View
213
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
Using Perkins Data
To Improve CTE
Sharon Enright, Ph.D.Ohio Department of Education
Office of Career-Technical Education1
NCLA ConferenceOctober 1, 2010
Greetings from OhioThe Buckeye State!
2
Four areas of CTE Accountability:
• Secondary (ODE)• Postsecondary (OBR)• Adult (ODE and OBR)• Tech Prep (ODE and OBR)
3
Ohio’s CTE Accountability System
Negotiated State Targets with OVAE• Obtained input from Locals
prior to negotiating State targets.
• FY08 – Secondary only (1S1, 1S2, 4S1)
• FY09 – Secondary, Postsecondary, Adult
• FY10 and FY11 – Secondary, Postsecondary, Adult
4
Renegotiated State Targets with OVAE• FY09 – Renegotiated some
Postsecondary and Adult targets• FY10 and FY11 – Renegotiated
Placement targets (5S1, 4P1, 4A1)–State and county unemployment
rates continue to go up
5
Statewide Longitudinal Data System (SLDS)• Perkins data is submitted by Ohio locals in SLDS
• Secondary – Education Information Management System (EMIS), PK-12
• Postsecondary – Higher Education Information Data System (HEI), 13-20+
• Ohio is working on an integration plan for PK-20+ SLDS
6
Local and State Perkins Data • LOCALS – Submit course, student-
level and other data to State via SLDS.
• STATE – Aggregates LOCAL data:–Calculates LOCAL performance results
–• Reports some local Secondary results to
USDOE via EDFacts.• Publishes local performance reports.
–Calculates STATE performance results –• Reports state results to USDOE/OVAE via
CAR & EDFacts.• Publishes state performance report.
.7
FY2009 State Performance
No State Improvement Plans Needed
• Secondary – Exceeded State targets for all indicators
• Postsecondary – Exceeded State targets for all indicators
• Adult –Did not meet State target for Placement (4A1), but exceeded 90%
8
FY2009 Statewide Performance Reports• Goal – Create user-friendly State
reports• Publish on the Web
–Ohio Department of Education (ODE)
–Ohio Board of Regents (OBR)• Review reports with State and
local CTE staff 9
Ohio is on a journey to improve CTE student
performance…
And we’re not on this journey alone.
10
Ohio’s strategies to improve Statewide
performance results should
also help improve Local performance
results.11
12
CTE Performance, Data and Accountability Web site
13
Secondary CTE Performance Reports
State Staff Review – Meeting #1
Reviewed FY09 Enrollment Data• State Performance Report• Also pulled additional data to review
15
16
Career-Technical Education (CTE) and Tech Prep Student Counts (unduplicated)In each of the following categories, unduplicated means a student is counted only one time in a category, but a student may be counted in more than one category. A student may be counted only as a CTE Participant; or as a CTE Participant and a CTE Concentrator; or as a CTE Participant, a CTE Concentrator and a CTE Concentrator Who Left Secondary Education.
2007-2008
2008-2009
Total CTE Participants*A secondary student who has earned credit in one (1) or more courses in any career and technical education (CTE) workforce development program area.
137,961 127,085
Total CTE ConcentratorsA secondary student who has completed a minimum of 50% of the high school credits allowed for a single career and technical education (CTE) workforce development program (e.g., health sciences or marketing), and has enrolled for additional credit at the secondary level.
32,272 32,747
Total CTE Concentrators Who Left Secondary EducationCTE Concentrators who have graduated or withdrawn from high school.
26,230 27,098
Total Secondary Tech Prep ParticipantsA secondary student who has earned credit in one (1) or more courses in any career and technical education (CTE) Tech Prep workforce development program area.
Not Calculated 22,989
Total Secondary Tech Prep ConcentratorsA secondary student who has completed a minimum of 50% of the high school credits allowed for a single career and technical education (CTE) Tech Prep program (e.g., health sciences or marketing), and has enrolled for additional credit at the secondary level.
8,908 9,870
Total Secondary Tech Prep Concentrators Who Left Secondary EducationSecondary Tech Prep Concentrators who have graduated or withdrawn from high school.
7,710 8,530
* CTE Participant is calculated differently in 2008-2009 than in previous years.
FY09 CTE Enrollment Data – Pg. 2
17
2008-2009 Statewide Student Subgroup Counts (unduplicated)Statewide student counts are disaggregated by student subgroups. These data support statewide accountability and continuous improvement initiatives.
Student Counts by Student Subgroups
CTE Participants
CTE Concentrator
s
CTE Concentrator
s Who Left Secondary Education
Secondary Tech Prep
Participants
Secondary Tech Prep Students (Concen.)
Secondary Tech Prep Students (Concen.) Who Left
Secondary Education
All Students 127,085 32,747 27,098 22,989 9,870 8,530
Male 72,571 17,810 14,512 12,971 5,458 4,669
Female 54,514 14,937 12,586 10,018 4,412 3,861
American Indian or Alaskan Native 189 56 43 29 19 18
Asian or Pacific Islander 996 258 201 221 105 88
Black (not Hispanic) 19,574 4,137 3,048 2,617 1,092 880
Hispanic 2,991 649 458 439 189 154
White 100,741 27,158 22,966 19,303 8,314 7,269
Unknown – Multi-Racial 2,594 489 382 380 151 121
Individuals with Disabilities 22,610 7,085 5,418 2,958 1,246 1,044
Economically Disadvantaged 43,822 10,216 8,010 6,547 2,609 2,129
Limited English Proficient 1,224 180 98 109 50 34
Single Parents 1,212 615 523 266 129 109
Migrant Status 26 7 3 2 1 1
CTE Nontraditional Enrollees 23,950 6,728 5,541 5,008 2,071 1,805
FY09 CTE Enrollment Data, Disaggregated – Pg. 3
State Staff Review – Meeting #1Reviewed FY09 Enrollment Data• CTE Participant Count – Lower in FY09
than FY08 (New calculation method in FY09)
• CTE Concentrators – Suspect under-reporting
• CTE Student Sub-groups:– Students with Disabilities – CTE has higher
enrollment rate than general school population, grades 9-12
– Single Parents – Need to improve identification and reporting
18
State Staff Review – Meeting #2
• Did Ohio meet all state targets?• Did Ohio meet 90% of state
targets?• How did student sub-groups
perform?• How did the LOCALS perform?
19
Reviewed FY09 Performance Data
20
FY09 Performance Data– Pg. 2Did We Meet All Targets?Did We Meet 90% of All Targets?
Secondary CTE Workforce Development Perkins Core Indicators of PerformanceDefinitions for the indicators of performance are in the Ohio Perkins Five-Year State Plan for Career-Technical Education. The Ohio Department of Education, Office of Career-Technical Education, reached agreement with the U. S. Department of Education on state performance targets for each Perkins core indicator of performance.
Perkins Core Indicators of Performance2007-2008
State Performance
Rate
2008-2009State
Performance Rate
2008-2009State
Performance Target
Met 90% of 2008-2009
State Performance
Target
Academic Attainment—Reading/Language Arts (1S1) 93.89% 93.31% 87.00% YesAcademic Attainment—Mathematics2 (1S2) 92.09% 91.68% 83.00% YesTechnical Skill Attainment, (2S1) n/a 63.63% 61.00% YesSecondary School Completion3,4 (3S1) n/a 95.40% 93.00% Yes
Regular or Honors Diploma n/a 95.23%General Educational Development (GED) Diploma5 n/a 0.17%
Student Graduation Rates4 (4S1) 93.38% 94.63% 73.60% YesSecondary Placement3,4 (5S1) n/a 88.49% 87.00% Yes
Postsecondary Education or Advanced Training n/a 53.00%Employment6 n/a 58.22%Military6 n/a 3.93%Apprenticeship6 n/a 3.25%Placement Status Known7 n/a 90.07%
Nontraditional Participation2,3 (6S1) n/a 26.67% 20.00% YesNontraditional Completion2,3 (6S2) n/a 22.81% 17.00% Yes
[1] If 90% of the state performance target is not met for any Perkins core indicator of performance, Ohio must submit an improvement plan to the U.S. Department of Education.[2] 2008-2009 results are based on CTE Concentrators who left secondary education in 2008-2009.[3] Performance results were not calculated for these indicators and there were no performance targets in 2007-2008.[4] 2008-2009 performance results are based on CTE Concentrators who left secondary education in 2007-2008 (including summer graduates).[5] Secondary School Completion disaggregated indicator data – a student is included in only one category of disaggregated data.[6] Secondary Placement disaggregated indicator data – a student may be included in more than one category of disaggregated data.7 Percent of CTE Concentrators who left secondary education in 2007-2008 whose placement status was known. Not an indicator of performance.
21
FY09 CTE Performance Data, Disaggregated – Pg. 32008-2009 Statewide CTE Performance Rates by Student SubgroupStatewide performance rates are disaggregated by student subgroups on each Perkins core indicator of performance. These data support statewide accountability and continuous improvement initiatives.
(1S1) (1S2) (2S1) (3S1) (4S1) (5S1) (6S1) (6S2)
All Students 93.31% 91.68% 63.63% 95.40% 94.63% 88.49% 26.67% 22.81%
Male 91.66% 90.89% 60.83% 95.26% 94.43% 89.22% 5.05% 5.41%
Female 95.22% 92.60% 67.96% 95.57% 94.86% 87.63% 55.89% 43.11%
American Indian or Alaskan Native 93.02% 79.07% 58.33% 97.37% 94.59% 82.86% 30.40% 32.50%
Asian or Pacific Islander 96.02% 95.52% 72.50% 95.41% 93.26% 88.70% 29.42% 27.78%
Black (not Hispanic) 90.14% 85.84% 51.53% 92.59% 93.00% 76.72% 28.34% 24.42%
Hispanic 93.44% 93.44% 46.40% 93.10% 92.42% 81.96% 28.99% 25.97%
White 93.69% 92.39% 65.43% 95.86% 94.91% 90.34% 26.35% 22.49%
Unknown – Multi-Racial 94.49% 92.91% 62.75% 95.47% 94.41% 82.27% 27.45% 23.85%
Individuals with Disabilities 68.18% 61.81% 47.63% 95.00% 93.88% 79.90% 20.80% 18.95%
Economically Disadvantaged 88.42% 85.52% 56.54% 93.37% 92.67% 81.76% 27.13% 23.35%
Limited English Proficient 93.75% 92.71% 32.50% 84.30% 84.26% 82.83% 26.76% 18.29%
Single Parents* 87.95% 86.23% 27.07% 23.96%
Migrant Status 100.00% 100.00% 50.00% 66.67% 66.67% 100.00% 18.75% 33.33%
CTE Nontraditional Enrollees 94.49% 92.05% 58.80% 95.96% 95.64% 87.56%
Secondary Tech Prep Concentrators 97.51% 96.34% 64.00% 97.01% 96.18% 92.54% 22.80% 22.77%
* Single Parents data collected for the first time in FY2009. Not collected for indicators using one-year lag data (2S1, 3S1, 4S1 and 5S1).
22
CTE Indicators of Performance# Locals Did Not
Meet 90%
Academic Attainment—Reading (1S1) 1Academic Attainment—Mathematics (1S2) 1Technical Skill Attainment (2S1) 23Secondary School Completion (3S1) 2Student Graduation Rates (4S1) 0Placement (5S1) 5Nontraditional Participation (6S1) 7Nontraditional Completion (6S2) 8
FY09 Local Performance – 35 Did Not Meet 90% of One (1) or More Targets
What can State Staff do to help improve 2S1?
23
• Improve guidance and technical assistance provided.
• Improve published resources – Example is CTE Assessment Matrix:–State CTE Assessments– Industry Assessments
• Improve local data verification reports.
Local Administrators Conference
24
• Did Ohio meet all state targets?• Did Ohio meet 90% of state
targets?• How did student sub-groups
perform?• How did the LOCALS perform?
Reviewed FY09 Performance Data, same questions
Local Administrators Discussion
25
• Explain more about CTE Participant.
• Explain more about CTE Concentrator.
• How is 3S1 different than 4S1?• Explain more about 5S1.• How is 2S1 calculated? Which
students have to take technical assessments? When do we report what data? MUCH discussion.
Strategies for Improving CTE Performance Results• Understand CTE accountability
(CTE students, CTE indicators, how indicators are calculated);
• Improve data quality – more complete, accurate and reliable data;
• Help students perform at higher levels;
• And more…
26
Understand CTE Accountability• Improve Guidance Documents
(published on ODE Web)• Conduct Webinar sessions• Increased engagement of local
CTE leaders
27
28
Data Quality – EMIS data system (PK-12 SLDS)
• All data for Secondary CTE reported in EMIS
• Student-level data (student identifier)
• For FY09, CTE pulled EMIS data from:– Multiple Years -- FY09, FY08, FY07– Four EMIS reporting periods each
year
Data Quality -- Strategies for Improving EMIS Data• Improve CTE EMIS data verification
reports• Conduct Webinar sessions and
trainings• Develop new CTE Data Tools to
help Locals –Monitor data while reporting periods
are open–Track performance results 29
30
We are conducting Webinars for CTE on different EMIS reporting periods, with expanded information on EMIS reporting and how to use and interpret the CTE EMIS reports.
Develop More Capacity to Work with Locals• Build more capacity among ODE state
staff to understand CTE data and the CTE EMIS data reports.
• ODE state staff can work one-on-one with local CTE leaders on:– Monitoring local performance data– Tracking local preliminary performance
data– Developing Performance Improvement
Plans31
Improving Student Performance
• Focus on Specific CTE Indicators:–Webinar on improving
Nontraditional Participation and Nontraditional Completion
• Focus on Student Sub-groups:–CTE Initiatives on Students With
Disabilities 32
Local CTE Performance Improvement Initiatives• Benchmarking own performance
results with other locals.• High engagement of staff and
students in CTE performance.• Using CTE Program performance
results as a gauge of program quality and viability.
33
What different strategies are
you employing to improve CTE
performance?34
Perkins IV – “National” CTE Data(?)• Much variability in definitions of CTE
students and indicators of performance.
• Much variability in CTE state targets and performance results.
• Difficult to tell a “National Story” about CTE.
35
36
FY2008 CTE AccountabilityAll States and DC, PR Guam, VI (54 total)
IndicatorState Target
Range
Actual Performance
Range
# Met 90% of Target
High Low High Low Yes No
1S1 97.73 22.30 97.55 25.29 48 4
1S2 96.97 11.00 97.50 11.26 47 5
4S1 95.00 50.00 100.00 42.38 51 1
37
Perkins V – Looking ahead…
38
Might we strive for more consistency
instudent and
indicator definitions?
Thank you for participating in this
discussion on improving CTE performance results!
And may your performance results continually improve.
Sharon Enright, Ph.D.Ohio Department of Education
Office of Career-Technical Educationsharon.enright@ode.state.oh.us
614-644-681439
Recommended