殊途同归

Effective Evaluation approach for Educational Program Introduction Having been working in an educational project for over two years, I observed that the program evaluation is significant for the development of the whole project. In this article, I will begin by introducing the background information of the program itself. Then I would like to review some literature to work out what the evaluation and educational evaluation are; and how to evaluate an educational project effectively. Our aim of this article is to have an overview of Income Generation/Vocational Education Project (IG/VE) of Save the Children China Program (SC), and examine current educational evaluation theories. Background Information I will start with a brief introduction of the educational project. Described below is some background information on Save the Children organization (SC), Save the Children China programme and the Income Generation/Vocational Education Program. The SC Organization SC is an independent, non-political, non-religious development organization that fights for children who suffer from poverty, disease, injustice and violence around the world (Save The Children China Program, 1999). Vision of SC SC works for a world:  which respects and values each child;  which listens to children and learns: and  where all children have hope and opportunity. Mission of SC SC fights for children’s rights. It seeks to deliver immediate and lasting improvements to children’s lives worldwide. SC in China SC China Program mainly focuses on the health, education and protection of vulnerable children. At the same time, for the children in disasters and emergencies, SC China Program also provides immediate and long-term support to protect them as well. In education field, SC seeks to improve both quality of and access to education in China. Having been requested by Yunnan Government in the late 1990’s, SC collaborated with the Yunnan Provincial Education Department (YPED) to design, develop and jointly implement a five year project which aims at improving the quality of and access to education for those poor, ethnic minority children in the remote areas of Yunnan Province. This Yunnan Minority Basic Education Project (YMBEP) was initiated in 1999 with three major components: teacher training, research & development and Income Generation (IG). Since then, according to the changing of government policies and practice requirements, the components have changed and expanded, such that it currently has four major components: teacher training, inclusive education, community participation in education and nutrition & hygiene, and IG/VE. IG/VE Program When the IG component of the YMBEP was commenced, it consisted of four types of activities: IG, training and technical support, child/community service and scholarship distribution. Both SC and the government have provided funds to a number of individual school-based IG projects in three prefectures: Lincang, Dali and Simao (Planning for the Phase for YMBEP’s Income Generation/Nutrition/School Services, 1999). As the policies and local context changing, currently the projects are grouped into three classifications, depending upon their area of focus, namely: income generation (IG) projects; vocational education (VE) projects; and child/community services (services projects). Now there are 16 projects focusing on IG, 9 projects focusing on VE and 11 projects focusing on Services (Income Generating/Vocational Education Projects and YMBEP, 2005). The focus on scholarship distribution has been reduced over time, and more recently has been eliminated altogether, due to the government’s introduction of a new educational policy (The Decisions on Further Strengthening Education in Rural Areas, 2006). This policy indicates that, from 2007, all children undertaking their 9 years of compulsory education will enjoy exemptions from incidental school and book fees and will also receive a subsidy to cover basic living expenses. Management structure of the IG/VE Component of YMBEP The management team of the IG/VE component of YMBEP is located in SC China Program Kunming office. It is comprised of the following people (Income Generating/Vocational Education Projects and YMBEP, 2005): Yunnan Program Manager YMBEP Program Manager YMBEP Program Deputy Manager IG/VE Project Officer IG/VE Project Assistant In addition, a number of site project offices are responsible for projects with in charge of respective jurisdictions. The site project office for each prefecture is organized as follow: Site Project Office – Organizational Structure Existing Project Management Manual Currently, SC operates the IG/VE projects by following a project management manual. However, a number of the documents in this manual are outdated or no longer applicable to practice, especially the section of project following up, feedback information collecting and evaluating. The current project manual contains the following (Planning for the Phase for YMBEP’s Income Generation/Nutrition/School Services, 1999):  Background  Objectives  Expected outcome  Scope  Management of the project  Influence structure (diagram)  Statistical forms  New IG/VE Replication Criteria  IG project contract  VE project contract  Service project contract  Scholarship distribution and management scheme Current Process for Managing IG/VE Component of YMBEP Below is a high-level description of the activities currently applied to manage the IG/VE component of YMBEP (New Income Generation/Vocational Education Project Replication Criteria, 2006): Project replication meeting SC Kunming conducts a project replication meeting and invites proposals for new projects from schools. Participants include SC Kunming Office and the local education bureau. Compose and submit project proposal Interested schools compose project proposals using the format prescribed by SC and submit them to the local site offices. Participants include the schools and children. Analysis and select a primary project proposal According to the project replication criteria, county and prefecture site offices analysis and select proposals for submission to SC Kunming office. Participants include the county and prefecture project site offices. Site visit and baseline survey SC Kunming and prefecture/county project site office staff visit the relevant schools to conduct a baseline survey. Participants include SC Kunming office, site project offices, children, schools and communities. Project confirmation The project is confirmed based on the first year budget and the results of the baseline survey. Participants include SC Kunming office. Revise project proposal Project site offices and SC Kunming office make suggestions to revise the proposal according to the project replication criteria and the results from the baseline survey. Participants include SC Kunming office and the project site offices. Conduct project training SC Kunming office conducts project management training. Participants include the site offices, school and children. Execute contract SC Kunming office enters into the project contract with the school and obtains all final documents required. The local education bureau acts as a witness. Initiate project SC Kunming office and local project site office allocate funds to the school for the project launch. Participants include SC Kunming office and the project site office. Operate project The school and children operate the project Project monitoring The construction, management and operations of the project are monitored by project site offices, SC Kunming office and project beneficiaries in order to ensure objectives are met. Project evaluation Project site offices and others perform a regular evaluation of the project. Research Question As described above, SC has a completed project management approach. However, it is obvious that there is a gap in program evaluation in practice. SC Kunming office and the project site offices do a lot of preparation work for project launching. But they are all lack of sufficient and effective approaches to collect correct feedback information to monitor the progress of the project. At the same time, because of the developing of local and national education policies, it is necessary to correctly evaluate the project to adjust them on time. From my observation, the lack of effective and systematic evaluation methodology has raised questions around project quality, development, and replication as well. Even there are some existing managing manual (referred before), the data collected from those approaches were separated and unilateral (e.g. some single questionnaires, monthly report from site office staffs). On the other hand, to ensure the projects proposed by school and/or community can run normally and meet the established objectives, the program evaluation is indispensable. Hence, it is necessary to develop effective evaluation tools, models and/or methodologies that can be used to assess the validity of any proposed school and/or community based IG/VE projects and to monitor their impact and development in the future. Educational Evaluation What Educational Evaluation is As we refer to the word evaluation, there must be a wide range of concepts involving with it. They might be value, merit, development, criteria, standards, aims, objectives, requirements, validity, practical significance, improvement, process, impact, formative, summative, collected information, and so on. The Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary (2004) gives the etymology of the term evaluation. It was from French évaluation, from Middle French evaluacion, from esvaluer to evaluate, from e- + value value, and the date was in 1842. The dictionary defines it in this way: 1. to determine or fix the value of; 2. to determine the significance, worth, or condition of usually by careful appraisal and study. Having seen philologic definition, let’s turn to see what professional evaluators define it in the field of research. Worthen et al. (1997:5) pointed out that different evaluators who believe in varied theories use the term in disparate ways. In other word, there is no agreed-on definition in professional field. And because of this situation, different understanding of the term results in various types of evaluation practices. Worthen and his college preferred to broadly define evaluation “as judging the worth or merit of something” which were posted by Scriven (1967). Most of the definitions of the term evaluation involve these keywords: answering specific questions; research or measurement; collecting information; examining the extent; judgments; progress for decision-making; quality controlling etc.. For instance, politically comparing it with research, some people noted that (evaluation is) “the provision of information about specified issues upon which judgments are based and from which decisions for action are taken” (Morrison, 1993:2). And MacDonald also said that evaluation is “an inherently political enterprise” in 1987. Then in 1988, Popham generally defined evaluation as “a formal appraisal of the quality of educational phenomena” (Popham, 1988) which led to two more concepts to readers to define – “formal appraisal” and “quality”. Different from Popham, L.J. Cronbach had stated a more aborative definition in 1963. He defined evaluation as the “collection and use of information to make decisions about an educational program” (Cronbach, 1963). He believed in that only the extensive information gathering happened in actual classroom environment can give the directions of whether the program was success or fail, and of how to improve it. Decision-making should on the basis of actual information, not imagination or supposing about how an educational program can be successful. Furthermore, C. E. Beeby provided us another more extended definition: “the systematic collection and interpretation of evidence, leading, as part of the process, to a judgment of value with a view to action” (Beeby, 1978). In these various definitions of the term evaluation, I intend to agree with the one of Worthen et al.’s (1997). They simply but essentially described evaluation as “determining the worth or merit of an evaluation object (whatever is evaluated).” Evaluation uses inquiry and judgment methods, including (1) determining standards for judging quality and deciding whether those standards should be relative of absolute, (2) collecting relevant information, and (3) applying the standards to determine value, quality, utility, effectiveness, or significance. It leads to recommendations, intended to optimize the evaluation object in relation to its intended purpose(s). (1997:5) Educational evaluation is intended to lead to policies and practices improvement in education field. Thus it absolutely is “decision-oriented” and “conclusion-oriented” (Cronbach and Suppes, 1969). Types and Models of Educational Evaluation Generally, there are two types of evaluation which were distinguished by Scriven (1967) firstly. From that time on, currently all over the world has accepted this distinction. Formative evaluation is conducted to evaluate the progress of the program, and provide evaluative information to the program staff for improvement. Whereas summative evaluation is conducted to judge the worth or merit of the program in relation to settled criteria, and provide judging information to the decision makers and/or potential customers (Worthen et al., 1997). From the descriptions of these two types above, we can recognize 4 key different points between the two types. (1) program time – formative evaluation is to evaluate the progress of the program, thus usually it will be carried out during the program time; in contrast, summative evaluation is to judge the merit of the program, thus it is often used at the end time of the program. (2) types of information – formative evaluation provide evaluative information; while summative one supplies judging information. (3) audiences – the audience in formative evaluation is program personnel, such as the people who are in charge of developing, implementing, designing and running a program; however, the audiences of summative evaluation may include potential consumers (the related public and/or program beneficiaries), funding sources (taxpayers or funding agency), managers, other officials, and program staff as well. (4) purpose – formative evaluation aims to improving or modifying; summative evaluation is to judge the merit for decision making. A more detailed comparation of formative and summative evaluation is as following provided by Worthen and his colleague (1997:17): Formative Evaluation Summative Evaluation Purpose To determine value or quality To determine value or quality Use To improve the program To make decisions about the program’s future or adoption Audience Program administrators and staff Program administrators and/or potential consumer or funding agency By whom Primarily internal evaluators, supported by external evaluators External evaluators, supported by internal evaluators in unique cases Major characteristics Provides feedback so program personnel can improve it Provides information to enable program personnel to decide whether to continue it, or consumers to adopt it Design constraints What information is needed? When? What evidence I needed for major decisions? Purpose of data collection Diagnostic Judgmental Measures Sometimes informal Valid and reliable Frequency of data collection Frequent Infrequent Sample size Often small Usually large Questions asked What is working? What needs to be improved? How can it be improved? What results occur? With whom? Under what conditions? With what training? At what cost? However, in practice, it is not as simple as stated above to distinguish the two types. Because the two are often “profoundly intertwined” (Scriven, 1991). From this point of view, some other evaluators, such as Chen (1996), have argued that it was not sufficient to distinguish evaluation into two types. But Scriven (1996) replied that the dichotomy is adequate capture all of the basic functions of evaluation. This is an interesting topic, and it needs further exploration in the future. From the comparation form above, in the column of “By whom”, we can draw out another distinction of evaluation – internal and external. The internal evaluation refers to the evaluations conducted by program personnel; and external evaluation is conducted by outsiders (Worthen et al., 1997, p18). Compared with external evaluator, the internal one definitely knows more about the program, for example the background and personal relationship. It is the advantage for internal evaluation; however, it is also the disadvantage as the internal evaluator may not be objective enough. For external evaluator, he or she may get less information than that internal evaluator can get, but he or she can reach much more of importance objectively. It is sometimes to see that because the internal evaluator is so close to the program that he or she may “temper evaluation recommendations” (Worthen et al., 1997, p. 19). The external evaluator who is independent from the program financially and administratively, and is selected for their expertise can give much more credibility of the evaluation. On the other hand, if the external evaluator is selected for friendship or favor, it may affect the evaluation result greatly (Scriven, 1993). Furthermore, Scriven noted that the external evaluator may want to satisfy their clients to get “additional business from them” in the future. And what can make clients happy – good news. Thus even the outsider may “direct conflicts of interest” (p. 84). Usually, for an organization and/or a program, the most common and useful types of evaluation are the combinations of internal-formative and external - summative. Besides the distinguishing described above, evaluation also can be labeled as different models. The Questions/Methods-Oriented Evaluation Models refers to the evaluation which focuses on answering specific pointed questions. This kind of model does not broadly assess the merit and worth of the issue, but pay more attention on giving answers in some preferred methods. Evaluators name such approach as Quasi-Evaluation model (Stufflebeam et al., 2000, p. 85). The second group of evaluation is labeled as Improvement/Accountability-Oriented Evaluation Models. This kind of evaluation seeks to comprehensively assess the merit and worth of the evaluated issue. With the multiple qualitative and quantitative evaluating methods, evaluator will check the issue across-the-board, and work out broad-based improvement findings (Stufflebeam et al., 2000, p. 85). Another set of evaluation is labeled as Social Agenda-Directed (Advocacy) Models. This model of evaluation emphasizes the engagement of the perspectives from stakeholders, experts as well as underprivileged groups in the processing of program checking and judging. However, in this category, in order to meet social objectives, evaluators may “compromise the independent, impartial perspective needed to produce valid findings” (Stufflebeam et al., 2000, p. 341) in some extreme examples. Hence, it is very important to control the “fine line” in relation to objectivity. Differences Between Evaluation, Measurement, Research, and Learner Appraisal Back to the conception of evaluation, it is important to recognize the differences between evaluation itself and other activities which are usually related to it. Because as we know what it is, we also need to know what it is not (Wolf, 1990). There are three activities often relate to evaluation: measurement, research, and learner appraisal. Evaluation and Measurement Measurement refers to the physical measuring act or process. The result of the measurement is the physical properties of the measured issue, for instance, the length and weight. There is no judgment of any implying of the value or merit of the issue (Wolf, 1990). Hence, in domain of science, measurement examine the physical terms such as extent, dimension, attitudes and reasons etc.. Compared with measurement, the objective of evaluation is to place the value on what is being measured. The findings from evaluation should be the educational values, such as achievements, self-esteem and related prized outcomes. Furthermore, the approaches that used in these two types of activities are different. Because measurement aims to seek out the extent for example, it need compare individuals to some preferred characteristic or criteria. In contrast, the interest of evaluation is to find out the effectiveness of an issue and/or program, thus it does not need such comparison. In other word, in evaluation, the evaluated objects need not to respond to same tasks which regard to some settled characteristic or criteria. The evaluation and measurement are “directed toward different ends: evaluation toward describing effects of treatments; measurement toward description and comparison of individuals” (Wolf, 1990, p. 7). Evaluation and Research Evaluation and research are always related, but at the same time are different from each other. They share several “same methodological characteristics” (Cohen et al., 2007). Furthermore one branch of research is evaluative research. Both researchers and evaluators apply similar activities: propose questions, select samples, collect information, examine variables, analyze data, and pose conclusions. Thus to some extent, Norris (1990) argued that evaluation can be viewed as an extension of research. However, there are still some important differences between evaluation and research. As referred by Beeby’s definition above, evaluation is “with a view to action”. Evaluation provides a reference to practical decisions, while research aims at producing new knowledge (Wolf, 1990). The basic distinction between these two activities is the generalizability of results. In other word, Campbell and Stanley described it as “external validity” (1963). The results from research usually can be applied to general situation in a broad geographical area and be true in several years. In contrast, the findings from evaluation are often applied to specific program and/or issue in a certain dimension, and in the point to the time (Wolf, 1990). Furthermore, Wolf stated that there are differences in the using of methods between the two types of activities. For research, there are well-developed procedures and principles to follow. And in evaluation, even some evaluators still apply classical research methods as a guide, it is not necessary to follow them in meaningful evaluation. Smith and Glass (1987) summarized several significant differences between the two types: 1. The intents and purposes of the investigation. The research wants to advance the frontiers of knowledge of phenomena, to contribute to theory and to be able to make generalizations. Evaluation is more parochial than universal. 2. The scope of the investigation Evaluation studies tend to be more comprehensive than research in the number and variety of aspects of a program that are being studied. 3. Values in the investigation Research aspires to value neutrality; evaluations must represent multiple sets of values. 4. The origins of the study Research has its origins and motivation in the researcher’s curiosity and desire to know. ...Whereas the evaluator is motivated by the need to solve problems, allocate resources and make decisions. Research is public; evaluation is for a restricted audience. 5. The uses of the study Research is used to further knowledge; evaluation is used to inform decisions. 6. The timeliness of the study Evaluator’s time scales are given, researchers’ time scales need not be given. 7. Criteria for judging the study Evaluations are judged by the criteria of utility and credibility; research is judged methodologically and by the contribution that it makes to the field. (p. 33-34) Evaluation and Learner Appraisal In educational evaluation, learners’ achievement is an important indicator for the results. However, evaluation is different from learner appraisal. Learner appraisal is similar to the activity of measurement which does not involve judgment of value. Examining the learning outcomes is supposed to be teachers’ responsibility. If a teacher appraises learners with the results from an evaluation, he or she will find it is useless completely. Framework of Educational Evaluation A framework of educational evaluation is helpful in planning and conducting evaluation activities. In constructing a framework of evaluation, it is important to make clear that it is not an inclusive model. As different evaluators may be directed by various objectives, the parts of the framework will be paid more attention. When one evaluates a setting of issue, there are mainly five groups of information needed to collect (Wolf, 1990, p. 22). Information of Initial Status of Learners The purpose of program is to develop, change and improve. And evaluation aims at finding out whether it has been developed, changed and improved, and how. Thus it is essential for evaluator to collect initial situation of the objects to make conclusion. Collecting information of initial status is also named as base-line information. In this group of information, there are two subclasses information: background information of learners, such as the age, sex, experience and so on; other one is the extent of proficiency of the learners. The latter one is more significant for evaluation, because it may directly determine the authenticity of the result from the evaluation. Evaluator must make sure that the effectiveness of the program is examined independently. Information of Learner Performance after a Period of Instruction The second group of information required in evaluation is the status of learner performance after a period of instruction time. Evaluation studies are to judge whether the objects are developed, changed and improved as expected after treatment. The changing usually involves increased knowledge, ability of problem-solving, ability of dealing with issues in certain field, attitudes changing, and increasing of proficiencies etc. (Wolf, 1990). Such information can directly reflect whether the treatment has happened and to what extent. Wolf also pointed that it is not necessary to gather this type of information at the end time of the program. According to different purposes of the evaluation, the schedule of information collecting should be varied (1990). Information of Treatment Execution The third group of information needed to be collected in evaluation is about the implementation of the treatment. In an evaluation study, treatment is the center of a program, course, or an institutional setting. As a responsible evaluator, one should determine whether the designed treatment has been executed, and if the answer is yes, to what extent. It seems the information in this group is insignificant, but they are the basic of the whole setting and the whole evaluation study. It is critical to find out such as whether the instruction started on time, whether the resource has been allocated properly, and whether the treatment has followed the plan. And such information usually requires evaluators using observing procedures and summering in descriptive documents. Wolf suggested that “one of the evaluation worker’s responsibilities is to describe and compare the intended program, the implemented or actual program, and the achieved program” (1990, p. 27). From his point of view, it is impossible to do evaluate without this type of information. Costs Information The information of costs needs more attention in evaluation studies. The evaluation aims at directing to practical decision as mentioned before. In order to make intelligent and practical judgment on educational treatment, the audiences of the evaluation as well as the evaluator need such information. The information of costs should include direct and indirect costs. An evaluation that failed to give any reference to costs is meaningless in practice, and thus no value. It is necessary to take information of costs into consideration at the beginning of the evaluation work, and keep adjust according to the situation. The evaluation work requires the collection of all related information. Cost is significant part of related information, and sometimes is crucial. Supplemental Information The last group of information constructing the framework of evaluation is supplemental information. This kind of information is mainly used to provide supportive and supplemental views about the effects of the setting. It may include attitudes, ideas, and responses from learner, teachers, and others involved in the setting. Such information is helpful to find out how various group of people view the treatment. And usually evaluators use questionnaires and interview methods to collect such information. This group of information may also include the situation of learners’ proficiency which is not regard to the selected outcomes. Furthermore, it is important to collect information about the side effects of educational settings. Effective Evaluation for IG/VE projects As mentioned before, program evaluation is crucial for the development and replication of IG/VE projects. Worthen et al.(1997) noted that evaluation is “not only valuable but essential in any effective system”. Scriven (1991) also described evaluation as the “process whose duty is the systematic and objective determination of merit, worth, or value”. He pointed out that it is the only way to “distinguish the worthwhile from the worthless”. SC’s IG/VE projects has implemented for nearly 8 years. Even it kept adjusting the development of the project according to the context, and worked out a working model (New Income Generation/Vocational Education Project Replication Criteria, 2006), it is still lack of an effective and comprehensive evaluation approach. Such evaluation should involve the evaluation of the feasibility of proposals and evaluation of actual projects. The aim of this study is to evaluate existing IG/VE projects, to find out what the strengthness and weakness are. And through examining current situation, the evaluation will be used as a reference to develop effective evaluation approaches for IG/VE projects. Conclusion The article firstly constructed a framework introduction of SC’s IG/VE projects. The introduction included the background information, such as the launching time, significant adjustment, and management system. Then the article explained the research question is to develop effective evaluation tools, models and/or methodologies for IG/VE projects. The article reviewed what the educational evaluation is, in what ways to do evaluation, how evaluation differs from other activities, and what the framework of the evaluation is. In the end, article pointed out the significances of the evaluation of the IG/VE projects, and posted the aim of the study. Evaluation is crucial. It is much more important to evaluate accurately. Reference Beeby, C. E. (1978). The Meaning of Evaluation. Current Issues in Evaluation: No. 4, Evaluation. Wellington, New Zealand: Department of Education. Campbell, D. T. and Stanley, J. (1963). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research on Teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally. Chen, H. (1996). A comprehensive typology for program evaluation. Evaluation practice, 17, 121-130. Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2007). Research Methods in Education (6th ed.). London: RoutledgeFalmer. Cronbach, L. J. (1963). Course Improvement Through Evaluation. Teachers College Record. 64:672-83. Cronbach, L. J. & Suppes, P. (eds.) (1969). Research for Tomorrow’s Schools: Disciplined Inquiry for Education. New York: MacMillan. Income Generation/Vocational Education Project (IG/VE) http://www.savethechildren.org.cn/savethechildren/table/view/base/view.php?class_id=11&table_id=54&base_id=206 MacDonald, B. (1987). Research and Action in the Context of Policing. Paper commissioned by the Police Federation. Norwich: Center for Applied Research in Education, University of East Anglia. Morrison (1993). Planning and Accomplishing School-centered Evaluation. Norfolk: Peter Francis Publishers. Norris, N. (1990). Understanding Educational Evaluation. London: Kogan Page. Popham, W. J. (1988). Educational Evaluation (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall. Save the Children (SC) China programme, http://www.savethechildren.org.cn/savethechildren/table/view/class/index_temp.php Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In R. E. Stake (eds.), Curriculum evaluation. (American Educational Research Association Monograph Series on Evaluation, No.1, pp.39-83). Chicago: Rand McNally. Scriven, M. (1991). Beyond formative and summative evaluation. In M. W. McLaughlin & D. C. Phillips (eds.), Evaluation and education: At quarter century (p 19-64). Ninetieth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education. Scriven, M. (1993). Hard-won lessons in program evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, No. 58, 1-107. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Scriven, M. (1996). Types of evaluator and types of evaluation. Evaluation Practice. Stufflebeam, D. L.& Madaus G. F. & Kellaghan T. (2000, eds.). Evaluation Models: Viewpoints on Eduvational and Human Services Evaluation (2nd ed.). Kluwer Academic Publishers Boston/Dordrecht/London. Wolf, R. M. (1990). Evaluation in Education: Foundations of Competency Assessment and Program Review (3rd ed.). New York Westport, Connecticut London. Worthen, B. R., Sanders, J. R. & Fitzpatrick, J. L. (1997). Program Evaluation: Alternative Approaches and Practical Guidelines (2nd ed.). Longman Publishers USA. Yunnan Minority Basic Education Project (YMBEP) http://www.savethechildren.org.cn/savethechildren/table/view/base/view.php?class_id=11&table_id=54&base_id=206 1999, Planning for the Phase for YMBEP’s Income Generation/Nutrition/School Services, Save the Children organization. 1999, Save The Children China Program, Save the Children organization. 2004, Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary ( 3rd ed.). Chinese Commercial Press (eds.), Peking. 2005, Income Generating/ Vocational Education Projects and YMBEP, Yunnan Minority Basic Education Project Kunming Office. 2006, New Income Generation/Vocational Education Project Replication Criteria, Yunnan Minority Basic Education Project Kunming Office. 2006, The Decisions on Further Strengthening Education in Rural Areas, Chinese State Council.