ERIC Number: ED157967
Record Type: RIE
Publication Date: 1976
Reference Count: 0
Re-thinking the RFP. A Contractor's Re-Examination of NIE's RFP for the Summative Evaluation of Anacostia RENP. Final Report for Task "O": Verification of Questions, 1976.
Gibboney (Richard A.) Associates, Inc., Kensington, MD.
This report examines the National Institute of Education's (NIE's) Request for Proposals (RFP) entitled "Summative Evaluation of the Response to Educational Needs Project (RENP)." The first of six evaluation tasks, Task O, called for the contractor to verify that the questions selected as important were in fact the most important questions to be addressed. The contractor took the following steps in carrying out Task O: (1) reviewed the literature collected by NIE on compensatory education programs, staff development, parents/community involvement, and related matters in order to identify policy questions asked in the past; (2) conducted interviews with policy makers and those who interview policy makers in order to identify policy questions being asked in the present; (3) verified questions contained in the RFP; (4) considered the policy questions RENP data could answer as one limitation to impose on the questions identified while reviewing the literature and conducting the interviews; (5) identified questions the contractor could answer that are asked in the RFP; (6) selected additional questions not asked in the RFP which the contractor could answer; (7) evaluated the importance of the summative evaluation of RENP; and (8) considered the options available to NIE upon completion of Task O. The report's appendices, describing procedures used and materials examined, are included. (MC)
Publication Type: Reports - Research
Education Level: N/A
Sponsor: National Inst. of Education (DHEW), Washington, DC.
Authoring Institution: Gibboney (Richard A.) Associates, Inc., Kensington, MD.
Identifiers: District of Columbia (Anacostia); Response to Educational Needs Project
Note: Not available in hard copy due to reproduction quality of the original document; For related documents see UD 018 507-515