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 , 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 IEPs Staying in School Graduating Achieving post- school outcomes

Using Transition Indicators to Improve What We Do Post-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 N ot so good? Good? Why? Why Not?

Context for Improving Practice Factors IDEA & other federal policy State and local policy Community Effective practices

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

IEP Requirements – 2004 (cc) beginning not later than 1 year before the child reaches the age of majority under state law, a statement that the child has been informed of the child’s rights under this title, if any, that will transfer to the child on reaching the age of majority.

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

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

© 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 , 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: Retrieved on 2/12/ % decrease in dropout rates 11% increase in graduation rates

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 Group Experimental Designs Single Subject Designs CorrelationalLiterature Reviews Strong Moderate LowAll 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

Description of the Practice Self-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

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

Essential Elements Full state team participation Pre-visit planning Data analysis and reporting across indicators Resource leveraging Follow-up in state activities

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 National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center Dr. David Test, Co-Principal Investigator Dr. Larry Kortering, Co-Principal Investigator National Post-School Outcomes Center Deanne Unruh, Ph.D., Knowledge Development Associate & Internal Evaluator

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