National Post School Outcome Data Community of Practice ------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for responding. I will update the notes that will be posted on the website. Thanks again for participating. Have a great week. Dawn On 1/19/11 8:47 AM, "Eudora Watson" <p...@potsdam.edu> wrote: > 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 didn¹t 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 let¹s 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. We¹ll 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 ³other² >> 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 can¹t >> work or he can¹t 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 ³I can¹t² 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 ³I don¹t know² 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 LEA¹s. 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 hasn¹t 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 >> today¹s call. I will post notes for today¹s call on the website >> shortly. Just a reminder, we are available to review your SPP/APR¹s 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 >> dro...@uoregon.edu >> www.psocenter.org >> -- Dawn A. Rowe Project Coordinator National Post-School Outcome Center University of Oregon 541-346-8412 dro...@uoregon.edu www.psocenter.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please send an email to majord...@lists.uoregon.edu with "unsubscribe npsoserv" in the body (without the quotes).
