Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

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

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Negotiating Your Local Targets and Understanding Perkins Core Indicator Annual and Trend Reports November 9, 2017."— Presentation transcript:

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 Report
KA 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


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

Similar presentations


Ads by Google