In an effort to provide high-quality preschool education, policymakers are increasingly requiring public preschool teachers to have at least a Bachelor's degree, preferably in early childhood education. Seven major studies of early care and education were used to predict classroom quality and children's academic outcomes from the educational attainment and major of teachers of 4-year-olds. The findings indicate largely null or contradictory associations, indicating that policies focused solely on increasing teachers' education will not suffice for improving classroom quality or maximizing children's academic gains. Instead, raising the effectiveness of early childhood education likely will require a broad range of professional development activities and supports targeted toward teachers' interactions with children.

Past literature has identified several putative precursors of use, as well as alternative forms of use. However, important shortcomings still exist in previous work on use. In particular, inadequate attention has been given to the underlying processes that may mediate the effects of evaluation on attitude and action. In essence, a key part of the theory of change for evaluation itself is missing. To help fill this gap, we describe a framework designed to capture key mechanisms through which evaluation may have its effects. The framework includes change processes that have been validated in various social science literatures. It identifies three levels of analysis (individual, interpersonal and collective), each with four kinds of processes (general influence, attitudinal, motivational and behavioral). With a more comprehensive view of the mechanisms underlying evaluation's influence, the field can move forward in relation to its understanding and facilitation of evaluation's role in the service of social betterment. K E Y WO R D S : evaluation outcomes; evaluation theory; evaluation use; influence; mechanisms Evaluation is closely tied to the types of programs, policies and practices that affect people's lives, but is itself one step removed from the direct action of these endeavors; therefore most evaluators are drawn to the topic of use. 1 Use is the link between the day-today work of evaluation, on the one hand and those activities that could actually improve the lives of program participants and society, on the other. Concern about use has generated perhaps more empirical research on evaluation than any other topic (e.g.

Articles ABSTRACTAlthough use is a core construct in the field of evaluation, neither the change processes through which evaluation affects attitudes, beliefs, and actions, nor the interim outcomes that lie between the evaluation and its ultimate goal-social betterment-have been sufficiently developed. We draw a number of these change mechanisms, such as justification, persuasion, and policy diffusion, from the social science research literature, and organize them into a framework that has three levels: individual, interpersonal, and collective. We illustrate how these change processes can be linked together to form "pathways" or working hypotheses that link evaluation processes to outcomes that move us along the road toward the goal of social betterment. In addition, we join with Kirkhart (2000) in moving beyond use, to focus our thinking on evaluation influence. Influence, combined with the set of mechanisms and interim outcomes presented here, offers a better way for thinking about, communicating, and adding to the evidence base about the consequences of evaluation and the relationship of evaluation to social betterment.

Articles ABSTRACTAlthough use is a core construct in the field of evaluation, neither the change processes through which evaluation affects attitudes, beliefs, and actions, nor the interim outcomes that lie between the evaluation and its ultimate goal-social betterment-have been sufficiently developed. We draw a number of these change mechanisms, such as justification, persuasion, and policy diffusion, from the social science research literature, and organize them into a framework that has three levels: individual, interpersonal, and collective. We illustrate how these change processes can be linked together to form "pathways" or working hypotheses that link evaluation processes to outcomes that move us along the road toward the goal of social betterment. In addition, we join with Kirkhart (2000) in moving beyond use, to focus our thinking on evaluation influence. Influence, combined with the set of mechanisms and interim outcomes presented here, offers a better way for thinking about, communicating, and adding to the evidence base about the consequences of evaluation and the relationship of evaluation to social betterment.

No abstract

No abstract

Evaluation seems to be almost everywhere these days. We read about the findings of large-scale program evaluations in the newspaper, we receive report cards on our neighborhood schools, we allow ourselves to be interviewed for evaluations of conferences we attend. Yet we know remarkably little about how evaluation is being practiced, why it is being practiced, by whom and where it is being practiced, and to what effect. As evaluators, we know a great deal about the evaluations that we conduct, and we may also know a fair amount about those evaluations that we come into contact with professionally, as citizens, or as participants. However, the big picture is less clear. Evaluators are unlikely to be able to say much descriptively about the size, scope, and shape of the evaluation enterprise-things like how many evaluations were completed last year, how much money was spent on evaluation, who did the evaluations, and how they were conducted. More troubling, if evaluators try to tell you anything deeper about the practice of evaluation, what they tell you almost certainly comes from their personal experience, interactions, reading, training, or intuition. The views you hear on the key issues in evaluation-such as what kind of evaluation to do in various circumstances, or when and why evaluation affects important actions-almost certainly are not based on rigorous, systematic evidence. Why not? Because there is a serious shortage of rigorous, systematic evidence that can guide evaluation or that evaluators can use for self-reflection or for improving their next evaluation.This volume focuses on one new and noteworthy source of systematic evidence about evaluation: in Chapter One, Christina Christie presents her analysis of, first, the similarities or dissimilarities among the views of eight

In recent years, the federal government has invested billions of dollars to reform chronically low-performing schools. To fulfill their federal Race to the Top grant agreement, Tennessee implemented three turnaround strategies that adhered to the federal restart and transformation models: (a) placed schools under the auspices of the Achievement School District (ASD), which directly managed them; (b) placed schools under the ASD, which arranged for management by a charter management organization; and (c) placed schools under the management of a district Innovation Zone (iZone) with additional resources and autonomy. We examine the effects of each strategy and find that iZone schools, which were separately managed by three districts, substantially improved student achievement. In schools under the auspices of the ASD, student achievement did not improve or worsen. This suggests that it is possible to improve schools without removing them from the governance of a school district.