B. Exhibit 1.

1 Evaluation Design Format Project: Impact of PBIS activities and lessons on the behavioral attitudes of TJ 3rd graders who have attended TJ for 2+ years. Evaluation Question What were the trends in minor and major referral instances for 1st graders in the 2010-2011 school year? 2nd graders in 20112012? 3rd graders through October 2012? Activities to Observe -Verbal -Physical -Identify habitual offenders and log trends in their behaviors -Major Referrals -Infinite Campus Data Source -Minor Referrals Population Sample Design Students who attended TJ before 12/31/10 and have remained in attendance up to present Data Collection -Data has already been collected. -Data must be culminated into verbal/physical, and data about students who do not meet population sample criteria must be removed. Responsibility -certified and classified staff (fill out referrals) -Denise Townsend (logs minor referrals) -Josie Carter (logs major referrals) -Lisa Sharp (logs major referrals) -evaluator (determine verbal/physical and attendance from 12/31/10 present What impact do PBIS expectations have on the behaviors of 3rd graders, who attended TJ from 12/31/10-present, during the school day? Provide students with opportunities to describe real life events where PBIS could have influenced behavior decision making in a nonthreatening/nondisclosure style interview. Interview -7 students with 5< minors and no major referrals -7 students with 6-10 minors and/or 1-3 major referrals -7 students with 11+ minor and/or 4+ major referrals The student will be asked to describe an instance during the school day where they could have made a: -poor choice and explain why they did/did not make that choice, as well as possible consequences -positive choice and explain why they did/did not make that choice, as well as evaluator -content analysis -descriptive analysis -certified and classified staff Data Analysis -Analysis of increase/ decrease in behaviors -Analysis of behavior types -Log trends of habitual offenders, determine if behaviors changed over time Audience -certified and classified staff -district staff

possible consequences What impact does PBIS have on making positive/negative choices in various in school situations on 3rd graders who have attended TJ since before 12/31/10? -Response to Set up pictures -Responses to positive/ negative situations -Surveys -7 students with >5 minors and no major referrals -7 students with 6-10 minors and 1-3 major referrals -7 students with 11+ minor and 4+ major referrals -The student will be shown several nonrelated pictures and asked to say the first thing that comes to mind (to prepare them for honest behavior answers) -The student will be shown a mixture of pictures of positive and negative instances and asked to immediately respond with how they would react. -The student will be shown various pictures with situations where a red pride ticket could be earned. Students must identify what earns them the ticket. -Cards will include situations where opportunities to earn tickets are both obvious or could be contrived evaluator -statistical analysis -principal -PBIS team evaluator -statistical analysis -certified and classified staff

Can 3rd grade students who attended TJ from the given dates identify situations where they can earn red pride tickets, prizes, and certificates by being respectful, responsible, and safe?

-Response to situations

-Surveys

-7 students with >5 minors and no major referrals -7 students with 6-10 minors and 1-3 major referrals -7 students with 11+ minor and 4+ major referrals

c. Discuss Appendices B and C in general and/or specific terms. (No word min./max.) The analysis section of Appendix B helped me understand how data is analyzed in an evaluation project while remaining objective. The evaluation states that the t test measures the extent of difference between two sets of matched scores from one population, to determine whether there is some reason to believe that pretest to posttest score differences occurred because of intervention or chance (Boulmetis & Dutwin, 2011, p. 242). What I appreciate most though, is where in the results narrative, the evaluator says that despite not having significant statistical data, the exit interview conversations show that the objective was achieved. Had the evaluator not taken the time to develop a well rounded evaluation, statistical data under objectives one and five may have been interpreted differentnly, leading to a conclusion of failure. I find this to be helpful information when considering my evaluation project. When looking at the behavioral records of 3rd grade students from their attendance in grades 1st-3rd, I may find that the data is sporadic and does not match with current behaviors. It may be that, as 1st and 2nd

graders, these students had less control of their actions due to various levels of cognition and impressionability, or other factors such as social and home climates. The interviews will be a valuable tool in determining the effectiveness of the last two years of PBIS. Numbers of both teenage and elementary age students who participate in the Zoo in the Community project seem to be missing from the Introduction. The evaluation on page 239 states to date the project staff have identified and trained the student activity leaders and completed two full cycles of educational activity with eight (8) groups of elementary students. This is rather vague in terms of how many elementary students were in each group, and how many teen leaders were assigned to each. Perhaps the information is unclear in the report because the audience would have already known the numbers. This becomes more of a concern when the evaluator states that only seven pretest-posttests were completed correctly under objective one, and seven SAL and 36 JEs provided results under objective five. The information implies seven of eight SALs, and the context of only implies there are significantly more JEs (p.249). Everyone in my building knows the approximate number of students in each grade level. It will be important to survey and interview an appropriate number of students to validate the evaluation. I will also need to disclose the total number of referrals verses students surveyed and interviewed to add credibility. I noted in Appendix C that the evaluation objective questions had already been generated by the company. This has encouraged me to ask my principal, guidance counselor, and PBIS team to consider potential objective questions that they may have regarding my projects subject matter and test group. They are the stakeholders in this evaluation, along with myself. They may have important insights and thoughts which I had not considered having not been on the PBIS team. My concern in reading Appendix C is that everything already seems to be laid out by the company. To me, the information found in Appendix C would make a great template to determine what and how to evaluate, but perhaps the how tos of the evaluation and data collection should be left to the evaluator. The main concern is that these preconceived questions and objectives are affected by the political and social atmospheres of the company. If I were the person carrying out this evaluation, my main question would be whether or not I was aloud to expand upon what was already created in order to insure better recommendations and conclusions.