Improvisation evaluation

As educators become increasingly subject to accountability pressures, maximizing the worth of evaluation is a prudent and realistic stance. This paper suggests useful and valid art program evaluation models: (1) Stufflebeam's (1971) CIPP (context, input, process, and product) model; (2) Stake's Countenance Model (responsive evaluation); (3) McClean's (1975) model which looks at total school content as context for the arts; and (4) Kushner's (1987) open conversations with audiences and participants as a qualitative evaluation model. The staff of an arts program undergoing outside evaluation should: (1) clarify general goals of the program and articulate a philosophical vision unifying the program staff as much as possible behind these goals; (2) take an active role in the selection of an evaluator; (3) clearly articulate the program to the evaluator; and (4) help the evaluator make an accurate translation of artistic concepts into the final report language. Articulation and accountability of the art program may result in increased recognition for the arts. Contains 16 references. (MM) Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. SO-1,9