National Research Center cte University of Louisville

1. National Research CentercteUniversity of Louisville Pradeep Kotamraju, Deputy Director, NRCCTE Amanda Richards, Senior Research Associate, MPR Inc. Building on the past to improve the future

2. The Center Partners Partner Organizations

3. The Center - RFP Purpose . . . to carry out scientifically-based research and evaluation, and to conduct dissemination and training activities consistent with the purposes of the Act.

4. In response to the RFP: 3 Foci for the New Center: On March 11, Secretary Duncan discussed: • Engagement – Completing high school, completing PS programs • Achievement – technical and academic; acquisition of industry credentials • Transition – to continued formal learning without the need for remediation; and to the workplace • Engagement – “Connect kids to school” “reduce the dropout rate” • Achievement – “Increase the graduation rate” “Educate our way to a better economy” • Transition – “Increase access and affordabilty”

5. Three strands: The work of the Center • Develop and improve methods to address education, employment, and training needs • Increase the effectiveness and improve the implementation of CTE programs that are integrated with coherent and rigorous content that is aligned with challenging academic standards • Improve the preparation/professional development of faculty and administrators to improve student learning in CTE

6. The RFP: Four Plans of Work • Scientifically • Based Research • Tech Assistance • Professional • Development • Dissemination

7. NRCcte Year 2

8. Pending & Recently Completed Studies Pending • Harvesting State Postsecondary Career and Technical Administrative Record Data to Assess Student Performance Recently Completed Reports • Access & Affordability • UI Wage Data Use by States • What will be the impact of programs of study? A preliminary assessment based on similar previous initiatives, state plans for implementation, and career development theory

9. Pending Reports for Year 2 Working titles • Programs of Study: Early Findings • Personal pathways for success (Clemson) • Rigorous test of programs of study (U of L) • Backward Mapping PS Programs of Study (AED) • Relative Impact (UMN) • Curriculum Integration • Authentic Literacy (Cornell) • Math (and preliminary work on Science) in-CTE • Professional Development in CTE • PD on use of assessment data (NOCTI) • Alternative licensure for CTE (SREB) • Professional development review of literature (U of L) • Postsecondary CTE • On-line post secondary CTE (U of L) • Harvesting data (U of L)

10. A Common Data Dictionary For Perkins Postsecondary Accountability

11. The Idea • 2005 and 2006 DQIs illustrated the need for a common grounding for Perkins data • States that already have data systems will not significantly alter those • States that don’t yet have systems could benefit from a common starting point • Perkins V accountability measures could be easier to design and implement if there was a common data crosswalk

12. Purpose • Greater consistency and clarity to Perkins postsecondary data collection and reporting • A foundation of information to prepare for more standardized accountability requirements in future Perkins legislation

13. Phases • Phase 1: Develop a common data dictionary in partnership with 12 states • Phase 2: Test states’ ability to populate the data dictionary using their own data systems • Phase 3: Potential to expand to additional states, submit state data for Center review and analysis, and discussion of potential measures

14. Research Questions • Can a common data dictionary help us get more consistent, valid and reliable state and national post-secondary CTE Perkins data and accountability measures ? • Will more consistent data provide a better overall indication of the engagement, achievement and transition of post-secondary CTE students?

15. Study Status • Twelve states responded to the invitation to participate in the study. • Those states submitted their postsecondary Perkins data elements. • Study researchers created a single spreadsheet of all state data elements, adding descriptive information. • Based on that information, researchers developed a common set of data elements for discussion. • Participating states became members of a technical advisory panel.

16. Study Status (continued) • The technical advisory panel discussed the common data elements and finalized the data dictionary. • States will now populate the data dictionary using their state data systems. The aim here is to perform a quality check on the data dictionary. • A wrap up in-person meeting of the technical advisory panel will be held in June 2009 to discuss and finalize the study findings and propose new ways to move the study forward. • The common data dictionary template and summary report for Phase I will be completed July 31, 2009.

17. Findings So Far • States vary in their ability to identify students’ programs, which will continue to create inconsistencies in data collection and reporting • The panel identified several types of information that would be “nice to have” for research purposes, but are too difficult to collect (e.g., type of financial aid, course level data, detailed economic disadvantaged and disability information).

18. Data Dictionary Template

19. Sample Variables in Dictionary • Term and Year of Enrollment • Enrollment year • Gender • Race • Hispanic/Latino ethnicity • Disability status • Economic disadvantage status • Financial aid received • Pell • Displaced homemaker status • Single parent status • Limited English proficiency • CIP code of program • Cumulative credits earned • Cumulative grade point average • Award/graduation status • Award/graduation date • Enrollment status in the next academic year • Employment status after program completion