The intent of this article is to broaden one’s understanding of program evaluation methods that are responsive to disability and take into account various approaches to leadership within a special education context. Program evaluations for special education have often been relegated to compliance reviews and results-driven accountability measures. By promoting approaches to leadership that embrace responsive evaluation approaches and are inclusive of stakeholders from often disenfranchised groups, findings may emerge that otherwise might not be visible with traditional approaches.,A synthesis of the evaluation literature from leading journals, books and edited volumes is used to capture salient concepts necessary for understanding the degree to which evaluation and approaches respond to disability and culture. Additionally, the literature on leadership approaches is summarized and presented for the purpose of demonstrating how situational and transitional approaches to leadership may enhance the selection and use of evaluation approaches that are inclusive of and responsive to disability and culture.,From this analysis emerged four over-arching approaches to evaluation, each varying in degree of responsiveness to disability and culture. Further, when examining how evaluation interfaces with leadership, some approaches were found to be better aligned with particular evaluation processes and differed in responsiveness to disability and culture.,To date, little research has been conducted on the interface between leadership and evaluation approaches or on the degree to which leaders' implementation of responsive evaluation approaches results in improved outcomes for students with disabilities and those from underrepresented backgrounds. This article provides a conceptual framework for future research examining the degree to which one’s assumptions about the interface between leadership and responsive evaluation approaches can be demonstrated empirically.,Four recommendations are provided for leaders: the need to employ multiple evaluation methods that align their purposes, questions and methods; the need to recognize the possibilities and limits of evaluation approaches in light of their responsiveness to disability and culture; the utility of situational and transitional approaches to leadership in the evaluation process; and the critical importance of including stakeholders from diverse backgrounds in the evaluation process.,Varied approaches to evaluation in educational settings have been extensively studied and discussed. However, few articles have examined the responsiveness of evaluations to the unique conditions that disability and cultural differences represent. The contribution of this article offers a situated synthesis of approaches to evaluation, specifically contextualized within a leadership framework, to better understand how evaluation approaches impact those with disabilities and cultural differences and the inclusion of broad groups of stakeholders. As such, this article lays the foundation for a comparative international conversation exploring how evaluation and leadership approaches responsively interface with disability and culture through inclusion and enfranchisement of stakeholders.

中文翻译：

---

领导针对残疾和文化的评估

本文的目的是加深人们对应对残疾的计划评估方法的理解，并考虑特殊教育背景下领导力的各种方法。特殊教育的计划评估通常只适用于合规审查和以结果为导向的问责措施。通过促进领导方法，包括响应性评估方法，并包括经常被剥夺权利的团体的利益相关者，可能会发现传统方法可能看不见的发现。使用主要期刊，书籍和经编辑的评估文献的综合捕获对于理解评估和方法对残疾和文化的反应程度所必需的重要概念。此外，总结并介绍了有关领导方法的文献，目的是说明情境和过渡性领导方法如何增强包括和响应残疾与文化的评估方法的选择和使用。评估方法，每种方法对残疾和文化的反应程度各不相同。此外，在检查评估与领导之间的关系时，发现某些方法与特定的评估过程更好地契合，并且在对残疾和文化的反应能力上也有所不同。领导者的程度 实施响应式评估方法可以改善残障学生和背景不足的学生的学习成果。本文为未来的研究提供了一个概念框架，旨在研究可以凭经验证明人们对领导力与响应性评估方法之间的接口假设的程度。为领导者提供了四项建议：需要采用多种符合其目的的评估方法，问题和方法；有必要根据评估方法对残疾和文化的反应能力来认识其可能性和局限性；在评估过程中采用情境和过渡性领导方法的效用；以及将来自不同背景的利益相关者纳入评估过程的极端重要性。在教育环境中，各种评估方法已得到广泛研究和讨论。但是，很少有文章探讨了评估对残疾和文化差异所代表的独特条件的响应能力。本文的贡献提供了一种评估方法的现场综合，特别是在领导框架内进行了背景评估，以更好地了解评估方法如何影响残障人士和文化差异以及广泛的利益相关者群体。因此，本文为进行比较性国际对话奠定了基础，探讨了评估和领导方法如何通过利益相关者的包容和授权，与残疾人和文化相适应。在教育环境中各种评估方法已得到广泛研究和讨论。但是，很少有文章探讨了评估对残疾和文化差异所代表的独特条件的响应能力。本文的贡献提供了一种评估方法的现场综合，特别是在领导框架内进行了背景评估，以更好地了解评估方法如何影响残障人士和文化差异以及广泛的利益相关者群体。因此，本文为进行比较性国际对话奠定了基础，探讨了评估和领导方法如何通过利益相关者的包容和授权，与残疾人和文化相适应。在教育环境中各种评估方法已得到广泛研究和讨论。但是，很少有文章探讨了评估对残疾和文化差异所代表的独特条件的响应能力。本文的贡献提供了一种评估方法的现场综合，特别是在领导框架内进行了背景评估，以更好地了解评估方法如何影响残障人士和文化差异以及广泛的利益相关者群体。因此，本文为进行比较性国际对话奠定了基础，探讨了评估和领导方法如何通过利益相关者的包容和授权，与残疾人和文化相适应。很少有文章探讨了评估对残疾和文化差异所代表的独特条件的响应能力。本文的贡献提供了一种评估方法的现场综合，特别是在领导框架内进行了背景评估，以更好地了解评估方法如何影响残障人士和文化差异以及广泛的利益相关者群体。因此，本文为进行比较性国际对话奠定了基础，探讨了评估和领导方法如何通过利益相关者的包容和授权，与残疾人和文化相适应。很少有文章探讨了评估对残疾和文化差异所代表的独特条件的响应能力。本文的贡献提供了一种评估方法的现场综合，特别是在领导框架内进行了背景评估，以更好地了解评估方法如何影响残障人士和文化差异以及广泛的利益相关者群体。因此，本文为进行比较性国际对话奠定了基础，探讨了评估和领导方法如何通过利益相关者的包容和授权，与残疾人和文化进行互动。本文的贡献提供了一种评估方法的现场综合，特别是在领导框架内进行了背景评估，以更好地了解评估方法如何影响残障人士和文化差异以及广泛的利益相关者群体。因此，本文为进行比较性国际对话奠定了基础，探讨了评估和领导方法如何通过利益相关者的包容和授权，与残疾人和文化相适应。本文的贡献提供了一种评估方法的现场综合，特别是在领导框架内进行了背景评估，以更好地了解评估方法如何影响残障人士和文化差异以及广泛的利益相关者群体。因此，本文为进行比较性国际对话奠定了基础，探讨了评估和领导方法如何通过利益相关者的包容和授权，与残疾人和文化相适应。