2010-2011 CTE Accountability

1. 2010-2011 CTE Accountability OEDSA Meeting April 1, 2011 Sharon Enright, Ph.D. Ohio Department of Education Office of Career-Technical Education

2. Also here today: • Erica Cheyney– Ohio Department of Education, CTE Data Manager • Dan Keck – OSU/Center on Training and Education for Employment (CETE), Webxam • Beny Walujo – OSU/Center on Training and Education for Employment (CETE), Webxam

3. Session Overview • CTE Performance Targets • State and Local CTE Performance • CTE Concentrators • Technical Assessments and EMIS Reporting • Webxam Discussion • CTE-26s, Programs of Study and More • Monitoring and Tracking CTE Accountability Data – CTE EMIS Reports • Tech Prep Accountability

4. State and CTPD Perkins Performance TargetsFY12 & FY13

5. Negotiating State Targets – FY12 & FY13 • Obtained input from LEAs on what we proposed for our State targets. • Wrapping up negotiation of State targets with USDOE.

6. Negotiating CTPD Targets • Negotiated FY2011 CTPD targets two years ago. • After State target negotiation completed, must prepare to negotiate FY12 & FY13 CTPD targets.

7. State and CTPD Targets Matter! • Ohio is held accountable for State targets – Sanctions can happen. • CTPDs are held accountable for CTPD targets – Sanctions can happen.

8. State and Local CTE Performance

9. FY2010 Ohio CTE Performance Report Ohio exceeded all State CTE Targets in FY2009 and FY2010!

10. CTPD “Masked” Reports – Published on ODE Web. CTPD “Unmasked” Reports – Sent to CTPD Lead District in secure way, via ITC miscellaneous folder.

11. FY09 & FY10 CTPD Performance – CTPDs Not Meeting 90% of Target for an Indicator

12. CTPD Performance Analysis FY2009 • 35 CTPDs did NOT meet 90% of one or more indicators; and • 47 total indicators NOT MET at the 90% level. FY2010 • 34 CTPDs did NOT meet 90% of one or more indicators; and • 41 total indicators NOT MET at the 90% level. These CTPDs have a Performance Improvement Plan.

13. CTPD Performance Analysis FY2009 & FY2010 (two consecutive years): • 7 CTPDs did not meet 90% level for the SAME indicator; and • 3 of the 7 CTPDs did not improve performance on that indicator in FY2010. These CTPDs are in Year 2 of sanctioning process.

14. CTE Concentrators

15. Who is a CTE Concentrator? A student who has completed half of a CTE Workforce Development Program and has enrolled in the next portion of the same CTE program. See handout.

16. CTE Concentrator Guidance – ODE Web: • CTE Programming and EMIS Reporting • Appendix A

17. CTE Program of Concentration Element (FN290) – NEW in FY2011 • Report “CTE Program of Concentration” when CTE Concentrator status is reached. • Report only one CTE Program of Concentration for each student. • Report in EMIS at Yearend (N).

18. Career Field, CTE Program, Subject Crosswalk • NEW FY2011 resource • KEY PURPOSE: Identify the “CTE Program of Concentration” for each CTE Concentrator – Report in EMIS. • New “CTE Program” codes drive other changes.

19. Career Field, CTE Program, Subject Crosswalk EXAMPLE: If CTE Concentrator is in “Animal Science and Management” course, report “A2” for this student. . If student reported as CTE Concentrator in “A2,” student MUST be enrolled in “Animal Science and Management” course.

20. Career Field, CTE Program, Subject Crosswalk Web address: http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEDetail.aspx?page=3&TopicRelationID=1759&ContentID=91429&Content=91876

21. Monitoring “CTE Concentrator” Reporting Monitor during Yearend (N): • Total CTE Concentrator Counts – CTE EMIS Performance Report. • Individual Student CTE Concentrator Status – CTE EMIS CSV File (associated with CTE Performance Report).

22. We suspect UNDERREPORTING of “CTE Concentrators” • Compared number of 12th grade CTE Participants in WFD programs to number of CTE Concentrators reported: • Calculated rate. • See handout. State Level – 72 percent School District Level – 0 to 100 percent

23. Technical AssessmentsandEMIS Reporting

24. GOALS for Technical Assessment: • Increase the number of CTE Concentrators who are assessed. • All students will be assessed with a technical assessment aligned with their CTE Program of Concentration.

25. CTE Technical Assessment Matrix • KEY PURPOSE: Identifies state-approved technical assessments aligned with CTE Programs. • Web Address: http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEDetail.aspx?page=3&TopicRelationID=1733&ContentID=59324&Content=101247

26. Technical Skill Attainment (2S1) and Assessment/CTE Program Alignment • Technical Assessment and CTE Program must be ALIGNED (per the Technical Assessment Matrix). • If technical assessment and CTE Program NOT aligned, data is NOT used in calculation of Technical Skill Attainment (2S1).

27. FY2011 CTE Technical Assessment Matrix – SAMPLE EXAMPLE: CTE Concentrator in “Brick, Block and Cement Masonry” (D0) needs to take one of these assessments.

28. Reporting Technical Assessment Data • Student CTE Industry Assessment Record (GU) • Industry Assessment data – Report in EMIS Yearend (N) & March (D). • CTE Student Assessment Record (GY) • Webxam results – Report in EMIS Yearend (N). • If in FIELD TEST status, no data to report.

29. Reporting Technical Assessment Data Student CTE Industry Assessment Record (GU) • Collect data from students (or by other means) during school year and via Follow-up survey. • Manually enter data in SIS. • Report in EMIS in Yearend (N) & March (D).

30. Dialogue with Webxam Staff • Dan Keck – OSU/Center on Training and Education for Employment (CETE), Webxam • Beny Walujo – OSU/Center on Training and Education for Employment (CETE), Webxam

31. WEBXAM Data Discussion • NEW Webxam Q & A • Pre-ID File • Webxam Output File • ITC support to districts for Pre-ID File and Output File Uploading • SIS issues? • Other

32. CTE-26 ApplicationandProgram of Study (POS)and More

33. CTE-26 Applications – FY2012 • Workforce Development Applications: Applying for Approval of “CTE Program” and aligned CTE courses • Questions? Contact ODE-CTE Staff who provide leadership for the different program areas.

34. FY2012 CTE-26 Application CTE Program Code

35. FY2012 CTE-26 Applications – CTE Program Approvals • CTE Program Approval – New approach. • EMIS CTE Course Approvals – Will now be based on CTE Program approval. • CTE courses that are part of an approved CTE Program (via CTE-26) are approvable in EMIS. • Details – a work in progress.

36. CTE-26 Applications ODE Web Address: http://education.ohio.gov/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEDetail.aspx?page=3&TopicRelationID=2&ContentID=10601

37. Dual-Enrollment Option S.B. 311 Definition: A program that enables a student to earn credit toward a degree from an institution of higher education while enrolled in high school or that enables a student to complete coursework while enrolled in high school that may earn credit toward a degree from an institution of higher education upon the student’s attainment of a specified score on an examination covering the coursework.

38. Dual-Enrollment CTE Programs • Courses may be taught in high school building or on college campus. • For secondary CTE purposes, must: • Have approved CTE program; • Report CTE subject codes; • Report appropriately credentialed teacher. • Many issues (e.g., funding) worked out with local agreements.

39. Monitoring &TrackingCTE Accountability Data

40. Monitoring and Tracking CTE Accountability Data • MONITOR March (D), Yearend (N) and Graduate (G) CTE reports for: • Accuracy of preliminary CTE accountability data • TRACK preliminary CTE accountability data after reporting periods close • Use new tracking tools

41. NEW for FY2011 – On CTE EMIS Reporting site

42. Monitoring and Tracking CTE Performance with CTE EMIS Reports ODE Web Address: http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEDetail.aspx?page=3&TopicRelationID=1749&ContentID=99729&Content=102723

43. Tech Prep Accountability

44. Tech Prep Accountability • Nine (9) Tech Prep Indicators of Performance: • Five (5) Secondary TP Indicators • Four (4) Postsecondary TP Indicators • Accountability at these levels: • Statewide • Tech Prep Consortia

45. Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems (SLDS) and Tech Prep For Tech Prep accountability, we must coordinate data in two SLDSs Education Management Information System (EMIS) – ODE • Data for 2 Secondary TP Indicators Higher Education Information (HEI) – OBR • Data for 3 Secondary TP Indicators and 4 Postsecondary TP Indicators

46. Tech Prep Completer Element (FN280) – NEW in FY2011 • Has TP student successfully completed secondary portion of TP program? • Must meet all applicable TP “completion” criteria. • Successful TP “completers” may become Postsecondary TP students. • Report in EMIS Yearend (N). • Also report students to TP Consortia.

47. Tech Prep Completer Element (FN280) Secondary TP “Completer” Criteria: • Technical courses – 2.0 GPA or higher; meets graduation requirements. • Courses eligible for articulation – “C” or higher. • Completes Technical Assessment (if available). • Postsecondary-approved assessment – Meets benchmark.

48. Sharing Data with Tech Prep Consortia • Report ALL TP students to TP Consortia: • Students included in calculation of SECONDARY TP indicators of performance. • Also report which TP students met all secondary TP “Completer” criteria: • Students included in calculation of POSTSECONDARY TP indicators of performance

49. Possible Future of Tech Prep Data • Anticipate “Tech Prep-like” indicators of performance in the future. • GOAL – The two SLDSs (EMIS & HEI) will be “integrated,” and will be able to link student data between the two systems.

50. Collaboration for TP Accountability • State level – ODE and OBR collaborate • Local level – School districts and TP consortia collaborate • TP consortia provide services for TP students and school districts • TP consortia share information/data with school districts • School districts share information/data with TP consortia