School District Learning Program - Assignment Example

School District Learning Program School District Learning Program Summarize the contents of your article In this essay I will justify the need for the applicability of Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) over letting the students to freely sign up for the Service Programme. RCT has the highest degree minimizing biasness. The randomized sample will clearly depicts and represents the general population characteristics (Wade, 1997, p. 176). Using free wish sign up to the community service program may greatly be dealt a blow as lack of awareness and exposure may lead to insufficient and biased representation. In this case, cluster randomizations will be effective to reflect all schools within the district. The random sampling of the schools will give us the sample sized which is fairly selected than it would have been when free sign up was to be employed. The undelaying significant of randomizations besides minimization of biasness is being highly cost-effective. A successful program evaluation methodology or technique ensure a higher degree of pros over cons (Glennerster & Takavarasha, 2013, 186). The cost-benefits analysis must reveal more benefits than losses. Randomization makes is possible to compare and contrast the controlled and the uncontrolled groups. RCTs applies the randomized access mechanism to social programs and hence weeds out cases of bias culminating into internally valid impact estimate. The RCT employs the use of two distinguished groups, the treatment cohort and the control-untreated group to clearly evaluate the impact based on a framework of cross-comparison and contrast mechanism with respect to the results. RCT has no strings attached on the necessity of control group but makes is at times simpler by just comparing distinct versions of one program or a range of programs circumventing same problem. The optional sign up into the program may be affected by lack of motivation and as well information asymmetry will mean that those student who will not sign up could had different in significant manners hence influencing the results (Wade, 1997, p. 164). This challenge is proactively through RCT which is based on prior identification of target population by program implementer which is then followed by randomization of the program access within the cluster randomly selected. Clustering will be effective as it curbs contaminations which renders control cohort ineffective. In addition, RCTs ranks higher than free sign up on the basis that it has a counterfactual phenomenon. It thus helps researchers compared how the treatment group would have been at the same moment would it have been that they were not treated as the control mimics the counterfactual (Joseph, Harry, and Kathryn, 2010, p.238). RCT has a fundamental feature of mimicry groups which is lacked by the Free Sign Up to the community service. In this cases, for much impacts to be felt, the School District will be able In light of all these overarching benefits attached to RCT, it is more effective than free sign up. RCT’s clustering of Schools in the district and subjecting the student to the Service-Learning Program will practically assists in evaluating the non-selected students and the selected ones. The outcome will help make rational decision by the stakeholders. 2. Who wanted the policy or program evaluated? Why did the author(s) conduct the evaluation? The need for program evaluation has been informed by increased demand pushed by the state legislatures, Congress, non-profit organizations, public agencies, local legislative bodies, foundations, as well as funding agencies. The funding agencies wanted to know how the funds were utilized and to gauge the results or the impacts created by the projects funded. In addition the public are disturbed in knowing how the taxpayers’ money is spent by various government. The need for evaluation programs have also been pushed by the financial institutions particular the World Bank. National government such as Canada and USA have also demanded the evaluations and have established performance audits. Besides the authors were also influenced the push from performance management initiatives that have subsequently established several program managers and staff (Joseph, Harry, and Kathryn, 2010, p. 789). The staff have designed performance goals, monitoring performance as well as reporting on performance to influence decisions making. The results or outcomes are needed by the program advocates and conservatives. 3. What were the goals or desired outcomes of the policy or program under examination? The goal of the program is to ensure improved performance and accountability of NGOs and public by using program evaluations, performance management as well as strategic planning with more focus on performance evaluation so as to presents funders and the public a value for the money. The evaluation must be useful and worth the cost incurred as well uncovering ways to enhance the evaluated program. The objective is to empower program managers and the rest of staff to enhance their ability of ensuring an improved supply of the necessary information needed in to enhance the program evaluated. 4. What theory connects the policy or program to the goals or outcomes? The authors applied the use of logic model tool. The theory aided in conceptualization, planning as well communicating the program to other people or the primary audience that included those program designers, reporters and evaluators (Joseph, Harry, and Kathryn, 2010, p. 539). The causal theory for impact evaluation was also used which is aimed at computing the causal impact of a program. The theory calculates the difference between those outcome of participant and comparing with the outcomes of the non-participants after the program. 5. What rival or plausible explanations or theories were ruled out? The authors ruled out the non-randomized experience and thumps up the Randomized one. This because the causal theory is best understood based on the randomized experiments. Randomized experiments creates balance as it curbs the influence of external forces on the outcomes (Joseph, Harry, and Kathryn, 2010, p. 198). It does this by assigning both treated and untreated cohorts individuals in a manner that treatment accounts less to all other factors affecting the outcome. The chance variation were dismissed as the explanations where control and treated groups outcomes are attached to impacts of program. 6. How did the theory guide the author(s) in their conduct of the evaluation? Randomization best match the Causal Theory as it curbs biasness as there is no discrimination or biasness in each group entry. Both nitrated and treated cohorts are not predetermined and hence and hence for framework for selection bias. 7. How did the author(s) propose to evaluate the policy or program in terms of its goals or outcomes? The authors proposed to compute the difference both after the program and before the program between the treated and the untreated groups. This noted difference will explain the outcome of the program and hence able to make a conclusion on the validity and feasibility of the program. 8. What principal research methods did the author(s) use in the conduct of the evaluation? The authors used the Randomized Controlled Trials in the evaluation. The authors believed in RCTs since allows for causal inference through the critical observation of unbiased estimates of impacts so long as deigning and execution is rigorous. Randomize is therefore employed since its helps showcase the effectiveness of the intervention in comparison to other numerous alternatives (Joseph, Harry, and Kathryn, 2010, p.538). Randomized applies where comparison is based on equal in all known and unknown outcomes-attached variables done before and after control intervention. The difference noted explains the treatment. 9. What did the author(s) conclude? On what basis Randomization was thumped as the best methodological in program evaluation since the treated and the untreated groups are fairly selected and hence minimize biasness. Besides that outcomes obtained are never influenced in any way as randomization create a sense of balance. 10. Did any unintended or unanticipated consequences arise? If so, what were they? How and why did they arise? The research met is intended purpose despite fewer pitfalls that were met alongside is success. Challenges such as performance measurements at times may fail to be reflected in the decisions made. This results from the fact that inadequacy of systematic evidence to showcase whether monitoring program performance and decision made have improved following program evaluation and subsequent recommendations. But performance management systems have been celebrated in some place with New York Police Department Compstat and Baltimore’s CitiStat being out typical examples (Joseph, Harry, and Kathryn, 2010, p.465). 11. Did the policy or program achieve its intended goals or outcomes in whole, in part, or not at all? If so, why or why not? The program achieved its intended objective as it enabled the funders and the public get to know their value of money. The finders were able to determine how the money given to others was spent. 12. To what uses were the results of the evaluation to be put? The results were to be used to help showcase that despite the need for program evaluation, it was necessary we enhance the evaluated program. 13. Based on the results of the evaluation, what principal recommendations did the author(s) make? It was recommended that program designers, reporters and communicators should go beyond just evaluating the program performance but to evaluate and improve the evaluated program. It was also recommended that performance evaluation should be applied in evaluation rather that program evaluation (Wade, 1997, p. 106). In addition RCTs was recommended as the best policy as it creates balance and free from biasness and hence outcomes are not swayed or predetermined as those who enter into either groups are not known by fairly randomized. 14. After you have written the essay critique, identify which of the following apply to the topic. Be sure to explain why or how each of your selections applies or not. Goals evaluation is vital in any evaluation process. Ascertaining the goals help in the recommendation for the future. Outcome evaluation helps the researchers determine whether there ware biasness or not. The program theory is also beneficial as it is the foundation upon which the experiments or the program is based. It help as cross-check whether we are in line with the intended outcomes or not. The internal validity on the other hand is significant as it enables us affirm our outcomes and is the center stage for designing recommendations. The cost benefits analysis is important in this topic. The analysis help us determine the cost-effective programs which are then feasible to undertake. The pros should always override the cons attached to a particular program. In addition cost effectiveness is also vital as the funders and the public would want to justify the value of their money. Reference Glennerster, R., & Takavarasha, K. (2013). Running randomized evaluations: A practical guide. Joseph S. Wholey, Harry p. Hatry, and Kathryn E. Newcomer, Jossey-Bass. (2010): Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. An Imprint of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Latest Edition Wade, R. C. (1997). Community service-learning: A guide to including service in the public school curriculum. Albany: State University of New York Press. Read More