Equity Update Mimi Lufkin, Executive Director National Alliance for Partnerships in Equity NACTEI National Conference Friday, May 19, 2006

Equity Update

Mimi Lufkin, Executive DirectorNational Alliance for Partnerships in Equity

NACTEI National Conference

Friday, May 19, 2006

Overview

• Legislative history

• Current Perkins provisions

• Perkins reauthorization proposals

• TANF

• Data Quality Technical Assistance Institutes

Legislative History

• Gender equity provisions in Perkins – 1976 Amendments

• Full-time Gender Equity Coordinator- $50,000

– 1984 Perkins Act• Full-time Gender Equity Coordinator- $60,000

• Set-asides 3.5% Gender Equity, 8.5% SP/DH

– 1990 Perkins Act• Full-time Gender Equity Coordinator- $60,000

• A-F requirements

• Set-asides 3% Gender Equity, 7% SP/DH, .5% either

• Special population focus

Perkins III Equity Provisions

• Definitions• Allocation of Funds• State Administration• State Plan• Accountability• State Leadership• Local Plan • Local Uses of Funds


• Definitions– Special Populations

– Individuals with disabilities– Economically disadvantaged including foster

children– Individuals preparing for nontraditional training

and employment– Single parents, including single pregnant women– Displaced homemakers– Individuals with barriers to educational

achievement including individuals with limited English proficiency


• Definitions– Nontraditional Training and Employment

• “Occupations or fields of work, including careers in computer science, technology, and other emerging high skill occupations, for which individuals from one gender comprise less than 25 percent of the individuals employed in each such occupation or field of work.”


• State Administration– evaluation of the program, services and activities,

including preparation for nontraditional training and employment

• Within State Allocation– $60,000-$150,000 of State Leadership funds for services

that prepare individuals for nontraditional training and employment

• State Plan– Develop plan in consultation with representatives of

special populations– Describe program strategies for special populations


• State Plan (cont.)– How special populations

• will be provided with equal access• will not be discriminated against• will be provided with programs to enable them to

meet the state adjusted levels of performance, and prepare for further learning and for high skill, high wage careers

– How data will be reported to measure the progress of special population students

– How funds will be used to promote preparation for nontraditional training and employment


• Accountability– Core Indicators

• student attainment of challenging State established academic, and vocational and technical, skill proficiencies

• student attainment of a secondary school diploma, proficiency credential in conjunction with a secondary school diploma, or a postsecondary degree or credential

• placement, retention, completion of postsecondary ed., advanced training, military or employment

• student participation in and completion of programs that lead to nontraditional training and employment


• Accountability (cont.)– State establishes levels of performance for each core

indicator

– State annual report

• progress in achieving State levels of performance for all students

• quantifiable description of the progress special populations have made in meeting the State levels of performance


• State Leadership– assessment of how

• the needs of special populations are being met• programs are designed to enable special populations to

meet State adjusted levels of performance• programs prepare special populations for further

learning or for high skill, high wage careers– professional development that will help teachers and

personnel assist students meet the core indicators– providing preparation for nontraditional training and

employment– support programs for special populations that lead to high

skill high wage careers


• Local Plan- describe how– activities will be carried out to meet levels of performance– representatives of special populations are involved in the

development, implementation, and evaluation of programs– LEA will review programs, and identify and adopt

strategies to access of special populations – LEA will provide programs that are designed to enable

special populations to meet levels of performance– special populations will not be discriminated against– funds will be used to promote preparation for

nontraditional training and employment


• Local Uses of Funds– Required

• assessment of how the needs of special populations are being met

– Permissive• provide programs for special populations

• support services

• support nontraditional training and employment activities

Perkins Reauthorization

• Congress began reauthorization process again in 109th Congress– House – H.R. 366

• Introduced in January, 2005• Education and Workforce Committee passed March 9th

• Full House passed May 4th – 416-9

– Senate – S. 250 • Introduced in January, 2005• HELP Committee passed March 9th

• Full Senate passed March 10th – 99-0

House bill (H.R. 366)

• Maintains bulk of current law• Does not incorporate much of Administration’s

plan• Separates secondary and postsecondary core

indicators• Strengthens local accountability• Contains more prescriptive professional

development and model sequence of courses provisions


• Remaining issues of concern:– Still uses the term “vocational” rather than CTE– Eliminates separate Tech Prep funding stream– Cuts state administrative funds to 2%– Very little strengthening of equity provisions– Only allows for referral to supportive services– Disaggregated data reference to NCLB does not

include gender or all special population groups


• Definitions– “Supportive Services means services such as

transportation, child care, dependent care and needs-based payments, that are necessary to enable an individual to participate in activities authorized under this Act.”

• Local Plan– “will provide activities to prepare special populations,

including single parents and displaced homemakers, for high skill, high wage occupations that will lead to self-sufficiency “


• Local Uses of Funds- Required– “will provide activities to prepare special

populations, including single parents and displaced homemakers, for high skill, high wage occupations that will lead to self-sufficiency “

– “to provide accurate information relating to the availability of supportive services available in an area served by the eligible recipient, and referral to such services, as appropriate “

Senate bill (S. 250)

• Maintains bulk of current law• Does not incorporate Administration’s plan• Separates secondary and postsecondary core

indicators• Strengthens local accountability• Updates language to “career and technical”• Maintains Tech Prep and Admin funding• Stronger focus on teacher recruitment and

retention and career counseling• Added new innovations: single plan option;

reserve fund flexibility


• Equity additions– Graduation and career plans includes

nontraditional career exploration– Defines self-sufficiency– Defines support services as “curriculum

modification, equipment modification, classroom modification, supportive personnel, instructional aids, and work supports”


• Equity additions– Removes cap on state leadership funds use for

nontraditional activities– Postsecondary 4th core indicator includes high

skill, high wage, high demand– National activities– Occupational and employment information– State plan– Local plan


• Equity additions– Local uses of funds

• “will provide programs that are designed to enable the special populations to meet the local adjusted levels of performance and prepare for high skill, high wage or high demand occupations, including those that will lead to self-sufficiency”

• “to overcome barriers to enrollment in and completion of baccalaureate degree programs, including geographic and other barriers affecting rural students and special populations”

Conference Equity Issues

• Disaggregation of Data– Gender, Race/Ethnicity, Special Population– NCLB reference

• Support/Supportive Services

• Self-sufficiency– Definition– Use of State Leadership funds

• More?????

TANF Reauthorization

• Passed in the FY 2006 budget reconciliation, a.k.a. the Deficit Reduction Act (DRA)

• Vote of 216-214

• Reauthorized through 2010

Increased Participation Rates

• Effective Oct. 1, 2006• All states

– 50% participation rate for all families– 90% participation rate for 2-parent families

• Penalties– 5% reduction in state block grant (1996 law)– Higher MOE requirement (1996 law)

• Incentive to cut off assistance to individuals

Separate State Programs

• Funded by state MOE dollars

• Helped states deal with many 2-parent families and those with severe barriers

• Have historically not counted towards the participation rates

• Will now count towards the participation rate and affect the caseload reduction credit

Caseload Reduction Credit

• States will only get credit for reductions since 2005, not since 1995– In FY 2004, 41 states/US territories had

participation rates below 50%– Average participation rate was 32.3 %– States above 50%: IA, VA, TN, SC, SD, MA,

WI, OH, HI, WY KS

• States should not purge their rolls to receive credit

Work Hours and Activities

• 1996 law hours requirements apply:– For all-families rate, 20 hours a week for

single parents of children under 6; 30 hours for all other families.

– For 2-parent rate, 35 hours, or 55 if family receives federally-funded child care.

– For teen parents, 20 hours a week

Work Hours and Activities• Primary work activities same as 1996 law

– Unsubsidized employment;– Subsidized private sector employment;– Subsidized public sector employment;– Work experience;– On-the-job training;– Job search and job readiness assistance for up to six

weeks a year;– Community service programs;– Vocational educational training for up to twelve

months;– Providing child care services to an individual who is

participating in a community service program.

Work Hours and Activities

• Secondary work activities same as 1996 law

– Job skills training directly related to employment;

– Education directly related to employment;

– Satisfactory attendance at secondary school or in a course of study leading to a GED

Education and Training

• CRS preliminary estimates indicate that in FY 2004, just over 5% of families in TANF and separate state programs participated in– vocational educational training– satisfactory attendance in secondary school

(teens)– a course of study leading to a GED (teens)

• Current voc-ed cap is 30%

Why Increase Participation in Education & Training?

• Skills and credentials have value in labor market

• Many welfare recipients lack the education needed to successfully compete in the labor market

• There is substantial room for expanding recipient participation in education and training

Evidence of Effectiveness

• Strong connections to local labor markets

• Postsecondary education leads to greater employment and earnings gain

• Mixed strategies outperform employment only or education programs

• Too much work is counter productive when combining work and education

Mixed Approaches

What Should States Do?

• Maximize the use vocational education to count toward any hours of required participation

• Create college “bridge” programs for students with low skills

• Integrate basic skills and ESL instruction with job skills training

What Should States Do?

• Use on-the-job training and other incentives to promote employer-based training

• Link postsecondary attendance with the Federal Work Study program

• Use block grant funds to augment work study funds• Promote greater flexibility in educational

programming.• Support the development of intensive modularized

courses• Provide supportive services

Data Quality Institutes

• Phoenix, AZ June 14-16, 2006• Atlanta, GA June 21-23, 2006• Review consensus outcomes from February

2006 DQI in Washington, DC– 1s/p2 Career and Technical Skill Attainment– 4s/p1 & 4s/p2 Nontraditional Participation and

Completion– Defining Completion

• Identify state technical assistance needs

Perkins Accountability Measures

• “Student participation in and completion of vocational and technical education programs that lead to nontraditional training and employment”

• 4s1 and 4p1 Participation

• 4s2 and 4p2 Completion

Core Indicator 4 Issues

• Identifying occupations as nontraditional• Data sources for identifying nontraditional occupations• Updating lists of nontraditional occupations• Identifying programs as nontraditional• Students included in participation measure• Defining completion• Students included in completion measure• Reporting completion rates• Reporting cross-sectional or longitudinal

Current Participation Measure

• Numerator: # of students in underrepresented gender groups who participated in a non-traditional program in the reporting year.

• Denominator: # of students who participated in a non-traditional program in the reporting year.

Defining Participation

• Currently participation is defined as enrolled in a program that has been identified as nontraditional

• Reauthorization provides opportunity to redefine participation– Enrollment? – Concentration?

Enrollment Pros

• All states define enrollment the same way, almost! • A measure of the social and institutional barriers prior to

course enrollment in nontraditional programs • A measure of exploration opportunities • The denominator data in this measure is not reported any

other place in the CAR while the numerator data can also be found in the enrollment report. This data is also disaggregated by gender, race and special population

• It is easier to design and implement improvement strategies at the local level directed at enrolling students. Moving to a concentrator means you are only successful with students taking several courses

Enrollment Cons

• Students enroll in multiple intro level courses. Where do they get assigned? Many programs may share introductory courses

• Not a measure of institutional barriers while participating and doesn’t alert the institution for early intervention

• Measures those “looking” but not necessarily committed• Eliminates the ability to evaluate the relationship of program

“participation” to completions at a detailed level and introduces a new cohort that may not be comparable to the exiting cohort or have the same event history (i.e., fee changes, social crisis, etc.)

• Provides unclear participation rates due to data quality issues as well as determining actual student intent

Concentration Pros

• Measure of those actually committed

• Reflective of retention and captures institutional barriers while participating

• All other measures based on concentrators allowing comparison of similar cohorts

• Enrollment data available in CAR enrollment report but only disaggregated by gender within nontraditional

• With standardization of the concentrator definition all states will define concentrator the same way

Concentration Cons

• Provide lower participation rates than enrollment• Doesn’t provide information on schools success in motivating

underrepresented students to try programs • Little difference between concentrator and completer in some

states definitions. Barriers may be before concentration threshold.

• Enrollment data of all students in nontraditional programs not reported anywhere in CAR. Cannot recreate enrollment measure from enrollment data

• Cannot compare to 2s/p1 because denominator is NTO concentrators, not all concentrators in NTO programs

• Currently concentrator is defined differently from state to state

Overall Issues

• Only core indicator that measures an entry point (participation) into the CTE system. All other measures are exit measures.

• The real value of the measure for program improvement is when disaggregated by gender, race/ethnicity, special population status or by program, CIP or cluster.

• An alternative approach is to define a new threshold value for this indicator such as two courses at the secondary level and declaring a major or program enrollment at the post-secondary level.

• If we are measuring the effectiveness of schools at getting students to enter (participate) programs non-traditional for their gender where do we place the bar of success – at the enrollment level or at the higher concentrator level?

Questions?

Mimi Lufkin

Executive Director

National Alliance for Partnerships in Equity

P.O. Box 369

Cochranville, PA 19330

610-345-9246 phone

610-869-4380 fax

[email protected]

Documents

Equity Update Mimi Lufkin, Executive Director National Alliance for Partnerships in Equity NACTEI National Conference Friday, May 19, 2006