Program Evaluation Plan for Arkansas School of the 21st Century Program Essay Sample

The Paragould School of the twenty-first Century was the first site implementing the Zigler theoretical account in August 1992. Startup financess were ab initio provided by Paragould concerns to restitute an older simple campus. The territory has grown from the Elmwood campus of seven schoolrooms babies – four twelvemonth olds to opening the Oakwood edifice lodging 5 extra schoolrooms. S21C is an built-in portion of the Paragould School District. By August. 2013. seven preschool schoolrooms will fall in kindergarten and first class pupils at the new Paragould Primary edifice located on Country Club Road. The Paragould School District was successful in go throughing a millage to construct this site and a in-between school ( Gilliam. & A ; Marchesseault. 2005 ) . The support has been successfully braided together since 1996 utilizing financess from the Parents as Teachers plan. Even Start. Arkansas Better Chance. DHS verifiers. twenty-first Century Community Learning Center grants. Title I financess. NSLA. and now the new THRIVE grant from Arkansas Child Abuse and Neglect.

The Paragould School District sponsors the particular needs plan. which besides reaches out to any kid at a child care centre or Head Start needing services. The Arkansas School of the twenty-first Century ( AR21C ) is portion of a national school-based theoretical account that began as a province enterprise in 1992. The AR21C is now in 43 communities within Arkansas with 173 sites with the support of the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation ( WRF ) and the Ross Foundation ( School of the twenty-first Century. 2004 ) . The AR21C is a school reform theoretical account that addresses child care. household services. before and after school plans. wellness instruction services. while besides supplying a web of professionals that provide preparation and support for participants. There are six nucleus constituents to the plan that are adapted to the demands of the communities served ( School of the twenty-first Century. 2004 ) .

Hire a custom writer who has experience.
It's time for you to submit amazing papers!

order now

The nucleus constituents are counsel and support for households ; early attention and instruction for immature kids ; before school. after school. and holiday attention for school-age kids ; wellness instruction and services ; webs and preparation for child care suppliers ; and information and referral services. Harmonizing to WRF all 21C plans have six steering rules. which are to ease strong parental support and engagement ; provide cosmopolitan entree to childcare and other services ; offer all plans as non-compulsory ; to concentrate on all developmental tracts. including cognitive. physical. societal. and emotional spheres ; to supply high quality in all services ; and to offer professional preparation and promotion chances to childcare suppliers ( School of the twenty-first Century. 2004 ) . Purpose of Evaluation

The plan rating as a whole seeks: ( 1 ) to detect if 21C after-school plans better students’ in-school public presentation and out-of-school experiences and behaviours. for whom these plans work. how they work. and under what fortunes they work. and ( 2 ) to place ways to increase the effectivity of after-school plans and to prolong them beyond the federal 21C grant ( Oppenheim. & A ; MacGregor. 2002 ) . The program for carry throughing these intents remainders on cardinal rules tied to the successful completion of plan ratings in general and on a model of major factors and their relationships that credibly associate after-school plans to positive alterations in students’ acquisition. behaviours. and personal growing ( Bryant. Clifford. Early. & A ; Little. 2005 ) . The plan rating of twenty-first Century plans will deliberately be wide in coverage. Comprehensiveness is a critical rule in ratings in which several specific intercessions comprise an overall programmatic enterprise.

It is critical that plan ratings. unlike more targeted ratings. have sufficient comprehensiveness to guarantee researching viing theories and accounts related to the possible results that different intercessions. or their differential execution. might deliberately or accidentally produce ( Manning. Sisserson. Jolliffe. Buenrostro. & A ; Jackson. 2008 ) . The comprehensiveness or narrowness of ends espoused by twenty-first Century plans ( and how good these ends align with centers’ activities ) is likely to exercise a strong influence on the types of effects achieved by single centres and the plan as a whole. While plans can bring forth a scope of unintended consequences. it is sensible to presume that plans will consequence alterations in the specific outcomes they seek to act upon. instead than those they see as outside their mission or current capableness ( Jason. 2008 ) .

For illustration. plans that concentrate on bettering reading accomplishment and exclude countries of originative look may see some betterments in accomplishment. but they are improbable to demo really many other intermediate or long-run effects ( for illustration. higher aspirations ) . Importantly. this implies that after-school plans more closely come closing the wide mix of accents specifying the twenty-first Century “intended program” are likely to exhibit impacts across a broader scope of results ( Bryant. Clifford. Early. & A ; Little. 2005 ) . Current State of the Program

Pre-K is developing in Arkansas as a expansive experiment for public-private instruction. Arkansas Pre-K today is indoors and outside of K-12 schools. inside public schools. establishments and centres. every bit good as inside private 1s. For illustration. at the beginning of 2006. 48 per centum of the Pre-K schoolrooms were located in bureaus. plans and establishments that are non a portion of the K-12 public schools as compared to the 2004-2005 school twelvemonth ( Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families. 2010 ) . At that clip. 21C plans were active in 34 school territories ( stand foring 24 per centum of all territories in Arkansas ) and included 95 sites across Arkansas ( Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families. 2010 ) .

This diverse system for presenting instruction to our youngest kids can hold some distinguishable advantages. but it requires clear and effectual schemes to aline and incorporate Pre-K instruction with kindergarten and simple schools. particularly through the 3rd class. despite the separate. different nature of Pre-K bureaus. Optimally. instructors from Pre-K through the 3rd class should portion. co-ordinate and aline the acquisition programs for each kid in each Pre-K schoolroom. This type of seamless integrating of course of study and acquisition is besides a large challenge. To do this sort of integrating really go on. the province must hold a feasible. flexible construction for cooperation. Luckily. Arkansas already has such a theoretical account in the School for the twenty-first Century. This concerted web of schools. known as the 21C Network. has joined schools together across the province to advance co-ordinated planning. rating. and execution of advanced methods of instruction and acquisition. Desired State of the Program

The importance of webs such as 21-C prevarication non merely in their cooperation. integrating and the high quality of their plans. but besides as the vehicle for spurring and sharing invention. Arkansas should construct on this base of bing 21-C schools to guarantee that Pre-K instruction flows of course into early simple instruction for every kid and to hold a flexible construction for private and public bureaus to take part in a web that facilitates coordination. high quality. and invention across traditional boundaries. The ultimate end is to hold all the schools in the province participate in the 21-C plan. Recommendations for Reaching Desired State

To make the coveted province for the 21-C plan there needs to go on to be a grass-roots community based attempt for enlargement of the plan to other communities in Arkansas. Each community has an individualized plan based on a needs appraisal. Each community maps autonomously and creates a certain set of services based on the six nucleus constituents. Funding would go on from foundations such as WRF and the Ross Foundation every bit good as local and province bureaus. The networking and preparation of the 21-C plan would necessitate spread outing to let for airing of the information about the plan and its benefits. The AR21C Leadership Council governs the 21-C plan and focal points on fiscal planning. policy development. and long-run viability. Stakeholders and Stakeholders Responsibilities

1. Yale’s Zigler Center for Child Development and Social Policy – provides proficient aid. coaching. needs appraisal for each community. and an organisational audit that gauges fiscal. homo. and plan resources ; and provides preparation for decision makers. instructors. and parents. 2. Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation – fiscal support

3. Ross Foundation – fiscal support
4. AR21C Leadership Council – provides a strategic lineation ; obtained and maintains 501 ( degree Celsius ) ( 3 ) non-profit position ; fiscal planning ; policy development ; and long-run viability of AR21C. 5. Parents – become involved in their children’s acquisition. go to parenting categories. and take part in place trial to have support that may be needed. 6. School territory staff – provides and supervises activities for school-based plans before and after school ; and to supply and oversee summer-time plans ; to supply tutoring services ; supply information about local bureaus for assorted demands such as wellness attention. mental wellness. and lodging. Extra Stakeholders

In add-on to the above named stakeholders there are extra stakeholders that may non be straight involved with the plan. However. these stakeholders may be able to supply extra services or feedback on the effectivity of the AR21C plan. These may include people in the community. local church functionaries. voluntaries. and extended household members. Since all of these groups are stakeholders at that place needs to be supervising of clip and resources that are expended based on the importance to the plan ( Yarbrough. Shulha. Hopson. & A ; Caruthers. 2011 ) . Evaluation Model Selected and Rationale

This rating of the School of the twenty-first Century is undertaken with the end of supplying utile information relevant to the execution of this and similar school based service plans. Program rating can supply a critical beginning of information. feedback and recommendations for plan development. appraisal and betterment ( Brown. 1995 ; Kubisch Weiss. Schorr. & A ; Connell. l995 ) . However. measuring the result of comprehensive service plans can be a formidable undertaking ( Kubisch et al. . 1995 ) for several grounds: the plans frequently have wide. multiple ends. the accomplishment of which depend upon interactions throughout the system ; the intercession is normally flexible and invariably germinating ( Brown. 1995 ; Kubisch et Al. . 1995 ) ; and it is unsure when it is appropriate to anticipate peculiar results ( Weiss. 1995 ) .

In add-on. because plans operate at so many degrees ( Kubisch et al. . 1995 ) . it is hard to place and mensurate the social-ecological context ( e. g. school. community and household ) ( Howrigan. 1988 ) which plays an of import function in act uponing a program’s consequence ( Felner. Jackson. Kasak. MuIhall. Brand. & A ; Flowers 1997 ; O’Connor. 1995 ) . One manner of turn toing the challenges of outcome rating is to carry on an execution analysis. Tracking the micro-stages of effects. or intermediate results as they evolve makes it more plausible that the consequences are due to plan activities and non to outside events or artefacts of the rating and that the consequences generalize to other similar type plans ( Weiss. 1995 ) . Besides. analysis of the plan as it evolves enables the consideration of the fullness and degree of execution ( Felner et al. . 1997 ) . an of import factor since so many enterprises have complex and varied degrees of execution ( Kagan. 1991 ) . The focal point of the result rating will be the before and after school plan. Population and Sampling of Population

The school-age intercession sample consisted of 120 households with school age kids who attended two intercession simple schools. Forty-eight of these households had enrolled their kids in the 21C before- and/or after-school attention plan. The comparing school-age sample was comprised of 50 households from two comparing simple schools. In the preschool age sample. there were 65 households from the intercession schools. and 38 households from the comparing schools. There were about an equal figure of misss and male childs in both the intercession and comparing group. Families in both groups were largely white. two-parent middle-income households. The survey will include interviews of the take parting kids as to whether the plan makes them experience safe and protected. Surveys will besides be completed by parents when picking up the kids to deduce their sentiment about the plan and the overall effectivity. Academic classs from the beginning of the school twelvemonth throughout all coverage semesters will be compared and informations will be analyzed. Attendance records kept by the instructors and voluntaries will be analyzed and informations included in the overall rating. Human Capable Consideration and Sample Accessibility

1. Subjects will be provided a transcript of the needed assignment. 2. Subjects will be to the full informed of the intent and usage of the rating information and the consequences of said rating. 3. Subjects will read and subscribe an informed consent signifier.

4. Subjects will have studies that have Numberss as placing what school and what population instead than names. 5. Confidentiality Torahs will be purely enforced.
Data Collection Methodology and Design: Assorted Method
For the intents of this outcome-based rating the assorted method of informations aggregation is appropriate. Assorted methods surveies use both quantitative and qualitative methods ( such as studies and interviews ) and normally have both a formative and a summational constituent. As Daniel Stufflebeam ( 1999 ) notes. “the basic intents of the assorted method attack are to supply way for bettering plans as they are germinating and to measure their effectivity after they have had clip to bring forth consequences. ” Many plans use assorted methods to roll up information about results. Using a assortment of methods improves the cogency of the informations collected by enabling the judge to confirm information it receives from one beginning with information received from another ( United Way. 2000 ) . In add-on. assorted methods enable judges to roll up different sorts of information. As Grove. Kibel. and Haas have noted. different methods yield different sorts of information about results ( 2005 ) . They conclude that alterations in values. vision. and self-awareness are best captured with interviews. text analysis. descriptive anthropologies. and narratives/stories ; while alterations in accomplishments. schemes. and policies can be assessed with 360 Feedback studies. pre/post intercessions. inactive retrospective reappraisals. and experimental designs.

This rating will utilize parent studies. internal information in the signifier of classs and attending records. every bit good as face – to – face interviews with the plan participants. The parent studies will turn to parent satisfaction with the socialisation of the kid ( ren ) . betterment or no betterment with academic surveies. and if the plan provides a safe and protected environment. The internal certification of classs throughout the school twelvemonth and the attending records of participants in the plan will besides be analyzed. The interviews will be conducted indiscriminately throughout the school twelvemonth and analyzed consequently. Data Collection Instruments and Data Analysis

The instruments that will be used for informations aggregation include a five inquiry study for the parents of participant kids. which will be filled out when the parents pick the kids up on the last twenty-four hours of the semester throughout the school twelvemonth. The rating will besides do usage of class studies in the peculiar country of tutoring demands from the beginning of the school twelvemonth throughout each semester until the terminal of the school twelvemonth. Analysis of the informations pertaining to classs for the particular tutored country will supply grounds of betterment or the deficiency of betterment for each kid that participates in the tutoring plan. There will be face to confront interviews with the take parting kids at the terminal of each semester utilizing four open-ended inquiries to supply informations related to how the kids think the plan is helping them with academic jobs. socialisation. and whether they feel like the plan provides them with a safe and protected environment for the before and after school activities.

The sample of the parent study and the pupil study that is in usage for informations aggregation are included in Appendix A and B. Data analysis of the quantitative informations will be performed utilizing the Microsoft® Excel plan with MegaStat® addition for the parent study informations. classs informations. and attending informations that is collected. The analysis of the qualitative information from the pupil study will be performed utilizing the NVivo® qualitative analysis package plan. This package allows users to import text files. codification electronically. and garner all choices with the same codification for analysis. Validity and Reliability

Cogency refers to the extent to which a method prompts pupils to stand for the dimensions of larning desired. A valid method enables direct and accurate appraisal of the acquisition described in outcome statements ( Maki. 2004 ) . The cogency of an instrument must be judged harmonizing to the application of each usage of the instrument ( Palomba. & A ; Banta. 1999 ) . Dependability refers to the extent to which test trials of a method with representative pupil populations reasonably and systematically measure the expected traits or dimensions of pupil larning within the concept of that method ( Maki. 2004 ) . For the intent of the outcome-based rating. the judge developed studies and interview inquiries are appropriate for informations aggregation. Data Analysis

Once the parent studies have been administered and collected. the informations can be entered into an electronic format for analysis. If utilizing optical scan sheets the informations will feed automatically into an electronic format. If come ining the information manually. it is simplest to utilize Microsoft Excel or similar spreadsheet package. For analysis. utilizing either Excel ( or something similar ) or a statistical package plan ( such as SPSS ) is best. Such plans will easy let one to calculate norms or frequence of responses. Once in electronic signifier. one may calculate norms or frequence of responses. Graphs or tabular arraies are created that aid to expose the informations easy for studies andpresentations. To research these options we will utilize the first subdivision of the parent study. When we compute an norm. we basically contain all responses within a individual figure ( the norm ) . For Question 3 of the parent study ( “Do you feel that your kid is safe after school? ” ) . the mean response in a given information set is 3. 3. What does that figure state us? It says that. on norm. parents feel that their kids are safe during out-of-school clip someplace between “maybe” ( which equals 3 on the response graduated table ) and “yes” ( which equals 4 on the response graduated table ) .

Averages are comparatively easy to calculate. and the consequences for multiple inquiries can be displayed in one graph. See the mean response of 3. 3 for Question 3: While this mean contains all responses within that individual figure. it does non state you how many parents say “yes” they feel their kid is safe. and how many respond “no” they do non experience their kids are safe. Looking at frequences will assist acquire an thought of the spread of responses. Again on Question 3. more than half ( 55 per centum ) of parents answer yes they feel their kid is safe ; nevertheless. 17 per centum of parents feel their kid may be safe merely ( 13 per centum ) or no their kid is non safe ( 4 per centum ) . Note that responses for each inquiry should number 100 per centum. In this illustration. the responses are from 250 parents ( N = 250 ) . Graphing is really helpful when seeking to foreground one peculiar result. for illustration for a presentation. The federal one-year public presentation study that has been required for AR21C grant receivers included class informations.

Programs needed to supply class informations for their participants and alterations in classs that occurred during the span of the plan. These informations are from pupils who were “regular” attendants ( i. e. . participated 30 yearss or more in the plan for the full school twelvemonth ) . It is possible that a pupil participated often in the plan early on. and so left the plan in the spring. Indeed. many plans complain that a good part of their participants do non go on take parting one time the conditions gets nicer. For illustration. many pupils begin to take part in athleticss such as baseball. come spring. Lack of continued engagement in the plan may hold a negative impact on prep completion. and therefore on students’ classs. Therefore. analyzing grade informations on such a superficial degree may non state the full narrative of plan results ; therefore we will analyze the figure of pupils with first one-fourth classs of a B- or higher and those with a C+ or lower. Recommendations

Once the informations are analyzed. plan staff should inquire themselves. “What is all this stating us? And how does it related to successful patterns? ” One systematic manner to travel approximately uninterrupted plan betterment is by utilizing the “Plan-Do-Check-Act” rhythm ( besides known as the Deming Cycle ) . The “Check” and “Act” stages in peculiar are where rating informations enter the image. see Appendix C. Whatever the results are from an rating of the out-of-school clip plan. we as stakeholders and research workers need to retrieve that it is a learning experience. Therefore. the feedback that our research granaries and how that information is put to utilize. can do a difference in the lives of those being served through the AR21C plan.

Communication of Results to Stakeholders
Evaluators must efficaciously pass on findings to stakeholders throughout the rating. When stakeholders understand formative and summational rating consequences. they are able to do programmatic determinations. such as whether they need to do betterments to and/or should go on the plans. In add-on. judges should form the findings to run into the demands of the assorted audiences. every bit good as provide stakeholders with the information that they need to do programmatic determinations. The evaluators’ communicating accomplishments have a direct impact on whether the study will accomplish its intent of informing. educating. and converting determination shapers about ways to better the plan. Further. studies that do non suitably describe the methods and consequences of an rating can destroy the public-service corporation of the rating itself. The impact of an rating can widen beyond the peculiar evaluated plan. For case. the rating may besides supply information that will inform execution determinations in other contexts.

First. judges should acknowledge the current make-up of the assorted audiences and stakeholders and take stairss to affect these audiences on the front terminal to find constituents of rating coverage. While much of the coverage agenda is determined in response to the petition for plan reappraisal ( RFP ) and anterior to data aggregation and analysis. it is of import that judges include stakeholders in these early conversations. These early conversations will non merely function wide battle intents. but besides set up outlooks about the format. manner. and content of the concluding study ( Stufflebeam and Shinkfield. 2007 ) . Another scheme judges can utilize to better how they communicate about the rating is to advance stakeholder buy-in by inquiring representatives from different involvement groups to supply feedback on rating programs and instruments. Stakeholder groups may function as cardinal sources around how to voyage the contextual. programmatic. and political clime to maximise the public-service corporation of the rating. Ultimately. nevertheless. judges should keep the authorization to differ with stakeholders when their input lacks logic and virtue ( Gangopadhyay. 2002 ) .

A important portion of pass oning rating findings is interim coverage. which is typically portion of the agenda for formative rating. but may besides happen on an as-needed footing. Additionally. judges should be unfastened to ongoing interactions with stakeholders and be antiphonal to stakeholders’ inquiries as they emerge. so that each group gets the information that it needs to do the plan every bit effectual as possible. One manner for judges to formalise productive interactions with stakeholders is to be after interim workshops with them ( Gangopadhyay. 2002 ; Stufflebeam and Shinkfield. 2007 ) . In this theoretical account. the judges send an interim study to the designated stakeholder group in progress of a feedback workshop and inquire members to reexamine findings and prepare inquiries in progress. During the workshop. stakeholders have chances to place factual mistakes and inquire pertinent inquiries about the rating.

This procedure provides an chance for bipartisan communicating and is an effectual scheme for maintaining interim feedback focused on plan betterment needs. It besides helps the client make immediate usage of the findings for plan betterment determinations. While the judge may show the concluding study ( either formative or summational ) in a figure of ways. it is critical that the information it presents is good organized. aligned with the rating inquiries and expected rating procedure. and is clear. relevant. forceful. and converting to stakeholders ( Gangopadhyay. 2002 ) . It is peculiarly of import that rating studies are comprehensive and reader friendly. a balance that frequently requires different versions of the study. In order to run into this balance between being comprehensive and user friendly. rating studies should include an executive sum-up every bit good as the full study with findings and decisions and should besides include an appendix of rating methodological analysis. tools. information aggregation. and informations.

In add-on to the study. judges should show rating findings verbally and visually to stakeholder groups. These presentations can run in strength from simple PowerPoint presentations for territory administrative staff to a series of workshops directed at instructors. If an judge wants the rating to do a difference and consequence in programmatic betterments. he/she must be committed to conveying the rating consequences to plan staff ( Gangopadhyay. 2002 ; Stufflebeam and Shinkfield. 2007 ) . Evaluators can non believe that merely composing their study will ensue in plan staff following their recommendations and bettering plans. Further. although the rating presentation is an chance to develop the cognition of rating for territory staff. the judge should be careful non to utilize excessively much proficient slang and alternatively rely on simple messaging schemes that address the chief facets of the rating ( Stufflebeam and Shinkfield. 2007 ) .


Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families. ( 2010 ) . Quality Pre-K Expansion in Arkansas: Lessons Learned. Retrieved from hypertext transfer protocol: //www. aradvocates. org/early-childhood-care-education/ . Barnett. W. . Steven. J. T. . Hustedt. K. B. . Robin. P. M. . and Schulman. K. L. . ( 2004 ) . The State of Preschool. 2004 State Preschool Yearbook. The National Institute for Early Education Research. Brown. P. ( 1995 ) . The function of the judge in comprehensive community enterprises. pp. 201-225. in J. P. Connell. A. C. Kubisch. L. B. Schorr. & A ; C. H. Weiss ( Eds. ) . New attacks to measuring community enterprises: Concepts. methods. and contexts. Washington. DC: Aspen Institute. Bryant. D. . Clifford. D. . Early. D. and Little. L. . ( 2005 ) . Early Developments. FPG Child Development Institute. NCEDL Pre-Kindergarten Study. Spring 2005. Volume 9. ( 1 ) . Felner. R. . Jackson. A. . Kasak. D. . MuIhall. P. . Brand. S. & A ; Flowers. N. ( 1997. The impact of school reform for the in-between old ages: Longitudinal survey of a web engaged in Turning Points-based comprehensive school transmutation. Phi Delta Kappan. 78. 528-532. Gangopadhyay ( 2002 ) . Making rating meaningful to all instruction stakeholders. Retrieved from hypertext transfer protocol: //www. wmich. edu/evalctr/archive_checklists/makin-gevalmeaningful. pdf Gilliam. Ph. D. . W. S. and Marchesseault. C. M. . ( 2005 ) . From Capitols to
Classrooms. Policies to Practice: State-Funded Prekindergarten at the Classroom Level. Yale University Child Study Center. Grove. J. . Kibel. B. M. . & A ; Haas. T. . ( 2005 ) . The EvaluLead model: Examining success and significance: A model for measuring leading development intercessions. The Public Health Institute. Oakland. Ca. Howrigan. G. A. ( 1988 ) . Measuring parent-child interaction results of household support and instruction plans. pp. . 95-130. In H. B. Weiss & A ; F. H. Jacobs ( Eds. ) . Measuring household plans. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Jason. M. ( 2008 ) . Evaluation plans to increase pupil accomplishment. Thousand Oaks California: Corwin Press. Kagan. S. L. ( 1991 ) . United we stand: Collaboration for kid attention and early instruction services. New York: Teachers College Press. Kubisch. A. C. . Weiss. C. H. . Schorr. L. B. . & A ; Connell. 1. P. ( 1995 ) . Introduction ( pp. 1-21 ) . In J. P. Connell. A. C. Kubisch. L. H. Schorr. & A ; C. H. Weiss ( Eds. ) . New attacks to measuring community enterprises: Concepts. methods. and contexts. Washington. DC: Aspen Institute. Maki. P. L. . ( 2004 ) . Measuring for Learning: Constructing a sustainable committedness across the establishment. Stylus Printing. LLC. American Association for Higher Education. Manning. C. . Sisserson. K. . Jolliffe. D. . Buenrostro. P. . & A ; Jackson. W. ( 2008. September ) . Program rating as professional development: Building capacity for reliable rational accomplishment in Chicago little schools. Education and Urban Society. 40. 715-729. O’Connor. A. ( 1995 ) . Measuring comprehensive community enterprises: A position from history. pp. 23-63. in J. P. Connell. A. C. Kubisch. L. B. Schorr. & A ; C. H. Weiss ( Eds. ) . New attacks to measuring community enterprises: Concepts. methods. and contexts. Washington. DC: Aspen Institute. Oppenheim. J. and MacGregor. T. . ( 2002 ) . The Economics of Education: Public Benefits of High-Quality Preschool Education for Low-Income Children. Entergy. October 30. 2002. Palomba. C. A. . and Banta. T. W. . ( 1999 ) . Assessment Necessities: planning. implementing. and bettering appraisal in higher instruction. Hoboken. New jersey: Jossey-Bass. John Wiley & A ; Sons. Inc. School of the twenty-first Century. ( 2004 ) . Making a Difference Together. Yale University. Stufflebeam. D. L. . ( 1999 ) . Foundational Models for twenty-first Century Program Evaluation. The Evaluation Center. Stufflebeam. D. L. . and Shinkfield. A. J. ( 2007 ) . Evaluation theory. theoretical accounts. & A ; applications. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. United Way of America. ( 2000 ) . Agency Experiences with Outcome Measurement:
Survey Findings. Alexandria. Virginia: United Way. Weiss. C. H. ( 1995 ) . Nothing every bit practical as good theory: Exploring theory-based rating for comprehensive community enterprises for kids and households. pp. 65-92. In J. P. Connell. A. C. Kubisch. L. H. Schorr. & A ; C. H. Weiss ( Eds. ) . New attacks to measuring community enterprises: Concepts. methods. and contexts. Washington. DC: Aspen Institute. Yarbrough. D. B. . Shulha. L. M. . Hopson. R. K. . & A ; Caruthers. F. L. . ( 2011 ) . The plan rating criterions: A usher for judges and rating users ( 3rd ed. ) . Thousand Oaks. CA ; Sage.