In 2011 we worked in 3,550 schools. Each of these schools self-selected to partner with us, purchase our services and make available our program to over 620,000 students in their care. It would be reasonable to conclude that schools select to work with us because our program is relevant and appropriate to their students and is delivered consistent with contemporary curriculum and pedagogical practices.
This conclusion is certainly supported in the results of our annual school/teacher satisfaction survey. For example, in 2009, of the 5,421 respondents (28% response rate) to our program evaluation survey completed by teachers:
- 94% rated the program as good to excellent in supporting their school’s drug education policy.
- 98% indicated they would recommend that their school rebook Life Education the following year.
Beyond measures of program quantity and quality, we are in the process of developing the capability to more regularly and reliably measure change in student knowledge, skill and attitude – consistent with the program outcomes we seek.
With the support of the Centre for Program Evaluation (an evaluation and research centre located within the Melbourne Graduate School of Education at the University of Melbourne) we have clarified the approach we will take to program evaluation.
A number of the Centre for Program Evaluation’s more significant conclusions are worth highlighting, in particular –
- Having undertaken a benchmarking exercise, it concluded that the content of, and the processes involved in implementing the Life Education program are largely consistent with the commonly accepted features of effective school based drug and health programs.
- It presented a logic model of the Life Education program that described how the program works to achieve it’s sought after program outcomes, linking the program’s activities with substantive theory.
- This logic model distinguished between individual predisposing factors – such as knowledge, skill and attitude – that collectively enhance ‘capacity’ for making informed health choices, and longer term health outcomes. The model recognised that there is not a direct, linear relationship between individual predisposing factors and longer term health related behaviours. A complex array of broader contextual factors shape opportunities, choices and behaviours.
- CPE emphasized the importance of being realistic about the outcomes expected of a preventive school based health education program, when judging its effectiveness. In determining which performance metrics make sense account should be taken of things that the program can reasonably control or influence. While motivated by the opportunity to influence health choices and behaviours, it would be unreasonable to use longer term behavioural outcomes as the ‘yardstick’ to judge the effectiveness of the Life Education program. The responsibility for such outcomes is a shared one, crossing over agency and program lines.
- The advice that there is no single preferred approach or method for conducting outcome evaluations. Caution was expressed about the relevance of experimental design, particularly if attempting to isolate the distinct effects of the Life Education program on the longer term health behaviours of students.
CPE also make a number of recommendations which will inform the organisation’s short to medium term program development agenda.
|
