Data Matters in Determining CTE Equity

On day two of the DQI, participants learned strategies to strengthen Perkins-related data collections systems and analysis. They also learned about programs aimed at ensuring equitable outcomes for students with respect to the Perkins V program quality indicators (essentially, the state data indicating, or “proving” to the government that students are not falling behind in gov-funded state CTE programs). 

Throughout the event, participants heard from OCTAE program specialists and regional Perkins coordinators who have been tasked with helping the states handle enrollment and performance data (through what is called the consolidated annual report, or CAR, which states must fill out and submit to USDOE each year). They also aid in administering the state programs by providing states with technical assistance w/ CTE; ensure fiscal responsibility by reviewing and approving state CTE plans; and assist with local applications and states’ comprehensive local needs assessments (CLNAs), which collect and display student performance data and must include a description of how a state’s CTE program offerings are sufficient in size, scope, and quality to meet the needs of all students served by the eligible Perkins grant recipient (the state).

This CLNA must include an analysis of the government-deemed “special populations” served by Perkins, including those: with disabilities, from low-income families, those preparing for “nontraditional” fields (for their gender, e.g., women in manufacturing), single parents and pregnant women, out-of-workforce individuals, homeless students, youth who are in (or have aged out of) the foster care system, young people with a parent who is a member of the armed forces and is on active duty, migrant students, and individuals with other barriers to educational achievement (including those with limited English proficiency).

OCTA Education Program Specialist Jose Figueroa and OCTAE Chief of Program Administration & Accountability Adam Flynn-Tabloff spoke on how the states have leeway in creating their own programs by choosing which government-accepted quality (performance) indicators they want to track (through their consolidated annual reports). States can also make adjustments to their state-determined performance levels from year to year (as long as they are generally performing well). The performance indicators the government has outlined track the outcome/success of students who take CTE classes and are coded; for instance, 1S1 is the code for a student obtaining a four-year (high school) degree; 5S1 is a student attaining a recognized postsecondary (after college) CTE credential; 5S3 is a student participating in (paid) work-based learning (WBL), etc. The more students meeting these goals (e.g., graduating, enrolling in work-based learning), the better. In general, the CAR outlines: CTE program enrollment, student/participant performance, state CTE financial status reports, and state improvement plans (if relevant).

Many states could be clearer in how they enter and compile CTE data year-to-year. When it comes to collecting CAR and other data, event speakers pointed out that states should generally know: Who participates in analyzing CTE data? What sources are used? What calculations employed? Is a timeline followed? How is quality ensured? Finally, what documentation exists – is there written guidance to teach new folks how info is collected and reported, consistently? Data dictionaries can be used to describe the individual data elements that ultimately will go into CAR.

States are put on improvement plans (created/monitored by the USDOE) if they fail to show at least 90% improvement in their selected CTE performance indicators year-to-year. States can submit their CARs and other state plans through the Perkins web portal at perkins.ed.gov. (States can also get additional info here on the process involved in improvement plans and monitoring visits, if necessary.)

Many states are just beginning to identify and have conversations around performance gaps in CTE. Unfortunately, so far most research looks at access, as opposed to performance, or excludes the demographic data we would like to see to ascertain equity. Despite this, states are beginning to employ common equity strategies: Develop disaggregated data dashboards; deploy targeted communications campaigns to help students/families understand that CTE equates to high wage jobs potential; and braid state and federal funding resources (using Perkins and state resources given by governor).