Some Notes from Washington NACTEI Conference Wednesday May

Some Notes from Washington NACTEI Conference Wednesday May 11, 2011 Philadelphia PA John Haigh Ed. D. Chief, Performance and Accountability Branch Division of Academic and Technical Education US Department of Education

Greatest Story Never Told CTE Data Update on Trends Is there a Future & Who’s Looking at What? News About VDQI and SLDS Your Input and Next Steps Notes

Section 113(a) “Purpose-The purpose of this section is to establish and support State and local performance accountability systems, comprised of the activities described in this section, to assess the effectiveness of the State and the eligible recipients of the State in achieving statewide progress in career and technical education and to optimize the return of investment of Federal funds in career and technical education activities. ” Emphasis added Purpose

Secondary Participants

Postsecondary Participants

Combined Participation

3 Year Enrollment Trends Secondary Participation Postsecondary Participation Adult Participation Secondary Concentrators Postsecondary Concentrators Adult Concentrators 2007 -2008 -2009 -2010 Percent 7, 594, 929 7, 777, 659 7, 687, 287 1. 01 4, 318, 161 4, 483, 006 4, 700, 487 1. 09 149, 173 157, 523 175, 399 1. 18 2, 940, 848 3, 293, 468 3, 032, 500 1. 03 1, 739, 911 1, 914, 736 2, 175, 043 1. 25 113, 471 123, 236 133, 113 1. 17 Enrollment Percent Increase

2007 -2008 - Secondary 2009 -2010 - Secondary e Secondary Concentrator ns ib. , & & & st ic s h. M at rv. . ac Se gi Lo n. gi En , le s uf ur ity Se c ch. Te vi ce s M an & . Se r ur is m To in. nc e ie Sc fo In of Sa ge tr is D . , M kt Te ch of p. , i. , Sc e ra Av e ty of fe Sa & um an H y lit lth Ad m e nc na Fi ng ni . in . m m Ad m Co ns t. Co Tr ai b. of & Pu ea H ge ra Pu bl ic ra g , w Tr a of of e ag ra g Av er La of Av e ag e of & e ag pi ta os H e G ov 't. Av er n & . & M gt io at , s. uc Ed Bu . & ur ce s so Re e ur ch Te ct at. N ite A/ V ra g of Av er ra ge Av e of of Av e , & ch Ar of of ag e ge ra Av e of od Fo Ar ts ag e Av er Av e ge ra 2008 -2009 - Secondary Av e of Av er ag e Av er ge ri. Ag ra of Av e e ag Av er 600 000 3 Year Secondary Cluster Average Enrollment 500 000 400 000 300 000 200 000 100 0

2007 -2008 - Post. Secondary 2009 -2010 - Post. Secondary e ns ib. , & & & Postsecondary Concentrator st ic s h. M at rv. . ac Se gi Lo n. gi En , le s uf ur ity Se c ch. Te vi ce s M an & . Se r ur is m To in. nc e ie Sc fo In of Sa ge tr is D . , M kt Te ch of p. , i. , Sc e ra Av e ty of fe Sa & um an H y lit lth Ad m e nc na Fi ng ni . in . m m Ad m Co ns t. Co Tr ai b. of & Pu ea H ge ra Pu bl ic ra g , w Tr a of of e ag ra g Av er La of Av e ag e of & e ag pi ta os H e G ov 't. Av er n & . & M gt io at , s. uc Ed Bu . & ur ce s so Re e ur ch Te ct at. N ite A/ V ra g of Av er ra ge Av e of of Av e , & ch Ar of of ag e ge ra Av e of od Fo Ar ts ag e Av er Av e ge ra 2008 -2009 - Post. Secondary Av e of Av er ag e Av er ge ri. Ag ra of Av e e ag Av er 700 000 3 Year Average Postsecondary Cluster Enrollment 600 000 500 000 400 000 300 000 200 000 100 0

1 st 2 nd 3 rd Secondary Business 13. 70% Agriculture 11. 11% IT 10. 57% Postsecondary Health 29. 15% Business 16. 17% Law 8. 89% Adult Health 36. 51% Transportation 12. 17% Construction 9. 66% 3 Highest Clusters By Program Area

100 Reading Trend by Gender 90 80 Percent 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 target performance males females 2007 -2008 63, 48 70, 4 67, 8 73, 54 Reading 2008 -2009 63, 49 70, 35 67, 73 73, 52 2009 -2010 63, 51 70, 32 67, 7 73, 5

100 Mathematics Trend by Gender 90 80 Percent 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 target performance males females 2007 -2008 55, 64 62, 82 64, 01 61, 10 Mathematics 2008 -2009 55, 68 62, 83 64, 03 61, 10 2009 -2010 55, 72 62, 85 64, 04 61, 13

100 Secondary Technical Skill by Gender 90 80 Percent 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 target performance males females 2008 -2009 67, 01 76, 48 74, 05 77, 68 2009 -2010 68, 09 74, 35 73, 87 77, 61 Secondary Technical Skills

Measurement Approaches Used by States for Secondary Technical Skill Attainment (20082009) 1 1 1 Number of States using a Particular Measurement Approach 3 4 Assessment (national or stateapproved) secondary (44) Grade point average (GPA) (4) Program completion (3) Assessment or completing 80 percent of standards (1) Mastered industry-validated standards (1) Course completion (1) 44 Technical Skills Measurement Approaches

100 Secondary Completion by Gender 90 80 Percent 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 target performance males females 2008 -2009 84, 22 90, 09 91, 63 92, 79 Secondary Completion 2009 -2010 85, 33 94, 16 91, 66 92, 83

100 Secondary Graduation by Gender 90 80 Percent 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 target performance males females 2007 -2008 77, 62 90, 68 89, 98 91, 59 2008 -2009 77, 58 90, 69 89, 98 91, 61 Secondary Graduation 2009 -2010 77, 52 90, 71 90 91, 64

100 Secondary Placement by Gender 90 80 Percent 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 target performance males females 2008 -2009 79, 91 83, 86 82, 27 84, 13 Secondary Placement 2009 -2010 80, 75 83, 33 82, 31 84, 17

2008 -2009 Military 2009 -2010 Difference Percent 19, 772 33, 796 14, 024 41. 50% Employment 287, 331 281, 909 -5, 422 -1. 92% Training & Further Education 390, 912 476, 126 85, 214 17. 90% Total 698, 015 791, 831 93, 816 11. 85% Secondary Placement

45 Secondary NT Participation by Gender 40 35 Percent 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 target performance males females 2008 -2009 24, 38 29, 89 24, 53 40, 93 2009 -2010 24, 99 30, 92 24, 96 40, 20 Secondary NT Participation

50 Secondary NT Completion by Gender 45 40 Percent 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 target performance males females 2008 -2009 25, 89 30, 47 24, 05 41, 62 2009 -2010 26, 78 31, 23 24, 05 41, 64 Secondary Nontraditional Completion

50 Secondary NT Completion by Gender 45 40 Percent 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 target performance males females 2008 -2009 25, 89 30, 47 24, 05 41, 62 2009 -2010 26, 78 31, 23 24, 05 41, 64 Secondary NT Completion

100 Postsecondary Technical Skill by Gender 90 80 Percent 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 target performance males females 2008 -2009 68, 57 83, 36 81, 71 84, 23 PS Technical Skills 2009 -2010 68, 61 82, 87 81, 22 83, 73

60 Postsecondary Credential, Certificate, or Diploma by Gender 50 Percent 40 30 20 10 0 target performance males females 2007 -2008 -2009 48, 47 54, 37 51, 76 56, 26 2009 -2010 48, 34 54, 19 51, 64 56, 04 PS Credential, Certificate, Diploma

2008 -2009 -2010 Difference Percent Credential 60, 755 21, 816 -38, 939 -178. 49% Certificate 82, 082 108, 835 26, 753 24. 58% Degree 212, 477 238, 391 25, 914 10. 87% Total 355, 314 369, 042 13, 728 3. 72% Number and Percent Change

100 Postsecondary Retention or Transfer by Gender 90 80 Percent 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 target performance males females 2007 -2008 -2009 57, 53 68, 08 66, 23 69, 38 PS Retention or Transfer 2009 -2010 57, 27 68, 06 66, 19 69, 36

100 Postsecondary Placement by Gender 90 80 Percent 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2007 -2008 target performance males females PS Placement 2008 -2009 74, 28 75, 45 73, 57 76, 92 2009 -2010 74, 16 75, 54 73, 78 76, 93

2008 -2009 Military Employment Apprenticeship Total 2009 -2010 Difference Percent 1, 567 4, 231 2, 664 62. 96% 371, 475 337, 435 -34, 040 -10. 09% 5, 259 4, 869 -390 -8. 01% 378, 301 346, 535 -31, 766 -9. 17% Number and Percent

50 Postsecondary Nontraditional Participation by 45 Gender 40 Percent 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 target performance males females 2007 -2008 -2009 19, 45 21, 87 18, 86 25, 73 2009 -2010 19, 54 22, 02 18, 83 26, 07 PS Nontraditional Participation

50 45 Postsecondary Nontraditional Completion by Gender 40 Percent 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 target performance males females 2007 -2008 -2009 17, 59 20, 23 21, 94 20, 26 2009 -2010 17, 6 20, 26 21, 94 20, 31 PS Nontraditional Completion

100, 00% 90, 00% 80, 00% 70, 00% 60, 00% 50, 00% 40, 00% 30, 00% 20, 00% 10, 00% 2008 -2009 Mathematics - Average of Grand Total Target Performance Mathematics - Average of Grand Total Actual Performance Nontraditional Completion - Average of Grand Total Target Performance Nontraditional Completion - Average of Grand Total Actual Performance Nontraditional Participation - Average of Grand Total Target Performance Nontraditional Participation - Average of Grand Total Actual Performance Placement - Average of Grand Total Target Performance Placement - Average of Grand Total Actual Performance Reading - Average of Grand Total Target Performance Reading - Average of Grand Total Actual Performance School Completion - Average of Grand Total Target Performance School Completion - Average of Grand Total Actual Performance Student Graduation Rates - Average of Grand Total Target Performance Student Graduation Rates - Average of Grand Total Actual Performance Technical Skill Attainment - Average of Grand Total Target Performance Technical Skill Attainment - Average of 2009 -2010 Grand Total Actual Performance Secondary Alpha Targets & Performance

90, 00% Credential, Certificate, or Degree - Average of Grand Total Target Performance 80, 00% Credential, Certificate, or Degree - Average of Grand Total Actual Performance 70, 00% Nontraditional Completion - Average of Grand Total Target Performance Nontraditional Completion - Average of Grand Total Actual Performance 60, 00% Nontraditional Participation - Average of Grand Total Target Performance 50, 00% Nontraditional Participation - Average of Grand Total Actual Performance 40, 00% Student Placement - Average of Grand Total Target Performance 30, 00% Student Placement - Average of Grand Total Actual Performance 20, 00% Student Retention or Transfer - Average of Grand Total Target Performance Student Retention or Transfer - Average of Grand Total Actual Performance 10, 00% Technical Skill Attainment - Average of Grand Total Target Performance 0, 00% 2008 -2009 Technical Skill Attainment - Average of Grand 2009 -2010 Total Actual Performance Postsecondary Alpha Targets & Performance

Year Secondary 2009 -2010 Tech-Prep Indicator Description 1 STP 1 Enroll in postsecondary education 1 STP 2 Enroll in postsecondary in the same field or major Complete a State or industry-recognized certification or licensure Complete course(s) that award postsecondary 1 STP 4 credit. Enroll in remedial mathematics, writing, or 1 STP 5 reading course(s). 1 STP 3 Postsecondary 1 PTP 1 Employment in related field after graduation. 2009 -2010 Complete a State or industry-recognized 1 PTP 2 certificate or licensure On-time completion of a 2 -year degree or 1 PTP 3 certificate. On-time completion of a baccalaureate degree 1 PTP 4 program. Tech-Prep Numerator Denominator Percentage 135, 979 319, 586 42. 55% 30, 367 224, 385 13. 53% 63, 346 194, 184 32. 62% 72, 359 301, 723 23. 98% 53, 251 158, 853 33. 52% 25, 194 63, 709 39. 55% 8, 933 82, 667 10. 81% 12, 011 88, 605 13. 56% 3, 536 40, 980 8. 63%

100, 00% 2008 -2010 CTE to TP 90, 00% 80, 00% 70, 00% Percent 60, 00% 50, 00% 40, 00% 30, 00% 20, 00% 10, 00% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Average All CTE 63, 42% 62, 64% 30, 47% 31, 23% 29, 89% 30, 92% 83, 86% 83, 33% 70, 25% 72, 01% 90, 09% 94, 16% 90, 15% 91, 59% 76, 48% 74, 35% Average Tech Prep 68, 92% 65, 83% 27, 28% 27, 62% 27, 58% 29, 78% 81, 66% 86, 68% 73, 07% 72, 78% 92, 70% 92, 61% 89, 56% 90, 24% 73, 17% 71, 28% All Secondary CTE Students to TP Students

Book I - What is an LDS? ◦ What it is and is not ◦ Organizational steps needed ◦ Technical features ◦ Benefits What is an LDS?

Book II - Planning and Developing ◦ Engaging stakeholders ◦ Current system ◦ Desired system ◦ Defining needs ◦ Funding and buy-in ◦ Building relationships ◦ Writing an RFP ◦ System components buying or building ◦ Transferring knowledge ◦ Defining and measuring success ◦ Refining the system an LDS Planning and Developing an LDS

Book III – Effectively Managing LDS ◦ Governance ◦ Roles and responsibilities ◦ Collaborating ◦ Managing changes to the system ◦ Training ◦ Auditing/validating ◦ Establishing/following data standards ◦ Privacy ◦ Access Data Effectively Managing LDS Data

Book IV – Advanced LDS Usage ◦ Collecting, storage and delivering ◦ Reports ◦ Data tools ◦ Analysis tools ◦ Training ◦ Building awareness, understanding and Analytical capacity Advanced LDS Usage

President’s 2020 goal: ◦ America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world. ◦ Each American will commit to at least one year of higher education or advanced training in his or her lifetime. OVAE Outcomes for President’s 2020 Goal: Doubled transitions from adult education into postsecondary education and training from 2010 level. † Increase the number of postsecondary CTE completion by 20% from 2010 level. ‡ †Assumes no additional resources. Could increase to 50, 000 with additional resources. ‡ Assumes an increase in resources in 2012 and beyond.

OVAE GOALS: All youth and adults are ready for, have access to, and complete college career pathways leading to 21 st Century jobs. All youth and adult students have effective teachers. All youth and adult students have equitable access to high-quality learning opportunities on demand. Office of Assistant Secretary

Building A Statistical Program On Education and Work: ◦ January 2010 – NCES formed the Adult and Career Education (ACE) program in PACE ◦ Reflects view that preparation for careers is integral part of postsecondary education and adult education ◦ Maintains focus on role of secondary education in preparation for careers ◦ Expands the focus beyond traditional CTE to a broader notion of “Career-Related Education” Career Related-Education

Purpose and Authority: ◦ NCES wants to collect and report better data on the role of education in preparing young adults and adults for careers. ◦ Educational Sciences Reform Act of 2002 requires NCES to collect, report, analyze and disseminate statistical data related to education in the United States and in other nations. ◦ Carl D. Perkins Act requires NCES to “collect and report information on career and technical education for a nationally representative sample of students”. By: CTE in the United States Short reports on specific CTE topics Web tables (nces. ed. gov/surveys/ctes) Career Related-Education

VDQI: ◦ June 7 -8, 2011 DAY 1 ◦ Purpose – To assist states with building capacity to link CTE data with state longitudinal data systems for expanded CTE data use. ◦ National Perspective – State Longitudinal Data Systems (Tate Gould & Lyndsay Pinkus) ◦ Session 1 – Link SLDS across the P-20 education pipeline and across state agencies (Tate Gould, Lyndsay Pinkus & Jay Pfeiffer) ◦ Session 2 – Ensure CTE data can be accessed, analyzed and used (Sharon Enright, Kathy Wilkins & DQC) ◦ Session 3 – Build the capacity of CTE stakeholders to use data for effective decision making (Scott Parke, Donna Brandt & DQC) Virtual Data Quality Institute

VDQI: ◦ June 7 -8, 2011 ◦ State networking DAY 2 Activity ? ◦ Report-out ◦ Debrief OVAE ◦ Closing Virtual Data Quality Institute