1. Indicator 14 and Kentucky’s Continuous Monitoring Process (KCMP) Prepared by Kentucky Post School Outcome Center (KyPSO) Human Development Institute University of Kentucky Winter/Spring 2011

2. March 2011 Greetings ~ The purpose of this document is to provide an example of self-monitoring for Indicator 14 using the Kentucky Continuous Monitoring Process, or KCMP. It incorporates pieces of both the KCMP for Indicator 14 as well as examples of YOYO data for the fictitious Local Education Agency (LEA) of Pleasantville. Kentucky Post School Outcome Center (KyPSO) www.kypso.org

3. Kentucky Continuous Monitoring Process (KCMP) Self-Assessment Document Winter Reporting Period Indicator 14 Example Kentucky Department of Education Division of Learning Services Kentucky Department of Education Division of Learning Services Pleasantville Schools District SUBMIT THIS FILE TO KDE THROUGH SECURE FILE TRANSFER (DOSE UPLOAD)

4. From Kentucky Continuous Monitoring Process (KCMP) Indicator 14: 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. OSEP Requirement:State Performance Plan Indicator 1 State Targets : 14A – 24.5% 14B – 52.7% 14C – 62.4% Survey Outcome DataSurvey Response Rate 14A: % of students enrolled in higher education 14B: % of students enrolled in higher education or in competitive employment 14C: % of students enrolled in higher education, in competitive employment, or in other employment # of potential interviews # of actual interviews % of response 34%53%64%15810365% These are the Kentucky Department of Educations’ 2011 targets for each of the three sub-parts that compose Indicator 14. LEA targets are same as state targets. This is number of Former Students (FS) who could have responded to YOYO. It is number of KISTS Record Reviews submitted by each LEA, which should be same as number of exiting students your LEA reported. This is the number of FS who gave consent to be interviewed. These numbers come from the “Response” chart from LEA YOYO report

5. From Youth One Year Out (YOYO) 2009- 2010 “Response” Chart This is the total number of FS that could have been interviewed from across Kentucky This is the total number of FS that could have been interviewed from Pleasantville

6. Data Analysis Pleasantville’s Data Review Team (DRT) examined our LEA YOYO data from 2009-2010. Data that caught our attention were found within the “I-14 Compare”, “Any current school/training”, and “Why not working” YOYO charts. The “I-14 Compare” chart shows that for subpart “A”, 34% of former Pleasantville students reported being enrolled in higher education within one year of leaving high school vs. the average state level of 24%. This indicates that Pleasantville is doing something right in terms of former students transitioning to two and four year colleges. Pleasantville was very close to the state averages for sub-parts “B” and “C”. This is where you document your LEAs discussion of the results and what your Data Review Team (DRT) think they may mean. From Kentucky Continuous Monitoring Process (KCMP)

8. Data Analysis Pleasantville’s Data Review Team (DRT) examined our LEA YOYO data from 2009-2010. Data that caught our attention were found within the “I-14 Compare”, “Why not working” and “Any current school/training” YOYO charts. The “Any Current School/Training” chart shows that 43% of Pleasantville FS reported being enrolled in some form of postsecondary education one year following school exit compared with 29%, Kentucky state average. This reinforces what we saw from the “I-14 Compare” data and is further evidence that Pleasantville is doing something right in terms of transition planning around continuing education beyond high school. This is where you document your LEAs discussion of the results and what your Data Review Team (DRT) think they may mean.

9. From Youth One Year Out (YOYO) 2009-2010 “Any Current School/Training” Chart

10. Data Analysis Pleasantville’s Data Review Team (DRT) examined our LEA YOYO data from 2009-2010. Data that caught our attention were found within the “I-14 Compare”, “Why not working” and “Any current school/training” YOYO charts. The “Why Not Working” chart shows that 11% of our Former Students (FS) stating they were not working at the time of the interview because of a “lack of skills”. This compares to the state average of 4% of former students indicating this as a reason. This is an area we need to look into. From Kentucky Continuous Monitoring Process (KCMP)

11. From Youth One Year Out (YOYO) 2009-2010 “Why Not Working” Chart Of the 57 FS who reported they were not working at the time of the interview, 11% said it was because they lacked the requisite job skills

12. From Kentucky Continuous Monitoring Process (KCMP) Even though Indicator 14 is considered a new Indicator and districts have not included Indicator 14 in the previous KCMP, LEAs can document previous activities they have engaged in to help students successfully transition from high school to community settings.

13. These are some examples of why your LEA may be getting the data it is getting. Identifying the Root Causes can help identify improvement activities. From Kentucky Continuous Monitoring Process (KCMP)

14. From your discussion of the data, what areas warrant further investigation and/or should be targeted for improvement? From Kentucky Continuous Monitoring Process (KCMP)