The best educational measurement strategy is the one that fits your specific circumstance, not the hottest method of the day. And not necessarily the ones that pols believe are singularly able to deliver “real, hard data.”
The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) at the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), for example, reserves its highest rating of confidence for studies based on well-implemented Randomized Control Trials (RCTs), arguably the gold standard in evaluation. RCTs are not only credible, but are presumed to be top-of-the-line in eliminating bias and uniquely capable of surfacing replicable results (assuming fidelity to the original model).
Much has been written in the past year about whether RCTs deserve the vaunted status they’ve been assigned (see, for instance, the debate between Lisbeth Schorr and the Center for the Study of Social Policy’s “Friends of Evidence” group and Patrick Lester of Stanford’s Social Innovation Research Center). (more…)
Continue readingOur past two posts covered both the “why” of measuring implementation and some of the common challenges to doing so. In this third and final post, we’ll look at what is most useful to measure.
Implementation measures are particular to each program and should take into account the specific actions expected of program participants: who is doing what, when, where, how often, etc. Participants may be teachers, students, administrators, parents, advocates, tutors, recruiters, or institutions (e.g., regional centers, schools, community organizations). Specific measures should help stakeholders understand whether, how, and with what intensity a program is being put into place. Moreover, for programs with multiple sites or regions, understanding differences among them is critical.
