Assignment two

Upon reading through the Student Services Program Description for Programming for Children with Severe Disabilities with an eye towards developing a plan for program evaluation, I found myself asking many questions. As with most programs there are so many opportunities for evaluation, several questions really should be asked before a model for evaluation is chosen. One of the primary questions being, “What do they want evaluated?” but others that immediately when through my head included: Are they summative or formative evaluation? Do they want to know if their funding was spent appropriately? Do they want to know if the children designated for this program were properly assessed? Are they wondering if the program was delivered according the criteria established? Are they wondering if the objectives set out by the Teacher were met for each child in the program? Interestingly, my own question based on this very procedural description of the program (number of visits, who visits, eligible criteria, etc) was whether or not the children in the program were having their needs met. I rapidly realized that the answer to this question would depend heavily on who was doing the asking since parents would be interested in different information than would the provincial funding department or, presumably, the Director of Special Education, for example. The purpose of the evaluation would also an important aspect to consider in choosing the model as some are better suited for make judgements and others for program improvement.

So, for the purposes of this assignment, I am going to make a few assumptions about the context within which this evaluation would take place. I am going to assume that this is a new program that Alberta Education is implementing and that they are at the planning stages and want to ensure that the program continually improves and evolves so that the children receive the best services possible so they are including program evaluation in the initial plan. Another assumption that I am making is that since evaluation is being included in the initial planning and throughout implementation, there is a modest budget included to allow for effective evaluation (though also noting that it is within a public education system so it likely wouldn’t be a robust budget).

Given this context, the model I would choose to use is Stufflebeam’s CIPP. The CIPP framework emphasises the collection of evaluative data the purpose of which is to help decision makers. It allows for formative evaluation to occur during implementation and for adjustments to be made accordingly so that processes are improved as well as summative evaluation to evaluate the product of the program. With information gathered in each of the four areas (context, input, process and product), this evaluation should be able to provide a broad based, comprehensive picture of the program as it is being implemented and, eventually of the outcomes (I assumed this was important since each program is individualized for a child’s specific needs). Such descriptive information would be important to the many stakeholders of a public education program and would also be useful for decision-makers. Understanding that catering formative evaluation strictly to decision makers’ questions and needs might garner criticism from other stakeholders in a public education program, I would develop a participative approach to the planning, including decision makers from various audiences (representatives from government funding, program developers, teachers and other education personnel delivering the program, and parents) in a focus group type of setting. This would have to be done very carefully to ensure that the group would not become so large that they would lose focus and to ensure that the plan for evaluation did not become too complex rendering the outcomes of the evaluation process useless.

I think that the cyclical nature of the, “process of delineating, obtaining and providing useful information to decision-makers, with the overall goal of programme or project improvement” (Robinson, 2002, p. 1) in periodic consultation with representatives of the major stakeholders, using the CIPP model to evaluate this programme would certainly provide for a stronger educational program for these children. Primarily because the program description does not outline to my satisfaction, what the purpose of the program is and this model begins with an evaluation of that context which would, in my opinion, be valuable since everything else stems from that.

Note that additional material, including the quote, comes from:
Robinson, Bernadette. The CIPP approach to evaluation. COLLIT project: A background note from Bernadette Robinson. 4 May 2002. Retrieved from the Commonwealth of Learning Discussion Area web site 2009-09-19. Http://hub.col.org/2002/collit/att-0073/01-The_CIPP_approach.doc

Stufflebeam, Daniel L. CIPP Evaluation Model Checklist: A tool for apply the Fifth Installment of the CIPP Model to assess long-term enterprises. June 2002. Retrieved from the Western Michigan University: The Evaluation Center web site 2009-09-19. http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/checklists/cippchecklist.htm