Melissa Canney is the Director of Innovation Policy for ExcelinEd.
The Perkins V accountability system evaluates the extent to which a state’s CTE concentrators meet state-determined levels of performance across several secondary and postsecondary indicators of performance. These indicators include the following:
Under Perkins IV, states negotiated their performance levels with the U.S. Department of Education. Like ESSA, Perkins V empowers states to set their own state-determined levels of performance for each of the four years covered by the initial state plan, based on specific criteria.
The level of each core indicator of performance must be the same for all concentrators in the state. The target level should also require the state to make meaningful progress toward improving the performance of all CTE students, including subgroups. These performance levels must be included in the state plan public comment process and approved by the U.S. Secretary of Education based on the criteria set forth in the law. States will continue to lead negotiations with local recipients related to local performance levels (where applicable), which must equal the state total when aggregated.
State-determined levels of performance allow states to set long-term and annual goals through the Perkins V accountability framework that align with their strategic vision for CTE. Additionally, the legislation encourages states to align their Perkins V performance goals with other statewide goals (e.g., ESSA, WIOA or other state-specific initiatives). States that triangulate with existing goals can leverage related initiatives and resources to help stakeholders support shared goals.
States also have the opportunity to invest in the development of or upgrades to data collection systems to integrate Perkins reporting requirements with other important CTE indicators, along with other state and federal measures. States that approach this thoughtfully could gain information about the effectiveness of career pathways and student outcomes. This could also help states streamline the reporting process and more seamlessly evaluate their states’ interconnected needs and goals.
While this change allows states to determine their own performance levels, it also presents some challenges. Setting ambitious and achievable goals for state accountability systems is difficult. States that set goals that are not ambitious risk setting lower expectations for what their students can achieve, while states that set goals that are not achievable risk stakeholder discouragement and loss of trust.
States may not currently collect sufficient data to set appropriate goals and report on all the required indicators. This is especially true at the secondary level. The new CTE concentrator definition, combined with new quality program indicator options, may require some states to set initial goals without baseline data. States may face challenges in setting goals that are both ambitious and achievable while they update their data systems to collect new data.
ExcelinEd’s Career and Technical Education playbook series offers specific, sequential steps to help states improve their CTE programs. View the series, resources and templates.
