FY2008Program Performance Report(System Print Out)
Strategic Goal2
Formula
VTEA, Title II
Document Year2008Appropriation: $102,923
CFDA / 84.243: Tech-Prep Education
Program Goal: / Increase access to and improve educational programs that strengthen education achievement, workforce preparation, and lifelong learning.
Objective1of1: / Ensure that concentrators, including special populations, make successful transitions to further education and employment.
Measure1.1of7: The percentage of Tech-Prep students who have completed high school. (Desired direction: increase)1401
Year / Target / Actual
(or date expected) / Status
2001 / 87 / Measure not in place
2002 / 87 / Measure not in place
2003 / 86 / Measure not in place
2004 / 88 / 87 / Made Progress From Prior Year
2005 / 87 / 86 / Did Not Meet Target
2006 / 88 / 88 / Target Met
2007 / 89 / 89 / Target Met
2008 / 90 / (May 2009) / Pending
2009 / 91 / (May 2010) / Pending
Source.U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education, Consolidated Annual Performance, Accountability, and Financial Status Report (CAR) (grantee performance report)
Frequency of Data Collection.Annual
Data Quality.
States submit their CAR reports to the Department each year through an electronic system. At that time, each grant recipient mustattest to the accuracy of their submission by entering an Electronic Personal Identification Number that is supplied to them by the Department. OVAE staff then complete acheck on the accuracy and completeness of the data and follow-up with States as necessary.
Target Context.The Department does not negotiate separate tech-prep performance levels with states.Performance levels are the same as those negotiated with states by the Department for the Career and Technical Education State Grants.
*Beginning in 2009, targets will be an average of the performance levels that are negotiated with states that do not consolidate their title I (basic grant) and title II (tech prep) grant funds.
Explanation.The FY 2007 performance target was met. The actual performance target was one point above the actual performance for FY 2006.
Measure1.2of7: The percentage of Tech-Prep students who have transitioned to postsecondary education. (Desired direction: increase)1402Year / Target / Actual
(or date expected) / Status
2003 / 58 / Measure not in place
2004 / 87 / 66 / Made Progress From Prior Year
2005 / 87 / 86 / Made Progress From Prior Year
2006 / 61 / 89 / Target Exceeded
2007 / 89 / 63 / Did Not Meet Target
2008 / 90 / (May 2009) / Pending
2009 / 91 / (May 2010) / Pending
Source.U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education, Consolidated Annual Performance, Accountability, and Financial Status Report (CAR) (grantee performance report)
Frequency of Data Collection.Annual
Data Quality.
States submit their CAR reports to the Department each year through an electronic system. At that time, each grant recipient mustattest to the accuracy and completeness of their submission by entering an Electronic Personal Identification Number that is supplied to them by the Department. OVAE staff then complete acheck on the accuracy and completeness of the data and follow-up with States as necessary.
Target Context.
*The Department does not negotiate separate tech-prep performance levels with states. Performance levels are the same as those negotiated with states by the Department for the Career and Technical Education State Grants.
*Beginning in 2009, targets will be an average of the performance levels that are negotiated with states that do not consolidate their title I (basic grant) and title II (tech prep) grant funds.
.
Explanation.
The FY 2007 target was not met. OVAE is providing technical assistance to States that did not meet their negotiated performance targets. Additionally, States are obtaining assistance from States who have met their negotiated performance targets. Also, Data Quality Institutes (DQI) were held to provide States with guidance and technical assistance and for states to collaborate. States were given resource materials, websites and contact persons to assistance with their data collection challenges, as well.
Measure1.3of7: The percentage of Tech-Prep students who meet state established academic standards. (Desired direction: increase)1403Year / Target / Actual
(or date expected) / Status
2001 / 79 / Measure not in place
2002 / 71 / Measure not in place
2003 / 79 / Measure not in place
2004 / 76 / 75 / Did Not Meet Target
2005 / 77 / 77 / Target Met
2006 / 78 / 72 / Did Not Meet Target
2007 / 79 / 73 / Made Progress From Prior Year
2008 / 80 / (May 2009) / Pending
2009 / 81 / (May 2010) / Pending
Source.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education, Consolidated Annual Performance, Accountability, and Financial Status Report (CAR) (grantee performance report)
Frequency of Data Collection.Annual
Data Quality.
States submit their CAR reports to the Department each year through an electronic system. At that time, each grant recipient mustattest to the accuracy and completeness of their submission by entering an Electronic Personal Identification Number that is supplied to them by the Department. OVAE staff then complete a check on the accuracy and completeness of the data and follow-up with States as necessary.
Target Context.
*The Department does not negotiate separate tech-prep performance levels with states.Performance levels are the same as those negotiated with states by the Department for the Career and Technical Education State Grants.
Beginning in 2009, targets will be an average of the performance levels that are negotiated with states that do not consolidate their title I (basic grant) and title II (tech prep) grant funds.
Explanation.The FY 2007 actual performance for the target improved from the FY 2006 actual performance. OVAE is providing technical assistance to States that did not meet their negotiated performance targets. Additionally, States are obtaining assistance from States who met their negotiated performance targets. Also, Data Quality Institutes (DQI) were held to provide States with guidance and technical assistance and for states to collaborate. States were given resource materials, websites and contact persons to assistance with their data collection challenges, as well.
Measure1.4of7: The percentage of Tech-Prep concentrators meeting the state-established reading/language arts standards. (Desired direction: increase)89a0ckYear / Target / Actual
(or date expected) / Status
2008 / 63 / (May 2009) / Pending
2009 / 65 / (May 2010) / Pending
Frequency of Data Collection.Annual
Measure1.5of7: The percentage of Tech-Prep concentrators who graduated in the reporting year. (Desired direction: increase)89a0dkYear / Target / Actual
(or date expected) / Status
2008 / 75 / (May 2009) / Pending
2009 / 76 / (May 2010) / Pending
Frequency of Data Collection.Annual
Measure1.6of7: Efficiency Measure:Cost per secondary student. (Desired direction: decrease)89a0dlYear / Target / Actual
(or date expected) / Status
2004 / 41 / Measure not in place
2005 / 43 / Measure not in place
2008 / 64 / (May 2009) / Pending
2009 / 64 / (May 2010) / Pending
Frequency of Data Collection.Annual
Measure1.7of7: The percentage of Tech-Prep concentrators meeting the state-established mathematics standards. (Desired direction: increase)89a0djYear / Target / Actual
(or date expected) / Status
2008 / 38 / (May 2009) / Pending
2009 / 40 / (May 2010) / Pending
Frequency of Data Collection.Annual
U.S. Department of EducationDraft / 1 / 12/03/2008