|
Aspects for review for programme management Funding for the project Many of the minor difficulties experienced during Phase 1 have been resolved. Only one school appeared to have some difficulty accessing the funds. There was a more realistic understanding the true costs of the project than Phase 1, and clearer links to the principles of school improvement. One school accessed a small amount of the available grant to complete an initiative already agreed the previous year. Some establishments had experienced difficulties in getting their project started and this delayed expenditure. Schools accepted the need to bid for funds and to be accountable. Most project leaders had a clear overview of how the funds had been used and how much additional money had been contributed to the project from alternative sources. Others accounted for the funds in a more general manner. The tension between the funding being available for a financial year and the schools focusing on their projects for an academic year contributed to tensions relating to both the financing of this project and the subsequent evaluation. Role of the consultant In Phases 1 and 2 there were differences in the levels of communication and involvement of the consultants. Some good use was made of their time and expertise and some leaders found the role very useful and even excellent. In one project the consultant was the project leader. With others, consultants mainly provided information or supported the bid and the initial planning. A few leaders did not find the role helpful and one had not met the consultant at all. Where the consultant had participated from the beginning, and maintained a high profile with the project leader the benefits were evident. The consultants appeared to have little role in helping the project leaders to evaluate. Timing and method of evaluation Unlike Phase 1 all leaders returned the questionnaire. It was still felt that the external evaluation was too early, even though it took place two months later in the scheme than Phase 1. Conducting the external evaluation later in the year helped most schools and it generated more detailed information. The evaluation for Phase 2 used telephone discussions rather than visits and this produced a wide range of information.
|
