Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2010

Overview of the State Performance Plan Development

See Overview of the State Performance Plan Development in the Introduction to the State Performance Plan, as revised June 2007 and in the Introduction to the Annual Performance Report for 2006-07. In addition to the plan development activities described in those sections, input on data collection for this indicator was sought from the transition subcommittee of the Commissioner’s Advisory Panel for Special Education (CAP), representatives of the Transition Coordination Site (TCS) technical assistance network and representatives of the State University of New York (SUNY) at Potsdam working on the NYS Longitudinal Post School Indicator Study (NYS LPSI).  This section was replaced in its entirety in February 2008.

Indicator #14:  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.

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a) (3) (B))

Establishing the Baseline Sample for 2005-06

• By January 2006, school districts selected for this indicator for the 2005-06 reporting year were notified by NYSED that they must obtain contact information and consent to be contacted from all or their sample of students who left secondary school between the months of January to June 2006. The shorter period for the baseline cycle was used because this was the earliest that schools could reasonably be expected to be implement the process created under the first submission of the SPP in December 2005. School districts provided demographic and contact data for these students to the contractor, the Potsdam Institute for Applied Research (PIAR) at SUNY Potsdam. Demographic data included name of the school district and student identification, date of birth, year of exit, primary disability, gender, race/ethnicity information, type of school exit (e.g., graduation, drop out, aging out) and special education placement during the student’s last year of school participation.
• By September 2006, school districts submitted the contact and demographic information to PIAR, who verified completeness of information with school districts and initiated planning for interviewing, via a calling center and creating mail and on-line survey alternatives. Survey protocols were programmed and interviewer training was designed. Recruitment of interviewers anticipated addressing the multi-lingual needs of former students as identified in the student information provided to PIAR.
• In mid-March 2007, PIAR sent letters to the entire survey pool of 2,936 former students to remind them of the purpose of the future call. If contact information failed to reach the former student, PIAR followed up with the school district to seek additional contact information. Most districts except NYC were able to provide additional contact information. PIAR also used web searches of on-line directories and databases to search for alternative addresses to supplement the outreach process.
• From April through the end of July 2007, interviews were conducted by PIAR using a modified form of the National Post-School Outcomes Center Post-School Data Collection Protocol, involving twelve basic questions plus one qualitative question regarding connections to adult services and supports. Call Center hours included early morning through evening hours, seven days per week, except holidays. English and Spanish-speaking interviewers were available.  A maximum of 20 calls per former student was made, varied across time-of-day and day-of-week.
• Questions pertaining to employment and postsecondary education include the following:

• Final reports to NYSED were provided by the end of September beginning in 2007 as they will be in each subsequent year, including all responses as well as analyses of response rates and differential outcomes by school, location (Big Five City vs. Rest of State), major demographic characteristics and type of school exit.
• Future cycles of collecting the data will follow a similar schedule and process, with two exceptions. In subsequent annual data collections, beginning 2006-07, exiters from the complete school year September to June will be included. Secondly, to increase response rates from larger districts, beginning with the 2008-09 student exiters, sampling will be discontinued for all districts except NYC.

Baseline Data for FFY 2005 (2005-2006)

Out of a targeted 2,917 student exiters from 107 school districts (NYC counts as one district), 1,908 students were available for interview, for a response rate of 65 percent. 92 percent of those who were interviewed reported being in post secondary school and/or competitive employment at some point during the year after exiting high school in 2005-06. The post-school status of the 1,009 former students who could not be reached for interview is unknown.

Discussion of Baseline Data:

Representativeness of Survey Pool

Table 1 addresses the representativeness of the survey pool compared with all exiters for 2005-06. The survey pool is the group of students that school districts identified to PIAR to be interviewed. The NPSO recommends using a +/-3 percent difference to judge the representativeness of demographic subgroups reported in Table 1. Using this criterion, the survey pool is representative of disability subgroups and gender. Minority students and students who dropped out of school are under represented at -15.9 percent and -14.8 percent, respectively. Similar analysis of representation by geographic region showed that for the Big Five Cities included in the sample, only students who dropped out are under represented at -8.6 percent. For the Rest-of-State, students who dropped out are under represented at -10.2 percent and minority students are slightly under represented at -4.7 percent.

Two factors are believed to contribute to these differences in representation:

• The PD-5 report represents exiters for the entire school year, but the 2005-06 survey pool represents exiters from the second half of the year. Dropping out is believed to more often occur during the first semester.
• The consent process influences the composition of the survey pool. The consent process requires school districts to contact exiters and their families to inform them about Indicator 14, to obtain contact information and to expect to be interviewed a year after leaving school. If a district cannot contact exiters or their families or if there is a refusal of consent, the person is removed from the survey pool. Most often, these students have left by dropping out or have less stable living situations.

Representativeness of Response Pool

Table 2 addresses the representativeness of the response pool, compared with the PD-5 report about all exiters. The response pool is comprised of the students from the survey pool who actually were interviewed and who fit the criteria of being exiters after one year. Using the PSO criteria of +/-3 percent to judge representativeness of subgroups, the response pool is representative of gender and all but one disability group. Exiters with emotional disabilities are slightly under represented at -4.5 percent. Minority and students and students who dropped out of school are under represented at -22.7 percent and -20.5 percent respectively. For the Big Five Cities, the response pool is representative of gender, minority and all but one disability subgroup. Exiters with emotional disabilities are slightly under represented at -4.1 percent. Students who dropped out of school are under represented at -18.2 percent. For the Rest-of-State, students who dropped out and minority students are under represented at -13.8 percent and -8.9 percent, respectively. Students with emotional disabilities are slightly under represented at -3.5 percent. The factors contributing to under representation by these groups include their under representation in the survey pool and having lower response rates.

Response Rates

• Within the survey pool, the response rates for three demographic subgroups were less than 65 percent: students with emotional disabilities at 55 percent; minority students at 50 percent; and students who dropped out of school at 42 percent.
• For the Big Five Cities, the response rate was 52 percent, with two groups falling below this rate: students with emotional disabilities at 45 percent and students who dropped out of school at 39 percent.
• For the Rest-of-State, there was a response rate of 69 percent, with three groups falling below this rate: students with emotional disabilities at 58 percent; minority students at 49 percent; and students who dropped out at 45 percent.

Implications for Interpreting and Applying the Data

In reviewing the data results, readers are cautioned that the percent of former students with positive post-school outcomes is not representative of students who dropped out of school, minority students and students with emotional disabilities since these subgroups were underrepresented in student responses to the survey interviews.

Data Reliability and Validity

Strategies are needed to equalize the response rates between the largest school districts and the rest of the participating schools that provide data for this indicator. Outreach activities need to be enhanced to find students who dropped out and assure their representation in the data. Strategies for improving response rates and representativeness for this indicator are discussed under the Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources section.

Major Findings

• 92 percent of the 1,908 interviewed 2005-06 exiting students with disabilities reported that they participated in competitive employment and/or post secondary school enrollment at some point during the year since they left high school.
• If military service is counted as “competitive employment,” the percent of students with positive post-school transitions would be 1.3 percent higher (n=25), or 93 percent.
• Based on past post-school studies, we believe that “employed and/or in post secondary school at the point of interview one-year beyond high school exit” is a better measure and may include some indication of sustaining positive post-school outcomes.
• Using this criterion, the percent of former students achieving positive post-school outcomes would be only 84 percent, distributed as follows: 24 percent in post secondary school only; 30 percent both working competitively and in post secondary school, and 30 percent in competitive employment only.
• Also using this criterion, there are 15 percent fewer former students sustaining themselves in employment and nine percent fewer former students sustaining their participation in post secondary school programs. (Note: there is some double counting here, because some students were doing both activities and some were only doing one).
• Only half of the former students not sustaining their participation in competitive employment or post secondary schools had heard of vocational rehabilitation services and, of these, only one third were using them. This means that sustaining post-school transitions also represents an area for improvement and that stronger alliances between schools and adult service agencies are needed to effect smooth transitions that are sustained beyond immediate school exit.
• Of the 1,200 former students who participated in post secondary school at any point during the year since leaving school, 883 (73.6 percent) participated in two-year college programs (47.1 percent) or four-year college programs (26.5 percent). Seven out of every 8 students participating in college programs participated full-time.
• Of the 1,429 former students who worked competitively at any time within one year of leaving school, 577 were found on interview to be still employed one year later and not attending post secondary school. Of this group, for whom employment is the primary activity, two-thirds work full-time, with the majority working 40 hours per week. The average wage for all 577 former students was $8.90 per hour and the average hours worked was 35.7 hours per week.
• Type of school exit: While 96 percent of students with regular diplomas transitioned to post-secondary school and/or competitive employment at some point during the year after school exit, only 84 percent of students with IEP diplomas and 78 percent of students who dropped out had these positive post-school outcomes. While 77 percent of all students transitioned to employment, only 63 percent of students with IEP diplomas and 69 percent of students who dropped out of school did so.

• School characteristics: Students from NYC, which has the highest resource needs, had fewer transitions (82 percent) in comparison to students from Rest-of-State (93 percent). Competitive employment was less often reported by students from NYC (57 percent) than by students from the Rest-of-State (78 percent).
• Demographics of Students: There are no significant differences by gender. Fewer minority students had positive post-school outcomes (85 percent) than did white students (93 percent). Fewer minority students (65 percent) reported competitive employment than did white students (77 percent).

Measurable and Rigorous Targets

FFY	Measurable and Rigorous Target
2005 (2005-06) Baseline	Baseline = 92 percent of youth with IEPs*, who exited school in 2005-06 are no longer in secondary school and who have been competitively employed**, enrolled in some type of post secondary school, or both, within one year of leaving school (i.e., during 2006-07).
2006 (2006-07)	92 percent of youth with IEPs*, who exited school in 2006-07 are no longer in secondary school and who have been competitively employed**, enrolled in some type of post secondary school, or both, within one year of leaving school (i.e., during 2007-08)
2007 (2007-08)	92 percent of youth with IEPs*, who exited school in 2007-08 are no longer in secondary school and who have been competitively employed**, enrolled in some type of post secondary school, or both, within one year of leaving school (i.e., during 2008-09)
2008 (2008-09)	92 percent of youth with IEPs*, who exited school in 2008-09 are no longer in secondary school and who have been competitively employed**, enrolled in some type of post secondary school, or both, within one year of leaving school (i.e., during 2009-10)
2009 (2009-10)	93 percent of youth with IEPs*, who exited school in 2009-10 are no longer in secondary school and who have been competitively employed**, enrolled in some type of post secondary school, or both, within one year of leaving school (i.e., during 2010-11)
2010 (2010-11)	94 percent of youth with IEPs*, who exited school in 2010-11 are no longer in secondary school and who have been competitively employed**, enrolled in some type of post secondary school, or both, within one year of leaving school (i.e., during 2011-12)

*”Percent of youth with IEPs” refers to the percent of students who could be reached for interview.
**In these targets, competitive employment excludes military service.

Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources:

Improvement activities center around efforts to target technical assistance and transition funding based on gaps identified in the baseline data for students at-risk of dropping out and who exit with IEP diplomas and in improving the reliability and validity of data collected on this measure. Assistance will be provided regarding development of student samples of an adequate size to offset anticipated low response rates.

Activity	Timeline	Resources
See activities for indicators 2 and 13	2008-11	7 regional TCS funded through IDEA Part B discretionary funds
Prioritize training and technical assistance delivered by TCSs to improve transition outcomes based on gaps in post-school outcomes identified for subpopulations: i.e., for students who dropped out and for students who exited with IEP diplomas.	2007-11	7 regional TCS funded through IDEA Part B discretionary funds
Implement Model Transition Programs in 60 consortia of school districts throughout the State to build capacity for in-school career preparation and smooth transitions to vocational rehabilitation (VR) for students needing those services.	2007-11	Competitive contracts with 60 school district consortia in collaboration with VESID VR District Offices
VR policy development will be revised to enhance the availability of VR counseling to transitioning students no later than their junior year and the revision of economic need policies related to funding support during postsecondary education, including provision of career-related internships during postsecondary education study.	2007-09	VESID VR Policy Unit
Increase Independent Living Center (ILC) initiatives to facilitate making and sustaining post-school transitions, including identifying and connecting appropriate adult role models with currently transitioning secondary students (e.g., through mentoring programs, shadowing experiences and other innovations to increase student awareness of successful adult roles).	2008-11	ILC network VR District Offices TCS network

Improving Response Rates and Representativeness of Indicator 14 Data:

• Encourage districts to provide better contact information by requesting three distinct sets of contacts instead several individuals all living at the same location.
• Encourage districts to check with student and families to confirm or update contact information. This could be done when they formally notify youth and families about SPP Indicator 14, at Parent-Teacher conferences, IEP meetings and when the student is given their Student Exit Summary prior to graduation.
• Modify “Sampling Methodology” to drop sampling for any school district except for NYC. The work of larger districts in compiling randomly selected student lists and over sampling to address lower response rates will be dropped. These districts will be asked instead to provide lists of all exiters that include contact information known at the school building the student attends, which is typically more up-to-date with this information than centralized data bases.
• Based the first round of data collection, NYC will be asked to increase its sample size as well as provide more up-to-date contact information from the buildings attended by the students. Discussions have begun with city administrators on these and other creative solutions to address the lower response rate.
• Contact youth enrolled by the districts by phone at the end of each semester to verify their contact information as soon it is submitted by the school district rather than waiting until the April following school exit. For example calls were made to 2006-07 youth enrolled in the 2006-07 survey pool during November 2007. If these calls prove effective in increasing response rates, they will be repeated in subsequent cycles.
• In addition to discussing their post-school status, provide interviewed students and/or their families with lists of services that may assist the student to obtain more successful outcomes, including returning to school, if the student has dropped out.

---

3 Day program alternatives are adult rehabilitation service programs designed for persons with the most severe disabilities who cannot successfully compete in the competitive labor market or matriculate in traditional postsecondary education settings even with extensive support. Services provided in these day program alternatives typically involve provision of developmental therapies to improve daily living, independent living, and social skills and to provide prevocational training. Placement in these settings is not necessarily an end-placement. As individuals acquire more skills and new systems for providing support evolve, participants may transition full- or part-time into other more integrated settings, including supported employment or supported postsecondary education models. Inclusion of this outcome in NYS’ definition of postsecondary school was highly recommended by the CAP to assure that students with the most severe disabilities are included in NYS’ transition services.

4 See footnote 1.