Re: Evaluation Costs

Lowell Herr (herr@catseq.catlin.edu <herr@catseq.catlin.edu>)
Wed, 25 Oct 1995 06:52:42 -0700 (PDT) 

On 25 Oct 1995, Brian Drayton wrote:

Hi Brian,

You are so right.  This company wanted to do everything from start to 
finish and from my point of view, we would have ended up with an 
outstanding evaluation but the cost/(teacher improvement) ratio 
would end up as excessive.  In our project, I 
must always keep in mind how our workshop will impact students because of 
what the teachers learn.

I see where you are still at TERC.  We sure have come a long way in 
telecommunications since those days in the late '80's when we struggled 
with inadequate software and patched together phone lines.  Send my 
regards along to Billy S.

Lowell


> Dear Lowell -- your story is depressing.  It sounds like they wanted to do
> work that you didn't need them to do.
>    Our project is spending about 25-30% of labor costs this year on
> evaluation, since this is the best opportunity to gather information and make
> sense of things.  It was less in year 1, and will be less in year 3.
>    It is crucial to write in some evaluation from the beginning of the
> project, and the formative work that a staff person can do, if it is well
> designed, can also provide a large portion of the data needed for summative
> evaluation.  Mileage may vary depending on local conditions, methodology can
> be a challenge, and of course it depends on what your intervention is, but
> this is my general prejudice in writing a proposal (or in the re-conception
> phase just after the grant is awarded!!).
>   As for outside evaluators, I like the approach of finding someone with an
> academic interest in your work, who will work as a consultant, but in part
> are paid by the experience/information they gain by observing/advising.  Quid
> pro quo, but not all paid in quid, if you get my meaning.
> --Brian (brian_drayton@terc.edu <brian_drayton@terc.edu>)
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Date: 10/25/95 9:19 AM
> To: Brian Drayton
> From: TEECH-Workshop@hub.terc.edu <TEECH-Workshop@hub.terc.edu>
> I've been told that budgeting between 5-10% of total budget is a good 
> estimate for evaluation.
> 
> Susan
> 
> On Sun, 22 Oct 1995, Lowell Herr wrote:
> 
> > Date: Sun, 22 Oct 1995 06:24:42 -0700 (PDT)
> > From: Lowell Herr <herr@catseq.catlin.edu <herr@catseq.catlin.edu>>
> > To: TEECH-Workshop@hub.terc.edu <TEECH-Workshop@hub.terc.edu>
> > Cc: TEECH-Workshop@hub.terc.edu <TEECH-Workshop@hub.terc.edu>
> > Subject: Evaluation Costs
> > 
> > In the process of rewriting a grant proposal to extend our current 
> > project, I contacted an independent evaluator to see what they might do 
> > for us in the way of evaluating our project.  I was surprised to learn 
> > that the overall cost levied by this company would exceed what it would 
> > cost us to run our program for one summer.  Not willing to give up such 
> > funds, I contacted an NSF program officer for information as to what we 
> > might do as I was not convinced the spending of large dollar amounts 
> > would positively affect our project.  We agreed to an alternate and much 
> > lower cost plan of evaluation.
> > 
> > What % of total program costs are you PI' paying for an evaluation of the 
> > programs and is this money well spent?
> > 
> > Lowell Herr
> > Project PHYSLab
> > The Catlin Gabel School
> > Portland, OR 97225
> > 
> 
> ------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------
> Received: by qm.terc.edu with SMTP;25 Oct 1995 09:19:15 -0400
> Received: (daemon@localhost) by hub.terc.edu (8.6.9/8.6.4) id JAA00707 for
> teech-workshop-outgoing; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 09:10:54 -0400
> Received: from login1.isis.unc.edu (sfriel@login1.isis.unc.edu <sfriel@login1.isis.unc.edu> [152.2.25.15])
> by hub.terc.edu (8.6.9/8.6.4) with ESMTP id JAA00701 for
> <TEECH-Workshop@hub.terc.edu <TEECH-Workshop@hub.terc.edu>>; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 09:10:51 -0400
> Received: (from sfriel@localhost) by login1.isis.unc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id
> JAA61773; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 09:12:40 -0400
> Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 09:12:40 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Susan Friel <sfriel@email.unc.edu <sfriel@email.unc.edu>>
> X-Sender: sfriel@login1.isis.unc.edu <sfriel@login1.isis.unc.edu>
> To: TEECH-Workshop@hub.terc.edu <TEECH-Workshop@hub.terc.edu>
> cc: TEECH-Workshop@hub.terc.edu <TEECH-Workshop@hub.terc.edu>
> Subject: Re: Evaluation Costs
> In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9510220652.A18314-0100000@catseq.catlin.edu <Pine.3.89.9510220652.A18314-0100000@catseq.catlin.edu>>
> Message-ID: <Pine.A32.3.91.951025091208.163181C-100000@login1.isis.unc.edu <Pine.A32.3.91.951025091208.163181C-100000@login1.isis.unc.edu>>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> Sender: Owner-TEECH-Workshop@hub.terc.edu <Owner-TEECH-Workshop@hub.terc.edu>
> Precedence: bulk
> Reply-To: TEECH-Workshop@hub.terc.edu <TEECH-Workshop@hub.terc.edu>
> X-listname: teech-workshop@hub.terc.edu <teech-workshop@hub.terc.edu>
> 
> 
>