Applying Innovative Practices to Disseminate CTE Data
Applying Innovative Practices to Disseminate CTE Data Julia Hamilton North Carolina Community College System Christy Hendricks Montana Department of Education
Overview • State CTE data dissemination strategies • Montana • North Carolina • Activity • Review data set • Develop message for audience
• Share products • Describe message • Key takeaways
Montana How Do We Get Our Data “Out There”?
3
What Works? • Relate schools to one another • Provide visual access to data
4
What Doesn’t Work Data that are… • Hard to decipher • Visually unappealing • Overly complicated
5
Where Do We Go From Here?
6
NC Community College System • 58 colleges • An estimated 735,000 students enrolled during the 2014-15 academic year • Colleges vary in size from 618 to 29,025 students (unduplicated curriculum headcount)
7
Background • Historically, colleges received only the percentage achieved on each of the Perkins Performance Indicators • In 2014, a bound collection of disaggregated spreadsheets were disseminated to all colleges as part of the state-wide effort to improve the performance of CTE students
8
2014 Core Indicators of Performance Report • Available only in printed form • Disseminated to local Perkins contacts • First time colleges received disaggregated data
9
Improving the Dissemination of Perkins Performance Data • Colleges immediately started asking questions about their data and began to research ways to address deficiencies • The report began to be shared with others outside the Perkins community • At the state-level we began to research how to improve upon the original report • The system already published an accountability report called Performance Measures for Student Success • Annual report that ranks the 58 colleges on seven state-wide performance measures • Colleges were already familiar with the format of the report • Provided information on exactly how the measure was calculated 10
2015 Core Indicators of Performance • Used the same format as the Performance Measures for Student Success • Disaggregation • Age • Gender/Ethnicity • Program Area
11
2015 Core Indicators of Performance • Used a color coding system • Red – > 10% below • Yellow – within 90% • Green – met or exceeded
12
2015 Core Indicators of Performance • Provided the numerator & denominator • Three-year progression • Used the same color coding on the current year
• Provided a trend line
13
Impact of the New Format • Colleges used the report in conjunction with the Performance Measures for Student Success to implement improvement strategies • Color coding & disaggregation immediately highlighted areas of concern • Ages 19-24 are our poorest performing group • Captive students were included in our calculations • Dually-enrolled students were included
14
Future Plans - 2016 Core Indicators of Performance • Additional disaggregation • Regional data by Prosperity Zone • Data by program
• Interactive dashboard • Additional reports for other audiences
15
Thank You The 2015 Core Indicators of Performance report can be found online at:
http://ncperkins.org/performance
16
Overview • State CTE data dissemination strategies • Montana • North Carolina • Activity • Review data set • Develop message for audience
• Share products • Describe message • Key takeaways
Montana How Do We Get Our Data “Out There”?
3
What Works? • Relate schools to one another • Provide visual access to data
4
What Doesn’t Work Data that are… • Hard to decipher • Visually unappealing • Overly complicated
5
Where Do We Go From Here?
6
NC Community College System • 58 colleges • An estimated 735,000 students enrolled during the 2014-15 academic year • Colleges vary in size from 618 to 29,025 students (unduplicated curriculum headcount)
7
Background • Historically, colleges received only the percentage achieved on each of the Perkins Performance Indicators • In 2014, a bound collection of disaggregated spreadsheets were disseminated to all colleges as part of the state-wide effort to improve the performance of CTE students
8
2014 Core Indicators of Performance Report • Available only in printed form • Disseminated to local Perkins contacts • First time colleges received disaggregated data
9
Improving the Dissemination of Perkins Performance Data • Colleges immediately started asking questions about their data and began to research ways to address deficiencies • The report began to be shared with others outside the Perkins community • At the state-level we began to research how to improve upon the original report • The system already published an accountability report called Performance Measures for Student Success • Annual report that ranks the 58 colleges on seven state-wide performance measures • Colleges were already familiar with the format of the report • Provided information on exactly how the measure was calculated 10
2015 Core Indicators of Performance • Used the same format as the Performance Measures for Student Success • Disaggregation • Age • Gender/Ethnicity • Program Area
11
2015 Core Indicators of Performance • Used a color coding system • Red – > 10% below • Yellow – within 90% • Green – met or exceeded
12
2015 Core Indicators of Performance • Provided the numerator & denominator • Three-year progression • Used the same color coding on the current year
• Provided a trend line
13
Impact of the New Format • Colleges used the report in conjunction with the Performance Measures for Student Success to implement improvement strategies • Color coding & disaggregation immediately highlighted areas of concern • Ages 19-24 are our poorest performing group • Captive students were included in our calculations • Dually-enrolled students were included
14
Future Plans - 2016 Core Indicators of Performance • Additional disaggregation • Regional data by Prosperity Zone • Data by program
• Interactive dashboard • Additional reports for other audiences
15
Thank You The 2015 Core Indicators of Performance report can be found online at:
http://ncperkins.org/performance
16
