A Snapshot of Post-school Outcome Data in Pennsylvania

Where do we go from here?

1

A L L I S O N R . W A L K E R L Y N D A P R I C E J A M E S P A L M I E R O M I C H A E L S T O E H E R 3 R D A N N U A L S E C O N D A R Y T R A N S I T I O N S T A T E P L A N N I N G I N S T I T U T E M A Y 1 3 , 2 0 0 9

NUMBER OF STUDENTS EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION

2  DIGEST of EDUCATION STATISTICS  NUMBER OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION BY:  BASIS OF EXIT  AGE  TYPE OF DISABILITY

Age

NUMBER OF STUDENTS EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION

3

2001-2002 Total exiting special education Graduated with a diploma Received certificate of attendance Dropped out

18 19 20 21 and over 151,207 62,557 17,523 15,555 87,936 36,059 7,579 4,965 14,376 8,225 3,050 3,226 20,197 8,758 2,562 923

NUMBER OF STUDENTS EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION

4

Type of disability 2001-2002 Total exiting special education Graduated with a diploma

350,422 128,776

Received certificate of attendance

15,745

Dropped out

45,930 Specific learning disability Mental retardation Emotional disturbance Speech or language impairments 66,013 95,457 20,495 17,702 16,539 4,346 12,147 2,837 584 9,318 17,283 1,291

Age

NUMBER OF STUDENTS EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION

5

2002-2003

18 19 20 21 and over

Total exiting special education Graduated with a diploma

156,966 58,691 18,206 15,325 89,373 32,442 7,342 4,150

Received certificate of attendance Dropped out

19,882 8,953 3,832 3,718 20,294 8,525 2,714 1,115

NUMBER OF STUDENTS EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION

6

2002-2003 Type of disability Total exiting special education

359,616

Graduated with a diploma

129,984

Received certificate of attendance

23,362

Dropped out

46,646 Specific learning disability Mental retardation Emotional disturbance Speech or language impairments 68,673 95,658 21,777 17,846 17,331 4,859 14,149 3,611 694 9,123 17,798 1,468

HOW DO THE INDICATORS RELATE TO ONE ANOTHER?

7

FRAMEWORK

Indicator 13 (Transition)

Percent of youth aged 16 and above with an individualized education program (IEP) that includes coordinated, measurable, annual IEP goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the student 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 have been competitively employed, enrolled in some type of postsecondary school, or both, within one year of leaving high school.

Indicator 1 (Graduation rates) Percent of youth with individualized education programs (IEPs) graduating from high school with a regular diploma compared to percent of all youth in the State graduating with a regular diploma. Indicator 2 (Dropout rates)

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.

POST-SCHOOL OUTCOME SURVEY

8     PURPOSE  What is the status of our students with disabilities once they exit special education?

DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENT  Online survey AUDIENCE  Local education agency administrators, special education teachers, parents, adult service providers ANALYSIS  Where do we go from here?

PENNSYLVANIA’S POST-SCHOOL OUTCOME SURVEY

9  SAMPLING VARIABLES  CONTENT  EXIT VS. POST-SCHOOL SURVEY  RESULTS

PaPOS Development History

DESIGNING THE SURVEY TO ACHIEVE TWO GOALS

 Collecting information required for federal reporting  Collecting information to inform program improvements resulting in better post-school outcomes for youth with disabilities 11

STAKEHOLDER INPUT FOR SURVEY DEVELOPMENT

 Exit Survey Developed through a Cross Agency Process with Individual Stakeholder Representation (May 2005)  Survey drafts received Individual Reviews and Ratings  Group Reviews to suggest addition of missing questions or rewording of questions 12

IDENTIFYING A SYSTEM TO SUPPORT DATA COLLECTION AND REPORTING  Meeting with national experts at National Transition Summit - June 2005  Advice sought from National Post-school Outcomes Center  Decision to replicate Alabama System designed at Auburn University 13

Building the System



Decision Points

   Administrative Structure to Support Process Departmental Approvals and Field Directives Use of Penn Data to Pre-Populate 14

Building the System

 Field Technical and Management Support Procedures o o PaTTAN Educational Consultants Intermediate Unit Transition Consultants 15

Pennsylvania’s Survey Sample

  1/5 of LEAs annually and 1/5 of Philadelphia High Schools — Attempt to interview all leavers in LEA  All LEAs have been selected and placed on the sampling plan for the 5 years (i.e. each district participates once every 5 years) 16

SAMPLING VARIABLES

 District Size   Urban, suburban, rural, plus charter schools Disability Category    Ethnicity LRE Status (percent of time served in regular education classroom) Gender 17

SURVEY POPULATION

 Target Population “Youth who had IEPs, are no longer in secondary school, and who have been competitively employed, enrolled in some type of postsecondary school, or both, within one year of leaving high school”  All states have the same definition of “Population” 18

Surveys

 Exit Survey for student “leavers” in the current school year (2008-09) – Survey Cycle Year # 4 and Volunteer LEAs  Post-School Survey for former students one year out from school – (2007-08 “leavers”) – Survey Cycle Year # 3 and Volunteer LEAs 19

Exit Survey Content

      Demographic information Reason for leaving Accommodations received in high school Referrals to community agencies and benefits received Mobility within the community Contact information for post-school follow-up 20

Post-School Survey Content

 Work history and benefits  Continuing education history and related items  Employment history and related items 21

Post-School Survey Content

 Probe if not employed or in post secondary training/education program  Benefits received from social service agencies  Mobility within the community  Check on independent living status 22

PaPOS Results: Post-Secondary Education/Training

 Nationally about 32% of students with IEPs who complete high school enroll in post-secondary education or training programs compared to 68% of the general student population. (Wagner, Newman, Cameto, Garza, Levine, 2005) 23  In Pennsylvania 47.5%, of the former students with IEPs who graduated in 2007 and completed a post school survey were in enrolled in a post-secondary education or training program.

PaPOS Results: Employment

 Nationally, the rate of employment for youth with disabilities is 22% which is substantially below the 63% employment rate for youth in the general population. (Wagner, Newman, Cameto, Garza, Levine, 2005)  In Pennsylvania 74.6% of the former students with IEPs who graduated in 2007 and completed a post school survey were employed. Of these former students 77.8% were earning at least minimum wage.

24

TRANSITION

25  EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE  Identified by NSTTAC  STUDENT FOCUSED PLANNING  For example: • Involving students in Individualized Education Program Meetings  STUDENT DEVELOPMENT  For example: • Life skills instruction  PROGRAM STRUCTURE  For example: • Provide community based instruction

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

26

28 Post school Outcomes Employment Education Independent Living

In-School Predictors of Post-School Success

29 Employment • Career Awareness • Occupational Courses • Paid Work Experience • School Integration • Self-care/Independent Living Skills • Social Skills • Transition Program • Vocational Education • Work Study Education • Academic/General Education • Career Awareness • Exit Exam Requirements/High School Diploma Status • Interagency Collaboration • Parental Involvement • School Integration • Self-advocacy/Self determination • Social Skills • Student Support • Transition Program Independent Living • Community Experiences • Occupational Courses • Paid Work Experience • Parental Involvement • School Integration • Self-advocacy/Self determination • Self-care/Independent Living Skills • Social Skills • Student Support • Transition Program

INTERVIEWS

32  4 Assumptions    Assumption 1: Use of interviews will provide a more accurate picture of the state by using data from multiple sources Assumption 2: Qualitative data from interviews will enhance the quantitative data from the predictor studies Assumption 3: Use of interviews will allow stakeholders to examine predictor information in depth  Assumption 4: Qualitative research will allow stakeholders to look for new unexplored areas

INTERVIEWS

  33 Methodology  Purposeful sampling  To recruit participants  Pilot interviews       Conducted in an urban, rural, and suburban setting Will all use the same interview protocol that is based on the predictors and the extant literature base related to Indicators 13 and 14 Avoid yes/no questions Use open ended questions Face-to-face interviews (if possible) Emphasize generalizability and internal validity (whenever possible) Data analysis  Examining themes using the constant comparative method

PROJECTED IMPLEMENTATION & PRODUCTS

34     Proposed new and adapted strategies  (e.g., strategies and materials based on rural needs) Adapt or change state policies and procedures  (e.g., recommend vocational education as a priority) Create and/or revise pre and in-service teacher training  (e.g., further training for vocational counselors, revise college preparatory curricula to include predictor variables)  Other projected products: Parent education materials  Providing assistance to stakeholder groups

QUESTION AND ANSWER

35 Dr. Allison R. Walker, [email protected]

Dr. Lynda Price, [email protected]

Mr. James Palmiero, [email protected]

Mr. Michael Stoeher, [email protected]