A Pragmatic Model for a Comprehensive Public School Research and Evaluation System

Abstract

A model for research and evaluation in a large urban school district is presented. The relationship between research, evaluation, planning, and development is discussed in light of major functions including context, input, process, and product evaluation, as well as applied and basic research. The role of these functions in supplying the information base necessary for educational planning and decision-making is highlighted. IN RECENT YEARS there has been increased emphasis on evaluation in the public schools. Many districts have es tablished comprehensive systems of performance monitor ing based on the continuous assessment of program and project outcomes (1, 5, 6,14). Typically, they are struc tured so as to provide information to decision-makers, but are largely limited to evaluation rather than research func tions (4). Consequently, the information provided by these systems is of limited utility. The restricted scope of these systems undoubtedly is due, in part, to the strained finances of many school sys tems and to the critical lack of competent personnel trained to conduct and implement systematic research pro grams in the public schools. However, a significant factor influencing the implementation of such limited systems is the lack of information detailing the integration of evalua tion and research operations in a real world environment. More directly, the fundamental works underlying the cur rent renaissance of educational evaluation have failed to emphasize the critical role of research in objective decision making (7, 9, 10, 11). Evaluation alone, regardless of its comprehensiveness, cannot supply sufficient information for educational de cision-making. Rather, systematic evaluation programs must be carefully integrated with applied and basic re search programs to provide the data essential for educa tional renewal. This paper provides a model for a comprehensive evalu ation and research system highlighting the interrelation ships between evaluation and research and indicating the role of both in the process of developing and implementing educational programs. The CIPP model, proposed by Stuf flebeam et al. (11), was chosen as a reasonable general pur pose evaluation model for purposes of modification into the more comprehensive combined model. Figure 1 presents a flowchart outlining the essential de tails of the revised system. The flowchart depicts an opera tional research and evaluation system which begins with yearly context evaluation, moves through input, process, and interim product evaluation stages, and completes the annual cycle with summative product evaluation and ap plied research information. The process outlined in Figure 1 is discussed below. A prerequisite to improvement must be a knowledge of existing performance levels. Thus, the backbone of any re newal system must be a comprehensive context evaluation program. Stufflebeam, et ah, define context evaluation as the provision of baseline information that defines the en vironment of interest, describes desired and actual condi tions pertaining to the environment, identifies unmet needs and unused opportunities, and diagnoses the problems that prevent needs from being met and opportunities from being used. An adequate context evaluation system is founded on a longitudinal data base and provides periodic reports on such variables as student dropout, attendance, achievement levels, drug usage, demographic and vocational patterns, community socioeconomic status and dominant value pat terns, and teacher academic and demographic characteris tics. Thus, a context evaluation system provides the basis for formulating change objectives by identifying needs and, in some cases, outlining practical constraints in iden tified problem areas. Once the context evaluation system has identified needs, decision-makers must set priorities for those needs and fo cus on reducing the discrepancy between desired and exist ing conditions by establishing goals for those needs that receive highest priority. It is at this point in time that in put evaluation information is used. Stufflebeam, et al, de fine input evaluation as the provision of information for determining methods of resource utilization for accom plishing program goals. In a functioning evaluation system, there are four sources of input information: 1. previous product evaluation information 2. basic research information 3. applied research information 4. non-research and evaluation information. Product evaluation information concerns the extent to which specific project or program goals are achieved. When This content downloaded from 207.46.13.169 on Sun, 03 Jul 2016 04:53:12 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms