2008-2009 Perkins Annual Reports Discussion and Review January 26, 2010 Michael Fridley, Ed.D., Education Specialist January 26, 2010 Oregon Department of Education

What We Got Improvement over last year Better alignment to legal requirements January 26, 2010 Oregon Department of Education

Oregon Department of Education 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

Oregon Department of Education However . . . Little mention of services to special populations Reserve Grants showed little understanding of ‘value added’ January 26, 2010 Oregon Department of Education

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

Oregon Department of Education 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

Oregon Department of Education 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

Oregon Department of Education 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

Oregon Department of Education Truthfulness Included self reflection and identification of where future help is needed January 26, 2010 Oregon Department of Education

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

Oregon Department of Education 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

Oregon Department of Education 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

Three Levels of Activities Direct copy of Activity in Plan Paraphrased (sometimes very creatively) Activity (sometimes Progress Markers) in Plan Direct paraphrase – easy to follow Obtuse paraphrase – difficult to follow No relation to Activity in Plan January 26, 2010 Oregon Department of Education

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

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

Oregon Department of Education Activity We’re going to provide professional development workshops January 26, 2010 Oregon Department of Education

Oregon Department of Education Results We provided professional development workshops January 26, 2010 Oregon Department of Education

Oregon Department of Education 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

Oregon Department of Education 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

Oregon Department of Education 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

Oregon Department of Education 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

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) Discussion of why the Element could not be accomplished January 26, 2010 Oregon Department of Education

Poor Responses to Required Elements No direct connection to Required Element in section referenced, but no discussion January 26, 2010 Oregon Department of Education

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

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

Poor Responses to Improvement Planning Process The process was not clear The response was incomplete January 26, 2010 Oregon Department of Education

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

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

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

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

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

Oregon Department of Education Self Review Use the rubric to score your Report January 26, 2010 Oregon Department of Education

Oregon Department of Education 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

Oregon Department of Education 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

Oregon Department of Education January 26, 2010 Oregon Department of Education

Oregon Department of Education Thank You! Michael Fridley Michael.fridley@state.or.us (503) 947-5660 January 26, 2010 Oregon Department of Education