INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL EVALUATION

According to Jan R., Hilary S., (2002), there are four main phases for school evaluation identified from the literature;
● Evaluation for curriculum and professional development
● Evaluation for school development and improvement
● Evaluation for public accountability
● Evaluation for individual and organizational learning
For process of evaluation either institution takes responsibility on her shoulders and commences the internal evaluation or hire independent consultants for external evaluation. The evaluation categorized in formative and summative. Nevo, D., (2001) termed formative evaluation activities are conventionally believed to be more appropriate for the internal evaluation and summative and outcomes activities for the external evaluation, as per his understanding internal evaluator is more familiar with the program and organizational culture, on the other hand the external evaluator is independent of the organization and this is less likely to fall victim to organizational politics. Internal evaluation is focused on development aspects and external evaluation deals in accountability perspective. We have one more term in this regard that is Self Evaluation, we do not need to confuse over the term, as in literature different researchers used self evaluation as alternate to internal evaluation. School self-evaluation (SSE) a procedure involving systematic information gathering initiated by the school with the intention to assess the functioning of the school for supporting decision-making, organizational learning and for fostering school improvement (Schildkamp& Vi sscher, 2010).
Internal evaluation “… argues that the concept of learning organization can be used to integrate the different processes involved in these at times conflicting activities” (David P, 2007, p.373). Internal/self evaluation is responsibility of internal management staff members as head teachers, teachers, school coordinators and managers. Internal evaluation often designed as per needs of external evaluation. Main features of internal evaluation are that it is less regulated than external evaluation, internal evaluation coordinated mainly by the management or an evaluation committee, academic staff with student’s participation. It is on going process and mostly termed as formative assessment for development. It should demonstrate commitment to continuous improvement of processes and involving as much of the staff as possible with mutual trust among team members so that conflicts and differences of opinion can be resolved in the best interest of the institution and stake holders. The process must identify common strengths and weaknesses and develop a meaningful plan for improvement that can be communicated effectively to all concern circles. Internal evaluation provides relevant information for decision-making at local level and beyond, including the participating foundations. Through process we can identify the organizations current position that which areas are functioning accordingly and where are the gaps and pauses which declined entire processes. Internal evaluation providing support the learning processes for pupils, teachers, staff and institutions involved. Documentation of findings provides evidences to policy makers.
Contrary External evaluation is undertaken by independent evaluators and seen in perspective of accountability of schools and teachers. External evaluation is a generic term for the quality or standard review usually performed by a team of external experts. External evaluation deals in quality monitoring, audit, assessment and accreditation. (e.g. OFSTED inspection, JCIA) (Vlasceanu, Grunberg & Parlea, 2004). External evaluation mostly brought by summative mode at the end of academic year. The evaluators work with freedom as they are not associated with organization. However, external evaluation claims more cost than internal evaluation. A well-planned and documented external review process adds significant credibility, accountability, and quality assurance for the internal review activities. The diverse perspectives of external practitioners can be very helpful in validating findings and recommendations and offering new insights on the best direction for ongoing program improvement and the related documentation requirements.
In both there are some issues of cost, flexibility, objectivity, accountability, ethics and utilization of results. Both have some advantages and disadvantages. The debate over methodology of evaluation is less important. According to Guskey, 1998, 2002 the evaluation is systematic investigation of merit or worth, and he emphasis that good evaluations does not need to be complex; what is necessary is good planning and paying attention to evaluation at the outset of the professional development program, not at the end. However, “...there is an inherent tension built into the inspection process, since it aimed of assuring accountability rather than development.” (David P. 2007). Similar concerns stated by Meuret and Morlaix (2003), they define school self-evaluation as a process which is performed by at least part of the schools stakeholders- management, staff, pupils and parents as opposed to external evaluation where the judgment on the school is delivered by external agents. “Everybody seems to hate External Evaluation while nobody trusts in Internal Evaluation” (Nevo, 2001). To overcome the dilemma and tensions between accountability and development perspectives virtually internal/self evaluation and external evaluation approaches the mixed methods in other words combination of both approaches introduced in many countries. According to combined approach an organization can utilize Internal Evaluators to collect data and External Evaluators to analyze data, or Internal Evaluator conduct full evaluation and External Evaluator directs a Meta –evaluation, Both Internal Evaluation and External Evaluation can conduct independent evaluations and then integrate or compare the results or an organization can hire an Internal Evaluator to collect data and analyze data and External Evaluator to monitor the evaluation process. (Christie, Moss, & Klein, 2004). In those cases researchers integrated and utilized both approaches at same time. Educators generally agree on the importance of assessing the quality of the services they provide their students and communities. Evaluation, the process of determining quality of schools and how to improve it, should be an integral part of all school.

WHAT IS HAPPENING IN MY CONTEXT?
Reading literature about monitoring and evaluation, scholarly discussions, in-depth qualitative and exploratory quantitative researches, effects on process, product and overall results, in term of excellent outcome at part of students learning, excited me, and make me realized the importance of process. However, when I see my own context, with same lenses, I find less encouraging things, the realities, running practices and attitudes towards the development, accountability and improvement, desperate me enough. I am from Public sector, engaged in teaching for 20 years at higher level of education at different contexts in province Sindh. I worked two years as Master Trainer for head teacher and teachers of primary and secondary level also. My work experiences provided me an opportunity to observe system explicitly at all three levels of education. At all levels we have some monitoring systems. School Inspections, school/college visits by higher authorities are few examples. In which senior teachers, officers of higher level scheduled to visit schools for observation. Supervisors, Sub divisional district educational officers visits schools and monitor the ongoing learning activities in their jurisdictions. However political interference in terms of appointment and postings ruined and paralyzed the system. Corruption successfully deepened it roots from lower level to top most authorities. Merit hanged publicly and all the efficient administrators illogically made powerless. “The existence of ghost schools siphoning off millions in salaries to employees on paper and the ever present “missing facilities” in government schools points to the rampant corruption in a department where role models for selfless service should have existed” Riaz I., (2010). “Pakistan’s education crisis must be addressed by a drastic reform to renovate the system”. Xhaferri R., Iqbal K. (2010). They further elaborate that “To ensure progressive revisions in education, a constant supervision of changes as well as a vast array of information must be made available to stakeholders and policymakers. However big question for us is how can we introduce the concepts of evaluation in our context. The realizing the prevailing political and bureaucratic hierarchy, my honest comment is that the single teacher or head teacher or small groups of people are not able to change the status co. however nothing is impossible. One candle can lit thousand others, with lit of every candle darkness of corruption, negligence minimized. What ever system legally exists, we try to implement it and spread legal and constitutional awareness among all stake holders regarding policies. My suggestion for introducing frame work is that we may introduce Thomas Guskey's 5 levels of professional development evaluation frame work in our institutions for evaluation, improvement and development. Which have 5 levels, i.e. 1; Participant Reaction, 2; Participant Learning, 3; Organizational Support, 4; Participant Use of New Knowledge and Skills, and 5; Student Learning Outcomes. Beauty of Guskey’s model is that success at an early level may be necessary for positive results at the next higher one. Further more Guskey’s model covering both formative and summative approaches. First two steps are formative and four and five steps are summative. In this regard I suggest the connections among student, teachers, and communities, and with institutions of regional, national and global level. These steps must be according to Guskey’s Model, first step will lead towards second and so on. It is very feasible, manageable and not violating any legal regulations. Latest information technology provided us enormous opportunities to be connected, (www) for what ever, when ever and where ever. This can be started at single institution with two to three skilled teachers in information technology with single computer with internet connection. Achieving one step will lead towards higher level of other one. Success encourages expanding the network. As level of understanding increases the chances of higher achievements gradually increase accordingly. Further evaluation of same program can open many dimensions and might be source of inspiration for many others. Guskey’s model can be used in evaluating the teacher performance by assessing results of students. Unfortunately we are not evaluating the results and assessment process in our context. In public sector very reliable data in terms of results at university and boards are available. We can utilize that available data. Through SPSS software correlating and comparing certain data we will be able to elaborate lot of hidden aspects of our system. The second step will be to give some meaning of that data, and then we will give institutional support and apply new knowledge there, and in next results comparing with previous ones we will be able to understand the volume of change and it will be cyclic process.

REFERENCES

Jane, R. & Hilary, S. (Eds.). (2002). School Self Evaluation: A process to support pupil and teacher learning. London: The National School Improvement Network.

Nevo, D. (2001). School Evaluation: External or Internal? Studies in educational evaluation.

Christie, C., Moss,R. & Klein, B. M. (2004). Moving toward collaboration by creating a participatory internal-external evaluation team: A Case study. Studies in Educational Evaluation 30,125-134.

Meuret, D., Morlaix. 2003, conditions of success of a school’s self-evaluation: some lessons of a European experiences, school effectiveness and school improvement 14:53-71.

Vlasceanu, L., Grunberg, L. & Parles, D. (2004). Quality Assurance and Accreditation: A Grossary of Basic Tems and Definitions(Bucharest,UNESCO-CEPES) Papers on higher education,ISBN92- 9069-178-6.http://www.cepes.ro/publications/Default.htm

Schildkamp, K. & Visscher, A. (2010). The utilization of a school self-evaluation instrument, Educational Studies 1–19, Retrieved June 02, 2010 from http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713415834

Guskey, Thomas R., (2002) "Does it Make a Difference? Evaluating Professional Development." Educational Leadership.


Guskey, Thomas. R.,(1998). Making time to train your staff. The School Administrator,


Schwartz, J. (1993, September 30). Obesity affects economic, social status. The
Washington Post, pp. A1, A4.


Riaz, Ismat. “The mechanics of change.” Daily Dawn Karachi 27 June 2010 Education page ed.: N. pag.

Rudina Xhaferri & Khalid Iqbal. “Resources for successful education policies.” Daily Dawn Karachi