How evaluation improve management? Discuss in detail.
If you want to view other related topics. Click Here.
Answer:
Evaluation is often overlooked in the day-to-day affairs of the school system. In reality, the ongoing evaluation of programmes, personnel and activities may be one of the more important aspects of the quality of effort being extended by the organization,
Programmes are mandated by a variety of mechanisms: by state law, by state board of education rules, by local policy, by graduation requirements, by federal law, and by the need of the students. As programmes are developed for a particular clientele, they must be delivered to that clientele and then evaluated to see if they (the programmes) accomplished what the planners intended. All too often, educators initiate a programme an it’s left to divine judgment to determine its, effectiveness.
In this day of account ability, of wise use of scarce resources, and of increasing competition for the local and state tax dollar, it is important that evaluation efforts should be initiated and maintained in order to justify programmes and budgets. Especially as one considered the implications of site-based management (SBM) and all that it entails, the need for a well-ground evaluation process is essential.
Programmes are planned, the evaluation process should begin. The following questions should be examined as a result of the evaluation process:
- Is the target population being served?
- Is the programme producing the desired results?
- Is the programme cost-effective?
- Is the programme compatible with other programmes?
- Does the programme support the mission of the school?
The integrity and viability of the planning process is dependent on the capacity of the evaluation design and process to stand alone as an independent function of the organization.
Ideally, evaluation, while closely aligned and supportive of planning mechanism, is independent of any other function of the school system. This independence not only allows greater objectivity of process, but it also guarantees that the evaluation of any programme or activity will be accomplished on its own merits and based on its own performance.
The evaluation function is best performed when it is located under the superintendent and not involved in any other function of the school organization.
Ideally, the evaluation process gathers data and presents it in such a way that the decision maker (principal, director, superintendent, board etc.) can interpret the data and decide the subsequent actions required of him/her.
Evaluation is a process of delineating, obtaining and providing useful information for judging decision alternatives (Stufflebeam et A. 197 l, xxv). In other words evaluation is a mechanism for generating data on which decisions can be made. If performed at its most objective level, alternative situations and data can be examined, and the most appealing and productive decision is possible for the person charged with the decision.
System of Evaluation (CIPP)
Dr. Daniel Stufflebeam of Ohio State University developed CIPP, an acronym for context, input, process and product types of programme evaluations, during the late 1960s and early 1970s. The CIPP model’s relationship to decision making continues to a variety of educational settings throughout the country. According to Stufflebeam’s theory, the four evaluation types serve general decision-making categories,
a) Context Evaluation
Although four types of programme evaluation are significant in the management of information related to educational programmes and services, an understanding of context evaluation is most important to a practicing school administrator. In general, its importance focuses on three factors, which oftentimes affect the success, or failure of decisions related to school programmes. First, context evaluation serves short and long-range planning decisions. Planning in many school districts become an academic exercise of exchanging ideas between colleagues, which leads towards re-enforcement like the key decision maker’s position of any one of many issues. For reasons time, lack of know-how (possibly too many staff theoreticians), and commitment (key decision makers threatened), accommodation of the planning process may he brushed aside as an administrative frill, taking organizational energy away from the operational practice of a school district. Secondly, context evaluation is ongoing or continues throughout the life of an educational programme or service. Educational programme are dynamic in nature and therefore vulnerable to change even after extensive systematic planning. If educational programmes were planned, developed and administered in a vacuum void of people, possibly the importance of the ongoing nature of context evaluation would be minimized. Thirdly, context evaluation continues to provide a reference point or baseline of information designed to examine to initial programme goals and objectives. It allows for a close relationship between decisions based on planned goals and objectives and final programme outcome. School administrators have the flexibility to examine initial programme goals and objectives at anytime throughout a programme’s life overlay them on what is presently happening in the programmes and make a decision to continue, stop or redirect the programme and its resources. The result is avoidance or minimizing “after-the-fact” or “post mortem” evaluations of educational programmes services following their completion.
*********************************************************************************
Post a Comment