Microsoft Word Packard Teaching Case revised docx



Yüklə 480,23 Kb.
Pdf görüntüsü
səhifə5/15
tarix08.08.2018
ölçüsü480,23 Kb.
#61357
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   15

Teaching  Case:  Evaluation  of  Preschool  for  California’s  Children

 

 



9  

 

(1)  Leadership  and  Engagement  (advocacy):  Engage  a  broad  coalition  of  organizations  and  



constituencies  (education,  business,  early  childhood,  and  the  Latino  community)  to  support  

high-­‐quality  preschool  in  California.  As  part  of  this  effort,  Packard  created  Preschool  

California,  an  advocacy  hub,  to  coordinate  the  overall  effort.      

 

“Preschool  needed  to  be  more  important  in  key  constituencies  than  it  was,”  Salisbury  said.  



“Politically,  it  [didn’t  have  enough  support];  this  issue  was  not  going  to  move.  We  needed  to  

identify  to  key  constituents  that  were  going  to  own  it.”  

 

(2)  Research  and  Policy  Development:  Fund  California-­‐specific  research  that  focused  on:  the  



benefits  of  high-­‐quality  preschool  programs  for  K-­‐12;  cost  and  financing;  preschool  teacher  

training,  compensation,  and  retention;  and  baseline  data  on  California’s  preschool  system.  

Grantees  could  then  use  this  research  to  support  policy  development  and  advocacy.  

“We  were  convinced  that  the  research  existed  but  it  was  not  California  specific  enough  to  

persuade  California  audiences,”  Salisbury  said.  “We  needed  a  compelling  research  case.”  

 

(3)  Target  Communities  and  System  Building:  Increase  the  supply  and  quality  of  preschool  in  



California.  As  part  of  this  effort,  Packard  would  seed  local  preschool  systems  in  key,  

politically  important  California  communities  that  could  show  the  difference  that  quality  

preschool  makes  to  children.  These  projects  would  not  only  serve  children  but  would  be  a  

way  to  engage  business  and  political  leaders  who  could  see  real-­‐life  examples  of  this  work.    



     

A  Different  Kind  of  Evaluation  is  Proposed  

 

“Before  the  ink  was  dry”  on  Packard’s  approval  of  the  preschool  subprogram,  Salisbury  met  

Heather  Weiss,  the  executive  director  of  the  Harvard  Family  Research  Project  (HFRP),  which  works  

with  foundations,  nonprofits  and  policymakers  to  develop  and  evaluate  strategies  to  promote  the  

well  being  of  children,  youth,  families  and  their  communities.    

!"#$"%&'()*+*,-.#."/"-0*

!"#$%&'(#)*+#,"-./0%*-,+#

.%11"20#3-(#12"4"0*#5%3'&0+#

12*.,6""'#1"'&,+#



1"&"#%2'*+*345(26*

7"8"54)/"-0*

!"#43)*#06*#,3.*#7"2#5%3'&0+#

12*.,6""'#*813-.&"-#

9#%."0*:4//;-(<"&*+*

=6&0"/*>;(5$(-.*

!"#.%11"20#4"(*'#12*.,6""'#

12"9234.#&-#9*"1"'&/,3''+#

&41"203-0#,"44%-&/*.#



?3,

@

*3?!A

:B

*CA

@

7?

C

=*

D4#5#

:-&;*2.3''+<

3;3&'3$'*#

5%3'&0+#


12*.,6""'#

D1E@9FEGA@D*

=-,2*3.*(#12*.,6""'#

3>32*-*..#3-(#

3?*-/"-#


=-,2*3.*(#1"'&,+43)*2#

.%11"20#7"2#12*.,6""'#

@2*.,6""'#1"'&,&*.##3-(#

(*4"-.023/"-.#0630#

32*#.**-#3.#0*,6-&,3''+##

3-(#A.,3''+#;&3$'*#



3%4H5"/*A$"-#

345(<2&*J#84%#H5"#

345(2("&*3%4)4&"$#

?K9:?F,=*

3%"&2'445*L4%*:#5(L4%-(#M&*:'(5$%"-*=0%#0".6*

AF3E:9*


Teaching  Case:  Evaluation  of  Preschool  for  California’s  Children

 

 



10  

 

Salisbury  told  Weiss  about  the  new  Packard  strategy.  Weiss  told  Salisbury  that  she  needed  to  think  



about  how  to  evaluate  the  work.    

 

Salisbury  recalls,  “When  I  got  to  know  Heather,  evaluation  was  frankly  new  to  me.  I  had  some  



experience  with  evaluation  in  advocacy  when  I  headed  Children  Now  but  I  had  not  been  in  

philanthropy  before…I  had  operated  in  a  rough  and  tumble  world  where  there  were  winners  and  

losers.  We  didn’t  need  evaluators  to  tell  us  whether  a  case  won  or  lost.  A  traditional  approach  to  

evaluation  I  thought  would  be  a  waste  of  money.  It  would  tell  us  in  five  or  ten  years  what  you  did.  

Meanwhile,  something  has  happened  that  affects  your  strategy  now.”  

 

Weiss  told  Salisbury  about  another  approach  to  evaluation,  which  could  give  Packard  “real  time”  

feedback  on  its  strategy  that  the  Foundation  could  use,  in  conjunction  with  other  information,  to  

inform  decisions  at  the  strategy  level  and  make  course  corrections  if  necessary.  Called  variously  

“real-­‐time  evaluation”  or  “developmental  evaluation,”  these  approaches  share  something  in  

common—an  emphasis  on  promoting  strategic  learning.    

 

Strategic  learning  is  the  use  of  data  and  insights  from  a  variety  of  information-­‐gathering  



approaches—such  as  evaluation,  situation  analysis,  and  systematic  reflection—to  inform  decision  

making  about  strategy.  Strategic  learning  occurs  when  organizations  or  groups  integrate  data  and  

evaluative  thinking  into  their  work  and  then  adapt  their  strategies  in  response  to  what  they  learn.  

Strategic  learning  makes  intelligence-­‐gathering  and  evaluation  a  part  of  a  strategy’s  development  

and  implementation—embedding  it  so  that  it  influences  the  process.    

 

Evaluation  focused  on  strategic  learning  is  just  one  approach  to  evaluation  and  is  not  suited  for  



every  program  or  every  foundation,  Weiss  made  clear.  It  is  also  an  approach  that  Weiss  and  

colleague  Julia  Coffman  believed  in,  had  already  had  some  challenging  experiences  in  testing  out,  

and  wanted  to  try  again—under  the  right  circumstances.    

 

From  1997  to  2002,  the  HFRP  team  had  the  opportunity  to  test  this  new  approach  when  the  W.K.  



Kellogg  Foundation  asked  them  to  evaluate  its  Devolution  Initiative,  which  it  funded  to  learn  about  

the  implications  of  devolving  major  responsibilities  for  welfare  reform  and  health  care  policy  from  

the  federal  level  to  the  states,  and  to  mobilize  advocates  to  respond  as  the  implications  unfolded.    

 

The  evaluation  had  multiple  components,  which  included  providing  timely,  continuous  feedback  to  



Kellogg  about  how  the  initiative  was—or  was  not—working.    

 

While  Kellogg  was  an  early  pioneer  in  trying  out  the  real-­‐time  evaluation  approach,  and  Weiss  and  



Coffman  and  their  team  were  able  to  test  several  of  their  ideas—and  could  point  to  some  

successes—for  a  variety  of  reasons  and  circumstances  the  experience  as  a  whole  was  difficult.

8

   


 

“As  I  think  about  [my  initial  conversation  with  Lois],  I  had  just  come  off  the  experience  with  Kellogg,”  

Weiss  said.  “We  had  learned  a  lot.  This  was  a  good  opportunity  for  us  to  step  back  and  ask,  ‘what  are  

the  conditions  necessary  for  this  to  work?’”  

                                                                                                                         

8

 



See  also:  Sherwood,  K.E.  (2010).  The  W.K.  Kellogg  Foundation’s  Devolution  Initiative:  An  experiment  in  evaluating  

strategy.  In  P.A.  Patrizi,  &  M.Q.  Patton  (Eds.),  Evaluating  Strategy.  New  Directions  for  Evaluation,  128,  69-­‐86.



 


Yüklə 480,23 Kb.

Dostları ilə paylaş:
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   15




Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©www.genderi.org 2024
rəhbərliyinə müraciət

    Ana səhifə