Session 6: Assessing Results
Gathering the Right Data to Plan and Tell Our Story
What is it?
Session 6 allowed the leadership teams to revisit their previous work and focus on their desired outcomes and specific goals. In addition, they worked to identify indicators associated with these outcomes and goals.
Session 6’s primary objectives were to prepare participants to:
1. Understand the basics of assessing program outcomes and consider their roles as partner and stakeholder in evaluation as it relates to becoming a community school.
2. Hear examples from community schools assessments.
3. Apply outcome thinking to advance team planning.
Tools Orgnized by Purpose
Additional Resources and Tools
From original session - April 2005
Detailed Agendas:
S6 Agenda.doc
S6_050422_Training_Design.doc
Readings:
S6 Readings - Fordham Article Abbreviated.doc
Evaluation Summary:
S6 Evaluation Summary.doc
Why is this important?
With increasing emphasis on accountability and improved student outcomes, it is important for education reform initiatives to be able to provide evidence of their success and effectiveness. Community schools need to develop rigorous evaluation plans for demonstrating benefits and outcomes. Hence, Leadership Teams were provided with a working definition of evaluation:
Evaluation is the systematic gathering and presentation of information,
which describes an effort or program and its effectiveness.
Why this module now?
Teams needed a deeper appreciation for and understanding of the power in using evaluation data for:
- Assessing and understanding the impact of programs.
- Informing program planning.
- Supporting fundraising and public relations efforts.
- Empowering everyone involved.
What did we do?
A basic background was provided to participants on assessment concepts, definitions, and case studies for developing a prioritized assessment plan. Teams were introduced to a working definition of evaluation followed by a presentation on constructing logic models. Teams subdivided by priority their own outcomes and were asked what measures or indicators they could use to demonstrate achievement of that outcome. Sample indicator cards were available for suggestions or ideas if teams needed them during a whole-group discussion centered on which indicators are most appropriate for each outcome. Groups then presented indicators and justification for them back to their teams.
How did we do it?
· A working definition of evaluation was presented for use during the rest of the session.
· Groups generated a list of the reasons for doing evaluations. The ways that evaluation can support the planning and implementation of strong programs were stressed.
· Introduction of a logic model as a thinking, planning, and assessment tool.
· Built an understanding of the components of logic models, using examples from community schools.
· Human Logic Model Activity—a practical application of key concepts: inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes, and indicators using real community school measures.
· Teams considered existing outcomes as well as other community school outcomes, and prioritized outcomes they wanted to work toward in their community school planning process.
· Teams subdivided by outcome priority and explored what measures or indicators they could use to demonstrate achievement of that outcome. Sample indicator cards were available for suggestions or ideas if teams needed them. Open discussion of which indicators were most appropriate for each outcome. Groups then presented indicators and justification to their team.
· A case study from St. John’s Educational Threshold Center in S.F. was presented giving strategies for using multiple evaluation outcomes to support on-going program development.
· Teams engaged in directed planning time. Teams then worked with planning templates to define key next steps with respect to each high priority outcomes and then reported out to the group at large.
Reflections and Lessons Learned
· In this one-day Academy session, it was difficult to provide participants with enough grounding in evaluation principles and practices without becoming too mired in technical jargon and details.
· The logic model session was probably an unnecessary exercise in order for participants to grasp key assessment concepts and connect them to their respective outcomes.
· Participants should have been exposed to some of the information earlier in the ACSD process (e.g., during Session 2 or 3) about setting overarching community school goals so that they would have an initial framing for thinking about identifying and tracking indicators of progress (for example, drafting a community school goal as part of each academy session and identifying some preliminary indicators of success as they went).
· Surveys of participants revealed that 20% rated the case study as not very helpful. This could have been due to a number of factors. Four of the five schools have a variety of services in place and the case study may have been too focused on service-delivery which some teams thought was already familiar. For many participants, the concept of deep engagement by all the stakeholders in some aspect of the assessment process was new to them since some of those systems were centralized across schools and so finding the relevance may have been difficult at the beginning. Building this topic across sessions, as suggested, may be another approach to take.
· Again, participants rated the time spent in site teams as the most helpful as it allowed them to reconnect on issues that may not have had been discussed since the last session.
S6 Presentation - Welcome-JGC.ppt
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.