Program Evaluation Standards Statement

Utility standards
At the beginning of the evaluation process, all stakeholders were identified and notified
of the evaluation. The program participants were notified of the different aspects of the
evaluation and what it might entail. Information was collected such that it represented a
wide range of data, which informed upon the various questions identified at the
beginning of the evaluation as being most important. The report will be written in such a
manner whereby all stakeholders will be able to peruse and understand it. Key sections
of the report, including recommendations, will be translated into Khmer, the local
language. Finally, contact will be made with all stakeholders to ensure their
understanding of the evaluation, and to discuss/plan next steps for the program.

Feasibility standards
Several steps were taken to ensure that evaluation remained realistic, prudent,
diplomatic and frugal. Since the evaluation was meant to report on the impact of a
fledgling language program, the procedures put in place to conduct the evaluation were
simple and practical. All interested parties were supportive of the evaluation, so their
cooperation was assured beforehand. Lastly, the evaluation was definitely worth more
than was charged for it.

Proprietary standards
This evaluation has been designed to meet all of the proprietary standards and serve
the needs of all the participants. It was recognized early on that at no time would
anything that a participant submitted for the evaluation reflect on their employment
situation or reflect on their ability to do their job. Participation in any information
gathering sessions will be strictly voluntary. Great care will be taken to ensure that
everyones opinion will be heard, no matter their level of written English or their ability to
read English.
The evaluation will be fair and complete and focus on areas of weakness and areas of
strength. One way this will be accomplished is that all findings will be reported in an
inclusive manner, including reporting orally for teachers with limited reading skills, and
provision for translation as well. Any potential conflict of interest with the evaluator also
being a stakeholder in the project has been recognized and dealt with through
discussion with other participants. Since the evaluator is participating in both roles on a
voluntary basis, there should not be a bias involved.

Standards v 1.0

March, 2016

Written by: Neil Westcott

Accuracy standards

A number of steps have been taken to ensure the accuracy of the overall evaluation.
The procedures for carrying out the evaluation, collecting data, and the data analysis all
followed steps that were planned and reviewed for accuracy.
The program has been identified and explained in sufficient detail that all parties
understand the scope and purpose of the program. It has been placed in a context that
people will be able to make sense of and understand. As stated, the purpose of the
evaluation is to provide information about the programs impact to date.
The information that has been collected and used is specifically related to the learning
program. It is small and still in its infancy. This fact has enabled it to be evaluated
comprehensively, taking into account the viewpoints and perspective of all the major
stakeholders. Data collected has specific relevance to the program and was collected
from the stakeholders directly and checked immediately to ensure accuracy.
The accuracy of the qualitative and quantitative data has been reviewed by comparing it
to known and expected results of other programs of the same nature. Knowing the
participants well has enabled the evaluation to be a personally written document without
a bias being introduced. As such, the reporting of conclusions will follow a similar
blueprint.
Using the collected data, there are definitely conclusions to be reached upon which
some action might be taken. The evaluation itself will be looked at from a standpoint of
assessing its limitations, as well as discussing with stakeholders about how it might be
used as a basis for future evaluations.

Standards v 1.0

March, 2016

Written by: Neil Westcott