Introduction to Evaluation
While evaluations come in various designs, the two most commonly
used are formative and summative evaluations. The main reasons why evaluations
are used, is to influence program decisions. According to Eseryel (2002), to
enhance the evaluator in decision making and augment appropriate evaluations,
the use of operational or procedural models has been found to be the best
process in the preliminary stages. There could be confusion when program performance
is beset by unnecessary prying from actors driven by selfish interests and
greed. According to Rossi, Lipsey, and Freeman (2004, factors that most likely
harm evaluations include public scrutiny and political involvement.
To ensure an evaluation is effective and acceptable to the highest
authority and concerned stakeholders, the right tools must be given to the
evaluator and minimal political meddling exercised. The main reasons
evaluations are conducted are to improve programs, to make overall decisions
whether a program is to be left to operate or to be terminated, and
accountability that deals with providing data. Funding agents can be notified
of what needs adjusting through funding or what requires management
intervention.
In the U.S.
Allowing the evaluator to work independently helps alleviate
misconceptions between the evaluator and stakeholders, thus helping place a
permanent barrier for suppressing needless confrontations and unnecessary
loggerheads. Since evaluations are at times intricate and unattainable without
help from those having a stake in it, Rossi et al. (2004) perceive evaluator’s
independence as best achieved when stakeholders provide input to the
evaluations. Independent evaluations require being independent from external
manipulation, taking responsibility for developing project evaluation, having
complete control of project evaluation, conducting evaluation according to
plan, and disseminating results without being subservient to any form of
political entity. According to Lipsey et al. (2004), participatory or
collective evaluation is defined as a collection of evaluators working together
to pursue a project while in empowerment evaluation, evaluator and stakeholders
work through collaboration to achieve their objectives (Lipsey et al., 2004). Formative
and summative evaluations, the two evaluative methods that subject of our study,
have distinct working characteristics.
Characteristics
of Formative and Summative Evaluations
While formative evaluation deals with needs assessment which is
assessing the needs of a social program, to the contrary, summative evaluation
assesses the expected outcomes and impacts of a program and the avenues to be
taken to address those inflicting concerns. In context evaluation, formative
evaluation assesses the political, communal resources, and the general
atmosphere a program operates or will operate while in summative evaluation,
outcome evaluation which is synonymous with impact evaluation comes to play. In
formative evaluation, assessing programs as anticipated is referred to as
implementation evaluation while outcome monitoring, a process of continuous
monitoring coupled with constant reporting, is synonymous with summative
evaluation. Program process monitoring, progress evaluation, and evaluation
purpose are the hallmarks of formative evaluation while the use of specific
outcome analysis techniques is part of summative evaluation. In formative
evaluation, purpose deals with program expectations while in summative
evaluation, it assesses whether program target and objectives are being met. The
evaluation questions that best reflect the functions of the Kansas City Schools
are such:
Evaluation
Research Questions
- How effective is the school district functions
since switching name?
- How well organized are the school
teachers?
Issue-Based
Questions
- How useful is the KCPS curriculum?
- What services need to be adapted so that
the school district can reach its objectives?
- How will parents and teachers respond to
the new school district services?
Questions
of fact
- How many students’ does the school
district have at the moment?
- How many teachers are on the school
district’s payroll?
- How long do the teachers serve the school
district?
- What form of education do the children
get?
- What type of support is available for
children who speak foreign languages?
- How much money does the state spend on
each student?
Evaluation research questions specify if the program being
evaluated is achieving factors specified in the logic model. Concrete
issue-based questions focus on understanding program factors and anticipated
results. Questions of fact deal with the type and effectiveness of a program,
people involved and their numbers, program cost, and participant support. As
the Kansas City Public Schools undergoes reorganization, stakeholders are keen
to know whether procedures and plans will bear fruit. A new rule for the school
year 2012-2013 requires parents to verify their residential addresses either by
sending through fax, mail, or by e-mail three documents that warrant their
presence in the district. These three documents may include a utility bill,
mortgage payment stub, or other forms of documentation.
When conducting evaluations, one thing to bear
in mind is to devise good evaluation questions that are reasonable, solvable,
and helpful to program performance. According to Rossi et al. (2004),
evaluation questions should be of value to stakeholders and decision makers. According
to Kimball and Milanowski (2009), recently, for the sake of boosting confidence
and student performance in the classroom, the federal government devised a new
system of experimentation that calls for teacher experimentation so that
evaluations can be conducted to determine how teachers fare in the classroom. A
significant evaluation method, according to Kimball and Malinowski (2009), that
can be used to elevate teacher performance, is the standard-based evaluation
that contains rating scales and public standards. Danielson (1996) developed a
commonly used standards-based teacher evaluation approach that contains 22
mechanisms that are part of four classroom instruction realm.
Motivation plays a great role in garnering
feedback from participants and advancing performance. Evaluators who are
lenient to participants usually tend to increase cooperation among the various
groups struggling to make a difference in a particular program (Kluger
& DeNisi, 1996). It is important that
evaluators give credence to their evaluations by making recommendations to the
decision makers. Iriti, Bikcel, and Nelson (2005) are of the view that an
evaluation should be able to enlighten and advance the value and function of
social projects, throw in enlightening discussions that elevate social action,
be revolutionizing and be committed to change, and support compromise.
Stakeholders can be discovered through the use of snowballing.
Snowballing methods are crucial in social
arrangements as it can be used to categorize respondents so that the evaluator
can expand the list of potential participants while getting more referrals from
of a circle of social contacts. Also called chain-referral sampling,
snowballing can be effective in nominating prospective eligible participants
and has been found to be useful in out of sight populations. Within the
snowball sampling are the other established customs that include
respondent-driven sampling and adaptive sampling (Peterson & Valdez, 2005).
Data collection is crucial in a school district that has lost accreditation
like Kansas City Public Schools that was formerly known as The Kansas City
Missouri School District (KCMSD). Using formative and summative methods will
help evaluators discover the subject matter that most appeals to the overall
school district transfiguration regardless of whether it is advancing student
educational achievement, enhancing teacher training, replacing old school
equipment, consolidating or eliminating unproductive departments, and
establishing an atmosphere of peace and tranquility between the top echelons.
Two valuable and interesting aspects that have
to be given thought and reflection are evaluation interest and program
interest. One must not blindly undertake a program evaluation without having
program interest and evaluation interest at heart. Ethical implications, when
not followed, can be disastrous and bring disrepute to a program and those
carrying out evaluations. In public policy, people endowed with authority have
a responsibility to protect society and the scientific values they espouse. The
study of moral behavior is called ethics and it has been borrowed from the
Greek ethos. One of the moral
standards of ethics calls on humankind not to lie. Do not kill and do
not steal are also moral standards that have to be observed in all
circumstances by evaluators. The use of utilitarian ethics has been found to
produce the greatest benefit in a society when right action or policy is
pursued (McNabb, 2008). Other features that are common in ethics are rights
ethics, justice ethics, virtue ethics, and caring ethics. In a nutshell, one
has to realize that deviating from the right course when it comes to ethical
matters is cause for alarm and harm.
The use of systematic method of inquiry has
been found to prevail in data-based enquiries. Giving preference to a
stakeholder because the same stakeholder is good at dishing out pleasantries to
the person evaluating the program in which the stakeholder has a big stake is
tantamount to hypocrisy and utterly outrageous in view of ethical
considerations. Evaluators have to be on guard and be able to differentiate
from what is good from what is unacceptable in scientific research. In the
Western World, tremendous steps have been taken to keep researchers informed of
their rights and responsibilities and the rights of participants partaking in
research endeavors. There are guidelines, standards, and ethical procedures
that have to be followed by every responsible evaluator willing to emerge
victorious. Professional conduct and ethical conducts are guiding principles
that set the stage for scientific research. Clear and systematic scientific inquiry,
competence, integrity or honesty, respect for people, and observance of general
and public welfare are some of the evaluation standards, guidelines, and
ethical procedures have been reserved for scientists to lean on for guidance. Systematic
inquiry entails evaluators conduct themselves in a systematic manner by
collecting data through data-based inquiries; competence means providing
competent performance to stakeholders; integrity or honesty connotes observing
the integrity of the whole evaluation processes and procedures; respect for
people implies giving clients, stakeholders, participants, and respondents the
respect they deserve; while responsibilities for general and public welfare
requires evaluators take into account the diversity, values, and interests of
the public.
Formative
Evaluation
Evaluators are usually responsible for designing the type of
evaluative methods to pursue before embarking on a project. This is done
to ensure the evaluators have the right tools and resources for their proposed
projects. Having the plan and expertise can be useful in setting the step that
leads to the right course. In essence, formative evaluation, as the word ‘formative’
implies, sets the stage for program improvement and is an essential means to
altering program performance (Lipsey et el., 2004). No matter the type of
evaluation used, value, competence, and fair play have the propensity to
produce collisions with contradictory information (Rosenblatt & Woodbridge,
2003).
In evaluative sciences, conflicts of interest may arise from the
delivery of effective services. Data regarding efficacy usually require
resource availability and intensity of training as resources may not be
available to distinct sub-populations requiring intensive and costly programs. Stetler
(2006) argues that formative evaluation is effective in system measurements and
evaluations and useful in providing information related to implementation.
Formative evaluation highlights the significance of imminent and substantial
control on the enlargement, expansion, and value of performance endeavors.
Formative evaluation requires people having distinct listening
skills and profound knowledge in its implementation. As such, formative
evaluation enjoys a retinue of audiences that come from the top echelons of
management and a spectrum of leaders in the higher hierarchy that include
program formulators, providers of donor funds, and top brass. In any program,
formative evaluations require effective timing and the generation of tangible
results that lead to the making of immediate remarkable results.
Any time a program shows signs of stagnation and sluggishness
resulting from poor management, decline of worker productivity, misinformation,
and drop in general service delivery, formative evaluation may be used to steer
it to the right direction and accelerate its general program activities.
Steering a program to the right direction using formative evaluation requires
the presence of stakeholders having authority to implement changes. Thus,
stakeholder presence implies being available when needed most and being able to
provide the most appealing ideas. Because of their considerable impact on an
evaluation a lot can be achieved when stakeholders are present. The absence of
stakeholders in an evaluation may retard program significance.
Summative
Evaluation
Unlike
formative evaluation, Summative evaluation has its own distinctive features. One
thing that distinguishes it from formative evaluation is its use of summary
judgment that emerges once the evaluation is concluded. According to Habicht, Victora, and Vaughn, (1999), to ensure a program
is useful or favorable to society, summative evaluation may be used to
transform, adjust, end, or develop a program. A summative program has to be
able to deliver services that are worth the funding and cost with
accountability being the foremost objective.
In
Aristotelian thought, eudaimonia, a word with significant value in the outcome
of an evaluation, refers to feelings that drive one towards self-realization in
terms of instituting unique potentials of personality and exclusive principle
in life (Waterman et al., 2008). Thus, eudaimonia in evaluation is
geared toward attaining happiness or wellbeing (Hargreaves, 2001). For an
institution to test the soundness of software, summative evaluation may be used
to compute outcomes (Draper, 1997). The software can be determined if it is
better performing than traditional teaching methods by posing the question: Is
the educational courseware or learning project better in terms of validity than
the conventional instruction or no software at all? To avoid future regrets and
deter financial abuse, the usefulness, significance, and reliability of the
software has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt before it can be put into effective
use. Being mindful of what is to be expected and predicting product performance
may help any inconsistencies that may evolve in the future as the project leaps
forward to cover new grounds.
Program
Theory
As Rossi, Lipsey, and Freeman (2011) contend, program theory is an
explanation of what a program is composed of and what it is all about, its
designs, its targeted effects, or what it struggles to accomplish in the end.
In essence, program theory has advantages and disadvantages. Regardless of being
referred to as action theory or outcome line, program theory generally defines
what a program pursues, what its intentions are, and what it intends to
achieve. In program theory building, Turnbull (2002) exposes the effectiveness
of conceptual theory and action theory whose uses significantly enhance team
management and team building by expanding team capacity, team cohesion, and
team effectiveness. The characteristics of conceptual theory and action theory
have been shown to improve information sharing, interdependence, decision
implementation, goal setting, and increasing cooperation among teams. Both
conceptual theory and action theory can be tested empirically as both are
interdependent.
Program impact theory exists to identify expected outcomes. As service
is delivered to a targeted population, program managers and the retinue of
stakeholders expect an outcome that is advantageous to the demands of society.
To develop a program theory, evaluators have to know how a program is expected
to function; they have to have an implementation strategy for the program, and
they have to give a description of the population that is the target of the
program that is expected to serve its purpose.
In order to understand the intended impact of a program, there has
to be goals and objectives that define its direction. A broad statement known
as program goals and objectives typically states program intended
accomplishments or expected goals. When activities are matched against stated
objectives, program objectives are set forth in what is know as program
activities. This gives the evaluator the tools to comprehending program
expectations. Without clear identification of program activities, evaluators
may be faced with many conflicting huddles that make their intended tasks
impossible. A program theory should be put to use and made operational to make
a study worthwhile (Sidani & Sechrest, 1999).
Use of Logic Models
The most important tool for empowering evaluators is the logic
model. Logic models help evaluators organize their work projects by opening a
way of connecting the dots during programming and that it involves a basic
concept of following straightforward series of IF and THEN statements. For
example, these statements that act like ordinary tools and deter evaluators
from their intended pathways may be simplified as such:
IF
you embark on a certain activity, THEN you expect to get assured yield.
IF you succeed to seize that output,
THEN you will experience positive outcomes.
IF you obtain those outcomes, THEN
you will see the expected results.
To get the
expected results from the evaluation, the IF and THEN statements must be
logical and produce consistent answers. An IF and THEN logical statements that
can be used to alter the current status of the Kansas City Public Schools would
be: IF we pursue teacher reeducation, infrastructure improvement, curriculum
reevaluation, parent participation, and children’s health and safety standard
elevation, we will expect teacher performance to improve, parent involvement to
increase, and student grades to go up so as to be in par with national level.
IF the school administration grasps the outputs aforementioned statements, THEN
there will be little misconceptions from opponents. IF the above outcomes
materialize, THEN the desired outcomes will be realized such that all
stakeholders will feel impressed by the impact of the changes being reaped by
the targeted population in the restructured educational system. Parents whose
perception of the school district has been negative in the past will be tempted
to relocate to their old residences and start enrolling their children afresh. A logic model will
serve the purpose it is intended. However, the school district administration
must avoid using too large or too small levels of analysis as this may impede
evaluator’s success in finding the right solution to the school district’s
demise. It is vital not to lose the visual connections in the IF and THEN
statements and also avoid failing to think the usefulness of the logic model.
Stakeholder description
Stakeholders hold important positions and play significant roles
in program operations (Rossi et el., 2004). Stakeholders are individuals,
groups, or organizations that have vital interests in how well a program operates.
To avoid shocks and frustrations, evaluators have to keep in mind political
intrusions that come in their operations during evaluations. Also, evaluators
have to bear in mind how programs are put forward, set down, debated,
legislated, and financed. Projects or programs that undergo evaluations are usually
the handiworks of people in higher authority who continuously make follow up of
operations and procedures. Failure to implement a program in the manner
envisaged by an evaluation sponsor may result in hostility toward the
evaluator.
An evaluation has to be in line with political processes and there
has to be evaluative evidence that satisfies those having a stake in the
evaluation program. Evaluators have to comprehend the political constraints and
ramifications and resistance associated with program implementation and
evaluation. It is good to outline program challenges, goals, and strategies to
avoid being apprehended and splashed over editorial columns and newspaper
headlines that may have negative political leanings. The Kansas City Public Schools has an amalgamation of stakeholders
having stake in the school district operations, management, and organization.
Each stakeholder is driven by a special interest that requires particular
attention by someone within the school district. Failure to provide attention
to the needs of one stakeholder could result in a gridlock that may cause
handicaps to a particular department or division. It is imperative school
administrators, teachers, and state officials work in concert to ensure all
problems are solved amicably.
Stakeholder Analysis
Treating stakeholders equally must be upheld and given all
considerations and due respect. There has to be to be enhanced communication
between program administrators and people having business dealings with the
school district despite some stakeholders enjoying higher degree of admiration
and distinction than others because of the role they play and their place in the
school district. The importance of stakeholders in a program is that they can
provide noteworthy contributions and feedback and as well approve or
disseminate a plan. In the Kansas City Public Schools, parents and
administrators may be identified as part of the school district stakeholders. Parents of the school children may be dissuaded from sending their
kids to school if the schools infrastructure is poor, if there is shortage of
teaching facilities, if teacher-student ratio is out of proportion, if teachers
lack adequate training and know-how, if management is disorganized and lacking
working ethics, and if the general atmosphere is replete with factors that are
not conducive to educational facilitation.
Often, stakeholders are driven by the idea that evaluations are
beneficial to their cause and will ultimately tackle their needs and appear
useful to them in due course (Rossi et al., 2004). Key stakeholders of the
Kansas City Public Schools are the parents whose appraisal of evaluation
instruments adds validity, the school administration board whose participation
is vital as they appraise information requiring validation and verification
during the evaluation process, the teachers who offer feedback, and the school
administration that are empowered to settle on the nature of evaluation and anticipated
outcome. It is crucial for the evaluator to be familiar with evaluation
strategy and the stakeholder position. The Kansas City
Public School
Utilization Analysis and Utilization
Procedures
Narrowing data allows the researcher to
focus on identifiable specific research objectives. In the case study criteria,
researchers use the units of analysis which allow the evaluator to put
attention to particular objectives rather than having the mind on various
points of concern that may not bear fruit in the future when concluding the
syudy. A broader look at the Kansas City Public Schools, using quantitative
data collection method, we could draw facts and figures that would allow the
evaluator to analyze the success and failures of the various groups being
studied. Comparison could be made with other school districts so as to
determine program success. By using qualitative evaluations, evaluators could
realize critical results that could be eventually explained to complement
findings.
Applicable Design
Impact assessment, which is a pilot
demonstration program that is commissioned at the stage of policy formulation,
may be used to determine whether the intended effects can be achieved (Rossi et
el., 2004). Impact assessment is noteworthy since it can be applied in the
initial stages before experiencing broader coverage. Impact assessment is not
only limited to projects getting off the ground but it can also be applied to
ongoing programs. Key concepts in impact assessments include experimental and
quasi-experimental research designs. There are broad variations between experimental
and quasi-experimental designs. Evaluation of Kansas City Public Schools will
include the use of various methods or strategies.
Program Process Evaluation and Monitoring
Understanding whether the program is
reaching the target population and whether delivery of services is consistent
program design specifications and appropriate standards are part of program
process evaluation and monitoring. It is significant for the school district to
note down the number of participants receiving services, whether those
receiving services are part of the intended target, whether the services
provided are adequate; whether there are participants, who are underrepresented,
and whether the entire target population is aware of the program and the
services rendered.
Research Strategy
A research strategy that would fit when
evaluating the Kansas City Public Schools would be the explanatory research. An
explanatory research is concerned with explaining social phenomena. Theories
can be constructed to predict future behavior or events. It is the fastest way
to produce a snowballing stream of knowledge in a field or discipline. A
qualitative explanatory research is akin to quantitative exploratory research
(McNabb, 2008). By making, predictions investigators can build up theories that
can be used to conceive measurable controls over perceived events. The problems that brought down the Kansas
City Public Schools are clearly related to human actions. Mismanagement,
embezzlement of funds, disconnect between various stakeholders, parents unwillingness
to cooperate with the teachers, teacher tardiness and student absence, poor
infrastructure, lack of credible teaching gear, and outside interference may be
attributed to the collapse of the once prestigious school district that was the
envy of many in the nation. Even though the school district has undergone
formal changes, still, there is room for further investigations to expose the
names of those who caused the district-wide misappropriation of funds.
Data Collection and Incorporating Evaluation into
the Program Design
Data collection in the
qualitative method has to be in three component parts: data collection,
interpreting and analyzing data, and communicating the data research findings
to one or more of available communication media in a written version if
possible (McNabb, 2008). When collecting qualitative data, the researcher has
to participate in the group or activity, conduct individual or group
interviews, make observations, and document existing cultural artifacts.
Participating in group gatherings, observing social interrelationships
unobtrusively, and collecting or gathering data such as video and audio tape
recordings, and questioning subjects in structured and unstructured settings
are part of qualitative data collections.
In collecting qualitative
data, raw data that has been accumulating over a period of time is arranged in
order so they can be analyzed according to substance, reliability, and
validity. The system of reducing data, called conceptualization, allows the
researcher to discard what is unnecessary and keep tangible material for future
analysis. Interpreting qualitative data is used to interpret patterns and
connections. Interpretation implies that the researcher draws conclusions from
data that can be exposed. When a researcher uses graphic diagrams during data
collection, factors like misconceptions, personal connections, interfaces, and
relationships must be examined and described.
Utilization Analysis and Proposed Methods
School evaluations convey novel techniques and
ideas that can be applied to remove obstructions and impediments to students’
learning abilities. Evaluations help remove misconceptions between various stakeholders
having a stake in the evaluations of the school being evaluated. Whenever a
program is found to be deviating from the right path and not in line with
stakeholder expectations, meticulous evaluations could be devised to accelerate
its overall structure. The absence of enhanced social interaction and good
working relationships between the stakeholders and the evaluator in the Kansas
City Public Schools could be a recipe for disaster. School counselors have the
ability to overturn negative school operations and systemize departments that
lack direction. Since they have been trained in distinct fields that focus on
student performance elevation and transitioning into better prospects, they
should be viewed with admiration and given the right tools to promote
unproductive students performing dismally in statewide and nationally
standardized tests.
At the time of designing of an evaluation, it
is crucial to review the interests and concerns of the various stakeholders. Prominent
people having a stake in the program who deserve to be put into consideration
before undertaking the evaluation include the policymakers, owners and
employers, official government representatives, officials from funding
agencies, managers and directors, parents and teachers, and local agencies and
local leaders. The Kansas City Public Schools management has
to work on a strategy that will elevate student performances. New teaching
techniques need to be included in the curriculum. Careful considerations must be
given to the subjects kids lack devotion, concentration, and interest. If the
problem is with math or science, then, the introduction of new facilities and
expert teachers could be an added advantage. Parents should be encouraged to
work with the kids to overcome the burdens of homework. Teachers and children
should be given incentives to boost their confidence.
Hill (1998) believes that modernizing
institutions is the responsibility of decision makers since they are known to
possess the vital instruments and technical know-how to spearhead new programs.
Institutions experiencing modernization require efficient reform and rational
adaptation, bounded morality, intelligence, and power. The Kansas City School
Public Schools has a superintendent and a deputy whose day to day activities
include monitoring school programs and ensuring there exist harmonious working
between the various stakeholders. The school district has nine boards of
governors who are elected to four-year terms and their main responsibilities
include governance, monitoring how finances are spent, educational development
and evaluation, appointing of the chief administrator who is the superintendent
of the school district, and managing facilities. During program process
monitoring, program managers are required to update sponsors and funders the
major activities that have been undertaken, how the programs fair in terms of
implementation, huddles encountered, and if there are any future expectations
that can be learned. The governing board enjoys a higher degree of diversity
hence board members seem to be racially proportional. Its chair is Airick L.
West, a man who has been blamed for undermining the leadership of the previous
superintendent, John Covington, who resigned hastily last year (Sulzberger,
2011). Leaders must shun undermining each other for political gains.
Monitoring Service Utilization
The term coverage implies the level or extent
of participation of participants and whether the intended target has been
achieved while bias refers to the unequal or disproportional participation of
the various sub-groups. When one sub-group participates more than others, there
will be bias in the evaluation. The fruits of the evaluation must apply to all
regardless of race, creed, color, sex or gender, political and religious
affiliation, and finally, national identity (Rossi et al., 2004). Since the Kansas City School District
Recommendations
The Kansas City Public Schools
has many challenges ahead of it that will have to be tackled if the school
district is to flourish in the academic world. The school district has to abide
by the set down rules and regulations and ensure management is up to task and ready
to work with all stakeholders. Factors that are dragging the school district
away from the right path must be identified and rectified so that a repeat of
past mistakes may be avoided for the present and for posterity. The program has
to be monitored constantly without lapse and all wrongs occurring in the course
of the processes set on a right path. Management and school district board have
to work together so as to reach amicable solutions on their differences.
Teachers must have rapport with parents so there can be an atmosphere of good
working relations. There has to be accountability on how finances are spent. Management
must set aside special days for stakeholders to present their concerns. A
special ombudsman who will work with the superintendent and school board has to
be employed to oversee problems that need special attention.
Conclusion
The school district decision
makers did not do the right thing from the start to keep general school
operations in line with the required standards, norms, and expectations and
that is why loss of accreditation came to the fore. Lack of communication or
miscommunication may be attributed to the protracted power jostling that engulfed
top management. Management must work hard to bring overall school district
functions into fruition. The conditions of school infrastructure has to be
regulated, maintained, and given utmost attention.
Executive Summary of Evaluation
An evaluation of the Kansas City Public Schools discovered
that there is great disconnect between management, teachers, parents, and state
officials. The problem of losing accreditation-a problem that demanded scrutiny
from the beginning-has long been neglected by state officials, school district
administration, and teachers. Government officials failed to keep an eye on
student falling grades, teacher retraining, and infrastructure renovation. All
these problems required constant attention and that has not been the case.
Millions of dollars have gone to waste due to lack of accountability and use of
services that were inconsistent with modern school upkeep. It seems officials
were interested in giving out contractual works to acquaintances and family
members. The “do-it-your-own-way” attitude espoused by management resulted in
departments deviating from school district guidelines. Other school districts’
refusal to admit students from the Kansas City Public Schools paved the way for
many parents moving out of the district in search of better educational
opportunities for their children.
The most burning questions that need to be addressed by school
management and government officials are:
- What services need to be
adapted so that the school district can reach its objectives?
- How effective are the school district
functions since switching name?
If the school district is to expect student
educational achievements to go up so that the district is in par with the rest
of the nation, it would be relevant to introduce ground-breaking teaching
methods. Little has been experienced so far regarding the effectiveness of the
newly introduced services.
The Kansas
City Public School
The evaluation methods used to understand changing
trends being experienced by the Kansas City Public Schools have been summative
and formative since the school district has been functioning before losing
accreditation and that it is currently undergoing changes. The best way to keep
in touch with staff and teachers is to educate them on the plan being executed,
focus on the effects of local implications, and focus on the attention of the
staff so that program goals can be met. When adopting the plan leader support
must be support, implementation action team has to be established;
implementation plan must be modified or developed; implementation changes must
be monitored and small-scale changes implemented; then the implementation plan
has to extended or changed for adoption; and finally institutionalization has
to be adopted and accepted unanimously to avoid resistance. The political
wrangling between the top leaders of the school district should not be used to
undermine the smooth running of the various schools in the district.
References
Bryan, J. (2005).
Fostering educational resilience and achievement in urban schools through
school-family-community partnerships. Professional School
Counseling, 8 (3).
Danielson, C. (1996). Enhancing
professional practice: A framework for teaching. Alexandria , VA
Draper, S.W. (1997).
Prospects for summative evaluation of CAL
Eseryel, D (2002). Approaches to evaluation of training: Theory and practice. Educational Technology &
Society, Vol. 5, Issue 2.
Habicht, J.P.,
Victora, CG. & Vaughan, J.P. (1999). Evaluating designs for adequacy,
plausibility, and probability of public health program performance and impact. International Journal of
Epidemiology, Vol. 28, 10-28.
Hargreaves, D.H.
(2001). A capital theory of school effectiveness and improvement. British Educational Research Journal,
27 (4). DOI: 10.1080/0141192012007148 9.
Hill, G.B.
(1998). Leading organizations: Perspectives for a new era. Thousand Oaks , CA
Iriti, J.E., Bickel, W.E. & Nelson , C.A.
Kimball, S. M. and Milanowski, A. (2009).
Examining teacher evaluation validity and leadership decision making within
a standards-based evaluation system. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45
(1), 34-70.
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The
effects of feedback intervention on performance: A historical review,
meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological
Bulletin, 119, 254-284.
McNabb, D.E. (2008). Research methods in
public administration and nonprofit management. Quantitative and qualitative
approaches (2nd ed.). Armonk ,
New York
Meyen, E.L.,
Aust, R.J., Bui, Y.N., Ramp, E. & Smith, S.J. (2002). The Online Academy
Peterson, R.D. & Valdez, A. (2005). Using
snowball-based methods in hidden populations to generate a randomized community
sample of gang-affiliated adolescents. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice,
3 (151). DOI: 10.1177/1541204004273316
Rosenblatt,
A., & Woodbridge
Rossi, P.H.,
Lipsey, M.W., & Freeman, H.E. (2004). Evaluation: A systematic approach.
Thousand Oaks , CA
Sidani, S. &
Sechrest, L. (1999). Putting program theory into operation. American
Journal of Evaluation, 20: 227. DOI: 10.1177/109821409902000205
Stetler, C.B. et al. (2006). The Role of formative evaluation in
implementation research and the QUERI experience. Journal
of General Internal Medicine, 21:S1-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00355.
Sulzberger, A.G. (August 30,
2011). Kansas City
Program
Theory Building:
A Strategy for deriving cumulative evaluation knowledge. American Journal of
Evaluation, (23), 3, 275-290.
Waterman, A.S.,
Schwartz, S.J. & Conti, R. (2008). The implications of two conceptions of
happiness (hedonic enjoyment and eudaimonia) for the understanding of intrinsic
motivation. Journal of Happiness Studies, (9) 41, 79, DOI
10.1007/s10902-006-9020-7
