On behalf of the UK Evaluation Society, I would like to widen a discussion that began in the British Educational Research Association Newsletter No. 67 of February 1999.
The discussion between Peter Mortimore, vice-president of BERA, and Richard Bartholomew, chief research officer of the Department for Education and Employment, concerned the appointment of Michael Fullan from Ontario to evaluate literacy and numeracy projects in the UK.
What is at issue is the fact that no UK evaluation agency - private, public or charitable - was given the opportunity to submit a proposal for the evaluation. Apparently, this was because "no one caught up in the process of reform here could bring the perspective or detachment to the evaluation that experts from abroad could bring".
This statement is inadequate to explain the extraordinary step to exclude any UK-based agency from bidding for the evaluation of a piece of UK reform because of its potential lack of independence or professional detachment. It is unacceptable to imply that UK status leads to an inherent inability to undertake policy evaluations independently or makes it more likely that they will peddle a preconceived policy orientation.
We are not arguing for a form of evaluation or research protectionism, which would be quite improper. What is more, we are not casting any doubt on the qualifications, experience or credentials of those who will carry out this work. We are asking, in the strongest possible terms, that this should be the first and last example of a UK evaluation agency exclusion policy.
We find it extraordinary that the government should lack sufficient confidence in the UK evaluation community to allow them to compete on equal terms with their international colleagues.
Murray Saunders Head of educational research Lancaster University