1. Program Evaluation Model and Lessons Learned from 2007
Federal Aviation
Administration
PRESENTATION FOR AIR TRAFFIC COLLEGIATE TRAINING INITIATIVE (AT-CTI) BEST PRACTICES CONFERENCE
Program Evaluation Model and Lessons Learned from 2007
AT- CTI School Evaluation Cycle
October 16, 2007

2. Presentation Objective and Focus Areas
PRESENTATION FOCUS AREAS
AT-CTI School Program Evaluation Model
Summary of Applications Reviewed for 2007 Evaluation Cycle
Overview of Evaluation Process
Report on the Minimum Eligibility Requirements
FAA Classification of School Acceptance Levels and Best Practices
Best Practices Areas by School
Sample of Feedback Reports Prepared for Schools
To provide information and insight to participants on the AT-CTI Program Evaluation Process, Model, and 2007 Evaluation Outcomes, and Best Practices to encourage full and active participation in the ongoing enhancement and operation of the AT-CTI Program.

3. AT-CTI Program Evaluation Cycle
Submit Application for Certification and Participation in AT-CTI Responding to Program Evaluation Model Components 1
Program Participant Submit Annual Recertification Application 8
Application is Reviewed for Eligibility by AT-CTI Program Office 2
AT-CTI Schools are Certified and Invited to Share Best Practices at AT-CTI Best Practices Conferences 7
Eligible Applications are Evaluated and Scored by a Team of Trained FAA Evaluators 3
Recommended Applicants Accepted and Ranked by Program Office and Receive Recognition 6
Applicants Achieving a Minimum Qualifying Score are Site Visited by a Team of Trained FAA Evaluators 4
Team of Evaluators Reaches Consensus on Final Score and Recommends for Participation 5

4. AT-CTI School Program Evaluation Model
Component I
Value
Component II
Component III
Component IV
Component V
Organizational Foundation and Resources
II. Organization
Credibility
III. Curriculum
and Facilities
IV. Student
Performance
V. Organization
1.1
Leadership 20
2.1
Accreditation 15
3.1
Curriculum and Programs
100
4.1
Graduate Trends 60
5.1
Cooperation and Responsiveness
1.2
Goals, Objectives,
and Program
Alignment 30
2.2
Student Selection Process 10
3.2
Facilities and Equipment
4.2
Stakeholder Input on Performance 70
5.2
Data Submission
and Reporting Quality 40
1.3
Scope of Participation and Location 25
2.3
External Relations
3.3
Student
Assessment and Testing 80
4.3
Academic Readiness Trends
130
5.3
Continuous Performance Improvement Initiatives 50
1.4
Resources, Student Support, and Capacity
2.4
Outreach and Recruitment
3.4
Aviation Program Instructors, Staff, and Management
4.4
Academic Achievement Trends
120
5.4
Contributions to
AT-CTI
320
380
150

5. Applications Received
Summary of Applications Reviewed
for the 2007 Evaluation Cycle
Applications Received
Applicant Schools
City
State
New / Existing
1.        Aims Community College
Greeley CO
New
2.        Arizona State University
Mesa AZ
3.        Community College of Baltimore County
Baltimore MD
4.        Community College of Beaver County
Beaver Falls PA
Existing
5.        Daniel Webster
Nashua NH
6.        Dowling College
Shirley NY
7.        Eastern New Mexico University - Roswell
Roswell NM
8.        Embry Riddle - Daytona Beach
Daytona Beach FL
9.        Embry Riddle - Prescott
Prescott CA
10.     Fairmount State University
Bridgeport VA
11.     Florida Community College at Jacksonville
Jacksonville
12.     Folsom Lake College
Folsom
13.     Green River Community College
Auburn WA
14.     Hampton University
Hampton
15.     Hinds Community College
Raymond MS
16.     Inter American University of Puerto Rico
Bayamon PR
17.     Kent State University
Kent OH
18.     Lane Community College
Eugene OR
19.     Lewis University
Romeoville IL
20.     Metropolitan State College of Denver
Denver
21.     Miami Dade County College
Homestead
22.     Middle Georgia College
Cochran GA
23.     Middle Tennessee State University
Murfreesboro TN
24.     Minneapolis Community and Technical College
Eden Prairie MN
25.     Mount San Antonio
Walnut
26.     Purdue University
West Lafayette IN
27.     Salt Lake Community College
Salt Lake City UT
28.     Texas Southern
Houston TX
29.     Tulsa Community College
Tulsa OK
30.     University of Alaska
Anchorage AK
31.     University of North Dakota
Grand Forks ND
32.     University of Oklahoma
Norman
33.     Vaughn College of Aeronautics
Flushing
33 Total Applications Were Received from Schools Nationwide
Received Applications from 14 Existing AT-CTI Schools
Existing Schools Evaluated on Components I, II, and III
No Site Visit Conducted
Received Applications from 19 New Schools Interested in AT-CTI
New Schools Evaluated on Components I, II, and III
Must Meet Minimum Initial Score of 320 to be Site Visited
Site Visit Required
All 33 school applications were documented in the Application Database

6. Minimum Eligibility Requirements
Minimum Eligibility Requirements Established by FAA AT-CTI to be Considered for Participation in AT-CTI
ACCREDITATION: Be a degree granting, not for profit, two or four year, post-secondary educational institution with regional or equivalent national accreditation recognized by CORPA or equivalent.
DEGREE: Currently offer a non-engineering aviation degree.
PROGRAM OFFERING AND VIABILITY: Have a viable aviation program as demonstrated by the number of aviation majors which have graduated over the last five years, which must be in excess of an average of 25 per year.
UNDERSTANDING OF AT-CTI PROGRAM PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS: Be prepared to complete the certification process and adhere to the program participation requirements outlined in this document.
MINIMUM INITIAL SCORE: Receive a score of >=320 for Components I, II, and III to a receive site visit and continue evaluation process.

7. FAA Classification of School Acceptance Levels, Rating Scale, and Best Practices
DESCRIPTION OF LEVLES
SCORE RATING SCALE
Not
Accepted
New schools not meeting minimum eligibility requirements
New schools not achieving minimum initial score of 320 and not meeting the requirements specified in Components I, II, and III for site visit to occur
New schools not achieving minimum final score of 350 and not meeting the requirements specified in Components I, II, and III
Best Practice
Achieving a score of 96% or higher in any factor qualifies as a Best Practice
Achieving a score of 90-95% in any factor is considered excellent
Excellent
Achieving a score of 75-89% in any factor is considered good
Good
Achieving a score of 60-74% in any factor is considered fair
Fair
Achieving a score of 0-59% in any factor is considered poor
Poor 1
Probational
Acceptance
Existing schools not meeting minimum score of 350 and not meeting the requirements specified in Components I, II, and III will be accepted in Probational Status
Re-evaluation will occur after one year under all five Program Evaluation Model Components
New and existing schools achieving a score of 350 or more and meeting the requirements specified in Components I, II, and III
Existing, Provisional, or Probational schools that exceed the established minimum score and meet all requirements specified in all five Components
Cannot occur in 2007 evaluation cycle 2
Provisional
Acceptance 3
Full
Acceptance 4

8. Best Practices Areas by School
Based on High Scores in Specific Evaluation Factors
Evaluation Components
and Factor Areas
Schools
Component I: Organizational Foundation and Resources
Component II: Organization Credibility
Component III: Curriculum & Facilities
Leadership
Goals, Objectives, & Program Alignment
Scope of Participation & Location
Resources, Student Support, & Capacity
Accreditation
Student Selection Process
External Relations
Outreach & Recruitment
Curriculum & Programs
Facilities & Equipment
Student Assessment & Testing
Aviation Program Instructors, Staff, & Mgmt
NEW SCHOOLS SITE VISITED
Middle Georgia College n
University of Oklahoma
The Metropolitan State College of Denver
Florida Community College-Jacksonville
Arizona State University
Lewis University
Green River Community College
Community College of Baltimore County
Kent State University
EXISTING SCHOOLS
University of North Dakota
Community College of Beaver County
University of Alaska
Daniel Webster College
Vaughn College of Aeronautics
Purdue University
Minneapolis Community and Technical College
Inter American University of Puerto Rico
Miami Dade County College

9. SUMMARY OF KEY STRENGTHS SUMMARY OF KEY OPPORTUNITIES
FEEDBACK REPORT
SAMPLE
Score: XX out of XX
Ranking: X of X
Status: XXXXXXXX
SUMMARY OF SCORES
SUMMARY OF KEY STRENGTHS
Component / Factor
Description
Score
Max
Indicator 1
Organizational Foundation and Resources 96
100
Best Practice
1.1
Leadership 20
1.2
Goals, Objectives, and Program Alignment 30
1.3
Scope of Participation and Location 24 25
1.4
Resources, Student Support, and Capacity 22
Good 2
Organization Credibility 31 50
Fair
2.1
Accreditation 6 15
Poor
2.2
Student Selection Process 10
2.3
External Relations
2.4
Outreach and Recruitment 9 3
Curriculum and Facilities
308
320
3.1
Curriculum and Programs 97
3.2
Facilities and Equipment 60
3.3
Student Assessment and Testing 76 80
Excellent
3.4
Aviation Program Instructors, Staff, and Management 75 4
Not Reviewed at This Time
N/A 5
Total
435
470
School has a 1, 5, 7, and 10-year strategic plan that aligns well with AT-CTI’s goals; The school’s plans were reviewed by the state Governor
School’s leadership exhibited commitment to program
Student body is diverse, consisting of 40% female and 10% minority, and the faculty is 1/5 minority female
Diverse city of XX is a 2.5 hour drive from the campus; There are also several FAA facilities in the vicinity
Substantial financial and non-financial support; Multiple sources
School has a huge advisor program that supports the students
Excellent affiliations and relationships indicated
Targeted hiring and recruitment initiatives nationally and internationally
Flight school and other curriculum received multiple awards
Outstanding facility; Labs state-of-the-art; Labs open to students
Remedial or additional simulation or enrichment sessions available
Monthly proficiency tests for faculty and students; The CTO tower checkout serves as the capstone exam
Records were well organized and stored in secure cabinets
Hired additional faculty; Faculty required to maintained 16 hours of tower currency
SUMMARY OF KEY OPPORTUNITIES
This is a new program without a history of enrollment or results
There were no AT or aviation accreditation or awards mentioned
Lack of stringency in student selection criteria and process
There were no ATC scholarships available due to the newness of the program
Major staff turnover since initial application package mailed

10. Conclusions
The FAA has enhanced and expanded the AT-CTI Program for the benefit of the FAA and the Program participants.
The FAA encourages qualified schools to apply for participation in the AT-CTI Program.
The FAA encourages schools to continue to improve their AT Programs based on best practices.