Program Review for Practical Living/Career Studies

1. Program Review for Practical Living/Career Studies

2. http://www.education.ky.gov/KDE/Instructional+Resources/Program+Reviewshttp://www.education.ky.gov/KDE/Instructional+Resources/Program+Reviews Section 1: Overview Section 2: Program Review Process Section 3: Using the Program Review Rubric Appendix KDE Program Review Guide for Practical Living/Career Studies

3. Internal Program Review: School Level The Kentucky Department of Education recommends that schools use a systematic, on-going process to review their programs, reflect on the evidence and use that formative information to improve their Writing, Arts & Humanities, and Practical Living/Career Studies programs. Internal program reviews for Writing, Arts & Humanities, and Practical Living/Career Studies should be conducted three times per year (beginning, mid-, and end of year) to allow for formative reflection about their programs and to monitor implementation of planned improvements.

4. Conducting a program review at the beginning of the school year allows schools to:determine their current level of performance identify program strengths and areas for needed growth develop initial improvement plans ensures programs are fully prepared for quality implementation determine where school wide integration of program skills is needed Conducting a program review mid-year:engages stakeholders in formative reflection about their programs based on identified evidence ensures that programs are being implemented as planned affirms the program needs are being addressed informs the decision to continue or adjust implementation plans Conducting a program review at the end of the school year:determines the level of school wide natural integration of the program skills across all contents, beyond the program areas provides an annual check-up for each program allows schools to reflect on the impact of program improvement decisions and implementation strategies throughout the year

5. External Program Review: District Level State Review

6. Review Committee Review committees for each program area should be determined, as sub-committees of the SBDM Council, including the following stakeholders: teacher representatives who work in the discipline teacher representatives from across content areas school leaders The team may also include: parent representatives student representatives (when possible) other relevant community stakeholders classified school staff (FRYSC coordinators, custodians, secretaries) school media specialists and other certified school staff

7. Identifying Evidence Evidence is identified to support the school’s analysis. Program review evidence may be specific for an area (Writing, Arts & Humanities, and Practical Living/Career Studies) or may be common across other reviews.

8. Convene for Rubric Assessment Process After reviewing evidence, the Review Committee should convene to complete program review rubrics. A sample Review Committee Meeting agenda is included in the appendix. Identify next steps Engage the review committee in discussion Draw on the ideas and suggestions for ongoing program improvement Examine characteristics that are noted as “Proficient.” Complete the Recommendations for Program Improvement section for each demonstrator.

9. Share the Internal Program Review Report After all program review processes are completed, the entire review set should be prepared for distribution and discussion.

10. Process for Completing and Analyzing Rubrics NOTE: These will be determined at a later date through a standards setting process Regardless of the specific discipline, the process for completing and analyzing rubrics is the same. After schools identify and review the necessary program evidence to develop a thorough program picture, school teams will complete the program-specific rubrics using the process KDE has outlined in section 3 of their materials.

11. New Scoring System • Differences: • Based on a scoring system • Three levels: Needs Improvement, Proficient/Meets Expectations, Distinguished • Sample evidence included • More detail to the bullets or standards • Same: • Self-evaluation • Group effort • On-going process

13. Sample Evidence • Individual Learning Plan (ILP) student interest reports * Pacing guides/curriculum maps * Master schedule *Individualized Education Plan (IEP)/504 plans/Gifted Service Plan/ILP/Limited English Proficient(LEP) * Authentic student projects and activities from a broad representation of students in all four PL/CS disciplines *Lesson plans document differentiation for students with special needs, ELL and gifted/talented *School-Based Decision Making (SBDM) council curriculum policy, meeting agendas and minutes • Documentation of collaborative projects (e.g. lesson plans, rubrics, assessments, and culminating events) * Pacing guides/curriculum maps *Student created videos, emails, web pages, brochures, multi-media, published work, peer checklists, and public service announcements * Rubrics, skill assessments, lesson plans showing a variety of strategies for instruction and assessment *Development and implementation of an individual FITT plan * Fitness Testing (e.g. FITNESSGRAM, President’s Physical Fitness Challenge, Personal Best) *Local school wellness policy * Lesson plans document differentiation for students with special needs, ELL and gifted/talented * Individualized Education Plan (IEP)/504 plans/Gifted Service Plan/ILP/Limited English Proficient(LEP) * Documentation of Guest Speakers * Serving Learning Projects * Classroom, club/student organization, and school wide projects * Newspaper articles and other media artifacts * Family Financial Literacy activities * Record of school-based / class-based enterprises * Professional Learning Communities (PLC) meeting notes and collaborative projects * List of advanced course offerings and related student participation data * Artifacts from Family Financial Literacy activities * Recognitions of student businesses * Artifacts from school-based/class-based enterprises * Student generated financial plans* Internet-based simulations with student generated work (e.g. stock market game, AAA Math, bank simulation) * Evidence of Reality Store activities on school schedule * Written curriculum * Physical Education Curriculum Analysis Tool (PECAT) improvement plan * Documentation of physical activity opportunity offerings * Artifacts from physical activity opportunities (e.g. pictures of parent nights, flyer for fun run) * Student exercise and activity logs (e.g. intramurals, fun runs, fitness clubs)

14. Divisions • Practical Living/Career Studies: Curriculum and Instruction • Practical Living/Career Studies: Formative and Summative Assessment • Practical Living/Career Studies: Professional Development and Support Services • Practical Living/Career Studies: Administrative/Leadership Support and Monitoring

16. Samples of Evidence • Department and/or committee minutes….give specific information such as when the meeting takes place, minutes per week or month, where minutes can be found • Statements demonstrate how the listed activity relates to the standard • CSIP, PD plans, IGP…must tell where the plans can be found, explain how it relates to the standard • Detailed explanations of school partners, lessons, technology use, etc. as each activity relates to the standard • Specify how lesson plans are differentiated, how assessment relates to standard including the types of assessments • Student work that demonstrates standard and where the work can be found • Communication can include newsletters, announcements, websites, etc. but an explanation of how that activity meets the standard needs to be included. • Written details should be in a form that someone who knows nothing about education would understand how it relates to the standard. • Partner check-lists for use in skill tests.

17. Samples of NON-Evidence • Lists of activities with no explanations • “no evidence” is the only thing listed. Schools should be doing something. • School based activities that are not understood by those outside the school. • Information is in a different format than the manner provided by the state/district. • Listing classes as evidence. How does that class meet the goal of the standard. • States “lesson plans” only. Should tell specifics about the lesson plan. • Explaining why you can not meet that standard.

18. Expectations From FCPS Assessment Office • KDE expectations for this year – all three have to be completed in their entirety by the end of the year, and KDE will have an online entry system ready to go soon  (exact due date has not been announced yet, but I’m thinking they will be expected to be complete by the end of April) • It’s an on-going process that ALL staff members in ALL subject areas should be involved with – PRs should be revisited and added to a minimum of three times over the course of the year

19. Questions & Discussion Michele Reynolds will get all questions. She will answer the questions. If she doesn’t know the answer at the moment, she will find the answer. Everyone at this meeting will receive answers to all questions asked (probably by e-mail).