Ohio Board of Regents Adult Basic and Literacy Education Desk Review Description Fiscal Year 2013 June 2014



Download 59.48 Kb.
Date29.01.2017
Size59.48 Kb.
#11994




Ohio Board of Regents

Adult Basic and Literacy Education

Desk Review Description

Fiscal Year 2013

June 2014


Introduction
The Adult Basic and Literacy Education Program (ABLE) under the Chancellor of the Ohio Board of Regents (Chancellor) is required by law to show progress of the State ABLE Program toward continuously improving its performance. In addition, the Chancellor must describe how the State ABLE Program evaluates annually the effectiveness of the adult education and literacy activities based on the performance measures described in the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, Title II, the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act. The Desk Review is one means of measuring local program performance.
The uses of the ABLE Desk Review include:

  • Accountability - meet performance goals and demonstrate state and local program achievement

  • Promotion of program improvement – establish a system for assisting programs in their continuous improvement

  • Information and advocacy for program – share key information with internal and external stakeholders

The ABLE Desk Review provides a classification for the local programs based on the following elements:



  • Minimum Performance Levels (MPL) for the Educational Functioning Levels (EFL) as determined by standardized assessments

  • MPLs for the follow-up measures including those for employment, entering postsecondary education, and/or training, obtaining a GED and increased involvement in family literacy activities

  • Student enrollment projections and student retention rates

  • Pretesting and posttesting rates of students to determine level completion

  • Key requirements and assurances of the FY 2013 grant



Explanation of the Report Format
The Desk Review Report consists of three forms – data form, worksheet for FY2013 and the report.


  • The data form compares key performance measures relating to enrollment, student achievement, program achievement and assessment to state performance targets.




  • The worksheet for FY 2013 is a summary of the results and achievement levels. The worksheet is completed by the state ABLE regional program manager.




  • The report provides the classification of the program and comments from the state ABLE regional program manager. The comments provide feedback on areas that may need to be improved.

The overall classification on the FY 2013 Desk Review indicates the performance status of a local program by using two measures. The two measures are weighted as follows:


  • Measure 1, Student Achievement, represents 67% of the overall rating.

  • Measure 2, Administrative Requirements, represents 33% of the overall rating.

The designations for FY 2013 have four classifications - Exemplary, Superior, Acceptable and Not Acceptable. The table below is used for determining the classifications for Measure 1, Measure 2, and the overall Desk Review classifications. For example, if the final percentage for Measure 1 is 79%, the rating for that measure is Acceptable. Ratings will be rounded to the nearest percent in this process.




 Designation

State Indicators Met

Exemplary

95%-100%

Superior

85% - 94%

Acceptable

autoshape 65370% - 84%

Not Acceptable

Below 70%



Explanation of the Measures
Measure 1 – Student Achievement

Student Achievement has three (3) sections, A - C, focusing on factors related to student performance and the reporting of those achievements. Measure 1 receives more emphasis since it reflects the major intent of the legislation for ABLE’s state and federal funds. The elements of this measure are:



  • Completion of the Educational Functioning Levels (EFLs)

  • Placement into postsecondary education and/or training

  • Attainment of employment and retention of employment

  • Obtainment of the GED

  • Achievement of family literacy goals

  • Other performance measures such as retention, enrollment, pretest and posttest rates


Section A: Core Indicators of Performance (CIP) - Educational Functioning Levels (EFL) Completion

In this section, programs receive points for the student completion of the Educational Functioning Levels (EFLs). Programs are given one point for each EFL for which students’ performance met or exceeded the state’s Minimum Performance Level (MPL) targets. Points are totaled and divided by the total number of EFLs in which students were enrolled. The percentage is recorded.


Example:__CIPs_Attempted'>Example:__EFLs_Attempted'>Example:

EFLs Attempted

EFLs Achieved

Result for Section A

6

5

83%

Section B: Core Indicators of Performance (CIP) – Follow-up Goals

Follow-up goals looks at a program’s achievement in meeting placement in postsecondary education and/or training, attainment and retention of employment, obtainment of a GED, and achievement of the family literacy goals. Credit will be given for each indicator for which the programs met or exceeded the state’s MPLs. These indicators are only measured for students who had the indicator as a goal.


Example:

CIPs Attempted

CIPs Achieved

Results for Section B (%)

4

3

75%

Also, a program will only receive credit for achievement of indicators for which it has an approved component(s).




  • For example, if a program reports achievement in the family literacy indicators, but does not have an approved family literacy component, the program will not receive credit for achievement of those indicators.


Section C: Other Performance Measures

In this section, programs are rated on five other student performance measures. Each element achieved is worth one point.




  • Enrollment - Enrollment is based on achieving 95% or more of the FY 2013 projected enrollment or exceeding the FY 2012 actual enrollment – one point.




  • Retention - Retention rate of 75% or above is achieved. Retention refers to a student who completed a level or who was enrolled during the fourth quarter of the previous program year - one point.




  • Pretest information - Pretest data entered in ABLELink that meets or exceeds 99% of the number of students enrolled - one point.




  • Pretest and posttest - The number of students posttested equals or exceeds 65% of the number of students pretested using a standardized assessment - one point.




  • Overall completion - This measure compares the program’s overall EFL completion rate to the state’s overall FY 2013 EFL completion average of 62%. To receive the point, a program must meet or exceed the state’s overall completion average.



Example:

Element

Achievement Level

Pt(s) Earned

Possible Pts

Enrollment

Met 84% of FY 2013 projected enrollment and did not meet FY 2012 actual enrollment

0

1

Retention

Rate was 96%

1

1

Pretest

Number tested matches 99% of the number enrolled

1

1

Pretest and posttest

Program posttested 66% of the number pretested

1

1

Overall Completion

The overall average for the program was 62% which does not exceed the state’s average (67%)

0

1




Total points received for five (5) elements

3

5*

Total points achieved__ = 3 Percentage of elements met

Total elements possible 5



60%




*The divisor is always five (5) since we use the number of the items being examined that have potential point values.
Once the scoring for each of the sections is completed, the score for Measure 1 is determined by adding the percentages for each section and calculating an average percentage for the measure. This percentage is used to find the classification for this measure.
Classification_for_Measure_1_Example'>Classification for Measure 1 Example:


Section

Total Pts for Program

Points Achieved

% of EFLs achieved

Score

Section A: EFL Completion

6

5



83%

Section B: CIPs Follow-up goals

4

3



75%

Section C: Other Performance Measures

5

3



60%

Average Score

= 72.6

73%

Rating for Measure #1

(refer to page 3)

Acceptable



Measure 2 - Administrative Requirements

Administrative requirements are determined by the extent to which the program has complied with key state/federal standards and grant requirements. These items are tracked through the State ABLE Program. Each item that meets the FY 2013 requirements will receive one point. There are 7 items to be evaluated for all programs this year. Attendance at the New ABLE Directors’ Orientation applies only to programs that have new administrators. Corrections FER applies only to programs with an approved Corrections Component. The items being tracked are listed below.





The items listed here are tracked for timeliness and completeness.

Data Certification Checklist Verification Form

ABLE Final Expenditure Report (FER)

Program Improvement Consultation Plan (PICP)

Fall Directors’ Meeting

LD Planning Guide

Technology Report

Schedule A & Schedule A In Kind




New Directors’ Meeting (if applicable)

Corrections FER (if applicable)


Example:

A particular program was not required to attend the New ABLE Directors’ Orientation and does not have a Corrections Component. The program met 6 of the required items. The score and classification for the program would be as follows.



Requirements

7

Met

6

Not met

1

Score

86%

Classification for Measure 2

Superior

Overall Classification
Determining the Classification for the Desk Review

To determine the overall program classification, the percentage for Measure 1 is doubled and added to the percentage for Measure 2 as indicated below. The total is then divided by three.


Overall Classification Example:


Measure

Percentage

Multiplication/Division Factor

Weighted Value

Measure 1

73

2

146

Measure 2

86

1

86

Totals




3

232

Classification

Acceptable

%



Improvement Actions
If any program receives a classification of “Not Acceptable” on the FY 2013 Desk Review, the following actions should occur:

  1. Review program data frequently during the year to be aware of the accuracy and reliability of the data and make program adaptations.

  2. Reflect changes in programming to address the areas of concerns in the FY 2015 grant revision(s).

  3. Address any areas needing improvement in the FY 2015 Data Quality Certification Checklist.

  4. Request technical assistance as needed from the State ABLE Program Office and/or the Ohio Professional Development Network.

  5. Seek appropriate Professional Development for the local program personnel.

If program remains “Not Acceptable” for more than two consecutive years, the funding level of the program may be affected.


If you have any questions regarding your FY 2013 Desk Review please contact your state ABLE regional program manager.



Download 59.48 Kb.

Share with your friends:




The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2022
send message

    Main page