Transition Services and the Reauthorization of IDEA

All County Task Force Meeting

February 16, 2006

Presentation Goals

• Overview of Changes in Federal Law: Changes from IDEA 1997 to IDEA 04

• Kent State Longitudinal Study• Ohio Department of Education Transition Task

Force: Goals and Updates• Summary of Performance (a regional model to

consider)• Regional Dialogue and Planning

Today’s Presenters

• Reena Fish, Transition Coordinator, Northwest Local School District

• Robert Baer, Coordinator, Ohio Longitudinal Transition Study

• Susie Rutkowski, Manager of Disabilities Education, Great Oaks Institute of Technology and Career Development

• Rose Kahsar, Parent Mentor, Mt. Healthy City School District

• Holly Boroff, Consultant, SWOSERRC

“If we don’t focus directly on changing the conditions that surround us--the culture of the school, how one school relates to another, the school district’s role, and so on--- we will not be able to pursue moral purpose on any scale.”

- Michael Fullan, 2003

High Quality High Schools

“Structure career and technical education programs around already-proven models that feature quality college and career readiness curricula and emphasize the need for learning beyond high school.”-Ohio State Board of Education Task Force on Quality High Schools for a Lifetime of Opportunities, November 2004

High Schools That Work

Easing the Transition of CTE Students to Postsecondary Education, Advanced Training and Apprenticeships

“Entering most high-demand, technical occupations that pay family-supporting wages now requires completion of some training or education beyond high school. Making pathways from high school to further education seamless and easily navigable is essential to preparing young people for the future.”

Academic System

Ohio Integrated Systems Model for Academic and Behavior Supports

Decisions about tiers of support are data-based

Behavioral System

1-5% Intensive Individualized Interventions

Adapted from OSEP Effective School-Wide Interventions

5-10% Targeted Interventions5-10% Targeted Interventions

1-5% Intensive Individualized Interventions

80-90% School-Wide Interventions

80-90% School-Wide Interventions

Transition and IDEA 04

Definition Section: Transition Services…A.) A coordinated set of activities for a child with a disability thatis designed to be within a results-oriented process, that is, focused on improving the academic and functional achievement of the child with a disability to facilitate the child’s movement from school to post-school activities, including post-secondary education, vocational education, integrated employment (including supported employment), continuing and adult education, adult services, independent living, or community participation;B.) Is based on the individual child’s needs, taking into account the child’s strengths, preferences, and interests; andC.) Includes instruction, related services, community experiences, the development of employment and other post-school adult living objectives, and, when appropriate, acquisition of daily living skills and functional vocational evaluation.

Transition Planning

Beginning not later than the first IEP to be in effect when the child is 16, and updated annually thereafter-(aa) appropriate measurable postsecondary goals based upon age appropriate transition assessments related to training, education, employment, and, where appropriate, independent living skills; (bb) the transition services (including courses of study) needed to assist the child in reaching those goals…

Transition: Evaluations Before Change in Eligibility

(ii) Summary of Performance--For a child whose eligibility under this part terminates under circumstances described in clause (i), a local educational agency shall provide the child with a summary of the child’s academic achievement and functional performance, which shall include recommendations on how to assist the child in meeting the child’s postsecondary goals.

THE OHIO LONGITUDINAL TRANSITION STUDY

PHASE II – EXIT AND FOLLOWUPContact rbaer@kent.edu

(330) 672-0722

Robert M. Baer, Principal Investigator.Al Daviso, Project Director, Kent State UniversityLawrence Dennis, Liaison, Office for Exceptional

ChildrenRobert Flexer, Consultant, Kent State University

Margo Izzo, Consultant, The Ohio State University

Why is Ohio Conducting a Followup Study of IEP Graduates?

1. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 has emphasized the need for accountability for evidenced-based instruction that led to school-wide academic testing and evaluation.

2. However, the focus of the IDEA has always been twofold—progress in the general curriculum and preparation for productive adult roles and the IDEIA of 2005 now requires evaluation of postschool outcomes.

3. Consequently, the Office for Exceptional Children (OEC) developed a strategic goal that: “By June 2004 [OEC] will develop a longitudinal tracking system for students with disabilities after K-12 departure”

What are the Federal Requirements for Postschool Followup?

1. All schools should conduct followup of IEP graduates and dropouts at least once every six years (>50,000 yearly)

2. This evaluation should identify work and education outcomes for IEP students

3. Schools should identify factors that promote postschool success and address these in school improvement efforts

Ohio’s Response to Federal Requirements

The OEC has submitted a plan that is based on the current OLTS model, which includes:

• Recruitment of a cross-section of urban, rural, and suburban schools in each SERRC region

• Training, support, data analysis, and materials development from Kent State University

• SERRC sponsored regional transition teams that

meet 3-4 times per year to recruit and train schools

What Kind of Information has been Collected, to Date?

• 1,342 exit surveys have been coded and analyzed from two cohorts exiting 2004 and 2005– 94% from student interviews– From 9 SERRC regions– 74% from high schools, 21% from JVS– Exit sample compared to Ohio in ethnicity and disability*.

• 205 followup surveys are coded and analyzed for students who exited in 2004 and were followed up in 2005

– Only about ½ of schools who conducted exit surveys followed up after graduation because followup schedule conflicted with IEPs

– Followup sample compared to Ohio but harder to followup urban and students with learning disabilities*

*as compared to Ohio statistics reported for students who exited special education in 2000 as reported in the 24th Annual Report to Congress.

OLTS Findings – How Well Did Transition Plans Address Goals?

• Postsecondary Education – 67% well or very well

• Employment– 80% well or very well

• Independent Living– 63% well or very well

• Community/Leisure– 66% well or very well

OLTS Findings – Secondary Programs – Student Ratings

Cohort I Cohort II

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4 point scale rating

Proficiency Tests IEP Meetings Supervised Work In-School JobJob Shadowing Work on Own Classes at College Career/Tech EdExtracurricular Prepare ACT/SAT Vocational Rehab MR/DD ServicesOther

OLTS Findings – Anticipated Outcomes

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

percent

Cohort 1 Cohort 2

Work Full-time

Work Part-time

4-Yr College

2-Yr College

Technical School

Military

Vocational Rehab.

Other

OLTS Findings – Anticipated Fields of Work

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35 Food Service

Auto

Computers

Construction

Industry

Marketing

Clerical

Custodial

Agriculture

Child Care

Cosmetology

Health Care

Human Services

Other

Cohort I Cohort II

OLTS Findings – Anticipated Independent Living/ Leisure

0

20

40

60

80

Cohort I Cohort II

percent

Live Parents Voting Driver's License

Own a Car Public Transp. Use a Computer

Play Sports Hobbies Religious Activities

Mall and Movies Outdoor Activities Other

OLTS Findings (Cohort I) Planned vs. Current Fields of Employment

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Planned Current

percent

Food Service AutoComputersConstructionIndustryMarketingClericalCustodialAgricultureChild CareCosmetologyHealth CareHuman ServicesOther

OLTS Findings (Cohort I) Postschool Work and VR Services

05

101520253035404550

percent

Full-time Part-time VR

Planned

Past Year

Current

Work Outcomes by Cluster in %Cluster Full-time

%Part-time

%

1. Work, MR, Non-proficient 27 42

2. 2 Year, MR,Non-prof, >female 58 8

3. Work, LD, Proficient 53 18

4. Work/College, LD, Non-prof. 58 27

5. 2 Year College Proficient 26 48

6. 4 Year College Proficient 25 28

7. Tech School Proficient 50 12

Adult Service Utilization by Cluster (currently receiving services) in %

Cluster VR% MR% OTH%

1. Work, MR, Non-proficient 17 30 10

2. 2 Yr, MR, Non-prof.>female 0 17 8

3. Work, LD, Proficient 0 0 12

4. Work/College, LD, Non-prof 4 0 4

5. 2 Year College Proficient 4 7 0

6. 4 Year College Proficient 3 0 3

7. Tech School Proficient 6 0 0

8. Not in any cluster 4 15 7

Reasons for Not Working of Unemployed Graduates (N=44)

REASON N %

Enrolled in postsecondary education 16 36%

Cannot find job that matches interest 7 16%

Cannot find job 2 5%

Lack of required skills 3 7%

Transportation problems 5 11%

Don’t want to lose benefits 3 7%

Don’t want to work 2 5%

Income Support by Cluster %

Cluster SSI Schol Loan

1. Work, MR, Non-proficient 52 0 0

2. 2 Yr, MR, Non-prof.>female 25 8 8

3. Work, LD, Proficient 6 0 0

4. Work/College,LD, Non-prof. 20 4 4

5. 2 Year College Proficient 4 22 19

6. 4 Year College Proficient 6 31 28

7. Tech School Proficient 6 6 19

8. Not in any cluster 30 15 11

OLTS Findings (Cohort I) Planned vs. Current Postsecondary Ed.

0

5

10

15

20

25

percent

4 yr 2 yr Tech Military

Planned

Past Year

Current

Education Outcomes by Cluster in %

Cluster 4 Yr %

2 Yr % Tech%

1. Work, MR, Non-proficient 0 0 0

2. 2 Year, MR, Nonprof.>female 0 17 0

3. Work, LD, Proficient 0 6 0

4. Work/College, LD, Non-prof. 0 8 4

5. 2 Year College Proficient 4 52 0

6. 4 Year College Proficient 50 9 0

7. Tech School Proficient 0 13 19

Education Supports of Graduates Who Were Attending College (N=69)

EDUCATION SUPPORT N %

Remedial classes 20 29%

Note taking services 6 9%

Tutoring 28 41%

Extra time for tests 25 36%

Tapes of books or lectures 7 10%

Reduced schedule loads 8 12%

Tour of disability services 9 13%

Reasons for Not Attending Postsecondary Education as Planned (N=67)

REASON N %

Changed plans 11 16%

Not enough money 15 22%

Needed help applying 1 2%

Did not have required courses 4 6%

Was not accepted 0 0%

Can’t find=can’t find job; Benefits=don’t want to lose benefits

Planned and Current Living Arrangements

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Family Self

Friends SpouseChildren FosterWaiting

Other

PlannedCurrent

Planned and Current Transportation and Voting Registration

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

License Car Bus Voting

PlannedCurrent

Predictors of Postschool Engagement (Work or College)

Coefficients a

.150 .205 .729 .467

.330 .082 .290 4.039 .000

.119 .076 .107 1.568 .119

.143 .105 .096 1.361 .175

.249 .133 .131 1.865 .064

.041 .087 .033 .472 .637

-.140 .092 -.126 -1.531 .128

-.119 .083 -.103 -1.440 .152

.042 .096 .031 .438 .662

-.127 .163 -.059 -.781 .436

-.127 .151 -.070 -.844 .400

.345 .099 .274 3.492 .001

(Constant)

Did you have a paying jobwhen you left highschool?

Gender

Are you Caucasion ?

Milder Disabilities

Only Specials or Electives

Was student in workstudy?

Was student in vocationaleducation?

Was the school in anurban setting ?

Recieving vocationalrehabilitation services

Receiving MR/DDservices

PROFAVG

Model1

B Std. Error

UnstandardizedCoefficients

Beta

StandardizedCoefficients

t Sig.

Dependent Variable: Engaged full-timea.

Significant Predictors with less than .05 likelihood of occurring by chance

Major Findings

• Need to bolster supports for students entering postsecondary education

• Need to assure students entering employment have job by graduation

• Need to focus on in-school outcomes of proficiency and employment experience

• Need to address issue of students needing remedial academics in college

Update on State Transition Initiatives

State Transition Work Group

• OEC/CTAE• 20 Team-Member Organization• 4 Full-Day Meetings Fall 2004• 12 Strategic Directions• 2005 – Transition Summit in Washington, D.C.

• Ohio Association of Supervisors and Coordinators for Exceptional Students• Buckeye Association of School Administrators• Ohio Association for Supervision and Curriculum• Ohio Association of Pupil Services Administrators• Ohio Middle School Association• Ohio School Board Association• Ohio School Psychologist Association• Ohio Association of Secondary School Administrators• Ohio Association of JVSD Superintendents• Ohio Coalition• Ohio Board of Regents• Ohio Association of Career Technical Education• Ohio Advisory Panel for Exceptional Children• Ohio Association of Community Colleges • Ohio Education Service Center Association• Ohio Youth Services Education Districts

Task Force Members

ODE Representatives

• Lawrence Dennis, OEC• Joyce Brouman, CTAE• Mike Armstrong, OEC• Vicki Melvin, CTAE Administration• Stephanie Metzger, OEC Program and Services • Kathy Shibley, CTAE-Pathways, Programs and Services

Purpose of Task Force

• Set Direction for OEC• Implement Secondary Transition Services• Improve Post-Secondary Performance Outcomes

Vision

It was the belief of this work group that the ultimate vision is a unified system of service delivery for all students designed to produce high school graduates with the knowledge and skills they need to succeed in college or the workplace and to be good, responsible citizens.

Transition Services WorkgroupStrategic Direction

12 point plan

Strategic Direction A

To provide coordinated on-going

professional development

Outcome:

A1. Establish a statewide trainer-of trainer model

for professional development.

Strategic Direction B

Infuse flexibility into educational structure

Outcomes:

B1. Redesign the continuum for career technical options that is integrated with all of transition

B2. Develop new job description and training for role of “transition access coordinator" (old VOSE/WSC)

B3. Connect the work of the High School Reform Task force with efforts of the Transition Work Group

Strategic Direction C

Create flexible, multiple mastery basedassessments

Outcomes:C1. Develop alternative versions of assessments

which align with diverse learning stylesC2. Expand window of opportunity for when

students are assessed.C3. Identify new ways to use various assessments

of student learning.

Strategic Direction D

Define student outcomes as an opportunity for work and further education.

Outcomes:

D1. Determine what other states are doing to include additional credentialing to a diploma.

D2. Determine “where all of the students have gone”D3. Research what knowledge and skills employers need and

determine how that can be credentialed.

Strategic Direction E

Provide leadership to affect change.

Outcomes:

E1. Ensure that Ohio has instructional leaders who can motivate change.

E2. Ensure our transition outcomes are tied to the High School Reform initiatives.

E3. Clear guidance and directives are provided to the state around transition.

Strategic Direction F

Influence pre-service to coincide with actual

practice.

Outcomes:

F1. Connect High School reform to pre-service training that results in a plan for pre-service education that ensures that educators are risk takers, problem solvers, and critical thinkers.

Strategic Direction G

Develop effective partnerships with agencies

and families.

Outcome:

G1. Establish highly qualified (TTW) transition specialists to provide transition services in districts

Strategic Direction H

Implement and support policies and standards.

Outcome:

H1. Ensure policies and standards are

implemented.

Strategic Direction I

Expand Public Relations.

Outcome:

I 1. Improve perceptions of transition services and educational practices in Ohio.

Strategic Direction J

Provide a support structure to identify, explore and disseminate models and resources for instruction and best practice.

Outcome:

J1. Develop a dynamic matrix of best practice.

Strategic Direction K

Ensure curriculum and instruction are linked

to standards.

Outcome:

K1. Standards based curriculum and instruction is coordinated statewide.

Strategic Direction L

Examine current research on1).Assessment2) Cultural difference3). Parent /stakeholder involvement

Outcome:

L1. Expand our data base and understanding.

National Transition Leadership SummitJune 2005

Three Priorities:

1. Flexibility in educational structure2. Provide leadership to affect change3. Coordinated and on-going professional development

IDEIA Performance Requirements

• State Performance Plan (SPP)– Indicator 13: Percent of youth aged 16 and above

with an IEP that includes coordinated, measurable IEP goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the student to meet the post secondary goals.

– Measurable Target: 100% Required by IDEIA

IDEIA Performance Requirements

• State Performance Plan (SPP)– Indicator 14: Percent of youth who had IEPs, and

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.

– Measurable Target: Established by State by June 2007

Transition: Evaluations Before Change in Eligibility

Summary of Performance--For a child whose eligibility under this part terminates under circumstances described in clause (i), a local educational agency shall provide the child with a summary of the child’s academic achievement and functional performance, which shall include recommendations on how to assist the child in meeting the child’s postsecondary goals.

Summary of Performance

This document is designed to assist secondary school personnel develop goals that will foster access to postsecondary education and other transition services

for students with disabilities.

Brief History of Transition Assessment

• The 1990,1997 & 2004 IDEA defined transition services as a “coordinated set of activities” that:

• Is designed within a results-oriented process,• Facilitates movement from school to post-school

activities, including post-secondary education,• Is based on individual students’ strengths,

preferences and interests.

IDEA 2004

• A comprehensive evaluation.. “shall not be required before the termination

of a child's eligibility under this part due to graduation from secondary school

with a regular diploma.”

• Does call for a SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE –

“..a local educational agency shall provide the child with a summary of the

child's academic achievement and functional performance, which shall

include recommendations on how to assist the child in meeting the child's postsecondary goals.” Sec. 614c (5)

Postsecondary Education

• College students with disabilities

increased from 2.6% in 1978 to 9.2% in 1998

• The National Council on Disability (2004) states that “higher education is key to the economic prospects and independence of youth with disabilities.” (p. 68)

• National Center for Education Statistics (2000) students with disabilities who graduate from college exhibit similar employment rates and annual salaries compared to their counterparts without disabilities

Legal Basis - Postsecondary Section 504/ADA

Mandates equal access to “otherwise qualified” individuals with disabilities (civil rights statute)

• Student (adult now) must self-advocate• Student must self-identify and present

appropriate documentation• Accommodations decided each semester,

based on current disability documentation• Accommodations “level playing field” but cannot fundamentally

alter essential functions or create undue burden

Summary of Performance Proposed Regulatory Language

Summary of Performance

For a student whose eligibility terminates due to graduation from secondary school or exceeding the age eligibility for a free appropriate education under State law:

(i) a member of the student’s IEP Team from a local education agency shall provide the student with a written Performance Summary

Proposed Regulatory Language (continued)

(ii) the Performance Summary shall be based on a historical

review of functional assessment and evaluation data as well as an interpretation of the effectiveness of accommodations and supports

Regulatory Language (continued)

(iii) the Performance Summary will:

(a) document the student’s disability;(b) provide information on the nature and extent of academic

and functional limitations caused by the disability…(c) provide information on the effectiveness of accommodations,

supports and assistive technology used…

Regulatory Language….

(iv) the Performance Summary should include, whenever possible:

– (a) the most recent evaluations…– (b) student input regarding the functional

limitations… and use and effectiveness of accommodations and supports.

SOP Sections

• Student Demographics• Primary and Secondary Disability• Date of most recent IEP or 504• Summary of Academic and Functional Performance• Postsecondary goals• Recommendations• Student Input• Attach relevant evaluations

Our Regional Perspective

• History of the Southwest Ohio Transition Task Force

• Questions for our dialogue:– What has changed (a recap of the law and

regulations)?– What do we have going for us?– What challenges are we facing (in our districts and

in our region)?– Ideas generation for meeting our challenges…– The future of our SWO Transition Task Force