1. 2008-2009 Perkins Annual Reports
Discussion and Review
January 26, 2010
Michael Fridley, Ed.D., Education Specialist
January 26, 2010
Oregon Department of Education

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

3. 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

4. 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

5. Self Reflection: Did you . . .
Describe implementation status of the Activities identified for in your Perkins IV Plan
Provide a progress report on each Activity that was listed in the Plan
January 26, 2010
Oregon Department of Education

6. 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

7. 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

8. Oregon Department of Education
Did you . . .
Provide all Required Responses to Required Elements
Use the Report as preparation for the Plan
January 26, 2010
Oregon Department of Education

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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

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

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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

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

24. 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

25. 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

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

27. 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
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

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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

31. 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

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

33. 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

34. Oregon Department of Education
How Did You Score?
Exemplary
Good
Needs some assistance
Below 11 Needs a lot of assistance
January 26, 2010
Oregon Department of Education

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

36. Oregon Department of Education
Thank You!
Michael Fridley
(503)
January 26, 2010
Oregon Department of Education