Goals Are Dreams with Timelines

1
Goals Are Dreams with Timelines Got Plans?

• Cinda Johnson, Ed.D. Denny Hasko, M.A.
• Center for Change in Transition Services
• Valerie Arnold, M.Ed.
• Office of the Superintendent for Public
  Instruction

Special Education Administrators Workshop August
3, 2009
2
Agenda

• ?What do the data say?
• ? What inferences can be made?
• ? How are data analysis, IEP development, and
  secondary post-school outcomes linked?
• ? What new tools are available to evaluate both
  district compliance and student outcomes?

3
IDEA 2004

• (20 U.S.C. 1400(d)(1)(a))
• --to ensure that all children with disabilities
  have available to them a free appropriate public
  education that emphasizes special education and
  related services designed to meet their unique
  needs and prepare them for further education,
  employment, and independent living.

4
Revisions to SPP/APR Indicator Measurements

• Indicator 1-Graduation

• Indicator 2 - Dropouts

• Percent of youth with IEPs graduating from high
  school with a regular diploma. (20 U.S.C. 1416
  (a)(3)(A))
• Revisions Burden reduced. Data Source and
  Measurement aligned with ESEA. Removed
  requirement to compare to all youth. Data lag one
  year.

• Percent of youth with IEPs dropping out of high
  school. (20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A))
• Revisions Burden reduced. Data Source and
  Measurement aligned with ESEA. Removed
  requirement to compare to all youth. Data lag one
  year.

• State Performance Plan/Annual Performance
  Report (SPP/APR)

5
Revisions (continued)

• Indicator 13 Secondary Transition

• Percent of youth with IEPs aged 16 and above with
  an IEP that includes appropriate measurable
  postsecondary goals that are annually updated and
  based upon an age appropriate transition
  assessment, transition services, including
  courses of study, that will reasonably enable the
  student to meet those postsecondary goals, and
  annual IEP goals related to the students
  transition services needs. There also must be
  evidence that the student was invited to the IEP
  Team meeting where transition services are to be
  discussed and evidence that, if appropriate, a
  representative of any participating agency was
  invited to the IEP Team meeting with the prior
  consent of the parent or student who has reached
  the age of majority. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))

• Revisions New Indicator. Aligned with IDEA
  secondary transition requirements. Describe the
  method used to collect these data.
• Data Collection States may need to develop new
  data collection procedures.
• SPP Establish new baseline, review/revise
  improvement activities in the FFY 2009 submission
  due 2/1/11.

6
Revisions (continued)

• Indicator 14 Post-school Outcomes

• Percent of youth who are no longer in secondary
  school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left
  school, and were
• A. Enrolled in higher education within one
  year of leaving high school.
• B. Enrolled in higher education or
  competitively employed within one year of
  leaving high school.
• C. Enrolled in higher education or in some
  other postsecondary education or
  training program or competitively employed
  or in some other employment within one
  year of leaving high school.
  (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))

• Revisions New Indicator.
• Data Collection May need to revise data
  collection.
• SPP Establish new baseline, targets and
  review/revise improvement activities in the FFY
  2009 submission due 2/1/11.

7
Graduation- Indicator 1
School Year Cohort Extended Graduation Rate Special Education On-time Cohort Graduation Rate Special Education
2005-06 68 54
2006-07 69 55
2007-08 69 55
8
Drop Out Indicator 2
School Year Annual Dropout Rate Special Education
2005-06 6.7
2006-07 7.0
2007-08 6.8
9
Secondary Transition Indicator 13
10
Postsecondary Outcomes Indicator 14
11
Critical Links
Indicator 2
Indicator 13
Indicator 1
Indicator 14
12
Analysis of Critical Links

• Opportunities for LEAs to examine data at the
  student, building and district level
• Domains of both strengths and areas of need can
  be identified
• Root cause analysis is possible with a team
  approach to data examination

13
Transition Systemic Framework
14
Post-school Outcome Data and Report

• Access post-school data via Online Post-school
  Survey System (www.seattleu.edu/ccts)
• Examine outcomes (percentile and numbers)
• Contacted
• Engaged
• Working
• Attending postsecondary education

15
Indicator 13 ChecklistTransition Components in
the IEP

1. Age-appropriate transition assessment(s)
2. Measurable postsecondary goals updated annually
   in education/ training AND employment AND
   independent living as appropriate
3. Transition Services
4. Course of Study
5. Annual IEP Goals
6. Student invited to IEP Team meeting
7. Agency linkages

16
Quality Indicators for Secondary Transition
(QuIST)

• Program Self-Review
• 100 quality indicators for program evaluation
• Five domains of the Quality Indicators
• School-based Activities
• Work-based Activities
• System Support
• Family Involvement
• Connecting Activities
• Excel format for automatic scoring

17
EXAMPLE DOMAIN INDICATORS

• School-based Activities
• Transition planning and career development (12)
• Curriculum and instruction (9)
• Graduation (3)
• Student involvement (4)
• Dropout prevention/intervention (5)
• Work-based Activities
• Internship opportunities (3)
• Job shadowing (3)
• Job readiness skill development (5)
• Integrated employment (5)
• Employment with supports (5)

18
Aligning and Questioning Data

• Post-school outcomes
• Are the percentage of youth contacted
  representative of the district?
• Which youth are not faring as well after leaving
  high school?
• Indicator 13, the IEP
• Which areas are strongest?
• Where is there need for improvement?
• QuIST
• Using the evidence based practices for transition
  services, where are the gaps?

19
Data Analysis An Example

• Youth with emotional and behavioral disorders are
  dropping out at nearly 60.
• Course of study is limited for these youth and do
  not contain strong services for employment goals.
• The high school does not have a community based
  work experience program or a working relationship
  with adult agencies particularly in the area of
  mental health.

20
Transition Systemic Framework Pilot Project

• Selection of high performing districts in the
  area of transition
• One-year project September 2009 - June 2010
• Training presented through web-conferencing
• Using Post-school data
• IEP Self-review with Indicator 13 Checklist-WA
• QuIST
• Project Teams develop action plans for program
  improvement in each area
• Composite results developed by districts for
  statewide dissemination

21
SPP/APR 20 Indicators
Data Collection
Follow-Up Visits
District Profile
Washington Special Education Program Review
Process
On-site cooperative venture
LEA App Self-evaluation
System Analysis
TA/ feedback
Review, Analysis, Selection
Review, Analysis, Selection
Self-study
TA
Training TA
22
Desired Result Program Improvement

• Using the previous examples improvement
  activities include
• Building level analysis of post-school outcome
  data.
• Development of a strong course of study based on
  transition assessment.
• Course of study included in all IEPs with
  student, parent and general education involvement.

23
Desired Result Program Improvement

• Increased positive post-school outcomes in rates
  of graduation, employment and postsecondary
  education.
• Transition services designed and implemented for
  all students based on evidence based practices.
• IEPs developed and implemented that are
  compliant, include students and families and
  provide services that lead to positive
  post-school outcomes.

24
REFERENCES

• Brown, P., Edgar, G., Johnson, C., (1997).
  Transition Guide for Washington State,
  School-to-Work Quality Indicators. Revised
  September 2006 December 2007, 24-30.
• Grigal, M., Hart, D. TransCen, Inc., (2008).
  Quality Indicators of Postsecondary Education
  Services for Students with Intellectual
  Disabilities.
• Kohler, P. (1996). Taxonomy for Transition
  Programming Linking research and practice.
  Champaign Transition Research Institute,
  University of Illinois.
• National Alliance for Secondary Education and
  Transition (NASET), (2005). National Standards
  Quality Indicators Transition Toolkit for
  Systems Improvement, 49-68.
• National Secondary Transition Technical
  Assistance Center (NSTTAC), (2008).
  Cross-referencing the Taxonomy for Transition
  Programming with NASET National Standards
  Quality Indicators.
•  

25
CONTACT INFORMATION

• Cinda Johnson, Ed.D. Denny Hasko, M.A.
• Seattle University
• [phone]
• cinda_at_seattleu.edu haskod_at_seattleu.edu
• Valerie Arnold, M.Ed.
• Office of the Superintendent of Public
  Instruction
• [phone]
• valerie.arnold_at_k12.wa.us