| In a 90 minute Roundtable session, the first
rotation uses the first 45 minutes and the second rotation uses the last 45 minutes.
|
| Roundtable Rotation I:
Simplifying the Complex: Creating Transparent Evaluation in Multi-institutional Education Partnerships |
|
Roundtable Presentation 288 to be held in MISSION A on Thursday, Nov 11, 1:40 PM to 3:10 PM
|
|
Sponsored by the Cluster, Multi-site and Multi-level Evaluation TIG
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Dewayne Morgan, University System of Maryland, dmorgan@usmd.edu
|
| Susan Tucker, Evaluation & Development Associates, sutucker1@mac.com
|
| Jennifer Frank, University System of Maryland, jfrank@usmd.edu
|
| Abstract:
Transparency in programmatic outcomes is fast becoming an expectation from federal funding agencies. This presentation will engage participants in a discussion about the challenges associated with evaluating large-scale, multi-institutional projects. Presenters will use their diverse set of experiences and qualifications to offer examples for making evaluation findings relevant to broader education policy and practice, while attending to the expectation for transparency.
|
| Roundtable Rotation II:
Evaluating Twenty First Century Community Learning Centers: Reconciling Evaluation Needs and Constraints at Multiple Systemic Levels |
|
Roundtable Presentation 288 to be held in MISSION A on Thursday, Nov 11, 1:40 PM to 3:10 PM
|
|
Sponsored by the Cluster, Multi-site and Multi-level Evaluation TIG
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Elizabeth Whipple, Research Works Inc, ewhipple@researchworks.org
|
| Mildred Savidge, Research Works Inc, msavidge@researchworks.org
|
| Abstract:
As State Evaluators for the 21st CCLC program in New York State, we are responsible for reporting on the quality of programs across the state. Initially (in 2006), local programs only reported to the federal government, using an online data collection system that provided information for federal reporting, but was not sufficient for state or local purposes. No local evaluator was required. Initial evaluation indicated a need for local evaluation targeted to both state and local needs. Based on our recommendation, all programs were required to have a local evaluator beginning in 2008. Subsequent review of local evaluation reports indicated the need for standardization of reporting to respond to state evaluation needs. This session will review and discuss the needs of decision makers at different systemic levels, soliciting feedback from the group on an evaluation template designed to provide standardized information for addressing local and state level evaluation needs.
|