|
Session Title: Walking the Tightrope: Strategies for Conducting Evaluations Within the Political Contexts of School Districts
|
|
Panel Session 124 to be held in Suwannee 15 on Wednesday, Nov 11, 4:30 PM to 6:00 PM
|
|
Sponsored by the Pre-K - 12 Educational Evaluation TIG
|
| Chair(s): |
| Jennifer Coyne Cassata, Prince William County Schools, cassatjc@pwcs.edu
|
| Abstract:
Decision-making by local school boards takes place within an intensely political context. Stakeholders, particularly parents, have a direct voice and many groups are mobilizing to actively shape policy decisions. Evaluators working within and for school districts find themselves in a situation where frequently changing political contexts influence the methods used, the extent to which evaluation findings are utilized, and even evaluators' ability to adhere to the Program Evaluation Standards. This panel discussion will include evaluators working within neighboring school districts who will share sample experiences and how they navigated through those experiences to maintain high-quality practice and encourage effective use of the evaluation process and findings.
|
|
Do You Hear What I Hear? Attempting to Enhance Utilization of Evaluation Findings
|
| Jennifer Coyne Cassata, Prince William County Schools, cassatjc@pwcs.edu
|
| Kenneth Hinson, Prince William County Schools, hinsonke@pwcs.edu
|
|
Two examples will be used to describe the context many evaluators face and strategies for navigating that context to encourage utilization of evaluation findings. The first is one in which evaluators were asked to conduct an evaluation of an elementary mathematics program and wound up in the middle of the math wars. Evaluators have faced issues related to Propriety Standards, in that both sides would like evaluators to take a side, as well as to Accuracy Standards, where evaluators have had to defend the quality and objectivity of the work. In addition, evaluators have had to present findings alongside conflicting anecdotal evidence presented by stakeholder groups. The second is one in which evaluators were asked to determine the interest in a potential program. In this situation, the major issue encountered was the inclination to absorb only those findings that supported previously held positions.
|
|
|
Strategies For Maintaining Objectivity in Political Contexts
|
| Anane Olatunji, Fairfax County Public Schools, anane.olatunji@fcps.edu
|
|
A case-study will be presented and discussed to underscore the challenges evaluators may face when seeking to maintain AEA's guiding principles (i.e., Systematic Inquiry, Competence, Integrity/Honesty, Respect for People, Responsibilities for General and Public Welfare). The presentation will discuss specific strategies evaluators may use to maintain the integrity of the studies they conduct in politically-charged contexts.
| |
|
Political Contexts, Methodological Constraints, and Program Outcomes
|
| Anane Olatunji, Fairfax County Public Schools, anane.olatunji@fcps.edu
|
| Kenneth Hinson, Prince William County Schools, hinsonke@pwcs.edu
|
|
The political contexts of public schools often preclude conducting randomized experiments. Consequently, evaluators must often assess impacts after programs already have been designed and implemented. Confronting this limitation, the evaluators employed a quasi-experimental design using matched subjects in a district-wide academic enrichment program that exhibited intriguing results. This presentation examines matching strategies that investigators may use in order to improve the validity of evaluation results when it is threatened by political circumstances.
| |