In this article, the authors Sarah A. Anzia and Terry M. Moe, offer a retort to William S. Koski and Elieen L. Horng's argument that their study of seniority-based transfer rules is narrow and that its findings only apply under limited circumstances. The Koski-Horng's study, by contrast, takes a broad frame--so broad that, as detailed in…

Rutman's view of evaluability assessment is reviewed, evaluation planning activities are illustrated via flow diagram for a large educational evaluation designed to increase citizen participation in local school activities, and some of the limitations of Rutman's evaluability procedures are outlined. (RL)

The current literature is replete with instances of imprecise and conflicting usage of "qualitative" and "quantitative" evaluation. This paper presents a framework for making distinctions among several related concepts to eliminate this potential source of confusion. In the process, the terms "qualitative" and…

Barbara Jordan's views are expressed regarding the merits of a clarification hearing (on the topic of minimum competency testing) over which she presided. The benefits of such a hearing as a process for illuminating educational policy issues are discussed. (Author/GK)

Consequences of the bicultural goal are: (1) failure to review the unreasonable goal critically; (2) prevention of standardized scores from "leaking out" to the public; (3) attempts to "interpret" evaluation results to make them palatable to the schools' critics; and (4) lack of attention to various evaluation techniques. (RL)

Daniel Stufflebeam, professor of education and director of the Evaluation Center at Western Michigan University, answers questions concerning his contributions to the field of educational evaluation including those of the CIPP (context/input/process/product) evaluation model, and the newly published "Standards for Evaluations of Educational…

Evaluation models have been taken as methodologies for actually conducting evaluations, instead of as persuasions or frameworks within which more specific constructs and methods must be placed. Although evaluation models do not provide methodologies, they do provide a guide for thinking about how an evaluation could be conducted. (Author/LC)

External and implementation factors and their potential threats to field test validity and the practical realities of the field testing process on results are discussed. External factors include site selection, negotiations, contracts, site monitoring, training, and type of product. Implementation factors include motivation, dependence on local…

The relative utilities of subjectivity and objectivity in educational evaluation are debated. Page supports objectivity, while Stake supports subjectivity. (JKS)

Theoretical and practical perspectives, absolute and bounded rationality, the nature of reality, and the subject-object problem are discussed to point out the blind spots in the scientific-technical view of teacher supervision and evaluation. Multiple perspectives of knowledge development and use are needed to build an expansive science of…

A successful school program evaluation is re-examined to determine what made it successful. Suggestions for future evaluations include: (1) observe the political context of the program; (2) select a useful research design; (3) be sensitive to the subjects; and (4) discuss preliminary findings and be open to rebuttals. (JKS)

This paper describes eight problems faced by a school district evaluator in evaluating state-funded, compensatory education programs: determining evaluation ownership, determining the major constraints, determining what to evaluate, determining what methods to use, determining participant characteristics, determining instrumentation, determining…

This synthesis of six commissioned papers on state education agency evaluation practices describes the sources of influence or factors affecting the context of their evaluation practices. Evaluation is viewed as testing, management, and policy formation conducted within a highly complex social setting. (PN)

A study of school district uses of evaluation and test data is used to illustrate the variety of ambiguities that can appear in qualitative data. Rules of evidence to distinguish valid and potentially nonvalid testimony are proposed. Uses of testimony in evaluation are discussed. (BS)

Problems that face evaluators, including field based evaluations, are discussed. The author states that open communication, access to data, and an ability to be accepted are paramount; knowledge of randomness, robustness and homoscedasticity may be secondary. (Author/PN)