Part B Annual Performance Report for 2007-08 - New York State
February 2009

Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development:

See Overview of the Development of the Annual Performance Report (APR) in the Introduction section, page 1.

Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / Effective Transition

Indicator 14:  Percent of youth who had individualized education programs (IEPs), 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 high school.

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

Measurement:
Percent = [(# of youth who had IEPs, 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 high school) divided by the (# of youth assessed who had IEPs and are no longer in secondary school)] times 100.


FFY

Measurable and Rigorous Target

FFY 2007
(School Year 2007-08)

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)

*”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

Actual Target Data for FFY 2007:

91.2 percent of youth with IEPs*, who exited school in 2006-07 and are no longer in secondary school, were competitively employed, enrolled in some type of post-secondary school, or both, within one year of leaving school.

* This percentage is based on 2,453 students interviewed from the sample of youth with IEPs, who exited school in 2006-07.

The 2007-08 target was nearly met at 91.2 percent (see pie chart).  The difference between this percentage and the target of 92 percent is not statistically significant.  The 0.8 percent difference represents less than 20 students.  Four percent more students were both working and attending post-secondary school, with four percent fewer students working as their sole activity.  (See New York’s State Performance Plan (SPP) Indicator 14, reported in the February 2008 APR for definitions of outcome terms, targets and baseline data http://www.p12.nysed.gov/specialed/spp/apr2008/APR-1008.pdf).

2 pie charts showing Post School Outcomes of Students with Disabilties within one year of Leaving High School

Representativeness of Survey Pool

Table 1 below compares the representativeness of the survey pool with all exiters with IEPs for 2006-07.  The survey pool is the group of students that the 108 sampled school districts identified for interviewing to the contractor, the Potsdam Institute for Applied Research (PIAR) at the State University of New York (SUNY) at Potsdam.  The National Post-School Outcome Center (NPSO) recommends using a +/-3 percent difference to evaluate the representativeness of demographic subgroups reported in Table 1.  By this criterion, students with emotional disabilities are slightly underrepresented in the survey pool at -3.1 percent.  Minority students and students who dropped out of school are under represented at -6.2 percent and -10.0 percent, respectively.  Under-representation occurred in the sampled districts represented in the non-Big Five City areas called, “Rest of State.”  These rates of representation are improved compared with the baseline year, 2005-06, reported in the February 2008 APR.


Table 1: Representativeness of Survey Pool Compared to Exiters from All NYS Schools
During 2006-07, as reported in PD-5 Data Reports.

Statewide Demographic Representativeness

Statewide

Learning Disabilities

Emotional Disabilities

Mental Retardation

All Other Disabilities

Female

Minority

Dropout

PD-5 Report*

60.7%

13.3%

4.3%

21.7%

35.9%

45.3%

28.8%

Survey Pool Representation
(n=3,314)

59.9%

10.2%

3.6%

26.4%

36.0%

39.1%

18.8%

Note: positive difference indicates over-representation; negative difference indicates under-representation on the interview pool.  

Difference

-0.8%

-3.1%

-0.8%

+4.7%

+0.1%

-6.2%

-10.0%

Note:  The State report of all exiters from special education from all schools is called the “PD-5” report.  Totals from this report were adjusted to remove data for students who remained in school but were declassified and did not have an IEP in effect at school exit, who died, or whose reason for exit was a transfer to another school.

The consent process influences the composition of the survey pool.  The consent process requires school districts to contact potential exiters and their families prior to the student exiting school to inform them about Indicator #14 activities, to obtain contact information and to make them aware they can expect to be interviewed a year after leaving school.  If a district cannot contact potential exiters or their families or if there is a refusal of consent, the student is removed from the survey pool.  It is most difficult to contact students who have left by dropping out or have less stable living situations.

Representativeness of Response Pool

Table 2 below compares the representativeness of the response pool with all exiters from 2006-07.  The response pool refers to the group of former students from the survey pool that could be contacted and interviewed within the year after exiting their schools.  Using the NPSO criteria of +/-3 percent to compare the representativeness of subgroups to that of all exiters for the sampled school year, the response pool is representative of gender. Exiters with emotional disabilities are slightly underrepresented at -4.0 percent.  Minority students and students who dropped out of school are under represented at -11.5 percent and -16.5 percent respectively.  Under-representation in the survey pool by minority students and those who dropped out magnified the lower representation of these groups among those who responded.  However, changes in the outreach process improved representation during 2006-07 as compared with the baseline year 2005-06 data reported in the February 2008 APR.

Table 2: Representativeness of Response Pool Compared to Total Exiters
for All NYS Schools During 2006-07, as reported in PD-5 Data Reports.

Statewide Demographic Representativeness

Statewide

Learning Disabilities

Emotional Disabilities

Mental Retardation

All Other Disabilities

Female

Minority

Dropout

Census Representation

60.7%

13.3%

4.3%

21.7%

35.9%

45.3%

28.8%

Response Pool Representation
(n=2,453)

58.5%

9.3%

3.5%

28.7%

34.9%

33.9%

12.5%

Note: positive difference indicates over-representation; negative difference indicates under-representation on the interview pool.  

Difference

-2.2%

-4.0%

-0.9%

7.0%

-1.0%

-11.5%

-16.3%

Response Rates

Data Reliability and Validity

There were improvements in representation rates and response rates over the baseline year.  One strategy was to review student lists as soon as they were submitted and to follow up with school districts to request additional contact information right away when only one or two contacts were provided.  In large urban districts where centralized data systems are used, contact information in the district computer is typically outdated or incomplete.  This is a particular barrier in NYC, and contributes to a lower response rate in spite of increasing the sample size.  Additionally, in some communities, especially high poverty areas, the contact information provided by the school district becomes outdated when families move.  To help maintain contact, 2,000 former students were contacted for a preliminary survey within 6-8 months after leaving school (November to January), then interviewed in full beginning 9-14 months after leaving school (May through August).  This enabled inclusion of data on an additional 412 youth who were surveyed in the preliminary round, but could not be located by the later cycle.  This strategy increased the response rate from 62 percent to 74 percent.  In the baseline year last year, the response rate was 65 percent.

Implications for Interpreting and Applying the Data

Even though the representativeness of students surveyed improved over the baseline year, the percentage of former students with positive post-school outcomes is still somewhat less representative of students who dropped out of school, minority students and students with emotional disabilities.  Given the relatively high numbers of students who dropped out of school and who could not be reached at all, these outcomes probably represent an overestimate of what outcomes were achieved.

Data analysis found that increasing response rates through the strategies described above did not significantly change the percentages of outcomes by category reported above, but data are more inclusive of all the exited students, especially students who had dropped out prior to June 2006.  The outcomes reported reflect the outcomes for 2,453 student interviews conducted, including the results reported by the 412 pre-surveyed youth who were unavailable at the time of interview, but whose post-school status during the year after leaving school was determined during the preliminary round interviews.

Major Findings

2006-07 Post-School Outcomes by Type of Exit

2006-07 Post-School Outcome

Statewide Responses 2006-07

Regular HS Diploma (Regents, Local, HS Equivalency)

Certificate or Modified Diploma
(IEP Diploma)

Dropped Out

Other Exit Reasons*

#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Total in category

2,453

100%

1,672

100%

428

100.0%

307

100.0%

46

100%

All Post-school Outcomes**

2,236

91.2%

1,595

95.4%

359

83.9%

247

80.5%

23

50.0%

Post-secondary school only

396

16.1%

249

14.9%

111

25.9%

24

7.8%

10

21.7%

Both competitively employed and post-secondary school

1,229

50.1%

1,017

60.8%

125

29.2%

74

24.1%

5

10.9%

Only competitively employed

611

24.9%

329

19.7%

123

28.7%

149

48.5%

8

17.4%

Other: military service

21

0.9%

20

1.2%

0

0%

1

.03%

1

2.2%

Neither

196

8.0%

57

3.4%

69

16.1%

59

19.2%

7

15.2%

* “Other” may include that the student reached maximum age or that reasons were not reported.
** “All” represents the sum of post-secondary school and/or competitive employment. It excludes military service.

Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that occurred for FFY 2007:

Improvement Activities Completed in 2007-08

The Office of Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities (VESID) accessed technical assistance to further inform its activities to improve transition planning for students with disabilities.  This included a review of information and resources, including but not limited to information available through the following OSEP technical assistance centers:  NPSO, National Dropout Prevention Center for Students with Disabilities (NDPC-SD) and National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center (NSTTAC).  Also see resources accessed as identified for indicator 1.

Activities Completed:

In August 2008, VESID issued updated vocational rehabilitation policies regarding serving youth in school http://www.acces.nysed.gov/vr/current_provider_information/
vocational_rehabilitation/policies_procedures/0421_youth_in_school_transition_planning_and_services/policy.htm
Taken together these policies are designed to enhance the availability of vocational rehabilitation counseling and career development services for students two years prior to school exit and increase access to post-secondary education services and supports.  Beginning in fall 2008, all 15 vocational rehabilitation District Offices began professional development on the new policies.  TCS and Special Education Training and Resource Center (SETRC) Technical Assistance Center (TAC) representatives supported the training by presenting information on school policies and procedures to increase vocational rehabilitation counselors’ awareness of effective ways to communicate with school districts.  Through questions and answers discussions, the networks advised on strategies to work collaboratively in the secondary transition process.

Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2007 [If applicable]

None