Response to RFP

Prepared for: Prepared by: Date: July 2011 Affiliated with: Boise State University EdTech 505 Far Western Labs Granite Consultants, LLC

Response to RFP from Far Western Labs

July 12, 2011 Charles Lyons: Boise State University

Response Statement Per the Request for Proposal (RFP) submitted by Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development (FWL), Granite Consultants (GC) enthusiastically submits this Response. GCs intent is to meet all the requirements outlined in the RFP and to provide a superior product. Introduction FWL, an industry leader in the development of educational products is seeking evaluation of its latest product: Determining Instructional Purposes (DIP) training program. FWL is seeking information and recommendations of the dissemination of this product. The evaluation will also provide information to FWL can be used to convince school district administrators in purchasing DIP. GC proposes evaluation completion by September 1, 2011 with meeting/recommendations session on September 15, 2011. Program Description FWL has developed the DIP training program for use by school district administrators and graduate administration students to instruct them in school administration and to prepare for effective administrative planning. The DIP Program is broken into three sequential but independently flexible units: Unit 1 Setting Goals, Unit 2 Analyzing Problems and Unit 3 Deriving Objectives. Each of the three units consist of four to six independent modules which can be done over several days in a row or as separate modules over a longer period of time. Each unit consists of reading materials, followed by group activities (intended for actual school personnel units) and lastly a

feedback session. The program has been cleverly set up to allow for the units to be completed altogether or as separate units to allow administrative groups to focus on individual tasks. A coordinator using the Coordinators Handbook runs each unit. The program allows for the coordinator to be someone that has previously completed unit(s) of the program or a facilitator that is new to the program. All materials are supplied by FWL by the unit or combined. Duration of the program is about 10-15 hours for Units 1 and 3 and 12-18 hours for Unit 2.

Evaluation Method The Evaluation will begin immediately upon negotiation of contract. GC will complete Unit 1 of the DIP program to evaluate its effectiveness. As each unit it totally independent from the other, this should be sufficient for evaluating the effectiveness of the training. GCs Chief Evaluator will act as coordinator for the evaluation. He will have summarized the materials in the unit and in the coordinators handbook prior to initiating the evaluation. GC currently has three interns that will act as the students. All are experienced administrators and have completed course work for doctorate degrees in Educational Administration and are fulfilling their requirements for outside experience. The evaluation will proceed in a manner identical to one that FWL had anticipated. All involved will act as a school unit and proceed in that fashion. The coordinator will introduce the materials, the procedures and leave the administrators to proceed. However, through the use of a webcam, the coordinator will be in another room taking notes and observations of the group. The students have been instructed to verbalize all conversations (nothing on paper). The coordinator will come back into the room to wrap up the instructional phase and transition into the activities phase. Again he will repeat the leaving for this part of the training but will be present to lead and conduct vital information during the feedback stage. This stage will be extended. The students and coordinator will discuss all aspects of the training and the materials provided. Primary goals of this session are to gather information about the effectiveness of the training and its value. The group will determine that based upon the results of this session, would they be likely to want or need to continue with Units 2 and/or Unit 3. (Additional criteria will also be gathered from a response survey

completed by the students directly upon completion of the feedback stage). This information will be summarized into the Final Report to be issued to FWL. GCs Principle will work directly with the coordinator at this point to compile all information into evaluation goal summaries. This summary will focus on, and report separately for each: the effectiveness of the training, materials included in Unit 1 and the feedback stage. The report will also focus on whether each administrative type in a school unit would be served by the training. Salient information and highlights of the information gathered in all phases will be summarized. Recommendation for FWLs continuation will be expressed using detailed rationale. If the recommendation is made to discontinue, detailed rationale will be provided. However it continuation is recommended (or continuation with modifications) is likely to be recommended, rationale will be provided along with a summary of information that will be valuable for convincing school units to purchase the program.

Project Personnel Markus Headstone, PhD, Principle. BS Igneous Petrology Colorado School of Mines and PhD Evaluation Sciences - Boise State University. Dr. Headstone is co-founder of Granite Consultants and has over 30 years of experience in numerous evaluations. He is currently an Adjunct Professor (on sabbatical) at Cemetery College (Crypts Campus). He has published over a dozen articles in numerous journals and has authored two textbooks on evaluation. He serves as senior reviewer for Evaluators Monthly, published by Monument News. Mr. Rocky Faade MSEd, Chief Evaluator. BS Education Arizona School of Hard Rocks and MSEd. Boise State University. Mr. Faade has had a distinguished career in education; first as a classroom teacher, principal and superintendent. He served as Deputy Commissioner of Education for the state of Arizona for 4 years before coming to GC. Mr. Faade has completed numerous evaluations, including the recent evaluation of developing actual lead zeppelins.

Proposal Budget for Far West Labs

Manpower Task 1 Task 2 Task 3 Task 4 Task 5 Task 6 Task 7 Task 8 Task 9 Travel and per diem (3) Task 7 Task 9 Communications Phone and Fax, all Tasks Task 7 Shipping Supplies and Photocopying $5,000 2 2 2 2 $2,500 $2,500 $5,000 Chief Evaluator (!) 2 4 3 3 2 6 4 1 5 2 3 1 4 4 1 3 Principle (2) 1 Total by Task $840 $240 $1,620 $2,340 $840 $3,240 $3,120 $780 $2,460 $15,480 Total Job

$2,000

$1,000 $150 $2,000

$3,000 $150 $7,000

JOB TOTAL (4)

Itemized Cost: $60/hr X 8hr/day (1) $90/hr X 8hr/day (2) $90/hr X 8hr/day %$15$1500/trip + $500 pd (3)

$30,630
Cost for Interns = Zero

Proposed Evaluation Schedule

Task 1. Contract, Prepare for Unit 1, Intern Training 2. Conduct DIP Evaluation 3. Compilation of Data and Feedback 4. Decision Making Based upon Feedback 5. FWL Conference Call 6. Write Evaluation Report 7. Present Findings to FWL 8. Follow up documents 9. First Implementation Training Deliverable ( Y or N) N N N N Y N Y Y N Deadline Date September 1, 2011 September 7, 2011 September 14, 2011 September 28, 2011 October 3, 2011 October 17, 2011 October 24, 2011 November 1, 2011 January 3, 2012