FALL 2010

Program Enhancement Workshop

Agenda & Outcomes

WelcomeStudent AchievementProgram

Improvement Plan (PIP)

SyllabiEvaluation

Integration of technology by the teachers increases student enrollment in Cluster courses.

Teachers comprehend at a higher level the “why” behind the forms in an approved program for CTE.

Completion of PIP, Approved Program, data collection, and Progress Report has fewer errors, complete syllabi; teachers also meet deadlines

Teachers understand how to write best practices for justifications when seeking Perkins funding

Wiki Addresses

Wallwisher - feedback

http://ctebeyondbasics.wikispaces.com/

http://www.wallwisher.com/wall/CTEprogramenhancemen

Analyzing Data

www.doe.sd.gov/octe/data Verify all students were enteredConcentrators – students with 2 credits in a

program Only .5 foundational credits count towards

2 unit status Up to 1 unit of Capstone credit counts

towards 2 unit status Only .5 academic credit counts towards 2

unit status

Analyzing Data

Reading and Math – scores are from Dakota STEP Test Seniors with 2 credits in program Reading of 604 + Math score of 715 +

Technical Skill Attainment (TSA) Any student with 2 credits & TSA average of 75 or

above

School Completion & Graduation Available late fall

Analyzing Data

Placement Data 12th Graders with 2 credits in program Do not have to be currently enrolled

Non-Traditional participation and completion Based on national occupations, not

program enrollment

Core Indicators

1S1: Attainment of Academic Skills -Reading/Language Arts

1S2: Attainment of Academic Skills - Mathematics 2S1: Technical Skill Attainment 3S1 & 4S1: School Completion & Student Graduation

Rates 5S1: Placement 6S1: Nontraditional Participation 6S2: Nontraditional Completion

South Dakota Secondary Academic Attainment-Reading/Language Arts 1S1

67.00%66.00%

66.00%67.00%

61.43%60.28%

59.09%

55.00%

60.00%

65.00%

70.00%

75.00%

80.00%

85.00%

90.00%

95.00%

100.00%

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011

Performance Year

Per

form

ance

Lev

el (

%)

Agreed-UponPerformance LevelActual PerformanceLevel

South Dakota Secondary Academic Attainment-Mathematics 1S2

60.00%59.00%

57.56%

55.00% 58.97%

57.56%

61.44%

50.00%

55.00%

60.00%

65.00%

70.00%

75.00%

80.00%

85.00%

90.00%

95.00%

100.00%

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011

Performance Year

Per

form

ance

Lev

el (

%)

Agreed-UponPerformance LevelActual PerformanceLevel

South Dakota Secondary Technical Skill Attainment 2S1

93.40% 93.40% 93.56% 93.40%94.32% 94.42% 94.52% 94.62%

90.16%

91.84%

95.29%

98.75%

97.18%96.20%

94.65%

93.40% 93.40% 93.40%93.40%

96.81%96.81%

93.42% 93.71%

85.00%

87.00%

89.00%

91.00%

93.00%

95.00%

97.00%

99.00%

1999-2000

2000-2001

2001-2002

2002-2003

2003-2004

2004-2005

2005-2006

2006-2007

2007-2008

2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011

Performance Year

Per

form

ance

Lev

el (%

)

Agreed-Upon Performance Level

Actual Performance Level

South Dakota Secondary Program School Completion 3S1 &

Student Graduation 4S1

71.17%

81.00% 81.00% 81.00% 82.00%

68.49%

97.05% 97.28%

74.00%76.30%

69.62%

69.07%

69.07% 69.12% 70.12%

57.53%

81.99%

73.65%

68.07%

72.76% 73.29%

82.49%

55.00%

60.00%

65.00%

70.00%

75.00%

80.00%

85.00%

90.00%

95.00%

100.00%

1999-2000

2000-2001

2001-2002

2002-2003

2003-2004

2004-2005

2005-2006

2006-2007

2007-2008

2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011

Performance Year

Per

form

ance

Lev

el

(%)

Agreed-UponPerformance Level

Actual PerformanceLevel

South Dakota Secondary Placement 5S1

91.88% 91.88%

94.47%

91.88% 92.29% 92.39% 92.49% 92.59%

93.99%

97.37%

87.01%

94.24%93.52%

88.56%91.88%91.88% 91.88% 91.88%

95.45% 95.14%

93.76%93.26% 92.84%

85.00%

87.00%

89.00%

91.00%

93.00%

95.00%

97.00%

99.00%

1999-2000

2000-2001

2001-2002

2002-2003

2003-2004

2004-2005

2005-2006

2006-2007

2007-2008

2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011

Performance Year

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e L

ev

el (%

)

Agreed-Upon PerformanceLevel

Actual Performance Level

South Dakota Secondary Nontraditional Participation 6S1

10.25% 10.50% 10.50%8.27%

11.04% 11.14% 11.24% 11.34%

11.09% 10.78%

36.65% 36.75% 37.32%

9.08%

9.50% 9.75% 10.00%

10.14%8.36%8.74%

14.15%

9.14%7.71%

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

40.00%

1999-2000

2000-2001

2001-2002

2002-2003

2003-2004

2004-2005

2005-2006

2006-2007

2007-2008

2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011

Performance Year

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e L

ev

el

(%)

Agreed-UponPerformance Level

Actual PerformanceLevel

South Dakota Secondary Nontraditional Completion 6S2

8.03% 8.13% 8.23% 8.33%

7.05%

21.39% 20.63% 20.73%

6.64%7.94%7.05%

6.80%6.55%

5.80% 6.05% 6.30%

9.21%8.47%10.11%

5.66%5.81% 5.10%

8.62%

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

1999-2000

2000-2001

2001-2002

2002-2003

2003-2004

2004-2005

2005-2006

2006-2007

2007-2008

2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011

Performance Year

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e L

ev

el

(%)

Agreed-UponPerformance Level

Actual PerformanceLevel

Student Achievement

NAEP InformationPerkins Collection System (Data)Examples by Cluster to support content

development

Data: Now What?

What should we do with the data? Work with advisory committees Consult with administration Work with core content teachers Implement strategies for improvement Develop program improvement goals Develop a budget to help achieve goals Consider recruiting strategies Increase rigor Rethink course offerings and content Utilize “Strategies” to develop plan/goals.

Improving Programs and Increasing Results

Is data collection and reporting more than an obligation?

How can the data help you develop a program improvement plan?

What does the data mean?Who’s doing well? Who is not?Why is the data the way it is?Program Improvement Process/Annual

Progress Reports

Assignment Codes

Help communicate codes to your school both for the Personnel Record Form and Infinite Campus.

Assignment codes will begin appearing in Infinite Campus for student transcripts May 2011.

Make sure your Infinite Campus Point of Contact identifies CTE courses by placing “CTE” in the course title on student transcripts.

Program Improvement Plan (PIP)

Due December 1st Review and Update GoalsGoals based on 7 key areas of Program

Improvement1. Students engaged (5 Minute Timer)

2. Rigorous coursework (5 Minute Timer)

3. Teachers working cooperatively (5 Minute Timer)

4. Programs of study (5 Minute Timer)

5. Teachers involved in career guidance (5 Minute Timer)

6. Equipment enhances student learning (5 Minute Timer)

7. Holistic program improvement planning (5 Minute Timer)

Using Your Five Year Plans

1. Does the response describe a vision for CTE?2. Does the response describe HOW the school,

consortium, or multi-district (eligible recipients) will address the requirement?

3. Does the response give specific examples? (address OCCTE initiatives)

4. Is the plan thorough and comprehensive enough to cover five years?

5. Does the response address “Program Improvement”?

Results=Rigorous and Relevant Programs of Study

Break?

10:15 am – 10:30 am

Budget Requests

Curriculum development approved only if tied to cluster committee work and with prior approval by Cluster Specialist.

Equipment and technology requests based on standards.

Goals - all requests related to program improvement, student achievement, and accountability.

Amendments follow the same format as requests. Contact your Cluster Specialist first then work with local consortium director to add the request.

Each consortium follows a process for completing Amendments.

Justifications

Student DataPIP GoalsCluster Standards

What Now?

Analyze your Perkins dataPIP Instrument-December 1, 2010 Contact Cluster Specialist with new budget request

ideas then your consortium director.Approved program application plus syllabi for each

course taught by teacher –March 1, 2011Data Collection workshops/webinar April 2011Cluster UpdatesQuestions

Approved Program & Application Requirements

Career Cluster/Program of Study Certified CTE teacherProfessional development planAdvisory committeeProgram Improvement ProcessPerkins Core Indicators of Performance and

enrollment dataDue March 1st

Applications: www.doe.sd.gov

Syllabi Clusters who have finalized standards will be submitting

syllabi with the 2011-2012 approved program application. Plus additional requirements as per Cluster.

Clusters Submitting Syllabi 2011 AFNR, Architecture & Construction, Education & Training,

Health Science, Human Services, Business, Management & Administration, Finance, and Marketing.

Clusters Submitting Syllabi 2012 Hospitality & Tourism, Arts, A/V Technology &

Communication, STEM, and Transportation, Distribution & Logistics.

Syllabi Submissions with Approved Program Form

Syllabi Requirements

Handout on Syllabi ComponentsSyllabi ShellChanges with Syllabi plus Cluster Specifics

CTE for Core Content

Allows CTE courses to used to meet core content requirements through an individual application process.

OCCTE will review applications and approve schools to use CTE courses in lieu of traditional core content courses in case where standards and teacher qualification benchmarks are met.

Program Visits New Programs

New Teachers

At Risk Programs (Data/Accountability)

Recipients of state/federal funds

SD DOE Cluster Specialists

Gerald Gramm Gerald.gramm@state.sd.us IT Business Finance

Vacant Health Science Law, Public Safety, &

Security Brad Scott

Brad.scott@state.sd.us A & C Manufacturing Transportation

Ray Tracy ray.tracy@state.sd.us Arts STEM

Debra Wenzel debra.wenzel@state.sd.us Human Services Education & Training Hospitality & Tourism

Nora Kohlenberg AFNR Government &

Administration