Guide to Perkins V 2026 CTE Reporting for State and Local Eligible Recipients.

The Strengthening Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act (Perkins V, Public Law 115-224, codified at 20 USC §2301 et seq.) requires every state and every local eligible recipient to report on a fixed list of core indicators of performance. Section 113(b)(2) defines them. For secondary recipients there are five: 1S1 (four-year graduation rate), 1S2 (extended-year graduation rate where the state uses one), 2S1 (academic proficiency in reading/language arts), 2S2 (academic proficiency in mathematics), and 2S3 (academic proficiency in science). On top of those, 3S1 measures post-program placement — the percentage of CTE concentrators who, in the second quarter after exiting, are in postsecondary education, advanced training, military service, a service program (Peace Corps / AmeriCorps), or competitive integrated employment. 4S1 measures non-traditional program participation, and 5S1-5S4 measure program-quality indicators (industry-recognized credentials, dual / concurrent enrollment, work-based learning, plus a state-defined optional measure). For postsecondary recipients the list shifts: 1P1 (postsecondary placement at second quarter after exit), 2P1 (earned a recognized postsecondary credential), 3P1 (non-traditional concentration). The 2026 cycle differs from earlier cycles in two ways. First, the OCTAE EDFacts FS231 / FS232 specification has tightened how concentrator status is computed at the cohort level — states that previously aggregated to district must now provide per-program-of-study counts. Second, several states have adopted optional 5S4 measures that include career-readiness assessment outcomes; if your state did, an assessment platform that exports per-student completion records becomes part of the data file rather than a side tool. The federal portion is reported via the Consolidated Annual Report (CAR) by 31 December for the prior program year.

Under Perkins V Sec. 3(12), a secondary CTE concentrator is a student who has completed at least two courses in a single CTE program of study. (Perkins IV used a three-course threshold, which is one of the most consequential changes between the two laws.) For postsecondary, a concentrator is a student who has earned at least 12 credits in a single program of study, or has completed the program if it is shorter than 12 credits. The definition matters because every accountability indicator in Sec. 113(b)(2) is computed only over concentrators — not over all CTE participants, not over all enrolled students. If your district codes program-of-study membership inconsistently across courses, your concentrator denominator wobbles, and 2S1 / 2S2 / 3S1 numerators move around for reasons that have nothing to do with student outcomes. Three operational consequences follow. First, the unit of measurement for 2S1 and 2S2 is the concentrator who took the state assessment in reading or math during the cohort year — not every concentrator. Districts that lose track of which concentrators sat which assessments end up with denominators that don’t reconcile to the SEA file. Second, 3S1 placement requires second-quarter-after-exit data. A student counted as a concentrator in one program but exited as a concentrator in another (because they switched POS senior year) creates a coding ambiguity that OCTAE has clarified in non-regulatory guidance: count the student in the program in which they exited as a concentrator. Third, several states layer additional sub-population reporting on top of the federal indicators — special populations under Sec. 3(48) — and the disaggregation only works if concentrator status is clean. Career-assessment platforms can help by providing a per-student record of which assessments were completed, when, and the result — but only if the platform exports reconcilable IDs that match your SIS.

Career-readiness assessments fit Perkins V reporting in three specific places. First, several states use career-readiness assessment completion as their state-determined 5S4 program-quality indicator under Sec. 113(b)(2)(A)(v). The list of approved 5S4 measures sits in each state’s Perkins V plan — check your SEA’s plan, not federal guidance, because 5S4 is state-determined. Second, assessment outcomes inform the local needs assessment (CLNA) required under Sec. 134(c) every two years; CLNA is where you justify which programs of study to fund, expand, or sunset. Third, individualized learning plans (ILPs) and personalized graduation plans — where state law requires them, e.g., Indiana, Tennessee, Florida — typically include a documented career-interest inventory or aptitude assessment. JobCannon’s fit is reasonable for the second and third use cases and partial for the first. The platform offers RIASEC (Holland code), Big Five, Multiple Intelligences, Skills Audit, and 49 other validated assessments, and exports per-student completion records via CSV or API. The knowledge graph maps to 2,536 careers and 1,533 skills with 64,317 weighted edges, which means the result page links the student to specific O*NET-aligned destinations rather than a generic interest profile. What JobCannon does not do: it is not a state-approved test of academic proficiency, so it cannot satisfy 2S1 or 2S2. It is not a credentialing test, so it cannot satisfy 5S1. It can satisfy a 5S4 measure if your state’s plan permits a career-interest or skills-readiness completion as an optional indicator — confirm with your SEA before assuming. For the local needs assessment and the ILP requirement, the per-student export is the relevant artifact.

Sec. 113(b)(3)(A)(i) sets the state-level performance baseline rule: a state that fails to meet 90 percent of its negotiated state-determined performance level on any indicator in two consecutive years must enter a federally required improvement plan with OCTAE. That state-level rule pushes downstream onto local eligible recipients in two ways. First, every local recipient negotiates a local-level performance target with the SEA in its annual local application under Sec. 134. The SEA cannot accept local targets so low that they make the state target unreachable, so local targets are usually set at or near the state target with limited room for negotiation. Second, Sec. 123 requires the SEA to identify under-performing local recipients (those failing 90 percent of negotiated local target on any indicator in any year) and require a Program Improvement Plan (PIP). PIP requirements are SEA-defined but typically include a root-cause analysis, a corrective-action plan, and quarterly progress reports for two years. Repeated failure can result in funding restrictions or, in extreme cases, recipient ineligibility. For local CTE directors the practical implication is that you cannot treat performance reporting as a back-office finance task. Underperformance on 3S1 (placement) is the most common trigger for PIP because it depends on second-quarter-after-exit follow-up that many districts do poorly. Career-assessment platforms reduce 3S1 risk indirectly: a student who enters a program of study aligned to their interest and aptitude profile is more likely to complete and place. They do not directly produce 3S1 data — that comes from state wage-record matches, postsecondary enrollment matches (typically via NSC StudentTracker), and military / service-program records. Treat the platform as a leading indicator of placement, not a reporting source for it.

Federal monitoring under Perkins V is conducted by OCTAE on a state cycle (states are visited roughly every 4-6 years on a risk basis), and SEAs in turn monitor local recipients on their own cycle (typically annual or biennial). The documentation set you need to keep is broadly consistent across states, with three layers. First, programmatic documentation: your CLNA report (Sec. 134(c)), your local application (Sec. 134(b)), program-of-study sequence documentation including course-to-CIP mapping, and evidence of stakeholder consultation (Sec. 134(d)). Second, accountability documentation: per-student records for every concentrator in the cohort year, including program of study, program completion status, exit reason, and placement evidence at second quarter after exit. SEAs increasingly require electronic file submissions reconciled to SIS, so paper-only records are no longer sufficient. Third, fiscal documentation: the time-and-effort certifications under Uniform Guidance 2 CFR §200.430 for any staff partially funded by Perkins, equipment inventories for items over the federal capitalization threshold (typically $5,000) under 2 CFR §200.313, and procurement records under 2 CFR §200.318-326. The single most common monitoring finding is inadequate documentation of how Perkins funds were spent on items also used for non-CTE purposes — the supplant-not-supplement test under Sec. 211(a). For assessment-platform purchases specifically, monitors will ask whether the platform was used by CTE concentrators (Perkins-allowable) or general-population students (Perkins-disallowable absent a clear allocation). Keep an allocation worksheet showing CTE-vs-non-CTE usage if you fund the platform from Perkins.

5S3 measures the percentage of CTE concentrators who participate in work-based learning (WBL) experiences during their program of study. The federal definition of WBL is in Perkins V Sec. 3(55) and is broad: sustained interactions with industry or community professionals in real workplace settings, or simulated environments, that foster in-depth, firsthand engagement with the tasks required in a given career field. The list typically includes internships, apprenticeships, school-based enterprises that meet specific criteria, clinical placements, supervised agricultural experiences, and certain types of project-based learning with industry partners. State plans further refine the definition; California for instance requires a minimum of 25 hours of supervised work experience to count, while Tennessee allows shorter experiences but with stricter documentation. Assessment platforms interact with 5S3 in two ways. First, several states expect WBL placements to follow a documented career-interest inventory or aptitude assessment — the rationale being that work-based learning slots are scarce and should be allocated based on student-program fit rather than alphabetical assignment. JobCannon’s RIASEC, Skills Audit, and Career Match outputs are commonly used as the upstream signal to a WBL placement decision, particularly in CTE programs that work with multiple industry partners. Second, the platform’s knowledge graph (2,536 careers, 1,533 skills) lets a counselor identify which O*NET occupations align to a student’s profile and which industry partners offer WBL slots in those occupations. The platform does not provide WBL placement-tracking; you still need a placement-tracking system or a CTE student information system (e.g., CTSO Manager, Edthena, eDoctrina, or a custom SIS module) to produce the 5S3 numerator. Treat the assessment platform as the upstream allocation decision support, not the downstream placement record.