Essay writers toronto
Both the quantity and quality of the data varied across the LEAs. Such variations mean that comparisons between the LEAs in terms of cost-effectiveness must be made with extreme care. For example, teachers in one LEA may have used the questionnaire to vent their frustration over a problem with the scheme while in another only teachers with positive experiences may have responded.
However, it 135 APPENDICES is not possible to determine the extent of any response bias, nor the direction in which such bias affects the actual effectiveness of the pilot. While this provides a more accurate CEA for the long-term, the effect of differences in investments in the set-up of the EPD scheme across LEAs cannot be determined. In comparison, LEA B also follows a fairly centralised approach to EPD, but had relatively high cost-effectiveness. Similar expenditure patterns are reported in Figure 1 for LEAs F and H, with both LEAs having a relatively high proportion of LEA-level expenditure. However, cost-effectiveness is fairly high at LEA F but relatively low at LEA H. Again, it is not possible to explain variations in cost-effectiveness through LEA expenditure patterns alone. An example of a large LEA (with over 300 EPD teachers) is LEA G which had an underspend from savings essay writers toronto made at LEA level, indicating the possibility of economies of scale. LEA I had a relatively large proportion of total expenditure accounted for by LEA costs and this, too, suggests that larger LEAs may be benefiting from economies of scale. This may explain why LEA I appeared relatively cost-ineffective compared with the other LEAs. The other two small LEAs (in terms of EPD teacher numbers) were LEA E (with 81 EPD teachers) and LEA D (with 117 EPD teachers). The cost-effectiveness of these LEAs may also be affected by the lack of economies of scale. This explains why the 136 APPENDICES proportion of total expenditure accounted for by LEA costs was fairly low at this LEA. Elowever, it was not possible to include similar costs for the time commitments of teachers, mentors and coordinators over those funded by EPD monies. Teachers will have given up their own time to participate in EPD, and the opportunity cost of this time is not included here. The main reason for this is that it was impossible to ask all EPD teachers to record all of their EPD activities. However, as these estimates varied so widely within LEAs (at one LEA the variation was between 12 and 300 hours for teachers and between 12 and 210 hours for mentors), it was not reliable to include an estimation of this time as a cost in the CEA. It may be the case that investments of time in EPD by teachers impacted on their assessments of the effectiveness of the scheme. A middle-way between these two approaches, employed by the remaining four LEAs (B, G, F and I), required that an action plan be submitted to the LEA before funding was released. Given the financial hardship of some schools, it was possible that some of the money paid directly to schools may not have been sufficiently ring-fenced to the teacher to whom it was allocated.
Again, it was not possible to quantify any additional funding and include this in the CEA. Comparing the financial accountability policies of college essay community service the LEAs with the cost- effectiveness results did not reveal that a particular payment policy resulted in high or low cost-effectiveness. However, it may be the case that siphoning at an 137 APPENDICES individual school level did occur in some LEAs and that the effectiveness reported by these teachers was lower than that at other schools in the same LEA. Furthermore, in the survey item asking teachers to rate the impact of their overall professional practices, teachers were asked to rate the quality of their EPD rather than the quantity. It would be expected that LEAs C and G would have had relatively low cost-effectiveness owing to the increased proportion of second year teachers (and vice-versa for LEAs D and F). For LEA C, this may be the nature of the EPD system, where only interested schools participated. This was likely to serve to increase effectiveness, canceling out the second year effect noted here. However, at four LEAs (A, E, H and I) primary teachers gave higher effectiveness scores for the item on impact of EPD on professional practice than secondary teachers, and this was also the case in two LEAs (A and E) for the item on likelihood of remaining in teaching.
At LEA A there was a higher proportion of secondary teachers who responded to the survey (56 per cent), and the lower effectiveness scores essay writers toronto of the secondary teachers therefore biases the effectiveness and cost- essay writers toronto effectiveness downwards. LEAs E, I and H had a higher proportion of primary teachers responding to the survey. However, the case-study part of the EPD evaluation identified issues relating to the management of EPD within secondary schools at these LEAs (for example some coordinators reported that it was not possible to release all their 18 In an exaggerated example, LEA X has 100 second year teachers (and no third year teachers). Meanwhile LEA Y has 100 third year teachers (and no second years). Secondary teachers therefore reported lower effectiveness scores and even with the higher proportion of primary teachers responding to the survey, these had a negative impact on cost-effectiveness. Given the quality of the data provided, it would not be possible to separate costs between primary and secondary teachers essay writers toronto and conduct separate cost-effectiveness analyses.
First, replacement means that EPD was not additional to CPD for the EPD teachers. Second, non-EPD teachers in the school may have benefited from having a greater CPD allocation per head as a result. Most coordinators acknowledged that EPD funding freed-up CPD monies for other teachers.