skills related to the module
objectives. Practice activities are included for both individual and small group activities that are
geared toward module objectives, along with feedback mechanisms for the activities.
The units were created so that they may be used in succession or as a stand alone
training session as each unit is designed to be self contained. They may be administered in a
concentrated workshop of a few days or broken out over several training sessions over several
weeks. Both the Coordinator’s Handbook (priced at $4.50 per copy) and the unit materials
($8.95 per single unit or $24.95 for all three units) are in printed format.
Evaluation Method
The following data sources and evaluation methods will be conducted to determine if the
DIP program is ready to be marketed to prospective school districts interested in effective
school planning training materials.
Module effectiveness- each module will be assessed as to it’s singular and collective
application of effectively training school district personnel in the planning of effective school
programs. Trial workshops will using all three modules, populated by graduate students
majoring in educational administration at the University of Oregon, will be conducted and
monitored. They will be tasked with developing guidelines for a fictitious school district using

2. only the skills presented in the DIP program. Their product, a district program planning protocol,
will be evaluated by University of Oregon School of Education professors for feasibility and
practical application for effective program development.
Participant feedback- Attitudes of participating graduate students and evaluators will be
assessed in surveys developed by MEC staff. Individual surveys will be constructed to collect
qualitative data from those who acted as coordinators, participants and evaluators as to
program content.
Time considerations- Time on task data will be collected by MEC staff while closely observing
the trial workshops to determine if the time windows recommended by FWL are accurate.
Additional qualitative data will be gathered in the aforementioned attitudinal surveys regarding
the suggested time windows from trial participants.
Sample retail package feedback- Representative samples will be sent to strategically selected
sample school districts in the Pacific Northwest to assess customer feedback on content and
pricing of the DIP program.
Task Schedule
TASK RESPONSIBLE PARTY DATE
1. Meet with FWL staff MEC July 1, 2011
to review MEC proposal
and adjust for any FWL
modifications.
2. Present trial workshop MEC August 15, 2011
format plans along with draft
copies of individually created
surveys of all participants
to FWL for review and
feedback.
3. Submit finalize plan for MEC August 30, 2011
conduct of trial workshop and
surveys to FWL.
4. Conduct field trial MEC October, 2011
workshop with University of
Oregon graduate students
and professors.
5. Collect data from MEC November 8, 2011
surveys and time on task

3. observations.
6. Summarize field trial data MEC December 1, 2011
and present to FWL.
7. Provide test sample FWL January 4, 2012
marketing kits of DIP program
to MEC for shipping.
8. Conduct telephone surveys MEC March, 2012
of test marketed school
districts and collect data.
9. Present telephone survey MEC April 10, 2012
results to FWL.
10. Summarize and analyze MEC May 15, 2012
field trial data and test market
survey data. Meet with FWL
to present and discuss data.
11. Write final evaluation MEC June 30, 2012
report and submit to FWL
Project Personnel
Kevin McManamon, a senior evaluation expert at MEC has twenty years of experience in
public education and district strategic planning. Mr. McManamon will oversee the evaluation
process, with responsibilities to include workshop planning, design interview schedules and
protocols, data collection and analysis as well presentation made to the FWL leadership.
Dennis Bergkamp will design the survey instruments and assist in conducting interviews as
well as data collection and interpretation.
The evaluation team will also be comprised of junior MEC staffers experienced in evaluation.
Budget
Personnel
Kevin McManamon 35 days @ $400/ $14,000
day
Dennis Bergkamp 40 days@ $300/ $12,000
day

4. Three(3) MEC 20 days@ $100/ $6,000 $32,000
staffers day
Travel & per Diem
Travel to Seattle, WA 6 days, 350 miles $1,050
round trip @ $.50/
mile
Per Diem 6 days @ $50/day $300 $1,350
Supplies
DIP program sets 3 @ $29.45 $88.35
Sample sets and 100 @ $15 $1,500 $1,588.35
shipping
Total $34,938.35
Budget