1 / 25

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. Goals Are Dreams with Timelines – Got Plans?. Special Education Administrators Workshop August 3, 2009. Agenda.

salvador-stanton
Download Presentation

Goals Are Dreams with Timelines – Got Plans?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 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 Goals Are Dreams with Timelines – Got Plans? 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 student’s 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) Indicator14 – 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

  8. Drop Out – Indicator 2

  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 • Age-appropriate transition assessment(s); • Measurable postsecondary goals updated annually in education/ training AND employment AND independent living as appropriate; • Transition Services • Course of Study • Annual IEP Goals • Student invited to IEP Team meeting • 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 (206) 296-6494 cinda@seattleu.edu & haskod@seattleu.edu • Valerie Arnold, M.Ed. Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (360) 725-6075 valerie.arnold@k12.wa.us

More Related