1. Negotiating Your Local Targets and Understanding Perkins Core Indicator Annual and Trend Reports November 9, 2017

2. Today’s Presenters Kari-Ann Ediger
Program Improvement/ Results Measurement
Minnesota Department of Education
Susan Carter
Associate Director for Research
Minnesota State Colleges and Universities

3. State and Local Negotiations
Federal/State Negotiations
State/Local Consortia Negotiations
Evaluation of State Performance
Improvement Plans
Sue: The process of negotiating performance levels for core indicators and evaluating annual performance against those targets is similar for the state and local consortia.
This process of establishing agreed upon levels of performance for all of the core indicators (secondary and postsecondary) is required at both the state and local level by the Perkins IV act. The process followed at both the state and local levels is quite similar. Both state and local negotiated levels of performance need to show continued progress toward improving the performance of CTE students. In addition, local performance targets are negotiated with the consortium (not with individual members of the consortium), so if you are a consortium with multiple colleges, you negotiate one “consortium” target for each indicator (not a target for each college). That is a bigger issue for the secondary side where several schools/school districts are members of a single consortium.
Evaluation of Local Performance Improvement Plans

4. State/Local Negotiation Process for FY 2018 Targets
Target Time Frame
Accountability Webinars
September 2017
Development of State Proposed Targets
November/December 2017
Distribute Proposed Targets to Consortia
December 2017
Consortia Responses Due
December 2017/January 2018
Initial State Response
January 2018
Local Negotiations Completed
January/February 2018
Evaluation of 2018 Performance
January 2019
SUE: This slide presents an estimated timeline for state and local negotiations of the FY 2018 targets (state negotiation with the US Department of Education was done last spring/early summer; local negotiation will soon be under way)

5. Initial State Proposed Consortia Targets
Letter explaining the negotiations process
Includes the due date for your consortium response
Response must be signed by the secondary and postsecondary coordinator
A chart showing the state proposed targets for your consortium
Space for you to enter proposed alternative targets
Targets are negotiated at the consortium level
KA: Once state proposed targets have been determined, consortia will receive a letter outlining the negotiation process and specifying the state suggested target for each indicator.

6. Review the State Proposal
Review the state proposed targets for each indicator
Examine your Consortia & District level data
Look at trends/preliminary data if available
Discuss the targets with your partners/constituents
Have there been changes in policy or practice that may impact performance outcomes in the coming year?
Understand the context and rationale for the state proposed targets
Expectation of continuous improvement at the state and local level
Need for the state to be able to meet state targets negotiated with OCTAE KA

7. Negotiating Your Targets
If you DO accept the state proposals:
Return the FY Negotiated Performance form
Include BOTH secondary AND postsecondary signatures
Determine if you will accept the proposed targets or propose an alternate target
If you DO NOT accept the state proposals:
Notify the state
Submit alternative target(s) along with the rationale for the proposed alternative(s)
Sue

8. Negotiating Your Targets
If submitting a counter proposal, the proposal must include:
The state proposal and your alternative proposed target
Trends in past performance
Rationale supporting the counter proposal, including any additional relevant data
The rationale must document the context of what is driving observed trends and factors that may impact future performance.
New or closed programs
TSA’s added, removed, or changed
Shifts in enrollment and the impact on programs
Changes in policies or practices that may impact program performance or enrollment KA
Keep in mind that in reviewing counter proposals the state must consider the ability of the state to meet their negotiated target (i.e., the ability of the other consortia to make up the difference).

9. Evaluation of Annual Performance No action Report Required
At or above target
Negotiated Level
Report Required
Between 90% and 99% KA
90% of Negotiated Level
Improvement Plan
Below 90% of target
(also includes elements in Report)

10. Improvement Plans and Report
A consortium whose actual performance does not meet the negotiated target (90-99%) for any indicator is required to write an Improvement Report.
If a consortium’s actual performance falls below 90 percent of the negotiated target, the consortium must write both an Improvement Report and an Improvement Plan.
90 to 99%
of Negotiated Target
Below 90%
Write Improvement Report
Improvement Report Components:
The number and name of the indicator that was not met
The actual performance percentage
General strategies planned to improve performance
Comments or context for actual performance
Write Improvement Report and Improvement Plan
Improvement Plan Components:
Identification of any special populations where gaps in performance exist
Contextual factors contributing to existing performance gaps
Resources needed
Timeline
Person(s) responsible
Description of how progress will be documented
KA 90-99%, SUE below 90%

11. Accountability Indicators: How Do We Know How We Did?
The State Director distributes two reports to all secondary and postsecondary Perkins Consortia Coordinators early in the year for the most recent reporting year:
Annual Core Indicator Report
Three-Year Trend Performance Report
Use these reports to determine whether you need to address these indicators in your annual plan. KA
Official annual and trend core indicator performance reports are distributed to consortia coordinators for ALL core indicators (secondary and postsecondary) as a PDF report once/year, typically in January.

12. Annual Core Indicator Report
SUE:
Your Annual Core Indicator Report, which specifies your consortium’s actual performance level as compared to your consortium’s negotiated target for each core indicator, is typically distributed in January/February.

13. Three-Year Trend Performance ReportKA
A Trend Report showing performance status for the most recent three years along with an indication of whether technical assistance is needed for an indicator, is also distributed in January/February with the Performance Report.

14. What if I want/need more data or need assistance?
For Secondary Data
Contact Kari-Ann Ediger
For Postsecondary Data
EPM 11 (2p1,3p1,5p1,5p2); 1p1/4p1 annual reports sent out each January for previous reporting year
Contact Katie Vaccari or Sue Carter