Welcome to the SPAC Forum!

Here you can browse around to find answers to questions you may have. To join in the discussion, log in or register for a new account.

user avatar
Indicators Related to the Department’s Blueprint
Posted by mmatthews on June 4, 2012Indicators
Sharon Miller described these indicators during the April Design Team meeting. Please note that the SPAC will continue to work on the list of indicators discussed to date. The indicators below are included for your information and are available for public comment.

States would negotiate performance levels for these indicators with the Department and local consortia would negotiate performance levels with their state. These indicators would reflect key transitions points and critical education and labor market outcomes.

• Enrollment for subpopulations in CTE
• High school graduation rates
• Entrance into postsecondary, with and without remediation
• Attainment of industry-recognized certification or licensure
• Attainment of postsecondary certificates and degrees
• Rates of employment and earnings

No performance levels would be negotiated for these indicators. They are intended to improve the quality of students’ educational experiences.

• Dual credits earned
• CTE credits earned that meet high school graduation requirements
• Work-based learning opportunities completed by students
user avatar
Comments on Peroformance Indicators (respond to Morgan Mathews’ April posting)

Does this mean that we would have to negotiate performance targets for the enrollment of each subpopulation in CTE? The Blueprint mentions rural students, low-income students, English learners and individuals with disabilities. Would we also maintain some of the existing subpopulations – gender, race/ethnicity, displaced homemakers, single parents, migrant students, nontraditional enrollees? Negotiating enrollment targets would be very difficult.

“Rural students” are currently not identified in my state’s data system. And in the Common Education Data Standards (CEDS), there is no data element for the identification of “rural students.”

It would be UNMANAGEABLE if we were required to negotiate targets for each subpopulation for each indicator.

Will Perkins V require “alignment” with the state’s ESEA graduation rate calculation? Perkins IV requires this for 4S1. And now, all states must use a “cohort” graduation rate for ESEA. Since Perkins IV specifies that CTE must “align” its calculation of Student Graduation Rates (4S1) with the state’s ESEA calculation, then CTE must transition to the cohort graduation rate. In preliminary calculations for this indicator, my state is identifying the CTE students in the state’s overall “cohort,” and calculating a “cohort” graduation rate separately for CTE students.

In Perkins IV, a student who is a “CTE Concentrator” is the “accountable” student for 4S1. I am not convinced that this is the student for which we should hold ourselves accountable in the “cohort” graduation rate. Nearly all students who become CTE Concentrators do so during 12th grade, so the state’s ESEA “cohort” students who drop out in 9th, 10th and 11th grades are not likely to ever become CTE Concentrators. Using the “CTE Concentrator” approach would make our CTE results look extremely high compared to the state’s overall cohort graduation rate. I am not convinced that calculating a “cohort” graduation rate for “CTE Concentrators” is in the best interest of CTE.

We need to review our current data and look also at “CTE Participants” who are in the state’s “cohort,” and consider holding ourselves accountable for CTE Participants in the “cohort” graduation rate.

Academic Attainment
Academic attainment indicators could be more viable for Perkins V than for Perkins IV, as most states are adopting the Common Core Standards, and are participating in one of the two consortia that are developing common assessments. CTE could focus on the 11th grade high school end-of-course assessments. With “common” assessments, our CTE data would be more comparable across states.

Perhaps a student who is a “CTE Participant” during the year the student is assessed (i.e., an 11th grade CTE Participant) would be the “accountable” CTE student.

Technical Skill Attainment
Many SPAC Design Team participants have suggested that this indicator be maintained in Perkins V for secondary CTE. Industry-recognized credentials are often not viable for secondary students, as many credentials have been developed for adults with some postsecondary education and work experience.

In some states, the technical assessments are becoming more meaningful to secondary students, as passing these assessments qualifies a student to obtain dual (postsecondary) credit for a course.

Log in to join the discussion.

Don't have an account? Click the Register button to get started.