Equity Update Mimi Lufkin, Executive Director National Alliance for Partnerships in Equity NACTEI National Conference Friday, May 19, 2006

Overview Legislative history Current Perkins provisions Perkins reauthorization proposals TANF Data Quality Technical Assistance Institutes

Legislative History Gender equity provisions in Perkins – 1976 Amendments Full-time Gender Equity Coordinator- $50,000 –1984 Perkins Act Full-time Gender Equity Coordinator- $60,000 Set-asides 3.5% Gender Equity, 8.5% SP/DH –1990 Perkins Act Full-time Gender Equity Coordinator- $60,000 A-F requirements Set-asides 3% Gender Equity, 7% SP/DH,.5% either Special population focus

Perkins III Equity Provisions Definitions Allocation of Funds State Administration State Plan Accountability State Leadership Local Plan Local Uses of Funds

Perkins III Equity Provisions Definitions –Special Populations –Individuals with disabilities –Economically disadvantaged including foster children –Individuals preparing for nontraditional training and employment –Single parents, including single pregnant women –Displaced homemakers –Individuals with barriers to educational achievement including individuals with limited English proficiency

Perkins III Equity Provisions Definitions –Nontraditional Training and Employment “Occupations or fields of work, including careers in computer science, technology, and other emerging high skill occupations, for which individuals from one gender comprise less than 25 percent of the individuals employed in each such occupation or field of work.”

Perkins III Equity Provisions State Administration –evaluation of the program, services and activities, including preparation for nontraditional training and employment Within State Allocation –$60,000-$150,000 of State Leadership funds for services that prepare individuals for nontraditional training and employment State Plan –Develop plan in consultation with representatives of special populations –Describe program strategies for special populations

Perkins III Equity Provisions State Plan (cont.) –How special populations will be provided with equal access will not be discriminated against will be provided with programs to enable them to meet the state adjusted levels of performance, and prepare for further learning and for high skill, high wage careers –How data will be reported to measure the progress of special population students –How funds will be used to promote preparation for nontraditional training and employment

Perkins III Equity Provisions Accountability –Core Indicators student attainment of challenging State established academic, and vocational and technical, skill proficiencies student attainment of a secondary school diploma, proficiency credential in conjunction with a secondary school diploma, or a postsecondary degree or credential placement, retention, completion of postsecondary ed., advanced training, military or employment student participation in and completion of programs that lead to nontraditional training and employment

Perkins III Equity Provisions Accountability (cont.) –State establishes levels of performance for each core indicator –State annual report progress in achieving State levels of performance for all students quantifiable description of the progress special populations have made in meeting the State levels of performance

Perkins III Equity Provisions State Leadership –assessment of how the needs of special populations are being met programs are designed to enable special populations to meet State adjusted levels of performance programs prepare special populations for further learning or for high skill, high wage careers –professional development that will help teachers and personnel assist students meet the core indicators –providing preparation for nontraditional training and employment –support programs for special populations that lead to high skill high wage careers

Perkins III Equity Provisions Local Plan- describe how –activities will be carried out to meet levels of performance –representatives of special populations are involved in the development, implementation, and evaluation of programs –LEA will review programs, and identify and adopt strategies to access of special populations –LEA will provide programs that are designed to enable special populations to meet levels of performance –special populations will not be discriminated against –funds will be used to promote preparation for nontraditional training and employment

Perkins III Equity Provisions Local Uses of Funds –Required assessment of how the needs of special populations are being met –Permissive provide programs for special populations support services support nontraditional training and employment activities

Perkins Reauthorization Congress began reauthorization process again in 109 th Congress –House – H.R. 366 Introduced in January, 2005 Education and Workforce Committee passed March 9 th Full House passed May 4 th – –Senate – S. 250 Introduced in January, 2005 HELP Committee passed March 9 th Full Senate passed March 10 th – 99-0

House bill (H.R. 366) Maintains bulk of current law Does not incorporate much of Administration’s plan Separates secondary and postsecondary core indicators Strengthens local accountability Contains more prescriptive professional development and model sequence of courses provisions

House bill (H.R. 366) Remaining issues of concern : –Still uses the term “vocational” rather than CTE –Eliminates separate Tech Prep funding stream –Cuts state administrative funds to 2% –Very little strengthening of equity provisions –Only allows for referral to supportive services –Disaggregated data reference to NCLB does not include gender or all special population groups

House bill (H.R. 366) Definitions –“Supportive Services means services such as transportation, child care, dependent care and needs- based payments, that are necessary to enable an individual to participate in activities authorized under this Act.” Local Plan –“will provide activities to prepare special populations, including single parents and displaced homemakers, for high skill, high wage occupations that will lead to self- sufficiency “

House bill (H.R. 366) Local Uses of Funds- Required –“will provide activities to prepare special populations, including single parents and displaced homemakers, for high skill, high wage occupations that will lead to self- sufficiency “ –“to provide accurate information relating to the availability of supportive services available in an area served by the eligible recipient, and referral to such services, as appropriate “

Senate bill (S. 250) Maintains bulk of current law Does not incorporate Administration’s plan Separates secondary and postsecondary core indicators Strengthens local accountability Updates language to “career and technical” Maintains Tech Prep and Admin funding Stronger focus on teacher recruitment and retention and career counseling Added new innovations: single plan option; reserve fund flexibility

Senate bill (S. 250) Equity additions –Graduation and career plans includes nontraditional career exploration –Defines self-sufficiency –Defines support services as “curriculum modification, equipment modification, classroom modification, supportive personnel, instructional aids, and work supports”

Senate bill (S. 250) Equity additions –Removes cap on state leadership funds use for nontraditional activities –Postsecondary 4 th core indicator includes high skill, high wage, high demand –National activities –Occupational and employment information –State plan –Local plan

Senate bill (S. 250) Equity additions –Local uses of funds “will provide programs that are designed to enable the special populations to meet the local adjusted levels of performance and prepare for high skill, high wage or high demand occupations, including those that will lead to self-sufficiency” “to overcome barriers to enrollment in and completion of baccalaureate degree programs, including geographic and other barriers affecting rural students and special populations”

Conference Equity Issues Disaggregation of Data –Gender, Race/Ethnicity, Special Population –NCLB reference Support/Supportive Services Self-sufficiency –Definition –Use of State Leadership funds More?????

TANF Reauthorization Passed in the FY 2006 budget reconciliation, a.k.a. the Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) Vote of Reauthorized through 2010

Increased Participation Rates Effective Oct. 1, 2006 All states –50% participation rate for all families –90% participation rate for 2-parent families Penalties –5% reduction in state block grant (1996 law) –Higher MOE requirement (1996 law)MOE Incentive to cut off assistance to individuals

Separate State Programs Funded by state MOE dollars Helped states deal with many 2-parent families and those with severe barriers Have historically not counted towards the participation rates Will now count towards the participation rate and affect the caseload reduction creditcaseload reduction credit

Caseload Reduction Credit States will only get credit for reductions since 2005, not since 1995 –In FY 2004, 41 states/US territories had participation rates below 50% –Average participation rate was 32.3 % –States above 50%: IA, VA, TN, SC, SD, MA, WI, OH, HI, WY KS States should not purge their rolls to receive credit

Work Hours and Activities 1996 law hours requirements apply: –For all-families rate, 20 hours a week for single parents of children under 6; 30 hours for all other families. –For 2-parent rate, 35 hours, or 55 if family receives federally-funded child care. –For teen parents, 20 hours a week

Work Hours and Activities Primary work activities same as 1996 law –Unsubsidized employment; –Subsidized private sector employment; –Subsidized public sector employment; –Work experience; –On-the-job training; –Job search and job readiness assistance for up to six weeks a year; –Community service programs; –Vocational educational training for up to twelve months; –Providing child care services to an individual who is participating in a community service program.

Work Hours and Activities Secondary work activities same as 1996 law –Job skills training directly related to employment; –Education directly related to employment; –Satisfactory attendance at secondary school or in a course of study leading to a GED

Education and Training CRS preliminary estimates indicate that in FY 2004, just over 5% of families in TANF and separate state programs participated in – vocational educational training –satisfactory attendance in secondary school (teens) –a course of study leading to a GED (teens) Current voc-ed cap is 30%

Why Increase Participation in Education & Training? Skills and credentials have value in labor market Many welfare recipients lack the education needed to successfully compete in the labor market There is substantial room for expanding recipient participation in education and training

Evidence of Effectiveness Strong connections to local labor markets Postsecondary education leads to greater employment and earnings gain Mixed strategies outperform employment only or education programs Too much work is counter productive when combining work and education

Mixed Approaches

What Should States Do? Maximize the use vocational education to count toward any hours of required participation Create college “bridge” programs for students with low skills Integrate basic skills and ESL instruction with job skills training

What Should States Do? Use on-the-job training and other incentives to promote employer-based training Link postsecondary attendance with the Federal Work Study program Use block grant funds to augment work study funds Promote greater flexibility in educational programming. Support the development of intensive modularized courses Provide supportive services

Data Quality Institutes Phoenix, AZ June 14-16, 2006 Atlanta, GA June 21-23, 2006 Review consensus outcomes from February 2006 DQI in Washington, DC –1s/p2 Career and Technical Skill Attainment –4s/p1 & 4s/p2 Nontraditional Participation and Completion –Defining Completion Identify state technical assistance needs

Perkins Accountability Measures “Student participation in and completion of vocational and technical education programs that lead to nontraditional training and employment” 4s1 and 4p1Participation 4s2 and 4p2Completion

Core Indicator 4 Issues Identifying occupations as nontraditional Data sources for identifying nontraditional occupations Updating lists of nontraditional occupations Identifying programs as nontraditional Students included in participation measure Defining completion Students included in completion measure Reporting completion rates Reporting cross-sectional or longitudinal

Current Participation Measure Numerator: # of students in underrepresented gender groups who participated in a non-traditional program in the reporting year. Denominator: # of students who participated in a non-traditional program in the reporting year.

Defining Participation Currently participation is defined as enrolled in a program that has been identified as nontraditional Reauthorization provides opportunity to redefine participation –Enrollment? –Concentration?

Enrollment Pros All states define enrollment the same way, almost! A measure of the social and institutional barriers prior to course enrollment in nontraditional programs A measure of exploration opportunities The denominator data in this measure is not reported any other place in the CAR while the numerator data can also be found in the enrollment report. This data is also disaggregated by gender, race and special population It is easier to design and implement improvement strategies at the local level directed at enrolling students. Moving to a concentrator means you are only successful with students taking several courses

Enrollment Cons Students enroll in multiple intro level courses. Where do they get assigned? Many programs may share introductory courses Not a measure of institutional barriers while participating and doesn’t alert the institution for early intervention Measures those “looking” but not necessarily committed Eliminates the ability to evaluate the relationship of program “participation” to completions at a detailed level and introduces a new cohort that may not be comparable to the exiting cohort or have the same event history (i.e., fee changes, social crisis, etc.) Provides unclear participation rates due to data quality issues as well as determining actual student intent

Concentration Pros Measure of those actually committed Reflective of retention and captures institutional barriers while participating All other measures based on concentrators allowing comparison of similar cohorts Enrollment data available in CAR enrollment report but only disaggregated by gender within nontraditional With standardization of the concentrator definition all states will define concentrator the same way

Concentration Cons Provide lower participation rates than enrollment Doesn’t provide information on schools success in motivating underrepresented students to try programs Little difference between concentrator and completer in some states definitions. Barriers may be before concentration threshold. Enrollment data of all students in nontraditional programs not reported anywhere in CAR. Cannot recreate enrollment measure from enrollment data Cannot compare to 2s/p1 because denominator is NTO concentrators, not all concentrators in NTO programs Currently concentrator is defined differently from state to state

Overall Issues Only core indicator that measures an entry point (participation) into the CTE system. All other measures are exit measures. The real value of the measure for program improvement is when disaggregated by gender, race/ethnicity, special population status or by program, CIP or cluster. An alternative approach is to define a new threshold value for this indicator such as two courses at the secondary level and declaring a major or program enrollment at the post- secondary level. If we are measuring the effectiveness of schools at getting students to enter (participate) programs non-traditional for their gender where do we place the bar of success – at the enrollment level or at the higher concentrator level?

Questions? Mimi Lufkin Executive Director National Alliance for Partnerships in Equity P.O. Box 369 Cochranville, PA phone fax