OYAP Windsor Conference Survey says…

1. OYAP Windsor ConferenceSurvey says… Dr. Sylvie Albert, Planned Approach Inc. Robin Porter, ResolutionsTech November 18, 2008 OYAP / PAJO Provincial Conference Windsor, ON

2. About the Survey • A French and English instrument forwarded by e-mail in early October to OYAP coordinators by the consulting groups • A separate mail-out in late October to TCU representatives • Closing for all surveys will be December 5, 2008 • The process of analysis continues with conversations with database owners and a draft report expected to be completed in March 2009 • Response rate on the survey to date is 73% based on • 70 school boards • 51 surveys completed and another 7 incomplete which were not included in the results • TCU separate survey not included at the moment • Results show a number of misalignments in the way that definitions are applied or comprehended • Results show a number of systemic problems needing discussion and probably attention in the short to long term

3. Some Key Survey Stats • 60% report problems collecting provincially required data • Tracking after graduation • Not sure what to count – definitions are too vague • Lack tools and resources to properly evaluate • 33% identify students with IEPs and 6% with a cultural profile. • Lack tools • Not sure are allowed to collect sensitive data • 56% report problems with the student registration process • Finding interested employers (57%) • Getting employers to registration process (43%) • Perceptions of students who qualify (43%) • Meeting deadlines (43%) • Different practices between MTCU offices

4. Some Key Survey Stats - 2 • 76% report problems working with employers. The top 3 challenges: • Local economic condition; • Student readiness; • Red tape in the process. • 33% are dissatisfied with their current database system (answering 1-4 on scale of 10), 38% are indifferent (5-6 on scale), 29% are satisfied (7-10) • 78% have devised their own registration forms (no uniformity) • July and August are only low registration months, otherwise, registration occurs at different times across the province (no uniformity) • Clear need for standardized data which will provide better CRM, Integration, and Reporting, but also to consider localised needs.

5. Some Key Survey Stats - 3 • A wide variety of processes for registering as apprentices. Mass registrations are practiced by 66% once to six times per year with or without employers. • 89% are involved in college partnerships and 87% in Job Connect partnerships. • 80% work with steering committee and about 65% find them relatively effective (from 7 to 10 on the rating scale) • Almost 90% are involved in several partnerships and community linkages, of which 65.2% indicate that tracking relationships is important (i.e. Scored 6-10 on scale of 1-10) • Clear need for improved CRM model tracking all constituencies (i.e. Students, employers, parents, advisory members, teachers, consultants, etc.), and for looking at best practices.

6. Example of misalignment 1: Definition of OYAP • 93-97% agree at on definition of 16 years old, 16 credits, coop, may be registered as apprentice… but • 33% do not feel that students should be full-time to count. • 42% reported other elements that should be included in the definition, and some count, or feel that we should count students who are: • Returning students; • Studying part-time in a trade leading to apprenticeship; • Mature and have previous experience in coop; • Completing 14 credits and perhaps planning on the last 2 during the summer; • 16 years of age and in grade 10; • All coop placements are counted, no trade is discounted; • Demonstrating a high level of interest and prepared to follow a curriculum leading to apprenticeship; • Able to achieve at least 70% in preceding 2 years of program; • Performing a placement in a specialised trade.

7. Example of misalignment 2: What do we count? • From 90-93% count the number of students taking coop and registering as apprentices, but... • Only 57% collect data on the number of OYAPs graduating with OSSD. • Anywhere from 30 to 50 different definitions of what counts on performance standards. • 24% count the percentage of OYAP students over the total student population. • Some prefer: ‘a percentage of the total number in OYAP placements over the total number of coop students’ • 56% calculate the number of apprenticeship registration as a percentage of the total OYAP students and another 11% intend to. • 60% count employment as full-time or part-time in any field. The remainder feel that only full or part-time in their chosen trade or continuing to college should count. • 66% calculate OYAP working at level 1 and drops down to 45% the number who calculate students who have completed level 1. • 82% track employers who take OYAP students as co-op placements and drops down to 60% those who track them as registered apprentices.

8. Technical Issues - Integration • As indicated earlier, 78% have devised their own registration forms • 69.6% have no applicant referral form on the web • A LOT of re-keying of data and file manipulation • Considerably high amount of data transfer (i.e. Student information system, OYAP, Ministry, etc.) • Link to other systems needed to track if student is failing • 71.7% use internally designed database • Far too much paper being used • 91.3% do not use common identifier • 95.7% say they are not linked to any other database. • Clear need for sharing of data between other databases, website, etc.

9. Technical Issues - Database Evaluation Process • Planning to interview 13 different options currently used as OYAP databases • Database evaluation based on hands on look by consultant: • Usability • CRM ability • Integration options • Customization ability to achieve standardized data • Reporting ability • Technical support requirements • Future compatibility and expandability • Scoring of all 13 options • Top 3 currently used options plus two possible alternate options chosen to present at January meeting.

10. Conclusion - Definition and Alignment Issues • Examples of alignments in definitions that may need attention: • Intake periods • Defining performance measures • Defining OYAP • Defining employment • Type of data collected • Examples of challenges that may need to be resolved: • Working with employers: tools and best practice examples • Agreement with Ministry on processes, definitions, and deadlines • Optimizing committee work and partnerships - best practices • Common database system • Evaluating the evaluation system • Implementing change

11. Conclusion - Technical & Other Issues • Storage • Standardization of data • Structure of the database • Policies around importing and exporting data • What to measure • Impact of external environment changes • Regional differences & needs

12. Next Steps • Technical database review and meeting with vendors (November-January) • Discussions with CIDF, OCPA, Province, on options for working on challenges and common definitions that will impact database (November-January) • Draft report for discussion (February) • Final report (March)

13. Thank You! The Round Tables this afternoon will work on some of the definition and challenges identified in this presentation. The workshop on evaluation tomorrow morning will discuss future trends and their impact on OYAP and its evaluation systems Questions and answers... Dr. Sylvie Albert salbert@plannedapproach.com Robin Porter rporter@resolutionstech.com