Â鶹ÊÓƵ

CR 100.5 (d)(6)(iv)(a)(2)(vi) an assurance that data on student progress and performance will be made available to evaluate success on Regents examinations or approved alternatives, technical assessments, and placement in employment, the military or postsecondary education programs

Definitions: Student progress—The degree to which a student has progressed through the various components of an approved program. Performance—Student outcomes on Regents examinations, approved alternatives, and technical assessments. Regents examinations—English language arts (Perkins indicator 2s1), math (Perkins indicator 2s2), science (Perkins indicator2s3) Approved alternatives—Assessments which measure an equivalent level of knowledge and skill that can be substituted for required regents exams as specified in Commissioners Regulation 100.2 (f). Department approved alternative assessments can be found on the . Technical assessments—The three-part technical assessment (written, performance, and local) for Â鶹ÊÓƵ-approved CTE programs. See section on technical assessments. Ìý Placement in employment, military, or postsecondary education—post-high school placement data (Perkins indicator 3s1).

Ìý

Purpose

Commissioner’s Regulations [100.5 (d)(6)(iv)(a)(2)(vi)] require Â鶹ÊÓƵ-approved CTE programs to evaluate and report data relating to student progress and performance. The purpose of providing program data is to ensure that program level monitoring occurs.Ìý A comprehensive analysis of program data is conducted at the local level to identify program needs and to inform program changes. This information is required to be submitted with the re-approval application every five years, but best practice is to conduct this review annually.

Â鶹ÊÓƵ-approved CTE programs are required to report student level CTE data annually to the Office of Information Reporting Services (IRS) through the Student Information Repository System (SIRS). Additional information can be found on the Reporting CTE data webpage.

The Office of Career and Technical Education at the Â鶹ÊÓƵ uses aggregated statewide student and program data to assess the overall impact of CTE policy and make modifications to procedural aspects of the policy. CTE data is also used to inform program re-approval decisions, Perkins grant application review, and civil rights monitoring. All three of these are foundational to federally required reporting and administration of CTE programming in the state.

Ìý

Documentation

Initial Approval

Initial approval applications must include projected student enrollment. These projections must be disaggregated by total student cohort, students with IEPs, and students with 504s.

Re-approval

Re-approval applications must report program performance data that includes, number of students that have:

• completed the coursework in the program of study,
• attempted all three parts of the technical assessment,
• passed each part of the technical assessment,
• and received a technical endorsement.

This data must be disaggregated by total student cohort, students with IEPs, and students with 504s. Re-approval applications must also include the number of students that have participated in each type of work-based learning experiences.

Ìý

Sample Questions to Guide Program Data Discussion

• How many students completing this program of study and earning the technical endorsement?Ìý If students are not completing the program, elaborate on some of the barriers to program completion and how they can be addressed.
• Of the students who have attempted all three parts of the technical assessment:
  • Have all students attempted the technical assessment? If not, why not?
  • Do all special population students attempt the technical assessment? If not, what steps are being taken to improve attempt rates for these students?
• Of the students who have passed all three parts of the technical assessment:
  • What is the student pass rate on the technical assessment compared to the number of students that attempted? What supports can be put in place to increase student success on the technical assessment?
  • Do students in special populations perform at the same rate as their peers on the technical assessment? If not, what steps are being taken to improve outcomes for these students?
• Of the students who have received a technical endorsement:
  • How many students received a technical endorsement compared to the number of students that completed coursework and passed the technical assessment? If students are completing coursework, passing the technical assessment, and are not receiving the endorsement, what are some of the reasons this may be happening? What supports can be put in place to increase the number of students receiving a technical endorsement?
  • Do students in special populations receive technical endorsements at the same rate as their peers? If not, what steps are being taken to improve outcomes for these students?

Ìý