|
Strengthening Evaluation Policy in Saudi Arabia for Higher Evaluation Quality
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Mohammed Alyami, Western Michigan University, mohammed.alyami@wmich.edu
|
| Abstract:
Saudi Arabia government and organizations have begun to consider the importance of professional evaluation. However there are few formal evaluation policies to support professional evaluation standards and practices. The Program Evaluation Standards by the Joint Committee (1994) is used as a guiding standard (and informal policy) for evaluation, although there are other frameworks that may influence how evaluation is practiced. This proposed paper will address three main issues. First, what evaluation standards are used to guide evaluation policy in Saudi Arabia and how can these be modified or adapted to insure high quality evaluation practice? Second, what are existing requirements for professional evaluators, and what policy changes need to be considered to insure a highly qualified pool of professionals? Third, what are good evaluation models and how can these approaches improve the overall quality of evaluation in this national context? Implications for evaluation policy in other nations will be considered.
|
|
Institutionalising Evaluation: By Decree or by Persuasion?
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Marie Gaarder, International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie), mgaarder@3ieimpact.org
|
| Bertha Briceno, World Bank, bbriceno@worldbank.org
|
| Abstract:
This paper compares experiences of institutionalizing government evaluation efforts through a discussion of the three leading models in Latin America – Mexico, Colombia and Chile – the non-centralized system of monitoring and evaluation adopted in South Africa, and the policy-learning approach taken in China. Some developed country experiences are also presented. It concludes that there is no unique model for strengthening and institutionalizing a monitoring and evaluation system, but that elements of independence and enforceability are part of the recipe but are often at odds. The success of institutionalization requires strong political will to ensure that results are being used to improve performance. It also requires having a clear powerful stakeholder, such as the Congress, the Ministry of Finance, or the President to champion the process.
|
|
Evaluation and the Shifting Meanings of Accountability in Education in Five Nations
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Christina Segerholm, MidSweden University, christina.segerholm@miun.se
|
| Jenny Ozga, University of Edinburgh, jenny.ozga@ed.ac.uk
|
| Abstract:
This paper analyses results from a research project on governing and evaluation in education in five nations: Denmark, England, Finland, Scotland and Sweden. The influence of global policies on national and local evaluation and evaluation (QAE) systems, and the shift to governing by objectives and outcomes, forms a contextual base. Different conceptions of accountability are presented and used in the analysis of the five nations’ governing and QAE systems. The analysis show that the shift in governing (now including several levels and actors) is paralleled with shifting meanings of accountability, more directed to the results of education. ‘Accountability’ is also incrementally filled with hybrid meanings (e.g. consumer, managerial, individual, performance) but differently emphasized in the five nations, England perhaps harboring the most complex notion in that sense, while in Finland, with a less extensive QAE system, accountability is more about process, professional and political responsibility in education.
|
| | |