1. March 1, 2011

2. Agenda Introduction & OverviewJohn Haigh Working TogetherLen Lintner Kansas Data ChartsJay Savage Summary ActivityKansas Participants EvaluationKansas

3. Pick 3 indicators of that will demonstrate the success of your program and students. (1 minute) Pick a partner, share your 3 indicators with them, and agree on the best indicators. (2 minutes) Share your teams top 2. (10 minutes) Indicator 1 Indicator 2 Indicator 3

4. 5 year plan – updated annually Identified Core Indicators of Performance Determined indicators met/not met (outliers) Develop improvement plan for indicators not met and gaps (see DQI 5 Step Process www.cte.ed.gov)

5. Program Identify program key area(s) Can key areas be counted or described Fiscal What funds are available and can be targeted? Can funds be matched to key areas? Performance Can the key area be matched to program & fiscal? Is the key area quantifiable & can it be measured?

6. SecondaryPostsecondary

7. Level of Effort / Unit of Analysis Unit of Analysis –Student level –School level –Program level Level of Effort –Statewide data review –Consortium data review –School or Program data review

8. 5 Step Process

9. Step 1: Document Performance Results. The first step in the process is to describe state and school/college performance on the core indicators by comparing performance levels between schools/colleges, student populations, and programs over time. This step uses summary statistics and basic graphs and charts to document performance and identify improvement priorities. Step 2: Identify Root Causes. The second step is to analyze performance data and use additional information and methods to determine the most important and most direct causes of performance gaps that can be addressed by improvement strategies and specific solutions. This step encourages states to use multiple methods to identify and evaluate potential causes and select a few critical root causes as the focus of improvement efforts. Step 3: Select Best Solutions. The third step is to identify and evaluate potential solutions to performance problems, including both improvement strategies and program models, by reviewing and evaluating the underlying logic of these solutions and the empirical evidence of their effectiveness in achieving performance results. Step 4: Pilot Test and Evaluate Solutions. The fourth step is to conduct pilot testing and evaluation of solutions. This step presents practical yet rigorous methods and tools for evaluating solutions before full implementation at the state or institutional levels. Step 5: Implement Solutions. The fifth step is to implement fully tested solutions based on implementation plans that measure the implementation of the solution and evaluate the success of the solution in reaching the expected performance results. This step also addresses how to use evaluation results to plan the next steps in state and local improvement efforts. PCRN www.cte.ed.gov

10. PERKINS IV, DATA, AND LOCAL APPLICATIONS A BALANCING ACT

11. LOCAL APPLICATON STRUCTURE LOCAL APPLICATION COMPONENTS SET BY THE PERKINS LEGISLATION ALLOWABLE USES OF FEDERAL FUNDS SET BY THE PERKINS LEGISLATION NEED FOR INTEGRATION OF FISCAL, PROGRAM, AND PERFORMANCE NEEDS

12. STATE ROLE IN LOCAL APPLICATION PROCESS FIVE-YEAR LOCAL APPLICATION WITH ANNUAL UPDATES ANNUAL LOCAL APPLICATIONS TOOLS TO SHAPE THE LOCAL APPLICATION AND RESULTING USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS

13. STATE TOOLS IN THE LOCAL APPLICATION PROCESS DATA MINING FUNDING FLOORS & CEILINGS USE OF THE RESERVE FUND SIZE, SCOPE, AND QUALITY FUNDING FLEXIBILITY

14. LOCAL TOOLS FOR LOCAL APPLICATION DEVELOPMENT DATA MINING FUNDING FLOORS & CEILINGS “LOCAL” RESERVE FOR INNOVATIVE PROJECTS SIZE, SCOPE, AND QUALITY FUND POOLING

15. Draft Within State Allocation (K. Olson)

16. Draft State Leadership Funds Available (K. Olson) Fiscal YearCorrectionsCTE Resource Center Non- Traditional CTSOBalanceTotal 2007-2008 $62,009$143,584 $75,000 $56,257$283,245%620,095 2008-2009$60,053$64,218$75,000$56,257$349,057$605,035 2009-2010TBD 2010-2011TBD 2011-2012TBD 2012-2013TBD

17. IV. Implementation of Local Program Improvement Plans (Olson) KSDE entered into a negotiation process with all districts receiving and participating in the use of Perkins IV federal funds. Each district submitted a Negotiation of State’s Performance Levels form. The electronic receipt of the Negotiation of State’s Performance Levels was placed on file at KSDE. LEA’s could accept or request to negotiate the State’s performance level target for each negotiable indicator. If an LEA chose to decline the State’s performance target for each negotiable indicator, they provided the revised performance level and a rationale, including data, for the revised performance level. In the FY 2011 Perkins Grant local application, an action plan for improvement has been included. LEA’s and consortiums must address each unmet core indicator by addressing strategies for improvement and how the strategy will be measured to ensure improvement. Goal measurement and activities will be developed and aligned in accordance to the nine required uses of the Carl D. Perkins local plan and application. A report will be provided to LEA’s upon initial completion of the data analysis by state-level experts. The report will be used for data-informed decision making at the local and state level for continuous improvement.

18. Required Uses of Fund at the local level: 1. Describe how the academic, career and technical skills of students will be strengthened through the integration of academic, career and technical programs. Documentation must be provided. 2. Link secondary and postsecondary education. Links can be achieved through at least one program of study, transitional curriculums, articulation agreements, and joint professional development activities. 3. Provide programs that address all aspects of an industry, meaning that the student must have strong experience (work-based learning) and a comprehensive understanding of the industry he or she is preparing to enter. 4. Develop, improve, and expand the use of technology, which may include professional development, providing students with the ability to enter high technology and telecommunications careers and encouraging schools to work with high technology industries offering externships and mentoring programs. 5. Provide sustainable professional development for teachers, administrators and counselors, including in-service and pre-service training and practices to involve parents and the community. 6. Evaluate programs serving all students and assess how special populations are being served. 7. Initiate, improve, expand and modernize programs, including relevant technology. In order to meet the needs of business and industry, and the community, programs must continually be developed and upgraded. This increases the chance of employment for the student. In many cases, this involves the development or revision of curriculum, new strategies in teaching methodology, and the opportunity for professional development for teachers. 8. Provide services of sufficient size, scope and quality. This is encouraged to assure the student receives the attention, knowledge and experience necessary to successfully transition from the classroom to the work world or additional education and training. 9. Provide activities to prepare special population students for high-skill, high-wage or high- demand occupations.

19. CAR Update Workshop (Olson) Steps used for reporting the assessment data –Updated all student IDs to the KIDS ID in CaTE –Pulled the completers from the CaTE system –Matched student ID in CaTE to the KIDS ID in KIDS –Matched for exit records – all CaTE completers did not have exit records! –Pulled assessment data based on the KIDS ID –Reported back to us with overall numbers – not by individual student

20. CTE Update Workshop (Olson) NEEDS ASSESSMENT: When revising the application for the new grant period, use the original needs assessment to include improvement strategies to address identified weaknesses. The instrument will assist grant writers and coordinators with direction to better meet the needs of the program and student learners. Consortia write to the overall needs.

21. Performance To Required Uses Of Funds (RUF) Match RUF1S11S22S13S14S15S16S16S2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

22. Performance To Budget Match Budget1S11S22S13S14S15S16S16S2C Administration - $187,492 Advisory Committee - $6,426 CTSO - $119,117 Consulting Fees - $147,996 Equipment - $1,661,410 Externships - $63,703 Grant Writer - $270,502 Guidance/Counseling - $167,345 Honorariums - $202,976 Materials - $9,216 Memberships - $53,931 Registration - $287,943 Resources - $129,449 Software - $213,826 Subscriptions - $802 Substitutes - $211,470 Supplies - $29,680 Travel - $431,521 Other - $70,094

23. Performance To Intervention Match 1S11S22S13S14S15S16S16S2C

24. KS Secondary Participation Decrease in population Decrease in both Males and Females EnrollmentParticipants Grand Total 2008-0956735 Grand Total 2009-1052522 Male 08-0930042 Male 09-1028472 Female 08-0926693 Female 09-1024050

28. YearStudent Population Concentrators Agri. Food & Natural Resources Architecture & Construction Arts, A/V Tech. & Comm. Bus., Mgt.& Admin. 2008-2009Female3821439981652 2009-2010Female44112210091322 2008-2009Male110415256351268 2009-2010Male100714836151037 2008-2009Total1486166816332920 2009-2010Total1448160516242359

35. YearIndicatorIndicator Code Grand Total Numerator Grand Total Denominator Grand Total Target Performance Grand Total Actual Performance 2008-2009 Reading 1S12959340572.00%86.90% 2009-2010 Reading 1S15583630076.30%88.62% 2008-2009 Mathematics 1S22844342470.50%83.06% 2009-2010 Mathematics 1S25531629876.40%87.82% 2008-2009 Technical Skill Attainment 2S17239 85.00%100.00% 2009-2010 Technical Skill Attainment 2S17066 86.78%100.00% 2008-2009 School Completion 3S16722682995.00%98.43% 2009-2010 School Completion 3S17066744495.33%94.92% 2008-2009 Student Graduation Rates 4S17064 75.00%100.00% 2009-2010 Student Graduation Rates 4S16367 75.50%100.00% 2008-2009 Placement 5S18191944185.00%86.76% 2009-2010 Placement 5S15748636786.78%90.28% 2008-2009 Nontraditional Participation 6S1147153021835.00%48.70% 2009-2010 Nontraditional Participation 6S1127192822843.22%45.06% 2008-2009 Nontraditional Completion 6S22256228349.10%98.82% 2009-2010 Nontraditional Completion 6S21745185955.67%93.87%

39. Activity (20 minutes) In your consortia pick a recorder and reporter (you may need to vary your group depending on size) Identify a person(s) for program (describe the program and how it matches to the ‘indicators of success’ Identify a person(s) for fiscal (include traditional accounting procedures plus additional funding, allocations and rewards and sanctions and how they will match to the ‘indicators of success’ Identify an accountability person(s) (match ‘indicators for success’ to measures, approaches and reporting

40. Activity Continued Include about half in the secondary role and half in the postsecondary role In your smaller groups (program-secondary and postsecondary; fiscal-secondary and postsecondary; and accountability-secondary and postsecondary) list at least 2 key elements to be discussed in the larger group In the consortium group as a whole discuss the impact and process to accomplish each groups 2 key elements Document and report out on your results to the larger group-time permitting

41. Evaluation Was the PowerPoint helpful? Was the discussion helpful? Was there appropriate audience interaction? What next steps do you envision realistically happening in your consortium? Who would be key stakeholders in any future activity? Could you help develop a draft plan using the 3 keys?