This approach will not function properly in a group that is uncooperative, hostile or not evenly represented. Turnover may also take a long time, plus it also has limited external accountability (Ballou, 1916). This evaluation depends majorly on the skills of evaluators, but what the students need is someone who they are conversant with such as their teachers to evaluate them.
Hogan, L. (2007). The historical development of program evaluation: Exploring the past and present. Charleston, Illinois: Eastern Illinois University. Retrieved 24th July, 2012 from http://wed.siu.edu/Journal/VolIInum4/Article_4.pdf
Even though, involving many stakeholders will formulate chances of better results, some stakeholders tend to shut other stakeholders out of the program since they think that they are more experienced than the other stakeholders. For example, administrators, expert evaluators and parents may dismiss the opinions and views of the high school students because they may feel the students are inexperienced and not knowledgeable enough. Also, the expert evaluators involved will mostly shut the parents out of the evaluation without taking into consideration that parents only want the best for the children. These professional evaluators see parents as setbacks to their plans (Hogan, 2007). Students, on the other hand, might end up not cooperating with the evaluators (McCarthy, 2008). A way of preventing such a case is by stating the roles of each stakeholder early before the evaluation begins. It is vital for every stakeholder to know his or her duty in the program before the program commences so as to avoid any hindrances. It is also important for all the stakeholders to understand the roles of the other stakeholders so that they do not take each other for granted.
Hogan, L. (2007). The historical development of program evaluation: exploring the past and present. Charleston, Illinois: Eastern Illinois University. Retrieved 24th July, 2012 from ...