Need back in 24 hours from now

Georgia Schools Punishment System Program Evaluation

Vibert Jacob

South University

Program Evaluation Criteria

The following five criteria are used in evaluating Georgia schools punishment system as a program: relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability (Posavac, 2015). Relevance is a measure or criterion of the extent to which the punishment program meets the needs of the teachers, students and other important state education stakeholders, and the needs are consistent with the policies of the education administration in Georgia. For instance, a common question that can be asked under this criterion is the rationale of the corporal punishment program.

How relevant is the punishment program in reducing cases of student discipline? What is the rationale of the system? Another question that can be asked is; what is the relevance of this system of punishment for the modern-day student? In asking these questions, the focus is to understand the usefulness of the program in addressing education needs in Georgia. The second criteria are efficiency (Posavac, 2015). Efficiency is a question of how the resources put in implementing the program related with the output. In looking at this relationship, alternative punishment systems are evaluated and compared to this program.

Thirdly, effectiveness as criteria is used in measuring the extent to which the program’s intended outcomes, i.e. the specific goals and objectives and intermediate goals have been realized. A program can only be declared effective if the resources being channelled into it produce the best outcomes or desirable results (Posavac, 2015). Four, impact measures the significant effects of the punishment intervention, positive or negative, unforeseen or expected, on the supposed beneficiaries and other relevant stakeholders.

While effectiveness is focused on the intended results of the punishment program, impact measures the broader and wider consequences of the intervention at the school level and spread across the state. For instance, what academic impacts does the punishment system have? Does it lead to better grades or increased participation of students in classroom activities? Lastly, sustainability focuses on measuring whether the positive results or benefits of this punishment program can continue post technical support elimination. Can the school maintain the punishment system to post better results in grades and classroom activities?

Possible Ethical Issue

Evaluating the Georgia school’s punishment system program is likely to present some ethical issues since it involves collecting data and gathering valuable information that touches the lives of students and other important stakeholders. A key ethical issue that is likely to affect the manner in which the evaluation is conducted is informed consent (Langbein, 2014). Everyone participating in the evaluation must not just show willingness, it must be proved.

Stakeholders participating in the program evaluation have a right to choose whether they want to be part of the program or not; they have a right to withdrawn in the course of the evaluation at any time, even if they showed their support and agreed to be participants; and lastly have a right to refuse to complete any part of the evaluation framework (Langbein, 2014). Key stakeholders in this evaluation are students. Most students in high and elementary schools have not attained the age of 18, which means parental consent is needed. In addition to having the parent consent, the students must be willing and should be asked to be participants in the program.

Even when parental consent has been given, students can still decline to participate in the program and therefore this could hamper the process of obtaining any meaningful results (Thyer & Padgett, 2015). Getting informed consent from students is likely to be an ethical challenge in evaluating the punishment system used in Georgia schools. Apart from the students, there are other stakeholders like teachers and the state education administration who must throw their weight behind the program. In most instances, getting the informed consent of stakeholders who are directly impacted or related to a program is such a massive task.

It may not be easy. There have been instances where evaluators have coerced participants into being part of a program and in the long run their comments completely ruin and corrupt the outcomes of the evaluation (Thyer & Padgett, 2015). The relationship between stakeholders and the evaluators must also be brought under the lens before obtaining informed consent because some stakeholders can convince evaluators to proceed then to use these relationships to water down the outcomes of the evaluation.

How the ethical issue of informed consent can be handled effectively

Obtaining informed consent is mandatory. Without it, the data collection process and the outcomes of the evaluation can be compromised. Since students are primary stakeholders in this evaluation process, the evaluator must tread cautiously and carefully in obtaining informed consents for their participation. For adults, signing informed consents may not be as important, but still necessary (Spaulding, 2013). The general assumption is that adults are capable of making their own decisions and therefore cannot be coerced. However, it is still important that all participants sign informed consent forms to avoid any backlash that may come after the program has been evaluated.

Before informed consent forms are issued for signing, program evaluators must explain to the participants the level of their involvement in the program by; providing the potential participants or stakeholders with detailed information about the program evaluation, reasons why it is being done and how long it could take; show any potential benefits of their participation and foreseeable risks that could be encountered; share program evaluation information using the simplest language understood by all participants and lastly provide opportunities for ventilation- where the participants can ask questions about the program evaluation (Spaulding, 2013).

References

Langbein, L. (2014). Public program evaluation: A statistical guide. Routledge.

Posavac, E. J. (2015). Program evaluation: Methods and case studies. Routledge. Royse, D.,

Spaulding, D. T. (2013). Program evaluation in practice: Core concepts and examples for discussion and analysis. John Wiley & Sons.

Thyer, B. A., & Padgett, D. K. (2015). Program evaluation: An introduction to an evidence-based approach. Cengage Learning.