A Theory-of-Change Approach to Evaluating Investments in Public Education

  • James P. Connell
  • Adena M. Klem
Part of the Nonprofit and Civil Society Studies book series (NCSS)

Abstract

Over the past ten years, corporate and private foundation resources have been energizing urban educational reform initiatives at an increasing rate. But what has resulted? The Institute for Research and Reform in Education (IRRE) concluded that “after nearly 10 years of intensive local, state, and national educational reform efforts, very little meaningful change has occurred in the everyday lives of most urban public school students” (IRRE, 1996). At a time when many students’ life chances are threatened by “business as usual” in their schools, the substantial investments made in educational reform should, at a minimum, have provided credible and usable information to guide future reform efforts. Yet, they have not.

Keywords

Assure Reformer 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anson, A. R., Cook, T. D., Habib, E, Grady, M. K., Haynes, N., & Comer, J. P. (1991). The comer school development program: A theoretical analysis. Urban Education, 26, 56–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chen, H. (1990). Theory driven evaluations. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  3. Connell, J. P., & Klem, A. (2000). You can get there from here: Using a theory of change approach to plan urban education reform. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 11(1), 93–120.Google Scholar
  4. Connell, J. P., & Kubisch, A. C. (1998). Applying a theory of change approach to the design and evaluation of comprehensive community initiatives: Progress, prospects, and problems. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.Google Scholar
  5. Connell, J. P., Kubisch, A. C, Schorr, L. B., & Weiss, C. H., (Eds.). (1995). New approaches to evaluating community initiatives: Concepts, methods, and contexts. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.Google Scholar
  6. E. M. Kauffman Foundation. (1998). Overview of planned research: First things first initiative. Kansas City, KS: E.M. Kauffman Foundation.Google Scholar
  7. Fulbright-Anderson, K., Kubisch, A. C, & Connell, J. P. (Eds.) (1998). New approaches to evaluating community initiatives: Vol.2. Theory, measurement, and analysis. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.Google Scholar
  8. Granger, R. C. (1998). Establishing causality in evaluations of comprehensive community initiatives. In K. Fulbright-Anderson, A. C. Kubisch, & J. P. Connell (Eds.), New approaches to evaluating community initiatives: Vol 2. Theory, measurement, and analysis. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.Google Scholar
  9. Hollister, R. G., & Hill, J. (1995). Problems in the evaluation of community-wide initiatives. In J. P. Connell, A. C. Kubisch, L. B. Schorr, & C. H. Weiss (Eds.), New approaches to evaluating community initiatives: Concepts, methods, and contexts. Washington DC: The Aspen Institute.Google Scholar
  10. IRRE. (1996). First things first: A framework for successful school-site reform. White paper prepared for the E.M. Kauffman Foundation. Kansas City, MO: E. M. Kauffman Foundation.Google Scholar
  11. Weiss, C. H. (1995). Nothing as practical as good theory: Exploring theory-based evaluation for comprehensive community initiatives for children and families. In J. P. Connell, A. C. Kubisch, L. B. Schorr, & C. H. Weiss (Eds.), New approaches to evaluating community initiatives: Concepts, methods, and contexts. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • James P. Connell
    • 1
  • Adena M. Klem
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Research and Reform in EducationToms RiverUSA

Personalised recommendations