Don Hilber Education Associate Data Collection and Analysis South Carolina Department of Education

1. Standardization in Perkins: Why and What ? The Perspective from Secondary Education Data Quality Institute June 14, 2005 Don Hilber Education AssociateData Collection and Analysis South Carolina Department of Education

2. Major Questions and Issues • Why Standardize ? • PART and NAVE Findings Relevant to Secondary Education • What to Standardize ? • Number Served Nationally • Critical Performance Indicators • [How to Best Standardize ?] • Covered During Remainder of Institute • Related Issues • No Child Left Behind • Standardization versus Alignment

3. WHY STANDARDIZE ? “ Ineffective programs don’t get cut . . . they just get ignored ! “ Effective programs stand better chance of: • Additional Resources • Greater Leverage (state or private $) • Less Constant Scrutiny • Less Defection

4. Standardization in Perkins: Why? (Secondary Education) • Program Assessment Rating Tool Findings • Multiple and Potentially Overlapping Objectives • Deficiencies in Performance Reporting • Lack of Numerical Targets That can be Aggregated • State-Defined Targets Not Appropriately Rigorous • States set Own Thresholds and have Different Definitions for Who is Voc Ed Student • No Long-Term Numerical Targets Established, nor the Data to Report on Those Targets

5. Standardization in Perkins: Why? (Secondary Education) • National Assessment of Vocational Education Findings • Lack of Clarity Over Perkins Purpose and Goals = Too Many Indicators Present Conflicted Picture • Secondary Voc Ed Confers Little Advantage in: • High School Completion • Academic Achievement • Post-secondary Enrollment • Post-Secondary Completion • Secondary Voc Ed May Have Positive Impact on: • Medium-Term Earnings • Academic Course-Taking

6. Standardization in Perkins: Why? (Secondary Education) • Observations on PART and NAVE Findings • PART may be Outdated in Some Particulars -- US Dept of Education Now Has Targets, Reports Data • PART & NAVE Ignore Provisions in Perkins that Specify a Large Number of Performance Indicators; NAVE Introduces More Secondary Indicators • Neither Mentions “Alignment” with No Child Left Behind, the NCLB Lack of Similar Uniformity or the Need to Share Performance Indicators • Another Dilemma: State Uniformity Means Delay in Baseline Setting and Hence Demonstrated Results

7. Standardization in Perkins: What? (Secondary Education) • Key Data Shortcoming From PART Analysis = Lack of a Common Concentrator Definition • Fosters Confusion over Who Perkins Serves • Impedes Ability to Aggregate States’ Data • Does Allow for Cost versus Performance Assessment • Creates Undue Variability in State Baselines • Performance Indicators Mentioned in PART • Attainment of Diploma, Certificate or GED • Entry in Employment or Post-Secondary • Attainment of Literacy and Numeracy Skills

8. Standardization in Perkins: What? (Secondary Education) • Key Finding From NAVE Analysis = Perkins Must Show Meaningful Outcomes • Who Does Secondary Career Ed Serve? • Occupational Investors versus Course-Takers • Concentrators and/or Explorers = 3+ Units • Perkins Performance Indicators in NAVE • Academic Achievement = Courses Taken • Academic Achievement = NAEP 12th Grade Test • High School Completion • Post-Secondary Enrollment (Short & Medium)

9. Standardization in Perkins: What? (Secondary Education) • Other Performance Indicators in NAVE • Post-Secondary Completion (of Secondary Students) • Eventual Earnings (Seven Years After Graduation) • Additional NAVE Implications • No Concern for Non-Traditional Participation and Little Concern for Immediate Employment • Remedial Education and Years to Complete Post-Secondary Might be Secondary Issues Also • Tech Prep Increasingly Losing Distinctiveness • Technical Courses Matter Once Academic Courses Met – So Why Not Standardize Technical Skill Also?

10. Related Issues for Secondary Ed Standardization • Does Standardization = Alignment ? • Two Views • States Use Perkins Measures Consistent Among Each Other • States Also Mesh These Measures with Other Federal Programs: NCLB &/or WIA • To Meet NAVE & PART Criticisms • only # 1 is necessary! (if true outcomes) • To Meet Other External Pressures • # 2 might also be desirable

11. Related Issues for Secondary Ed Standardization • NCLB Alignment • States Establish Own Tests and Levels • States Set Own Intermediate Goals • States Vary in Graduation Measures • Possible to Align with Long-Term Goals of 100% Proficiency by 2014 (Target-Setting) • WIA Alignment • Youth Programs not Central to HS Reform • Future Jobs Demand Post-HS Education • Wage-Record Tracking Not Suited for Part-Time Earners, Continuing Students

12. Wrap Up Points for Discussion and Consensus • Why Standardize ? • To Become an Effective Program = Common Service; Additive Indicators; # Goals • What to Standardize in Secondary Ed? • CONCENTRATOR DEFINITION • Academics and Graduation: YES • Non-traditional: NO • Technical Skill: WHY NOT? • Placement – Immediate Education & Jobs: ? • Additional Alignment ? • NCLB in Spirit, not Specifics; WIA Low Priority