AEP Questions and Answers
This is a collection of questions that are most frequently asked of the AEP Office. They are organized by topic area and will be updated as needed.
Yes, for WIOA students, data is collected through TOPSPro. If your school has AEP students not tracked in TOPSPro, you would have to report them separately through the AEP data system.
It is our understanding that some vendors have created reports that may be used to populate the AEP data tables. You will want to confirm with your specific vendor what they may or may not provide to support reporting to the AEP Office.
In your WIOA data, it will show two level completions for a WIOA student. For a non-WIOA student, you would only use the AEP data system and would only see the one course completion. WIOA data is uploaded into AEP, so all students will be counted, but the students’ WIOA status will dictate how their completion is counted.
Yes, the TE release generates both reports for reviewing and cleaning data, as well as exports for submission to the AEP Office.
Yes – if a non-credit program that falls under one of the AEP program areas is collecting apportionment, and is supported by AEP funds, those students must be entered into TOPSPro Enterprise. If the program is ABE, ASE or ESL, with 12 hours or more of instruction, than those students must be assessed by a federally approved assessment tool (see pre/post testing guidance).
Each consortium member must obtain a unique Agency ID, and report eligible students in TOPS Enterprise – but if an agency has another member do the actual data input at an alternative physical location, that is fine.
For 16/17 follow up measures, please self-report AEP student outcomes via the update form in TOPSPro Enterprise (see the list below). If a student has a social security number, it can be imported with demographics, or manually entered in TE in the SSN field, along with other student demographics.
However, this is not a mandatory requirement, but it will assist the State in its effort to do state level data matching for employment, wage, and postsecondary information.
The regional training will cover the details on how to self-report student outcomes:
Completion of high school diplomas or their recognized equivalents;
Completion of postsecondary certificates, degrees, or training programs:
Placement into jobs; and
Transition to Post-Secondary.
Please see the data dictionary.
There is a Provider Use field in TOPSPro Enterprise that can be used for this purpose. This field can be expanded, if needed.
Use the update form in TOPSPro Enterprise to report student outcome data pertaining to high school diplomas.
Yes – use the TOPSPro Enterprise update form to record any student completed industry certification. TE will also be collecting the type of certification received.
As stated in the response above, please self-report AEP student outcomes via the update form in TOPSPro Enterprise. If a student has a social security number, it can be imported with demographics, or manually entered in TE in the SSN field along with other student demographics.
However, this is not a mandatory requirement, but it will assist the State in its effort to do state level data matching for employment, wage, and postsecondary information. For self-reported student follow up data, there will be no backup data required.
Correct. No more excel spreadsheets for student data reporting.
One license per district. Please contact CASAS for their pricing schedule for your consortium. CASAS will develop and send a customized spreadsheet with more specific information about TE pricing and ordering, and schedule a one on one phone appointment to review.
For state level AEP reporting, TOPSPro Enterprise will meet all requirements.
TOPS Enterprise is an online application, so agencies do not need to submit or upload data for submission each quarter… the data is received automatically.
Agencies can mark “Transition Services, Counseling Services, or Supportive Services” - using the Update form (field #8), or by entering it in directly into the TE software.
Please e-mail email@example.com.
Yes. Details depend on whether your consortium decides to do eTesting, pencil/paper testing, or a combination of both. This issue will be addressed when you set up the phone appointments with CASAS.
The State AEP Office allocated Data and Accountability funding for meeting these requirements to format data systems to connect with TOPSPro, or to purchase TOPSPro.
TOPSPro has fields that will be able to capture services on the update record. Please work with CASAS for technical guidance on capturing this data. A data dictionary has been posted on our AEP website.
Please collect and report data described in the data dictionary.
Yes, those should be included if you set up the courses to achieve the Adult Secondary certification - HSD, Hset, or GED.
Yes, 16/17 student data is to be entered into TE as the data is collected. The student data deadlines for 16/17 are as follows: 3rd Quarter due 4/30/17, and 4th Quarter due 8/1/17.
By August 1, 2017 (4th Quarter).
A calendar of submission due dates has been posted with more details. The first required AEP submission is the 3rd Quarter Report and is due 4/30/17. The 4th Quarter is due 8/1/17. TOPSPro Enterprise will be the data collection system AEP will be using for 16/17 student data collection.
For WIOA II eligibility, all students must have at least 12 or more hours of instruction, so with the alignment of AEP to WIOA II, AEP is maintaining the same requirement.
Here is the definition from the NRS Guidelines:
Hours of instruction or instructional activity the learner receives from the program. Instructional activity includes any program-sponsored activity designed to promote student learning in the program curriculum, such as classroom instruction, assessment, tutoring, or participation in a learning lab.
There is no penalty for less than 70 hours. The AEP Office recommends following the test publisher’s test administration directions for the minimum number of hours required before post-testing, which is 70-100 hours.
If a student already has a high school diploma, there is no need for a pretest.
The pre and post testing for AEP is effective January 3, 2017 for 3rd Quarter Reporting.
Usually, no, but in some instances learners who place at the ASE high level are credited with a pre/post-test pair.
ESL programs need to use the NRS federally approved tests for documenting learning gains for state reporting. Other progress indicators can be used at the local agency level.
High School Diplomas reported by school districts in California are compliant with NRS requirements.
For WIOA, the "Services Received" field mostly pertains to vocational rehabilitation services typically provided by Title IV. I pasted the PIRL information re: Voc Rehab below. As you can see, it is not a straight list of services, it just suggests some examples of services one might provide. So what you can see on field #8 is reflective of this, but definitely not matching any straight laundry list of required options from the DOL. For WIOA II, we don't expect these to come into play much at all...so for now, we are using it temporarily for AEP, knowing what agencies record shouldn't have any effect on WIOA II outcomes. FYI: the WIOA II dictionary listing for field #8 relates more to the PIRL definition, while the AEP dictionary has the one we modified to reflect what you've heard at training for AEP.
You can put “White” in Race and “Hispanic” under Ethnicity. If a student is especially reluctant to input White (or any other race) because they are Hispanic, it is fine if they mark Hispanic under Ethnicity and leave Race blank, if necessary.
The AEP program is officially called “Adults supporting K12 student success.” This is included on the Entry form and in TE. It appears on the form and in the software with the (new and improved) AEP title – not the old “Parent Education” title.
Short answer is if you have Cit Prep, yes it is fine to mark EL Civics under Special Programs. Longer -- Citizenship Prep is actually one version of EL Civics, not the other way around. For California, EL Civics includes Civic Participation, Citizenship Preparation, and Integrated EL Civics.
For CA WIOA II, agencies must designate one of these three focus area at the class level.
For AEP, you can just mark this as a special program – whether the ELC is focused on citizenship, or focused on other areas of ESL.
A: The administrative allowable activities for the AEBG 5% consortium cap are stated in the AEBG Program Guidance as follows:
Consortium Administration Charges (page 13)
The AB104 Legislation for AEBG states in Section 84913:
(b) A consortium may use no more than 5 percent of funds allocated in a given
fiscal year for the sum of the following:
(1) The costs of administration of these programs.
(2) The costs of the consortium.
A consortium may use no more than 5 percent of funds allocated in a given fiscal
year for administration activities.
Examples of consortium administration activities:
• Rolling up each member’s budget & expenditures for State reporting.
• Breaking out member’s budget & expenditures for State reporting.
• Working with fiscal agent(s) to submit budget & expenditures for State Reporting
· Coordinating the completion of the fiscal administration documentation.
• Ensuring that member decisions are followed through by the fiscal agent(s).
• Submits fiscal deliverables to the State as agreed upon by consortium membership.
• Hiring of consortium level staffing.
• Preparing the payroll for consortium level staffing.
The 5% only applies to these type activities. If you are performing these type of mostly fiscal activities, you may charge part of your salary. For support staff, travel, supplies, etc. – you would have to see how those activities align with these fiscal type activities. No program related charges would be allowed to be charged to the 5% consortium administrative cap.
If you choose direct funding – which would be too late for 17/18 – and would have to made for 18/19 – it would be up to the members on how the consortium operates and who pays for the running of the consortium. If the members fail to set up consortium lead to coordinate all the members AEP requirements, they run the risk of becoming ineffective and a possible reduction or loss of state funding.
Anyone can enter data into TOPSpro Enterprise, not just the school's designated GED person.
Patty will be able to give you any additional details you need, but here is a document that will help you out with details on submissions:
If you scroll down on that document, you'll see that you need to submit to firstname.lastname@example.org by August 1. You can also fax the submission by August 1 to 858-292-2910, if you prefer.
This answer only covers reporting student data into TE. First off, I hope your student enrollment information has demographic and barrier information. Secondarily, just to double check – none of these students identified a course they were enrolled in at the adult school, or the adult school didn’t set them up as cohorts? If not – check with CASAS, but I think you check no identifiable program. Finally, you would need to specify what transitional services they are receiving – if TE will allow it. I would check with CASAS if TE allows you to specify education planning, orientation, counseling, etc. There is a breakdown, but I’m not sure if it’s available for 16/17 or 17/18. CASAS will know.
In addition, you must track any outcomes associated with the services you provided. This is so you can self-report if students receiving these transitional services actually transitioned, or completed any other AEP outcome metric. If you have not been able to, it is critical to obtain the demographic data so we can match the student records in the chancellor’s office MIS and in TE as well.
TE Desktop uses a packaged version of SQL Express 2008, but the new NRS and AEP Tables take advantage of a feature that is only available in SQL Express 2012. Thus, we’ve had to create an upgrade installer for Desktop users, which we’ve completed now, but it still has to be tested in a number of different environments and scenarios. I’m estimating that we may be ready to send you the upgrade around July 13. I’ve just received the backup from Grossmont from Lydia. I expect by tomorrow your data will be fully migrated online and then you’ll be able to run the new reports.
Are you asking for a report that would compare data from TE with your college MIS? Then no, there wouldn’t be a way to create that.
If you’re looking for a report that shows students who were in your program and moved on to community college, we have the Update Program Outcomes report. Go to Reports/Program Outcomes/Enrollment (Update) Summary and then in the report look for Education Results.
Run your AEP DIR; hit the Export button; save as a pdf; send it to email@example.com
The 55+ would fall into the program they were in but we had been told to assign a special program code of Older Adult to our students 55 and over. I did that after asking my question to get my students to appear in the Workforce (Re)Entry field but did not get an answer (and did not pursue an answer) as to why some were already there.
Now that I know what I’m looking for, I’m sure this was my misunderstanding as it’s possible the students who were previously showing in that field already had that marked in their record somehow and I didn’t look for it at the time before assigning the Older Adult to all over 55.
Yes - if the students are in ABE/ASE and also in AwD, then you should mark them as included with program enrollment under both programs. It is fine for any AEP student to be in more than one program, and it will benefit statewide reporting to be able to document the student outcomes in both areas.
It is permissible to contract with an expert to provide TE assistance. Each member must have their own TE ID for reporting - meaning they have to connect with CASAS and set up an account. The member must work out the details of the subcontractor's access to student data, and make the expert/subcontract uses their unique TE ID for reporting member data. This has taken place around the state especially with new members.
The definition of long-term unemployed, per the Adult Education Data Element Dictionary, is as follows. Among reportable individuals who had more than one instructional contact hour or received support services in the selected program in the selected year, long-term unemployed students are those who were flagged as unemployed for more than 27 consecutive weeks when they enrolled in adult education.
All these items do have specific definitions. None are “meaningless.” Keep in mind that the definitions can change from year to year. We will be updating the Data Dictionary soon, but for now, please use the attached. I’ve included the ones you specified in the email.
According to the Data Dictionary (attached),
Gained Computer or Tech Skills = Increased computer skills, including knowledge of hardware and software.
Skills Progression = Record if participant successfully completed an exam that is required for a particular occupation, or progress in attaining technical or occupational skills as evidenced by trade-related benchmarks such as knowledge-based exams.
Educational Achievement = Achieved at least one educational functioning level in an education program that provides instruction below the post-secondary level.
Training Milestone = Record if the participant had a satisfactory or better progress report towards established milestones from an employer/training provider who is providing training (on-the-job training (OJT), registered apprenticeship, etc.).
Acquired Workforce Readiness Skills = Obtained work experience that enabled the student to receive future employment.
Learning Gains, HSE/HS Diploma, Post-Secondary, Enter Employment, Increase Wages, and Transition Post-Sec.
You could offer this as a noncredit CTE class that is part of the medical/nursing pathway. But you would need to get Chancellor’s Office approval for the curriculum. If it’s CTE noncredit course you could count it as an instructional program.
If you don’t offer it as a CTE course, you could offer it as a transitional service workshop to prep students to enter the CTE pathway. You would record that in TOPSPro Box 8.
If it’s a noncredit college course, and you have chancellor’s office approval, you must follow all existing community college regulations & education code related to paying instructional costs. If you run this as a fee based community serve college course, you cannot use any state funding to supplement it.
BTW - You can’t use WIOA II $$ to fund a CTE course either.
CTE isn’t reported for WIOA II. There should not be a conflict.
They are tied to a student and reflect outcomes in the Instruction Program for that student.
There is no need to mark “Retained” at the end of the program year as student status is now determined by attendance. When the new fiscal year begins, students get a new entry record and they get new update records throughout the year.
Attendance can be imported cumulatively once each month.
No middleware is needed. If you’re using the attached specifications files can be exported from your database system directly to TOPSpro Enterprise.
If you need help identifying potential partners in this effort, please contact AEP TAP and provide the local MIS software you are using. AEP TAP will attempt to connect you with a community college that has already mapped the data elements from their MIS to TE.
Yes, they can import cumulative attendance and do it once a month. I would just clarify with them to do Cumulative hours once a month not Daily Attendance.
You can generate the AEP Summary Report in TOPSpro Enterprise at the consortium level. The report manager has options to generate at the member level and aggregate consortium level.
Consortia can generate the AEP Summary Report in TOPSpro Enterprise at the consortium level. The report manager has options to generate at the member level and aggregate consortium level.
TAP's response from Jay: Short answer is yes. If a learner is enrolled in more than one program, ideally you report the student in both.
The "how" is where the "it depends" comes in...
If it is iBest and, both the ESL and CTE teacher are co-teaching, then you could create one class and designate the class for both programs.
If this is two separate classes (eg ESL on Monday/Wed, CTE on Tue/Thursday), then you could create two separate classes and designate one for ESL and one for CTE.
Sorry I'm not sure about the TOPcode -- you'll need to follow up with someone at CCCCO for that. I can say that information is not needed/100% optional for both AEP and WIOA.
Report what you have. Hopefully by Q2 things will be better for you. Attached is document that describes how to use the Notes feature in TE. The Notes description appears on the last 2-3 pages of the document.
Yes, it’s perfectly fine and expected to have any number of programs within a site.
TE will not report to the state any AEP students that are under 18 years of age.
For WIOA II – in certain circumstances it’s ok to report students under 18 – so if you have members that are WIOA II and AEP funded – it would be ok as CASAS will separate them (or allow you to mark if the report is AEP or WIOA II).
Indeed, you want to populate TE with all students. The AEP and WIOA reports themselves will filter out according to age.
Currently there are no plans to do this. It’s not a big programming issue, but for most agencies AEP and WIOA are the same students… so making this distinction for most agencies really doesn’t help at all.
- Create a site for non AEP (assuming most are in AEP)
- Create a class or group of classes for non AEP (making the same assumption as in #1 above)
- Mark non AEP students and/or classes as “Other Program” and that way they will not be captured in the AEP data count.
In order to find the number of students your consortium serves, I would go back to the data your consortium submitted in TOPSpro. This will tell you the number of students your consortium served during a given time period.
If you are referring to students in ABE, ASE (HSE and HS diploma) or ESL, then yes you should pre/post test. The fact that it is a jail does not make a difference.
If you are referring to students in other programs, then it is not required.
A little more -- there are several jails across California that have done WIOA II for many years, including 38 facilities within CDC-R -- they like everyone else must meet testing requirements. In general this has always worked out fine, with the exception that they usually need to do pencil/paper testing rather than CASAS eTests.
The due dates are not aligned yet (3rd Quarter Reports are due 4/30/17, and 4th Quarter Reports are due 8/1/17).
We need this data for legislative reporting - and we need it submitted timely, but we also need accurate data. If you find some flaws in your data after the 8/1 submission date, please work with CASAS to correct them. Keep in mind CASAS is reviewing the data in order to provide us the best info possible for state reporting – so we would anticipate if you had any edits – it would be done relatively quickly – like in early August.
The EOY data submission and reporting pertains to the period of July 1 to June 30. So, if we’re talking about PY 17-18, there should be no hours or any other data from July 2018. Note: the user doesn’t really need to be concerned about this as long as records are dated accurately, because TE EOY reports know to exclude data outside PY 17-18.
Yes, that calendar is accurate. The two upcoming deadlines are on the 31st: the expense report and the Q2 TE student data.
There are some using intake forms that are aligned with WIOA and AEP. Examples are available from Tahoe - firstname.lastname@example.org and San Luis Obispo - email@example.com.
The state has been working with experts and focus groups to develop the new AEP Data System. We anticipate its release within the next few years. The first full year of data collection through that system will hopefully be in Year 3 of the AEP. Consortia should do their best to track student outcomes based on local resources until within a few years.
Reporting is restricted to AEP programs only. All students participating in AEP program areas, regardless of fund sources (e.g. WIOA), need to be included in consortia reporting.
Yes. Eventually, we will get to the point where we can track with more detail, but this is what we are doing for Year 1. By AEP program areas – regardless of fund source.
All barriers for AEP map directly to WIOA. The definitions have been released and are in the AEP Data and Accountability Instructions. Draft tables will be released soon.
No additional paperwork is needed for identifying these barriers. Student self-report is sufficient.
The demographic data that will have to be collected will be the items typically collected in educational programs, and they align with WIOA. Those definitions are in the Data and Accountability Instructions.
15% of the Data and Accountability funding was retained at the state level for work on the statewide data system. The 85% that went to the consortia is for the purposes outlined in your Data and Accountability grant, foremost to make sure each consortia develops a complete data collection and reporting system.
For 15-16, report all students in the seven AEP program areas - regardless of fund source. So those could include students paid by AEP funds, apportionment, LCFF, CalWORKS, Perkins, WIOA, and K-12 Jail Education funds.
Report the information that you have collected.
Please contact the AEP office to provide more information. In general, concurrently enrolled high school students would not be in AEP counts. However, if the student is 18 years or older and enrolled in a AEP Program area, they may qualify.
The 15-16 Student Data Collection process is to gather student data from the AEP Program areas, regardless of fund source. Many fund sources support the AEP Program areas – like Perkins, CalWORKs, WIOA, Apportionment, LCFF, etc.
AEBG legislation is clear about the age threshold of 18 years old, regardless of emancipation status.
Yes, as identified in AB104 for the AEP. They are: ABE/ASE, ESL, CTE, Adults training for child school success, Programs for adults with disabilities, Workforce re-entry, and Pre-apprenticeship. Slide 7 of the webinar illustrates how these programs fit together and where they may also overlap.
This would be a cross-program situation so each student would show in both categories in the duplicated count, but show up as one person in the un-duplicated count. This could happen with integrated ESL-citizenship programs (services for immigrants), or integrated basic skills and technical training as well.
Regarding a common intake for data collection on common clients, we are still at the conceptual level. We will consult with stakeholders to examine the issues and options. WIOA Titles still have several systems in place and we will explore how to interface the systems. The details will emerge as work progresses.
In terms of common metrics, the state Workforce Board’s position is that the WIOA metrics have established credibility as they were developed over a long period of time in response to research by workforce professionals, and they are similar to the AEP metrics. It makes sense to use common metrics for things that are intended for a common purpose, e.g. skills gains across systems should use the same definitions, etc., in addition to metrics uniquely needed by different systems for their separate purposes. We know that this is the direction grants and programs that are federally funded will go when rolled out to the states. It makes sense to proactively set ourselves up to use a common metric going forward. Regarding CASAS, the state Workforce Board isn’t recommending any particular assessment tools, but encourages consortia to find ways to avoid duplication. The primary consideration is to identify WHAT we want systems achieve, and then how to best do that (with what tools or vendors).
Use something flexible that you will be able to change with or from. Don’t lock yourself in to something until we have more clarity from the state level regarding WHAT we want to achieve. That will guide what actions and tools can be implemented to achieve it going forward. Adaptability is the primary consideration.
Correct – all students in the seven AEP Program areas – regardless of funding.
Our understanding is that ASAP can produce breakouts in the age ranges identified.
VABE (Vocational Adult Basic Education) may be reported in both ABE / ASE and CTE, and / or Workforce (Re)Entry program areas as appropriate. It may be helpful to consider the proportion of technical skills provided in the course versus the amount of English Language in the context of vocations.
For Instructional Programs, 1 hour plus indicates adults who enrolled and attended for at least 1 hour. The 12 hour plus indicates students that received at least 12 hours of instruction.
Failure to report member data could lead to the State determining that the member and possibly the consortium are being ineffective. This may lead to a reduction in funding. Members and consortium have been aware of the due dates and deadlines for the past 6 months (if not longer). There is no excuse for a member to not report their data. The CA Legislature gave adult education $525M in 15-16, and if we can’t report student data and show progress, they may choose to cut our funding.
Right now, we don’t have a mechanism for collecting information on waiting lists. But if you provide any services to them, the students would be captured under services.
Right now, we are only tracking students in the seven AEP program areas, regardless of fund source. We don’t need to know the fund source on the student data tables as we are reluctant to add a column or have consortium alter the tables. In the annual plan, there is a table for projected 16-17 expenditures by the seven funding sources listed in the AB104 legislation (LCFF, Perkins, WIOA, etc.).
Yes, but be cautious about this. Considerations should include a review of the content and intent. Consider the amount of content for each of the categories, as well as the intent of skills to be acquired through the course. It is unlikely that any course would be under more than two categories.
This would be in Support Services, Table 2.
Yes, at this point, as we work to understand how these systems are working around the state, this is fine.
No, it can only accommodate one file for each member.
Age, Ethnicity, Birthdate are handled by ASAP, so this should not be a problem.
Federally approved tools can be found on the AEP student data collection website under the NRS register link. We will make sure there is also a separate link to these tools for your convenience.
The AEP Office is developing a statewide field-based council to look at requirements, including assessment and learning outcomes, for these programs.
The AEP Office encourages these sorts of ideas, and would recommend pre/post-testing in these instances – but for now, pre/post-testing is required just for ABE, ASE, and ESL. The AEP Office is reviewing how we will assess adult students in this program area.
Yes, TABE testing is a federally approved assessment test, and it can be reported through TOPSPro Enterprise. Please see the NRS register link in a prior question for all the federally approved assessment tools.
It is recommended that additional proposed metrics be reviewed by a field based work group in coordination with the AEP Office. If the workgroup and AEP Office identified/agreed on these new outcomes for state level reporting, they would be added to TOPSPro Enterprise for the 17-18 PY.
That is a local decision on whether or not you use a local federated data system with your members and partners. The State AEP Office is attempting to establish data sharing agreements at the state level to meet this need. Look for additional guidance to be released soon. The short-term goal right now is to begin tracking AEP students in TOPSPro Enterprise, collect self-reported follow up information, collect social security numbers, if provided, and begin pre/post-testing AEP students in ABE, ASE, and ESL classes.
No roll up or use of the data portal will be necessary.
This initiative is focused on the Community College system and is broader than AEP, but includes the same populations and goals. It is being piloted at a selection of community colleges. The work includes building a menu of common assessments that align with each other so that students are assessed in a consistent and transparent manner. Alignment is the goal. How this aligns with CASAS is under discussion.
Launchboard is a data dashboard tool intended to look at the transition into post-secondary education and is not intended to serve as an AEP reporting system, nor is it a student data collection system. While CASAS is working with Launchboard to align data elements in TOPSPro Enterprise, data will appear in a later timeframe than what is required for AEP reporting. For more information, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org, or read the document at: bit.ly/LaunchBoardAdultEdPilot
Yes, these should be considered.
Well – for AEP we are allowing you to serve students in Spanish language coursework. But we just don’t have an approved state assessment tool to track any student progress (ie MSG). So please report the student demographics, the program enrollment, the services, and the outcomes. This would all be for AEP. Now – WIOA might differ – I would ask Jay to put on his WIOA II hat.For WIOA II -- agencies can report Spanish GED/etc. as an authorized HSE outcome, and earn CA payment points... but the instructional program must be (plain ol') HSE, not Spanish HSE, and the pre and post-testing must be done in English.
For AEP there is no specific requirement to test in English for these students like for Federal reporting -- but the problem is both CASAS and other test publishers don't have NRS approved pre/post forms in Spanish or other languages. At CASAS we have the reading forms 653-654 in Spanish. We would say these forms are at approximately the CASAS C level... but it does not have official scale scores that enable you to track gains on the federal charts like you can do with many of the other CASAS forms. So feel free to use these forms for AEP, but sorry -- there is no way to show literacy gains with these forms (at least from an official point of view.)
For 17/18, community colleges will only report those students who enroll in noncredit coursework in the AEP program areas. Those student in credit courses would not be reported for AEP. We would encourage the college to continue to offer transitional, planning, and supportive services to adult education students who would like to transition to credit/degree applicable coursework. Those services – helping adult education students transition to credit courses (either at the adult school, or enrolled in noncredit courses), would be captured in AEP student data reporting as services (transitional, supports, or training). I hope that helps.
BTW – reentry is still not defined as an older adult (older than 55) course – but we are tracking student barriers to employment to see the characteristics of the unemployed. But both reentry and short term vocational can be reported under CTE.
For reporting purposes, AEP is tracking students by program area, rather than fund source. The practice of tracking students that were impacted by AEP funding was difficult to qualify. With new program definitions, students are now tracked by program area regardless of fund source, which encourages the leveraging and braiding of multiple fund sources. The new program definitions are as follows:
For reporting purposes, adult education includes all people receiving support services from AEP consortium members or enrolled in K12 adult education or noncredit community college coursework in the program areas listed in AB104: elementary and secondary basic skills, English as a second language, short-term career and technical education, entry/re-entry into the workforce, pre-apprenticeship, adults with disabilities, and adults training to support child school success.
AEP does not have any policy on the sharing of student data among members. Consortium members are advised to follow their district policy related to sharing student data with another educational partner.
If a member subcontract AEP funds to another adult ed provider for instruction/services, that provider must report back to the originally funded member or the holder of the contract with the provider.
Now if the consortium reallocated on the CFAD to another member - then it would be up to the receiving member of the new funds to report that via their data reporting ID in TOPSPro.
The key is - is there a subcontract for services involved. Or are you just reallocating funds between members and documenting that on the CFAD.
Because there are no federally approved assessments to measure gains in Spanish, you are not required to test/report gains for the Spanish GED class.
If you wish to test in Spanish, there are a couple forms (653-654) from CASAS that are in Spanish that you can use. Some find these forms useful for the sort of students you mention, but they are not federally approved -- so they will not register any sort of "official" pre/post-test gain for WIOA or AEP.
Related to the original question, both the parent education students and the students over 18 not directly funded by AEP would be reportable. Given the diverse program strategies employed by AE providers in student success generally, parent education programs are included. There is no way to parse out the level of intent or attentiveness to school success in such offerings so all such programs should be reported for this area. Students over 18 enrolled still enrolled in regular K12 high school would not be reported.
TOPSpro Enterprise (TE) will not report to the state any AEP students that are under 18 years of age.
For WIOA II, in certain circumstances it’s ok to report students under 18. So if you have members that are WIOA II and AEP funded, it would be ok as CASAS will separate them (or allow you to mark if the report is AEP or WIOA II).
So you want to populate TE with all students. The AEP and WIOA reports themselves will filter out according to age.
Yes, you should be collecting both highest year of school earned and highest degree earned. These are both required for state and federal reporting. They are similar sets of data, but definitely not exactly the same.
An active student is a student that is receiving some type of AEP-funded service or has enrolled in an AEP-funded class. The key is that the program has collected some type of demographic data to ID that student in the system.
We are aware. Just report what student data you have on hand for Q1.
Contact CASAS at email@example.com and work with tech support to get the Q1 data in.
SSSP does not require, nor allow for the counting of assessment progress, so they cannot count assessment progress for noncredit SSSP only placement.
Ukiah Unified School District is funded for WIOA. Any members/agencies who are WIOA funded need to be tracked separately. Non-WIOA funded agencies can be set up as sites under a main agency.
A couple of options…
1. You can use data and accountability funds to help them report the data.
2. You can contact CASAS and see if there is some easier way to submit the student data (through import/export from your MIS/attendance system).
If you fail to report these students, the member will be placed in targeted technical assistance. If they fail to report after that, the consortium members can vote to reduce your funds and reallocate them to other members.
Please see below for the link to the 2017-2018 Program and Accountability Requirements for Student Outcome Data Collection and Submission Letter.
There is no specific Barrier for jail. There are obviously some that you mention that may apply to Jail students – if so by all means record these – but nothing that addresses Jail in particular.
If you wish to track this, there is a “Jail” field in Entry field #13, Special Programs, that you can use to track this.
The AEP office would like to get these basic demographics for students who only get services. Having only DOB will not disqualify students, but you should try to collect all data in the image below.
[Image of data sheet requesting gender, DOB, highest schooling completed, diploma/certification earned, ethnicity, and race]
The understanding is that CCCCO MIS will be available for PY18-19.
We are using the same progress report and expense format online like we did for the past 1.5 years. You can submit your report any time.
Yes – K-12 districts should still use Resource Code 6391 for tracking 15-16 AEP funding.
The online system expense and progress reporting (completed every six months) is completed at the consortium level by the designated Consortium Coordinator. The coordinators will work with each individual member to obtain the necessary financial information and progress.
No – if you allocate using the 5000’s or 7000’s object code in the online system – the AEP Office doesn’t need to have a breakdown of how those funds were spent.
No – report object code 5000 expenses summarized under that object code (5000). No need to break out those expenses in the online expenses and progress report – due every six month. This is different than the annual plan report which does ask for the breakout.
The Data and Accountability funding will be tracked separately, having its own grant code, expenditure and progress report – separate from every of AEP funding pot.
If that is how you distributed the funds, then that is how you would report it. Use the object codes as indicated in your budget.
Check with your state agency. Chancellor's Office released a memo in May 2017 on the subject, and the CDE Fiscal has guidance on the website.
Follow your district policies and procedures for coding your expenses. These fiscal reports in the online system (Chancellor’s Office) are auditable – so use your district’s/Fiscal Agent’s policies and procedures for reporting.
Please refer to updated Program Guidance for details, but for MOE reporting, the State requires that on an annual basis, each member with 15-16 MOE funding breaks it down with their budget and expenditures by program area, annual plan objective, and expenditure object code. Each year, MOE funding will be broken down this way until they are fully expended.
Update your 15-16 annual plan to reflect ongoing activities, revise your 15-16 budget, and report your expenses using the 15-16 fund code in the online system along with progress reports.
Your tables will show us remaining funds for 15-16. The tables will also show projected funding for 16-17. But you keep those tables separate – don’t co-mingle fund years in your tables even though they might be spent on similar activities.
Track it separately. Separate reporting.
No – please keep all your consortium administrative costs (as listed in the program guidance and allowable uses), and the indirect costs from members in the administrative/indirect line item. If you have overhead costs for program – you may use an allocation percentage to spread over the program areas, but operational costs and admin/indirect are not the same thing.
Yes – your Fiscal Agent for 15-16 will be responsible for tracking the 15-16 expenses until these funds are exhausted. That means filing online reports for the 15-16 funds, providing progress updates, and closing out the account in the Spring of 2018. This is their responsibility, even if in 16-17 you are direct funded.
Yes – but don’t forget - if you are the Fiscal Agent – a separate account is required for Data and Accountability funding too.
No – you will have to report those on a separate line marked administration/indirect.
The answer to this question is specific to K-12 school districts,
adult schools, and County Offices of Education and doesn’t apply to
community college districts.LEAs will use the same resource code for MOE and non-MOE funding.Consortia Fund Administrators
who are the fund administrator for an adult education consortium and
receive Adult Education Block Grant revenue on behalf of their member
LEAs should use:
- Resource 6391, Adult Education Block Grant Program and,
- Either Object 8587, Pass-Through Revenues from State Sources (for the pass-through grant model), or Object 8590,
All Other State Revenue (for the subagreement for services model), to
account for the revenue that will be provided to their member LEAs.
who are the members in an adult education consortium and receive Adult
Education Block Grant revenue from their consortia’s fund administrator
(not directly from the state) should use:
- Resource 6391, Adult Education Block Grant Program and,
- Either Object 8590, All Other State Revenue (for the pass-through grant model), or Object 8677, Interagency Services Between LEAs (for the subagreement for services model), to account for the AEBG revenue.
Use Resource 6391, Adult Education Block Grant Program, and Object 8590, All Other State Revenue.Adult Education Block Grant (AEBG) SACS Coding ExamplesPass-through grant model accounting examples:
|Receipt of AEBG revenue to be passed through:|
|Pass-through of state revenue:|
11-6391-0-0000-9200-7211, 2, 3
|Receipt of passed-through AEBG revenue:|
|N/A||Expenditure of AEBG funds:|
|Receipt of AEBG revenue:|
|Payment to subrecipient for subagreement services:|
|Receipt of payment for subagreement services:|
|N/A||Expenditures for subagreement services:|
further information on whether to use the pass-through grant model or
the subagreement for services model when accounting for this grant, LEAs
should consult the California School Accounting Manual (CSAM) Procedure
750. Additional guidance can be found in CSAM Procedure 330 under the
definition for Object Code 5100, Subagreements for Services.
All Adult Education Block Grant revenue should be recorded in Fund 11, Adult Education Fund, using Resource 6391, Adult Education Block Grant Program. Fund 11 is the only fund valid in combination with Resource 6391.
Only CFAD activities will be pre-populated.
Revisions are conditionally approved upon receipt. If the state has questions or issues with the revision, we will get back to you within 7 to 10 days.
For the July report, please show actual expenses. You can always catch up on the January report. For 15/16 funds, January will be the final report with a close out in February 2018.
Not for July reporting. But for the end of the 15/16 reporting - 12/31/17 - the final report is due by 1/31/18 - and the close out is due 2/16/18. So you would have to plan to end that contract so the final expenses could be recorded prior to the closeout.
The answer to this question is specific to K-12 school districts, adult schools, and County Offices of Education and doesn’t apply to community college districts.
LEAs will use the same resource code for MOE and non-MOE funding.
Consortia Fund Administrators
LEAs who are the fund administrator for an adult education consortium and receive Adult Education Block Grant revenue on behalf of their member LEAs should use:
Resource 6391, Adult Education Block Grant Program and,
Either Object 8587, Pass-Through Revenues from State Sources (for the pass-through grant model), or Object 8590, All Other State Revenue (for the subagreement for services model), to account for the revenue that will be provided to their member LEAs.
Consortia Members (Subrecipients)
LEAs who are the members in an adult education consortium and receive Adult Education Block Grant revenue from their consortia’s fund administrator (not directly from the state) should use:
Resource 6391, Adult Education Block Grant Program and,
Either Object 8590, All Other State Revenue (for the pass-through grant model), or Object 8677, Interagency Services Between LEAs (for the subagreement for services model), to account for the AEBG revenue.
LEAs that receive AEBG directly from the state
Use Resource 6391, Adult Education Block Grant Program, and Object 8590, All Other State Revenue.
Adult Education Block Grant (AEBG) SACS Coding Examples can be found in the AEBG FAQs in the Funding Category, Question 5.
This accounting advisory addresses the appropriate accounting for districts receiving Adult Education Program (AEP) funds either as a fiscal agent, as a participant/provider, or both. The treatment of funds received as the fiscal agent for disbursement to other participants is different than for funds received by the district for the direct costs of providing adult education services.Fiscal Agent
Funds received from the State under a fiscal agent agreement that are then disbursed within 45 days to other adult education providers should be recorded in the restricted General Fund as 8900 "Other Financing Sources" using revenue object code 8970 "Fiscal Agent Pass Though". Disbursements should be coded to "Other Outgo-Other Transfers" using expenditure object code 7400 "Other Transfers", excluding indirect cost recovery. Under AEP, districts have no fiduciary requirement regarding the use of the funds by the other participants. The only obligation of the fiscal agent is to disburse within 45 days.
If a portion of the funds received as a fiscal agent are for the district's own adult education program, then those funds should be recorded initially as described above. A transfer (other outgo) will be recorded to the fiscal agent funds for the district's share. The district will recognize its share of the funds in the restricted General Fund using revenue object code 8620 "General Categorical Programs". Expenditures should be recorded in expenditure object codes 1000-6000 as appropriate. Likewise, if the district is not the fiscal agent and is receiving AEP funds, those funds should be recorded to the restricted General Fund using revenue object code 8620 "General Categorical Programs" and expenditure object codes 1000-6000 as appropriate.
Note the newly created object codes are not currently reflected in the California Community College Budget and Accounting Manual. This guidance will be incorporated at the next opportunity.
For the 15/16 Report Period 4 – please only report the consortia related expenditures as reflected in the budgeted amount. See the amount below…..$2,612,493. The 15/16 non-MOE is reported by K12 into the CDE SACS (School Accounting Code Structure).
34A) Piedmont USD
Grant Agreement No: 15-328-40 Total Grant Award: $2,612,493
Yes - the email was just a heads up. 7/31 is the deadline.
Here is your password for 16/17 fund code 16-328-12. The AEP portal is not the same as the fiscal system. So I thought you really wanted this password for 16/17.
Did you re-renter the budget numbers? The system won’t allow you to put in more expenses than what is budgeted. That’s why the system didn’t accept the 7000s expenses. You will have to make them match up with $7000 budget $7000 expensed. If you have more expenses there – you need to do a budget revision for the next report due in January. Revisions are due before 12/20/17.
Remember to type in the budget from the prior report period - that’s what happened in the 7000s.
Did you re-renter the budget numbers? I just did and it worked.
Other issues I noted: The system won’t allow you to put in more expenses than what is budgeted. That’s why the system didn’t accept the 4000s expenses. I had to make them match up with $7000 budget $7000 expensed. If you have more expenses there – you need to do a budget revision for the next report due in January. Revisions are due before 12/20/17.
Remember to type in the budget from the prior report period - that’s what happened in the 7000s.
Who is tracking the expensed amount in the pass through 7000s? Is the college and the unified school district submitting to the consortium lead and fiscal agent a detailed financial report so they can check if for appropriate expenditures in the seven AEP program areas? What is your consortium internal process? The state doesn’t have access to these details – so the responsibility falls on the consortium.
The current fiscal system allows fiscal agents to report how it was allocated. If most of the money was pass through to members (oc 7000) – then the expenditures would also reside there (oc 7000). If you do wish to revise your budget, report period 5 budget revisions are due 12/20/17. The date for report period 4 revisions was 6/20/17 – we cannot reopen the system to accept late revisions.
Keep in mind that we will be phasing out this type of reporting with the 15/16 funding. For 16/17 & 17/18 we will be going to a member based system – and will not be reporting the pass through. Stay tune for details later this fall.
I submitted a request yesterday regarding the approved budget in the 7000 SAC’s code not moving into the budget column and thus not letting me add the expenditures for 2015-16 and 2016-17 in this column. I looked for the formula and did not see one; however, this morning I tried just coping the amount form the approved budget into the budget column and it worked.
You are not allowed to transfer expenditures in the system. What you reported in period 1 for expenses cannot be changed. We could try to cancel report 1 and have you refile. Do you want me to de-certify it? So you can refile 16/17 report 1? If yes – I can do that this weekend – then you can refile Monday morning.
We are moving to a new system. Not sure what the numbers will be.
I guess you can tell her 17-328-41. Each year the fiscal year changes…
15-328-141 – is data& accountability – a different fund code.
But moving to a new system – not sure what the numbers will be.
One option – is to bring this up during the annual planning process. All members have to participate and be on board with what is certified and submitted to the state. There is a fiscal section in the annual plan document that asks how much 15/16 & 16/17 funding you have left – and what are the plans to spend that down. That could be the opportunity to have honest discussion.
As consortia and their members have implemented the 45-day receipt of funds requirement, tracking the pass through of funds to members in the AEP financial system has been difficult. Beginning in program year 17-18, consortium will no longer track the pass through of AEP funds disbursed in 16-17 and 17-18 in the existing AEP financial system. In the fall of 2017, a new AEP fiscal reporting system will be rolled out requiring all members to report their allocations, budgets, and expenditures. The pass through of funds is not required to be reported in this system. However, for consortia and members with 15/16 AEP consortia funds still unspent, you will be required to close out these funds using the existing AEP financial reporting system https://misweb02.cccco.edu/sb70/prod/logon.cfm
No – it’s the same online budget and expenditure progress report that was used under AB86. We are using the same online system for AB104. Your primary consortium contact will have the log in and password to access the site. This is different than the AEP portal.
I told Stephanie that the new fiscal system for 17/18 will be released in October 2017. Budgets won’t be due until later in November or early December (as we work out the timing of the system roll out).
AEP is not a grant. It’s state apportionment. The new chancellor’s office invoicing requirements pertain to grants.
New fiscal system rolls out will be next month – early October. 17/18 budgets won’t be due until late Nov./early Dec. Your members will have a few months to get used to the new system. Because of the new system – we will not enforce 10/31 deadline. A letter is pending review that should be released this week explaining the approval of 17/18 annual plans, the go ahead to spend the $$$, and the new fiscal system.
Shasta College is responsible for reporting on all funds allocated as the consortium member. The funds provided to Shasta College’s service provider should be included in Shasta College’s member fiscal reports in NOVA.
If Shasta College passes 100% of the money through to other members – then you would not be reporting in NOVA. But you would have to certify the other member’s budget & expenses. If Shasta retains any funds for consortium level spending (by Shasta College for the consortia) or keeps AEP funds for programming – then on both accounts, they would be required to enter a budget in NOVA. But regardless, the fiscal agent is still responsible for consortium level administrative oversight of all member submitted budgets & expenses.
If you can work with Nicole and correct the expenditure problems in the old system (chancellor’s office) – then once corrected – you could bring in the accurate 16/17 carry over amount into NOVA. Will that work for you? If yes, please send Nicole the changes you need to make in the old system with your July 2017 expense report.
Please see the link to the website on the AEP data and accountability funds.
The website docs will cover your questions:
Yes – there is reporting in the chancellor’s office webmis system. Revisions are due by 12/20/17. The mid-term expense report is due 1/31/18.
The AEP Data and Accountability funding will have a different code in the online system, referenced in the previous section, than the AEP funding code. This code will have the same fiscal year code (i.e. “15”), the same adult education code (i.e. “328”), but a different three-digit individual consortium number (“XXX”).
For example: under the AEP funding, Alan Hancock’s funding code was 15-328-01. As such, their Data and Accountability funding number will be 15-328-101. Resource Codes K-12 adult schools and County Offices will use 6392 as the new Resource Code to account for their Data and Accountability funds. The AEP ($500M) Resource Code will remain as 6391. Community College Districts will use their own internal coding. Indirect Rate Fiscal agents (whether consortia based or direct funded) may take their approved indirect rate for this project.
Budget revisions will be allowed prior to the final expenditure report. Revisions must be submitted before the January report month. Final Project Deliverables A Closeout Report will be due February 25, 2019 and will include a mandatory “Practice with Promise” submission focusing on a data and accountability objective. (Consortia may submit more than one “Practice with Promise”). AEP Data and Accountability funding is an apportionment, so there will be no 10% withholding of funds.
VII. Allowable Uses Expenditures for these funds must be aligned with the consortium’s Data and Accountability submitted budget and work plan, as well as the online budget, and expenditure and progress reports. Consortia Data and Accountability work plans must also align with their 3-year plan, and annual plans. For additional information and/or to determine whether specific purchases are allowable, consortia should continue to refer to the AEP Allowable Uses Guidance.
VIII. Other In accordance to AB104 legislative decision-making requirements, consortia will use existing locally approved governance structures, policies, and procedures to develop, approve, and submit all Data and Accountability deliverables required by the State.
Here are the quarter periods:
AEP Program Year Reporting
July 1 – Sept 30
October 31, 2017
July 1 – Dec 31
January 31, 2018
July 1 – Mar 31
April 30, 2018
July 1 – June 30
August 1, 2018
Budget revisions were due December 20, 2017, and the misweb system will not allow any budget revisions after December 31, 2017.
We will not be asking for anything other than the close out – which is a repeat of the numbers that are submitted January 31, 2018. This is for 15/16 consortia funds.
The State is already working on many of these policy areas. However, consortia still have to work out some of the local/regional intake issues – assessment, appraisal, referrals, case notes, etc. with your local adult education members and partners. Continue working through these building blocks for regional alignment and share insights with the AEP Office.
They are the same thing. All members of all consortia should have received the link to the survey. The link was sent directly to the Consortia Contacts that the AEP office has listed. For additional questions or for additional information about your consortium’s submissions, please contact Judy Mortrude from CLASP at: firstname.lastname@example.org.
The first AEBG Year 1 report to the Legislature is due in September 2016. The first draft of the CLASP report will be available in Spring 2017. We will be able to share that with the Legislature as it becomes available, as well as incorporate findings in our Year 2 report in September 2017.
We will look into that.
Thank you for your suggestions. CLASP will be looking at strategies to broaden the distribution of the survey.
Consortia still have to work out some of the local/regional intake issues – assessment, appraisal, referrals, case notes, etc. with your local adult education members and partners. Continue working through these building blocks for regional alignment and share insights with the AEP Office. This information can then be shared with the legislature to show our progress.
For AEP purposes, we count all students in the seven program areas as long as they are following their respective agency’s education code. Currently, there is nothing to prohibit charging fees for a CTE K12 adult course (as we couldn’t find any recent guidance from CDE, although a management memo does prohibit fees for ASE, ABE, & ESL). The framework for the course curriculum and training should include course competencies and industry based standards. As for credentialing, you must follow the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing regulations on K12 adult school teachers.
As described. the teachers you mention may have the prerequisite qualifications to receive their designated subjects CTE credentials, so you will likely want to follow the steps provided by the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing here. You can also reach out to the credentialing experts at the Contra Costa County Office of Education here so they can guide you through the CTE credentialing process.
Often the credentialing issue is based on your district's teacher employment procedures and local credential analyst.
The apps are on the consortia webpage – under AB86.
This was decided by all state agencies involved, with the information provided below available through the AEP.org website here: http://aebg.cccco.edu/For-AEBG-Grantees/AEBG-Funding
AEP Funding - Where's My Money?
Regional Consortia Allocation Formula
Key state agencies (California Department of Education, State Board of Education, the California Community College Chancellor’s Office, and the Department of Finance) met to develop a funding formula for adult education regional consortia according to the Adult Education Block Grant Program legislation set forth in AB 104.
Use this link to read the explanation of the AEP Regional Consortia Formula Allocations: http://aebg.cccco.edu/portals/1/docs/reporting/Regional%20Consortia%20Formula_final%20versionF.pdf
Use this link to see the table of census variables by region: http://aebg.cccco.edu/portals/1/docs/reporting/Copy%20of%20Census%20Variables%20by%20Region%20Final%20vF%20REV2%2010%2026%2015.pdf
Below is a link to the Federal Register of approved tests for AEP. NWEA is not listed here, so unfortunately, the test is unable to be used. Any test on this approved list can be used in place of CASAS assessments.
This would be true if you are using the appropriate credits to show the gain. Please work with CASAS as they have covered in the regional training how to use high school diploma credits to show gains (which is aligned with the federal WIOA and carnegie units).
The consortia option has always been available in WIA/WIOA. CDE will release instructions and guidance on WIOA funding applications.
Many WIOA Title providers are feeling this same thing. Going forward, we will convene opportunities to explore these issues. What we need here in CA is to make sure that our AEP funds go to intended purposes, and to collaborate and leverage resources to serve more students efficiently, with all available funds. The WIOA Unified State Plan is really the place for the integration and interoperability of resources to be outlined. Some communities are successfully building positive relationships with their WDB partners with a shared focus on common purposes. That is the purpose of all these efforts.
Yes, and there are other funding sources that can be leveraged for this - Perkins, for example.
For next year, the overall state budget for WIOA is approximately $92M. No discussion has taken place about adding more state funding for WIOA at this time. Note that there will be an open competition for WIOA funds in 17-18 and we are expecting many more applicants.
AEP has multiple methods for capturing measurable skills gains in basic skills or ESL.
• For K12 adult schools or colleges that receive WIOA Title II funding through the California
Department of Education, AEP captures information on students that attained an increase
in their Educational Functioning Level from data reported to CASAS through TOPSpro®
Enterprise. CASAS provides annual updates to the Chancellor’s Office for the purpose of
populating the LaunchBoard AE Pipeline dashboard and for the annual report to the
legislature. This data is based on pre and post testing protocols using the CASAS
• For colleges that do not receive WIOA Title II funding and do not use a standardized
assessment for pre and post testing their adult learners, AEP captures skills gains by
capturing course progression using the CB21 rubric and course flags for course level prior
to college level. The calculation for this method is based on subsequent enrollment in a
higher-level course in the sequence. For example, if a student is enrolled in an ESL course
flagged as CB21 level D and subsequently enrolls into a course flagged as CB21 level C,
they are automatically captured as having achieved a measurable skills gain. There is no
separate reporting for these students, however colleges should review the CB21 coding of
their basic skills and ESL courses to ensure that data captured using this methodology is
• For colleges that do not receive WIOA Title II funding but who do conduct pre and post
testing of students using a federally approved testing instrument such as CASAS or TABE,
the Chancellor’s Office has created new student data element SA07. SA07 allows the
college to identify the educational functioning level of the student based on the cut scores
for that instrument (available from the testing provider). SA07 should be entered for the
student upon their initial assessment and every time the student is reassessed using the
same instrument. SA07 creates a new date stamped record every time it is updated for the
student. AEP uses the updated records to identify when a student has been assessed at a
higher educational functioning level and captures that as a measurable skills gain in the
LaunchBoard and for reporting to the legislature.
Practitioners have asked if it is possible to enter CASAS or TABE scores directly into MIS. It is not
possible to enter test scores directly. Colleges who use these instruments are responsible for
using the EFL cut scores from the test provider to identify the EFL level of their students and enter
the EFL level using SA07.
The three methods for capturing measurable skills gains for students are designed to account for
the different ways in which colleges are capturing skills progression in basic skills or ESL noncredit
programs. The use of any standardized assessment as a diagnostic instrument for capturing skills
gains is a local control decision by colleges and is not required for the receipt of AEP funding, but
the use of CASAS as an assessment is required for any college receiving WIOA Title II funding.
Colleges are expected to rigorously follow all testing and reporting requirements by the California
Department of Education related to the WIOA Title II funded programs and students.
Practitioners have asked if there are priorities for which methodology colleges should use to
capture and report their data related to measurable skills gains. For the purpose of displaying data
in the LaunchBoard and end of year reporting to the legislature, the CASAS TOPSpro® Enterprise
and MIS data sets are matched and analyzed to identify if a student has achieved a skills gain in
either data set, which is then recorded as a positive result. TE and MIS both show a positive result
for the student; the result is de-duplicated to avoid a duplicate count.
However, in 2018-2019, the Chancellor’s Office is implementing the new Student Success Metrics.
These metrics incorporate many of the AEP data elements to ensure that colleges are including
how they serve noncredit adult education students as a measure of institutional effectiveness.
The data calculations for the student success metrics rely only on MIS for capturing skills
progression and measurable skills gains for adult education students. For this reason, the AEP
office recommends that all colleges, including colleges receiving WIOA Title II funds, review their
CB21 course codes for accuracy and use SA07 for capturing student EFL attainment. This is aligned
to the general guidance that colleges should be entering all their student data into MIS regardless
of their participation in WIOA Title II and should ensure that all student records for their noncredit
students are complete.
All colleges have the ability to create student records manually for students who did
not enter the colleges through the regular application process. There are specific data elements
for noncredit student support activities in MIS that can be used to capture the work you are doing
with students for transition support. You should talk to your research, IT, and counseling
departments at the college to identify the preferred process for your institution.
The AEP Data and Accountability committee is in the process of developing recommendations to
the field for what student support activities are important for colleges and adult education
practitioners to track and record in TOPSpro® Enterprise and MIS.
Colleges should collect and maintain complete student records including all data
elements required by the Chancellor’s Office in their MIS system regardless of what other
reporting requirements they may have related to other funding they receive. Colleges who receive
any other funding source, such as WIOA Title II or Perkins, are subject to all the reporting
requirements of those other sources as well as the general mandate as colleges to maintain
complete student records and data in their MIS systems. By choosing to receive WIOA Title II
funding and having to report data to CDE for those funds, it in no way lessens the burden to
maintain complete data records of students in MIS.
There is no separate reporting process for collecting AEP noncredit student data through MIS.
Virtually all the student data pulled from MIS is based on the student’s enrollment record and
uses existing course codes and other data elements to help identify student characteristics,
enrollment, completion and other outcomes. Practitioners have expressed confusion regarding
this process. Here are some important things to understand about the college MIS submission
• All community colleges upload their MIS records approximately 30 days after the end of
the term. Because colleges have different term dates, the actual submissions may vary.
• Every college has its own timeline for when they pull their data from their local system and
prepare it for submission to the Chancellor’s Office. You should communicate with your
research or IT office to find out if your college has internal deadlines for updating data for
• Because of the variation in submissions by institutions, we strongly recommend that
practitioners review and update their data at the end of every term to ensure that data
uploads for your institution are complete.
Practitioners should review and validate their data in MIS just as they would for any other student
and should work with their research office or IT department for the best way to review that data.
Practitioners should be working closely with their research or IT departments on any questions
about data entry, data validation, or the process for data cleanup for submission to the
Chancellor’s Office. These should be existing, well established processes at your college.
While the majority of student, course, and program data elements should be captured in MIS
through the process of enrollment and registration, there are some student characteristics data
elements which colleges should review on a regular basis to ensure that their data is complete.
These are flags which are not attached to a course and therefore must be entered by the college
for the individual student. These include:
• Student Barriers to Employment data elements (there are multiple SG data elements that
correspond to the AEP and WIOA Special Populations)
• SB23 - Student apprenticeship status (used for preapprenticeship students)
• SA07 - Student Educational Functioning Level
• SG10 - Student participation in Integrated Education and Training status
• SG21 - Student Work Based Learning Status
Of these flags, the Student Educational Functioning Level (SA07) is the most sensitive as it can be
updated every time the student is assessed to identify the student has attained a new educational
functioning level (EFL). Practitioners using SA07 are strongly urged to review this data for their
students at the end of every term to ensure that it is up to date in their local MIS system. For
colleges that are also WIOA Title II funded, the LaunchBoard extracts from both MIS and your
TopsPro Enterprise Data for the display of your EFL attainment data, however the new Student
Success metrics rely only on MIS data, which is the reason we are encouraging the population of
data in both places.
Detailed descriptions of each of these flags are available in the CCCCO Data Element Dictionary on
the chancellor’s office web site:
Practitioners have asked if they can choose to use TOPSpro® Enterprise instead of MIS to report
their student data. The answer is no. The majority of student information used in the
LaunchBoard and for reporting to the legislature is based on information collected and stored in
MIS. In very limited circumstances, such as EFL attainment or occupational skills gains, the
LaunchBoard calculations look at both the CASAS data and MIS as a part of the calculation. The
enrollment and student records in MIS are a much more accurate and validated source of
information for student data than data extracted from MIS and reported through a third party
When SA07 was created, we were unaware that it included an internal logic check for a
value in SA01. This is an issue identified by many colleges affecting their data entry. Because the
assessments for EFL attainment are not being used for placement, we believe this logic check
should not be in place and are working within the Chancellor’s Office for a fix to this issue. There
have also been questions regarding this element, which we are also working on.
There is a complete Data Element Dictionary posted to the caladulted.org website that
identifies every data element in every calculation for data displayed in the LaunchBoard. As of this
moment, we do not have a single list of every MIS data element identified in the dictionary, but
based on the request we will ask for one to be compiled.
Beginning in the 2018-2019 program year college data will be collected through the MIS data
collected and populated by the colleges. This is also true for colleges, which receive WIOA Title II
funding and will continue to report through TOPSpro® Enterprise for Title II reporting. All but one
or to data elements in the LaunchBoard rely exclusively on MIS for student enrollment, student
characteristics, and outcome data. The exceptions to this are primarily Educational Functioning
Level Attainment and Occupational Skills Gains. Many metrics in the Launchboard rely on
matching of TOPSpro® Enterprise student records with student records in the MIS system,
including transition to postsecondary education, completion of postsecondary credentials, and
employment and earnings data.