Correspondence |
||
|
Better Training for TAH Project Directors To the Editors: As I have been involved with three Teaching American History Grants and unable to attend the TAH Symposium, I read the article in the May 2009 OAH Newsletter entitled, “Building Historical Thinking Skills: A Report from the Fourth Annual TAH Symposium,” by Kelly Woestman, with great interest. The article noted that Sam Wineburg discussed evaluation of programs in the keynote address. I completely agree that we should have certain evaluation measures beyond multiple choice questions for teachers. I have found that the richest evaluation data is in the qualitative portion of our evaluation rather than the quantitative. One particular item drew my interest. He proposed that TAH grants dedicate twenty percent of the funding for evaluation. Proposing that one-fifth of the funding for evaluation is a bit like closing the barn door after the horse is out. Allocating this huge amount for evaluation seems excessive when the funds could be spent on the teachers in the programs. I have an alternate solution. I would propose funding be allocated to train project directors who could ensure a better program rather than spend one-fifth of the funds for evaluation and only then discover it was not a quality program. The project director is the key to a successful program. Robynn Holland, the project director for all three grants of which I have been associated, has the outstanding skills and knowledge that has ensured that our grants have been highly successful. I have heard from many historians and pedagogical experts who have worked with other programs across the country that our three programs have been extremely professional, well organized, and offer a unique and challenging program for teachers. Putting funds into training project directors would ensure that funding is better spent upfront to ensure a quality program rather than finding out later it was lacking.
|