Adult Education and Family Literacy Act Program

The State assess the quality of providers of adult education and literacy activities under title II and take actions to improve such quality, including providing the activities described in section 223(a)(1)(B) of WIOA. Local providers are accountable to the State to meet the standards of quality for administration and instruction outlined in the competitive grant application, certifications, assurances, and state policy. The effectiveness and quality of local providers is assessed through the use of performance data aligned with the indicators of performance set forth in WIOA Section 116, as well as the evaluation and monitoring processes described in part (e) above.  The state will take certain actions to improve program quality:

1. Quarterly desk audits are required and each provider will be given feedback from the state.  Accomplishments will be noted and concerns will require actions on behalf of the provide to remedy the concern.  The state will provide support in remedying any concerns.  2.  Biweekly director meetings will be held to discuss appropriate actions to improve the quality of programs. 3.  Program improvement plans may be utilized and progress of the components of these plans will be addressed in each quarterly desk audit.  4. Site visits as needed in addition to the scheduled site monitoring visits. 5. Data quality training with the new LACES system as needed.  6.  Analysis of professional development needs will be conducted and the alignment of leadership funds to address these needs will follow.  These actions along with other actions that may need to be included throughout the program year are all designed to improve program quality.  

Assessment of Program Quality

Core programs collectively report on the six performance indicators set forth in Section 116 of WIOA and pursuant to federal regulations and guidance. These six indicators are:

1.   The percentage of program participants who are in unsubsidized employment during the second quarter after exit from the program;

2.   The percentage of program participants who are in unsubsidized employment during the fourth quarter after exit from the program;

3.   The median earnings of program participants who are in unsubsidized employment during the second quarter after exit from the program;

4.   The percentage of program participants who obtain either a recognized postsecondary credential or a secondary school diploma, or its equivalent, during participation in or within one year of exit from the program

5.   The percentage of program participants who, during a program year, are in an education or training program that leads to a recognized postsecondary credential or employment and who are

achieving measurable skill gains towards such a credential or employment; and

6.   The indicators of effectiveness in serving employers established pursuant to clause (iv).

Every two years, the State is required to negotiate the above-defined targets with the US Department of Education for the upcoming program year (July 1 – June 30). Local programs are be expected to meet or exceed the state targets and report on their performance in an annual report submitted to the State.

Data collection and analysis

In order to determine the levels of performance under each of the indicators listed above, local programs are required to collect data through a standard collection process (including standardized assessments), input data into the statewide Management Information System on a regular basis, and analyze data for the purpose of performance reporting and program improvement. Programs must adhere to all state and federal policies when collecting student data.

Programs are expected to use this data to determine progress toward meeting the State targets. Programs are also expected to use such data to evaluate program effectiveness and align program improvement efforts.

Program Improvement

In the case that a provider has consistently low success in achieving the negotiated levels of performance, the State may require the program to implement a Program Improvement Plan. To the extent that such a plan includes professional development and training, allocable costs of such training may be provided for with state leadership funds under section 223.

Assessing Professional Development

The State has a vital interest in assessing the quality of programs funded under Title II, and in providing adequate professional development and technical assistance to those programs in order to ensure continuous improvement. To that end, the State currently implements certain measures to assess its professional development activities. These measures are outlined:

·    Professional Development Coordinators: Each local program is required to identify a staff person to identify local training needs, organize and implement local training, track staff attendance at both state and local trainings, collect training evaluations, and provide an annual report to the State regarding the program’s professional development activities. The State will support the time spent on these activities through Leadership funds.

·    On-site Evaluations: All statewide training and professional development shall include evaluation forms to solicit feedback from participants about their experience, what they learned, what was effective, what could be improved, and what they are likely to implement when they return to their local program. The State will review this feedback and make adjustments as needed.

·    Follow-up Evaluations: To the extent that such follow-up is appropriate and feasible, the State will ask for follow-up evaluations from participants of statewide trainings three months after the conclusion of the event to assess whether practices have been implemented and sustained.

·    Ongoing Performance Review: Both the State and local programs will review performance data on a regular and ongoing basis. Such review will take into account federal reporting tables, student outcomes, attendance, measurable skill gains, and other factors. This review will occur regularly, but at a minimum must occur each quarter. The information gained from these performance reviews will help the State and local programs identify areas that are improving and those areas which demonstrate gaps or a decline in performance.

The results of the above assessment activities will be used when considering the effectiveness of past professional development. These results will also inform future training and the types of professional development activities the State will offer or require.

In addition to the activities listed above, Idaho will take a special focus on using section 223 funds to ensure adult education students have access to the created and updated career pathways that technical colleges use.  In some cases, to meet the specific hiring gaps within a sub-recipient region, career pathways in partnership with the local agencies and organizations may be necessitated.  In such cases, workplace requirements and adult education requirements will be detailed in these plans.  Simultaneously, sub-recipients will be using program and instructional best practices to identify needed skills for students to transfer to the workforce and post-secondary institutions.  These best practices will be discussed in bi-weekly meetings with the Adult Education State Program Director and be used to identify program and/or instructional areas of need.  Reading instruction will be rooted in research and instructional standards.  Proven instructional models will be a part of state directors meetings which are held throughout the program year.  Technical assistance will always be available to programs struggling to meet performance measures.