P20/W and CTE Contributions to SLDS

Implementation—Status of the CTE Work Group

Sharon Enright, Ph.D.Associate Director, Office of Career-Technical Education

Performance, Data and AccountabilityOhio Department of Education

The NEW Common Education Data Standards (CEDS)

and State Longitudinal Data Systems (SLDS)

can support policy and practice.

Why should state policymakers and education leaders care?

1. Stakeholders have important questions they need answered to guide their policies and practices.

What are some important questions about CTE? What are the HS graduation rates of CTE students, compared with non-

CTE students? Academic attainment rates? What percentage of CTE students are earning college credits while still

enrolled in high school, compared with non-CTE students? How do postsecondary enrollment rates of CTE students compare to

non-CTE students? Remediation rates? Are CTE students completing postsecondary studies faster than non-CTE

students? How does student debt load compare? What percentage of CTE students are attaining industry credentials?

What difference do credentials make for students in the work place? What are the employment rates and earnings of CTE students, compared

to non-CTE students?

2. Increasingly, answering critical questions requires appropriate data to flow efficiently and effectively across systems, sectors, and states.

PK-12 Postsecondary Workforce

Critical CTE questions

span sectors and

states

P-20/W Systems(SLDS)

• HS Graduation rates? • Academic and

technical attainment rates?

• Dual credits?• Postsecondary enrollment rates?

Remediation rates? • Degree (and certificate) attainment and

“on-time” rates?• Student loan debt load?

• Short- and long-term employment rates? Wages? Earnings?

• In-state• Out-of-state• Federal &

military

• Adult CTE programs

• 2-year colleges• 4-year colleges• Public, private,

proprietary

2. Increasingly, answering critical questions requires appropriate data to flow efficiently and effectively across systems, sectors, and states.

PK-12&

Postsecondary

Apprenticeship and Training

Programs

State and Industry

Credentialing Entities

Critical CTE questions to address with other

sectors

P-20/? Systems

• What is the apprenticeship participation rate of CTE students and non-CTE students? Completion rate?

• Earnings during and after apprenticeship?

• Student debt load?

• What is the state and industry credentialing rate of CTE students and non-CTE students?

• Do credentials lead to higher earnings?

3. Stakeholders need confidence in the data being used to answer these questions and meet these purposes.

Quality Regardless of where and how it was collected, input, and stored

Comparability Comparability of data from different systems, allowing us to draw valid comparisons

Efficiency Reducing unnecessary wasted time and resources in data collection and sharing

Useful CTEData

High Quality

GOAL: Quality, comparability and efficient sharing of data to answer critical questions

Can Be Shared

Efficiently

Can Be Compared

Meeting these goals requires standardized data

The efficient and effective collection, sharing and use of high-quality data by stakeholders at all levels requires standardization of data.• Common CTE language.• Use of commonly agreed-upon names, definitions,

option sets, and technical specifications for a given selection of data elements.

Lack of standardization in education data is an unnecessary drain on time, resources and quality

Resources are spent duplicating data entries, translating and migrating data across systems, and producing data in multiple formats for various recipients that use a variety of different standards.

Vendors are forced to tailor products to each system or state’s specifications increasing time and costs and inhibiting the development of new tools and services.

Data quality is reduced because of the risk of error in translating and migrating data.

Provision of timely, actionable data to stakeholders is delayed because of the extra time it takes to translate and migrate data.

Systems are unable to link data because they cannot spend the resources to conduct the necessary translations or migrations.

We’re not standardized…

we’re different...

Data needs to be standardized!

Sometimes we say the same words…

…but mean different things.

The lack of common definitions won’t help us to standardize…

CTE Data Challenges

CTE students and CTE measures are usually “named” the same across states.

CTE students and CTE measures often have different definitions across states.

CTE performance results are likely to be calculated differently across states.

Move Toward Standardization:Four-Year “Cohort” Graduation Rate

Federal Education Rules (updated 2008, ESEA) – Beginning in FY2011, states are required to use a four-year cohort graduation rate formula

The rules note that “establishing a uniform and more accurate measure of calculating graduation rate that is comparable across states is a critical and essential step forward in improving high school accountability."

When CTE (in all states) uses the four-year cohort graduation rate formula, we can begin to compare CTE graduation rates across states.

CTE Data Can Become More Useful

Graduation Rates (4S1) Becoming standardized across states

(“cohort” graduation rates).

Combination of common data standards and our longitudinal data systems are enabling us to answer “Graduation Rate” questions more effectively.

OHIO PRELIMINARY “Cohort” Graduation Rate:

FY2011 CTE Concentrators

NON-CTE Concentrators

CTE Concentrators

ALL Students

50.0% 75.0% 100.0%

79.3%

94.4%

76.0%

NON-CTE Participants

CTE Participants

ALL Students

50.0% 75.0% 100.0%

79.3%

90.5%

75.5%

OHIO PRELIMINARY “Cohort” Graduation Rate:

FY2011 CTE Participants

NON-CTE Participants

CTE Participants

ALL Students

50.0% 75.0% 100.0%

79.3%

86.6%

74.3%

OHIOPRELIMINARY “Cohort” Graduation Rate:

ALL CTE Participants in Cohort

18

NON-CTE Participants

CTE Participants

NON-CTE Concentrators

CTE Concentrators

STATEWIDE

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Students with Disabilities

NON- Disabled Students

ALL

OHIO – FY2011PRELIMINARY “Cohort” Graduation Rate:

Disabled and Non-Disabled Students

Efforts to standardize education data

The effort to standardize education data has been evolving for decades.

Recent activities to work collaboratively to accelerate the widespread adoption and use of common data standards, and the development of alignment tools, allows for a shift in attention to the USE of data by stakeholders.

CTE is a NEW partner in the education data standardization efforts.

SIF & PESC

Hand-books RTTA

SLDS

TSDL

State CoreSLI

Registry

Ed-Fi

IPEDS

EDFacts

NEDM

Common Core

CEDS

Data Standards and Initiatives

Schools Interoperability Framework

Postsecondary Electronic Standards

Council

Collaborative Work

SIF and PESC Electronic Standards

Marketplace Providers (Vendors) and School Districts

Marketplace Providers (Vendors) and Postsecondary Institutions

COMMON EDUCATION DATA STANDARDS are needed for electronic exchange of data:• Within an educational institution ( Horizontal movement).• Between educational institution and State ( Vertical movement).• Web standards for the exchange of data are also being developed.

SIF and PESC are fully supporting CEDS – Ensuring that all CEDS elements are defined within their electronic standards.

Common Education Data Standards (CEDS) Alignment Tool

Sometimes we use different words, but we’re talking about the same thing.

CEDS provides a new ALIGNMENT TOOL to help us with this.

Sometimes we say different words but mean the same thing.

Are they speaking the same language?

Baahahahahhhhhh. Bahahh! Bahahh!

Pupil!

Student!

CEDS Version

Release Date CTE Engagement

1.0 September 2010

CTE not engaged

2.0 January 2012

CTE community participated in public comment periods

3.0 January 2013

CTE Work Group Formed (Formally engaged in the process – due to volume of Version 2 CTE public comments.)

CEDS Development - CTE Engagement

NEW CTE CEDS Working GroupFirst Meeting – May 16, 2012

Melvin D’Souza (Delaware) Julie Eddy (Colorado)Sharon Enright (Ohio) John Haigh (OVAE, Washington, DC)Phouang Hamilton (Washington)Matt Hastings (Nebraska)Dick Ledington (Idaho)Rhonda Welfare (North Carolina)

Beth Young, Quality Information Partners*Kathy Chernus, MPR Associates, Inc. Jim Schoelkopf, MPR Associates, Inc.

Data Elements

Alignment Tool

28

Four ways to search CEDS data elements

Examples of Version 2.0 NEW and UPDATED CTE elements

30

Initial Meeting of the CEDS Version 3.0CTE Work Group

COMMON CTE DATA DEFINITIONS NEEDED• To allow for electronic exchange of data.• To compare CTE data across states.• To tell a national story about CTE.

SCOPE – Focus on Perkins IV data needs• Revise existing CTE elements, as needed.• Add new elements as needed for Perkins IV

accountability.OTHER DISCUSSION EXAMPLE – In CEDS, does

the term ACADEMIC encompass CTE?

31

SAMPLE of Data Elements Discussed by CEDS Version 3.0 CTE Work Group

CTE Participant – DefinitionCTE Concentrator – DefinitionDisplaced Homemaker – Needs to be

Postsecondary more than Secondary.Nontraditional Participant – DefinitionNontraditional Enrollee – Definition

MORE DATA ELEMENTS WILL BE DISCUSSED.

32

Viewing our work as Applied Research and Analytics

We need to begin to view our work as applied research, using analytics to produce accurate, insightful, actionable, confident real time INSIGHTS.

The new insights, knowledge and predictions we generate will allow for the formation of a “rational basis for action.”

We need to understand that analytic insights are perishable, so timeliness is of the essence.

Who’s keeping score?Who’s minding the CTE data?And the data standards?And CTE data analysis?And…