Assignment #2

Program Evaluation...Case Study

The case study describing a government funded program for children with severe/profound disabilities is not uncommon to Saskatchewan educators. Although this program focuses on children who may or may not be in school we, in elementary schools, may be involved in providing programs such as this one. Funding availability hinges on similar criteria such as diagnosis, documentation in the form of a personal program plan and of course the level of support being provided.

The Formative Evaluation Approach is the method I would choose to assess the program in place to meet the needs of the children identified in the ECS Program as described in the case study. Scriven defines formative evaluation as ongoing with the intent to improve while summative evaluation is conducted after a program is complete, usually for an external audience. The urgency to support young children in their early years of development cannot be overstated. That there is a limited time allotted to each child in this program would suggest ongoing evaluation needs to be conducted so necessary changes can be made to meet the ongoing needs and changes in the child. To wait until the end of the year to evaluate a program that supports a child’s emotional, social and cognitive growth and subsequent success of the program could be detrimental. The required minimum four visits during the school year provides the opportunity to evaluate the progress in the child and alter the program to support his or her ongoing development, that being said, the Formative Approach seems to be an obvious choice.

Formative Evaluation is a reflective method that as three important attributes that would support its implementation. First it allows the opportunity for quick feedback to determine the effectiveness of the program and strategies that are in place to meet the learning needs of the child. Secondly, cumulative documentation provides updated information on the techniques and resources that are being used and their effectiveness, what challenges are encountered and what impacts have been made not only at the end of the school year but early and mid way through as well. Lastly, formative evaluation supports planning and allows for reconsideration of or recommitment to the plans. It also allows for the reevaluation of goals and supports future planning and implementation. The three attributes described align with the necessary records that will lead the funders to continue or deny future financial support for a particular child with significant disabilities.

Another reason for choosing this method is the number of evaluation tools available as part of this process. The varying tools such as interviews, questionnaires, reports and student interaction allow for the evidence of learning to be triangulated through observation, conversation and product. With the triangulation of information the program provider can involve family and caregivers, medical personnel and the education team in gathering the necessary evidence. Involving the entire community of support is a necessary and important piece of a successful learning plan. In conclusion I would suggest that the importance of selecting the right strategies to work with some of the youngest and most needy children in a timely and effective way can be through the described formative evaluation.

Assignment # 1...Program Evaluation Analysis

Summer Tutoring Program for Kids 2003…final report.

The Summer Tutoring Program for Kids 2003 final report was of interest to me as it showed similarities to reports I have seen written during my time working in community schools. Grant writing and lobbying for funding to execute programs in community schools during the academic year as well as summer months is common practice. Program evaluations are always required to justify and provide information about the delivery and success of the funded program.

I reviewed the 2003 final report but for interests sake I also reviewed the 2008 final report and found them to be significantly different. I will elaborate later in this assignment.

The 2003 final report can be accessed at:
http://www.gov.pe.ca/photos/original/edu_sum_tutor.pdf

The 2008 final report can be accessed at:
http://www.nald.ca/library/learning/stpk08/stpk-rpt.pdf

Background
Summer Tutoring Program for Kids is an 8 week tutoring opportunity for students in grades 1-6 across Prince Edward Island. The focus is on improving or maintaining reading levels over the summer. It began in 1998 with 5 tutors and 97 students and has grown to 21 tutors, one full-time coordinator and 600 students served in 2003.

The Sumer Tutoring Program for Kids 2003 final report is a process-based evaluation that describes how the program has evolved and provides a vague description of how it operated.

Weaknesses
I found there to be many weaknesses in the 2003 program evaluation that left more questions than answers about the 2003 program.
1. Overall the document was vague and provided little detail in answering the expected process-based evaluation questions.
2. One of the objectives was to provide qualified students with summer employment. How these tutors were deemed qualified was never described. The report stated they got two days training from consultants and teachers but what was involved in the training was omitted. I was left asking if and how the tutors provided pre and post assessments to determine the learning needs or successes of each child.
3. Details about the services offered to the children was not provided. The general process that the tutors and students went through is not found in this final report.
4. The training and role description for the program coordinator was also not addressed.

5. The only resource mentioned was the public library and levelled book but how these were utilized is unknown. The author of this evaluation also mentions a tote of supplies and final forms for the school. I would have appreciated knowing what was in the totes and what information was provided to the school on the final forms.
6. If the main reason for this program is to help students build or maintain reading levels over the summer where was the evidence of that? Perhaps on the final forms that are submitted to schools? Without this data I question how informed decisions were made to determine the inclusion or omission of future products and services?

Strengths
Although outweighed by weaknesses the report did have strengths.
1. Qualified resource teachers recommended the students for the program. We can assume that these teachers would have used various assessments and have a complete understanding of each child’s needs.
2. The report indicates a survey that was provided to parents and students. A large part of the report provides feedback from both of these groups. The surveys included questions about how the clients felt about the program, what they would like to see changed and what they would recommend staying the same.
3. Lastly, the author does provide a list of recommendations that she deemed necessary for the future. I should note that in the 2008 final report many of the 2003 recommendations were being enacted.

Conclusion
In reviewing a report such as this I think there are a couple of key things to consider.
1. The final evaluation is only as good as the author who writes it. Without understanding the experiences and training of these people it is difficult to really know how effective the program might have been. The 2008 final evaluation answers almost all of the questions that the 2003 report did not. Although I felt the program had many gaps perhaps it was only ineffective writing and detailing on the author’s part.
2. With the tremendous growth of the program between 1998 and 2003 we can assume that the Summer Tutoring Program for Kids 2003 was effective. I don’t doubt the need of the students and that one on one tutoring can be very effective in supporting student learning.