Reports: Question #17a

20 states answered

Washington: Connections are made at the state level working with OSPI on the SPP, as well as making the connections among the indicators during training and TA with LEA's. Connections will continue to strengthen with the addition of collecting data on dropouts and transition services in schools. We are also working closely with the monitors from OSPI to further connections between these four indicators.

New Mexico: Indicator 1: Data is collected on students with IEPs in general education and those with IEPs on type of diploma, comparison will be included in the final post-school outcomes report; Indicator 2: Data on dropouts is collected, but currently limited by definitions. This will be addressed next year; Indicator 13: A statewide file review using sampling techniques was conducted to collect data on coordinated measurable IEP goals and transition activities. A synoposis of agregated results will be included in the post-school outcomes final report.

Texas: Indicators 1, 2, & 13 are included in statewide training for #14. Survey questions and extant data regarding 1, 2, & 13 are included in the Texas PSO data collection system.

North Dakota: Improvment activities are conducted that impact results for all four indicators. example: Transition outcomes Project, Bullying curriculum, interagency transition committees.

Wisconsin: The same website is used for data collection of both Indicators 13 & 14; the WDPI provides Indicators 1 & 2 data used by Indicator 14. The results are tied together through the website using the individual student identification numbers.

Kentucky: The SEA Transition Coordinator is responsible for Indicators 1, 2, and 13. The State Improvement Grant Transition Director is responsible for Indicator 14. These two personnel work together to implement the indicators via Kentucky’s Transition Core Team and Regional Transition Consultants, with their collective work reflected in the SPP.

New York: Districts reporting on SPP#13 each year are SPP#14 districts the next year in the cycle. By adding specific questions for youth who dropped out (see 7a), we gather information from them that can be used for strategic planning to increase graduation rates.

Oregon: annual statewide trainings for monitoring process include materials, annual district sel-analysis includes topical worksheet linking the 4 indicators

California: Comparing Key Performance Indicaors (KPIs)

Ohio: Systemically the work that is being done for indicator 1 and 2 is being promoted and linked to the effective transition services process and the ultimate improved outcomes of SWD. ALso by utlizing the information identified by the Ohio LOngitudinal Transition Study, impact can be made on IEP teams as they support access and progress for SWD.

Indiana: At this point the connections are not streamlined beyond simple reviewing the data. Work has been initiated to consolidate the Transition IEP, SOP and follow up efforts.

Alabama: Activities in the State Performance plan for Indicators 1 and 2 are related activites that work together to increase graduation rate and decrease drop-out rate. Survey questions solicit responses pertaining to Indicators 13 and 14

Connecticut: Informal working connections within the CT State Department of Education. More formal connections are in progress.

West Virginia: The SEA Transition Coordinator works collaboratively with the IDEA monitoring staff for responsibility of these indicators, as well as district strategic plans; Transition coordinator provides teleconferencing, Transition Discussion Forum, opportunities for district and school staff to discuss issues related to these indicators

Hawaii: collaboration with teams responsible for Indicators 1 and 2 - to increase awareness and involvement on issues involving post-secondary plan, graduation, retention, and dropout.

Nebraska: Districts analyze this data as part of Nebraska's Improving Learning for Children with Disabilities (ILCD) self assessment process.

Delaware: The information from the post-school reports and the Indicator 13 data will be reported on and presented together. this will allow schools to see the relationship between the two data collections. Also, each LEA and school will receive dropout and graduation data combined with the Indicator 13 and 14 reports.

South Carolina: They are looked at as a group-Transition indicators.

Arizona: Currently data is being reviewed to develop any relationships and/or tendancies.

Illinois: Illinois' improvement activities for Indicators 1, 2, 13, and 14 have been aligned to ensure the most effecitive use of our technical assistance projects and resources to improve post secondary outcomes.