A Review of the Orissa Multi Lingual Programme (MLE) Evaluation Proposal (5 pages) John Owen (Dr)

Introduction Notes limitations of the evaluation’s time frame, cites a lack of information for evaluating the plan, infers the design is very ambitious Provides an overview of the metaevaluation report’s 4 sections, including a brief discussion of evaluation standards and suggestions plus caveats relating to lack of immersion in the local conditions

Nature of the Intervention Describes and critiques the evaluation plan’s program description Advises the evaluator to develop a time- ordered, causal logic model Suggests ways to assess quality of the program’s strategies

Purposes and Audiences Suggests further work in engaging stakeholders to define evaluation questions

Evaluation Design Asks for more specific definition of program objectives Advises search for unintended outcomes Characterizes and compliments the sampling plan Cautions that quality control will be a key issue Characterizes and critiques data collection plan Commend use of case studies and makes a few suggestions

Dissemination Criticizes plan for lack of attention to dissemination and promotion of use of findings

Standards of Practice Notes existence of Joint Committee Standards Advises evaluators to pay special attention to ethical considerations

And that’s all there was For the Orissa Multi Lingual Programme Evaluation Proposal It is assumed that Owens provided similar reports for the other three evaluation plans that were to be reviewed Should this five page report be considered as an acceptable metaevaluation report?