Degree Name

Education Specialist (EdS)

Semester of Degree Completion

1980

Thesis Director

Donald W. Smitley

Abstract

This paper deals with curriculum evaluation. It specifically follows the process adopted by a medium-sized rural school district in taking an introspective look at its instructional program.

The reader observes the instrument utilized in this process, the role of the educational consultant serving as a facilitator, and the interaction of the various constituents of the educational community as the study progresses.

The district called in the educational consultant, who was an employee of the Illinois Office of Education, to assist in the development of the evaluation process. This consultant recommended the use of the Illinois Problems Index, a needs assessment instrument which had been developed by IOE. With the IPI, the community itself could identify and validate its own problems, without the services of a paid curriculum “expert”.

The district’s six administrators were inserviced on the use of the IPI, and they were asked to participate in the evaluation process. The consultant volunteered her services as a facilitator, and she assisted the superintendent in organizing the IPI committee, which consisted of board members, school personnel, students, parents and community members.

The process provided for five meetings of the committee. At the first meeting the committee members were informed of their task and asked to commit themselves to it. The process was outlined, and the four future meeting dates were set. IPI Instrument I was administered, in which the participants were asked to identify some general curricular categories in which they felt that problems might exist.

The data from Instrument I was processed, and the results were disseminated and discussed during the second meeting of the committee. The top priority categories were identified, and then, in Instrument II, the participants were asked to identify specific problems within those five categories.

Again the data was processed, and the results were presented at the third meeting of the committee. At that time, the committee agreed to study and attempt to validate a total of twenty-two specific problem statements. The committee was divided into sub-groups, with each group assigned specific problem statements. The facilitator suggested a variety of validation techniques, and each sub-group was asked to bring the validating evidence to the next meeting.

At the fourth meeting, the validating evidence was presented. The evidence generated much discussion, and in some cases it was determined that more evidence was needed.

At the fifth meeting, the evidence was re-examined, and the validity of each problem statement was determined. Those problems which were found to be valid were then ranked according to priority, and a sub-committee was drafted for the purpose of preparing the IPI report for the board of education.

Download

Share

COinS