January, 2003
Workforce
Alliance Reauthorization Positions , January 7, 2003
Local
Program Self Assessment-Continuous Improvement, January 7, 2003
Accountability
and Program Improvement Resources
Virginia’s Version
NAEPDC
News, Views, and Clues
January 7, 2003
Workforce Alliance Reauthorization Positions
Garrett Murphy, NAEPDC Policy Analyst, serves as liaison with the Workforce
Alliance—a national coalition of workforce leaders. In December, Garrett
presented at the Alliance annual conference. His report of that meeting is
attached. The highlights of the Alliance’s positions and recommendations on
reauthorization are as follows:
- There is an avoidable
disconnect between adult education and occupational skills training.
- There are a number of
practical issues that reauthorization should take into account to ease
coordination:
- Title I and Title II
continue to function as separate systems, even though they are mandated
partners in WIA.
- Title I and Title II are
subject to different performance measurement systems.
- In some states, adult
education and adult occupational skills training are often the
responsibility of completely separate institutions.
- Recommendations for better
coordination between adult education and occupational skills training:
- Making it easier for
training providers to access both Title I and Title II funds for individual
clients or programs.
- Streamlining performance
measurements for Title I and Title II funds when used in the context of
single workforce development programs.
- Encouraging co-location
of adult education and occupational skills training programs within
individual institutions.
The details of each of these
issues are found in Garrett’s attached report. (to obtain a copy of Garrett's
report, contact lmclendon@naepdc.org).
Keep up the good work. Let me know when we can
help.
NAEPDC
News, Views, and Clues
January 7, 2003
Local Program Self
Assessment-Continuous Improvement
Garland Hankins (AR) wrote
inquiring about resources we had for local program self assessment which would
assist them with their program improvement efforts. I have been doing some
training with local program managers in Oklahoma, Minnesota, and Michigan so I
had a number of resources available. I thought you might be interested in them
too. Here is my response to Garland as well as the attachments.
Attached are URL’s to two
local self assessment items.
1. The Super Duper
http://www.naepdc.org/State%20Staff/Agenda_State_Staff/The_Super_Duper.html
is a local program self assessment very similar to the State Directors'
Self Assessment (some states have taken the State Directors' self assessment and
adapted it.)
2. The Yearly Evaluative
Staff meeting (YESM)
http://www.naepdc.org/State%20Staff/evaluation.html is a second that
includes guidelines for a group facilitator, strategies for conducting a self
assessment meeting, and a different matrix for assessing program strengths and
areas for improvement.
It seems to work well if you
give all three (Super Duper, State Directors Self Assessment, and YESM) to a
workgroup and let them take all three apart, take the pieces they like from
each, and build something that meets your needs.
It also seems to work well
when you use the Going to Scale booklet with it so once they identify program
areas that need work, they have a process for identifying alternatives, pilot
testing them, making program adjustments to integrate the new strategy, and
slowly integrate them into the program--go to scale.
Two other options to accompany
the program self assessment are the individual teacher self assessment (the Ohio
Teachers Self Assessment ( http://literacy.kent.edu/Oasis/ABLE/ProfDev/self-assessment7-00.doc
) and the ProNet Instructor Competencies
http://www.pro-net2000.org/CM/info.asp --the competencies are the same but
each has a unique way of assessing) and the program managers self assessment (ProNet
Manager Competencies
http://www.pro-net2000.org/CM/info.asp). It seems to work best when
teachers and managers do their personal self assessment against the competencies
"in the privacy of their own home" and identify one or two competencies to
develop a professional development plan around. WARNING: you need the
resources to support those plans.
Again you might want a
workgroup to take these apart and adapt the teacher and manager self assessments
to fit your policies and procedures.
Thus, with the three you could
have 1) teachers do a self assessment and develop a professional development
plan, 2) mangers do likewise, as well as, 3) all the staff assessing the program
components to identify what needs attention and developing a continuous
improvement plan using the Going to Scale booklet as a guide.
NOTE: If local programs have
not done assessments before, it seems to work best to begin with the program
self assessment--a less personal assessment that gets them into the continuous
improvement frame of mind--and later introduce the more personal teacher and
program manager self assessments.
I hope this helps. I have
done a number of trainings with local directors using these resources, and
others, so I have thought about it a lot and will be glad to talk with you about
them if you like.
NAEPDC
News, Views, and Clues
January
6, 2003
Accountability and Program Improvement Resources
Virginia’s Version
Kathi Polis (WV) ran across the attached
resource from Yvonne Thayer’s Virginia Adult Learning Resource Center. Kathi
says, “The attached file from Virginia is a good collection of accountability
and program improvement resources for states.”
I pass
it on in hopes that it will be useful for you. We get by with a little help from
our friends. If you use it, be sure to send Yvonne a thank you note.
If you find other
valuable resources, I will be glad to forward them to your colleagues.
Keep
up the good work. Let me know when we can help.
NAEPDC
A Natural
Resource For Adult Education State Directors and their Staff Members
Dr. Lennox L. McLendon, Executive Director
lmclendon@naepdc.org
www.naepdc.org
202.624.5250
202.624.1497 FAX
