The use of Judicial Evaluation Methods in the Formulation of Educational Policy

Part of the Evaluation in Education and Human Services book series (EEHS, volume 6)


More than ever before in our nation’s history, the spirit of consumerism and participation has taken hold. Recently, in California, the people expressed their sentiment with the passage of Proposition 13. Only now, after the attending emotionalism has subsided, are the cold, disheartening facts and consequences becoming evident. Clearly, the vote was based more on frustration than on informed understanding of what the law would actually accomplish.


Policy Formulation Handicapped Child School Personnel American Educational Research Association Issue Selection 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Guba, E. Toward a methodology of naturalistic inquiry in educational evaluation. CSE Monograph Series in Evaluation, no. 8. University of California at Los Angeles, 1978.Google Scholar
  2. Le vine, M. “Experiences in adapting the jury trial to the problem of educational program evaluation.” Unpublished manuscript, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1976.Google Scholar
  3. Mann, D. Policy decisions in education: An introduction to calculation and control. New York: Teacher’s College Press, 1975.Google Scholar
  4. Popham, W.J., and Carlson, D. “Deep dark deficits of the adversary evaluation model.” Educational Researcher, no. 6, 6 (1977), 3–6.Google Scholar
  5. Thurston, P. “Revitalizing adversary evaluation: Deep dark deficits or muddled mistaken musings.” Educational Researcher, no. 7, 7 ( 1978), 3–8.Google Scholar
  6. Wolf, R.L. “The application of judicial concepts to educational evaluation.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, 1973.Google Scholar
  7. Wolf, R.L. Evidence and Evaluation: The metaphors of law. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, 1974a.Google Scholar
  8. Wolf, R.L. “Trial by jury.” The Phi Delta Kappan, November 1974b.Google Scholar
  9. Wolf, R.L. “Operationalizing responsive evaluation.” Unpublished manuscript, Indiana Center for Evaluation, 1975.Google Scholar
  10. Wolf, R.L. Studying school governance through judicial evaluation procedures. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana Center for Evaluation, 1978a.Google Scholar
  11. Wolf, R.L. Judicial metaphors in education: Past, present and future. 1978b.Google Scholar
  12. Wolf, R.L. and Tymitz, B.L. “Ethnography and reading: Matching inquiry mode to process.” Reading Research Quarterly, September 1976.Google Scholar
  13. Wolf, R.L. and Tymitz, B.L. Enhancing policy formulation through naturalistic/judicial inquiry procedures: A study of the individual education program component of public law 94-142. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana Center for Evaluation, 1977a.Google Scholar
  14. Wolf, R.L. and Tymitz, B.L. “Framing issues in naturalistic/judicial inquiry.” Unpublished manuscript, Indiana Center for Evaluation, 1977b.Google Scholar
  15. Worthen, B.R. and Owens, T.R. “Adversary evaluation and the school psychologist.” Unpublished monograph, Portland, Oregon: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, January 1978.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing 1983

Authors and Affiliations

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations