2008-2009 Perkins Annual Reports

Document Sample
2008-2009 Perkins Annual Reports Powered By Docstoc
					              2008-2009 Perkins Annual
                      Reports

                     Discussion and Review
                               January 26, 2010
                   Michael Fridley, Ed.D., Education Specialist

January 26, 2010                  Oregon Department of Education   1
                        What We Got

                   Improvement over last year



         Better alignment to legal requirements


January 26, 2010           Oregon Department of Education   2
                               However . . .

        Some reports weren’t consistent
                  Sections that were exemplary, others. . . not . . .


        Basic Report and Regional Reserve Report
         not consistent
                  Even when written by the same person . . .

January 26, 2010                    Oregon Department of Education       3
                     However . . .

       Little mention of services to special
        populations

       Reserve Grants showed little understanding of
        ‘value added’


January 26, 2010         Oregon Department of Education   4
               Self Reflection: Did you . . .

        Describe implementation status of the
         Activities identified for 2008-2009 in your
         2008-2013 Perkins IV Plan

        Provide a progress report on each Activity
         that was listed in the Plan


January 26, 2010          Oregon Department of Education   5
                      Did you . . .
        Link your Reports directly to your Plans
        Report what actually happened as a result of
         your Plan
        Provide enough detail about what worked and
         what did not work (as a model)
        Provide enough detail about what alterations
         were made
        Explain how you measured your progress
January 26, 2010         Oregon Department of Education   6
                               Did you . . .
        Account for expenditure of local Perkins
         Grant funds

                  Provide enough detail for a (federal) reader to
                   understand how the funds were expended


        If other funds were leveraged, indicate those
         Activities and funds in your Report
January 26, 2010                   Oregon Department of Education    7
                      Did you . . .

        Provide all Required Responses to Required
         Elements

        Use the Report as preparation for the 2010-
         2011 Plan


January 26, 2010         Oregon Department of Education   8
                     Truthfulness

       Included self reflection and identification of
        where future help is needed




January 26, 2010         Oregon Department of Education   9
                    Example of Truthfulness

        Activity

                  Use Oregon Skill Sets and VTECS to align
                   manufacturing and IT Programs of Study to
                   industry standards


January 26, 2010                Oregon Department of Education   10
                   Results
This was just the beginning of the alignment.
The regional coordinator did not understand the
scope and complexity of the Program of Study
process with standards alignment at the time of
writing of the original plan. Part 2 of this goal
was only met for IT and Manufacturing
programs that went through the Program of
Study Task force meetings which were supported
by the Regional Reserve Fund grant.
January 26, 2010   Oregon Department of Education   11
                   Overview

Some good examples used surveys to
understand the baseline of the region as a
key to future success




January 26, 2010    Oregon Department of Education   12
                   Three Levels of Activities
1.       Direct copy of Activity in Plan

2.       Paraphrased (sometimes very creatively)
         Activity (sometimes Progress Markers) in Plan
         a.        Direct paraphrase – easy to follow
         b.        Obtuse paraphrase – difficult to follow

3.       No relation to Activity in Plan

January 26, 2010                  Oregon Department of Education   13
        Example of Inadequate Activity
        Professional development promotes the
         integration of coherent and challenging
         academic content and industry-based
         technical standards




January 26, 2010         Oregon Department of Education   14
        Example of Inadequate Activity
       Professional development promotes the
        integration of coherent and challenging
        academic content and industry-based
        technical standards
       Professional Development intent and design
        must promote the integration of coherent and
        challenging academic content and industry-
        based technical standards
January 26, 2010        Oregon Department of Education   15
                      Activity


        We’re going to provide professional
         development workshops




January 26, 2010       Oregon Department of Education   16
                     Results


       We provided professional development
        workshops




January 26, 2010     Oregon Department of Education   17
                    Good Reports

       Concise descriptions of the results

       Included explanations if any Activities were
        not conducted

       Included Perkins Funds Expended

       Included evidence of a unified CTE program
January 26, 2010         Oregon Department of Education   18
                   Good Reports (cont.)

        Performance Measures were clearly linked to
         completion of the Activity

        Did not linger on negative situations over
         which they had no control (economy, etc.)

        Included quantitative data

January 26, 2010         Oregon Department of Education   19
                      Poor Reports

        The reader had to hunt through the Plan to
         find the Activities listed in the Report

        Results were a list of expenditures (as if the
         Activity was spending money)

        Included little to no information about the
         outcome of the Activity
January 26, 2010          Oregon Department of Education   20
                   Poor Reports (cont.)
       Indicated separate agendas relative to Perkins,
        rather than working together (consortium)

       Little evidence of correlation between
        Activity and improved student performance

       Results were just a statement of Activities

       Results were Progress Markers
January 26, 2010         Oregon Department of Education   21
              Good Responses to Required
                 Elements Included:
       Reference to a specific section of the Report
                            OR
       Brief discussion of how the Element was
        addressed (beyond the Results on Activities or
        use of Perkins funds)
                            OR
       Discussion of why the Element could not be
        accomplished
January 26, 2010        Oregon Department of Education   22
                   Poor Responses to Required
                           Elements


       No direct connection to Required Element in
        section referenced, but no discussion




January 26, 2010            Oregon Department of Education   23
     Good Responses to Improvement
           Planning Process

        Thorough description of the planning process

        Showed CTE as an integral part of the school
         and/or district

                  Alignment with school and/or district
                   improvement plans

January 26, 2010                   Oregon Department of Education   24
     Good Responses to Improvement
          Planning Process (cont.)
        Included a systematic planning process
         engaging CTE staff, administration, academic
         teachers, counselors, advisory committee and
         community members

        Indicated that meetings were scheduled in a
         manner that enables the year to have a focus
         which guides the planning process with the
         end in mind
January 26, 2010         Oregon Department of Education   25
       Poor Responses to Improvement
              Planning Process

        The process was not clear


        The response was incomplete




January 26, 2010         Oregon Department of Education   26
       Poor Responses to Improvement
            Planning Process (cont.)
        Discussed what will happen next year instead
         of the process that was used to decide what
         would happen in 2008-09

        Looked like a work plan for the regional
         administrator rather than an overall
         description of a planning process

January 26, 2010         Oregon Department of Education   27
                   Best Budgets/Inventories

        Created as a single system

        Included only those items that were required
         to be inventoried



January 26, 2010           Oregon Department of Education   28
              Difficult Budgets/Inventories

        Documents collected from several schools
         with no effort at consolidating them

                  Might indicate that a consortium is not taking
                   appropriate responsibility for purchases using
                   consortium funds

        Handwritten
January 26, 2010                   Oregon Department of Education   29
     Difficult Budgets/Inventories (cont.)
        Budget included expenditures that were not
         supplies (which should be inventoried)
                  Mileage reimbursements, food, etc.
        Budget changes of over 10% with no
         justification or authorization
        Budget included depreciable equipment that
         seemed to be over $5,000 but no such
         equipment was listed in the Inventory
January 26, 2010                  Oregon Department of Education   30
     Difficult Budgets/Inventories (cont.)

        Budget amounts didn’t align with Perkins
         Funds Expended in Report, with no
         explanation

        Spending not connected to student
         performance

        Some were not filled out
January 26, 2010         Oregon Department of Education   31
                   Self Review



        Use the rubric to score your Report



January 26, 2010      Oregon Department of Education   32
                     Score Yourself
        One point for each Yes on:
          1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15


        One point for each No on
          4, 6, 7, 12, 13


        3: Exact = 2
            Paraphrased, but easily understood = 1
January 26, 2010           Oregon Department of Education   33
                   How Did You Score?
       15-16          Exemplary

       13-14          Good

       11-12          Needs some assistance

       Below 11       Needs a lot of assistance

January 26, 2010         Oregon Department of Education   34
January 26, 2010   Oregon Department of Education   35
                   Thank You!
                   Michael Fridley

                    Michael.fridley@state.or.us

                         (503) 947-5660




January 26, 2010          Oregon Department of Education   36