Sometimes, I just shake my head. This started when we were going over “Federal Projects” of which one is Title II whereupon the Feds allocate monies to the Various States and then the State Board of Educations then allocate their share to towns and cities based on grant requests from said towns and cities. Briefly said, this is money to “improve learning and school staff” (programs to make their teaching capability better). Involved in this is curriculum upgrades – new courses like, say, a new match curriculum for kids in 3rd-5th classes. Knowing that past experience, we used to flip courses a LOT and while I saw the costs, I never heard what the outcomes were (gee, silly me for wondering, eh?). So silly engineer me asked the following question (emphasis mine):
Scott, Kirk, and Steve, I am following up on a question that I asked during the Federal Projects subcommittee (in the line of “how do we know if taxpayers are getting sufficient bang for their bucks”):
With respect to the “revamp” question, even if no new curriculum is being introduced, I would still like to know what metrics, especially financial and educational improvement outcomes, were used previously. It goes to the heart of the issue of “we’re spending all this time, effort, and other peoples’ money – what did we get for it?”. Can you, or someone else on the team, dig up that information? What were/are the procedures that you use to determine, in a postmortem / multi-dimensional analysis, whether you got it right, just even, or a failure (to learn from)?










