Need and Importance of Evaluation in Management | types of evaluation

Discuss the nature and importance of evaluation. Also critically examine the types of evaluation.

Course: Educational Leadership and Management

Course Code 8605

Level: B.Ed Solved Assignment

ANSWER 

Need and Importance of Evaluation in Management

Evaluation is often overlooked in the day-to-day affairs of the school system. In reality, the ongoing evaluation of programmers, personnel and activities may be one of the more important aspects of the quality of effort being extended by the organization, Programmers are mandated by a variety of mechanisms: by state law, by the state board of education rules, by local policy, by graduation requirements, by federal law, and by the need of the students. As programmers are developed for a particular clientele, they must be delivered to that clientele and then evaluated to see if they (the programs) accomplished what the planners intended. All too often, educators initiate a programme and it's left to divine judgment to determine its, effectiveness.

In this day of accountability, the wise use of scarce resources, and increasing competition for the local and state tax dollar, it is important that evaluation efforts should be initiated and maintained to justify programmes and budgets. Especially as one considers the implications of site-based management (SBM) and all that it entails, the need for a well-ground evaluation process is essential. Programmes are planned, and the evaluation process should begin. The following questions should be examined as a result of the evaluation process:

1.  Is the target population being served?

2.  Is the programme producing the desired results?

3.  Is the programme cost-effective?

4.  Is the programme compatible with other programmes?

5.  Does the programme support the mission of the school?

The integrity and viability of the planning process are dependent on the capacity of the evaluation design and process to stand alone as an independent function of the organization. Ideally, evaluation, while closely aligned and supportive of the planning mechanism, is independent of any other function of the school system. This independence not only allows greater objectivity of the process but also guarantees that the evaluation of any programme or activity will be accomplished on its own merits and based on its own performance.

The evaluation function is best performed when it is located under the superintendent and not involved in any other function of the school organization. Ideally, the evaluation process gathers data and presents it in such a way that the decision maker (principal, director, superintendent, board etc.) can interpret the data and decide the subsequent actions required of him/her.

Evaluation is a process of delineating, obtaining and providing useful information for judging decision alternatives (Stufflebeam et  A. 197 l,  xxv). In other words, evaluation is a mechanism for generating data on which decisions can be made. If performed at its most objective level, alternative situations and data can be examined, and the most appealing and productive decision is possible for the person charged with the decision.

a)  Context Evaluation

Although four types of programme evaluation are significant in the management of information related to educational programmes and services, an understanding of context evaluation is most important to a practising school administrator. In general, its importance focuses on three factors,  which oftentimes affect the success or failure of decisions related to school programmes. First, context evaluation serves short and long-range planning decisions.

Planning in many school districts becomes an academic exercise of exchanging ideas between colleagues, which leads towards re-enforcement like the key decision maker’s position on any one of many issues. For reasons of time, lack of know-how (possibly too many staff theoreticians), and commitment (key decision makers threatened), accommodation of the planning process may be brushed aside as an administrative frill,  taking organizational energy away from the operational practice of a school district.  Secondly, context evaluation is ongoing or continues throughout the life of an educational programme or service.

Educational programmes are dynamic in nature and therefore vulnerable to change even after extensive systematic planning. If educational programmes were planned, developed and administered in a vacuum void of people, possibly the importance of the ongoing nature of context evaluation would be minimized. Thirdly,  context evaluation continues to provide a reference point or baseline of information designed to examine initial programme goals and objectives. It allows for a close relationship between decisions based on planned goals and objectives and the final programme outcome. School administrators have the flexibility to examine initial programme goals and objectives at any time throughout a programme’s life overlay them on what is presently happening in the programmes and make a decision to continue, stop or redirect the programme and its resources. The result is avoidance or minimizing  “after-the-fact”  or  “post-mortem”  evaluations of educational programmes services following their completion.

b)  Input Evaluation

As one moves from context evaluation, the focus shifts from planning decisions to the allocation of resources to meet the programme. Such careful evaluation will provide important data on what is in terms of existing programmes and activities. It also provides a good analysis of the efficacy of dying existing programmes.  If, for example, a school's input analysis shows a great emphasis on high academic, advanced instructional programmes while the context evaluation identifies a great need for basic skill emphasis, there obviously exists a great discrepancy between what is and what the needs are. This type of input evaluation will permit the building principal to locus his/her resources on the areas of greatest need and reduce inefficient use and waste of scarce resources.

As a result of input evaluation, an adjustment in both the type and amount of resources, as well as a shifting of resources, is indicated.

c)  Process Evaluation

Once a course of action has been approved and implementation has begun, process evaluation is necessary to provide periodic feedback to persons responsible for implementing plans and procedures. The process evaluation has three main objectives: the first is to detect or predict defects in the procedural design or its implementation stage, the second is to provide information for programmed decisions, and the third is to maintain a record of the procedure as it occurs (Stufflebeam et al. 1971.229).

Among the strategies to be followed in process evaluation is the continuous monitoring of the potential sources of the failure in the project including interpersonal relationships,  communications channels, and adequacy of resources. Another strategy involves the projecting and servicing of programmed decisions to be made by the project manager during the implementation of the project including the choice of specific schools for particular participation in the project. Still, another strategy involves noting the main features of the project design, such as the concept he taught and the amount of discussion to be held using this data to describe what actually takes place. From this comes a determination of whether or not objectives were achieved. Sometimes the lack of meeting an objective is not the fault of the design or the procedure.

It’s important to recognize that the process evaluator(s)  rely on both formal and informal data collection procedures.  This includes interaction analysis, opened, end-of-the-day reaction sheets,  interviews, rating scales,  diaries and semantic differential instrument records of staff meetings, programme Evaluation and review technique (PERT) networks, and other devices.

 

It’s also important to recognize that the process evaluation is a function of how well the context and input evaluations have been performed. The more adequate the context and input evaluation, the less critical the need for process evaluation, and, conversely, the more poorly developed the context and input evaluations are the more demanding and critical the need for an adequate and thorough process evaluation. Process evaluation means the delineation, obtaining and reporting of information as often as project personnel require such information-especially during the early stages of a project.

d)  Product Evaluation

The fourth type of evaluation is product evaluation.  Its purpose is to measure and interpret attainments not only at the end of a  programme cycle but as often as necessary during the project term. While product evaluation gives an understanding of what is policy setters often use product expectations to establish goals and objectives for particular projects and programmes. The establishment of a product objective or expectation by a board of trustees or board of education certainly adds a dimension to the reality of context, input, and process evaluation.

Traditionally, evaluation meant product evaluation only and context input and process evaluations are variables which must be added to enable an evaluation process that recognizes as many of the disparate components of the total evaluation contents as possible. Stated another way,  product expectation is a legitimate policy matter while context, input and process are the tools to be utilized, changed, and adjusted to meet product expectations.

Product evaluation must consider a variety of realities as it is conducted. While the results of product evaluation are relatively precise and straightforward, the context input and process evaluations can reveal important decision data if the policy setters have established the product expectation at a realistic level. Product evaluations can change as a result of adjustments in input or changes in the process used To summarize, the  CIPP model for decision-making provides the best utilization of the data and the most flexible parameters for adjustments while maintaining the integrity of the evaluation process. CIPP also allows for decision alternatives to be explored and for the decision-maker to project the cost-effectiveness of a particular project. The use of the CIPP model can simplify the planning process while strengthening the result.