1. Standardization in Perkins: Data Quality Institute
Why and What ?
The Perspective from
Secondary Education
Data Quality Institute
June 14, 2005
Don Hilber Education Associate Data Collection and Analysis South Carolina Department of Education

2. Major Questions and Issues
Why Standardize ?
PART and NAVE Findings Relevant to Secondary Education
What to Standardize ?
Number Served Nationally
Critical Performance Indicators
[How to Best Standardize ?]
Covered During Remainder of Institute
Related Issues
No Child Left Behind
Standardization versus Alignment

3. “ Ineffective programs don’t get cut . . . they just get ignored ! “
WHY STANDARDIZE ?
“ Ineffective programs don’t get cut
. . . they just get ignored ! “
Effective programs stand better chance of:
Additional Resources
Greater Leverage (state or private $)
Less Constant Scrutiny
Less Defection

4. Standardization in Perkins: Why? (Secondary Education)
Program Assessment Rating Tool Findings
Multiple and Potentially Overlapping Objectives
Deficiencies in Performance Reporting
Lack of Numerical Targets That can be Aggregated
State-Defined Targets Not Appropriately Rigorous
States set Own Thresholds and have Different Definitions for Who is Voc Ed Student
No Long-Term Numerical Targets Established, nor the Data to Report on Those Targets

5. Standardization in Perkins: Why? (Secondary Education)
National Assessment of Vocational Education Findings
Lack of Clarity Over Perkins Purpose and Goals = Too Many Indicators Present Conflicted Picture
Secondary Voc Ed Confers Little Advantage in:
High School Completion
Academic Achievement
Post-secondary Enrollment
Post-Secondary Completion
Secondary Voc Ed May Have Positive Impact on:
Medium-Term Earnings
Academic Course-Taking

6. Standardization in Perkins: Why? (Secondary Education)
Observations on PART and NAVE Findings
PART may be Outdated in Some Particulars -- US Dept of Education Now Has Targets, Reports Data
PART & NAVE Ignore Provisions in Perkins that Specify a Large Number of Performance Indicators; NAVE Introduces More Secondary Indicators
Neither Mentions “Alignment” with No Child Left Behind, the NCLB Lack of Similar Uniformity or the Need to Share Performance Indicators
Another Dilemma: State Uniformity Means Delay in Baseline Setting and Hence Demonstrated Results

7. Standardization in Perkins: What? (Secondary Education)
Key Data Shortcoming From PART Analysis = Lack of a Common Concentrator Definition
Fosters Confusion over Who Perkins Serves
Impedes Ability to Aggregate States’ Data
Does Allow for Cost versus Performance Assessment
Creates Undue Variability in State Baselines
Performance Indicators Mentioned in PART
Attainment of Diploma, Certificate or GED
Entry in Employment or Post-Secondary
Attainment of Literacy and Numeracy Skills

8. Standardization in Perkins: What? (Secondary Education)
Key Finding From NAVE Analysis =
Perkins Must Show Meaningful Outcomes
Who Does Secondary Career Ed Serve?
Occupational Investors versus Course-Takers
Concentrators and/or Explorers = 3+ Units
Perkins Performance Indicators in NAVE
Academic Achievement = Courses Taken
Academic Achievement = NAEP 12th Grade Test
High School Completion
Post-Secondary Enrollment (Short & Medium)

9. Standardization in Perkins: What? (Secondary Education)
Other Performance Indicators in NAVE
Post-Secondary Completion (of Secondary Students)
Eventual Earnings (Seven Years After Graduation)
Additional NAVE Implications
No Concern for Non-Traditional Participation and Little Concern for Immediate Employment
Remedial Education and Years to Complete Post-Secondary Might be Secondary Issues Also
Tech Prep Increasingly Losing Distinctiveness
Technical Courses Matter Once Academic Courses Met – So Why Not Standardize Technical Skill Also?

10. Related Issues for Secondary Ed Standardization
Does Standardization = Alignment ?
Two Views
States Use Perkins Measures Consistent Among Each Other
States Also Mesh These Measures with Other Federal Programs: NCLB &/or WIA
To Meet NAVE & PART Criticisms
only # 1 is necessary! (if true outcomes)
To Meet Other External Pressures
# 2 might also be desirable

11. Related Issues for Secondary Ed Standardization
NCLB Alignment
States Establish Own Tests and Levels
States Set Own Intermediate Goals
States Vary in Graduation Measures
Possible to Align with Long-Term Goals of 100% Proficiency by (Target-Setting)
WIA Alignment
Youth Programs not Central to HS Reform
Future Jobs Demand Post-HS Education
Wage-Record Tracking Not Suited for Part-Time Earners, Continuing Students

12. Wrap Up Points for Discussion and Consensus
Why Standardize ?
To Become an Effective Program
= Common Service; Additive Indicators; # Goals
What to Standardize in Secondary Ed?
CONCENTRATOR DEFINITION
Academics and Graduation: YES
Non-traditional: NO
Technical Skill: WHY NOT?
Placement – Immediate Education & Jobs: ?
Additional Alignment ?
NCLB in Spirit, not Specifics; WIA Low Priority