Social Construction of Reality - Bad Request

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The School District does not currently have an evaluation plan in place as stipulated by MSIP, cycle 4. An analysis of The School District’s board policy brought to light information notably relevant to this study (Appendix L). There are eleven sections that cover the entire operation of The School District. Within the subsets of these eleven headings, evaluation is mentioned four times. Three of the four citations are found within Section A- Foundations and Basic Commitments: evaluation of school board operational procedures (policy AFA), evaluation of support staff (policy AFD), and evaluation of instructional programs (policy AFE). The fourth citation is within Section C- General School Administration: evaluation of the superintendent (policy CBG). None of these references particularly indicate program evaluation as conveyed professionally within NCLB or procedurally within MSIP, cycle 4. Policy AFA stipulates the school board shall review and continuously study its own operations. Policy AFD obviously directed towards performance reviews meant to be couched through the human resources department: evaluation of support staff. Policy AFE, evaluation of instructional programs, is articulated within this section specifically in terms of curriculum review protocols. After analyzing board policy sections for the frequency and location of evaluation, the next step was to study the subheadings for references to programs. Subtitles within sections reflect the word “program” is utilized eighteen times over the course of six sections. Notably, 56 percent, or ten of the eighteen, references are within Section I: Instruction. 65
The School District’s vision, mission, and goals have implications for program evaluation as well (Appendix M). The mission is educating each child for success. The vision, a clause punctuated with a colon, most notably states a great place to learn. Though not explicitly articulated as such, the three goals function as mechanisms to qualify how The School District intends to achieve the vision: (a) create a learning environment that will produce academic success for all students (b) provide a safe, secure learning environment (c) practice fiscal stewardship of resources. Strategies, measurements, and action steps undergird each goal. None of these stipulate program evaluation. The important finding was in the juxtaposition of the federal, state, and local perspectives (Appendix I). A summary list of the various responses elicited to a search for the program was generated (Appendix O) and presented to the primary intended user. The most significant finding was that The School District has not embraced a coherent and/or site-specific definition of the word program, particularly as this word relates to the imperative of program evaluation. However, despite a lack of coherence, the analysis drew forth the fact that the way School District board policy references programs strongly resonates with the manner in which the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 references policy. Another important concept that emerged is that at the LEA (local educational agency) level, in this case The School District, no concern is appropriated towards the methodological imperatives set forth for program evaluation as embodied in the federal legislation, particularly regarding edicts concerning randomized controlled trials. No evidence collected suggests The School District has the intent of pursuing such methods. 66
Page 1 and 2:
UTILIZATION-FOCUSED EVALUATION OF T
Page 3 and 4:
The undersigned, appointed by the D
Page 5 and 6:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The lessons I have
Page 7 and 8:
fearlessness, and reminded me of wh
Page 9 and 10:
Research Questions Research Methods
Page 11 and 12:
LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Strong
Page 13 and 14:
UTLIZATION-FOCUSED EVALUATION OF TH
Page 15 and 16:
process-use within future evaluatio
Page 17 and 18:
One leader trained by this program,
Page 19 and 20:
Objectivation. Objectivation is the
Page 21 and 22:
developing, innovating, or changing
Page 23 and 24:
logical or sequential links among r
Page 25 and 26:
Figure 1. The School District’s p
Page 27 and 28:
Objectivation. This is the process
Page 29 and 30: evaluation in general) is evaluatio
Page 31 and 32: CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF LITERATURE In
Page 33 and 34: Objectivation Legitimation OVERVIEW
Page 35 and 36: the profession: systemic inquiry, c
Page 37 and 38: 5. Eclectic Evaluation (1 approach
Page 39 and 40: however, it is important to remembe
Page 41 and 42: Figure 3. The Utilization-Focused E
Page 43 and 44: eginning an evaluation this way ser
Page 45 and 46: producing commonly understood evide
Page 47 and 48: Institutionalization. A second proc
Page 49 and 50: Legitimation. Legitimation, the thi
Page 51 and 52: evaluation report was made to the s
Page 53 and 54: experiences in finite provinces of
Page 55 and 56: played into the use of electronic s
Page 57 and 58: interaction and particular context:
Page 59 and 60: to achieve federal compliance (Ross
Page 61 and 62: as a valid, legitimate contribution
Page 63 and 64: principles (Patton, 1997) in order
Page 65 and 66: with other stakeholders (Appendix E
Page 67 and 68: Short interviews. Development of qu
Page 69 and 70: multidirectional thinking to integr
Page 71 and 72: Summary The School District had not
Page 73 and 74: experience. The topic for this case
Page 75 and 76: study; each signed an agreement of
Page 77 and 78: hoped the model would provide a pat
Page 79: according to page number, section,
Page 83 and 84: Figure 8. Step 1- Important concept
Page 85 and 86: Figure 10. A picture of “outgoing
Page 87 and 88: Short Stakeholder Interviews The ne
Page 89 and 90: This stakeholder went on to say tha
Page 91 and 92: (Budget Training Manual). A stakeho
Page 93 and 94: institutionally…very difficult to
Page 95 and 96: This argument, the focus of years o
Page 97 and 98: published meeting schedule. Another
Page 99 and 100: needs to be established and publish
Page 101 and 102: Figure 12. An organic reporting too
Page 103 and 104: explained, “that was all I knew
Page 105 and 106: CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION WITH CONCLU
Page 107 and 108: Discussion of Findings Three resear
Page 109 and 110: Figure 13. The level of involvement
Page 111 and 112: 5. Organizational culture can be ch
Page 113 and 114: evaluator, but also the program sup
Page 115 and 116: Table Two. The research findings ca
Page 117 and 118: 3. The School District should compl
Page 119 and 120: 2. A follow-up study of the impleme
Page 121 and 122: The chief research question was whe
Page 123 and 124: Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (200
Page 125 and 126: Nelson, M. & Eddy, R. M. (2008). Ev
Page 127 and 128: Starratt, R. (2003). Centering educ
Page 129 and 130: 22. Accreditation and certification
Page 131 and 132:
Researcher’s Name: Laura Nelson R
Page 133 and 134:
The Campus Institutional Review Boa
Page 135 and 136:
Short Interview Protocol Appendix E
Page 137 and 138:
Second Long Interview Protocol Appe
Page 139 and 140:
Appendix I Affinity Diagram 124
Page 141 and 142:
Appendix K NCLB Content Analysis Di
Page 143 and 144:
Appendix M School District Vision,
Page 145 and 146:
Appendix O Examples of Programs- Da
Page 147 and 148:
Interviewee Effective (ness) (effec
Page 149 and 150:
Interviewee Perceive perception Sup
Page 151 and 152:
Program Mission CSIP Value Appendix
Page 153:
VITA Laura Nelson earned a B.A. in
show all

Social Construction of Reality - Bad Request

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?