Section 7 - Performance Indicators
Perkins and Core Performance Indicator Definitions
Perkins V, Section 113 Accountability, identifies the required secondary and postsecondary core performance indicators. As part of the state plan development process, states established how these indicators are measured and how the populations, including CTE participants and concentrators, are defined for reporting purposes.
The following sections provide the operational definitions for secondary and postsecondary CTE students, along with the core performance indicators used for accountability reporting.
Secondary CTE Participant and Concentrator
Concentrator: Any student in grades 9 through 12 who successfully completes 150+ course hours (or more), which are part of a state-approved secondary CTE program, within one career field.
Secondary Core Accountability Indicators (1S1, 2S1, 2S2, 2S3, 3S1, 4S1, 5S3)
1S1 Four-Year Cohort Graduation Rates
Statute Definition: The percentage of CTE concentrators who graduate high school, as measured by the four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate defined in section 8101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA).
Operational Definition
- Numerator: Number of CTE concentrators who, in the reporting year, were included as a graduate in the State’s computation of its four-year cohort graduation rate.
- Denominator: Number of CTE concentrators who, in the reporting year, were included in the State’s computation of its four-year cohort graduation rate. Includes: 1) graduated, 2) dropouts, 3) continuing, and 4) unknown.
2S1 Academic Proficiency: Reading/Language Arts
Statute Definition: CTE concentrator proficiency in the challenging State academic standards adopted by the State under section 1111(b)(1) of ESEA, as measured by the academic assessments in reading/language arts as described in section 1111(b)(2) of such Act.
Operational Definition
- Numerator: Number of 10th grade CTE concentrators who met or exceeded the proficiency level on the Statewide high school Reading assessments, either the Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment (MCA) or Minnesota Test of Academic Skills (MTAS).
- Denominator: Number of students designated as CTE concentrators by the end of their 10th-grade year who took the MCA or MTAS and whose high school reading assessment scores were included in the state’s ESSA computation.
2S2 Academic Proficiency: Mathematics
Statute Definition: CTE concentrator proficiency in the challenging State academic standards adopted by the State under section 1111(b)(1) of ESEA as measured by the academic assessments in mathematics as described in section 1111(b)(2) of such Act.
Operational Definition
- Numerator: Number of 11th grade CTE concentrators who met or exceeded the proficiency level on the Statewide high school Mathematics assessments, either the MCA or MTAS.
- Denominator: Number of students designated as CTE concentrators by the end of their 11th grade year, who took the MCA or MTAS and whose high school Mathematics assessment scores were included in the state’s ESSA computation.
2S3 Academic Proficiency: Science
Statute Definition: CTE concentrator proficiency in the challenging State academic standards adopted by the State under section 1111(b)(1) of ESEA as measured by the academic assessments in Science as described in section 1111(b)(2) of such Act.
Operational Definition
- Numerator: Number of 9th or 10th grade CTE concentrators who met or exceeded the proficiency level on the Statewide high school Science assessments, either the MCA or MTAS, after completion of Life Science course.
- Denominator: Number of students designated as CTE concentrators by the end of their 10th grade year, who took the MCA or MTAS and whose high school Science assessment scores were included in the state’s ESSA computation.
3S1 Post-Program Placement
Statute Definition: The percentage of CTE concentrators who, in the second quarter after exiting from secondary education, are in postsecondary education or advanced training, military service or a service program that receives assistance under title I of the National and Community Service Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12511 et seq.), are volunteers as described in section 5(a) of the Peace Corps Act (22 U.S.C. 2504(a)), or are employed.
Operational Definition
- Numerator: Number of CTE concentrators who, in the second quarter after graduating high school, enrolled in postsecondary education or advanced training, military service or a service program that receives assistance under title I of the National and Community Service Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12511 et seq.), are volunteers as described in section 5(a) of the Peace Corps Act (22 U.S.C. 2504(a)), or are employed.
- Denominator: Number of CTE concentrators who graduated from high school.
4S1 Nontraditional Program Concentration
Statute Definition: The percentage of CTE concentrators in career and technical education programs and programs of study that lead to non-traditional fields.
Operational Definition
- Numerator: Number of CTE concentrators from underrepresented gender groups who complete a program that leads to employment in nontraditional fields.
- Denominator: Number of CTE concentrators who completed a program leading to employment in nontraditional fields.
5S3 Program Quality: Work-Based Learning
Statute Definition: The percentage of CTE concentrators graduating from high school having participated in work-based learning.
Operational Definition
- Numerator: Number of CTE concentrators who successfully complete one or more work-based learning courses prior to graduation.
- Denominator: Number of CTE concentrators who graduated from high school.
Postsecondary CTE Participant and Concentrator
Participant
A student enrolled in a 亚洲无码 two-year college who belongs to a particular CTE entering cohort and who:
- Earned more than zero college-level credits (cumulative) AND, within the cohort timeframe, was enrolled in a CTE program/award level or,
- Earned more than zero college level credits in CTE course(s)
Concentrator
A student enrolled in a 亚洲无码 two- year college who belongs to a particular CTE entering cohort and who:
- Is enrolled in a long-term (12 or more credits) CTE program/award level AND earned 12 or more college level credits (cumulative), or
- Completed a CTE award in a short-term (less than 12 credit) CTE program within the cohort timeframe.
(Students enrolled in a short-term program who have not yet received that award are counted as participants. In addition, students who meet concentrator criteria but then receive only a non- CTE award within the cohort timeframe are counted as participants.)
Postsecondary Core Accountability Indicators (1P1, 2P1, 3P1)
1P1 Postsecondary Retention and Placement
Statute Definition: The percentage of CTE concentrators who, during the second quarter after program completion, remain enrolled in postsecondary education, are in advanced training, military service, or a service program that receives assistance under title I of the National And Community Service Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12511 et seq.), are volunteers as described in section 5(a) of the Peace Corps Act (22 U.S.C. 2504(a)), or are placed or retained in employment.
Operational Definition
- Numerator: Number of CTE concentrators in the cohort who, during the second quarter following program completion, are one or more of the following: enrolled in postsecondary education; in advanced training; in military service; in national or community service or the Peace Corps; or employed.
- Denominator: Number of CTE concentrators who complete a CTE program/award (i.e., certificate, diploma, AAS or AS) within the cohort timeframe.
2P1 Earned Recognized Postsecondary Credential
Statute Definition: The percentage of CTE concentrators who receive a recognized postsecondary credential during participation in or within 1 Year of program completion.
Operational Definition
- Numerator: Number of CTE concentrators who complete a CTE program/award (i.e., receive a CTE certificate, diploma, AAS or AS) within cohort timeframe.
- Denominator: Number of CTE concentrators in the cohort.
3P1 Nontraditional Program Enrollment
Statute Definition: The percentage of CTE concentrators in career and technical education programs and programs of study that lead to non-traditional fields.
Operational Definition
- Numerator: Number of CTE concentrators in the cohort who are enrolled in a CTE program classified as nontraditional for their gender.
- Denominator: Number of CTE concentrators in the cohort enrolled in a CTE program classified as nontraditional.
While CTE “completers” are not defined in the Perkins V legislation, core indicators 1P1 and 2P1 both include that population of students.
Minnesota defines CTE completers as students enrolled in a 亚洲无码 two-year college who belong to a particular CTE entering cohort and who receive a CTE award in a long- or short-term Perkins-eligible program within the cohort timeframe.
In addition, Minnesota defines a CTE award as an AAS, AS, certificate or diploma.
State-Determined and Local Levels of Performance
Section 113 of the Perkins V legislation requires eligible agencies (i.e., the state) to establish state-determined performance levels (SDPL) for all grant years and include them in the State plan as well as revisions to the State plan submitted to the OCTAE. The state is evaluated annually on core indicator performance against the appropriate state-determined performance level for each indicator.
State performance levels were determined using a process which involved eligible recipient and stakeholder input. As mandated in the Perkins V legislation, the state is required to demonstrate continuous improvement in the performance of CTE concentrators across the life of the grant; state determined performance levels were subject to a public comment process prior to being submitted and accepted within the state plan.
There is no negotiation process regarding levels of performance between the state and OCTAE. The state-determined performance levels, along with the methodology and process used to set them, were submitted in the state plan and were accepted by OCTAE. At certain key points during the implementation of the grant, the state may revise indicator performance levels depending upon unanticipated circumstances. The requirements for adjusting the state determined performance levels includes an evaluation of the data, input from vested partners, and gathering public comment prior to making those adjustments.
The state’s original method for establishing both state and local performance levels involved using a factor of the standard deviation based on modeled historical data which served to establish ever increasing "meaningful progress" for each individual performance indicator across the four years of the grant. Beginning with reporting year 2025, secondary and postsecondary state-determined performance levels are established using a linear probability model based on past performance data rather than the previously used standard deviation method. Levels are floored at the average of the two most recently completed grant years of actual performance, ensuring that SDPLs demonstrate continuous meaningful progress.
Local Levels of Performance
Similar to the state-determined levels of performance, local levels of performance were initially established across all four grant years.
Local consortium annual levels of performance were determined by looking at the opportunity for improvement at the state level and seeing what portion of that improvement is held by each consortium. The amount of improvement was apportioned to consortia, using the same rate of annual growth that was used to establish the state annual levels of performance for that indicator.
Beginning with reporting year 2025, secondary and postsecondary local levels of performance were apportioned to consortia using a composite methodology. Similar to state performance levels, local levels were floored at the average of the consortium’s two most recently completed years of actual performance. Above that floor, the numerator increase required at the state level to meet the secondary and postsecondary SDPL is determined by the average of three allocation methods:
- Proportionate to the consortium’s share of the state’s total numerator
- Matching the consortium’s recent trend in performance, with any downward trends replaced by a minimum upward slope of one additional numerator per year
- Matching the rate of increase required at the state level applied to the consortium’s denominator
The average of these three allocations determines each consortium’s expected numerator increase, from which the local performance level is derived.
There is no annual negotiation process to determine local consortium performance indicator levels. Consortia may request changes to performance levels for any indicator during any grant year(s). Once received, state staff consider the rationale provided and determine whether or how much to adjust the consortium performance level. If the revised consortium level of performance impacts the overall state level of performance for an indicator, the adjusted state performance level also must undergo 30 days of public comment. However, if the consortium or the state is on an improvement plan for an indicator, performance levels for that indicator cannot be adjusted. The process does not ask consortia to identify a specific numeric change to their performance level, but does require consortia to provide sufficient rationale to justify deviation from the standard methodology.
Consortia are evaluated on their core indicator performance for the previous reporting year each winter directly following the submission of the state CAR. For example, consortia would be evaluated on reporting year 2026 in early 2027.
State Consolidated Annual Report (CAR)
Each January, Perkins V requires the state to submit the CAR to OCTAE. The CAR includes the state’s progress on meeting state-determined performance levels from the most recently completed reporting year. Data regarding performance for each core indicator, and for each of the subgroups of students, special populations, and CTE Career Clusters must be reported for each indicator.
CTE participant and concentrator counts disaggregated by subgroups of students and special populations by CTE cluster must also be reported. The disaggregation of the data is not required if the number of students would be considered private data or potentially reveal personally identifiable data about a student.
If the state does not meet at least 90 percent of the state-determined performance level for any of the core indicators of performance for all CTE concentrators, the state will be required to implement an improvement plan during the subsequent year. The improvement plan must include an analysis of the gaps in performance among the special population and other disaggregated groups.
Whether or not the state meets their state-determined performance level on a core indicator, the state is also required to identify and quantify gaps in performance on the core indicators between any subgroups or special populations of students and CTE concentrators overall, including “a quantifiable description of the progress each such subgroup or special population of students” has made in meeting determined performance levels.
Local Performance Improvement Plan
The Perkins V legislation specifies that local recipients (Perkins consortia) are also expected to meet at least 90 percent of their determined local levels of performance on the core performance indicators. If a local recipient falls below 90 percent of the determined local performance level, they will need to develop an improvement plan and implement it during the following year.
Like the requirement for states, a local improvement plan must include an analysis of the gaps in performance among the special population and other disaggregated groups.
Regardless of whether the eligible recipient meets 90 percent of the performance level for a core indicator, Perkins V requires disaggregate data to be reviewed annually for each indicator to identify and evaluate where there are disparities in performance between the subgroups or special populations of students and all CTE concentrators being included in the accountability measure.
Policy & Procedure History
Date of Implementation: 07/01/2026
Date of Last Review: 0/0/0