National Post School Outcome Data Community of Practice
------------------------------------------------------
Greetings,
Thanks very much for your work and the chance to hear about the
experience with SPP#14 data collection in other states. One thing I came
away with was support for the idea of a mid-year communication with
exiters as a means to keep in touch. This is an idea that Robert
Shepherd and I have discussed - a report from the field that it was
effective in at least one instance is encouraging.
And - a clarification on the NY comments:
*/What was the outcome that stood out most in your SPP/APR analysis?
Share one positive outcome and maybe one that was somewhat shocking./*
NY: We had a decrease in response rate this year. The numbers we could
reach were down this year. Our male to female ratio was what we
expected. We had more females than males.
We had more females than males reporting engagement in postsecondary
education, particularly in 2 and 4 year colleges/universities (that's
the ratio I was referring to.)
*What was your response rate?*
NY: We get many more phone numbers now. Many are disconnected. We offer
a web version of the survey but very few use this option. We just try to
collect as many number as possible in order to reach them.
Did I say "just"? - ouch. We try to obtain additional names and contact
information for adults who do not reside in the home and we work on our
relationship with the schools (they supply the contact information) to
help them gather good information. We report to the schools on the
students for whom we have "no good numbers" - with mixed results: some
schools work hard to find these students, and of these some are more
successful than others.
*/How are states currently reaching those hard to reach populations?/*
NY: Our minorities were not represented.
Some minority groups are under-represented, a problem that is tied to
the difficulty of keeping in touch with exiters who went to city schools.
That's it. Thanks again,
Eudora
Dawn Rowe wrote:
The following are notes from last weeks community of practice call.
The notes will also be posted on the website. Thank you to all who
participated. The topic for next months call will be Tools for
marketing the post-school outcomes survey and examining the adequacy
of your current survey. We are looking forward to hearing from states
on next months call.
*Community of Practice** * *January 13, 2011* * *
*Participants*
Dan Boomer [California], Judy Johns [Kentucky], Patti Johnson
[Oregon], Jackie Burr [Oregon], Jennifer Kane [Nevada], Bobby Grammar
[North Carolina], Eudora Watson [New York] Deborah Donovan
[Mississippi], Susan Loving [Utah], Amy Jinks [New Hampshire] ,
[NPSO] Ryan Kellems Deanne Unruh Dawn Rowe Jim Leinen
*Please let us know if we misspelled your name or didn’t include you
on the list!*
/Notes are not verbatim but rather an attempt to capture the essence
of what is shared. Please alert us if there are glaring errors!
/
*Announcements & Reminders*:
NPSO I-14 Data Use Toolkit Training: March 1-2, 2011
Secondary Transition State Planning Institute: May 17-21, 2011
*Topic*: *Response Rate, Why are students not engaged and how have you
reached those hard to reach populations?
*
Welcome. My name is Dawn Rowe. I am the project coordinator for NPSO.
I started this position just this past November, so I am relatively
new to this project. I am not new to the field of transition however.
I am finishing up my doctoral work at the University of North Carolina
at Charlotte and have worked with NSTTAC for the past two and half
years. Prior to that I was a transition specialist for a local school
district in South Carolina.
Thank you all for calling in. Today I will be facilitating a
conversation about your SPP/APR analysis and what you have learned
about students who are leaving high school, particularly students who
fall into the non-engaged group. I encourage you to share information
you have obtained about who falls into the non-engaged group and
improvement activities that are being developed to reduce the numbers
of individuals who fall into this category. We will also discuss the
your response rate to I-14 data collection and strategies for reaching
those hard-to-reach populations. So let’s get started.
Many of you have either completed the SPP/APRs or are putting the
final touches on them prior to sending them to OSEP. You should now
have an idea of who are employed, who are enrolled in higher
education, who fall into the some other employment category and who
falls into the some other postsecondary education group. Lets begin by
hearing about some of your outcomes.
*/What was the outcome that stood out most in your SPP/APR analysis?
Share one positive outcome and maybe one that was somewhat shocking.
/*
NH: The response rates from students with LD and ED were better than
anticipated. We had a slightly lower response rate due to
undeliverable surveys. We’ll need to work on that.
UT: We had more students in the postsecondary education category than
in employment. We have found it challenging to explain what is going
on with students using the ABC definitions required in the SPP/APR.
When we are sharing data with public we have to explain what “other”
means.
CA: We had a high response rate (94%)
MS: Our response rate was 87%. The number reported enrolled in some
other education or some other employment was small. These were the
lowest percentages we had.
NY: We had a decrease in response rate this year. The numbers we could
reach were down this year. Our male to female ratio was what we
expected. We had more females than males.
NC: Our response rate was down. Measurement C was highest area. Our
students are engaged in something. We provide intensive job training
prior to leaving high school, which helps with competitive employment.
The majority of our students going to postsecondary education are
going to community colleges.
NV: We have changed systems for collecting I-14 data. We are still
working on our data poll.
KY: We had a 61% response rate. 39% of those were not engaged and 28%
were employed.
OR: Our response rate was low about 72%. We had more individuals
working than in higher education. We had a smaller other category. Our
biggest districts are not as engaged in the process as the smaller
districts.
CA: 2400 students in community college. 5000 in some type of other
postsecondary education. 3700 employed. We were not able to contact
about 14,000.
*/Have you drilled into your data to determine what is happening with
the non-engaged group? What will you do with this information? How
will you use this information to develop improvement activities? What
types of improvement activities have you got planned to reduce the
non-engaged group?
/*
UT: We got a lot of responses like he has a disability so he can’t
work or he can’t go to college. The parent and student expectations
are low. We need to look into increasing these expectations prior to
leaving high school and looking at the impact of disability on
employment and postsecondary education. Provide more support.
CA: Saying “I can’t” was a big NO NO in front of my Dad.
NY: We have One-stop centers and other services providers that provide
a multitude of services; however, awareness of programs and supports
available after an individual leaves high school was low.
NC: We had lots of “I don’t know” responses. SSI was the most well
known service provided. We have a huge partnership with VR, but this
was fairly low on the list. Getting accurate information from the
larger districts is a challenge.
OR: We have taken a case study approach to reporting information back
to the LEA’s. We do a pre-exit survey. Districts are able to look at
individual student outcomes and transition services and supports
provided.
NH: We need to look at questions to be able to then look further into
the non-engaged group. We had lots of people who did not complete the
item and we did not ask any other questions that would allow us to
drill further. As far as improvement activities, we are focusing on
I-13 and providing better transition services in school to improve
post-school outcomes. We also had an issue with the 90 days question.
Lots of students were employed but not for 90 days and we did not have
questions to learn why.
UT: Bad numbers
CA: I am looking at breaking down the question to not able to contact
the first time and not able to contact the second time and look at the
response rate that way. If you take out the other category the
response rate went up.
*What was your response rate?
*
See above responses as well
UT: We had a 20% response rate. 80% could not be contacted or did not
answer the survey. We had lots of bad numbers and disconnected numbers.
OR: We had lots more disconnected numbers or people who did not want
to participate. We think it is due to the economy. We do a phone
survey and people are not answering the phone. Many people have debt
collectors calling and are just not answering.
NV: When we just did a hard copy of the survey we had a higher
response rate. We now give people options to participate. They can
participate by phone, snail mail, or online. We thought that the use
of technology would improve our response rate because it was easier to
complete the survey but it did not happen. We think it is because
previously parents were responding to the surveys on behalf of their
students. Students are not responding at the same rate as their
parents. Plus we have had lots of kinks in our new system to work out.
NY: We get many more phone numbers now. Many are disconnected. We
offer a web version of the survey but very few use this option. We
just try to collect as many number as possible in order to reach them.
NH: We offer a hard copy of the survey and one online. Few students
take the online survey. We met with our stakeholders and they
suggested getting parent emails. Students get so many emails they just
want click on especially if it hasn’t worked prior. We also have lots
of rural areas that do not have email access.
*/How are states currently reaching those hard to reach populations?
/*
UT: We continue to do telephone surveys
OR: Our strategy is to get as much information the year before a
student leaves as possible. We have suggested they get this
information as an activity in the classroom. Those who have gotten the
information a year ahead of time have a better rate of response than
those who do not.
NV: We have a similar process.
KY: We do a senior survey and are talking about linking the exit
survey, the senior survey, and the individual learning plans so that
were are collecting this information once rather than from multiple
sources.
NV: We also conduct a senior survey. I also do a district poll and
pull information from the statewide database to ensure I have the most
up-to-date information.
UT: We do not do any other type of survey.
CA: We had 29, 500 leavers this last year. We rely on the SELPAs to
collect data.
NY: We are using our transition coordinators and trying to provide
them with concrete information and a means to work with districts.
UT: We have a very mobile population. Many of these are also low
income and have the highest drop-out rate. How do we deal with this?
NY: Our minorities were not represented.
UT: Minorities were represented; however, we have a growing refugee
population we are going to have to consider. Lots of barriers to
reaching that group. With the huge variations in languages and dialect
it is impossible to translate all your material.
Our time has come to an end. I appreciate your participation in
today’s call. I will post notes for today’s call on the website
shortly. Just a reminder, we are available to review your SPP/APR’s if
needed. Just send them our way. Our next call will be February 10th.
We will be talking about tools for marketing the post-schools outcome
survey and examining the adequacy of your current survey. We look
forward to your participation. Have a wonderful day.
--
Dawn A. Rowe
Project Coordinator
National Post-School Outcome Center
University of Oregon
541-346-8412
[email protected]
www.psocenter.org
--
Eudora Watson
Potsdam Institute for Applied Research (PIAR)
(315)267-2718 or 888-419-2697
Website: http://www.psiweb.potsdam.edu/nyspp14/
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please send an email to
[email protected] with "unsubscribe npsoserv" in the body
(without the quotes).
