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.