<p>Evaluation is the core of the curriculum management (CM) cycle, but in Japan, evaluation is not conducted completely at many schools, nor has it been studied well in existing research. Previous research has led to the development of multiple CM evaluation tools, but their effects have only been evaluated at the individual level. The present study compared multiple evaluation tools developed separately in the same location under near identical conditions. The research objective was to provide findings that allow each school to choose or combine evaluation tools, and make it possible for evaluation to be conducted autonomously.</p><p>The research method adopted involved an empirical and practical survey over a period of three years. Those receiving in-service training (484 teachers and others in school management) performed trials with three different evaluation tools, and we performed a qualitative evaluation of each method. The three evaluation tools were (i) the School-Based Curriculum Development and Evaluation (SBCDE), using evaluation items and radar charts; (ii) the Checklist for Curriculum Evaluation in Japan (CCEJ), using free description; and (iii) the Curriculum Management Model for Analysis (CMMA), completing the structural model directly. After trying all three tools, the survey participants used a common framework to evaluate each method, describing its “positives,” “problems,” “appropriate usage,” and “required support.” The written descriptions were analyzed by means of text mining, and the characteristic words for each evaluation tool were extracted for correspondence analysis. The results showed mutually independent features for each of the evaluation tools, implying that they are not interchangeable, and confirming that the text mining analysis of the extracted words reflected adequate information.</p><p>The characteristics of each of the three methods were deduced based on the above data. Advantages of the SBCDE and the CMMA included a broad overview, of the CMMA an understanding of the relationships among elements, and of the CCEJ versatility in evaluating various individualized curricula. However, support was required for the SBCDE in selecting and modifying items according to the individual school, for the CCEJ in establishing evaluation criteria for subjective scoring, and for the CMMA in promoting understanding of the model itself and allowing time to complete it.</p><p>Based on these findings, we considered implementation issues. In terms of the objective and timeframe of evaluation, the SBCDE is optimal as a diagnostic and overall evaluation. The CMMA is suitable for a diagnostic evaluation with a broad, general view for planning strategies, while the CCEJ provides wide-ranging descriptions for formative evaluation. For managerial staff and mid-career educators who promote CM, the CMMA, which provides a bird’s eye view of the situation, is considered relatively effective. For young teachers, the easy response format of the SBCDE is regarded as particularly useful. The CCEJ is suitable for those in charge of an individual curriculum and those involved in its application. For organizing an evaluation, the SBCDE is easy to use for evaluation of all school faculty and staff. The CCEJ allows for better communication throughout the process by enabling those in charge to complete the process of filling the checklist together. The CMMA can be implemented using workshop-style group discussion.</p><p>In terms of future research, the development of a web application for combining multiple evaluation tools ought to be investigated.</p>