1 / 19

Tracking Non-traditional Gender Employment and Instructional Programs in California

Tracking Non-traditional Gender Employment and Instructional Programs in California. Chuck Wiseley Data Quality Institute Washington, DC. Issues in Nontraditional Gender Measures. 4P1 Participation Participants vs. Concentrators 4P2 Completions Options proposed

kaia
Download Presentation

Tracking Non-traditional Gender Employment and Instructional Programs in California

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Tracking Non-traditional Gender Employment and Instructional Programs in California Chuck Wiseley Data Quality Institute Washington, DC February 2006

  2. Issues in Nontraditional Gender Measures • 4P1 Participation • Participants vs. Concentrators • 4P2 Completions • Options proposed • Crosswalks – Occupations to Instruction February 2006

  3. 4P1 Nontraditional Participation • California Current • NT Participants (Enrolled in any NT CTE course) • California Past 2000-2002 • NT Concentrators (In NT Programs) • Proposed – In Programs leading to NT Occ… • NT Participants (Enrolled in any NT CTE course) • NT Concentrators (Threshold) • Issues February 2006

  4. 4P1 Issues • NT Participants • Includes students in introductory courses • in 2004-05 • 38% of students taking an intro CTE course took 2+ • 17% took 2+ in different CIPs • 81% of those in an intro course in fall 04 took only intro courses in 04-05 • California Past 2000-2002 • NT Concentrators (2001) • 23.85% of Concentrators (47,926) in NT Programs • NT Participants (2002) • 38.27% of Participants (826,500) in NT Programs • NT Completers (2002) • 24.37% of Completers (34,857) in NT Programs February 2006

  5. CCC Recommendation • Vote to change the current 4P1 to Concentrators February 2006

  6. 4P2 Nontraditional Completion • Current • NT Completers / All Completers in NT Programs • Is Not one of the options on ballot • Proposed • NT Completers / NT Concentrators or NT Participants • NT Concentrators / NT Participants • NT Completers / NT Graduates February 2006

  7. Current 4P2 • Relationship • NT gender to Traditional gender (TG) Completers in NT Programs • Comparison group TG is students in the same classes • Used to evaluate internal barriers • Compare 4P1 rate with 4P2 rate (losing NT faster than TG) • 40% of NT completed (20/50) – 53% of TG (80/150) • Options 1, 2, & 4 are versions of the NT calculation (40%) NT TG February 2006

  8. Proposed 4P2 • Relationship (in NT Programs) • NT Completers to • Nontraditional gender Participants (option 1) • NT Concentrators (option 2) • NT Participants to Concentrators (option 3) • NT Graduates to NT Concentrators (option 4) • Used to evaluate internal barriers • Standalone rate (losing NT students at each step in process) • 40% of NT completed (20/50) – Options 1, 2, & 4 versions = 2P1 for NT • Comparison groups • NT students within the two measures (only if aligned as in current measure) • Participant – Concentrator – Completer • Completers in All Programs • Can NOT compare to Traditional Gender students in NT Programs February 2006

  9. Proposed 4P2 – How evaluation looks • California 2005 actual (PS) From CAR • 75.34% NT Completers to NT Concentrators (Options 2 & 4 versions = 2P1 for NT) • This is what we would see in proposed options • 73.42% All Completers (2P1 All) • Conclusion - doing better than average completion • 36.71% NT Participation (4P1 - participants) • What we would NOT see • 23.52% NT Completions (current 4P2) • Conclusion – NT participants doing worse than TG in NT programs • Conversion rates from Participant to Completer • 02.60% NT Completers to NT Participants (4P2,N / 4P1,N) • 04.91% TG Completers to TG Participants (4P2,D-N / 4P1,D-N *D-N=denom - numer) • We Should Conclude – NT students are moving from participant to completer at about half the rate of TG in NT Programs February 2006

  10. CCC Recommendation Remembering the ease of comparison of 38% participants to 23% concentrators to 24% completion (from the 2002 data): • Add the current 4P2 as an option • Vote for it February 2006

  11. Crosswalks Past Practice – Future Prospects • Enrollments • Employment • Crosswalks • Employment • Local, Statewide, National • Instructional Program Areas (CIP) • Instructional Programs • Participants / Concentrators • Completion • Placement February 2006

  12. Employment • National Crosswalk from mid 1990s • Four digit CIP • California Crosswalk (Six digit) • Local Conditions • Instructional Program Assignment • Non-relevant OES and SOC relationships • Contradictory gender balance patterns • One of many occupations has a gender imbalance February 2006

  13. Crosswalk • Occupation • Gender • Number employed • Instructional Program Leading to Employment • Instructional Program Area (six digit CIP) February 2006

  14. Problems to resolve • Local vs. State vs. National • Multiple occupations within a program • Civil & Construction Management Technician • CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS (male dominated) • COST ESTIMATORS (female dominated) • Multiple Programs within Program Area • Culinary Program Area • Chef (Nontraditional for females) • Baking Chefs (nontraditional for Males) February 2006

  15. How it looks – 1990 Census decisions • Civil & Construction Management Technician • Do we train for both occupations? • Is the program area gender balanced? February 2006

  16. NAPE to the Rescue 2006 • National Crosswalk at Six digit CIP • http://www.napequity.org/nape_publications.htm • 2004 Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Household Data Annual Averages • Four Contradictory gender patterns • Non-relevant OES and SOC relationships? • Decision Process? February 2006

  17. How it looks – 2006 decisions • Agricultural/Farm Supplies Retailing & Wholesaling (1st group) • Do we train for both occupations? • Selling Skills & Sales Operations February 2006

  18. Sample table from 1990 census February 2006

  19. Instructional Programs • Multiple Programs within Program Area • Participants / Concentrators • Completion • Relationships • Participants to Concentrators • Concentrators to Completers • Placement February 2006

More Related