Career and Technical Education
- Why are CTE centers/regions required to have common program evaluation tools?
-
The evaluation section of the Perkins application requires that a common evaluation tool be used across all programs at Maine career and technical education (CTE) centers/regions. Each CTE center/region is responsible for selecting an evaluation tool that best fits the needs of all programs at that center/region.
- Who is responsible for designing the common program evaluation tool for each school?
-
It is recommended that the director of the CTE center/region in collaboration with their team work together to design a CYET reflective of the school needs.
- Who completes the program evaluation tool?
-
Common yearly evaluation tools must be reviewed with Program Advisory Committees. The PAC consists of Teachers, Students, Secondary constituents, Postsecondary constituents, Business/Industry partners other interested or concerned stakeholders.
- What’s the difference between the program evaluation tool and the program self study that is part of the comprehensive school review process?
-
The program self study process that is used for a comprehensive school review is highly comprehensive and detailed. The common program evaluation tool provides an annual snapshot of where the program is heading in terms of short-term goals and accomplishments. As such, it need not encompass an extensive review process.
- What should be included in the common program evaluation tool?
-
The following components may be part of the program evaluation tool:
- Statement of purpose for program evaluation
- Instructions for using the evaluation tool
- CTE center/region name, address, phone number, website
- CTE center/region director
- Name of program
- CIP
- Program description
- Program technical skills standards
- Industry-related technical skills assessments that have been selected or are being piloted
- Student requirements, prerequisites
- Instructor(s)
- Program planning process
- Student recruitment process
- Program curriculum
- Instructional process
- Assessment process
- Articulation
- Connections with sending schools, business and industry, postsecondary schools
- Enrollment and placement statistics, including special populations and non-traditional students
- Equipment and facilities
- Program advisory committee
- Feedback regarding the program from students, media, community, etc.
- Names/signatures of program evaluators
- What should the common program evaluation tool look like?
-
In designing the program evaluation tool, the director may decide to use a specific format, or they may opt to incorporate several formats within the tool to best suit the program component being evaluated.
Suggested Formats for Common Program Evaluation Tool
| Advantages | Disadvantages | |
|---|---|---|
| Narratives | Comprehensive in nature and provides for an in-depth review | Time consuming for the evaluator to record; difficult for data collecting |
| Short answer response forms | Time/effort is minimum for the evaluator; responses are easy to read and record | Not all program evaluation components can be accurately described in short answers |
| Rubrics | Responses are easily recorded, tabulated and evaluated; data lends itself to drive program and staff development | Not all program components can be easily evaluated in rubrics |
| Check lists | Quantitative data; easy for evaluator to record responses | May not reveal total picture for an accurate program evaluation |
| Portfolios | Qualitative data gives realistic description of the program; portfolios by definition are showcases of work accomplished | Qualitative data may be difficult to manage |