1. Transition Outcomes Project Data Collection for Program Improvement NSTTAC Secondary Transition State Planning Institute May 2, 2007 Ed O’Leary, MPRRC

2. Develop and field test a process and a model to: Assist local districts in meeting the transition service requirements of IDEA 2004Assist local districts in meeting the transition service requirements of IDEA 2004 Evaluate the effectiveness of providing and delivering transition services to students and families through the IEP process.Evaluate the effectiveness of providing and delivering transition services to students and families through the IEP process. Provide training and resource materials on the transition process for educators, administrators, adult agency personnel, parents and others.Provide training and resource materials on the transition process for educators, administrators, adult agency personnel, parents and others. Improve graduation rates and post school outcomes of students with disabilities.Improve graduation rates and post school outcomes of students with disabilities. Purpose

3. Projects are currently or have been in place in districts/regions in 27 states/territories and over 1,500 districts: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, the Bureau of Indian Education, Colorado, Delaware, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, the Bureau of Indian Education, Colorado, Delaware, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming Participants

4. Conceptual Framework Volunteer Volunteer Focused and Manageable Focused and Manageable Emphasis on Program Improvement Emphasis on Program Improvement Clear and Concise Clear and Concise Training Training Empowerment of LEA Empowerment of LEA Building Capacity Building Capacity Achieving Results Transition Outcomes Project

5. Sequence of Steps/Activities Phase 1 — Identification and Commitment from Local Districts Phase 2 — IEP Reviews Phase 3 — Report Findings, Set Target Goals/Timelines, Brainstorm Strategies Phase 4 — Implementation and Follow Along Phase 5 — Follow-up Reviews/Report of Final Results Achieving Results Transition Outcomes Project

6. Understand the “what/how” – baseline, report-outUnderstand the “what/how” – baseline, report-out Own the problemOwn the problem Own the solutionsOwn the solutions Implement changesImplement changes Determine and see results – final dataDetermine and see results – final data Critical mass = 50% > Increase likelihood for institutionalizing and sustaining change TOPS – Change for Results Process O’Leary, E., 2003 © Copyright

7. Transition Outcomes Project Sequence of Project Activities Proximity-Requirements Quality Follow-up O’Leary, E., 1998 © Copyright Indicator 13 Indicator 14

8. Baseline and Final Data from: AZ, IA, MD, MI, MT, NM, PA, TX, USVI, WI, WV & MPS Total Number of IEPs National Baseline = 11,472 Seven States Final = 2,452 Transition Outcomes Projects Preliminary Data and Findings

9. 4. Will this student need involvement from any outside agency in order to make a successful transition? 64% 35% 62% 53% 35% 75% 56% 78% 71% 76% Baseline52% Final68% 73% 76%

10. 4a. Did the Public Agency invite a representative of any other agency that is likely to be responsible for providing or paying for transition services? Baseline17% Final34% 22% 13% 46% 14% 48% 28% 29% 27% 19% 14% 65% 20% I 18% 5% 20%

11. 4b. If a representative from any other agency did not attend, did the public agency take other steps to obtain their participation in the planning of any transition services? Baseline14% Final26% 37% 12% 26% 48% 26% 16% 58% 19% 9% 3% 19% 6%

12. 15. Are the activities in the statement of needed transition services presented as a coordinated set of activities? Baseline31% Final61% 56% 19% 77% 42% 77% 33% 38% 43% 60% 36% 88% 23% 26%

13. 17. If appropriate, does the IEP include a statement of the interagency responsibilities or any needed linkages? Baseline32% Final57% 81% 47% 17% 40% 29% 82% 49% 15% 14% 42% 23% 78% 46%

14. WSTI Baseline and Final Data 2003-2004 Total Number of IEPs National Baseline = 1,984 WSTI - 2003= 4,446 WSTI Review 2 – 2004= 3,321 Transition Outcomes Projects Preliminary Data and Findings

15. 1. Did the Public Agency Invite the Student? 75% 89% 95% 87% 96%

16. 2. Did the Student Attend? 65% 63% 73% 77% 73%

17. 3. Ensure Student Preferences and Interests Considered 54% 56% 83% 94% 92%

18. 4a. Did the Public Agency Invite a Representative…? 5% 10% 15% 17% 19%

19. 12. Does the IEP Include a Course of Study? 43% 32% 54% 79% 85%

20. 15. Are the Activities a Coordinated Set… 37% 21% 43% 54% 57%

21. 16. Do the Activities Promote Movement to Student Desired Post School Goals? 37% 21% 43% 54% 57%

22. 22 Comparisons of Post School Outcomes 2004 N= 3,321 WSTI Non WSTI 83%51% 57%29% 52%20% 80%66% 42%26% Percent of IEP’s With post high school employment adult living objectiveWith post high school employment adult living objective Indicate need for outside agenciesIndicate need for outside agencies Student invited to the IEP meetingStudent invited to the IEP meeting Currently paid workCurrently paid work Identify self as having disability to post-secondary advisorIdentify self as having disability to post-secondary advisor

23. Delaware Mark Chamberlin November 2006 The TOPs effort has had a tremendous impact in our state. In the almost 500 IEPs I have reviewed for Indicator 13 this fall, over 90% of the students are attending their IEP meetings, and all but one school district has documented the invitation of students to the IEP meetings. This obviously wasn’t a requirement for this indicator, but I did it for the districts anyway. Thanks for all you’ve done to help us.

24. The Emphasis of IDEA Improving educational results for children with disabilities is an essential element of our national policy of ensuring: –equality of opportunity –full participation –independent living, and –economic self-sufficiency for individuals with disabilities (sec. 1400 (c) (1))

25. Accountability in IDEA “The primary focus of Federal and State monitoring activities … shall be on— ‘‘(A) improving educational results and functional outcomes for all children with disabilities; and ‘‘(A) improving educational results and functional outcomes for all children with disabilities; and ‘‘(B) ensuring that States meet the program requirements under this part, with a particular emphasis on those requirements that are most closely related to improving educational results for children with disabilities.” ‘‘(B) ensuring that States meet the program requirements under this part, with a particular emphasis on those requirements that are most closely related to improving educational results for children with disabilities.” Section 616 (a) (2)

26. SPP Requirement Closely Associated With Results Transition Services in Schools Indicator 13

27. Transition Services in Schools Percent of youth aged 16 and above with an IEP that includes coordinated, measurable, annual goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the student to meet the postsecondary goals. Percent of youth aged 16 and above with an IEP that includes coordinated, measurable, annual goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the student to meet the postsecondary goals. TOPs and Indicator 13 Questions

28. 4 States, 1 BIE District 4 States, 1 BIE District 75-100 Local Districts 75-100 Local Districts Self Assessment following TOPs/I-13 training Self Assessment following TOPs/I-13 training Teachers, transition personnel, administrators Teachers, transition personnel, administrators Use of the TOPs and Indicator 13 Checklists Use of the TOPs and Indicator 13 Checklists TOPs Total N = 1,867 TOPs and I-13 IEP Reviews 2006/2007

29. Overall, does the IEP include coordinated, measurable annual IEP goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the student to meet their postsecondary goals? 6% TOPS and I-13 N = 1,859

30. Measurable Postsecondary Goal A. Education/Training N = 1,867 39% 29% 32%

31. Measurable Postsecondary Goal B. Employment N = 1,867 41% 27% 32%

32. Measurable Postsecondary Goal C. Independent Living N = 945 N/A = 922 60% 40%

33. Is (are) there annual IEP goal(s) that will reasonably enable the child to meet the postsecondary goal(s)? N = 1,175 54%

34. For each measurable postsecondary goal, is there evidence of age appropriate transition assessment? N = 1,175 41%

35. Are there transition services in the IEP that focus on improving the academic and functional achievement of the child to facilitate their movement from school to post-school? 52% N = 1,175

36. Do the transition services include courses of study that focus on improving the academic and functional achievement of the child to facilitate their movement from school to post-school? N = 1,834 49%

37. Overall, does the IEP include coordinated, measurable annual IEP goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the student to meet their postsecondary goals? 6% N = 1,859

38. Involvement of Outside Agencies in Transition Planning

39. TOPs Total Number of IEPs 2002/2003 through 2004/2005 = 6,896 TOPs and I-13 Total Number of IEPs 2005/2006 & 2006/2007 = 2,327 Transition Outcomes Projects Data and Findings

40. Did the Public Agency invite a representative of any other agency (with consent…) that is likely to be responsible for providing or paying for transition services? Final34% 7% 9%