Leadership isn’t about a title. It’s about impact, influence and inspiration.

–Susan Lytle Gilmore, Ph.D., Director of Adult Education, Sacramento City Unified School District
Professional Learning
Field Teams
About Us

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.

Do not use (Reporting)

There are some using intake forms that are aligned with WIOA and AEP. Examples are available from Tahoe - and San Luis Obispo -

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.

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.

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.

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.

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, or read the document at:

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.

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.

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]

Yes, ASAP is an acceptable attendance system to use to validate student hours for the seven program areas.

Although tracking service hours has been a challenge, we should continue capturing service hours (with the 7 program area descriptors if possible) in attendance systems.

No. You are reporting hours by program area regardless of funding. Therefore, that would include AEP, WIOA, Perkins, SWP, private funds, fees, LCFF, noncredit apportionment, etc. Same logic applies to reporting expenses by fund source. Keep in mind, on the hours; you must have been tracking hours for programs funded by these other fund sources. If the hours were not captured in your attendance system and/or TOPSPro, then you cannot report them for this exercise.

If SARS is an attendance system that tracks student hours and can be validated – than yes. If not, then no, it cannot be used.

Yes. We are reporting all student hours in the seven program areas. However, many members did not track service hours in their attendance system or did not provide details by program area. We do not want district guessing. The hours data must be backed up or validated by your attendance system.

For K12 and County Office programs, please report any of these instructional hours based on the distance-learning model (where students accrue hours without necessarily being in the classroom or being with the teacher).

Yes. Please attempt to prorate them by program area if unspecified.

The time period is July 1, 2017 to June 20, 2018.

Contract Education is outside of our program. So, you would not report those funds.

The data elements link and the data dictionary link will provide all of the data points to be included for college reporting. That can be found on our website in the Data Dictionary section.

You can find the DIR Action Plans on the CAEP website, You will click on Administrators, Reporting, and Student Data Collection. DIR Action Plans are listed in the Collection section.

If you just mean do you record hours for students receiving distance learning instruction, yes.

If your question is about the more specific issue of needing student signatures (that’s been a big question lately) then no.

I believe this is an area that we need to request a review - title 5 requirements for the HSD.

I recall the time when this policy was adopted and how we had some issues with a consortium, particularly the seat time and residency requirements. It was a quick process and I know ACCE was involved. But as for the seat time, I'm aware that there are broad interpretations of the meaning.

(h) For the purposes of this section, a noncredit course awarding 10 high school
credits must be designed to require a minimum of 144 hours of lecture, study or
laboratory work.

First, 10 HS credits for 144 hours can also be 1 credit at 12 hours and I know may of us apply this practice. But it's the last phrase that has been interpreted differently. Nowhere in the policy does it specifically call out ""seat time"" but rather expectations of ""study."" From my research and discussions over the yeas with other colleges with HSD programs, as we grappled with the hours and seat time issue, I found that faculty from different programs can and have made local determinations of what 12 hours of ""study"" or how much work would 12 hours would require based on the course objectives - regardless of how and where it's done. I have faith in the quality of the college diploma programs and the curriculum and instruction delivered in the event that hours were not part of the policy.

I don't know if there are any changes needed if there is no specific calling out of ""seat time"" but ACCE can explore it through different venues. I believe that now is a good time with solid reasons to request lessening residency requirements and removing the hours language from the policy because of the current focus on completion, acceleration, competency-based education and now the allowance for correspondence education. For us to contribute to our colleges' guided pathways, Regional plan goals, and Vision for Success, policy changes would make it easier and get rid of this lingering issue/question.