META – Minorities Education Through Art
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12

Evaluation of the results is key in META since we would like to scientifically demonstrate the initial hipothesis that arts are a tool of inclusion for all children, in particular belonging to minorities groups, in all EU countries.

Evaluation indicators will be summarised in a Measurement Framework presenting a range of enabling factors, which must be in place at the different levels. These enabling factors are linked to five inter-related strategies:

  • Promotion of the arts integration model and multiculturalism,
  • Local capacity development,
  • Capacity development for local school systems, civil society, and governmental institutions;
  • Advocacy and social mobilization to address the underlying causes of vulnerability
  • Acquisition of self-esteem, empowerment and resilience capacities by the project beneficiaries.

The University of Firenze is working on an evaluation plan with a  baseline to measure changes in the indicators over the life of the project, the data sources and collection methods used to monitor.

KEY EVALUATION QUESTIONS ARE:

  • What are the practice’s key characteristics, strengths and weaknesses, as perceived by various stakeholders and targeted beneficiaries? How similar or different are those perceptions, especially among users and providers? What is the rational of such difference?
  • What are the characteristics of the final users, and how do those compare to an extended intended target population for the practice?
  • How gender, age, ethnic origin influence the users’ approach to META?
  • What has worked as expected in terms of responding to emerging needs, widening access and consolidating equity in school education? What has not worked?
  • What challenges and barriers that were not foreseen in the project contingency plan have emerged? How did project staff, policy makers and the school staff respond to those challenges and barriers? How creative was their problem solving?
  • What do the final users report as their experience? What do participants like and dislike? What has changed from the original design and why? On what basis are adaptations from the original design being made? Who needs to approve such changes?