Evaluating Cultural Competence of Teachers in Public Schools - Research Paper Example

? An Evaluation Plan for an Evaluation of Cultural Competence of Teachers in Public Schools Cultural competence, or the lack of it, is purely natural, human and sane. The debate on the cultural competence of the teachers in our public schools has raged on and on. The opinions and arguments are not exhaustive but the fact remains that cultural competence remains a debated issue in the public education sector. The public schools of the U.S. cater for people of many cultural backgrounds and ought to embrace cultural diversity. This however is not possible if the teachers in the system are not. Every day there are multiple cases of disgruntled parents and students who feel that the treatment they get in our public schools is short of their expectations. It is therefore wise to come up with a training program that trains teachers on the matter. For the government to support such a training project, we need to evaluate the cultural competence of the teachers in our schools first. In light of this, this paper is an evaluation plan for the cultural competence of teachers in public schools. Evaluation Scope and Purpose The Department of Education is interested in funding a proposed training project to enhance cultural competence of the teachers in public schools. It commissioned an evaluation of the teacher cultural competence so as to get data to pass the teacher cultural competence training as policy. Of interest to the ED is an evaluation plan which identifies the project’s strengths and weaknesses so that they will have the means to improve the educational system. Emphasis is especially laid on the need to enhance the cultural competence of the teachers. The ethical issues around prior conduct of the teachers need to be evaluated due to political considerations. There is the apparent need to enhance the cultural competence of the teachers. The funding body, like all government entities are liable to public scrutiny hence they ought to have a surety that indeed the training project is a good investment of public resources to avoid backlash. The evaluation result will be instrumental in accessing the viability of the training project. It will as well be instrumental in finding out possible reasons for disparity in cultural competence of the teachers that are not in the training project design foresight and hence have possible remedies for them sought a forehand before the training commences. The evaluation seeks to answer the questions; i. Is there a dire need to improve the cultural competence of the teachers in the public schools? ii. Are the public education stakeholders satisfied with the cultural competence of the teachers? iii. What should be detailed in their cultural competence training project? Evaluation Team Members and Stakeholders The evaluation team will consists of a group of ten (10) chosen from several disciplines. There will be one (1) general overseer who will be the evaluation comptroller. The general overseer gives tasks and will act as the project coordinator. It is important to have an in-charge for any group to function effectively. There will be two (2) audit officers, three (3) social workers who should be experts in public education issues, two (2) volunteers and two (2) external evaluators. It is wise to conduct the evaluation with ‘outsiders’ since they are not involved in the funding or the implementation of the program. They are useful in identifying useful indicators, assessing the program in relation to quality, effectiveness and efficiency and describing pre- and post-program levels of stressors. Their approach is neutral due to lack of any links with the organization hence they have a non-partisan perspective to the evaluation. Their input has to be impartial in the evaluation. However, the limitations that come with external evaluators are lack of specialised knowledge in matters concerning public education. They may as well be a source of extra stress on the stakeholders. Project Logic and Indicators The evaluation will have two scheduled activities with the first collection of qualitative data. The evaluators will work in mutual partnership with the funders if they are to develop the project. The evaluation will be done through telephone or face-to-face interviews with the target subject. The will include all education stakeholders; teachers, parents, students and alumni. The project will run on a budget from the funded by the ED. The budget breakdown is as follows: Incomes Expenditures Grants Received Donations Salaries and On costs Salaries On costs Total Salaries and On Costs Administration Costs Office Expenses Photocopying, Printing And Stationery Computer Repairs/Maintenance and Software/Supplies Insurance Internet Expenses Motor Vehicle Running, Repair and maintenance Program Costs Staff Training Volunteer Expenses Contingencies Total Other Costs Staff Training Staff Amenities Total Operating Expenditure Communication: Land line, Mobile Phones and Postage TOTAL Evaluation Methods The evaluation process will use two instruments, the interview and the survey. The chosen methods are apt since they will help in getting information that is detailed as they develop personal relationship among participants. However, the methods are expensive, time consuming and could result to the discomfort of the participants especially where there are questions that seek personal details. The interview will be the first activity. In the second activity the team will design a survey that is going to be anonymously filled. Data collected during the interview process will come in handy to help in identifying major issues that will be used to design the survey. The survey will give us quick and easy access to a range of information from people of different backgrounds. The assumption is that these are a sample of the majority and that reflect their opinion. The survey will also help us get opinion from all quarters without fear or favour due to the anonymity that it provides. This method however has a number of limitations. These include; the choice of words in the survey test questions that may lead to biased responses, the chosen subject may not reflect the opinion of the majority and there might be considerations of the method as impersonal. The evaluation principles of informed consent, voluntary participation and a guarantee of confidentiality and anonymity will be adhered. Evaluators will avoid exposure of respondents and conflict of integrity and honesty. The evaluation process will run in a scheduled time frame of fourteen (14) weeks. The Evaluation plan timeline Week Activity 1 2. 3 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Preparation … … … Activity1 … … … Survey Preparation/ distributing … … Activity 2 … … … … Result … … Sampling and recruitment The evaluation will use the interview and survey tools putting to consideration the target respondents and hence come up with the best sampling methods. Sampling for the interview will be done through none probability convenience sampling. The evaluation targets people that have been through, (or are in) the public education system. In light of such, this is the best suit sampling method. Probable interviewees will be randomly picked from the state registries. The survey which will be conducted as activity 2 will be determined by the outcome of activity 1, the interview. Sampling method that is best suit is the probability (random) sampling using the simple random sample technique. Subject will be randomly picked provided they are above eighteen years of age, are of sane mind and willing to take part in the survey. Issues in the evaluation Throughout the two activities it is important to address two key conceptual issues, namely, that the evaluation is client-oriented and that evaluation is connected to monitoring and reviewing the program. These are possible sources of error and researcher bias. They bring about the social desirability bias from the subject and the researcher expectancy from the investigator. Strategies could be selected with the clients’ benefits in mind, using tools for planning and reviewing which meet the needs of target group. It would mean showing an understanding of their position within the community, providing analysis of the program’s implementation to see how the program affects families who have various disadvantages positively, ranging from being Indigenous, residing at rural/remote locations, and to coming from non-English speaking background. Issues around ethics and evaluators will be glide along considerations of the guidelines of the evaluation code of ethics. The evaluators will need to be trained on them since they call for better valuational practice. It is worth noting that the funders might try to sway the findings to favour their course. The evaluators must therefore uphold the virtues of independence and objectivity. Inasmuch as there could be acrimony that arises as a result, it is important that evaluators focus on the purpose of the exercise rather than those involved in it. These principles of respecting the rights, privacy and dignity of the subjects and that the judgements are shaped by the analysed results of the evaluation will be upheld to avoid positive or negative impact on aspects of the program. The ethical issues around informed consent and confidentiality because there is a call for personal information from the participants will be held in dignity. The participating families will be informed and given a short orientation so that they understand the process of reporting personal details and information. Before the evaluation begins the evaluators will take the subjects through the signing of the consent forms after they dully explain confidentiality to them. The evaluators will inform of their right to withdraw; they have the right to participate, or not, without any penalties. Evaluators will be diligently trained to understand the imbalances that are in between the commissioners of the evaluation and the evaluation itself. As such, they should neither at any time coerce the participation of the targeted subject sample nor attempt to influence their responses to suit the expectations of any party. References Bamberger, M, Rugh, J, Church, M & Fort, L 2004, Shoestring Evaluation: Designing Impact Evaluations under Budget, Time and Data Constraints, American Journal of Evaluation, Volume 25, Issue 1. DePoy, E & Gilson, SF 2003, Evaluation Practice: Thinking and Action Principles for Social Work Practice, Thomson Brooks/Cole, Canada. Green, RS & Ellis, PT 2007, ‘Linking structure, process, and outcome to improve group home services’, Evaluation and Program Planning, vol,30, pp. 307–317. Kettner, PM, Moroney, R & Martin, LL 2008, Designing and Managing Programs: An Effectiveness-Based Approach, 3rd edn, Sage Publication, London. McDavid, JC & Hawthorn, LRL 2006, Program Evaluation & Performance Measurement: An Introduction to Practice, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, London. Newman, DL & Brown, RD 1996, Applied Ethics For Program Evaluation, Sage Publication, USA. Windschuttle, K & Elliott, E 1999, Writing, Researching, Communication, McGraw-Hill Book Pty. Limited, Australia. Read More