Archived Information

![](media/image1.wmf)

[Pacific Resources for Education and Learning]{.smallcaps}

**[Interim Evaluation Response]{.smallcaps}**

The Regional Educational Laboratory (REL) program at Pacific Resources
for Education and Learning (PREL) was recently evaluated by a panel of
five peer reviewers. The evaluation focused on PREL's fulfillment of the
REL contract during the first three years of its five-year funding cycle
(1995-2000). The panelists spent five days in Honolulu. This resulted in
five individual reports and one synthesis report authored by the
panelists. PREL has been asked to respond to these reports, particularly
the synthesis document.

PREL regards the Year 3 Evaluation as an important opportunity to
strengthen its program of work and the structures that support it. After
a careful reading and appropriate discussion of all six reports, PREL
has decided to focus its response largely on the context of its work,
which includes the REL, rather than provide a point-by-point
clarification or rebuttal of specific items mentioned in the report(s).
In addition, PREL believes that it is unlikely that any future reader
will read the synthesis report and PREL's response to it and compare the
two documents in an effort to seek understanding. Thus, a response to
each item that PREL feels could be clarified or corrected would not be
particularly useful.

Hopefully, a brief reiteration of the context within which PREL designs
and carries out its work will supplement the panelists' reports. It is
important to note that the panelists have not had any substantial
experience within the Pacific educational community. Clearly, PREL could
have done a better job in conveying the Pacific region's unique context
and helping the panelists more accurately view PREL's work. Conversely,
it is difficult, in a week-long visit or in a written response such as
this, to convey to persons unfamiliar with the region the depth of
knowledge necessary to understand program design, strategy, work, and
outcomes. Acknowledging these limitations, PREL hopes the following
context will contribute to the interim evaluation and its future uses.

# A Brief History of the Pacific Regional Educational Laboratory 

The U.S. Department of Education's Regional Educational Laboratory
program has operated in the Pacific for approximately 30 years. With the
exception of the past eight, operations have been under the auspices of
Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory (NWREL) in Portland, Oregon.
In the Pacific, the United States and service providers like NWREL have
taken a work approach that tends to be highly prescriptive, using simple
answers to address complex problems. While these efforts have been well
intended, they have yielded very limited results after more than 50
years of U.S. stewardship in the Pacific. This traditional approach may
be the basic explanation of why such little progress has been made in
building education systems that can provide quality learning for
students.

A tenth regional laboratory was authorized in 1983. NWREL was given a
modest yearly amount (\$500,000) under its 1985-90 REL contract in order
to support the tenth lab's development in the Pacific, but the
laboratory existed only as a limited program funded and controlled by
NWREL. There was no laboratory dedicated solely to strengthening and
supporting the education systems in the Pacific region until the
establishment of the Pacific Regional Educational Laboratory in 1990.
PREL's total organizational time frame is eight years, three of which
were covered by the recent evaluation. Prior to 1990, PREL did not set
the agenda or control the resources. This is not an excuse but a fact.

When PREL bid for the 1990 laboratory contract to serve the Pacific, it
called for the extensive involvement of Pacific educators in the
governance, planning, and delivery of services. Members of PREL's newly
formed Board of Directors were openly skeptical about who was making the
decisions---Pacific Islanders or the U.S. government. At PREL, an
enormous emphasis has been and continues to be placed on the
involvement, ownership, and commitment of Pacific Islanders in
everything PREL does. It is important to keep this factor in mind when
reading the evaluation reports. It is equally important to remember that
most of the Pacific community was not independently controlled for well
over two centuries, and many generations knew only dominance and outside
control. After the compacts of free association in 1986, independence
was granted but there was virtually no infrastructure or capacity
(political, social, economic, or educational) in existence to support
it. This was the starting point for PREL in 1990. In this context, a
period of eight years is a very short time.

# PREL's Context

It is PREL's feeling that the significance of the Pacific region's
historical, political, economic, and educational context was not
adequately conveyed and, in turn, was not adequately understood by the
five panelists. This is not a criticism of the panelists, but it is an
aspect of the evaluation that should not be ignored.

In the main, PREL does not disagree with the comments and observations
of the panelists. It is clear that they might not fully appreciate the
task of building capacity as a prerequisite to systemic reform and
scaling up. The synthesis report notes that PREL has not paid much
attention to these two dimensions of its work, focusing mostly on
capacity building, and this is accurate. PREL feels that it is futile to
focus on systemic reform and/or scaling up when various components of
capacity are substandard. For example, 30 percent of teachers in the
Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) have only high school diplomas;
another 50 percent completed associate degrees as their highest level of
education. These well-intended educators constitute 80 percent of the
classroom teachers in FSM schools, and all are under-prepared as
effective teachers. How does one talk about systemic reform and scaling
up when the Pacific people who are appropriately at the heart of this
work have not been properly trained to carry it out? PREL does not think
such discussion is practical. PREL could do things that fulfill
contractual requirements but don't make a difference on the short- or
long-term, but PREL will not do this.

At the same time, significant numbers of the region's educators are
well-credentialed and effectively addressing systemic issues such as
standards-based education, curriculum alignment, and performance
assessment. PREL has been at the heart of every initiative of this type.
There are few simple responses to any of the issues that were evaluated
by the panelists, and areas of confusion were unavoidable, it seemed. No
doubt all parties felt this throughout the five-day visit.

The diversity of the Pacific region and the limited resources available
to provide educational assistance pose major challenges to PREL and its
REL work. How do factors such as grossly substandard school facilities,
non-existent or limited instructional materials, a lack of indigenous
language materials, a majority of students whose first language is not
English, per pupil expenditures as low as \$200, and extreme geographic
isolation enter into an evaluation of a REL's work? PREL doesn't have a
simple answer to that, mostly because there isn't one. Panelists made
comments like, "We have to have an answer to this question and I don't
know what it is." PREL understands and appreciates the task of the
panelists, who did a good and credible job within their context. But
there is so much more to understand when looking at PREL's work, its
accomplishments, and the evaluation of both. It is not likely that a few
pages in response will prompt insights that will result in better
understanding, but it is hoped that a reader might pause for a moment
and think about the point being raised, whether positive or negative.

A few additional thoughts before closing: PREL's mission is
intentionally general---"non-distinguishing," as the synthesis report
states. This goes to the issue of long-term survivability. There is a
historical lack of sustainability in the Pacific. Subsistent economies
have no capacity to sustain fiscal initiatives; hence, they are
dependent on outside resources. PREL's Board of Directors is committed
to survival. They are not opposed to PREL working in other parts of the
country or world to sustain an organization that symbolizes hope to most
Pacific educational communities. What is unique and highly
distinguishing is PREL's strategy of work and engagement. This is why,
over an eight-year period, PREL has grown from an organization with one
funding source and seven workers to a \$10 million dollar enterprise
with nearly 90 employees and offices in most of the communities PREL
serves. This is something that no other similar agency has ever
achieved. Does this mean that PREL is beyond improvement, that our REL
program of work can't be strengthened? Absolutely not. The panelists'
insights and perspectives are invaluable to PREL's continuing emphasis
on quality in its products and services. At the same time, core beliefs
that focus on respect, sensitivity, involvement, and capacity to sustain
will remain with PREL even though these core beliefs confuse and
compound the difficulty of the work and the explanation of it.

PREL appreciates the opportunity to respond to the panelists' reports.
PREL will use these documents as an opportunity to strengthen the
Regional Educational Laboratory work and its documentation.