Assignment #5 - SBHL Survey

Survey of Saskatoon Ball Hockey League (ORIGINAL)

On a scale of one to five, do you agree with the following statements?
(1 = mostly disagree; 2 = somewhat disagree; 3 = neutral; 4 = somewhat agree; 5 mostly agree)

1. All players get equal playing time, regardless of ability.
   1 2 3 4 5
   
2. Both boys and girls are welcome to participate.
   1 2 3 4 5
   
3. The rules are clearly laid out and enforced by referees.
   1 2 3 4 5
   
4. Ball hockey is a safe sport.
   1 2 3 4 5
   
5. Games are held at convenient times.
   1 2 3 4 5
   
6. Players get lots of exercise during games.
   1 2 3 4 5
   
7. My child looks forward to games.
   1 2 3 4 5
   
8. Since playing ball hockey, my child's self-confidence has improved.
   1 2 3 4 5
   
9. Ball hockey is a sport that kids may keep playing as an adult.
   1 2 3 4 5
   
10. Since playing ball hockey, my child's academic performance has improved.
    1 2 3 4 5
    
11. My child has made new friends at ball hockey.
    1 2 3 4 5
    
12. Ball hockey is about having fun.
    1 2 3 4 5
    
13. Paying for ball hockey is a financial sacrifice for our family.
    1 2 3 4 5
    
14. The schedule is clearly laid out and followed throughout the year.
    1 2 3 4 5
    
15. Financial barriers may prevent future participation in ball hockey.
    1 2 3 4 5
    
16. It would be better to have more games.
    1 2 3 4 5
    
17. It would be better if teams had practice times.
    1 2 3 4 5
    
18. The ball hockey website is helpful and easy to use.
    1 2 3 4 5
    
19. Ball hockey has been a positive experience for my child.
    1 2 3 4 5
    
20. I would recommend ball hockey to other families.
    1 2 3 4 5
 

 

Please circle “yes” or “no”:

1. Have you ever received funding assistance for an organized sport (Kidsport, Jumpstart, etc.)?
   yes / no
   
2. Is your combined household salary less than $40,000/year?
   yes / no
   
3. Did you help coach or manage your child's team?
   yes / no
 

 

Please answer these questions:

1. What is the best thing about the ball hockey league? _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
   
2. What would you like to see done differently? _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
   
3. Please share a story about how ball hockey has positively impacted your child and/or your family or any other comments you may have. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
   

Survey of Saskatoon Ball Hockey League (REVISED) – *see notes at conclusion of survey

Portion A: For Parents

On a scale of one to five, do you agree with the following statements?
(1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = somewhat disagree; 3 = neutral; 4 = somewhat agree; 5 Strongly agree)

1. All players get equal playing time, regardless of ability.
   1      2      3      4      5
   
2. Both boys and girls are welcome to participate.
   1      2      3      4      5
   
3. The rules are clearly laid out and enforced by referees.
   1      2      3      4      5
   
4. Ball hockey is a safe sport.
   1      2      3      4      5
   
5. Games are held at convenient times.
   1      2      3      4      5
   
6. Players get lots of exercise during games.
   1      2      3      4      5
   
7. It would be better if there were fewer players on each team.
   1      2      3      4      5
   
8. My child looks forward to games.
   1      2      3      4      5
   
9. Since playing ball hockey, my child's hockey skills have improved.
   1      2      3      4      5
   
10. Ball hockey is a sport that kids may keep playing as an adult.
    1      2      3      4      5
    
11. Ball hockey is about having fun.
    1      2      3      4      5
    
12. The schedule is clearly laid out and followed throughout the year.
    1      2      3      4      5
    
13. Paying for ball hockey is a financial sacrifice for our family.
    1      2      3      4      5
    
14. Financial barriers may prevent future participation in ball hockey.
    1      2      3      4      5
    
15. It would be better if teams had practice times.
    1      2      3      4      5
    
16. The ball hockey website is helpful and easy to use.
    1      2      3      4      5
    
17. Ball hockey has been a positive experience for my child.
    1      2      3      4      5
    
18. My child's fitness level has improved because of ball hockey.
    1      2      3      4      5
    
19. It would be better if there were more players on each team.
    1      2      3      4      5
    
20. I would recommend ball hockey to other families.
    1      2      3      4      5
 

 

Please circle “yes” or “no”:

1. Have you ever received funding assistance for an organized sport (Kidsport, Jumpstart, etc.)?
   yes / no
   
2. Is your combined household salary less than $50,000/year?
   yes / no
   
3. Did you help coach or manage your child's team?
   yes / no
 

 

Please answer these questions:

1. What is the best thing about the ball hockey league? _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2. What would you like to see done differently? _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3. Please share a story about how ball hockey has positively impacted your child and/or your family or any other comments you may have. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
   
   
   Portion B: For Player
   
   Circle your answer to the following questions:
   1) How old are you?
   Under 8       9-11      12-14      15-17      18 or over
   2) Are you a boy or a girl?
   Boy      Girl
   3) How many seasons have you played ball hockey?
   1       2       3      4      5 or more
   4) Have your hockey skills improved from playing ball hockey?
   Yes      No      Don't know
   5) Do you have fun playing ball hockey?
   Yes      No       Don't know
   6) Do you get lots of exercise playing ball hockey?
   Yes      No       Don't know
   7) Will you play ball hockey next season?
   Yes      No      Don't know
   8) Do you think you will play ball hockey when you are an adult?
   Yes      No      Don't know
   9) Did you play ice hockey this year?
   Yes      No      Don't know
   10) Do you plan on playing ice hockey next year?
   Yes      No      Don't know
   
   
   
   NOTES:
        The primary goal of the survey was to ensure that the goals and objectives of the SBHL are being met. This included fun, exercise, skills, future plans, league organization, and cost, etc. Some of the questions are intentionally redundant to allow for cross-referencing for reliability (i.e. In the revised survey 7 and 19; 6 and 18; 8 and 11). Question 20 is an all-encompassing, “big picture” question – when a parent considers all factors: fun, skills, cost, time, etc., would they encourage other families to join?
         As for revisions. Feedback from the original survey included comments such as, “you should ask my kid.” So a second, simple portion of the survey was attached to get player feedback as well as to narrow down demographics of participants. I felt the 1 to 5 scale could be confusing to children so questions were designed as simple and direct as possible. Children were also given the “don't know” option to relieve them of pressure to answer inaccurately.
        In the pilot survey, parents also indicated displeasure with team sizes, so two questions on this topic were added to the survey. Question 10 was removed as it was difficult to correlate to ball hockey and was not directly applicable to the goals of this evaluation.
        Also, parents preferred the that “mostly agree/disagree” be replaced with “strongly agree/disagree” as they felt “strongly” was easier to understand. Respondents were also a little intimidated by the number of lines provided for the final question... “I have to write an essay?!” So, the number of lines was reduced and the spacing was increased.
        Since this survey was created and distributed as a paper survey but the final survey would be much more efficiently done electronically, some formatting modifications may have to be made. Overall, the answers to the questions and the feedback provided will provide the SBHL with valuable information as to whether their activities are successfully accomplishing their stated goals and objectives.

Assignment #4 - Revised

The following is the Logic Model for the Saskatoon Ball Hockey League:

Goals	Objectives	Activities	Outputs	Outcomes	Impacts
To provide kids a fun and low-cost way to stay in shape and improve their hockey skills in leagues that they can continue to play into adulthood.	- Introduce kids to hockey without the skills and equipment needed for ice hockey. - Have a well-organized league of players of similar age/abilities. - Develop hockey skills - Provide a fun and supportive environment for all who want to play.	1. League president secures appropriate rental facilities. 2. League president develops rules. 3. League marketer creates website and ads to inform public and secure registrations. 4. League administration assigns teams, trains coaches, buys uniforms, hires referees and timekeepers, and distributes schedule. 5. Play games - League monitors play, keeps stats, and organizes playoffs.	1. Players have fun. 2. Players improve their hockey skills. 3. Registration numbers increase from the same season the previous year.	1. 75% or more players return the following season. 2. Costs for parents remains steady or has minor increase (less than 10% year over year). 3. Ball hockey league will be recognized as a legitimate sport with Kidsport and other organizations.	1. Children who played ball hockey are more active and healthier than they otherwise would have been. 2. Children who play ball hockey continue to play in the adult leagues. 3. Ball hockey becomes a sport where multiple generations of a family can play together.

Narrative of Logic Model.
      In order to fulfill the goal of providing a fun and low-cost sport for players of all ages, the SBHL will need to structure itself in a way to attract players and accomplish the stated objectives. League administrators will provide the required infrastructure (building, referees, timekeepers, uniforms, website, balls, etc) to support the various leagues and fascilitate the league in an organized and clear manner to ensure the enjoyment of all participants.
      The outputs that will be seen from the SBHL are that players have fun while improving their hockey skills, and league registration will increase (from the same season the previous year). Within one to three years of monitoring, the expected outcomes will be high player retention, stable costs, and external recognition of ball hockey as a legitimate sport on par with minor softball, soccer, tennis, etc.
      The long term impacts of the SBHL will be active kids who are more healthy than they would have been if they did not play ball hockey. There will also be an increase participation in adult leagues as kids continue to play after they are 18 years old. Because of this, some families will find ball hockey to be a sport in which dads and grown sons or mothers and grown daughters can play together.

Assignment #4 - Logic Model

This assignment is a continuation of Assignment #3: Program Evaluation of the Saskatoon Ball Hockey League.

Goals	Objectives	Activities	Outputs	Outcomes	Impacts
To help children from low income homes an opportunity to participate in the SBHL.	- Gain Kidsport program approval for individual funding. - Show where stated goals of SBHL match user perception and where they differ. - Suggest areas of improvement for SBHL	1. Research and present Kidsport objectives and sport requirements. 2. Research and present goals of SBHL (emphasize how they match goals of Kidsport) 3. Distribute surveys to participants. 4. Compile data and analyze based on Kidsport requirements. 5. Secondary activity: make suggestions to SBHL based on participant feedback.	1. Quantitative information will be gathered and compiled based on survey results. 2. Qualitative information will be gathered through open-ended survey questions. 3. Concrete evidence of equity. 4. Final report will match Kidsport objectives. 5. Suggestions for improvements will be given to SBHL.	1. Kidsport will approve SBHL for funding. 2. More children will be able to participate in ball hockey-especially from low income families. 3. League will make changes to improve product and increase customer satisfaction.	1. Children from low income families reap the long term benefits of physical activity on a team sport (self-confidence, improved health, friends, etc). 2. The SBHL grows and provides a stable and fun sporting environment for all ages.

Goals and Objectives were covered in detail in Assignment #3.
Activities:

1. Using the Kidsport website, Joel will summarize relevant information. If additional information is required, Joel will contact Kendra Greyeyes of the Saskatoon Chapter of Kidsport.
   
2. Using the SBHL website, Joel will summarize relevant information. If additional information is required, Joel will contact Dean Crossland, President of the SBHL.
   
3. Dean will provide Joel will email addresses of current participants in the Saskatoon Youth leagues. May add emails of past participants to help determine if finances was a factor in them no longer participating. The surveys will be sent out and several days later a reminder email will be sent out (from the league). Within two weeks of the first email, Joel will begin compilation.
   
4. Joel will compile, categorize,and analyze survey information and prepare a report that shows that ball hockey satisfies the requirements of Kidsport. The SBHL will present it to Kidsport (Joel will provide support)
   
5. Joel will summarize survey results of strengths and weaknesses of the league and will make appropriate recommendations.
   

Outputs:
      Reports will include quantitative data as well as testimonials, video, and observational information.
Outcomes and Impacts:
      Obtaining funding for low-income families through Kidsport is one of the objectives, but ultimately this decision is beyond the control of the SBHL. However, through the information gathered through this process, the SBHL will identify areas of improvements and changes that can be made to all participants – including low income participants. So, the goal of helping kids from low-income families will more quickly be met if if Kidsport approves funding but can also succeed if the SBHL makes necessary changes and grows and, as a result of economies of scale, can offer ball hockey at a lower cost.
      Therefore, this evaluation will provide multiple ways for the SBHL to fulfill its motto of being “a sport for everyone.”

Assignment #3: Saskatoon Ball Hockey

Saskatoon Ball Hockey Evaluation Proposal

      The purpose of this evaluation is to gather information and make recommendations that will help to grow and improve the SBHL both in the short and long term and to make the sport more accessible to lower income families.  The evaluation will document the goals of the SBHL and to survey participants to see how well they are meeting these goals and to use this information to compare to Kidsport objectives.  If it is clear that the two are a good fit, this evaluation will provide the SBHL with a framework to apply for approval  from Kidsport Canada for funding for children from low income families to play ball hockey.  We will receive valuable feedback from its participants and, based on this feedback, we will make recommendations to the SBHL that will make the league more attractive and successful.  Ultimately, the league will grow and become more economically stable and affordable for all participants.

      Ultimately, this evaluation should help in three areas:

1. Help families who could otherwise not afford to participate an opportunity to play.
2. Improve the league through feedback from survey participants.
3. Strengthen and grow the league through increased participation.

      The first step in this process is to identify what Kidsport does and what their requirements are for sporting activities to be eligible for funding. This will be taken from www.kidsport.ca and can be summarized with their motto, “So all kids can play.” This evaluation is NOT for the league to obtain funding directly (which Kidsport does provide), it is to gain approval for SBHL participants to apply for personal funding to help cover the individual costs of registration.

      The second step is to document background, procedures, and the mission of the Saskatoon Ball Hockey League, especially as it pertains to the Kidsport requirements. Included will be facts such as number of participants, cost to participate, number of seasons throughout the year, etc. This information can be gathered from their extensive website, www.saskatoonballhockey.com and can be summarized with their motto, “A game for everyone.”

      The third step will be to collect data. Since the SBHL has the email address of all of its participants (approximately 250 youth), an email survey would be most appropriate to collect quantitative data. Considering the personal and emotional nature of Kidsport, the statistics collected from the surveys will be supplemented with video evidence from games as well testimonials. Also, if time allows, specific statistics on playing time could be recorded to satisfy questions of equality regardless of ability.

      Step four will be the compilation and analysis of the data and narrative responses. This will provide tangible evidence to the decision-makers at Kidsport that the SBHL satisfies Kidsport requirements and deserves to be recognized as an approved sport for funding. While approval is out of the hands of the SBHL, at the very least this will provide them with feedback from Kidsport as to what changes they would need to make in order to qualify.

      Since all participants will have a chance to fill out a survey, there will also be an opportunity for them to provide feedback as to what they would like to see improved with the SBHL. At this point, this would be a secondary goal for this evaluation but, if time and resources allow, it may provide invaluable information for league organizers.

Who might use the evaluation?	What do they want to know?	How will they use the results?
SBHL - Dean Crossland (president) - Justin Podhorodeski (coordinator) - Jordan Berry (marketing)	- Is program delivering as promised? - What are Kidsport requirements? - Does program meet Kidsport requirements? - How can we improve the league?	- Apply for Kidsport approval. - Make appropriate changes. - Quantify claims in marketing and promotion.
Kidsport	- Does league meet approval requirements?	- Make decision on league qualification.
Parents of potential participants	- Does league deliver what it promises?	- Decide if child should participate.

Secondary level of groups who may be interested in the results of the evaluation:

Henk Ruys Soccer Centre	- How many parents come to games? - Do players want more time?	- Decide of it is profitable to open concession/charge admission, etc. - Decide priority of ball hockey among renters.
Other potential facilities	- Is the league growing? - Do teams want more playing time (or practices)?	- Should we be pursuing the SBHL as a potential location for games (or practices)?

      As part of step one, the Kidsport mission must be detailed and the survey questions based around Kidsport requirements. The Kidsport mission is “We believe that no kid should be left on the sidelines and all should be given the opportunity to experience the positive benefits of organized sports. KidSport™ provides support to children in order to remove financial barriers that prevent them from playing organized sport.” Specifically they look at the following areas:
Does ball hockey...

• Allow all kids to play?
  
• Encourage kids to be physically active?
  
• Improve their self-esteem and self-confidence?
  
• Help develop life-long skills?
  
• Improve their academic performance?
  
• Help kids make new friends?
  

Sub-questions about the SBHL will be based around the above main questions. For example:
Do you agree with the following statements (scale of 1 (mostly disagree)to 5 (mostly agree)):

1. All players get equal playing time, regardless of ability.
   
2. Both boys and girls are welcome to participate.
   
3. The rules are clearly laid out and enforced by referees.
   
4. Ball hockey is a safe sport.
   
5. Games are held at convenient times.
   
6. Players get lots of exercise during games.
   
7. My child looks forward to games.
   
8. Since playing ball hockey, my child's self-confidence has improved.
   
9. Ball hockey is a sport that kids may keep playing as an adult.
   
10. Since playing ball hockey, my child's academic performance has improved.
    
11. My child has made new friends at ball hockey.
    
12. Ball hockey is about having fun.
    
13. Paying for ball hockey is a financial sacrifice for our family.
    
14. The schedule is clearly laid out and followed throughout the year.
    
15. Financial barriers may prevent future participation in ball hockey.
    
16. It would be better to have more games.
    
17. It would be better if teams had practice times.
    
18. The ball hockey website is helpful and easy to use.
    
19. Ball hockey has been a positive experience for my child.
    
20. I would recommend ball hockey to other families.
    

Some yes/no questions:

1. Have you ever received funding assistance for an organized sport (Kidsport, Jumpstart, etc.)?
   
2. Is your combined household salary less than $40,000/year?
   
3. Did you help coach or manage your child's team?
   

And some open ended questions:

1. What is the best thing about the ball hockey league?
   
2. What would you like to see done differently?
   
3. Please share a story about how ball hockey has positively impacted your child and/or your family.
   

      If possible, it would also be helpful to contact past players who are no longer participating in ball hockey to see why they did not return especially if it was for financial reasons.
      Once this data is collected and various narrative stories compiled, we will use the Kidsport mission statement as a template to reveal our findings (step 4). For example, the main goal is to allow ALL kids to play. We will show the statistics that prove that the SBHL is meeting that goal: “94% of respondents believe that any child, regardless of ability or gender is welcome to play ball hockey and will enjoy equal playing time as all other players.”
      We will also focus on the financial aspect: “58% of respondents said that ball hockey is a financial hardship and, of those, 77% have a combined household salary of less than $40,000/year.” If possible we will also show that the reason some children stop playing is for financial reasons.
      This report will be given to Kidsport along with the SBHL request to be recognized as an eligible sport for participant funding.
      A second report will be added to the first that will detail participant perceptions on the strengths and weaknesses of the SBHL along with our recommendations as to how the league could address concerns and improve their product. Both reports will be given to Dean Crossland, President of the SBHL.
      We believe that the combination of these two reports will drastically improve what is already a very popular league. The first report will help secure funding which will, in turn, add more participants to the various youth leagues. And the second report will suggest improvements that will increase player and parent satisfaction and enhance the possibility of players returning season after season.

Assignment 2

      The program that will be evaluated is the prenatal exercise class that was put in place in order to help reduce the incidents of type 2 diabetes as well as gestational diabetes. This Saskatoon – based program focused on pregnant Aboriginal women who have traditionally experienced high rates of diabetes. A complete evaluation of this program would require a longitudinal summative study after a decade or longer so the long-term results of the program can confirm or refute it's success.

      However, in order to properly evaluate this program, I would begin with a modified CIPP model. Due to the relative newness of the program, this formative assessment would focus on the Inputs and the Process. At this point, context could be ignored as, for now, it is a lower priority than Inputs and Process. At a future date, evaluation of the people who volunteered (or neglected to volunteer) would provide valuable information as to how to better serve the focus group (including the 93% of eligible candidates who did not participate). But, for now, it is more important to evaluate if the inputs and process are helping the people who are currently involved.

      The Product is not a priority right now either. First of all, the program is too new to accurately measure whether or not participants are experiencing fewer cases of diabetes and, if so, if this program was the cause of the decrease. As it said in our readings on the CIPP model, “one should not redundantly gather new information if acceptable and sufficient information from another source is readily available.” One could assume that there already exists sufficient proof that exercise, in fact, lowers the risk of diabetes so attempting to re-prove that in this small sample is not an efficient use of resources.

      At this point, the evaluation should focus on the issue of discovering if the Inputs and Process are being used as the initial plan had intended. Sample questions that need to be asked are:

• What made the participants choose to participate?
• Do participants find the program too easy/too strenuous?
• Do participants regularly attend?
• Are all the sub-programs being utilized (child-care, busing, pool membership, books, etc,)?
• Why did/didn't participants invite friends?
• Was once a week enough?
• Did participants use the pool on non-class days?

      Questions such as these will lead evaluators to how they can better serve those who are attending. This will also lead to modifications that will attract more candidates. Mid-range evaluations will include Context as researchers can begin to examine the demographics of those who participate. While initial data show that half were housewives, half were single, two-thirds were social assistance, etc., it does not indicate why these numbers are the way they are. Do they represent a cross-section of Aboriginal women? Do these women join for health reasons? Social reasons? Are people who join a program like this the type of people that would have exercised anyway so the program – while providing a means for these women – would not, overall, lower the incidence of diabetes? For those who were eligible, but chose not to participate, why did they not participate? What would it have taken to take advantage of the program? These are all valid questions that will need to be addressed as the program begins to mature – perhaps in three to five years.

      As far as Product, occurrence of gestational diabetes could be determined fairly quickly but type 2 diabetes may take years to surface. The outcomes for the program as a whole could not be sufficiently evaluated until enough time had passed to make conclusive statements. Also, it would take time to differentiate between the intensity, frequency, and duration of participating women and the results they achieved.

      One evaluating method that would not be beneficial at this point is the discrepancy model. It is too early to dissect each aspect of the program to determine if the results from that particular event are contributing to the overall success of the program. Again, in five or 10 years, it would be helpful to do this, but for now, it would be nearly impossible to separate the effectiveness of each component of the program.

       One model that would be helpful along side of the CIPP model is the countenance model. Since data at this point may be skewed or difficult to come by, qualitative assessment of the participants, staff, and other stakeholders would provide valuable information into the Process of the program.

Conclusion:

      When analyzing a program, especially one as new as this, the temptation to over-analyze must be resisted. In time, a full CIPP evaluation (or Scriven model examining goals and roles) will be appropriate and valuable but, for now, the more urgent and important components of the program that need to be evaluated are just the Inputs and Process. Obviously it would be crucial to emphasize to the overseers of the program the importance of ongoing evaluation as the program matures and to use the formative evaluations to slowly impact the context of the program. As stated earlier, assuming the that exercise has already been linked to the reduction of diabetes, this program can clearly be invaluable to many high-risk women if it is managed properly. 

Joel 

Assignment 1

     The following is my assessment of the Review of Programs/Services for Gifted Students prepared by the Ontario Quality Assurance Department for the Ottawa-Carleton School Board (OCDSB) in 2001. The review of the gifted programs was part of a larger Ontario Ministry of Education Project with the goal of “developing standards for each exceptionality in order to improve the understanding of what is the most effective way to provide special education programs across the province.”  According to Scriven, formative evaluation "is research-oriented vs. action-oriented," and since there are few calls to action in the recommendations, this assessment in primarily formative.

      Researchers used three methods for gathering their data: Qualitative. They interviewed various stakeholders; Quantitative. They had stakeholders complete surveys; and third, they compiled findings from previous research done by similar groups. I found it interesting that they invited individuals/groups to submit up to five areas of concern that they would like to see evaluated and, from these, they received 17 responses with a total of 119 suggestions...obviously exceeding the limit of five each.

      Although they did not use the exact terminology, based on the broad information headings, the researchers were using a CIPP (Context, Input, Process, Product) model. The following headings were selected by the researchers to categorize the 119 responses (I have added what CIPP category that each would most likely fall in – there would obviously be some overlap):

1. Students (Context)
2. Budget (Context, Input, Process)
3. Administrative Responsibility (Context, Input, Process)
4. Facilities (Context, Input, Process)
5. Needs of Students (Input)
6. Staffing (Input)
7. Qualifications (Input)
8. In-service (Input)
9. Material Resources (Input, Process)
10. Delivery Models (Process)
11. Activities (Process)
12. Goals of the Program (Product)

What I liked about the evaluation:

1. It was requested and done. I think that too many programs are run without ongoing assessment and evaluation.
2. The researchers acknowledged that the recommendations for improvement would be “within the confines of responsible fiscal management.” Often government programs make great promises which are not feasible financially – this recognized the limitations that school boards face.
3. Some data was provided (and more can be requested in hard copy but was not included in online version of the report). This gives support for the researchers' judgements. Conversely, it also enables readers to assess and challenge the conclusions and recommendations of the researchers.
4. Specific recommendations were made in each CIPP category.

What I did not like about the evaluation:

1. Goals of program are vague or non-existent. Even though the researchers included a category of “Goals” when organizing responses, not one of the 119 suggestions fell into that category. I believe that assessing any program must start with alignment to goals – Is the program doing what it is supposed to do?
2. Similar to #1, the goal of assessing all exceptionalities was to ensure that “all students have access to curriculum, teaching, and learning environments, that will enable them to reach [provincial] standards.” As stated, this would virtually eliminate all gifted programs.
3. In their recommendations, researchers did not comment on the alarming fact that 100% of the responders wanted to see an issue in Context, Input, or Process addressed, but not one of the 119 were concerned about the Product – or outcome – of the program. This could mean that everyone is happy with the goals but I find this doubtful since nowhere in the evaluation are the specific goals written or even referenced.

      Considering the goals of Ministry when they requested the report, the Stufflebeam CIPP model seemed like a logical place to start. The Ministry seemed more concerned with documenting what was being done than they were with improving the program. Had they been more interested in improvement, the Prevus Discrepancy model would have been more practical. The other model that was touched on was Scriven as the researchers did analyze roles but they certainly did not address goals in any significant way. Overall, the report seemed to be a political document to testify to the government's concern for gifted children without actually having to anything more to support them.

The complete report can be found online at http://www.abcontario.ca/pdf/ocdsb_gifted_review/Gifted.pdf

Thanks,

Joel