Stakeholders are defined as “those people, who are personally involved with the program, derive some of their income from it, sponsor it, or are clients or potential recipients of the program’s services” (Posavac & Carey, 2007, p. 30). Stakeholders such as teachers, administrators, school board members, parents, students, and intervention providers will play a vital role in the process. However, each stakeholder will have a slightly different role. This role will be dependent on the stakeholder. For example, a student’s role would be to provide feedback and complete assignments to the best of student ability. In contrast, a teacher would be able to provide insightful information about the program, how well it seems to be working, and identify areas of concern. Thus once stakeholders are identify, they are include throughout the evaluation process. Stakeholders include program personnel, sponsors, clients, program directors, individuals who deliver the program’s services, teachers, students, parents, board members, administrators, among others. Thus the evaluation takes into consideration the views, concerns, and needs of the stakeholders (Posavac & Carey, 2007). We begin the program evaluation plan 11, let us explore the importance of, stakeholders, standards, and accreditation. The role of standards is to stimulate the goal of excellence in program evaluation and accountability (Yarbrough, Shulha, Hopson, & Caruthers, 2011). The standards for anti bullying program recommend a comprehensive, multi-faceted effort that aims to prevent not only behavior that meets the state of Florida definition of bullying but also behavior representing the full spectrum of inter-student cruelty, ranging from minor teasing to criminal behavior (e.g., hate crimes), and including verbal, social/emotional and physical aggression. Prior to implementation, quality standards and recommended practices/tools should be evaluated in terms of their cultural and developmental fit with your students and school. In addition, consideration of the program’s mission, goals, and expected outcomes is to importance to the accrediting agency in determining the quality of the program and the educational preparation of members of the profession or occupation. Stakeholders learn about specifying evaluation goals, developing, and refining questions, identifying information sources, debating and selecting methods, managing information and knowledge (informatics), formulating meanings and judgments, and communicating in ways that promote understanding and decisions that are most appropriate given the contexts (Yarbrough et, al 2011).
When developing a program theory Posavac and Carey (2007) believed that evaluators should do the following: 1. Evaluators should speak to the staff. 2. Evaluators should examine basic research to help develop a theory. Action models can assist evaluators in directing information about standards and accreditation. Chen (2005) stated that the action model framework is effective in facilitating: 1. the development of a program plan, 2. building and deciphering an existing plan, 3. and communicating the expectations of a program plan. To make such determinations an evaluator must choose an evaluation method based on the nature of the program, the people served, and the goals, and structure of the program, why the evaluation is working considered.
An evaluator will also draw from their personal experiences and expertise to pair theory and methodology to a program evaluation. An evaluator with a strong background in quantitative research may apply several statistics formulas to discover if the program is improving student performance. Further, other evaluators may evaluate the same program through the qualitative lens, thus looking to see how the program has affected student performance while boosting the overall moral of staff and students (Posavac & Carey, 2007).
Involving Multiple Stakeholders
Teachers
Understanding that curriculum must align with state standards, academic freedom must be give to teachers who can validate and enrich the educational environment (Wei, Andree, & Darling-Hammond, 2009). Teachers have a central role in making sure that our report anti bullying program works. Students need to know when they speak up to a teacher; the teacher will follow through with the complaint. Bullying is about bad behavior and teachers are those in authority to turn a negative behavior into a positive one for the students. Teacher opinions should also be consider as an important dimension in evaluation data because teachers are based on professional judgment. Teachers assess students formally and informally and, so they are appropriately positioned to determine if any improvement in achievement, attitude, or behavior can be link to the learning activities of a program being examine (Jason, 2008). Teachers will not only understand their role in reducing bullying but will also learn how to keep their students motivated to speak up when someone is being bully. Stakeholders’ input and ideas are important and a vital part of program evaluation (Chen, 2005). Rest assured that everyone here will receive an opportunity to give input before the program evaluation planning stage begins.
School Board
The school board members have the authority to maintain and set polices to adhere in school districts. The school board has legal rights to take on considerations when making a decision pertaining to policy governing them (Darden, 2008). Policy administered by school board members encompasses not only the teachers and administrators but also the students and their parents and a good board will focus on education attainment and will avoid any risky legal actions.
Parents
Parents should be on the alert for abrupt changes in an individual’s mood, signs of upset and distress, or seem fearful, hostilities among groups of friends, or heightened emotions and angry language.
Research Method
Back in the year 2001, the ‘No Child Left Behind Act of 2001’(NCLB) , saw that safety in schools is upheld and is of major importance to the school management. Schools that are considered to be rife with problem behaviors and deemed insecure are identified, and students are permitted to move to safer schools. Critical periods for intervention also occur when new bullying behaviors emerge. As indicated earlier, new bullying behaviors emerge at primary, junior, and secondary school levels. A descriptive quantitative research methodology was identified as the most appropriate research methodology basing its rationale on the nature of the topic under study and the type of data to be collected. The programmer methods selected to accomplish the programmer objectives among children directly involved in bully/victim problems are fairly congruent between the model and the adapted interventions: the programmer introduces assertiveness training or support for victims of bullying and self-control sessions or problem-solving training for the bullies. Therefore a subset of 10 school-based anti-bullying files were identified by analyzing the project descriptions contained in the administrative database and selecting those which focused on bullying, dealt with children or youths under 18 years of age, and either took place in a school or were connected directly to schools or school staff. The majority of anti-bullying projects were delivered in schools located in metropolitan areas.