Transcript Slide 1

Reporting Post-school
Outcome Data
May 2008
Cinda Johnson
Center for Change in
Transition Services
Seattle University
Seattle, WA
[email protected]
206-296-5888
Mary Kampa
Wisconsin Post High Survey/
Indicator 14
CESA #11
Turtle Lake, Wisconsin
[email protected]
715-986-2020
History: Washington





Data collection beginning in 1980 with
Edgar’s work
Consistent post-school outcome data
collected since 1996, (Edgar, et al.)
Consensus data collection (all districts, all
leavers) beginning in 1998
248 school districts, 5,000 leavers
80% contact rate
Methods: Washington




Participants: Special education graduates
and drop-outs from all 248 school districts.
Annually: Demographic information collected
in year prior to leaving school.
Information collected from final IEP.
Telephone survey conducted with youth or
family member within one year of graduating
or dropping out (WA has one diploma).
Methods: Washington

Washington State Post-school Survey
(http://www.seattleu.edu/ccts/post-school_survey.asp)

Secure password protected website
Instrumentation: Washington

Survey questions includes:




Demographics including gender, age, disability
Post-secondary goals from final IEP
Agency linkages on final IEP
Data gathered includes:



Post-school outcomes in post-secondary
education, training and employment
Details of those outcomes (type of school,
training program, job, wages, hours, etc.)
Agency linkages
Procedures: Washington






Training:
http://www.seattleu.edu/ccts/training.asp
Data manager at state level
Data manager at district level
Data users at district level
Confidentiality, assure consent
IRB agreements
Procedures: Washington




Districts are responsible to conduct
interviews with former students.
Teachers conduct the majority of interviews.
Training for interviewers is provided on-line,
teleconferences, on site, meetings, trainings,
and conferences.
At least 3 attempts made to reach youth
during different times of day.
Table
School Staff Completing Post-School Surveys
2006 Graduates Interviewed
Staff Position
Number
Teacher
Percent*
1,237
46%
71
3%
Paraprofessional/Educational Assistant
800
30%
Administrative Assistant
271
10%
Transition Specialist
47
2%
School Psychologist
62
2%
220
8%
2,708
100%
Administrator
Other
Total
*May not add to 100% due to rounding.
**Excludes 609 with missing information.
Source: CCTS, Special Education, June 2007.
Reporting Post-school Data: Washington





Reports to state and districts.
Data disaggregated by district, region,
county, high school.
Outcomes compared to state and previous
years.
Data reported to agencies (DVR, DDD),
Governor’s office, ESDs and parent groups.
Assure confidentiality (cell size).
Reporting Data for Program Improvement:
Washington






Leadership
Facilitator
Examine the data with colleagues
Participate in surveying former students and
share the stories
Develop goals based on the data
Tie post-school outcome data to school
improvement activities
Engage d by County (Urban/Rural), Ge nde r, Race /Ethnicity,
and Type of Disability: 2006 Graduate s Inte rv ie we d
All graduates (2,472)
75%
Urban counties (1,548)
77%
Semi-rural counties (442)
70%
Rural counties (482)
70%
Males (1,656)
77%
Females (816)
69%
White students (1,836)
76%
Students of color (614)
71%
Learning disability (1,532)
81%
Health impairment (528)
Developmental disability (262)
Emotional/behavioral disability (67)
Other disability (83)
75%
53%
64%
63%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
*Urban counties include those w ith cities of 100,000 or more population (April 2007); semi-urban counties
include those w ith cities w ith populations of betw een 35,000 and 100,000; and, rural counties are those
in w hich the largest city is under 35,000.
Post-school Outcome Data: Washington






Collecting (by whom and when; from whom)
Analyzing (representative of pool)
Reporting (LEA’s, SEA, Public, APR, SPP)
Setting goals and benchmarks (SEA, LEA’s)
Informing practices
Improving outcomes
Using Post-school Outcome Data to Inform
Change: LEA, Washington




Competitive employment for youth with
developmental disabilities was low
Met with agencies to clarify language and
definitions (competitive employment)
“Carved-out positions” were not leading to
competitive employment
Assessed OJT’s with agencies and modified
to meet criteria of skills defined for
competitive employment
History: Wisconsin


Began in 2001 with 1999-2000 exiters
Consistent core questions : based on NLTS and
other surveys at the time, including WA, TX and OR

Dual data collection method: Statewide sample
(odd years) and individual district census (even years)

400 school districts in state

Nearly 8,000 exiters with disability annually
app. 81 districts and Milwaukee (13 schools) each year

Census within selected districts


70% response rate (districts = 80%); lower in
2007 (38%) due to change in method
Methods: Wisconsin

Each LEA in Wisconsin must participate in an
outcomes survey once between 2006-07 and
2011-2012 to comply with SPP Indicator #14.

LEA participation is aligned with the DPI SelfAssessment Monitoring Cycle

Within one year of exiting, contact former
students who exited with IEP and:




A regular diploma
A certificate of attendance
Reached maximum age of eligibility
Dropped-out
Methods: Wisconsin

The Wisconsin Post High School Outcomes
Survey (WPHSOS) (www.posthighsurvey.org) is
a web-based tool designed to ensure
consistency in data collection and reporting
requirements of SPP Indicator 14.

Outcomes information is collected from former
students and their families through a telephone
interview conducted on behalf of the former
student’s high school by a professional survey
center.
Methods: Wisconsin

District results can be viewed immediately and
used for transition data analysis and planning

LEAs may also use the WPHSOS website to
conduct their own surveys or include exiters
without disabilities when not participating in the
statewide survey
Procedures: Wisconsin

Work with school districts to prepare them for a
two year data collection process

Year 1: Districts 





Collect contact information all year for youth in final year
Track drop-out contact information
Explain upcoming survey to youth and parent
Give questionnaire to youth and parent
view and use www.psocenter.org resources
Year 2: Districts 


Feb: Verify former student contact information
March: Send former students district and SEA letters
April-June: LEAs surveyed/view survey results
Procedures: Wisconsin

SEA Data manager prepares exiter information
based on LEA Exiter Report

Data transferred through secure FTP site to
outcomes website

Interviewers and district apply for user name
and password; sign confidentiality agreement
Procedures: Wisconsin

5 - 8 attempts made to reach each exiter;
different times of day, weekends, special
operators, other languages, jail, military

Responses also accepted from family
member if knowledgeable about HS and
current activities

Training for district interviewers is provided
using developed training materials
Instrumentation: Wisconsin

Survey questions include:






Living situation, community participation, social
activities, adult agencies and community supports
Postsecondary education and training – types,
accommodation and disclosure
Employment – type, setting, hours, wages, benefits,
accommodations
HS experiences/IEP plans
Open-ended questions – if not living, working or going
on to school, why not?
What is something positive that happened in HS that
helped you met your goals?
Post-school Data: Wisconsin





LEAs access outcomes data at district and
building level as it is collected
Statewide data available Sept. 1
All survey questions disaggregated by gender,
ethnicity, disability, exit type, HS
Can create additional reports by region, county,
CESA, school size, other as requested
Cell size for confidentiality is 5
Post-school Data: Wisconsin

Only Indicator 14 “%” is publicly reported

LEA is provided:





District GEDE Report
District Summary Report
District Report Starter
Improvement Planning Tools
Youth Leadership Council will provide youth
prospective and take an active role in copresenting with WPHSOS director at regional
trainings and conferences
Post-school Data: Wisconsin

Districts collect outcomes data because they
have to

Districts use outcomes data because they
 have to
 want to
Post-school Data: Wisconsin

HAVE to:



Focused-Monitoring – identified by DPI as in need of focusedmonitoring; districts are required to participate in improvement
planning strategies (e.g. Indicator 1 - Graduation Rate)
Indicator 14 Districts – identified by DPI as “in need of
assistance” e.g. districts 30% or more below State Indicator 14
WANT to:


Districts seeking assistance with data analysis – statewide data
tools can be easily used in districts or CESAs involved in data
analysis, improvement planning or retreats
WSTI TAT Districts – Participate in the development of a pilot
professional development that includes data analysis for the Year
2 report-out (mini-data retreat - LEAs use their data to identify
weaknesses and improvement strategies)
Goals of the WPHSOS: Wisconsin

The WPHSOS will:



Align identified goals and activities of the post school
follow-up project with WSTI (Wisconsin Statewide Transition
Initiative) and SPDG (State Professional Development Grant),
using a complementary technical assistance approach
among projects to help districts use data to improve
outcomes
Provide technical assistance to move the outcomes
website from a data collection and reporting tool to a tool
LEAs use to identify local needs and determine where
improvement strategies are needed to positively impact
Stakeholder Advisory identified Indicator 14 SPP Targets
Develop statewide information sharing, resources and
sustained professional development on Indicator 14
Data Sharing: Wisconsin

Several important pieces in place at the current
time:




Indicator 1 and 2 data are shared with the post high
website, and are connected with Indicator 14
outcomes reporting
Indictor 13 data and Indictor 14 data share a common
web designer
Databases are connected currently create a joint
report: Indicator 1, 2, and 14 data are imported into
the “Transition in IEP Checklist Report”
Individual student identification numbers (though not
yet shared with the websites)
New Direction: Wisconsin
Taking the website from data collection to data use
helping districts go from “why do we need to collect
this information?” to “how can we use our results to
effect change?”
State
&
Compliance
(expert)
District
(expert)
Administration
Teachers
Youth
Parents
Community
New Direction: Wisconsin
Dissemination

Shift from working with just directors of special
education (because it is password protected information and
“special education”) to information dissemination to all
district administration:




State School Board Convention
State Superintendent’s Conference
State Secondary Principal’s Conference
State School Psychology Convention
Sharing Post-school Data: Wisconsin

Conferences/Poster Sessions/General Information

National, State/Regional, Local









State Superintendent’s Leadership Conference
WI. Council of Administrators of Student Services
Wisconsin Rehabilitation & Transition Conference
Wisconsin Statewide Transition Conference
DPI presentations and Stakeholder Advisory Meeting
CESA board/RSN meetings upon request
Department of Workforce Development
Department of Health and Human Services
State Sheltered Workshop Group
Sharing Post-school Data: Wisconsin

Conferences/Poster Sessions/General Information

TAC, TAN and TAT meetings (www.wsti.org) upon
request (e.g. Washburn Co. - transportation grant and
Barron Co. – county council activities)


Community of Practice Groups/ Work Groups



Others upon request and availability
Wisconsin Community on Transition and Practice Groups
(www.sharedwork.org)
SPDG – statewide transition project, data, newsletters,
conference planning, needs assessment
Print Materials/Resources


Resources/Professional Development
Statewide Outcomes/Indicator 14 Reports/Newsletters
Wisconsin Indicator 14
Any Postsecondary Ed./Training by Survey Year
Wisconsin Indicator 14
Postsecondary Education Summary

Overall participation in postsecondary education and
training has been consistent over time (46% - 48%)

Types of postsecondary education have changed
 a higher % in 2-Yr, 4-Yr and Tech College
 a higher % of female exiters participating
 significant increase in participation in Tech College
 participation in 4-Yr increasing more than 2-Yr

Inclusion of dropouts did not affected the overall %
of participation (46% vs 47%), although as a group,
dropouts participate less in all types of
postsecondary ed./training
Wisconsin Indicator 14
Any Employment by Survey Year
Wisconsin Indicator 14
Employment Summary

Employment from 1999-01 to 2003-04 decreased but
rebounded in 2005-06

Employment over time:
 Employment in the community has increased
 Hours per week worked have remained stable
 Wages have increases slightly

Beginning with 2005-06, “competitive employment”
to be included in employment, for Indicator 14
Wisconsin Indicator 14
Employment Summary

Several HS indicators have changed
 Fewer report paid employment while in HS
 Fewer are obtaining a valid driver’s license in HS

Inclusion of drop-outs did not affected the overall %
of those competitively employed (33% vs. 34%)

As a group, dropouts are employed at comparable
rates, but a higher %
 work more hours per week
 earn less per hour
Wisconsin Indicator 14
1999-2000 to 2005-06 Major Exiter Outcomes
1999-00
(n = 389)
2001-02
(n = 600)
2003-04
(n = 725)
2005-06
(n = 358)
Postsecondary ed./training only
11%
11%
9%
9%
Employment only
36%
34%
33%
39%
-
-
-
33%
34%
38%
29%
28%
-
-
-
10%
Some Postsecondary ed. and/or employment
88%
87%
84%
89%
Never any postsecondary ed. or employment
12%
13%
16%
11%
Never any postsecondary education or competitive
employment since HS
-
-
-
35%
Indicator 14 (postsecondary ed. or training,
and/or competitive employment since HS)
-
-
-
65%
Data
Competitive employment only
Current postsecondary ed./training and current
employment
Current postsecondary ed. and current
competitive employment
Wisconsin Indicator 14
Summary of Major Outcomes
79% = 283 of youth who had IEPs and are no longer in secondary school have been competitively
employed (full-time or part-time), enrolled in some type of postsecondary school, or both, within
one year of leaving high school divided by the 358 youth assessed who had IEPs and are no
longer in secondary school. 283/358 = 79%
2007 Report of 2005-06 Indicator 14 Baseline Data (n = 358)
80%
70%
60%
t
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
engagment
ps. ed. only
competitive
employ only
both
other
neither
Indicator 14
9%
45%
33%
2%
11%
79%
Wisconsin Indicator 14
Summary of Major Outcomes

Data collection on youth with disabilities one
year after exiting high school indicates:




There is a consistent % of youth attending
postsecondary education or training over time
The % of youth employed increased last year,
following three years of decline in employment
High school factors may influence competitive
employment post high school
Fewer than ½ of youth who are employed are
“competitively employed”
IDEA Partnership Grant: Wisconsin

Review the available evidence-based practices and
research on NSTTAC, NDPC-SD, NPSO, and other
sources, addressing both rural and urban concerns

Begin creating a database of frameworks, strategies
and factors that are connected to post high outcomes

Begin creating a tool LEAs and teachers can easily
access and use in data analysis and planning of
professional development activities
IDEA Partnership Grant: Wisconsin

Synthesize this information and identify:

District/building level: e.g. curriculums, engagement and school
climate surveys, how and what HSs implement in their buildings
(may be related to HS Re-design), connections with Indicators 1
and 2

Teacher/classroom: material and activity specific: e.g. programs,
curriculums, activities

Youth /parents/family: related to known risk or success factors:
e.g. HS employment, not failing more than two classes,
attendance, reading scores, poverty factors, information from
Indicator 13, state or district assessment scores, IEP goals,
specific transition or outside agency services, senior exit survey

Community/Adult Service Providers: DHFS, DVR, employment
agencies, independent living centers, etc.
Final Thoughts - Washington

Post-school outcomes may not increase at
the aggregate level




More respondents (harder to reach included)
Dropouts
Economy
Attention to Indicator 14 at disaggregate level
may improve Indicator 13
Final Thoughts - Wisconsin

COLLECT:

USE: Once district is looking at the data, have
Beyond the Indicator 14 percentage, get
outcomes data to the LEA and teacher level
improvement resources readily available

SHARE: with statewide and regional partners – help
them access and use data

IMPROVE:
Local improvement will lead to increased
state Indicator 14
Contact Information

Cinda Johnson, Ed.D.
Seattle University
206-296-5888
[email protected]
Center for Change in Transition Services
www.seattleu.edu/ccts
Contact Information

Mary Kampa,
CESA #11
715-986-2020
[email protected]