DOCUMENT RESUME BA 007 493 - Ed

2y ago
44 Views
3 Downloads
334.66 KB
15 Pages
Last View : 18d ago
Last Download : 2m ago
Upload by : Wade Mabry
Transcription

DOCUMENT RESUMEBA 007 493ED 112 459AUTHORTITLEINSTITUTIONRosen, David J.; Mulcahy, GeneEvaluation -- Shanti: A Case Study.Indiana Univ., Bloomington. School of Education.;International Consortium for Options in PublicEducation, Bloomington, Ind.PUB DATE7515p.NOTEAVAILABLE FROMJOURNAL CITEDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORSChanging Schools, School of Education, IndianaUniversity, Bloomington, Indiana 47401 ( 1.00)Changing Schools: An Occasional Newsletter onAlternative Public Schools; v4:2 n14 1975MF- 0.76 HC- 1.58 Plus Postage*Alternative Schools;. *Case Studies (Education);*Educational Alternatives; Educational Objectives;Educational Philosophy; Elementary SecondaryEducation; *Evaluation Methods; Models; *ProgramEvaluationABSTRACTThis newsletter comprises four sections: (1) theeducational philosophy and objectives of Shanti, a public alternativeschool in Hartford, Connecticut; (2) Rosen's statements about thedifficulties of finding an evaluation model for alternative schoolsand the implications of the methodology that he later used inevaluating the Shanti school in his doctoral dissertation; (3)comments by Mulcahy, director of the school, about Rosen's evaluationand evaluations in general; and (4) Rosen's response to **********************************Documents acquired by ERIC include many informal unpublished* materials not available from other sources. ERIC makes every effort ** to obtain the best copy available. Nevertheless, items of marginal ** reproducibility are often encountered and this affects the quality *** of the microfiche and hardcopy reproductions ERIC makes available* via the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EIES). EERS is not* responsible for the quality of the original document. Reproductions ** supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the ******************************

F-1An Occasional Newsletter on Alternative Public SchoolsC")LUNo. 144:2, 1975CU.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.EDUCATION i WELFARENATIONAL INSTITUTE OFEDUCATIONTHIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROMTHE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONSSTATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF.EDUCATION POSITION OR POLICYEVALUATIONSE1 rri: A CASE STUDYShanti School: Philosophy and ObjectivesThe Shanti Evaluation: A Study of a New EvaluationMethodology for Public Alternative Schoolsby David J. RosenThe Shanti Evaluation: Even Wilbur andOrville Couldn't Make It Flyby Gene MulcahyRosen's Response to Mulcahy(1:OptionsinPublicEducationLAST CHANCE TO REGISTER FOR THE SECONDINTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON OPTIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOLS(See Back Page of This Issue)4.1

SHANTI SCHOOL:PHILOSOPHY AND OBJECTIVES24 May Z973 and by Shanti School(4e approved by Shanti School Board oncommunity on 1 June 1973)We equate humanness with individShanti is a dynamic learning community.carefully all options, then decidinguality in community, with consideringby what we know we believe. We believeand standing courageously and firmlyour assumptions, to admit andit is courageous to challenge and rechallengemust correct our error. To choosewelcome growth and change, even when weis to be free.framework within which they canShanti exists to provide for young people a process essentially dependentengage in the process of self-definition, aindividual. Such a framework obliges studentson the free decisions of eachwhatever means they choose to utilizeto call upon their own resources:of theirenvironment will be unique manifestationsthis open learningindividual selves.learninghard skills of survival for furtherAt Shanti we seek to learn thethroughfollowingour ownthrough choice,and future effort. We learn themfaltering,to changeends or, ifinclinations and enthusiasms to their naturalWe accept fully and personally thedirection and change again if need be.responsibility for our choices and our freedom.engaged in this process of makingThe most obvious context in which we areis built of opportunitieschoices is the curriculum. The Shanti curriculumknowledgethrough commitmentit is a vehicle for us to increaseto learn:to convert the people weand action, to convert possibility into reality,It allows students to pursue academic,wanted to be into the people we are.sakes. This curriculumvocational and intellectual efforts for their ownstudent needstoidentifiableis developed, on the one hand, in response and interests based on priorand interests or in anticipation of needscurricular offerings arise out ofexperience. On the other hand, manystaff interests, concerns and abilities.Hartford community as our learningWe use the full resources of the Greatercommittedeverything. In turn, we aretools because learning is everywhere,and wherever we can. The community providesto serve that community wheneverlearning; the energy an.' direction of thatus with the substance of ourlearning are our own.right of the intavidual to establishWe are a community. We recognize theWe are self-governed. We are composedhis or her own place in that community.and culturcq. Staff and studentsof students and staff from different racesexperience, staff assumes some specialare equal members. By virtue of greaterapplies to areas of safety andcommunity responsibilities. This frequentlyclear to students options, opportunities,survival. The staff should makeown.information: choice is the student'schange the world in which we live and theWe seek through model and action tocan be free when another isschools that support that world, for no person3-2-

(Shanti School:Philosophy and Objectives Continued)oppressed. The path to freedom for our sisters, our brothers and ourselvesis through our own self-disciplined growth and sharing in the commitment tostruggle toward a world of greater freedom, knowledge and love.The Shanti School community believes that it is important to:- convert knowledge to commitment and action, and increase knowledgethrough commitment and action;- relate and connect studies and actions with the realities of living,with emphasis on urban exploration;- acquire skills in cooperation, problem solving and long rangeplanning;- take advantage of opportunities for multicultural, multiracialexperiences;- acquire the basic academic skills which are essential for takingcontrol of one's own life, preparing for jobs and for furthereducation;-meet the unique needs of individual students;- operate a viable alternative model to traditional high schools;- educate the community regarding alternative educational techniques;- involve parents in the educative process, both as teachers and aslearners;-provide students with the opportunity to engage in real selfgovernment;- engage in continuing self-evaluation; and- actively and aggressively seek to fundamentally restructure publiceducation. To the extent that the education system reflects society'svalues, we recognize and affirm that we are also committed to thefundamental restructuring of our society.Thus, we have structured our school so as to provide members of ourcommunity with opportunities to do these things.PLAN NOW TO ATTEND THE SECOND CONVENTION OF THEINTERNATIONAL CONSORTIUM FOR OPTIONS IN PUBLIC EDUCATIONPASADENA, CALIFORNIAOCTOBER 1-4, 1975*students, parents, and teachers from 20 selected optional publicschools sharing their experiences*leaders in alternative education speaking and interacting*clinics, seminars, workshops, general sessions, informal discussionsand "rap time"*materials exchange center, alternative school tours, pre-conventionworkshops, entertainment, and exhibitsSEE THE REGISTRATION FORM ON THE BACK PAGE OF THIS ISSUE-3-

THE SHANTI EVALUATION: A STUDY OF A NEWEVALUATION METHODOLOGY FOR PUBLIC ALTERNATIVE SCHOOLSDavid J. RosenAlternative public schools are for the most part new schools. They havegrown up in a time when traditional schools have not well-served the needsof all the youngsters who attend them. So far, they have in common thatthey are born out of frustration with existing public schools, and thatthey struggle to create significantly different learning communities.Beyond these characteristics, it is difficult to generalize about allalternative schools. The concept of alternative schools (rather than analternative school) suggests that there are, or that there ought to bemany different kinds of schools within the same school system, many different options for young people and parents to choose from.Consequently, onewould expect to observe not only important differences between an alternative school and a traditional public school, but also important differencesamong alternatives.This makes the evaluation of alternative schools an especially difficulttask. No standard set of criteria will adequately do the job. No criteriadeveloped for one alternative school will necessarily be useful to another.And yet the evaluation of alternative schools is already a crucial issue intheir survival.Partly for political reasons, partly because federal andstate grants are accompanied by the Oemand for evaluation, and partly froma genuine and widespread interest to know what alternatives are doing welland not doing well, studies and evaluations of alternative schools can soonbe expected to be commonplace.It is hardly necessary to make a case to an alternative school audiencefor evaluation. Almost any alternative school which has survived its firstyear will acknowledge the need for and the usefulness of data which will helpin making decisions to improve the school. This is especially true at thestudent, course, and staff evaluation levels, where data on student pro6resstoward accomplishing student-defined learning goals, on the extent to whichcourses, independent studies, internships, and other learning resources aremeeting the needs and goals of students, and on the extent to which individual staff members are meeting student and school needs, is extremelyuseful. At the program or school level, too, evaluation is welcome,especially if it can produce useful data for improving the school; however,some evaluation practices and styles, and some models for evaluation, areclearly seen by alternative schools as antithetical to their goals, styles,and values.There seems to be no problem in convincing alternative schools of thevalue of looking carefully at what they are doing and how well they areaccomplishing their goals.Rather, the problem is to find, develop, oradapt models which will enable achievable, useful, and worthwhile programevaluation to be done. There is especially a need for evaluation whichwill enlighten and inform, but which will not dictate or control, evaluation which will not take decision-making authority away from student,parents, and staff and give it to external decision-makers or to an-4-

evaluator, and evaluation which will not in other ways interrupt orinterfere with the school's accomplishment of its goals and functions.The task of finding an evaluation model with the characteristics I havedescribed is not an easy one.A recent survey for the Educational Research Information Center Clearinghouse on Adult Education by Dr. SaraM. Steele summarizes over fifty different current program evaluationmodels.Although it offers the bewildered evaluation consumer a helpfulindex based on specific kinds of problems and needs which these modelsmight be able to address, and although each model is described in termsof what it attempts to accomplish, with careful study it becomes clearto the user that the differences in these models are more than technical,that they try to accomplish quite different sorts of purposes, and thattheir creators have in mind very different concepts of evaluation.Ms.Steele makes this problem quite clear in her introduction.".the late 1960's brought an influx of new programs and newdemands for evaluation. Established concepts didn't deliver.As a result, new ideas about evaluation emerged and new frameworks appeared. There's considerable divergence in those ideas.Most of them are still in the trial and testing stage.Manypaths are being taken off the plateau of the earlier period,but few of these parths are widely accepted.None can be considered the main route.new definitions of evaluation areevolving."1Some widely-held definitions of evaluation assume that its primarypurpose is to judge the worth, desirability, or adequacy of an enterprise, that is, to make value judgments about it. Some assume that thepurpose is to answer questions about an enterprise, that is, to do eitherbasic or applied research.Still others assume that its main purpose isto provide information to decision-makers to help improve the enterprisebeing evaluated.Furthermore, many of these models assume that evaluation is to be undertaken by an outside expert, a person who is thought to have specialskills, "objectivity," and sometimes even "better judgment."With sucha difference in purposes and styles, and so little information on theeffectiveness of this plethora of models, it is not surprising that awould-be consumer of evaluation would be confused, wary, and uneasy.It was with an understanding of this problem and a concern for alternative schools that would undertake or submit to program evaluation withouteven superficial knowledge of existing models, and without clear understanding of their reasons for evaluating themselves, that I first undertook preliminary exploration of current models and methodologies forevaluation, and later focused upon one methodology which I felt hadpotential for alternative schools.;'Steele, Sara M., Contemporary Approaches to Program Evaluation:TmplicaERIC Clearingtions for Evaluating Pro rams for Disadvantaged Adults.haTSJ on Adult Education. F ucation Resources Division, Capitol Publications, Inc. Washington, D.C.May, 1973.J-5-

In the spring of 1973, in an article in the Special Evaluation Issue ofChanging Schools I presented 1) the purpose of this evaluation methodology--to provide data to decision-makers for enlightened decision-makingabout an enterprise, 2) the implications of that purpose, and 3) featuresSome of those implicaof the methodology which embody those implications.tions are as follows:If data are actually to be used for decision-making, then those whowill use the data, the decision-makers, must be identified well beforedata are collected for them.1.If data are to be used by the decision-makers, they should be collectedon goals which the decision-makers actually have.2.If goals are to be measured or observed, they must be described inobservable or measurable terms. It is essential, at the same time, thatthe decision-maker's meaning for a goal is not lost, and that meaningsthat were not part of that goal for that decision-maker not be added unless this is desired by the decision-maker.3.If data are actually to be used for decision-making, the decision-makermust feel that the data collected are valid. Coals must be measured inappropriate parts of the enterprise from the decision-maker's point of view,and observational techniques must be valid from the decision-maker's perspec4.tive.When data are reported to a decision-maker they must be reported in termsof the decision-maker's goals, and in a convenient form which makes sense tohim/her.5.Since the evaluation may be considered by decision-makers as a part ofthe enterprise, they may want data for decision-making on the evaluation.6.At the conclusion of that article I argued that decision-oriented (orapplied) research needed to be done:to determine what the needs of alternative schools really are forevaluation,1.2.to field-test (or field-trial) this particular evaluation methodology,andto investigate how well this methodology compares with evaluation models,3.particularly in their applicability to both macro- and micro-level decisionmakers, in the efficiency, focus, and completeness of data provided, and inthe degree of interference with the enterprise's accomplishment of its goals.it was being usedFrom September, 1973, to May, 1974 I studied this methodology asTheto evaluate Shanti, a public alternative school in Hartford, Connecticut.broad purpose of this decision-oriented research was to generate data for

decision-making both about the methodology itself and about its use in-n alternative school setting. Some of the specific purposes were:1.to field-test some of the sections of the methodology which had notbeen previously formally field-tested,to do methodological development work on a part of the methodologyfor which gaps had been identified as a result of a previous study, andthen to field-test this redesigned part,2.to examine the feasibility of using the methodology in a publicalternative school setting,3.to examine whether or not there would be sufficient cooperation fromdecision-makers to cem3lete all parts of the methodology,4.S.to examine whether or not the methodology could accomplish its purpose--to provide data for decision-making--in a public alternativeschool setting, andto examine whether or not the evaluation methodology would interferewith the accomplishment of the school's goals.6.At the end of April, 1974, as part of the evaluation of Shanti, and aspart of the study of the methodology, an evaluation of the evaluationwas performed. Much of the data on the effectiveness and suitabilityof the evaluation methodology was gathered at this time.As the resultsof this study may be relevant to alternative schools, I would like todescribe them here in a general way, and to raise some questions andissues of concern for alternative schools people to consider.On the whole the detailed results of the field-tests show that all theparts of the methodology which were field-tested as part of this studywere able to accomplish their purposes.In some, minor gaps were identified, and methodological development was done on these parts.The redesigned steps were field-tested and found to be successful.It was generally agreed by decision-makers and by the evaluator that itis feasible to use the methodology to evaluate a public alternative schoolif by "feasible" it is meant that it is possible, that it can be done.This was not, however, a judgement about the usefulness or suitability ofthe methodology for alternative schools.It was clear that the methodology was able to accomplish its purpose- to provide data for decision-making--in an alternative school setting,although to different degrees of success for different decision-makers,but not to the complete satisfaction of any decision-maker.Decision-maker cooperation, while generally quite high, was in some casesnot sufficient to complete all parts of the methodology, and in most casesnot sustained at the same high level throughout all parts of the methodolIt flagged noticeably during the operationalization process.ogy.-7-

It was generally feltaccomplishment of thedecision-makers to bemight have been spentthat the methodology did not interfere with theschool's goals except--and this was felt by severalsignificant--in its use of human resources thatdirectly on achieving the school's goals.It is difficult to sum up the results of this study as a simple yes/noanswer as to the success or failure of the Shanti evaluation using thisAs alternative schools need to have a variety of informamethodology.tion to help them in their choice of an appropriate evaluation model, Iwould nevertheless like to make clear my thoughts about the use of thismethodology for evaluating public alternative schools. The Fortune/Hutchinson Evaluation Methodology is a work in progress, a model which,once it is fully developed and tested, may be useful to alternativeschools and other enterprises that want data for their decision-makingIn its current state of developmentto improve what they are doing.it has much that is directly useful to alternative schools, and it'lost of these problems are addressed in thealso has some problems.recommendations which are a part of this study.2 If these are solved,this methodology has great potential for the evaluation of alternativeschools.More broadly, this research raises some questions and leads to someconcerns which need to be addressed both by researchers and by alternatives as they consider doing evaluation.Alternative schools, individually and collectively, do not clearly1.understand their purposes for undertaking program evaluation.Alternative schools do not know what evaluation models are avail2.able, nor do they have enough pertinent information on the models theydo know about.3.Consequently, they are not aware of their choices, and do not makewise decisions about contracting for evaluation or monitoring itsprogress.There has been almost no hard research on evaluation models, andno data on their feasibility, effectiveness, or appropriateness fordifferent evaluation situations. This makes choice more difficult foralternative schools.4.The following questions are particularly important for alternativeschools to seriously consider:For what purpose(s) should evaluation of an alternative school be1.undertaken? What purposes are worthwhile for alternative schools andwhat purposes are not worthwhile?A Study of the Fortune/Hutchinson2Rosen, David J., The Shanti Evaluation:UnpublishedEvaluation Methodology in a Public Alternative School.University of Massachusetts, May 1974.dissertation.9-8-

. 110Who should have the right to initiate evaluation of alternative schools,to choose the model, and to choose the evaluator(s)?If the alternativeschool is not included in this decision, on what grGunds can/should itrefuse to participate in evaluation.2.What should be the relationship between outside evaluation, contractedfor a limited time, and ongoing evaluation processes in the school?Howcan outside evaluation be of lasting use to the school's regular evaluationprocesses?3.When should evaluation be done? Should it begin with planning andcontinue throughout the life of the school, or should it be done on aone-shot basis, or periodically?4.Who should monitor the progress of the evaluation? Who should havethe right to terminate it if it is not useful to the school?S.6.How can an evaluation enhance the accomplishment of other school goals?Can it and still be objective? Should it?Hopefully the concerns and questions raised here will stimulate alternativeschools to think carefully about the kind of program evaluation they undertake, and will move those who would offer their research skills to alternative schoc7s to create, adapt, and study models for evaluation which areuseful and worthwhile for a variety of alternative school settings.ReferencesBenedict, ed. The Fortune/Hutchinson Evaluation Methodology, Version I,Draft I. Compiled by Larry G. Benedict, School of Education Centerfor Educational Research, University of Massachusetts, September, 1973.Benedict, L.G. A Practical Guide for Evaluation.Council, Windsor, Connecticut.1974.Capitol Region EducationRosen, D. J., "New Evaluation for New Schools," in Changing Schools, SpecialIssue:Evaluation for Alternative Schools.Published by the Educational Alternatives Project, Indiana University.Bloomington, Indiana.May, 1973.The evaluation of alternative schools continues to be a hottopic.We felt that Chanting School readers would enjoy thisexchange between David Rosen and Gene Mulcahy on the Santi evaluation.The Editors:Vernon H. Smith, Robert D. Barr, Daniel J. BurkeA few back issues of Changing Schools #7 through 13 are stillavailable at 1 each.A 1975 Directory listing names and addresses of over 1,200 alternative public schools in operationin 1974-75 is available for 2 per copy.-9-

THE SHANTI EVALUATION:EVEN WILBUR AND ORVILLE COULDN'T MAKE IT FLYGene Mulcahy, DirectorShanti SchoolDavid Rosen expresses difficulty summing up the results of his study,tind determining whether the Shanti evaluation was a success or failure.For Shanti, it was a disaster.I have no such difficulty.If its primary goal was to return data to decision makers for decisionThe data provided was not inmaking, the evidence says it did not.most cases used for decision making, was old before it was presented,and bore no reasonable relationship to the human resources consumed byShanti students, staff or by Rosen.Rosen misquotes our decision makers when he says: "It was generallyargued by decision makers and by the evaluator that it is feasible touse the methodology to evaluate a public alternative school if by"feasible" it is meant that it is possible, that it can be done."What in fact was said by the decision makers was that the methodologyis possible "in the sense that anything is possible." The implicationwas "possible but not desirable." The luestion is what does feasiblemean to the decision makers. It means possible - yes - desirable inthe form we experienced - no.Evaluation is a vital element in the care and nurture of alternativeDespite the differences among our schools, it can in generalschools.be said that the schools differ from the traditional schoo!s in whoseshadow they often operate and to whom they will inevitably be compared.When the alternative school folks understand this, then they can takecontrol of the evaluation and comparison and choose an appropriatemethodology and time. When alternative school folks do not understandthe various roles of evaluation, evaluation occurs any way, but whenunplanned and not designed, others control *.he choice of methodologyFrequently, the evaluation is nonand the design of the evaluation.Whatschoolboardmembershear constituents say in supersystemic.markets - for example - What parents hear on the bus or in the carpool,This non systemic evaluation often has little validity, has noetc.controls and can be disastrous.The alternative school should take the initiative in evaluation and therebycontrol the process. The process should meet the approval of other concerned parties. Once the initiative is seized, the question must be faced:What are the purposes of our having an evaluation? Three frequent reasonsTo find out if we're doing what we 'think we're doing or what to1.are:To prove to somebody else that we're doing what they think2.be doing.To find out what somebody who knows3.we're doing or should be doing.more than we do (we hope) thinks.These goals for having an evaluation may not be compatible in a givenFor example, an evaluation which demonstrates in the finalsituation.analysis that you are messing up royally may be a highly successful and-10-

useful evaluation, but could be hazardous to your survival. Or you mayhave an evaluation which makes your benefactors smile and pant warmly butdoesn't tell you a bloody thing you need to know.So, you need to be very clear about why you're seeking an evaluation andbe wary of designs which promise to achieve all your goals for having thebloody experience to begin with.I concur enthusiastically with Rosen'sfour point analysis of the problems alternative schools face when considering an evaluation. There is a great need for a handbook in layperson's terms outlining the options for alternative school evaluationfor the benefit of the schools themselves. With all the dedicated research and evaluation folks scurrying about after doctorates, I pleadthat one may see fit to develop an up-to-date down-to-earth summary ofthe options - their strengths, weaknesses, and costs in money and people.On the other hand, I, as a consumer, am not sympathetic to evaluatorbreast beating, bitching and moaning about the imperfectability of theirmethodologies and instrumentation. Evaluators are too often hypnotizedby their own mystical jargon and quixotic vision.School needs arepractical needs, needs to know, and evaluation folks have the sublimearrogance to tell me or to facilitate my telling myself. If they arewilling to adrress that formidable task, I commend and thank them.Ifthey spend their energies refining their own sense of perfection, Iencourage them not to involve me and my school in that deliberation.I found in the case in point, that the two were not compatible. Theevaluators' nosition seems to me analagous to that of the intellectualliterary critics of the nineteen,h century who labored to discover whoother than Shakespeare wrote his plays.Their irrelevant quest for themmade the knowing, feeling, and interpreting the plays impossible.Rosen tells me that the Shanti evaluation has had a major and importantinfluence upon the development of methodology. In some humane andtertiary way, I take joy at this achievement, but my recollection ofthe hours of our energy and sincere effort and the miniscule return,mitigates my joy and makes me sad that such time and effort was so spentwhen so many important things were left undone. Our resources and Rosen'sown remarkable abilities could better have been used.As a starter for the layperson's guide to alternate school evaluation,let me share my thoughts on the Fortune-Hutchinson Model as experiencedat Shanti School.Strengths: careful and articulated goals process,high level emphasis of control of data by decision maker on data fordecision makers, very thorough; those who participate learn a valuablelifelong process of reasoning and evaluating- year long - evaluation ofthe evaluation. Weaknesses:long suffering and time consuming, longdelay in operationalizing, long delay in data return, too time consuming,inflexible, requires constant resources of time and effort, too consciousof itself as a methodology at the exclusion of emphasis on the evaluationof a school.Indeed my judgments are non systemic themselves, are subjective andsubject to the disagreement of those who identify themselves as expert.They are the judgments of an experienced practitioner intended as guidance

to other practitioners. This same experience leads me to render anotherchunk of advice - Behold - Gene Mulcahy's checklist on not getting rippedoff by evaluators.1.Be sure you have your own goals for having an evaluation clear.Get out all the hidden goals.2.

ed 112 459. author. title. institution. pub date. note. available from. journal cit. edrs price. descriptors. document resume.

Related Documents:

Important Telephone Numbers Case Management & Social Work (914) 493-7631 Chaplaincy (914) 493-7125 Child Life and Creative Arts Therapies (914) 493-6640 Children’s Hospital Administration (914) 493-6160 Concierge Services (914) 493-7505 Emergency Department (914) 493-7307 Family Resource Center (914) 493-8503 Foundation Office (914) 493-2575

Other protozoal intestinal diseases (007) Balantidiasis (007.0) Giardiasis (007.1) Coccidiosis (007.2) Intestinal trichomoniasis (007.3) Other protozoal intestinal diseases (007.8) Unspecified (007.9) Intestinal infections due to other organisms (008) Escherichia coli (008.0) Arizona (008.1) Aerobacter aerogenes (008.2)

Other protozoal intestinal diseases (007) Balantidiasis (007.0) Giardiasis (007.1) Coccidiosis (007.2) Intestinal trichomoniasis (007.3) Other protozoal intestinal diseases (007.8) Unspecified (007.9) Intestinal infections due to other organisms (008) Escherichia coli (008.0) Arizona (008.1) Aerobacter aerogenes (008.2)

§493.1252 Standard: Test Systems, Equipment, Instruments, Reagents, Materials, and Supplies §493.1253 Standard: Establishment and Verification of Performance Specifications §493.1254 Standard: Maintenance and Function Checks §493.1255 Standard: Calibration and Calibration Verification Procedures §493.1256 Standard: Control Procedures

§493.1405 of this subpart and provides overall management and direction in accordance with §493.1407 of this subpart. Interpretive Guidelines §493.1403: The Condition: laboratory director is not met when the laboratory director: Position is not filled; Is not qualified; or Does not fulfill the laboratory director's responsibilities.

The following document (MCS 007 Issue 6.0) is a major update to MCS 007 Issue 5.0. It is available for reference from the date of publication (26/11/2018). Manufacturers or importers of microgeneration systems who have certificated a microgeneration product in accordance with MCS 007 may commence working in accordance with this update

Mikuni VM18 Parts Float Height 20-22mm No. Order No. Mikuni Part No. Description 1. 007-685 VM18/67 Rubber Cap, Throttle Cable 2. 002-062 M21/14 Cable Adjuster 3. 002-065 B30/247 Nut, Cable Adjuster 4. 007-273 VM16/40 Top, Mixing Chamber 5. 007-274 VM18/170 Spring, Throttle Valve 6. 007-686 VM18H1/38 Clip, Jet Needle Retaining 7. 002-083 VM20 .

86398830-E 07/21/17 Spare Parts List (1.007-056.0, 1.007-057.0) Compass 2 From Serial Number (Ref No. 1*) * See Serial Number page or call manufacturer.