Indicator 14 and Kentucky’s Continuous Monitoring Process (KCMP)

Indicator 14 and Kentucky’s Continuous Monitoring Process

(KCMP)

Prepared by Kentucky Post School Outcome Center (KyPSO)Human Development Institute

University of KentuckyWinter/Spring 2011

March 2011 Greetings ~ The purpose of this document is to provide an example of self-monitoring for Indicator 14 using the Kentucky Continuous Monitoring Process, or KCMP. It incorporates pieces of both the KCMP for Indicator 14 as well as examples of YOYO data for the fictitious Local Education Agency (LEA) of Pleasantville.

Kentucky Post School Outcome Center (KyPSO)www.kypso.org

http://www.kypso.org/

Kentucky Continuous Monitoring Process (KCMP)Self-Assessment Document

Winter Reporting Period

Indicator 14 Example

Kentucky Department of Education

Division of Learning Services

Pleasantville Schools

DistrictSUBMIT THIS FILE TO KDE THROUGH SECURE FILE

TRANSFER (DOSE UPLOAD)

From Kentucky Continuous Monitoring Process (KCMP)Indicator 14: Percent of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left school, and were:A. Enrolled in higher education within one year of leaving high schoolB. Enrolled in higher education or competitively employed within one year of leaving high

school.C. Enrolled in higher education or in some other postsecondary education or training

program; or competitively employed or in some other employment within one year of leaving high school.

OSEP Requirement: State Performance Plan Indicator 1State Targets: 14A – 24.5%14B – 52.7%14C – 62.4%

Survey Outcome Data Survey Response Rate

14A: % of students

enrolled in higher

education

14B: % of students

enrolled in higher

education or in competitive employment

14C: % of students

enrolled in higher

education, in competitive employment, or in other

employment

# of potential interviews

# of actual interviews % of response

34% 53% 64% 158 103 65%

These are the Kentucky Department of Educations’ 2011 targets for each of the three sub-parts that compose Indicator 14. LEA targets are same as state targets.

This is number of Former Students (FS) who could have responded to YOYO. It is number of KISTS Record Reviews submitted by each LEA, which should be same as number of exiting students your LEA reported.

This is the number of FS who gave consent to be interviewed.

These numbers come from the “Response” chart from LEA YOYO report

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45% 40%

21%

26%

8%5%

42%

23% 24%

7%4%

Kentucky total sample n=3209

Pleasantville total sample n=158

Pleasantville interviewed (103)/158 = 65% (42% + 23%)

StatePleasantville

From Youth One Year Out (YOYO) 2009-2010 “Response” Chart

This is the total number of FS that could have been interviewed from across Kentucky

This is the total number of FS that could have been interviewed from Pleasantville

Data Analysis

Pleasantville’s Data Review Team (DRT) examined our LEA YOYO data from 2009-2010.

Data that caught our attention were found within the “I-14 Compare”, “Any current school/training”, and “Why not working” YOYO charts.

The “I-14 Compare” chart shows that for subpart “A”, 34% of former Pleasantville students reported being enrolled in higher education within one year of leaving high schoolvs. the average state level of 24%. This indicates that Pleasantville is doing something right in terms of former students transitioning to two and four year colleges.

Pleasantville was very close to the state averages for sub-parts “B” and “C”.

This is where you document your LEAs discussion of the results and what your Data Review Team (DRT) think they may mean.

From Kentucky Continuous Monitoring Process (KCMP)


Data Analysis


Data that caught our attention were found within the “I-14 Compare” , “Why not working” and “Any current school/training” YOYO charts.

The “Any Current School/Training” chart shows that 43% of Pleasantville FS reported being enrolled in some form of postsecondary education one year following school exit compared with 29%, Kentucky state average.

This reinforces what we saw from the “I-14 Compare” data and is further evidence that Pleasantville is doing something right in terms of transition planning around continuing education beyond high school.

This is where you document your LEAs discussion of the results and what your Data Review Team (DRT) think they may mean.

From Youth One Year Out (YOYO) 2009-

2010

“Any Current School/Training” Chart

No Yes

No Answer

Missing

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80% 70%

29%

0% 1%

56%

43%

0% 1%

Any Current School or Training (Q44)

Sample for this question:Kentucky-interviewed n=1941Pleasantville-interviewed n=103

State

Pleasantville

Data Analysis


Data that caught our attention were found within the “I-14 Compare” , “Why not working” and “Any current school/training” YOYO charts.

The “Why Not Working” chart shows that 11% of our Former Students (FS) stating they were not working at the time of the interview because of a “lack of skills”.

This compares to the state average of 4% of former students indicating this as a reason.

This is an area we need to look into.


From Youth One Year Out (YOYO) 2009-

2010

“Why Not Working” Chart

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

25%

6%

24%

2%4%

6%8% 8% 8%

27%

33%

9%

25%

4%

11%7%

4%7%

9%

30%

Why Not Working (Q41)(Check All That Apply)

Sample for this question:Kentucky not working now n=1015Pleasantville not working now n=57

StatePleasantville

Of the 57 FS who reported they were not working at the time of the interview, 11% said it was because they lacked the requisite job skills


Description of previous activities and their effectiveness.

The following are some activities and results from Pleasantville:

We had 2 YOYO Interviewers trained and certified to conduct the YOYO interviews

Pleasantville hosted a career fair, which 130 students and teachers attended Pleasantville implemented the “Student Directed IEP” with three students this

past year Pleasantville offers the Community Based Work Transition Program (CBWTP)

Even though Indicator 14 is considered a new Indicator and districts have not included Indicator 14 in the previous KCMP, LEAs can document previous activities they have engaged in to help students successfully transition from high school to community settings.

Root Causes

Root Causes for Districts that DID NOT MEET Target(Place an X by the root cause that most significantly

impacted performance)

Root Causes for Districts that MET Target(Place an X by the root cause that most significantly

impacted performance)

Little, or no, consideration of postsecondary education and/or training in the development of postsecondary goals

Consistent consideration of postsecondary education/training as part of transition planning process

Little, or no, provision of employment opportunities during the transition planning process (e.g. job shadowing, internships, volunteering)

Effective implementation of employment opportunities during the transition planning process

Little, or no, involvement of adult service/community agencies in the transition planning process

Consistent and individualized outreach to adult service/community agencies that may help students transition

Poor response rate to YOYO survey Response rate to YOYO survey is consistent with the number of leavers

High percent of missing data on YOYO survey Percent of missing data is consistent with the overall sample size

Little, or no, consideration of student preferences and interests during the transition planning process

Consistent involvement of student/family in the transition planning process

Other (Specify):

Other (Specify):

These are some examples of why your LEA may be getting the data it is getting. Identifying the Root Causes can help identify improvement activities.


Activities with Action Steps, Resources, Explanation of Progress and Progress Status

Activity 1From Discussion: The “I-14 Compare” chart shows that for subpart “A”, 34% of former Pleasantville students reported being enrolled in higher education within one year of leaving high schoolvs. the average state level of 24%.

The “Any Current School/Training” chart shows that 43% of Pleasantville FS reported being enrolled in some form of postsecondary education one year following school exit compared with 29%, Kentucky state average. This indicates that Pleasantville is doing something right in terms of former students transitioning to two and four year colleges.

Action Steps for Activity 1

Action Steps Status by Date* Explanation of Progress

1 Draft questions re: postsecondary education planning, etc.,

3/1/11

2 Put into survey format

3 Survey each high school

* NI = Not Implemented; I = Implemented; IP = In Progress; O = Ongoing; C = Completed; D = Discontinued

Resources: RITT

From your discussion of the data, what areas warrant further investigation and/or should be targeted for improvement?


Activities with Action Steps, Resources, Explanation of Progress and Progress Status

Activity 2 From Discussion: ““Why not working” chart shows 11% in Pleasantville saying they did not have the skills vs. 4% from across the state. What could be some reasons for this?” Reconvene (or convene) our *business/employer network to explain this finding and query them as to the kinds of skills they expect students to have coming out of high school. *This may be part of your region’s Regional Interagency Transition Team (RITT)

Action Steps for Activity 2

Action Steps Status by Date* Explanation of Progress

1 Invite Mr. Workman to attend next RITT meeting for his input

3/1/11

2

3

* NI = Not Implemented; I = Implemented; IP = In Progress; O = Ongoing; C = Completed; D = Discontinued

Resources: RITT


Indicator 14 and Kentucky’s Continuous Monitoring Process (KCMP)

Documents

Transcript of Indicator 14 and Kentucky’s Continuous Monitoring Process (KCMP)