|
Session Title: Harnessing the Challenges of Conducting Public Education (K-12) Evaluations
|
|
Panel Session 629 to be held in Sebastian Section I1 on Friday, Nov 13, 4:30 PM to 6:00 PM
|
|
Sponsored by the Government Evaluation TIG
and the Pre-K - 12 Educational Evaluation TIG
|
| Chair(s): |
| Rakesh Mohan, Idaho Legislature, rmohan@ope.idaho.gov
|
| Discussant(s):
|
| Nancy Zajano, Learning Point Associates, nancy.zajano@learningpt.org
|
| Abstract:
Policy debates involving public education (K-12) are often charged with strong emotions and are fueled by conflicting and competing interests of well-organized stakeholders. For evaluators to be successful in this environment, they have no choice but to fully understand the evaluation context and manage the politics of that context while avoiding getting entangled in the politics. This understanding of evaluation context includes knowing the sphere of the authorizing environment, knowing who are the sponsors and stakeholders, and understanding the relationships among those stakeholders. Managing the politics of the context means that evaluators should try their best to maximize both their independence from and responsiveness to sponsors and stakeholders. This panel session will use examples of controversial evaluations from Idaho, Texas, and Washington to illustrate how to effectively navigate through the politically-charged world of K-12 evaluations.
|
|
The Hot Potato That Cannot Be Dropped: Evaluations That No One Wanted but Someone Had to Do
|
| Bob Thomas, King County Auditor's Office, rthomasconsulting@msn.com
|
|
Legislative evaluation agencies often receive study mandates whose motivations may have little to do with an interest in promoting good public policy. They may result from deal-making, such as appeasing a certain legislator, or in an effort to pander to interest groups or avoid litigation. The problem for the evaluators is that those in power may have little or no real interest in the study; and there could be the possibility that no matter how well the evaluation is carried out, it will be considered dead on arrival. Understanding the context that gave rise to the evaluation, and in which it will be received, can help evaluators find a path through the political minefield and, ultimately, produce a study of lasting value. This presentation will draw upon experiences with two evaluations in the field of K-12 education, one involving a study of Special Education funding in Washington State, and another study that examined the adequacy of public education funding in Idaho.
|
|
|
Managing the Politics of K-12 Evaluations and Finding Workable Solutions
|
| Rakesh Mohan, Idaho Legislature, rmohan@ope.idaho.gov
|
|
It seems that everyone has an opinion about public education (K-12); often those opinions are charged with strong emotions. Key stakeholder groups are generally well-organized and are not shy about letting their views be heard in public and lobbying for their interests with state legislatures behind the scene. Such an environment presents both challenges and opportunities for evaluators working in state legislative organizations. The two toughest challenges they face are understanding the political context and building a working relationship with policymakers and stakeholders through mutual respect and trust. Once these two challenges are mastered, opportunities lie in conducting evaluations that would produce workable solutions for improving the K-12 public education system. This presentation will use examples from nine K-12 evaluations conducted in Idaho during a six-year period. These evaluations covered a broad range of topics including virtual schools, pupil transportation, school district services consolidation, and adequacy of public education funding.
| |
|
Miracle or Madness: Understanding and Managing the Dynamics of Evaluation in Texas' K-12 Public Education
|
| Maria Whitsett, Moak, Casey and Associates, mwhitsett@moakcasey.com
|
|
Parameters for educational evaluation and accountability exist in the form of law and rule at the federal and state levels. These drive district policies and practices, including gathering and managing a vast array of data on students to feed into accountability systems that typically have predetermined performance measures with targets or standards. In a world dominated by tweets, local evaluation efforts seldom garner the same bursts of public attention as the publication of standards met or missed in educational accountability. Two aspects of accountability seem to particularly distress K-12 systems, beyond the test scores, per se: 1) instability in the measures and/or standards used to determine results and 2) administration of sanctions relative to performance. These issues strike at the heart of perceived fairness to the accountability system, and they must be addressed in a political environment. State and local evaluators can and should contribute to possible resolution and/or management of such issues in politically charged contexts.
| |