Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation

Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation

The Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation ref|JC is an American/Canadian based Standards Developer Organization (SDO). The Joint Committee represents a coalition of major professional associations formed in 1975 to help improve the quality of standardized evaluation. The Committee has thus far published three sets of standards for evaluations. "The Personnel Evaluation Standards" ref|Personnel was published in 1988 (a second edition is in press in 2007/2008), "The Program Evaluation Standards" (2nd edition) ref|Program was published in 1994 (the third edition of which is in draft form as of 2008), and "The Student Evaluation Standards" ref|Students was published in 2003.

The Joint Committee is housed at The Evaluation Center, Western Michigan University, ref|EC as a private nonprofit organization. It is accredited by the American National Standards Institute ref|ANSI_Membership (ANSI). Standards approved by ANSI become American National Standards ref|ANSI_Listing. In addition to setting standards in evaluation, it also is involved in reviewing and updating its published standards (every five years); training policymakers, evaluators, and educators in the use of the standards; and serving as a clearinghouse on evaluation standards literature.

Each publication presents and elaborates a set of standards for use in a variety of educational settings. The standards provide guidelines for designing, implementing, assessing and improving the identified form of evaluation. Each of the standards has been placed in one of four fundamental categories to promote educational evaluations that are proper, useful, feasible, and accurate.

The Personnel Evaluation Standards

The second edition of the Personnel Evaluation Standards (in press, 2007) is based on knowledge about personnel evaluation gained from the professional literature and research/development since 1988. In this edition, six new standards were added to the original 21 of the first edition. The Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation requires that personnel evaluations be ethical, fair, useful, feasible, and accurate. The standards also provide special consideration to issues of diversity.

It is not the intent of these standards to design or promote specific systems of evaluation, rather to ensure that whatever system is in place provides a sound process most likely to produce the desired results.

The four attributes of sound educational evaluation practices are:

* The propriety standards require that evaluations be conducted legally, ethically, and with due regard for the welfare of evaluatees and clients involved in. There are seven standards under this attribute which include service orientation, appropriate policies and procedures, access to evaluation information, interactions with evaluatees, comprehensive evaluation, conflict of interest, and legal viability.
* The utility standards are intended to guide evaluations so that they will be informative, timely, and influential. There are six standards under this attribute which include constructive orientation, defined uses, evaluator qualifications, explicit criteria, functional reporting, and follow-up/professional development.
* The feasibility standards call for evaluation systems that are as easy to implement as possible, efficient in their use of time and resources, adequately funded, and viable from a number of other standpoints. There are three standards under this attribute including practical procedures, political viability, and fiscal viability.
* The accuracy standards require that the obtained information be technically accurate and that conclusions be linked logically to the data. There are eleven standards under this attribute including validity orientation, defined expectations, analysis of context, documented purposes and procedures, defensible information, systemic data control, bias identification and management, analysis of information, justified conclusions, and metaevaluation.

The Program Evaluation Standards

* The utility standards are intended to ensure that an evaluation will serve the information needs of intended users.
* The feasibility standards are intended to ensure that an evaluation will be realistic, prudent, diplomatic, and frugal.
* The propriety standards are intended to ensure that an evaluation will be conducted legally, ethically, and with due regard for the welfare of those involved in the evaluation, as well as those affected by its results.
* The accuracy standards are intended to ensure that an evaluation will reveal and convey technically adequate information about the features that determine worth or merit of the program being evaluated.

The Student Evaluation Standards

* The Propriety standards help ensure that student evaluations are conducted lawfully, ethically, and with regard to the rights of students and other persons affected by student evaluation.
* The Utility standards promote the design and implementation of informative, timely, and useful student evaluations.
* The Feasibility standards help ensure that student evaluations are practical; viable; cost-effective; and culturally, socially, and politically appropriate.
* The Accuracy standards help ensure that student evaluations will provide sound, accurate, and credible information about student learning and performance.

ponsoring Organizations

The Joint Committee includes sixteen Sponsoring Organizations that reflect a balance of primarily client practitioner and evaluation technical specialist perspectives. These organizations appoint and sponsor a member of the Joint Committee. Each Sponsoring Organization is kept informed of the work of the Joint Committee and is afforded an opportunity to contribute to the standard-setting process. Sponsoring Organizations include the following:

* [http://www.aasa.org/ American Association of School Administrators (AASA)]
* [http://www.counseling.org/ American Counseling Association (ACA)]
* [http://www.aera.net/ American Educational Research Association (AERA)]
* [http://www.eval.org/ American Evaluation Association (AEA)]
* [http://www.apa.org/ American Psychological Association (APA)]
* [http://www.ascd.org/portal/site/ascd/index.jsp/ Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD)]
* [http://www.evaluationcanada.ca/ Canadian Evaluation Society (CES)]
* [http://www.csse.ca/ Canadian Society for the Study of Education (CSSE)]
* [http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/create/ Consortium for Research on Educational Accountability and Teacher Evaluation (CREATE)]
* [http://www.ccsso.org/ Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO)]
* [http://www.naesp.org/ National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP)]
* [http://www.infolit.org/members/nassp.htm National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP)]
* [http://ncme.org/ National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME)]
* [http://www.nea.org/index.html National Education Association (NEA)]
* [http://www.ncsl.org/programs/nlpes/ National Legislative Program Evaluation Society (NLPES)]
* [http://www.nsba.org/site/index.asp National School Boards Association (NSBA)]

Notes and references

# [http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/jc/ Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation]
# [http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/ Western Michigan University Evaluation Center]
# Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (1988). " [http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/jc/PERSTNDS-SUM.htm The Personnel Evaluation Standards: How to Assess Systems for Evaluating Educators.] " Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
# Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (1994). " [http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/jc/PGMSTNDS-SUM.htm The Program Evaluation Standards, 2nd Edition.] " Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
# Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (2003). " [http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/jc/briefing/ses/ The Student Evaluation Standards: How to Improve Evaluations of Students.] " Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.
# ANSI Membership Diretory. " [http://eseries.ansi.org/Source/directory/ ANSI Member Organizations] "
# ANSI Online Library - JCSEE Directory. " [http://webstore.ansi.org/FindStandards.aspx?Action=displaydept&DeptID=3165&Acro=JCSEE Publication Listing] "

External links

* [http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/jc/ Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation]
* [http://www.ansi.org/ American National Standards Institute]


Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Игры ⚽ Нужно сделать НИР?

Look at other dictionaries:

  • Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing — The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing is a set of testing standards developed jointly by the American Educational Research Association (AERA), American Psychological Association (APA), and the National Council on Measurement in… …   Wikipedia

  • Educational evaluation — is the evaluation process of characterizing and appraising some aspect/s of an educational process. There are two common purposes in educational evaluation which are, at times, in conflict with one another. Educational institutions usually… …   Wikipedia

  • Joint committee — A Joint Committee is a term used in politics to refer to a committee made up of members of both chambers of a bicameral parliament.A Joint Committee of the Parliament of the United Kingdom is a Select Committee consisting of members of both the… …   Wikipedia

  • Evaluation — is systematic determination of merit, worth, and significance of something or someone using criteria against a set of standards. Evaluation often is used to characterize and appraise subjects of interest in a wide range of human enterprises,… …   Wikipedia

  • Evaluation — oder Evaluierung (von lat. valere: gesund, stark, geeignet sein; vermögen; gelten) bedeutet allgemein die Beschreibung, Analyse und Bewertung von Projekten, Prozessen und Organisationseinheiten. Dabei können Kontext, Struktur, Prozess und… …   Deutsch Wikipedia

  • Standards für Evaluation — Evaluationen setzen bestimmte Standards voraus, damit sie vom Ergebnis her objektiv verglichen werden können. Die Homogenität der Ergebnisse soll durch die verschiedenen Auswertungen der Daten gewährleistet werden. Die DeGEval Gesellschaft für… …   Deutsch Wikipedia

  • Evaluation in der Drogenprävention — Evaluationen in der Sucht und Drogenprävention haben die Aufgabe, die Wirksamkeit einer Interventionsmaßnahme, eines Präventionskonzeptes oder Projektes mit den Mitteln der empirischen Forschung zu überprüfen. Hierbei können einerseits die… …   Deutsch Wikipedia

  • Assessment — For article assessment process on Wikipedia, see . Assessment is the process of documenting, usually in measurable terms, knowledge, skills, attitudes and beliefs. This article covers educational assessment including the work of institutional… …   Wikipedia

  • Evaluationsfunktionen — Evaluation (Evaluierung) (auch: Validierung und Verifizierung, Funktionsprüfung, Qualitätskontrolle oder Praxistest) bedeutet allgemein die zweckgerichtete Untersuchung, ob ein sinnlich wahrnehmbares oder bloß gedachtes Ding (Objekt) durch sein… …   Deutsch Wikipedia

  • Evaluationstheorie — Evaluation (Evaluierung) (auch: Validierung und Verifizierung, Funktionsprüfung, Qualitätskontrolle oder Praxistest) bedeutet allgemein die zweckgerichtete Untersuchung, ob ein sinnlich wahrnehmbares oder bloß gedachtes Ding (Objekt) durch sein… …   Deutsch Wikipedia

Share the article and excerpts

Direct link
Do a right-click on the link above
and select “Copy Link”