Rhode Island Transition Indicator Rollout

1
Rhode IslandTransition Indicator Rollout

• 3rd Annual
• Secondary Transition State Planning Institute
• May 12-14, 2009

2
Presentation Goals

• Share how Rhode Island is publically reporting
  the SPP Transition Indicator results
• Share the policy implications for
• State
• District
• Advocacy Partners
• Discuss implications and strategies

3
Rhode Island SPP Process

• Indicators 1 2 Graduation Dropout Rates
• Cohort Formula
• In second year (2007) of reporting by this method
• Previously reported Special Education
  graduation/dropout rates from special education
  census

4
Rhode Island SPP Process

• Indicator 13 Transition Process
• Did not use I-13 checklist
• Collected data through special education census
  from IEP
• Waited for full implementation based on the new
  state IEP form (July 1, 2008)
• Focused on the qualitative inferences of
  Indicator 13

5
Rhode Island SPP Process

• Indicator 14
• Using census approach
• Collected by districts primarily students
  teacher
• Web based survey based on NPSO Stage 1
• In second year of reporting
• First year reporting district level data
• Response rate 51
• Representative for all groups except dropouts
• 79 engagement rate

6
Transition Indicator Rollout

• Statewide forums on SPP over the past few years
• Include in monitoring visits
• Included in Consolidated Resource Plan
  application districts federal funding
  application

7
Transition Indicator Rollout

• Prepared a presentation with all Transition
  Indicators and shared with
• Regional Transition Advisory Committees
• Regional Special Education Director groups
• Parent organizations
• State Special Education Advisory Committee
• Vocational Rehabilitation Counselors
• State Transition Council

8
Transition Indicator Rollout

• State Policy Implications
• District Level Application Implications

9
Transition Indicator Rollout

• State Level Policy - Indicators 12
• RI High School Regulations 2004
• Graduation by proficiency
• Concern of increased dropout rate No evidence
• Dropout rate is down
• Fifth year retention rate is up
• Transition Academies
• Interventions for reaching PBGR

10
Transition Indicator Rollout

• District level implications
• Are trends for state level date reflected in
  district level data?
• Disproportionate representation for a district
  prompts state focus in Commissioners Review (HS
  Regulation monitoring system)
• Provide plan to address in CRP application

11
Transition Indicator Rollout

• State level policy Indicator 13
• 95 compliance
• Districts given names of students with
  non-compliant IEPs with 60 days to correct
• Did not address qualitative components of
  Indicator 13
• Coordinated
• Measurable
• Based on Assessments
• Reasonably Enable the student to reach the post
  school goals

12
Transition Indicator Rollout

• New IEP will capture state will collect
• Student Participation in IEP, if not,
  documentation of students preferences
• Assessments used
• Measurable post-school goals on the IEP
• Transition Services
• Student Assurance
• ? Yes ? No I have been provided information
  about transition planning in the areas of
  education, training, employment and independent
  living.
• ? Yes ? No I agree that my measurable
  post-school goals are based upon age appropriate
  transition assessments and will reasonably enable
  me to reach my goals after I complete my high
  school education.

13
Transition Indicator Rollout

• District level implications
• 1 be sure IEP is completed properly
• 2 be sure census clerks alert the special
  education director when non-compliant IEP is
  discovered
• Active participation in PD opportunities ex.
  Transition Assessment forum sold out!

14
Transition Indicator Rollout

• State level policy Indicator 14
• Focus on representativeness
• Focus on results
• Shared results in report
• Used NPSO tools
• Discussed state level conclusions
• Prompted district level analysis

15
Transition Indicator Rollout

• Looking at District Data
• Begin by examining the Total Reported (last)
  column on the report.
• Did your district collect a sufficient percentage
  to draw conclusions?
• Was your percentage at or higher than the state
  average?
• If not, you should examine your collection
  methodologies and develop improvements in the
  next round of data collection in April and May of
  2009.
• Examine the percentage of students engaged
• Compare your district to the state data and
  districts with similar demographics.
• Examine the numbers for students who are not
  engaged
• This is of concern at the state level for
  particular demographic groups and holds
  particular implications at the local level.
• Who these former students are and what lead to a
  non-engagement result?
• Implications on Practice
• The primary goal of the transition outcome data
  collection and reporting is to influence
  transition planning and program decisions at the
  local level.
• Do the results point our team in directions to
  improve programming or services?
• What has worked, what has not?
• If we change particular practices would we expect
  to see a change in some or all of this data?

16
Transition Indicator Rollout

• Going forward
• Annual reporting on indicators to all groups
• Built into the federal funding application
• Built into public reporting
• Built into monitoring system
• Merging SPP data with state level policy
  discussions ex. Dropout Prevention

17
David SienkoRhode Island Department of
Education401-222-8987David.Sienko_at_ride.ri.gov