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 [email protected] IT Business Finance
Vacant Health Science Law, Public Safety, &
Security Brad Scott
[email protected] A & C Manufacturing Transportation
Ray Tracy [email protected] Arts STEM
Debra Wenzel [email protected] Human Services Education & Training Hospitality & Tourism
Nora Kohlenberg AFNR Government &
Administration