Strengths and Weaknesses of Curriculum Evaluation Models: Views from an Elementary School Principal

As the principal of an elementary school, I am tasked with the responsibility of ensuring that our curriculum meets our states educational standards and enriches the lives of our young learners. In this task, evaluating and refining our curriculum is of utmost importance. This essay reviews five curriculum evaluation models, compares their strengths and weaknesses, and selects the most suitable model for our school. In the following sections, I give a detailed analysis of Tylers Objective Model, Stufflebeams CIPP Model, Stakes Responsive Model, Scrivens Goal-Free Model, and Kirkpatricks Hierarchy of Evaluation. Each of these models has its own approaches and perspectives on curriculum evaluation, and it is helpful for me as a principal to understand their implications in the context of an elementary school setting. After this, I discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each model, considering factors such as their adaptability to our schools needs, the resources required for their implementation, and their effectiveness in capturing the multifaceted nature of elementary education. Finally, I conclude with the selection of one model that aligns most closely with our school's ethos, values, and specific curriculum goals. This decision is guided by a thorough understanding of each model's potential to enhance our curriculum development, implementation, design, and assessment processes.

A Principal's Perspective on Curriculum Evaluation Models

In my role as the principal of an elementary school, I have had the opportunity to explore various curriculum evaluation models. Each model is unique. My take on these models follows below and takes into consideration the equally as unique needs of our schools learners.

Tyler's model is good about having clear objectives (Vo, 2018). For me, it is like setting a GPS for a journey it tells you where to go but not how the journey should be. It is great for when you have a clear destination (or goal) in mind. However, in our school, where education is as much about the journey as the destination, this model can sometimes feel a bit too constrained. In some ways, it is like having a map but not being able to explore the interesting detours.

The CIPP Model is like having a multi-tool in your pocket it is versatile and comprehensive (Stufflebeam, 2000). It looks at every facet of the curriculum, which is fantastic. But, it is a bit like planning an expedition you need a lot of resources, and it's quite an undertaking. For a school with limited resources, this might be challenging to implement effectively (Sharma & Raval, 2019).

Stakes model is like hosting a community dialogue. It brings everyone's voice to the table teachers, students, parents making the evaluation process a rich, collaborative effort. It's wonderful for understanding the lived experiences of our curriculum. However, it's time-consuming, like having a long, engaging conversation that you wish you had more time for (Miller et al., 2016).

Scrivens approach is like exploring without a map, focusing on what you discover along the way. It brings to light outcomes we might not have anticipated. In a school setting, this can be enlightening, revealing hidden strengths or challenges in our curriculum (Vo, 2018). However, it is also a bit like a treasure hunt without clues exciting but potentially overwhelming if you're not sure what you're looking for.

Kirkpatricks model is like following a recipe it is step-by-step and clear (Cahapay, 2021). It is great for training programs where you can measure how well the recipe was followed and the outcome it produced. But in a school, where education is more than just following a recipe, it might not capture the full picture.

In our school, we value the voices of our community and the holistic development of our students. Thus, my preferred approach is Stakes Responsive Model, as it resonates the most. It aligns with our ethos of inclusive and comprehensive education. Of course, it is a model that requires a lot of time and effort, but the depth of understanding it provides about our curriculum's impact is invaluable. It is like weaving a tapestry with threads from every member of our school community, and creating a picture that truly represents who we are and what we aspire to be.

Comparison

Tylers Objective Model: Clarity vs. Rigidity

Strengths: Tylers model is like a clear-cut checklist. It is straightforward and goal-oriented, which is great for tracking specific academic targets. It gives one a clear set of instructions for a class project everyone knows what's expected.

Weaknesses: However, it is somewhat inflexible, like a recipe that does not allow for substitutions. It doesnt quite capture the fluidity of our students' learning experiences or the evolving nature of educational needs (Sharma & Raval, 2019).

This model would work in a classroom where the teacher hands out a project with a detailed checklist. The students know exactly what they need to do to succeed. This is the strength of Tylers model. It's like having a roadmap for academic success. For instance, in a third-grade math class, the model helps us set clear objectives, such as "Students will be able to multiply two-digit numbers." It's straightforward and goal-oriented, perfect for tracking specific academic targets. The clarity it brings is undeniable, much like when our students follow a step-by-step process to complete a science experiment, knowing precisely what outcomes we expect.

This model does have its limitations, much like a recipe that doesnt allow for any creative deviations. In the diverse landscape of our elementary school, where each child's learning journey is unique, this rigidity can be a drawback. For example, in our art classes, while we aim to teach certain techniques, the rigid structure of Tylers model doesnt fully embrace the creativity and individual expression of each student. It doesnt quite capture the fluidity of our students' learning experiences.

Stufflebeams CIPP Model: Thoroughness vs. Complexity

Strengths: The CIPP Model is ike an all-encompassing audit it leaves no stone unturned. Its thorough, making sure every aspect of the curriculum is scrutinized and accounted for (Vo, 2018).

Weaknesses: But, it is very much like conducting a full school inspection daily exhaustive and resource-heavy. For a bustling elementary school, this model can be overwhelming in its...

As the principal of an elementary school, my primary focus is on ensuring that our curriculum not only meets academic standards but also addresses the holistic development of our students. In this context, I would say that Stakes Responsive Model emerges as the most suitable for our curriculum evaluation process, encompassing development, implementation, design, and assessment.

Why Stakes Responsive Model?

Adaptability to Stakeholder Needs

In the initial phases of curriculum development and design, it is imperative to understand the needs and concerns of all stakeholders, including students, teachers, parents, and the broader community. Stakes Responsive Model is particularly adept at gathering a wide range of perspectives. This inclusivity ensures that our curriculum is not developed in isolation but is instead tailored to the specific needs and expectations of our school community. Furthermore, as we implement the curriculum, this model offers the flexibility to make ongoing adjustments. This adaptability is helpful in that our curriculum remains relevant and effective, and responds to the feedback and evolving needs of our stakeholders (Sharma & Raval, 2019).

Emphasis on Qualitative Data

Another significant aspect of Stakes Responsive Model is its focus on qualitative data. In the realm of elementary education, where the developmental stages of students are varied and complex, qualitative insights are invaluable. This model allows us to delve deeper into how the curriculum impacts student learning and development, providing a richer, more detailed understanding than what numerical data alone can offer. It facilitates a holistic evaluation of the curriculum, taking into account factors such as student engagement, teacher satisfaction, and parental feedback. These elements are just as important as academic outcomes in shaping a well-rounded educational experience.

Active Involvement in the Evaluation Process

The model also emphasizes the active involvement of educators, including myself, in the evaluation process. This involvement is essential for a comprehensive understanding of how the curriculum is delivered and its effectiveness in the classroom. Being actively involved means we can identify areas for improvement firsthand and make necessary adjustments. Additionally, the model's responsiveness allows us to adapt the curriculum to meet the changing needs of our students. This dynamic approach is key to ensuring that our curriculum is not only current but also forward-thinking, preparing our students for the challenges of tomorrow.

Addressing Potential Challenges

Even though Stakes Responsive Model is beneficial, it does come with challenges, such as the potential for subjectivity and the time-intensive nature of qualitative evaluations. To address these, we should focus on objectivity, manage time well, and build capacity. This means we should apply strategies for maintaining objectivity, such as involving external evaluators or conducting anonymous surveys among stakeholders. We should allocate specific times during the school year for intensive evaluation activities, so that they are integrated seamlessly into our school calendar without overwhelming teachers and students. And there should be training for staff to develop skills in qualitative analysis and stakeholder engagement.

Conclusion

Stakes Responsive Model aligns well with the needs of our elementary school, offering a comprehensive and adaptable framework for curriculum evaluation. It ensures that our curriculum is not only academically sound but also responsive to the broader developmental needs of our students. We…