National Secondary Transition

Technical Assistance Center

Entering Adulthood: Assistance on the School-to-Work

Community Transition of Adolescents with Disabilities

OSEP Project Director’s Meeting July 16 - 18, 2007

What We’ll Share

Our Missions

Our Resources

Conceptualizing coordinated TA

Our Challenge

How do we link what we’ve learned about secondary transition – including school completion, effective transition programs and services, & post-school outcomes with practices in our schools and communities?

Research

Practice

Compliance

Critical Interrelationship

Quality IEPsStaying in

School

GraduatingAchieving

post-school outcomes

Using Transition Indicators to Improve What We DoPost-School Outcomes

~Indicator 14~ Postsecondary education and/or

training Employment Independent living

Dropping Out~Indicator 2~

Why? Appropriate programs? Address student and family

needs?

Graduation~Indicator 1~

Expectations and standards? Various pathways available? Linkage to post-school

environments?

What’s the Quality of Our IEPs?

~Indicator 13~ Measurable post-school and annual

goals Transition-related assessments Course of study, services, and

activities Coordination of services

Not so good?

Good?

Why? Why Not?Why? Why Not?

IDEA Purpose

(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.

IEP Requirements – 2004

Transition mandates in IDEA:

Beginning not later than the first

IEP to be in effect when the child

is 16, and updated annually

thereafter

IEP Requirements – 2004

(aa) appropriate measurable

postsecondary goals based upon

age appropriate transition

assessments related to training,

education, employment, and where

appropriate independent living skills;

IEP Requirements – 2004

(bb) the transition services

(including courses of study)

needed to assist the child in

reaching those goals; and

SPP and APR

State’s plan to meet and state’s performance on 19 indicators (Part B)—4 specific to transition

1. % of youth who graduate

2. % of youth who drop out

13. % of youth with transition components in the IEP

14. % of youth who achieve post-school outcomes

Indicator 1 – Graduation Percent of youth with IEPs graduating from high

school with a regular diploma compared to percent of all youth in the State graduating with a regular diploma.

Measurement for youth with IEPs should be the same measurement as for all youth.

Established annual performance targets geared toward closing the gap and reaching acceptable rates

Evidence-based improvement activities to meet designated targets that are aligned with results of data analysis and evaluated for effectiveness

Indicator 2 – Dropout Rate Percent of youth with IEPs dropping out of high

school compared to the percent of all youth in the state dropping out of high school.

Measurement for youth with IEPs should be the same measurement as for all youth.

Established annual performance targets geared toward closing the gap and reaching acceptable rates

Evidence-based improvement activities to meet designated targets that are aligned with results of data analysis and evaluated for effectiveness

Indicator 13 – Content of IEPs

Percent of youth aged 16 and above with an IEP that includes coordinated, measurable, annual IEP goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the child to meet the post-secondary goals.

Indicator 14 –Post-School Outcomes

Percent of youth who had IEPs, are no longer in secondary school and who are competitively employed, enrolled in some type of postsecondary school, or both, within one year of leaving high school.

What’s Coordinated TA?

Three centers implementing their charges

NDPC-SD

NSTTAC

NPSO

National Dropout Prevention Center for Students with Disabilities

Established in 2004 by OSEP to build capacity to improve school completion rates for students with disabilities

Committed to providing evidence-based technical assistance to help states design and implement effective dropout prevention programs

www.ndpc-sd.org

NDPC-SD Strategies

Identifying evidence-based dropout prevention interventions, programs, and practices

Producing evidence-based knowledge that is useful to school practitioners

Providing targeted technical assistance to states in a variety of formats

NDPC-SD Strategies

Establishing collaborative partnerships with TA&D network partners and other organizations to leverage resources and help states build coordinated systems that improve post-school outcomes

Disseminating dropout prevention information through multiple methods and efficient use of a variety of technologies

NDPC-SD Dropout PreventionIntervention Framework

© 2007 National Dropout Prevention Center for Students

with Disabilities at Clemson University – All rights reserved

LESSONS LEARNED- Causes

Problem behaviors coupled with academic difficulties or prior academic failures are key risk factors that are predictive of school dropout.

Repeated use of exclusionary discipline practices, such as suspension, has been identified as one of the major factors contributing to dropout.

High absenteeism and retention are serious risk factors for dropping out that can be monitored by schools.

Academic progress and school completion are not equally distributed across disability, income, or ethnicity.

LESSONS LEARNED- Consequences

Dropouts are more likely to be unemployed or employed in low-skilled, lower-paying positions.

Dropouts are more likely than high school graduates to need the support of living with parents in early adulthood, experience health problems, engage in criminal activities, and become dependent on welfare and other government programs.

Dropouts are more likely to commit crimes as compared to students who complete school. Three to five years after dropping out, the cumulative arrest rate for youth with SED is 73%.

LESSONS LEARNED - Prevention

Establish a leadership team to actively coordinate implementation of dropout prevention efforts

Establish systems for routine monitoring of risk indicators associated with dropout

Create a local action team to analyze data and address dropout prevention at the local level

Intervene early, often as early as preschool

Increase family engagement and school involvement

Create school environments that are inviting, safe, and supportive

Focus on effective instruction

Listen to students

Administrators are key and their support is essential

Use proven practices

LESSONS LEARNED – Capacity Building

Take a systemic approach to address dropout prevention

Conduct causal analysis

Use data to guide program development, professional development, and other school improvement efforts

Consider multiple levels of implementation

Examine the influence of other performance indicators on school completion

OUR IMPACT

Improved awareness and understanding through increased access to evidence-based dropout prevention practices, interventions, and programs

Increased state capacity to address dropout issues through development of a data–driven framework and provision of direct technical assistance, capacity building forums, and consultation to SEAs and LEAs

Expanded state and local practices through intense technical assistance and coaching on the development of model sites that will serve as exemplars that others can replicate

Use of Evidence-Based Practices

Forty-one states/territories (68%) listed one or more evidence-based improvement activities in their APR for 2005-2006, while the remaining 19 states (32%) did not propose any evidence-based improvement activities.

This is an improvement over last year’s State Performance Plans, in which only 32 states listed evidence-based activities.

Are Things Getting Better?

Source of Data used in this graph: www.IDEAdata.org Retrieved on 2/12/2007.

17.8% decrease in dropout rates11% increase in graduation rates

Graduation & Dropout Rates 1993-2005

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

School year

Per

cen

t

Graduated

Dropped out

NSTTAC is a partnership focused on improving the lives of youth with disabilities and their families by helping them achieve their desired post-school outcomes.

NSTTAC’s purpose is to assist states to build capacity to support and improve transition planning, services, and outcomes for youth with disabilities.

Purpose

Mission –Three Components Generate knowledge Build capacity Disseminate information

Levels of Effort Some resources available to all sates Work with “selected states” to build their capacity Work with selected local sites within selected

states

NSTTAC’s Model for Extending Transition Research

Effective Transition Practices

Increase Capacity to Implement Effective Transition Practices

Facilitate Implementation of Effective Transition

Practices

Data-Based Decision Making

Professional Development

Policy Analysis and

Change

Technical Assistance

Generate Knowledge: Literature Review

to determine the evidence-base for transition practices, disseminate information, and make recommendations to IES

primary audience is state and local transition personnel and researchers.

Framework for Evidence Base

Levels of Evidence

Levels of Evidence

Group Experimental Designs

Single Subject Designs

Correlational

Literature Reviews

Strong

Moderate

Low All others including expert opinion, descriptive, and qualitative

Criteria based on Institute for

Educational Sciences’ definitions of

Strong, Moderate, & Low evidence and

Quality Indicator criteria from

Exceptional Children, 2005

Table of Evidence-Based Practices

Transition Practices

NSTTAC Levels of Evidence Taxonomy Categories Strong Moderate Low

Student Focused Planning

(SFP)

IEP Development

Self-Advocacy Strategy Self-Directed IEP Goals and Objectives

Identified by Student/Consumer

Vocational Goals & Objectives Specified

Personal Needs Addressed in Planning Process

Agency Roles Specified

Student Participation

Teaching Student Participation in the IEP

Self-Directed IEP Self-Advocacy Strategy

Description of the PracticeSelf-Directed IEP:

What is the evidence?

What is the practice?

How has it been implemented?

With whom has it been implemented?

Where has it been implemented?

References:

Technical Assistance Available to All States

website semi-annual state planning institutes participation in “intensive” state institutes NSTTAC Notes teleconferences & webinars consultation national & regional events in collaboration

with partners linkages with other states’ transition

initiatives

Technical Assistance Available to NSTTAC

“Intensive” States 4 – 5 states chosen in partnership with OSEP Direct, on-going assistance Annual institute & follow-up cadre meetings Continuous progress monitoring Assistance with resource development Assistance in serving as “role models” for all

states Assistance helping selected local sites

implement their plans

Self-Determination Model

Modify Our Goals

Reflect on How and What We are Doing

Determine Our Strengths and Needs

Set Goals

Develop Plans and Implement

Identify and Seek Support

Assess Our Progress

Current Products

Indicator 13 Checklists & supporting products

Audio podcasts and PowerPoint presentations

Internet links to online secondary transition resources

NSTTAC Notes www.nsttac.org

Indicator 14 –Post-School Outcomes

Percent of youth who had IEPs, are no longer in secondary school and who are competitively employed, enrolled in some type of postsecondary school, or both, within one year of leaving high school.

WHY IS THIS HARD? Indicator #14 presents unique challenges to States

because

the young people to be included in this data collection are no longer “students” as they have left the public school system

How to find/contact individuals? Who is the best data source? Who is the most reliable data collector? Can outcome data be linked back to in-school data? Are the former student respondents representative of

the actual population?

HOW IS THIS USEFUL? Provide information on IDEA purpose at a

district and state level (employment/post-secondary enrollment) for programmatic improvement

Examine post-school outcomes linked to other Indicators (e.g., dropouts, diploma completion)

Examine post-school outcomes by demographic characteristics (e.g., gender ethnicity)

NPSO Mission

Assist states to develop rigorous, yet practical data collection systems to profile the post-school transition experiences of adolescents with disabilities as they enter adult life.

Results used for national, state, and local reporting and – most importantly – to improve transition services.

NPSO Strategies

Identifying evidence-based data collection, analysis, & reporting strategies to collect and use post-school outcome data

Producing products and tools states & localities can use

Providing technical assistance to states (information, state-to-state links, phone and on-site consultation)

NPSO Strategies

Establishing collaborative partnerships with TA&D network partners (e.g., RRCs) and other organizations to leverage resources and help states build coordinated systems that improve post-school outcomes

Technical Assistance

Targeted publications User-friendly Web site Community of Practice & listserve National, Regional, & State Conferences

in conjunction with other partners Skill building workshops Individual TA and Development Support

What’s Coordinated TA?

Three centers working together to help meet state needs

Aligning our work across connecting indicators to improve what we do

What’s Coordinated TA Look Like?

Cross representation of advisory groups

Contracted product development

Joint presentations

State–to–state conversations, guided discussions

Examples of Collaborative Work

Discussion Focus

Each State’s Activities

Data collection

Data reporting, sharing information

Using their data to improve performance

Ideas For “Improving”

Adopting different methods

Dissemination strategies

Capacity building needs and approaches

Analyze data to answer key questions about the indicators

Collect accurate and reliable data

Analyze data to direct state improvement in programs and initiatives

Report data to a variety of relevant stakeholders

Improved State Capacity

What’s Next?

OSERS Transition Initiative

Continue collaborative presentations

Design regional collaborative events around Indicators 1, 2, 13 and 14

Enhance coordination with other centers

Questions

Contact Information

National Dropout Prevention Center for Students with Disabilities Dr. Loujeania Williams Bost, Director

lbost@clemson.edu National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center

Dr. David Test, Co-Principal Investigator dwtest@email.uncc.edu

Dr. Larry Kortering, Co-Principal Investigator korteringlj@appstate.edu

National Post-School Outcomes Center Deanne Unruh, Ph.D., Knowledge Development

Associate & Internal Evaluator dkunruh@uoregon.edu

Show and Tell Time

Please divide into 3 groups that will rotate from center to center for small group presentations on each of the TA&D Centers