1 / 39

Using Perkins Data To Improve CTE

Using Perkins Data To Improve CTE. NCLA Conference October 1, 2010. Sharon Enright, Ph.D. Ohio Department of Education Office of Career-Technical Education. Greetings from Ohio The Buckeye State!. Ohio’s CTE Accountability System. Four areas of CTE Accountability: Secondary (ODE)

anja
Download Presentation

Using Perkins Data To Improve CTE

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Using Perkins DataTo Improve CTE NCLA Conference October 1, 2010 Sharon Enright, Ph.D. Ohio Department of Education Office of Career-Technical Education

  2. Greetings from OhioThe Buckeye State!

  3. Ohio’s CTE Accountability System Four areas of CTE Accountability: • Secondary (ODE) • Postsecondary (OBR) • Adult (ODE and OBR) • Tech Prep (ODE and OBR)

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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.

  8. 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%

  9. 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

  10. Ohio is on a journey to improve CTE student performance…And we’re not on this journey alone.

  11. Ohio’s strategies to improve Statewide performance results should also help improve Local performance results.

  12. CTE Performance, Data and Accountability Web site

  13. Secondary CTE Performance Reports

  14. Review of Secondary State Data

  15. State Staff Review – Meeting #1 Reviewed FY09 Enrollment Data • State Performance Report • Also pulled additional data to review

  16. FY09 CTE Enrollment Data – Pg. 2 * CTE Participant is calculated differently in 2008-2009 than in previous years.

  17. FY09 CTE Enrollment Data, Disaggregated – Pg. 3

  18. State Staff Review – Meeting #1 Reviewed 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

  19. State Staff Review – Meeting #2 • Reviewed FY09 Performance Data • Did Ohio meet all state targets? • Did Ohio meet 90% of state targets? • How did student sub-groups perform? • How did the LOCALS perform?

  20. FY09 Performance Data– Pg. 2 Did We Meet All Targets? Did We Meet 90% of All Targets? [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. 3 * 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. FY09 Local Performance – 35 Did Not Meet 90% of One (1) or More Targets

  23. What can State Staff do to help improve 2S1? • Improve guidance and technical assistance provided. • Improve published resources – Example is CTE Assessment Matrix: • State CTE Assessments • Industry Assessments • Improve local data verification reports.

  24. Local Administrators Conference • Reviewed FY09 Performance Data, same questions • Did Ohio meet all state targets? • Did Ohio meet 90% of state targets? • How did student sub-groups perform? • How did the LOCALS perform?

  25. Local Administrators Discussion • 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.

  26. 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…

  27. Understand CTE Accountability • Improve Guidance Documents (published on ODE Web) • Conduct Webinar sessions • Increased engagement of local CTE leaders

  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

  29. 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

  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.

  31. 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 Plans

  32. 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

  33. 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.

  34. What different strategies are you employing to improve CTE performance?

  35. 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.

  36. FY2008 CTE AccountabilityAll States and DC, PR Guam, VI (54 total)

  37. Perkins V – Looking ahead… Might we strive for more consistency in student and indicator definitions?

  38. 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 EducationOffice of Career-Technical Educationsharon.enright@ode.state.oh.us614-644-6814

More Related