Accountability in Florida: Workforce in the K-20 System

1. Accountability in Florida: Workforce in the K-20 System Barbara White Florida Department of Education Accountability, Research, and Measurement

2. Florida’s Version of the Perfect Storm:Thunderheads Build and Gather Florida’s Version of the Perfect Storm:Thunderheads Build and Gather • Unit Record Data • Electronic access • to employment records • History of Legislative interest in accountability • History of collecting placement information • Occupational Forecasting • Many “sector” programs held accountable • 125 performance measures • Experience with workforce accountability programs • Total governance reorganization - all one system

3. The perfect Florida storm is a thunderstorm with lightning soon after rain It starts a “cool” fire in the wet woods and keeps the underbrush low without harming the trees It’s good for survival of rare species flora and fauna The perfect Florida storm is a thunderstorm with lightning soon after rain It starts a “cool” fire in the wet woods and keeps the underbrush low without harming the trees It’s good for survival of rare species flora and fauna

4. Necessary Assumptions • Purpose of technical education: Improve academic skills and employment opportunities • Success measured by continuing education and employment • Not dropout prevention, not avocation • Accountability definition: State resources are provided to meet state needs for work • Must identify state needs and measure those needs • Must measure how much each LEA produces and is expected to produce

5. History • 1983 - “Placement Standard” adopted • 1984 - Pilot project to automate follow-up information on education, employment, and earnings • 1989 - Follow-up project codified in law (FETPIP) • 1990 – Utility of Student SSN recognized in law for all sectors . . . Improves quality of follow-up data

6. History continued • 1993 -Voluntary, market-based, performance-based incentive funding program enacted • 1995 - “Placement standard” eliminated • 1997 - Statewide performance-based funding: postsecondary career education in both sectors funded through one formula

7. History continued • 1999 - K-20 education governance reform • 2002 - Rewrite of entire School Code - Accountability and performance funding for all sectors, K-20

8. What we learned: Outcome Information (FETPIP) 1984-1989 Conducted as pilot project 1989 Codified in law Pros Cons • Automated system links records in education data bases with those in other agencies • Since 1991, contains longitudinal information on former high school and technical education students, colleges, and universities • Other student groups added as program recognition widened • Essential for state and federal accountability reporting functions • Cost-effective for state and local education agencies • Value of program recognized by public agencies, economic development interests, and public and private research efforts • Prohibits duplication • Protects privacy • Requires interagency cooperation • Requires longitudinal studies • Information in system includes: • Demographic, socio-economic, and educational program status • FETPIP updates information on: • Continuing education • Employment and earnings • Military enlistment • Public assistance/Incarceration • Assists other agencies that use placement information for research: • Program Auditors, Public and Private Universities, School Districts, Colleges, WIA • Does not include complete information on out-of-state placements • Does not include information on passing rates of occupational license tests • Does not include occupational data, only industry-level

10. What we learned: Performance-Based Incentive Funding 1993-1997 Law Pros Cons • Voluntary program in which LEA earned additional funding by placing students in targeted occupations. Targeted occupations identified by occupational forecasting conference: • Threshold of earnings, state supply/demand data, occupations, and educational programs • Focused attention on completion • Focused attention on state targets • Provided additional funds “for real” • Provided both rewards and sanctions • Base year data identified; rewarded improvement • Participating LEAs earned incentive funds only when former student found placed in targeted occupation • Additional funds for enrollment, retention and placement of members of targeted populations • Funds at risk: Participating LEAs identified 10 percent of their budget to be “earned back” by performance • Funds for reward: Additional funds supplied by General Revenue and federal programs • Measurement: Identified “base year” of data; must improve over that year’s production to generate funds • Formula: Derived point per placement:: Subtract base year production from sum of number of placements plus targeted population enrollments, retentions, placements. Divide that number into total incentive funds available to get value for each point. • Poorly-performing LEAs did not participate • Legislature needed frequent reports • Use of federal funds challenged; still in court

11. What we learned: Workforce Education Funding Formula 1996 law took effect in 1997: Pros Cons Technical education from both delivery systems funded solely for performance, no enrollment-funding. Based 85 percent of funds on prior year performance; “earned” remaining 15 percent for improved performance. • Program improvement • Alignment of reporting systems improves data • Awareness down to teacher level • Lesson learned: Accountability is inevitable • No “creaming” • Regular communication with Legislature - awareness of the dual delivery system, interest in technical and career education • Align two MIS systems • Apply value to formula specifics • Improve adult general education reporting • Agree on “occupational completion points” • Both sectors under same formula -- competition allowed between school districts and community colleges • Programs no longer funded for enrollment or cost of program per full-time equivalent student • Funding base is prior year appropriation • Performance funding earned for student completions of identified points within programs, plus placements • Extra weight added to formula for targeted populations and high earnings after placement • Not enough funding available • Performance improvement not rewarded, only program outcomes • Economy downturn required budget cuts and formula abandoned for 1 year • Community colleges want budget separated • Regular communication with Legislature - many new members ask many old questions

12. Examples of Accountability Data Follow

13. Credential Outputs Major Pipeline Outputs Students Exiting/Entering Additional Pipeline Inputs Doctoral Degrees Professional Degrees Part time traditional students, stop in/stop outs, students entering from out of state, students >24 years old. Master’s Degrees 18-24 Age Group Employment Bachelor’s Degrees Associate Degrees One-year PS Cert. HS Diplomas

14. 10000 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 Initial Earnings – 2001 Graduates in the Fall of 2001 Postsecondary Gauges High School $9,180 $8,758 $8,253 $8,081 $7,003 $6,959 $6,410 $5,382 $4,008 $3,935 $3,818 $3,493 $2,678 Minimum Wage HS Grads- Citrus Associate of Arts Bachelors ICUF Lower Living Level Fl. Per Capita Income HS Grads Statewide Vocational Certificates Sec. Vocational Statewide Sec. Vocational- Citrus College Credit Vocational Associate of Applied Science Bachelors Public Universities

16. 1990-1991 Florida High School Graduates Highest Educational Attainment Level in 2000-2001 10 years after graduating from a public Florida high school, most of those who acquired a high school diploma in 1991 had not earned a higher-level education credential. Source: FETPIP Longitudinal

17. Florida Public High School Class of '91 Highest education credential attained through 2001 Florida’s graduates earn salaries that increase as they attain higher levels of educational credentials. Earnings for high school graduates in 1991 started at about $11,800 per year for full time work. Each year after graduation, the amount increased, but began to level off in 1997-98. Earnings: October - December 2001 Quarter $62,400 $46,048 $42,040 $35,800 $32,924 $31,044 $30,544 High School Diploma CC Voc. Cert. College Credit Voc. AA Degree Bachelors Masters More Source: FETPIP Longitudinal, 1990-91 Florida Public High School Graduates. Note that the earnings levels, while annualized in this chart, are based on the earnings of former students during the fall quarter of 2001 in Florida.

18. 194,097 74,811 Associate Degree Requirements, about 4.5% 1,084,722 386,669 347,592 1,467,886 4,987,515 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Projected Florida Employment in 2009 by Educational Attainment Requirements Doctorate or Professional Masters Bachelors Associate Psec Vocational High School Less than high school Millions Source: Florida Agency for Workforce Innovation Note: Based on number employed

19. Florida Occupations Projected to Gain the Most Jobs Source: Agency for Workforce Innovation

20. Florida Occupations Growing the Fastest Source: Agency for Workforce Innovation

21. Projected Growth in Supply and Demand of Workers With Some Postsecondary Education, 1998 to 2028 Jobs requiring some postsecondary experience Workers with some postsecondary experience 150 140 130 120 110 Thousands 100 90 80 70 60 1998 2008 2018 2028 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Census Bureau and National Alliance of Business

22. Description of K-20 Accountability Process and What Lies Ahead

23. Goal 1 Goal 3 Goal 2 Goal 4 Highest Student Achievement Workgroup Skilled Workforce and Economic Development Workgroup Seamless Articulation and Maximum Access Workgroup Quality Efficient Services Workgroup K-20 Accountability Project ACCOUNTABILITY COUNCIL 23 Members STAFF RESOURCE TEAM 26 Members 4 GOAL TEAMS = + Workgroup Findings to Full Accountability Council Accountability Council Recommendations to Florida Board of Education

24. 6 State Core Performance Themes; 3 Negotiable Measures Recommendation: 125 Measures to 9 Three levels of measurement themes... 125 General Appropriation Act measures included in the compendium The three levels are designed for the general public, state level policy-makers, the sectors, and the local education agencies or higher education institutions

25. Initial Conceptual Model* A small number of measures showing the system’s performance and where Florida stands. General Public Level I Level I + more detailed measures designed to facilitate K-20 policy decisions. Florida Board of Education/Legislature Level II Levels I & II + measures to include state or federal law necessary for sector-level accountability. Add Chancellor selections Educational Sectors Level III Levels I, II, & III + measures for local accountability, Add CEO and local Board Selections. Local Education Agency/Institution Level IV Increasing Numbers of Measures * From: OPPAGA’s “Triangle of Accountability”; the K-20 Transition Team’s proposed “Levels of Accountability”; also adapted from the workforce accountability tiers model outlined in Statute

26. From Goal I Team: • Percent of public community college AA-degree graduates who transfer to a university the following year • Percent of public university baccalaureate graduates who enter graduate schools the following year From Goal II Team: • Percent of high school graduates attending Florida postsecondary institutions • Percent of prior year public high school graduates enrolled in postsecondary institutions (by sector) • Percent of Florida undergraduate students who enroll in graduate school upon completion of the baccalaureate degree From Goal III Team • Proportion of individuals completing/exiting one level and proceeding to the next, changes over time From Goal IV Team • Percent of high school graduates continuing education Example of Accountability Task Force Work: Students ready for and progressing to the next educational level

27. K-20 Accountability System/Performance-Based Funding New Law (May 1, 2003): HB 915 Pros Cons Implement accountability for all sectors simultaneously. Ten percent of state funds must be placed at risk. Allow 1 year for programs to respond to measures and standards. Measures and standards will be identified summer 2003 in a series of forums. Six state core measures identified in law, will be surrounded by sector-specific or negotiable measures. • Highest student achievement, • Maximum access, • Seamless articulation, • Number and quality of credentials generated, • Quality efficient services • Provides sufficient time to gain support from sector leadership • Builds on workforce development lessons • Unifies, consolidates myriad of performance measures Core measures • Guiding principles: Each state core measure will: • Be a valid expression of educational results desired for system • Be actionable: management and policy decisions can affect outcomes • Be consistent with indicators used in other states and for comparisons with other states and the nation • Apply to all members within a given sector of the educational system • Standards for the state core measures may be based on local performance records and may recognize diversity of institutional mission. • Data definitions must become consistent • Some measures more readily available for one sector than another -- ie: standardized tests • Some measures will need to be adjusted to prevent unintended consequences -- ie: cost per completion • More applicable data available in some sectors than others -- ie: student achievement in university system