View
216
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Welcome•Goals for DQI
–Establish future vision for Perkins Accountability
–Collaborate on Standardization
–Establish concrete state recommended alternatives for standardizing measurement definitions and performance indicators
•Overview of Agenda and Materials
Post Data Quality Institute
•Convene forum for Skill Attainment (1S2) and conference calls for Non Trad measures
•Continue NSWG calls
•Develop report from DQI on State Recommendations
•Further explore recommendations at Regional Meetings
•Present alternatives at CTE State Directors meeting
•Establish a transition period for implementation
Accountability In Transition
Federal & State Panel
Federal PerspectiveCorinne Sauri, Policy Specialists, PRES
Perkins III
•Built on accountability provisions from the Perkins Act of 1990.
•Increased emphasis on academics and holding CTE students to same standards as non-CTE students
•Required new disaggregated reporting with system of rewards and consequences
Core Indicator Framework
•Designed by OVAE with input from states and other stakeholders.
•Not meant to be a comprehensive list of acceptable measures but as a tool for states in developing measures.
•Perkins requires four core measures for every state to report, but allows for states to develop and define performance measures.
•OVAE has limited authority under Perkins III to set measures but may provide guidance and must approve state plans.
Data Integrity?
•Data collection under Perkins III has left the program open to criticism and threat of elimination
–National Assessment of Vocational Education
–Office of Inspector General Report
–Program Assessment Rating Tool
–Budget Requests
NAVE
•“Despite serious commitment among state administrators, technical measurement and data quality problems hinder widespread use of program performance data for program management as the state or local levels.”
•The quality of Perkins performance reporting varies considerably by indicator, by state, and sometimes within a state
OIG Report
•Invalid Measures
–Many states use same indicator for different sub-indicators.
–Some states using same measure for multiple sub-indicators.
–OVAE can offer better guidance in the state plan approval process.
•57% of states do not provide complete performance data.
Lack of improvement strategies, reporting at sub-indicator level.
PART and Perkins Funding
•FY 2004: PART rating “Ineffective”
–Unclear program purpose.
–Quality of state data is deficient.
–Unavailable data on student outcomes.
–Lack of demonstrated state progress on core indicators.
•FY 2006 budget: Perkins funding eliminated.
–PART and NAVE cited.
Perkins Reauthorization
•Sec. Spellings letter on Senate Perkins bill–Cited PART results.–Requested authority to establish common measures to assess program performance for Perkins.–Requested authority to negotiate new specific measures and targets with each state.
Report to Congress
•Perkins III requires OVAE to report on States’ progress in achieving performance targets.
–Missing and incomplete data from states.–State-to-State comparison charts required.
•Impossible when concentrators are defined differently. We’re comparing apple to oranges to bananas to coconuts.
Conclusions
•Data-driven era of Accountability
•Need for standardization of data.
•Expectation of demonstrable results–Congress expects results as a return on investment.–Basic questions about data integrity cannot be addressed without common measures among states.
Accountability In Transition
Federal & State Panel
Federal PerspectiveSharon Miller, Director, DHSPCE
Vision for Perkins Accountability
To achieve greater consistency across the nation regarding definitions of:
Concentrator
Secondary academic attainment
Secondary completion
Secondary transition
Postsecondary completion
Postsecondary placement and retention
Vision for Perkins Accountability
Concentrator
Currently about five different approaches to definitions
Needs to maximize the number of students counted without including those who take only one course
Needs to be distinguished from a completer
Vision for Perkins Accountability
Secondary academic attainment
Currently about seven different approaches to definitions
Half of states aligning their measure to NCLB
Need to align both the test and the proficiency level
Vision for Perkins Accountability
Secondary completion
Considerable commonality among definition
Need to include more students who concentrate (not just 12th graders)
Vision for Perkins Accountability
Secondary and postsecondary placement
Roughly forty states use UI wage record to track students
Three states share information about students across state lines
Need to build capacity of all states to use administrative record systems
Vision for Perkins Accountability
Results of greater consistency
Heightened ability to communicate our
outcomes to key constituentsMore support for our programs and servicesGreater ability to use data for program
improvement
Accountability In Transition
Federal & State Panel
Federal PerspectiveJohn Haigh, Chief, Accountability Branch, DHSPCE
History of Perkins III Accountability:
• CIF
• Rounds 1-5
• Institutes
• Evaluations
• NSWG
Perkins III: Overview
Perkins III: Overview
Define Key Terms: Measurement Approach (CRT)Codes (1S1,etc.)Measures (N & D)Concentrator, Completer, ParticipantBaselines Quality Indicators (scope, coverage, alignment, timing, reliability)
Perkins III: Overview
What is the CAR? What are negotiations? What is the process of awarding incentives & sanctions?
Perkins III: Overview
Roadmap for where we’ve been to date with activities:
Past Data Quality activities Past Program Quality activities NSWG discussions
Perkins III: Overview
Conference On Accountability & Core Performance MeasurementFebruary 4-5, 1999, Kansas City, Missouri
Reporting Results:Strategies To Improve Data QualityRegional Technical Assistance WorkshopJuly 25-27, 2000, Phoenix, Arizona
Reporting Results:Strategies To Improve Data QualityRegional Technical Assistance WorkshopAugust 14-15, 2000, Portland, Oregon
Introducing the Data Quality InitiativeData Quality UpdateNational Association of State Directors of Vocational Education ConsortiumDecember 6, 2000, San Diego, California
Perkins III: Overview
Data Quality Initiative National Institute: National ConferenceStrategies For Improving Data QualityJoint State-OVAE ConferenceFebruary 1-2, 2001, New Orleans, Louisiana
Improving Validity and Reliability: State Technical Assistance MeetingAmerican Vocational Information AssociationMay 13-15, 2001, Reno, Nevada
Train-the-Trainer Workshop: State WorkshopWorking With Local Educators To Collect Quality DataJoint state-federal conferenceAugust 23-24, 2001, Chicago, Illinois
National Career and Technical Education Leadership ConferenceNovember 27-29, 2001, Washington, DC
Perkins III: Overview
Program Quality Institute:Strategies For Improving Program QualityMay 13-14, 2002, Jacksonville, Florida Program Quality Institute:Strategies For Improving Program QualityAugust 8-9, 2002, Atlanta, Georgia National Career and Technical Education Leadership ConferenceMay 7-8, 2003, Washington, DC
Recommended