State Longitudinal Data Systems and CTE Sharon Enright, Ph.D. Ohio Department of Education Office of Career-Technical Education 1 NACTEI Conference May 11, 2011

Greetings from Ohio The Buckeye State! 2

Federal Requirements: Section 113(b) (Basic Grant) Core Indicators of Performance Section 113(b) Core Indicators*: SECONDARY Section 113(b) Core Indicators*: POSTSECONDARY 1S1: Academic Attainment – Reading/Language Arts 1S2: Academic Attainment – Mathematics 2S1: Technical Skill Attainment 3S1: Secondary School Completion 4S1: Student Graduation Rates 5S1: Secondary Placement 6S1: Nontraditional Participation 6S2: Nontraditional Completion 1P1:Technical Skill Attainment 2P1:Credential, Certificate, or Diploma 3P1:Student Retention or Transfer 4P1:Student Placement 5P1:Nontraditional Participation 5P2:Nontraditional Completion *Required for all recipients of Carl D. Perkins funds. 3

Section 203(c) Indicators*: SECONDARY Section 203(c) Indicators*: POSTSECONDARY 1STP1: Enroll in postsecondary education 1STP2: Enroll in postsecondary in the same field or major 1STP3: Complete a State or industry- recognized certification or licensure 1STP4: Complete courses that award postsecondary credit 1STP5: Enroll in remedial mathematics, writing, or reading courses 1PTP1: Employment after graduation 1PTP2: Complete a State or industry- recognized certificate or licensure 1PTP3: Complete a 2-year degree or certificate 1PTP4: Complete a baccalaureate degree program *Required for states who maintain separate Title II Tech Prep funding. Federal Requirements: Section 203(c) (Tech Prep) Indicators of Performance 4

 Under Perkins IV and EDGAR*, each state is required to submit to the Department by December 31 of each year: – CTE Program Narrative data; – Perkins Financial status reports (FSRs); and – CTE Student Enrollment and accountability data.  States submit this information to U.S. Dept. of Education via: –Consolidated Annual Report (CAR) –EDEN/EDFacts (Secondary accountability data only) Federal Requirements: Annual Reporting * EDGAR = Education Department General Accounting Rules 5

Administrative Records Matching – IN-STATE:  State Student Data Exchange – Secondary-Postsecondary Data Collection Systems. — Or single P-20 data system.  State Department of Labor Unemployment Insurance Wage Records. Administrative Records Matching – OUT-OF-STATE:  National Student Clearinghouse (NSC)  Federal Employment Date Exchange System (FEDES)  Wage Record Interchange System (WRIS) Implications for States: Resources for CTE Data Collection 6

Student Survey – Viable option for:  States that do not have identifiable student-level data in their systems; and  States that do not have access to data in either their own data systems or via administrative records matching. This Student Survey guide is a helpful resource:  idelines.DOC idelines.DOC Implications for States: Resources for CTE Data Collection 7

Perkins Postsecondary Performance Indicator data:  ( ary_Data_Dictionary_Report_WEB.pdf) ary_Data_Dictionary_Report_WEB.pdf Other useful data tables include:  Crosswalk tables to: CIP, Career Clusters, Pathways, and Nontraditional indicators (  Department of Labor data for High Skill, High Wage and High Demand ( & ( Implications for States: Resources for CTE Data Collection 8

Implications for States: Data Systems  At a minimum, a state’s data system must be able to: –Identify a “CTE student” (participant and concentrator); –Identify CTE students by disaggregated categories (e.g., gender, race, ethnicity); and –Yield data on student’s academic and technical skill attainment. 9

Implications for States: Data Systems (con’t.)  At a minimum, a state’s data system must be able to: –Provide placement data for secondary and postsecondary (administrative records or student surveys); –Provide school completion data (e.g., diploma, degree attainment); and –Yield data for determining nontraditional participation and completion. 10

Implications for States: Data Systems (con’t.)  Additionally, states need to determine how to track students: –Secondary students into postsecondary education and employment; and –Postsecondary students into further education and employment. 11

Implications for States: Data Systems (cont’d) A state’s data system may be:  A “stand-alone” career and technical education data system  A “consolidated” state data system; or State Longitudinal Data System (SLDS) 12

Implications for States: Stand- Alone Data System  Maintained by State CTE accountability staff.  Data often cannot be tracked longitudinally.  Data typically do not link to other education, workforce, or economic data.  System may be poorly resourced (i.e., few staff assigned, few funds for system upgrades).  Difficult to validate the accuracy, reliability, and completeness of the data. 13

Implications for States: Consolidated System or SLDS  Data entered and submitted by trained local data- reporters.  Contains individual student-level data (unit-record data), so can disaggregate student data.  Contains longitudinal data, so can track student progress over time on a variety of measures.  Most data reported only once.  Links students with teachers and with CTE programs.  Possibility of tracking students to postsecondary program systematically. 14

Implications for States: Resources for Quality Data Whether using stand-alone CTE data collection system or a SLDS, the following are key resources for quality data collection: –Data Quality Campaign (DQC) ( –Common Data Standards Initiative (CEDS) ( –Secondary School Course Classification System: School Codes for the Exchange of Data (SCED) ( –Schools Interoperability Framework (SIF) ( –U. S. Department of Education Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems grant programs ( 15

16

17 NCES: Common Education Data Standards

18 CEDS – CTE Data Elements

19 CEDS – CTE Data Elements

20 CEDS – CTE Data Elements The term Vocational included in the code set of these elements:  Credit type earned  Diploma/credential type  Exit/withdrawal type  Program type  School type

21 NCES: Secondary School Course Classification System: School Codes for the Exchange of Data (SCED)

22 (SCED) Subject Areas 1: English Language and Literature 2: Mathematics 3: Life and Physical Sciences 4: Social Sciences and History 5: Fine and Performing Arts 6: Foreign Language and Literature 7: Religious Education and Theology 8: Physical, Health, and Safety Education 9: Military Science 10: Computer and Information Sciences 11: Communication and Audio/Visual Technology 12: Business and Marketing 13: Manufacturing 14: Health Care Sciences 15: Public, Protective, and Government Services 16: Hospitality and Tourism 17: Architecture and Construction 18: Agriculture, Food, and Natural Resources 19: Human Services 20: Transportation, Distribution, and Logistics 21: Engineering and Technology 22: Miscellaneous Same as listed in the Common Education Data Standards (CEDS)

23

24

Implications for States: Procedures and Protocols Each state should:  Participate on their state’s SLDS team  Develop and disseminate a state administrative data handbook that includes: - Student definitions and measurement approaches for the section 113 core indicators and, if applicable, section 203 indicators; - Data dictionary and CTE data file specifications; - Business rules for calculations used by the state; - FERPA guidelines and other unique state requirements; and - Timelines for reporting. 25

Implications for States: Professional Development Each state should:  Provide on-going technical assistance to institutions responsible for the reporting of Perkins accountability data, including individuals such as: –Data staff responsible for the CTE data system or SLDS; –CTE administrators; and –Local staff responsible for CTE data input.  Consider a data help desk to address data collection and reporting questions.  Provide workshops on the importance of data quality and the use of data for program improvement decisions. 26

Implications for States: Annual Reporting Each state should implement strategies for:  Using data for compliance (determining whether a local recipient has met its local-adjusted performance levels) –Develop electronic data validity checks to verify accuracy of reported against data calculation business rules; –Post data to the state’s website for view by local education agencies and the public.  Using data for program improvement –Develop and distribute of data verification reports (see postsecondary examples in the following slides) –Compare CTE data with overall institutional data 27

Taking a pulse: Questionnaire What kind of data system is used to collect CTE data from your state’s LEAs? In your state data system, do you have student names or other individually identifiable data? Are you currently able to track CTE students from secondary to postsecondary, via your state’s data system(s)? What do you like about your current data system for collecting CTE data? What would you like to improve about your current data system for collecting CTE data? If your state obtains some CTE data via administrative record exchange, please describe. 28

Futuring – Looking ahead… 29 We need to commit to: Consistency in student and indicator definitions; and Working with our state’s SLDS(s).

Thank you for participating in this discussion on State Data Systems and CTE Data! Sharon Enright, Ph.D. Ohio Department of Education Office of Career-Technical Education