This case study in policy research examines the role of evaluation in the governance and practice of federal education programs. It focuses on the experiences of ESEA Title I, the first major social legislation to require an evaluation of local projects undertaken with federal funds. Proponents of the evaluation requirement hoped that timely and objective information about Title I projects would reform not only the local governance and practice of education for poor children, but also federal management of education programs. State and local schoolmen, however, feared it would presage federal control of local education. Tension between proponents and opponents generated a mixture of reform, counterreform, demand, and compromise. This study provides some insights into the initiation, implementation, outcome, and impact of major Title I evaluation efforts from 1965 through 1972.
This report is part of the RAND Corporation Report series. The report was a product of the RAND Corporation from 1948 to 1993 that represented the principal publication documenting and transmitting RAND's major research findings and final research.
This research in the public interest was supported by RAND, using discretionary funds made possible by the generosity of RAND's donors, the fees earned on client-funded research, and independent research and development (IR&D) funds provided by the Department of Defense.
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.