RPDAC Directory | Work Plan | Meetings | Upcoming Calendar | Homework Assignments | Mailing List
Region 1 | Region 2 | Region 3 | Region 4 | Region 5

Contact Person: Cyndi Godbey (clg5723@garnet.acns.fsu.edu)

REGION 4

5 - 21 - 99 Meeting Minutes


Fifth Meeting
Regional Professional Development
Advisory Council ( RPDAC)
Manatee Community College
Bradenton, Florida
Friday, May 21, 1999


1. Welcome and Introductions

Council Chairman Joe Perez called the meeting to order at 10:10 a.m. in Room 247 Korcheck Building. Those present are identified below:

COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:

  • Kathy Browers, Pinellas County Schools
  • Cheryl D. Ward for Dr. Sylvia Carley, Hillsborough Community College
  • Elizabeth W. Chaney, Dunbar Community School
  • Sandi Harwell, University of South Florida
  • Philip L. McClung, Manatee Community College
  • Mavis Pacetti, Lee County Adult Education
  • Joe A. Perez, Hillsborough County Schools
  • Debra Touchton, University of South Florida

COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT:

  • Gayle Brooks, Pasco-Hernando Community College
  • Mary Cantrell, Manatee District Schools
  • Diane Davis, Hardee Correctional Institution
  • Steve Hull, Polk Community College
  • Patrick Lucey, Glades Correctional Institution
  • Mike McLeod, South Florida Community College
  • Dr. Leo Mediavilla, Collier County Public Schools
  • Connie Mundzak, Hillsborough County Employment & Training Division

TECHNICAL ASSISTANTS PRESENT:

  • Lair Decker, Hillsborough County Schools

FSU TEAM MEMBERS PRESENT:

  • Fredrika Flakes, Research Assistant
  • Cyndi Godbey, Project Director

DOE TEAM MEMBERS PRESENT:

  • Dwight Hyle, Regional Consultant - Region IV

Dwight Hyle reported that Ted Bruce was not present due to a recent heart attack. He is doing fine but is aware that he will need to make some lifestyle changes as a preventive measure.

SACEE TEAM MEMBERS PRESENT:

  • Dr. Dan Gardner, SACEE Project Leader

2. Old Business

Review/Adoption of Minutes

Chairman Perez announced that approval of the minutes from the last meeting would be held until the next meeting, as Cyndi Godbey has requested extensive editing of them for clarification. Ms. Godbey announced that these corrections would be placed on the website as soon as they are available.

From the minutes that were available, there were a number of questions raised about what the Region IV training was to actually entail. Lair Decker indicated that the training was intended to train participants on what the RPDAC and this initiative was about. Chairman Perez indicated that the first 75 trainees were to be trained on the needs assessment model and then actually carry out an expanded version of the needs assessment.

Report on the Florida Literacy Coalition Conference

Chairman Perez reported on the panel presentation of the project that was done at the recent Florida Literacy Coalition Conference. He distributed copies of the materials that were provided to those who attended the session. These materials provided an overview of the project, which is funded under a 353 grant from the Department of Education (DOE). The objective of the project is to decentralize the design and administration of continuing professional development for adult education practitioners. The design involves the establishment of regional professional development advisory councils made up of key stakeholders in each DOE region in the state. The activities in the project include the assessment of region-specific needs for training and subsequent development or adaptation of existing training programs that can meet those needs. The needs assessment model used is one that incorporates the assessment of current trends and related needs as well as the resources available to meet the needs and barriers that interfere with doing so. The regional councils are intended to function to assess and organize the demand for new skills and knowledge and to then identify the mix of statewide, regional and local provision of training that will best meet them, as well as the priorities for doing so. The status of the project in each of the regions was also presented with representatives from Regions 2 and 4 reporting. (Representatives from Region 5 were unable to attend and Regions 1 and 3 have not yet initiated the project activities.)

Chairman Perez and Dwight Hyle pointed out that next year fifteen percent (15%) of adult education program funds would hinge on program performance in the areas of

  • Literacy Completion Points
  • Placement
  • GED/high school completion
  • Retention

Chairman Perez added that Loretta Kaufman from DOE, attended the session and clarified that it was intended that from the needs assessments completed as part of the project, the needs that are identified as common throughout the state would be addressed through statewide training. Those that are more region-specific will be addressed through regional training.

Dwight Hyle pointed out that the Region IV Council should take pride in their work as the model in the state. Ms. Godbey added that she agreed but pointed out that Region IV has had two more months to address the project activities than the other regions.

Mr. Hyle added that those who were unable to attend the Conference and would like to get information on what the other regions are doing should visit the website. He and others commended the Project Team on the website, as well as other tools that have been designed for the project by Dr. Easton.

Mavis Pacetti asked if the Literacy Coalition presentation counted as one of the trainings. Ms. Godbey indicated that there was apparently some confusion about whether it was supposed to and Dr. Easton had not understood that it would. So, unfortunately, it couldn't because we had not adequately prepared by creating an agenda and getting a sign-in list of participants and their evaluations.

Needs Assessment Update

Cyndi Godbey and Fredrika Flakes reported that the needs assessment data is still being cleaned up and the Council's focus will now need to be on getting needs assessment information from those groups that were under represented in the initial sample.

There was some discussion about how the needs assessment data led to the decision to focus on student performance assessment. Ms. Godbey indicated that, though she was not at the last meeting, she was under the impression that, after the Project Team had reported on the findings from the needs assessment, the Council had indicated that what was really needed was to provide broad-based training in the region on the needs assessment model in order that a system for gathering this information on an ongoing basis would be in place at the end of the project. The problem was that the DOE was looking for something that focused less on process and more on content. Apparently through discussion, the Council had agreed that the area of student performance assessment was a critical need in light of the heightened emphasis on accountability in performance outcomes. However, the number one need identified by teachers and administrators was actually "changing roles."

Regionally Based Training

Ms. Godbey reviewed her understanding of what the Council had already agreed to for the upcoming training:

Training #1 A Training Session for selected administrators on:

  • The RPDAC and its role
  • Increased need for accountability to meet funding requirements
  • The T-R-N-B Needs Assessment model as a tool to strategically plan for professional development that can facilitate meeting funding requirements
  • Multi-Level Performance Assessment as a mechanism to provide the information needed to determine program needs and corresponding professional development needs. As well as training them to be coaches in training teachers on the same content and its application.

Training #2 The coaches go back to their work sites and train at least 2 others, facilitating the gathering of additional needs assessment data.

Training #3 The teachers then train the students in participating in the gathering of self and program assessment information and corresponding professional development needs assessment information.

There were questions and discussion about whether there needed to be three separate trainings on different subjects and whether each training had to have exactly 25 participants. Ms. Godbey indicated that it was her understanding that the training requirement could be met in a variety of ways. However, there needed to be 75 trainees and three separate training agendas.

The question arose as to what the Council had remaining to do to complete the project activities. Ms. Godbey reviewed the deliverables that are being required by DOE (see the attached chart).

Dan Gardner raised concerns about the tracking of student performance gains in the course of the transfer appraisal. In particular, he wanted to know if the Suncoast Area Center for Educational Enhancement (SACEE) would be held accountable for that under their contract as the regional support institution. Ms. Godbey indicated that the transfer appraisal was not intended to be a required deliverable from the SACEE, rather this information needs to be gathered and provided back to the Council to be used in determining how well the training transferred for the purpose of determining how to proceed in the future. The SACEE will simply be accountable for putting the system/structure in place that will help the Council get this information.

There were additional questions raised about the selection of multi-level performance assessment as the training content around which training on the needs assessment model would be wrapped. After extended discussion, the group agreed that changing roles should be the content since it was the number one training priority identified by teachers and administrators. Ms. Godbey interjected that a focus on changing roles might actually fit better with the training on the needs assessment model since both would place emphasis on the increasing demand for accountability from adult education programs.

Following this discussion, Dan Gardner facilitated a discussion of what the actual training content should employ. The following content was enumerated for inclusion into the training:

  • The current/upcoming mandates driving the provision of adult education
  • The State Curriculum Frameworks
  • Corresponding changing roles for adult education practitioners
  • Facilitation of discussion on "What will it take to do this?"
  • The new regional system being established to facilitate this - the RPDAC, etc.
  • The needs assessment process as a tool for achieving this

Dr. Gardner further determined that the intent was to train a cadre of teachers and administrators, rather than focusing simply on one or the other.

There was brief discussion also about the intent of the project to provide training in innovative ways that can help circumvent the barriers for getting training to adult education personnel. Dr. Gardner indicated that he envisioned developing Internet and self-instructional modules.

After a break for lunch, Dr. Debra Touchton facilitated a discussion of how to proceed at this juncture. A number of models were discussed and eventually the group agreed to the following:

TRAINING SESSION
WHEN
HOW
WHO
I Week of July 12th A formal training on the identified content Trainees to include teachers and administrators identified by the Council members from Community-Based Organizations, Correctional facilities, Community Colleges, School Districts and Business & Industry
II Week of July 26th Trainees from Training Session #1 return to work site and train no fewer than 2 individuals, administering the needs assessment and returning results to SACEE no later than the week of July 26 Expanded cadre of same target groups
III Week of August 23rd Formal session to review needs assessment findings and discussion of how it relates to the content delivered in Training #1 and whether it accurately reflects what the trainees intended to communicate. Same trainees as Training #1

Kathy Browers asked if the same needs assessment instrument would be used because she didn't want to ask the same people to complete this questionnaire again. Fredrika Flakes said that the Council agreed at the last meeting that a new instrument would be needed. Ms. Godbey added that there was discussion at an earlier meeting about developing an abbreviated checklist version based upon the results to date.

There was extensive discussion about the timing of training, given that this will be occurring over the summer. The group agreed that there should be no difficulty attaining the required number of trainees since some Council members will require it and others will be able to offer their part-time staff stipends for attending. Ms. Godbey pointed out that it will be very important to make sure that Training Session #1 trainees understand in advance that they are committing to the three different activities. When they sign up, they need to know about all of the dates and deadlines. It was agreed that SACEE would draft a letter for Joe Perez' signature on a letterhead designed for the Council that lists all of the Council members and technical assistants. This would be prepared and sent out to potentially interested providers and groups by the SACEE. At a minimum, this should include grantees with 223 funds from the DOE.

Dwight Hyle added that this should be posted on the Internet, as well.

Chairman Perez pointed out that he holds a staff development meeting in August where 350 people participate. If there are difficulties getting trainees, we could consider doing the training there.

Ms. Godbey pointed out that this will essentially be a pilot and it would probably be preferable to include a cross-section of stakeholders. Chairman Perez indicated that he could get a CBO (Urban League, Literacy Council, etc.) to participate. It was agreed that, at a minimum, each Council member would identify training participants that they could send to make sure that enough trainees are secured.

Ms. Godbey asked if the group was satisfied that this design of the training had adequately addressed identified needs, incorporated existing resources, and established a mechanism for overcoming policy barriers through system change. She summarized that it seems that the first two have been addressed. Chairman Perez pointed out that the policy barriers may be the expectation the system is placing on providers regarding what deliverables should be produced by adult education programs.

Chairman Perez asked if the Project Team would provide the Council with a survey instrument that can be used to gather input from business and industry. Ms. Godbey indicated that the Team would. It was agreed that, upon receipt and review, the Council will disseminate this to business and industry stakeholders.

Ms. Godbey provided a recap of the remaining work in Year 1 of this project after the training has been done:

  • Evaluation of transfer of training
  • Evaluating policy barriers and the need for system reform
  • Evaluation of what was accomplished and learned in Year 1
  • Development of a plan for Year 2 for Region IV

3. New Business

There was no new business raised.

4. Close Meeting

Set Next Meeting Date

The group agreed to meet again immediately prior to and following the first training session, whenever that date may be set.

Homework Assignments

  1. SACEE will draft a letter for Joe Perez' signature on a letterhead designed for the Council that lists all of the Council members and technical assistants. This will be prepared and sent out to potentially interested providers and groups by the SACEE. At a minimum, this should include grantees with 223 funds from the DOE. This should be posted on the Internet, as well.

  2. Each Council member will identify training participants that they can send to make sure that enough trainees are secured.

  3. Joe Perez will make sure a CBO is invited.

  4. The Project Team will clean up the survey instruments from the prior needs assessment conducted and prepare a new instrument for use during this training, as well as a tool that can be disseminated to business and industry.

  5. Council members will send the business survey to 5 to 10 businesses each for their input.

Evaluation of Meeting/Project to Date

Ms. Godbey requested that the group offer their input regarding their assessment of this meeting and the project, as whole. It was agreed that those present would provide this in writing for compilation at a later time.

May 21 Meeting
Overall Project
Positive Aspects Aspects to Change Positive Aspects Aspects to Change
Got a great deal accomplished; I'm glad! Task-oriented with many accomplishments (2) Sometimes it seemed as if we were talking in circles Well-organized Cross-regional communication and articulation
Nice room/Comfortable (3)
Communication from FSU staff is excellent Time frames for this year
Good lunch (2)
Presenters are well-informed and insightful Group decision-making process needs some work
Shared discussion
Interesting group with lots of participation We seem to have a great deal of difficulty reaching consensus on some issues (i.e., what the training should be)
Excellent facilitators (2)
DOE participation is very helpful Sometimes I feel like saying "Just tell us what you want."
Timely
Council has remained on-task and provided deliverables in a timely manner
Participatory
A great need for adult education; great concept (2)
Well-planned agenda which was followed
Incorporates collaboration with other stakeholders; is an opportunity to network (2)
Sensitive to the needs of participants to be trained
Values teacher input


Focuses on the end result of student performance


Addresses teachers' awareness; the gears are shifted


Builds teams within the region


Potential is tremendous

Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m.

View/print "Deliverables Table"





RPDAC Directory | Work Plan | Meetings | Upcoming Calendar | Homework Assignments | Mailing List
Region 1 | Region 2 | Region 3 | Region 4 | Region 5


© Equipping Florida Adult Education Practitioners
Web designer & maintainer: Sumedi Nugraha
Back to the main page