NATIONAL REPORTING SYSTEM
FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
CONGRESS OF ADULT EDUCATION STATE DIRECTORS
Pre-Meeting Webinar
July 28-29, 2010
1
WEBINAR AGENDA
Introductions
Purpose of meeting
Review of issues to be discussed
Meeting structure
Questions
22
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
33
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
44
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
55
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.
66
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?
77
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 performancebased funding?
Is this policy change feasible to implement in
PY 2011-2012?
88
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.
99
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
10
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 a class specifically designed for
transitioning to community college?
What changes will states need to make to
state-level MIS, and at what cost?
11
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
12
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
13
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
14
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
15
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
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
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
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
19
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
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
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 22
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
23
recommendation?
23
MEETING STRUCTURE
DUPONT HOTEL
AUGUST 4-5, 2010
24
24
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
25
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
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
27
QUESTIONS?
COMMENTS?
28
28
Thank You!
See you August 4-5
in Washington, DC!
Safe Travels!