Perkins IV Special Populations [Read-Only] · itithl dthin computer science, technology, and other...

Perkins IV: The Special pPopulations Perspective

Mimi Lufkin, CEOCCCAOE Conference

October 22, 2008San Diego, CA

National Alliance forPartnerships in Equity

Overview

History of special populations in the federal act th t f d d t h i l d tithat funds career and technical education

New special population provisions in Perkins IV The status of special populations performance

on the Perkins IV accountability measures in CaliforniaCalifornia

Next steps

Historical Perspective

Special populations provisions in Perkins – 1976 Amendments

Full-time Gender Equity Coordinator- $50,000

1984 Perkins Act– 1984 Perkins Act Full-time Gender Equity Coordinator- $60,000 Set-asides 3.5% Gender Equity, 8.5% SP/DH


Special populations provisions in Perkins 1990 P ki A t– 1990 Perkins Act Full-time Gender Equity Coordinator- $60,000 A-L requirements of the Gender Equity Coordinator

S t id 3% G d E it 7% SP/DH 5% ith Set-asides 3% Gender Equity, 7% SP/DH, .5% either Set-aside for Criminal Offenders 1% Special population focus- special populations' includes individuals

with handicaps educationally and economically disadvantagedwith handicaps, educationally and economically disadvantaged individuals (including foster children), individuals of limited English proficiency, individuals who participate in programs designed to eliminate sex bias, and individuals in correctional institutions


Special Populations provisions in Perkins 1998 Perkins Act– 1998 Perkins Act State Leadership Set-aside ($60,000-$150,000) for nontraditional Accountability Measure Language sprinkled throughout the ActLanguage sprinkled throughout the Act

– 2006 Perkins Act State Leadership Set-aside ($60,000-$150,000) for nontraditional Accountability Measurey Improvement plans and sanctions Language sprinkled throughout the Act Required use of local funds

Perkins IV

Definitions * Allocation of Funds Accountability* National Activities * Occupational and Employment Information * State Administration* New equity provisions

Perkins IV

State Plan* Improvement Plans * State Leadership Local Plan* Local Uses of Funds* Tech Prep ** New equity provisions

Big Issues

Hi h kill hi h hi h d d High skill, high wage or high demand Accountability measures for secondary

different than for postsecondarydifferent than for postsecondary Federal sanctions on States for not meeting

performance measuresp State to local performance measure

negotiation

Big Issues

State sanctions on Locals for not meeting fperformance measures

Performance measure gap closing i trequirements

Disaggregation of dataR i d U f L l F d Required Use of Local Funds

Local report

Special Populations

Individuals with disabilities;I di id l f i ll di d t d Individuals from economically disadvantaged families, including foster children;

Single parents including single pregnant Single parents, including single pregnant women

Displaced homemakers; andp ; Individuals with limited English proficiency Students pursuing nontraditional fieldsp g

Definitions

Removal of “individuals with other educational b i ” f i l l tibarriers” from special populations

Self-sufficiency defined in conference report– “a standard of economic independence that

considers a variety of demographic and geographic factors, as adopted, calculated, or commissioned by , p , , ya local area or State”

Nontraditional Fields

Occupations or fields of work, including careers i t i t h l d thin computer science, technology, and other emerging high skill occupations, for which individuals from one gender comprise less thanindividuals from one gender comprise less than 25 percent of the individuals employed in each such occupation or field of work.p

Accountability

Postsecondary indicator– “including placement in high skill, high wage,

or high demand occupations or professions” Additional indicators of performance

– “such as self-sufficiency”y

Core Indicator

Participation in Nontraditional Training and Employment Programs

Completion of Nontraditional Training and E l t PEmployment Programs

Accountability

State and local report requires disaggregated data Gender– Gender

– Race/ethnicity– Individuals with disabilities

Migrants– Migrants– Individuals with limited English proficiency– Individuals from economically disadvantaged families including

foster childrenfoster children– Single parents, including single pregnant women– Displaced homemakers

Individual preparing for nontraditional fields– Individual preparing for nontraditional fields

Accountability

State and local report requiresp q– Identify and quantify any gaps in performance

between disaggregated student populations and all CTE students

I t PlImprovement Plans (State and Local)

Triggers gg Does not meet 90% of ANY measure in the first

year Shows improvement the following year but still

does not meet 90% of that or ANY measure in year two

Plan must address performance gaps between disaggregated populations and all CTE students

Local Plan

Describe how LEA will provide activities to prepare special populations, including single parents and displaced homemakers, for high skill, high wage, or high demand occupations that will lead to self-sufficiency

Required Use of Local Funds

provide activities to prepare special p p p ppopulations, including single parents and displaced homemakers, for high skill, high p g gwage, or high demand occupations that will lead to self-sufficiencyy

Permissive Use of Local Funds

Initiatives to overcome barriers to enrollment in and completion of baccalaureate degree programs for g p gspecial population students

Develop new CTE programs of study in Develop new CTE programs of study in high skill, high wage, or high demand occupations and dual creditoccupations and dual credit

Supportive Services

Named in conference report as transportation, child care, dependent care, tuition, books, and supplies and other services

May use Perkins funds for this purpose for special populations participating in CTES l t t l t Supplement not supplant

Address barriers to participation in CTE

Resources

Equity Analysis of Perkins IV-htt // it / df/E it P i ihttp://www.napequity.org/pdf/EquityProvisionsPerkins4TableFinal.pdfQ&A P d S i f S i l Q&A on Programs and Services for Special Populations –http://www napequity org/e107 images/customhttp://www.napequity.org/e107_images/custom/PerkinsIV_QASpecial.pops.pdf

Special Populations p pCore Indicator Analysis

L i H iLaurie HarrisonProject ManagerCCC Special Populations Collaborative Project

Statewide and Regional TOP Code Analyses

Agriculture/Natural Resources Business/Information Technology Family/Consumer Science Health Industrial Technology Public/Protective Services

Special Populations Core Indicator p pAnalysis

St t idStatewide and by

TOP Code 9TOP Code 9Engineering and

Industrial Technologies

Core Indicator 1:Skill Attainment

The percent of students receiving a “C” or better in CTE courses

St t id C 1Statewide Core 1:Skill Attainment

81%Current State Negotiated Level

75%

77%

79% Negotiated Level

71%

73%All Voc Ed Students

Displaced Homemaker

Economically Disadvantaged

Limited English Proficiency

Non-traditional

65%

67%

69%

9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Non-traditional

Single Parent

Students with Disabilities

1998

-199

9

1999

-200

0

2000

-200

1

2001

-200

2

2002

-200

3

2003

-200

4

2004

-200

5

2005

-200

6

2006

-200

7

CORE Indicator 1 - Percent of Engineering and Industrial Technologies students successfully

100%

CORE Indicator 1 Percent of Engineering and Industrial Technologies students successfully completing Vocational courses with a grade of “C” or better

85%

90%

95% All 09 Voc EdStudentsDisplacedHomemakerEconomicallyDisad antaged

75%

80%

85% DisadvantagedLEP

Nontraditional

Single Parent

60%

65%

70% Student w ithdisability

State Negotiated Level = 79.76%

60%

1998

-99

1999

-00

2000

-01

2001

-02

2002

-03

2003

-04

2004

-05

2005

-06

2006

-07

•Single Parent and Nontraditional students have the highest rates of success amongst the six special population groups•Single Parent and Nontraditional students have the highest rates of success amongst the six special population groups.•Students with Disabilities have had the lowest rate of success amongst the six groups.

Graphs reflect data reported for the most recent year available. For example, outcomes for Indicator 1 (Skill Attainment) are from the previous academic year while outcomes for Indicators 2 – 4 (Completions, Placement, Retention and Equity) are from the previous year for students who were last enrolled two years prior. For a complete explanation, see http://misweb.cccco.edu/voc_ed/vtea/VTEA1999-00Reportsv3.pdf

Core Indicator 2:Completions

The percent of pconcentrators in CTE programs who complete those programs

St t id C 2Statewide Core 2:Completions

85%

75%

80%

All Voc Ed St dents

65%

70%

All Voc Ed Students

Displaced Homemaker



Non-traditional

55%

60%

9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Single Parent

Students with DisabilitiesState Negotiated Level

1998

-199

9

1999

-200

0

2000

-200

1

2001

-200

2

2002

-200

3

2003

-200

4

2004

-200

5

2005

-200

6

2006

-200

7

CORE Indicator 2 - Percent of Engineering and Industrial Technologies students who receive a

75%

80%

All 09 Voc Ed

g g gdegree or certificate, transfer to UC or CSU, or join the military

60%

65%

70%All 09 Voc EdStudentsDisplacedHomemakerEconomicallyDisadvantagedLEP


45%

50%

55%LEP

Nontraditional

Single Parent

St d t ith

30%

35%

40%

9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Student w ithdisability

1998

-99

1999

-00

2000

-01

2001

-02

2002

-03

2003

-04

2004

-05

2005

-06

2006

-07

•LEP, Nontraditional and Students with Disabilities have had the highest rates of completion amongst the six groups. However data on skill attainment (Core Indicator 1) reported that students with disabilities have the least success.•Displaced Homemakers have the lowest rate of completion amongst the six groups.

Core Indicator 3a:Placement

The percent of CTE students who are placed in employment or transfer

St t id C 3Statewide Core 3a:Employment/Trans. Placement

90%

d

80%

85%

All Voc Ed Students

Di l d H k

State Negotiated Level

65%

70%

75%Displaced Homemaker



Non-traditional

Single Parent

60%

65%

98-1

999

99-2

000

00-2

001

01-2

002

02-2

003

03-2

004

04-2

005

05-2

006

06-2

007

g


199

199

200

200

200

200

200

200

200

Core Indicator 3a – Percent of Engineering and Industrial Technologies students who were found in

100%

g g gCalifornia UI covered employment or a four-year public educational institution one year following data collection

80%

85%

90%

95% All 09 Voc EdStudentsDisplacedHomemakerEconomicallyDisadvantaged


65%

70%

75%

80% DisadvantagedLEP

Nontraditional

Single Parent

50%

55%

60%

65%Student w ithdisability

1998

-99

1999

-00

2000

-01

2001

-02

2002

-03

2003

-04

2004

-05

2005

-06

2006

-07

•Students with Disabilities have fallen below other groups over the last nine years.

•There is a slight downward trend in employment or post secondary enrollment for all groups since 2002-03.

Core Indicator 3b:Employment retention

The percent of students who are retained in employment

St t id C 3bStatewide Core 3b: Employment Retention

84%

86%


80%

82%

All Voc Ed Students

74%

76%

78% Displaced Homemaker



Non-traditional

Single Parent

70%

72%

999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

g


1998

-1

1999

-2

2000

-2

2001

-2

2002

-2

2003

-2

2004

-2

2005

-2

2006

-2

Core Indicator 3b – Percent of California UI covered Engineering and Industrial Technologies

95%

100%

All 09 V Ed

Core Indicator 3b Percent of California UI covered Engineering and Industrial Technologiescohort students who were found employed for at least three quarters

85%

90%

95% All 09 Voc EdStudentsDisplacedHomemakerEconomicallyDisadvantagedLEP


70%

75%

80%LEP

Nontraditional

Single Parent

Student w ith

60%

65%

70%

-99

-00

-01

-02

-03

-04

-05

-06

-07

Student w ithdisability

1998

-

1999

-

2000

-

2001

-

2002

-

2003

-

2004

-

2005

-

2006

-

•LEP and Nontraditional students are the most likely special population subgroups to be workingLEP and Nontraditional students are the most likely special population subgroups to be working.•Students with Disabilities have had the lowest level of employment success amongst the six groups.

Core Indicator 4a:Core Indicator 4a:

Participation in programs deemed nontraditional

St t id C 4Statewide Core 4a:Non-Trad Participation

45%

30%

35%

40%

All Voc Ed Students

Displaced HomemakerState Negotiated Level

20%

25%

30% p



Single Parent



15%

1998

‐199

9

1999

‐200

0

2000

‐200

1

2001

‐200

2

2002

‐200

3

2003

‐200

4

2004

‐200

5

2005

‐200

6

2006

‐200

7

Core Indicator 4a – Percent of Engineering and Industrial Technologies Nontraditional students

35%

40%

All 09 Voc EdState Negotiated Level = 29.98%

Co e d ca o a e ce o g ee g a d dus a ec o og es o ad o a s ude senrolled in SAM A-D courses identified as leading to jobs that had less than a 25/75% gender ratio

25%

30%

35% All 09 Voc EdStudentsDisplacedHomemakerEconomically

15%

20%DisadvantagedLEP

Single Parent

0%

5%


1998

-99

1999

-00

2000

-01

2001

-02

2002

-03

2003

-04

2004

-05

2005

-06

2006

-07

All groups of students have fallen below the State Negotiated Level for participation in courses deemed nontraditional, and improvement has remained flat or has declined.

Core Indicator 4b:Core Indicator 4b:Percent of students who complete pnontraditional training programs that are of the under-represented gender

Core 4b-Non-Trad Completion

40%

45%

30%

35%

40%

All Voc Ed Students

Displaced Homemaker

15%

20%

25%

p



Single Parent



10%

1998

‐199

9

1999

‐200

0

2000

‐200

1

2001

‐200

2

2002

‐200

3

2003

‐200

4

2004

‐200

5

2005

‐200

6

2006

‐200

7

Core Indicator 4b – Percent of Engineering and Industrial Technologies Nontraditional students who

40%

Co e d ca o b e ce o g ee g a d dus a ec o og es o ad o a s ude s ocomplete SAM A-D courses identified as leading to jobs that had less than a 25/75% gender ratio and receive a degree or certificate, transfer to UC, or join the military

25%

30%

35% All 09 Voc EdStudentsDisplacedHomemakerEconomically


15%

20%

25% EconomicallyDisadvantagedLEP

Single Parent

0%

5%


0%

1998

-99

1999

-00

2000

-01

2001

-02

2002

-03

2003

-04

2004

-05

2005

-06

2006

-07

•Displaced Homemaker and Single Parent students are the most likely to complete courses of all nontraditional special population subgroups. •Students with Disabilities have had the least completion success.

Benchmarking

What can you say about the success of special l ti i d tpopulations in your programs as compared to

– Statewide Average?Region Average?– Region Average?

– Peer College?– Best Performer?– Best Performer?

What does the data tell us?

Indicates trends over time Highlights potential data quality issues Identifies gaps in performance between

– Student groups – gender, race/ethnicity, special populationsPrograms– Programs

Generates additional questions that need to be answered before implementing a solutionanswered before implementing a solution

www.jspac.org

www.napequity.org

Questions?

Mimi LufkinE ti Di tExecutive Director

National Alliance for Partnerships in EquityP O Box 369P.O. Box 369

Cochranville, PA 19330610-345-9246 phone610 345 9246 phone

610-869-4380 [email protected]

National Alliance forPartnerships in Equity

Perkins IV Special Populations [Read-Only] · itithl dthin computer science, technology, and other...

Documents

Transcript of Perkins IV Special Populations [Read-Only] · itithl dthin computer science, technology, and other...