national reporting system for the 21 st century congress of adult education state directors n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
National Reporting System for the 21 st Century Congress of Adult Education State Directors PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
National Reporting System for the 21 st Century Congress of Adult Education State Directors

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 29

National Reporting System for the 21 st Century Congress of Adult Education State Directors - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 121 Views
  • Uploaded on

National Reporting System for the 21 st Century Congress of Adult Education State Directors. Pre-Meeting Webinar July 28-29, 2010. Webinar Agenda. Introductions Purpose of meeting Review of issues to be discussed Meeting structure Questions. 2. Purpose of Meeting.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'National Reporting System for the 21 st Century Congress of Adult Education State Directors' - rosie


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
national reporting system for the 21 st century congress of adult education state directors

National Reporting System for the 21st Century Congress of Adult Education State Directors

Pre-Meeting Webinar

July 28-29, 2010

slide2

Webinar Agenda

  • Introductions
  • Purpose of meeting
  • Review of issues to be discussed
  • Meeting structure
  • Questions

2

slide3

Purpose of Meeting

  • To get your input on 6 changes planned or under consideration for the NRS
      • Changes that can be implemented by July 2011 and do not require reauthorization
      • Other changes being considered that will require more time, authority through reauthorization, or more research

3

slide4

Goal Setting Changes—

Issues #1, 2, and 3

  • Goal setting for employment, GED, and postsecondary entry— problematic
    • Difficulty identifying appropriate goals for students
    • Number of goals set appears too low
    • High fluctuation of performance rates within states and across years

4

slide5

Issue #1: Employment Outcomes

  • Discontinue goal setting; move to “automatic cohort definition”
      • Automatically select students for outcome based on student characteristics
  • Options considered:
    • Include all students seeking work or only unemployed seeking work
    • Set a federal standard for number of students to include

5

slide6

Issue #1: Recommendations

  • Automatically designate all students in the labor force who are unemployed as the cohort for which “entered employment” must be tracked.
  • Automatically designate all students who enter the program employed as the cohort for which “retained employment” must be tracked.

6

slide7

Issue #1: Discussion Questions

  • How will this policy affect the population that local programs serve?
  • Should we continue to use program “exit” as a criterion for cohort identification and reporting?
  • What changes, if any, will states need to make to state-level MIS to implement the new policy, and at what cost?

7

slide8

Issue #1: Discussion Questions (Cont.)

  • What are implications for the follow-up methods (survey v. data match)?
  • How can states overcome barriers to collecting valid Social Security Numbers?
  • What are the implications for state training to local providers?
  • How will this change affect local program funding, especially in states with performance-based funding?
  • Is this policy change feasible to implement in PY 2011-2012?

8

slide9

Issue #2: Postsecondary Follow-up

  • Eliminate goal setting; options considered:
    • Include all students, track for multiple years
    • Set a standard for number of students to include for follow-up
    • Include only students who have a GED, high school diploma or enrolled in transition class.

9

slide10

Issue #2: Recommendation

  • Automatically designate all students who

- have earned a GED,

- have a secondary credential, or

- are enrolled in a class specifically designed for transitioning to community college (e.g., bridge program, college readiness)

as the cohort for which “entry into postsecondary education” must be tracked.

10

slide11

Issue #2: Discussion Questions

  • What effect will this policy have on local programs—both desirable and unintended effects? Are there ways to ameliorate unintended effects on service delivery?
  • How will states identify and report on those enrolled in aclass specifically designed for transitioning to community college?
  • What changes will states need to make to state-level MIS, and at what cost?

11

slide12

Issue #2: Discussion Questions (Cont.)

  • What are implications for the follow-up methods?
  • How can states that do not have adequate postsecondary data systems implement this change?
  • How can states that cannot or do not collect Social Security Numbers overcome barriers?
  • What are the implications for state training to local providers?
  • What effect, if any, will this change have on states using performance-based funding?

12

slide13

Issue #3: Secondary Credential

Follow-up

  • Options considered:
    • Eliminate goal setting; include all students who take the GED Tests
    • Eliminate goal setting; include all students at ASE levels who do not have a credential
    • Maintain goal setting—no change.

13

slide14

Issue #3: Recommendation

  • Match GED test records for all students who take tests during the year to calculate a pass rate.
  • For states with adult high school, report the number of students in high adult secondary education (ASE) who obtain a high school diploma.
  • For states with EDP, report the number of students enrolled in the assessment phase who obtain a high school diploma.

14

slide15

Issue #3: Discussion Questions

  • What effects will this policy have on the populations served by local programs?
  • What changes will states need to make to state-level MIS, and at what cost?
  • What are the implications for the follow-up method (survey v. data match)?
  • How can states that cannot or do not collect valid SSNs overcome barriers?
  • What are the implications for state training to local providers?

15

slide16

Issue #4: Other Educational Gain Measures—Reporting Test Scores

  • Should OVAE require states to report test scores in addition to educational levels gains?
  • Long-term issue, requiring further study
  • Psychometric expert and OVAE will discuss methods and implications

16

slide17

Issue #6: Measuring Progress in Postsecondary Education

  • Collect outcome data on students after transition to postsecondary education
  • Options:
    • Require programs to follow all students after transition
    • Require students in integrated education and training programs to be tracked

17

slide18

Issue #6: Recommendation

  • Require programs with integrated education and training (IET) models to track progress towards and completion of a credential in the program of study in which the student is enrolled.

18

slide19

Issue #6: Discussion Questions

  • How should postsecondary retention and completion be defined at the federal level?
  • How can states collect postsecondary retention and completion data at the postsecondary level?
  • What are the implications for State MIS?

19

slide20

Issue #6: Discussion Questions (Cont.)

  • Do states have postsecondary-level databases that provide this information? Can this information be collected within local postsecondary institutions?
  • Are there unintended consequences of this policy that may impede the use of the IET model? How can the effect of such consequences be ameliorated?

20

slide21

Issue #5: Refining Outcomes Measures for GED Students

  • GED students exit before posttesting–negative effect on educational gain
  • Educational gain not always appropriate measure for GED prep students
  • Options considered:
    • Count GED as educational advancement
    • Allow posttesting at fewer hours
    • Create separate track for GED students, exempt from educational gain

21

slide22

Issue #5: Under Consideration

  • Create a separate level for GED prep students to include all students who score at the secondary level on any NRS-approved test battery.
  • Educational gain not reported for these students; they are not counted in calculation of ed gain for any NRS level.
  • The only reportable NRS outcome for these students is attainment of a secondary credential.

22

slide23

Issue #5: Discussion Questions

  • Would adding this track be a positive change in your state? Are there negative implications? Would the net result be positive or negative?
  • How would dropping the requirement for educational gain posttesting affect you?
  • Is this approach better aligned with GED delivery models in your state?
  • How much time would it take to implement?
  • Would your state support this recommendation?

23

meeting structure

Meeting Structure

Dupont Hotel

August 4-5, 2010

24

six issues for discussion
Six Issues for Discussion
  • Issues 1, 2, 3, and 6—Day 1
  • Issues 4 (panel) and 5—Day 2
  • Think Sheets for states to prepare responses to questions
  • Feedback Forms for states to offer comments—to ensure that OVAE hears from and considers input from every state

25

four break out rooms
Four Break-Out Rooms
  • Process
    • 10 Minutes for States to Reflect on Issue and Questions (Using Think Sheets)
    • Round-Robin Responses to Questions to Allow Input from All States
    • General Discussion of Issue
    • States Complete and Submit Feedback Forms

26

slide27

Ground Rules for

Round-Robin Process

  • One state speaks at a time; One State—One Voice
  • No one individual dominates discussion
  • When identifying challenges, also identify potential solutions or ways to overcome challenges (Don’t say only “We can’t/ my state can’t” without offering some solutions.)
  • If nothing to add when it’s your state’s turn, say “pass.”
  • No interrupting round-robin approach; opportunity for clarification after every state has responded to the questions
  • Use Parking Lot for long-term issues

27

thank you

Thank You!

See you August 4-5 in Washington, DC!

Safe Travels!