Narrative: f.

A. The State ABE Director will assess the quality of ABE local programs in the following ways: (1) The completeness and quality of learner data submitted by ABE programs will be assessed through ongoing desk monitoring of the ABE State database that contains learners’ intake data, TABE and BEST pre-and post-assessment data, and learner’ attendance data. The State ABE Director will review monthly a sample of learners’ data across the state’s 13 ABE programs for accuracy and completeness; (2) The quality of ABE programs’ recruitment processes will be assessed by (a) the extent to which the ABE programs meet the learner enrollment goals that the program sets each program year, (b) the types of public relations and recruitment activities that the ABE programs conducts, as described in ABE programs’ biannual Program Improvement Report; and (c) the types of local partnerships that the ABE staff have developed (e.g., One-Stop Centers, career and technical education training centers, Health and Human Services offices) to facilitate learner referrals to ABE and to conduct the other components of ABE program operations described. (3) The effectiveness of ABE programs’ intake, orientation, assessment, and placement processes will be evaluated by the ABE State Director’s quarterly review of (a) learners’ attendances data and the percentage of learners who attend ABE for 12 or fewer hours; and (b) the timeliness of the administration of the TABE and BEST pre-test assessments as measured by the test date compared to the intake form date. The ABE State Director also will review the processes used by ABE programs in orientation and placement in the biannual review of the ABE Program Improvement Report and through observations and interviews that she conducts during site visits to the ABE programs; (4) The effectiveness of ABE programs’ instruction will be assessed by the ABE State Director’s quarterly review of learners’ average attendance, post-test rate, educational functional level gain, and GED® completion, as well as the annual review of ABE learners’ postsecondary education outcomes and job attainment or advancement. The quality of instruction also will be assessed through the ABE State Director’s observation of instruction and review of program materials during site visits. B. The State ABE Director will use the results from the assessment of the quality of ABE program operations to improve the quality of ABE programs in the following ways: (1) Based on the results of the ABE State director’s review of data and information about ABE program operations, ABE programs will be given an audit report and low-performing programs will be asked to submit a program improvement plan. (2) To support ongoing ABE program improvement, the areas of program operations and learner outcomes that are identified as needing improvement though the quarterly review process will be the focus of the biannual professional development conferences that are held each year. The ABE State Director also will identify extant resources available through LINCS and other venues that can be utilized by ABE directors and instructors to strength instruction and the transition from ABE to postsecondary education and employment. (3) As part of the activities conducted during the biannual professional development conferences, each ABE program prepares and submits to the state a Program Improvement Plan that is based on the information and skills ABE program participants acquired during the conference. The activities that the ABE programs carry out to implement the Program Improvement Plan are then reported in the programs’ ABE Program Improvement Report. C. The State ABE office will assess the quality of its professional development programs designed to improve: (1) instruction in the essential components of reading instruction, (2) instruction related to the specific needs of adult learners, (3) instruction provided by volunteers or paid personnel, and (4) dissemination of information about models and promising practices in the following ways: (1) Multiple professional development sessions have been conducted for ABE program staff in the essential components of reading instruction based on the STAR materials and extensive adult reading research that has been conducted, including training on the research-based Making Sense of Decoding and Spelling curriculum which was developed and evaluated under the NICHD/OVAE/NIFL reading research network. The effectiveness of the professional development on reading has been evaluated through (a) the State’s ongoing review of TABE reading test results, (b) the review of reading instructional plans developed by ABE instructors during the professional development conferences, (c) the ABE State director’s observation of reading instruction, and (d) participant evaluations of the training sessions and the ways in which participants plan on using the materials. New activities to increase the quality of reading instruction will be focused on reading and writing in occupational contexts, and this training will be evaluated by the (a) State’s review of TABE reading scores, (b) the State’s review of the pass rate on the GED® Language Arts test, (c) the quality of the exercises that reading instructors will be asked to complete during the training to assess their ability to develop reading lessons, and (4) the use of a training evaluation form. (2) The State ABE office will assess the quality of the other professional development content and delivery provided during the biannual conferences through (a) the quality of ABE programs’ Improvement Plans that are prepared after the conferences and the extent to which they incorporate the strategies discussed during the professional development sessions, (b) pre-post assessments of conference participants on the key concepts and methods addressed during the training sessions, (c) the State’s review of the key indicators of effective ABE program operations, such as learner attendance, educational functional level gain, completion of GED® academic tests and GED® attainment, and ABE learners’ transition to next steps, and (d) conference participants’ evaluation forms.