|
|
This detailed document describes the Florida STW Evaluation Plan (1996),
a model based on a continuous quality improvement approach. It includes
Introduction, Overview, Goals and Objectives, Characteristics, Continuous
Quality Improvement, Evaluation Guide and System Components. The Appendix
(.zip file) provides sample evaluation matrices.
The document is online below, without the Appendix. If you'd like a print
version of the document (including Appendix), please contact
us.
|
Florida School-to-Work Partnerships are forming to create
a comprehensive educational system which focuses on the student as the center
of the decision-making process for educational services and programs. Working
closely with regional employers, labor and community organizations, Florida
has just begun the process of planning for comprehensive School-to-Work activities
accessible by all youth. This system will prepare them for high-skill, high-wage
occupations, and will address the demand of regional employers in a highly competitive
economy for workers possessing critical academic, analytical and technical skills.
The long range implementation of School-to-Work activities
within Florida requires a method for determining the quality, effectiveness,
and goal-attainment of the region's School-to-Work activities. In other words,
it requires a dynamic evaluation process that can grow and adapt as School-to-Work
activities move along the continuum from planning to development to implementation
to institutionalization. The Florida School-to-Work Evaluation Plan is a description
and guide to the overall vision and specific activities to be devoted to evaluating
Florida School-to-Work Partnership's planning, development, implementation and
continuous improvement of its activities related to the School-to-Work initiative
and each of its components.
The Florida School-to-Work Evaluation Plan synthesizes two
models. The overall process of the evaluation plan is that of a continuous quality
improvement model and is adapted directly from Florida's proposed statewide
School-to-Work evaluation process (Florida School-to-Work Implementation Grant,
June 1995). The detailed implementation of the evaluation plan focuses on the
preparation of an evaluation guide. Each of these models is briefly described
below, a detailed discussion is provided in subsequent sections.
The continuous quality improvement model is a modified version
of one proposed in Steeples (1992) and contains three major interconnected components:
- The first component is DOCUMENTATION; within this
component one must determine how to document the quality improvement process.
On-going goals and outcomes are established, and an evaluation is conducted
to gather information on the established goals and outcomes and to collect
data for indicators.
- The second component is ANALYSIS. At this time
the goals and outcomes are quantified, an in-depth data review is conducted,
trends found in the evaluation data are examined, best practices are identified,
and an improvement plan with targets is recommended.
- The third component is IMPROVEMENT. At this stage,
the recommended improvements are implemented, the results of the process are
assessed and measured, and feedback is provided on the performance. The next
step is to repeat and continue the process, formally and constantly addressing
the improvement process.
The evaluation guide first identifies the system components
needed to plan, develop, implement and institutionalize the School-to-Work initiative;
Florida has identified eleven such system components. For each of these components,
a matrix is developed to provide the evaluator with a blueprint in summary form
of the decision factors needed to evaluate each system component. These decision
factors are used to guide the documentation, analysis and improvement components
of the evaluation process. There are six decision factors proposed for the School-to-Work
evaluation. They are: GOALS, EVALUATION QUESTIONS, STANDARDS/BENCHMARKS,
EVIDENCE AND DATA SOURCES, TIMELINE AND RESPONSIBILITY, and DECISION/REMARKS.
The Appendix of this document
includes eleven evaluation matrixes, one for each of Florida's identified system
components. These eleven matrixes comprise a preliminary "SAMPLE"
evaluation guide for Florida's School-to-Work Evaluation Plan. These matrixes
should be developed based on initial goals, evaluation questions, and standards/benchmarks
identified by participants of each individual Florida School-to-Work Partnership
via numerous sources, including: on-going programs and initiatives with goals
complementary to those of School-to-Work, meetings held throughout the calender
year with business partners, at planning retreats for business and industry
partners, as well as other planning meetings involving other stakeholders.
An evaluation process and plan are dynamic undertakings
and meant to evolve over the course of time as established goals are achieved
and new ones are identified, systems and technology change, and new methods
are introduced. This evaluation plan is a first step in Florida's School-to-Work
continuous quality improvement process.
The overall goal of Florida's School-to-Work evaluation
process is to develop a dynamic plan so that the quality, effectiveness, and
goal-attainment within the region may be determined by the implementation of
strategies and action plans developed to enhance this effort. An overview of
the ancillary objectives of Florida's evaluation process is as follows:
Produce quantitative and qualitative data which aid in
the assessment of the Florida School-to-Work Partnership to document and ensure
the quality, effectiveness, and goal-attainment of the School-to-Work initiative.
Develop and implement a strong internal evaluation plan
which at a minimum meets, and seeks to exceed, the requirements of existing
national, state, and local evaluation requirements.
Provide timely information and data reflective of the
quality, effectiveness, and goal-attainment within the region so that administrators
may analyze the results and make decisions based on empirical data rather
than anecdotal information.
Provide methods to develop action plans, monitor progress,
and collect data for continuous quality improvement of the School-to-Work
educational reform initiative. This includes both formative (ongoing process)
and summative (reflective) evaluation to determine the worth of the effort.
The design of Florida's evaluation plan incorporates the
following characteristics.
SIMPLE, UNDERSTANDABLE AND USABLE: Due to the critical
need to involve many players in the School-to-Work process (i.e. leaders of
business, industry, labor, and government; parents; students; school personnel
- administrators and teachers, both general education and vocational; and, counselors)
the plan is void of techno-talk and educational jargon so that everyone involved
has an understanding of what Florida's School-to-Work initiative is trying to
accomplish. The plan is "usable" in the context that the regional
leadership will be able to use the plan to assess the quality, effectiveness,
and goal-attainment of their School-to-Work activities.
DYNAMIC: The plan is dynamic so as to allow the examination
of additional evaluation system components as they are identified, while allowing
for input and feedback from the initiative participants (stakeholders). Furthermore,
it includes the flexibility to grow as School-to-Work activities expand and
become integrated throughout Florida's public education, labor, workforce development
structure.
PRO-ACTIVE: The plan identifies Florida School-to-Work
Partnership's expected outcomes, goals, and standards and establishes a method
to report the status of these expectations, providing a "visible"
reporting system that yields the "truth about our School-to-Work effort."
If Florida falls short in meeting its goals and expectations, this plan provides
a means with which to identify and implement improvement strategies to strengthen
those areas.
COST EFFECTIVE: The plan is cost-effective in both
time and money. Generally, the responsibility of data collection and documentation
of a School-to-Work region's activities rests with the initiative and/or regional
coordinators. In order for the data collection to take place the system designed
to collect the information must be time efficient. To decrease the amount of
time required for data collection, linkages between School-to-Work and the existing
public education data requirements from local, state, and national agencies
are being explored so that duplication of data collection efforts will be eliminated.
Additionally, to reduce cost, existing evaluation instruments utilized in both
secondary and postsecondary educational settings by other School-to-Work regions
are being identified and modified for use in this region's data collection efforts.
Because of the cost effective design of this model, it is sustainable beyond
federal funding.
QUANTIFIABLE: Whenever possible, "hard"
data (numbers) will be produced denoting the region's development, implementation,
and progress. Pragmatically, Florida School-to-Work Partnership must convince
a great number of audiences including all of its stakeholders and federal, state,
and local legislators to personally and monetarily invest in this educational
reform initiative. Therefore, every effort is made to infuse quantitative as
well as qualitative data collection techniques so they may provide the data
required to these audiences that document the quality, effectiveness, and goal-attainment
of the region's activities.
TRANSFERABLE: First, this regional evaluation plan
complements and augments existing federal and state requirements and keeps additional
evaluation activities to a minimum. Secondly, because this regional evaluation
plan is based on the proposed statewide evaluation plan, it provides for transferability
among the statewide School-to- Work regions so that this region may draw upon
the expertise of those who are having success in certain areas as well as provide
support to other regions. In order for a School- to-Work region to become competitive,
comparative techniques must be used in the context of finding out what other
School-to-Work regions are doing so that one's own operation may be strengthened.
Sharing experiences with others allows everyone to grow and enhance regional
School-to-Work efforts, making winners out of all the players : students, parents,
businesses, industries, the schools and the communities.
FORMATIVE AND SUMMATIVE: In the evaluation vernacular,
formative is the on- going evaluation process, and summative evaluation is conducted
at the conclusion of a initiative to determine the initiative's worth. The bottom
line is that every evaluation deals with results intended or unintended, and
these results must be collected in a timely manner so that decisions may be
made when necessary to insure the quality, effectiveness, and goal-attainment
of Florida's School-to-Work activities.
The intent of the School-to-Work educational reform initiative
is to permanently embed School-to-Work activities as part of the existing educational
structure. With this in mind, School-to-Work must be a "Total Quality Effort"
and focus on obtaining continuous, high quality in a results-driven model. As
is true for any successful business, industry, or public educational institution,
each must operate on the premise of day-to-day as well as long-term improvement.
Public education programs can achieve this type of improvement by emulating
the most successful businesses through the implementation and utilization of
a systematic process to ensure quality. Therefore, the evaluation model to be
used is one that is well-recognized by business and industry and has a proven
track record for success in creating a continuum of quality.
The proposed Florida School-to-Work evaluation process is
the same as that proposed for the Florida statewide evaluation plan. It incorporates
a modified version of a business and industry-based Total Quality Management
(TQM) continuous quality improvement model (Steeples, 1992). This model's format
(please refer to Figure 1) is derived from a suggested example that may be utilized
when applying for the Malcolm Baldridge National Quality Award. It should be
noted that educational agencies (including public schools) are now eligible
to compete for receipt of this prestigious national quality award.
The Florida School-to-Work evaluation model is a dynamic
systems design consisting of three major operational components which stimulate
the on-going process for continuous quality improvement. The three components
are titled: Documentation, Analysis, and Improvement. Each component shares
equal importance; however, the amount of focus and energy expended on each will
be dependent upon where the region is in its development and implementation
processes. A brief discussion of each component follows.
The first component is DOCUMENTATION, which is the
formal process of gathering vital information on the implementation and continuation
of School-to-Work activities. Documentation will include, but not be limited
to the following outcomes:
1. Document the extent of attainment of regional and local
proposed goals for School-to-Work activities.
2. Document the extent of development and implementation
of School-to-Work activities.
3. Conduct an impact evaluation that includes an on-going
School-to-Work self- evaluation which is a comprehensive review of all the
system components required for the School-to-Work initiative. The self-evaluation
would be followed-up by an external evaluation, as proposed in the Florida
statewide School-to-Work evaluation plan, that consists of an "on-site"
visit by an inter- disciplinary team consisting of members from the Department
of Education and Labor. The site visit team would examine the evidence provided
by the self- evaluation and collectively determine (a) the extent to which
the region is achieving its objectives and goals, (b) strengths and weaknesses
of the region's School-to-Work initiative, (c) the impact of the School-to-Work
initiative on this region, and, (d) recommendations for improving the region's
School-to-Work initiative activities.
4. Examine and assess the formative aspects of the region's
activities, which include but are not limited to the following system components:
governance; public and community awareness; professional development; career
guidance and counseling; support services provided; school-based activities;
work-based activities; worksite development; placement and follow-up activities;
impact on students/clients; and evaluation activities.
The next component of the model consists of the ANALYSIS
of the information and data collected during the Documentation process. This
component provides for the development of quantifiable goals and benchmarks
for the region's School-to-Work activities; requires the development of improvement
plans and trends analysis derived from the completed regional impact evaluation
process; supports an in-depth analysis of the region's system components; and
identifies best School-to-Work practices within the region so they may be shared,
disseminated, and modeled by other School-to-Work regions. The last major operational
component for this model is the IMPROVEMENT process which commences as
actual recommended improvement plans are implemented . The results obtained
from the improvement plans are measured and monitored with feedback on performance
provided to ensure positive change and impact. The last step in the Improvement
component is to begin the process again, building off the assessed results and
data gathered from the Improvement process. The goal of Florida's School-to-Work
evaluation plan's continuous quality improvement process is to achieve superiority
in each of the region's School-to-Work system component areas, and this model
provides for a continuous, systematic process in determining the quality, effectiveness,
and goal-attainment of Florida's School-to-Work activities.
The continuous quality improvement process provides the
vision and overall concept underlying Florida's evaluation plan. The evaluation
guide focuses on the detailed implementation of the evaluation plan. This section
reviews the specific tasks to be addressed by the School-to-Work evaluation
plan and provides an illustration showing how an evaluation guide can be prepared
and used.
The guide is presented in a matrix format (see the matrixes
in the Appendix of this document) which depicts a systems approach to School-to-Work
evaluation. The matrix format provides the evaluator with a blueprint of the
evaluation scheme so that all of the essential facets of the evaluation plan
can be seen in summary form. The matrix format consists of two major parts,
system components and decision factors. System components are broadly identified
as the processes needed to plan, develop, implement and institutionalize the
School-to-Work initiative. For each of the system components, a separate matrix
is developed to provide the evaluator with a blueprint in summary form of the
decision factors needed to evaluate each system component. These decision factors,
forming the columns of the matrix, are used to guide the documentation, analysis
and improvement components of the evaluation process. Six facets make up the
decision factors, they are: goals, evaluation questions, standards/benchmarks,
evidence and data sources, timeline and responsibility, and decisions/remarks.
Definitions for each of these terms are given below and
will be described in greater detail later in the discussion.
System Components: The system areas of the educational
initiative that are to be evaluated. Dependent upon the nature of the initiative,
they necessarily vary from one evaluation to another. The School-to-Work system
components used by Florida are: Governance, Public and Community Awareness,
Professional Development, Career Guidance and Counseling, Support Services,
School-Based Activities, Work-Based Activities, Work-site Development, Students/Clients,
Placement and Follow-up, and Evaluation and Outcomes.
Decision Factors: Elements used to evaluate each
system component. The decision factors are used to guide the documentation,
analysis and improvement components of the evaluation process. They are goals,
evaluation questions, standards/benchmarks, evidence and data source, timeline
and responsibility, and decisions/remarks.
Goals: A series of statements determined to be the
outcomes (goals) sought for each system component. They are used to comprehensively
measure the quality, effectiveness, and goal attainment of an educational initiative.
Evaluation Questions: Answerable questions related
to a proposed goal or outcome with responses that are objectively measurable.
An evaluation question is asked in a manner such that clues are provided as
to how information and evidence concerning the status of the goal (or outcome)
shall be gathered.
Standards/Benchmarks: Criteria used for determining
whether a particular goal or outcome has been attained and/or evaluation question
effectively answered. Evidence and Data Source: How and from where the data
will be collected, i.e., the method/instrument to be used for gathering data,
to determine whether the goal or outcome has been attained. The analytical techniques
for data treatment and analysis may also be specified.
Timeline and Responsibility: When and how frequently
will the data be collected and examined as well as who or what entity is responsible
for its collection. Decision/Remarks: The judgement, favorable or unfavorable,
summative or formative, and comments about the system component's goals.
The Florida School-to-Work Systems Model (Florida School-to-Work
Implementation Grant, 1995, pp. 5-6) identifies nine School-to- Work system
components as being important to the success of a region's School-to-Work initiative:
Public and Community Awareness, Professional Development, Career Guidance and
Counseling, Support Services, School-Based Activities, Work-Based Activities,
Work-site Development, Placement and Follow-up, and Evaluation and Outcomes.
In addition to these system components, Florida has identified two other components:
Governance and Students/Clients. These eleven system components form the basis
of the development of the evaluation guide.
It has been argued that it is not critical for all evaluation
plans to conform to set procedures; furthermore, it is unimportant that an initiative's
goals be the same for all regions. A consideration that is at least as vital
as goals, and one that is often slighted when evaluating initiatives, is the
conditions by which the system components to be evaluated for the initiative
are decided. While it is beyond the scope of this plan to elaborate on methods
of selection of system components, it must be mentioned that the evaluation
plan should be responsive to the needs of the system and meaningful and useful
to those who are in charge of the initiative. In making the decision as to what
system components should be evaluated, provision for input by a variety of sources
should be made. Included among these sources are educational administrators,
teachers, counselors, students, parents, advisory councils, community representatives,
business/industry, and others.
The first of the decision factors, shown as a column heading
in the evaluation matrix, is that of goals. Goals refer to a series of
outcome statements which serve as the evaluation indicators in determining the
quality, effectiveness, and attainment of outcomes for a given system component.
Stated in laymen's terminology, the goals give guidance to the evaluator in
deciding what answers are desired by persons mandating the evaluation. From
these performance indicator statements are developed the evaluation questions
in column two of the matrix.
An evaluation question is a behavioral or objectively
measurable question of an initiative's goals. The language used when stating
the goals may be so broad that it is difficult to gather evidence, pro or con,
directly from the stated goal. Unless the goals can be stated in such a fashion
that clues are provided as to where such information may be located, the goals
are of little use. For example, it may be completely reasonable to speak about
effectiveness of the student retention program when formulating goals. Indeed,
the desire that an educational initiative be effective is shared by all. However,
problems arise when an attempt is made to measure effectiveness -- because of
the abstract nature of the term "effectiveness." It is only after
one redefines the term that data can be gathered to make the judgement. Terms
like "quality, effectiveness, and goal attainment" need to be operationalized
into measurable language, or questions, such as:
1. What percentage of students are retained in Tech-Prep
programs of study?
2. What percentage of the students articulate into the
community college programs?
3. Do program completers obtain the skills necessary to
compete in the workplace?
How to redefine goal statements into operational evaluation
questions is a matter of choice for those responsible for developing the evaluation
guide. Due to the dynamics of this particular evaluation document, it should
be emphasized that the choice is not one that belongs solely to an evaluation
expert. Input from School-to-Work administrators, students, parents, teachers,
counselors, advisory councils, school administrators, and business/industry
should be elicited.
Standards/Benchmarks are criteria for judging the
worth of a process or product. The establishment of valid standards/benchmarks
is a critical part of the evaluation design. Each of the system components,
goals, or, more properly, the evaluation questions, have to be scrutinized and
rated as to whether it has merit. Once the standards/benchmarks have been established,
the judgmental part of the evaluator's role is exceedingly simple. The decision
becomes a straightforward one if the standards/benchmarks phase has received
proper attention. The critical part of this phase of evaluation is the credibility
of the standards/benchmarks used.
Procedures for establishing standards/benchmarks are complex
and will vary from one evaluation scheme to another. There are, however, certain
guidelines with which those responsible for evaluation should be familiar. Among
the important points to check are:
1. Provision for input by all major parties affected by
the evaluation.
2. Provision for input by the person ultimately responsible
for making the decision.
3. Consideration of whether the evaluation is formative
or summative in nature.
4. Consideration of the logical and empirical natures
of standards/benchmarks.
5. Consideration of economic feasibility.
6. Consideration of practicality.
7. Statement of standards/benchmarks in operationally
measurable format.
A brief discussion of the above guidelines should improve
clarity. The first two points on the establishment of standards/benchmarks concern
input by appropriate parties and are apparent. Personnel who are involved in
setting standards for their own programs are apt to accept judgement findings
which result from the evaluation. This does not mean that input from outside
sources is excluded. To the contrary, frequently, people outside a system are
in a better position to establish standards/benchmarks than those who are a
part of it because of two reasons: (1) they may be more objective since they
are detached from the initiative and have no personal involvement; or (2) they
may have expertise essential to the establishment of standards/benchmarks not
possessed by other members of the team. When voice in the establishment of standards/benchmarks
by concerned individuals is allowed, some assurance is provided that important
considerations have not been overlooked.
The need to include the individual(s) responsible for ultimately
making a decision is functional. Unless the authority figure agrees that a standard
is appropriate, the evaluator will be unable to make a decision, or any decision
made may be incompatible, in which case the evaluation may provide little valuable
information.
The third guideline for establishment of standards/benchmarks
relates to the temporal nature of the standards/benchmarks, i.e., whether the
standard is one that shall be abided by temporarily or permanently. Evaluation
standards/benchmarks that are tentative, subject to change as one moves through
the evaluation process, may be called formative. Formative standards/benchmarks
are of a "cut and try" character. Sometimes when "logical"
standards/benchmarks are established they prove to be unrealistic because they
lack the basis for framing the standards/benchmarks. Therefore, evaluators need
to alter the standards/benchmarks after an initial point has been instituted.
Standards/benchmarks that are reasonably permanent may be referred to as summative.
Such standards/benchmarks are derived from scientific and/or logical bases and
are more or less unalterable. Summative standards/benchmarks should be used
when the purpose is to finalize decisions about an educational program and in
instances where the decisions may effect their implementation.
Some of the standards/benchmarks that are established will
be based on logical arguments. Other standards/benchmarks will be based on empirical
evidence. It appears that the validity of logical standards/benchmarks is less
rigorous than that which is empirical in nature. Conditions under which the
evaluation occurs often times necessitate the use of logical standards/benchmarks.
Time and cost, for example, may prevent the gathering of the data needed to
establish empirical standards/benchmarks; to the contrary, a logical standard
may not necessarily mean a sacrifice of rigor. An example of a logical standard
might be the evaluation of teacher attitudes toward the School-to-Work curriculum,
and the standard is established that more than half of the teachers should favor
the curriculum. From a logical point of view, it may appear that more than half
the teachers should favor the curriculum. Thus, the standard that 50% of the
teachers must respond with a "yes" seems appropriate. One should realize,
however, that research on attitudes might show that another percentage is appropriate.
If, for example, a study showed that the Hawthorne effect was a factor in the
adoption of new educational methods to the extent that 80% of the teachers favored
this method, the 80% figure would be more valid than the 50% figure. On the
other hand, another study might show teachers are conservative and resistant
to change and only 30% favored the new method. In the latter instance, a 30%
figure would have been appropriate. Another facet to be considered when establishing
standards/benchmarks is the matter of cost. If the initiative is massive in
scope and size the costs of having experts evaluate all items in the initiative
are usually prohibitive. Therefore, a compromise method is used, such as sampling
of items and objectives for examination by experts. In such an instance "congruence"
of an evaluation question with its standard/benchmark would be most appropriate.
Considerations of practicability, other than cost, are similarly
important when establishing standards/benchmarks. Time factors may preclude
the gathering of information with which to establish standards or certain information
essential to the establishment of standards/benchmarks may not be available
at the time the standard has to be established.
A final guideline for specifying standards/benchmarks is
that they be operationally defined so that the standards/benchmarks are explicit
to the evaluators. A standard phrased in vague terminology lends itself to variable
interpretations and is suspect. If, for example, a standard for a goal of a
School-to-Work initiative is "administrative approval" the evaluator
does not know if this means approval by a coordinator, high school principal,
school district administrative staff member, community college administrator,
or the superintendent. All may give different judgement about the value of the
initiative. A decision about the worth of an initiative may rest on who was
asked.
The construction of evaluation questions provides clues
for determining the evidence and data source, the fourth column heading
of the matrix. For example, a goal may be "to improve the effectiveness
of the student retention program," if we have decided that the percent
of students who are retained in the program is an operational measure of that
goal, how shall we proceed to collect data that will help us reach a decision?
In other words, how can the evidence be collected (in what format) and
what are the sources of that evidence/data?
The method of data collection will depend on what is being
evaluated. For example, if the concern is with the attitudes of students or
teachers, a teacher or student questionnaire may be appropriate. The critical
consideration is that the procedures for reporting information be accurate and
efficient.
The fifth column in the matrix is the decision factor timeline
and responsibility. These factors are relatively straight forward and refer
to when and how frequently the data is to be collected and examined as well
as the individual or individuals who are responsible for its collection.
After having weighed all the evidence, the ultimate goal
of an evaluation is to reach a proper decision. Sometimes reaching the
proper decision is viewed as the most difficult part of the total evaluation,
especially in instances where the decision is adverse. In instances where negative
findings are reported, personnel involved in the program being evaluated sometimes
are unable to accept realities. This nonacceptance is minimized when the evaluation
plan is well-conceived and well-developed. Two of the most important considerations
in reaching decisions are authority and finality. Authority refers to the individual
or agency who has the power to make the decision. Finality refers to whether
the decision is either tentative or permanent. Both of these characteristics
can play havoc with educational evaluation. The authority problem can be circumvented
by providing for input from all sources likely to be affected by the evaluation.
These sources would include instructional staff, administrative staff, parents,
pupils, business/industry, and local, state, and federal agencies.
The finality problem is somewhat more difficult to resolve
because of its relationship to the nature of evidence upon which a decision
is reached. The type of data that is collected to scrutinize a particular system
component is dependent on several factors. Among the important ones are the
time within which the decisions have to be made, the money available for gathering
the data, and the personnel and technological expertise at the disposal of those
directing the project. If these types of resources are in short supply, it may
be that the validity of the decision will be limited, in which case the decision
may be formative in character. If resources are plentiful and care is taken
to establish sound data collection and analysis methodologies, the nature of
the decision may be summative.
Eleven evaluation matrixes, one for each of Florida's identified
system components, are included in the Appendix to this document. These eleven
matrixes comprise a preliminary "SAMPLE" evaluation guide for Florida's
School-to-Work Evaluation Plan. They should be developed based on initial goals,
evaluation questions, and standards/benchmarks identified by participants of
Florida School-to-Work Partnership via numerous sources, including: on-going
programs and initiatives with goals complementary to those of School-to-Work,
meetings held throughout the calendar year with business partners, and at planning
retreats for business and industry partners, as well as other planning meetings
involving other stakeholders.
An evaluation process and plan are dynamic undertakings
and meant to evolve over the course of time as established goals are achieved
and new ones are identified, systems and technology change, and new methods
are introduced. This evaluation plan is a first step in Florida's School-to-Work
continuous quality improvement process.
References
Florida School-to-Work Implementation Grant. (June
19, 1995). Florida Department of Education: Tallahassee, FL.
Hammons, F. T. (1995). Florida Tech Prep Education Evaluation
Model. Florida Department of Education: Tallahassee, FL. (Document GE 334 BK
94).
Steeples, M. M. (1992). The corporate guide to the Malcolm
Baldridge National Quality Award: Proven strategies for building quality into
your organization. ASQC Quality Press: Milwaukee, WI.
Florida School-to-Work
Evaluation Plan (August 1996)
Developed for:
The State of Florida School-to-Work Partnerships
School-to-Work Joint Services Division
325 W. Gaines Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Developed by:
The State of Florida School-to-Work Evaluation Liaison Office
Frank T. Hammons, Ed.D., Director/Assistant Professor
Florida International University
College of Education
Miami, Florida 33199
(305) 348-3391 FAX (305) 348-1551
E-Mail: hammonsf@fiu.edu
Acknowledgments
A state-wide endeavor of this magnitude could not have been
accomplished without the encouragement, idea-sharing, research, contributions,
and review of a significant number of individuals. This is especially true in
the development of the sample evaluation matrixes provided in the appendix.
They evolved as part of an on-going process to refine the primary areas identified
as the key components for the planning, development, implementation, and institutionalization
of the School-to-Work initiative within the State of Florida. This process included
input from sources almost too numerous to mention, but some of the groups and
individuals involved with the development and review of the matrixes need special
mention. These include among others: the Volusia-Flagler School-to-Work Partnership,
Mary Bruno, Mary Thompson, Michael Brawer, C.E. Pittman, F. Marion Asche, Sharon
Woodcock, Regnier Jurado, and Genevieve Maignan.
This document is intended to positively assist Florida in
the development, implementation, and continuance of the School-to-Work educational
initiative. It is my intent that this document be viewed as not the end but
the beginning of a systemic process that assists all School-to-Work Partnerships
to objectively review and positively improve upon the activities and services
they provide to their clients.
Frank T. Hammons, Ed.D.
Miami, Florida
Send comments to IWC at xiwc@fiu.edu
Copyright © 1999 by Institute for Workforce Competitiveness.
Revised: July
27, 1999.