special school district transition and career training ... · transition and career training...

Special School District Transition and Career

Training Program Evaluation

Leslie Caldwell, Chair

Marilyn Smith, Co-chair

April 2005

Transition and Career Training Program Evaluation

Transition and Career Training Program Evaluation – April 2005 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ...................................................................................................................iii

List of Appendices ...........................................................................................................iv

Executive Summary .........................................................................................................v

Chapter I: Introduction.....................................................................................................1 Background and Purpose .....................................................................................1 Focus for the Program Evaluation .......................................................................1

Chapter II: Program Description......................................................................................2 Definition of Transition .......................................................................................2 Student Distribution .............................................................................................3 Special School District Programs to Support Transition Planning......................3 National Perspective on Transition Planning.......................................................4

Chapter III: Literature Review.........................................................................................6 Quality Programs .................................................................................................6 Transition Curriculum..........................................................................................7 Staff Training for Effective Transition Programs………………………………9 Graduation Follow-Up Data ................................................................................9

Chapter IV: Methodology................................................................................................11 Process .................................................................................................................11 Population ............................................................................................................11 Methods for Data Collection and Analysis..........................................................11

Chapter V: Results ...........................................................................................................18 Transition Program Quality Indicators ................................................................19 Results of IEP Compliance Review.....................................................................21 Results of Transition Program Survey.................................................................25 Comparison of 2001 and 2004 Transition Survey Results ..................................29 Results of Teacher/Administrator Career Training Program Satisfaction

Surveys .................................................................................................................29 Results of MSIP Parent Satisfaction Survey and MSIP Secondary

Student Satisfaction Survey .................................................................................31 Results of CTP Parent Satisfaction Survey.......................................................... Results of CTP Student Survey............................................................................34 Results of CTP Worksite Supervisor Survey.......................................................37 Comparison of CTP Student, Parent, and Site Supervisor Surveys.....................39 Results of Graduate Follow-up Data....................................................................39


Transition and Career Training Program Evaluation – April 2005 ii

Results of Public Forum.......................................................................................40 Results of Cost Analysis ......................................................................................41

Chapter VI: Summary and Recommendations ......................................................................42

Summary ..............................................................................................................42 Limitations ...........................................................................................................46 Recommendations................................................................................................46

References..............................................................................................................................48 Appendix................................................................................................................................50


Transition and Career Training Program Evaluation – April 2005 iii

LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Students with Disabilities in St. Louis County ........................................................3 Table 2 Evaluation Focus Questions and Data Collection Methods...................................12 Table 3 Data Sources and Data Collection Methods ..........................................................12 Table 4 Missouri School Improvement Program Review Schedule ...................................21 Table 5 IEP Review-Sample Size by District/Program ......................................................22 Table 6 Results of IEP Review on a Single Indicator.........................................................24 Table 7 Unmet Transition Needs of Students with Disabilities..........................................26 Table 8 Staff Training Needs in Transition ........................................................................26 Table 9 Comparison between School Levels on Unmet Transition Needs and Level of Staff Training Needs…………………………………….………....27 Table 10 Comparison Between Regions on Levels of Unmet Transition Needs and Level of Staff Training Needs ........................................................................28 Table 11 Areas of Concern in the Results of the 2001 & 2004 Surveys ..............................29 Table 12 Strength Areas on Teacher/Administrator Survey.................................................30 Table 13 Progressing Areas on Teacher/Administrator Survey............................................30 Table 14 Comparisons among Regions and Special Education Schools on Satisfaction of the Career Training Program .........................................................31 Table 15 Strength Areas on Parent and Student Satisfaction Surveys..................................32 Table 16 Progressing Areas on Parent and Student Satisfaction Surveys ............................32 Table 17 Strength Areas on Parent Survey ...........................................................................33 Table 18 Progressing Areas on Parent Survey......................................................................33 Table 19 Parent Survey Results-Comments..........................................................................34 Table 20 Overall Student Satisfaction ..................................................................................35 Table 21 Strength Areas on Student Survey .........................................................................35 Table 22 Progressing Areas on Student Survey....................................................................35 Table 23 Student Survey Results-Comments........................................................................36 Table 24 Strength Areas on Supervisor Survey....................................................................37 Table 25 Strength Areas on Supervisor Survey....................................................................38 Table 26 Progressing Areas on Supervisor Survey...............................................................38 Table 27 Work Site Supervisors Survey Results-Comments................................................38 Table 28 Comparison of Strength Areas on Student, Parent & Supervisors Surveys ..........39


Transition and Career Training Program Evaluation – April 2005 iv

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Committee Members Appendix 2 DESE Data Coordination –Students with Disabilities Child Count as of as

of December 1, 2003 and 2004 Appendix 3 Questionnaire on Transition Services and Needs – April 2001 Appendix 4 Transition Services and Staff Needs Survey & Results– October 2004 Appendix 5 Career Training Program Staff/Administrator Satisfaction Survey & Results-October 2004 Appendix 6 Missouri School Improvement Program (MSIP) – Parent Survey/Results Appendix 7 MSIP Secondary Student Survey/Results Appendix 8 Career Training Program (CTP) Parent Satisfaction Survey/Results -

Spring 2004 Appendix 9 CTP Student Satisfaction Survey/Results – Spring 2004 Appendix 10 CTP Work Site Supervisor Satisfaction Survey/Results – Spring 2004 Appendix 11 Special Education Monitoring – IEP Review – DESE Compliance Standards and Indicators Appendix 12 Transition IEP Checklist for IEP Review Appendix 13 DESE - Special Education State Profile –

Graduation Data and Follow-Up on Previous Year’s Graduates Appendix 14 Public Forum Flyer and Handout


Transition and Career Training Program Evaluation – April 2005 v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

Special School District is committed to program evaluation as a foundation for the continuous improvement process. The program evaluation framework approved by the Board of Education (2003) guides Special School District staff in conducting program evaluation activities to measure, analyze and effectively manage special education services and operations. The Transition and Career Training Program Evaluation was a formative process occurring from September 2004 through April 2005. This summative report details the process, results and recommendations that will guide future improvement activities for this population.

Stakeholders were engaged as ongoing steering committee members, work group

members, and as public forum participants. The committee membership included SSD directors, SSD administrators, a parent, a student, teachers, transition consultants, transition facilitators, community members, adult agency providers, and university professors (Appendix 1).

There were five questions posed by the committee and approved by the Board of Education which were designed to provide a review of services across the county:

1. Is SSD in compliance with the IDEA and MSIP requirements with respect to transition? 2. Are the transition services currently provided meeting student needs? 3. How do current 2004-2005 findings compare to the 2000-2001 survey? 4. What are the perceptions of various stakeholders regarding transition services in the Career

Training Program? 5. What conclusions can we draw from MSIP follow-up data for students in St. Louis County since

February 2002?

Literature Review

This literature review was conducted to provide a research base for future recommendations in the area of transition and to compare current practices and programs within SSD to current best practice in the four theme areas. The literature review included articles from educational journals, on-line articles and reports, and information obtained from DESE’s web site. The work group read and summarized information from these sources that supported findings from the survey identified as needs or areas of improvement. As research was reviewed, the following questions were constructed to focus and frame the search around the four theme areas:

• What is considered best practice or what are the components of quality programs for transition?

• What is considered best practice in transition curriculums? • What are staff training needs in the area of transition? • What graduation follow-up data supports the findings of the program evaluation?


Transition and Career Training Program Evaluation – April 2005 vi

The transition from school to adult life is a chaotic time for students with mild disabilities as they move into adulthood: finishing school, finding a job, leaving home, and building relationships with others. Challenges for students with more significant disabilities include: linking to the appropriate adult agencies, finding funding for expensive day programs, maintaining a social connection, staying integrated in the community and continuing to increase independence. Young adults today face other challenges that are beyond their control and are entering a playing field that has been economically, socially and culturally altered. They are juggling work and school, living at home longer, and delaying marriage and family.

Regardless of the challenges our students face in adulthood, it is our responsibility as a school district to provide programming for students that will provide them with the information, skills and knowledge needed to help them attain the highest level of success achievable as they transition to adult life.

Methodology

Data was gathered by a review of available demographic information, quality indicators derived from the 2001 transition survey findings and verified through the literature review, the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) graduate follow-up data, and a variety of surveys with analysis of open-ended comments, that included parents, teachers, administrators, and work site supervisors. Comparisons were made of the available survey results. In addition, other data that was considered included a public forum, an IEP compliance review, and cost analysis.

Results

The committee members met to review, assimilate, and analyze the program evaluation data. Through discussion and questioning, the committee evaluated strengths and weaknesses and analyzed costs that were noted across multiple data sources. Program evaluation addressed two major areas – District-wide transition services and the Career Training Program. The following discussion is primarily organized around the focus of the guiding questions as noted below:

• IEP Transition Compliance • Transition Services • Career Training Program • Graduate Follow-Up Data • Costs Analysis

Strengths IEP Transition Compliance The teaching staff consistently insures that transition age students are included in their IEP meetings as well as informs students and parents in a timely manner that the student becomes the educational decision-maker at age 18.


Transition and Career Training Program Evaluation – April 2005 vii

Transition Services Per a review of the literature on Quality Programs, SSD has made significant efforts to improve the transition services for students with disabilities including, a) the addition of staff solely dedicated to transition efforts, and b) a variety programming options to help students meet their long-term career goals, such as the 20 CTP sites and approximately 160 Community Based Vocational Instruction (work-training) programs through out the city and county. Career Training Program (CTP) Several areas of strength were identified as follows: Overall CTP Satisfaction Overall, students like being in the CTP. The SSD staff view CTP as beneficial for students. The Regions also note a general satisfaction with the program. Following are the specifics with respect to: Student Achievement/High Program Standards, Climate, Communication, Self-Advocacy and Work Site Relations:

• Student Achievement/High Program Standards

Students commonly noted that the program is helping them to prepare to live independently and to find paid employment – a goal for the CTP. Parents commonly noted that the CTP expects quality performance from the students and plans for the work training needs of their child. Work site supervisors indicate the teaching staff insures tasks are performed as agreed and are available as needed. Of importance, is their report that the students are reliable workers who appear to benefit from the training experience and are a welcome addition to the worksite.

• Climate

Student reports on school climate were positive especially regarding the staff’s expectations for them to do their best and to make learning interesting. Over 90 percent of the parents would recommend the program to other families. Parents also reported that students are treated fairly by the teachers.

• Communication Both parents and students indicate they know the teacher’s expectations. In addition, the SSD staff report that CTP staff are cooperative, treat others with respect and have high expectations for their students.

• Self-Advocacy Students reported that instructional staff is helping them to feel good about themselves, be responsible for their learning and be independent.

• Work Site Supervisor Relations

Ninety-eight percent of the students feel strongly that the work site supervisors treat them fairly.


Transition and Career Training Program Evaluation – April 2005 viii

Costs Analysis The estimated annual cost for educating students in the Career Training for FY 05 is about $23,000 per pupil. This cost was calculated by dividing the FY 2005 budget ($2.8 million) by the total number of students enrolled in the program as of December 2004 (121 students). Included in the costs were: direct instructional costs, pupil support services, staff support services, SSD overhead expenses and transportation costs. This is neither a strength nor a weakness but an accounting of the expenses associated with the CTP. Costs for providing District-wide transition services to students is discussed as a weakness only. Given the uniqueness of the CTP it is not feasible to make costs comparisons with other programs/service delivery models. CTP serves students with a variety of disabilities, while other delivery models such as, autism, have a more narrow focus thus it is practical to analyze the data and draw conclusion of autistic students in various settings. In addition, given the CTP is housed in the community, certain costs associated with other programs such as, building costs and food service, are not applicable to the CTP. Weaknesses IEP Transition Compliance In the final analysis of the IEP file review focusing on transition, SSD scored 22% compliant, which is well below the MSIP standard of 80%. All nine areas of the IEP related to transition indicate a need for improvement: 1) IEP Notice, 2) Signature page-child included 3) Signature page-others invited, i.e., adult agencies, 4) Special Considerations page-rights transferred 5) Transition Plan-needs identified 6) Transition Plan-services identified 7)Transition Plan-agency linkages 8) Goals-transition-related 9) Objectives/benchmarks-transition-related. Transition Services Overall, based on the Transition Services Survey, the highest level of importance for the middle and high school staff, unless otherwise noted, in highest-ranking order is as follows:

• Quality Program needs – greater concern for high school staff: - More options for students 14-15 years of age - More options for students 14-17 at risk of dropping out of school - Apprenticeship programs that match students with interests

• Transition Curriculum needs – concern for middle and high schools staff: - Basic skills - Life skills curriculum software and materials - Self-advocacy - Self-Determination - Character education/outdoor education

• Transition Support/Training needs - concern as noted: - How to develop programs/resources available for students with emotional

disturbance - concern for middle & high school staff


Transition and Career Training Program Evaluation – April 2005 ix

- Grade/age appropriate transition services curriculum - concern for middle & high school staff

- How to develop programs/resources for students with autism - concern for middle & high school staff

- Options/services available through SSD - middle school only concern - How to develop programs/resources available for students with MR - middle

school only concern • Other Needs-concern for high school staff

- Mini job fair for students CTP The evaluation did not find any areas of major challenge, however, there are three areas in which the program is progressing and are considered relative weaknesses. Overall CTP The SSD staff indicate a need for more help with designing programs that meet student needs and familiarizing the LEA/Building staff about the CTP. SSD staff also see the CTP as remaining the same in practice; they do not see that it has changed over the past 2 years. The Special Education School staff note concerns with referring student to the program, teamwork among staff, and CTP support offered. Following are the specifics with respect to: Student Achievement/High Program Standards, Climate, and Communication:

• Student Achievement/High Program Standards The following statements from parents for which the percentages were still above 75% but fell below 80% and are considered progressing include: insuring the child has made positive changes, planning for the child’s academic needs, and helping the students achieve their future career goals. Through open-ended survey comments, a site supervisor noted that the CTP staff should begin to insure the training received in class is helpful at work as well as help students find jobs. Both parents and students also noted the students need more help with finding employment.

• Climate

Students indicated the teaching staff did not know them ‘well.’ Parents noted there were concerns with the timeline for referring students to the program, with adequate cooperation between the work site and teaching staff and the orientation for new students. Both students and parents note the program should pay the students.

• Communication

The parent survey identified weaknesses in the following areas: sharing information about their child’s experiences in CTP and providing adequate information about services after graduation. Site supervisors indicated they do know what is being taught in class.


Transition and Career Training Program Evaluation – April 2005 x

Graduate Follow-Up Data After reviewing DESE’s Special Education Profile Report, we have determined that the definition of data collected for graduate follow-up has varied. Therefore, we have to be cautious in interpreting DESE’s report. Cost Analysis The costs associated with providing only transition-related services for SSD students throughout St. Louis County is unavailable. All SSD students, ages 14-22, are provided transition services as determined by their IEP teams. Because the District does not collect cost data separately for transition services, the committee was unable to provide a cost analysis or even an estimate for these services. Transition services differ greatly between locations. There are no apparent common characteristics in the level of service, delivery of service, or program design that would allow a reasonable estimate of costs. For example, some students may spend a portion of the day in work training activities in the community while others might spend a part of the day learning functional academics in their home schools. It would require an excessive amount of time and resources to collect the data needed to prepare any type of reasonable estimate. Since the current data systems do not provide an efficient method for capturing and quantifying these transition-related costs; no cost analysis can be completed.

Limitations

The data collected for this evaluation provided the committee a vast amount of information, both quantitative and qualitative, that had to be sorted, organized, analyzed and interpreted. This data had not previously been systematically reviewed as a whole in an effort to draw conclusions about transition and the CTP. The committee saw this project as a daunting task and noted several limitations that may or may not have affected the results. These factors should be taken into consideration when interpreting the results and designing future program evaluation activities.

1. A certain amount of human ‘error’ must be attributed to the IEP compliance review, as

each reviewer may not have ‘uniformly’ applied the guidelines. Each IEP reviewed resulted in some subjectivity on the part of the reviewer, however, the process is the same as conducted via MSIP.

2. The IEP compliance review represented only transition-related items, which is a small portion of the entire IEP that would be monitored under MSIP.

3. The IEP compliance review was not a representative sample because it did not include all 23 districts and the technical schools. Sample size could skew the results.

4. The transition surveys – 2001 and 2004 – did not lend themselves to a quantitative comparison. The 2001 survey was not designed to provide a statistical analysis.

5. The DESE graduate follow-up data on students with disabilities in St. Louis County was inconsistent and did not allow for meaningful comparisons. In addition, some data appeared to be over reported and/or under reported.

6. Input from general educators was not collected regarding their perceptions and knowledge about transition and the CTP.


Transition and Career Training Program Evaluation – April 2005 xi

7. The attendance at the open forum included information provided by four SSD participants: two teachers, one parent and one administrator.

8. Using the current financial and student data system there is no method for capturing or estimating the transition-related costs for students across the District.

Recommendations

The recommendations identified needs in the areas of training, technical support, compliance monitoring, student achievement, climate, options for select students, and communication. Action plans have been developed to address the recommendations and align with the district’s rolling plan objectives. Transition Services/Compliance/Follow-up

1. Strong, ongoing, technical assistance and staff training needs to be available to staff to

support the implementation of IDEA transition service requirements and the development of appropriate programs and services across the county.

2. Merge transition planning practices with general education reform at local school level. 3. Investigate how parent participation and student self-determination needs can be

enhanced. 4. Monitor graduate follow-up data so that all SSD schools and programs are uniformly

collecting data submitted to DESE. 5. Develop needed options, for select populations of students, i.e, BD/ED, at-risk, and

autism, with strong consideration given to developing programs/services within the local school district.

6. Expand district or region specific practices throughout the county as needed to meet student need.

CTP

1. Develop a set of action plans and activities to foster effective communication and teamwork between the SSD staff, students, parents, and site supervisors. Consideration should be given to the availability of resources and the limitations of the program, i.e., program is county wide and sites have different rules and regulations as imposed by the work place.

2. Develop a system to better educate SSD staff, students, parents and work site supervisors

about the CTP, its procedures, guidelines, activities, and limitations.

3. Implement a consistent and meaningful guide to planning for instruction and a student’s long-range career goals. Provide feedback to parents regarding supports available after graduation.


Transition and Career Training Program Evaluation-April 2005 1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Background and Purpose

Special School District is committed to program evaluation as a foundation for the continuous improvement process. The program evaluation framework approved by the Board of Education (2003) guides Special School District staff in conducting program evaluation activities to measure, analyze and effectively manage special education services and operations. The Transition and Career Training Program Evaluation was a formative process occurring from September 2004 through April 2005. This summative report details the process, results and recommendations that will guide future improvement activities for this population.

Stakeholders were engaged as ongoing steering committee members, work group members,

and as public forum participants. The committee membership included teachers, facilitators, administrators, students, parents, agency representatives, and university professors (Appendix 1). The questions posed by the committee and approved by the Board of Education were designed to provide a review of transition services, programs and compliance with state and federal mandates across the county and in all service delivery models.

Focus for the Program Evaluation

The focus of the program evaluation is to answer the following questions posed by the

Board of Education. 1. Is SSD in compliance with the mandate of transition as per IDEA and MSIP?

2. Are the transition services currently provided meeting student needs?

3. How do current 2004-05 findings compare to 2000-01 transition survey?

4. What are the perceptions of various stakeholders regarding transition services and the

Career Training Program?

5. What conclusions can we draw from the required MSIP graduate follow up data for students in St. Louis County since February 2002?



CHAPTER II

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Definition of Transition

Transition is defined in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendment of 1997, (IDEA), as a “coordinated set of activities for a student with a disability designed within an outcome-oriented process which promotes movement from school to post school activities.”

• The IEP must include a statement of needed transition services starting at age 14 or younger if appropriate, based on the student’s needs, taking into account the student’s preferences and interests.

• Beginning at age 16 the IEP will include a statement of the interagency responsibilities or needed linkages.

• Students must be invited to their meeting and if not in attendance, the public agency must ensure that the student’s preferences and interests are considered.

• Beginning at least 1 year before the child reaches the age of majority under state law, a statement that the child has been informed of his or her rights and will transfer to the child on reaching the age of majority.

• If the participating agency, other than the local educational agency, fails to provide the transition services described in the IEP, the local education agency shall reconvene the team to identify alternative strategies to meet the transition objectives.

This program evaluation was conducted according to the 1997 regulations for IDEA.

Changes to the IDEA in the area of transition will be implemented in July 2005 due to the reauthorization of IDEA 2004. The following changes relate only to transition and represent substantive changes to the recently reauthorized IDEA.

• Transition planning begins not later than the IEP in effect when the child turns 16

(previously stated at age 14) • Transition IEPs contain:

- Statement of appropriate measurable postsecondary goals based upon age appropriate transition assessments related to training, education, employment, and where appropriate, independent living skills

- Statement of transition services (including courses of study) needed to assist the child in reaching those goals

- Statement that the child has been informed of rights transferring age of majority at least one year before rights transfer.

Note: The Division of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) is presently considering changes to the Missouri state regulations and it is anticipated that changes will be made only in those areas where there is a direct conflict between current provisions in the state regulations and the new statute.



Student Distribution

A report was generated from the 12/1/03 Census Data and 12/1/04 Census Data (See Table 1) to demonstrate the number of students attending Special School District between the ages of 13 and 22. This age group is representative of the students who must receive transition planning as part of the IEP process as mandated by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. This report was further categorized to show totals from the following disability categories:

• Mentally Retarded (MR) • Emotionally Disturbed (ED) • Speech (SP) • Learning Disabilities (LD) • Other Health Impaired (OHI) • Autism (AU) • Other (all other disability categories)

The Learning Disability (LD) disability category has the highest number of transition-age students.

• 2003 – 7,673 students • 2004 – 7,629 students

Overall totals of transition age students include: • 2003 – 12,391 students • 2004 – 12,680 students

Table 1. Students with Disabilities in St. Louis County (ages 13-22) See Appendix 2 for more details. School year MR ED SP LD OHI AU Other Total 2003-2004 738 937 831 7673 1566 272 374 12391 2004-2005 782 951 876 7629 1687 330 425 12680

Resource: DESE Data Coordination Students with Disabilities Child Count as of December 1

Special School District Programs to Support Transition Planning

SSD provides a variety of programming options for students to meet their long- range goals: These include:

• SSD - Technical Education Division -Technical high schools serving students choosing vocational careers.

• Career Training Program - A community-based program for students ages 17-21 who choose employment as a long-range goal. Students receive half-day classroom instruction provided by SSD staff and spend a half-day in a volunteer work experience at a community based work site. There are presently 20 work sites located in the city and county.

• Cooperative Work Experience Program (COOP) - A program for students who are 16 and older, at risk for dropping out of school, need elective credits, will benefit from paid



employment while working on required courses and released from school part of the day. Students who are not achieving in an academic setting, are Division of Vocational Rehabilitation eligible, and are able to work independently will benefit from this program.

• Community Based Vocational Instruction (CBVI) - A program available to most secondary students in the 23 local school districts that SSD serves and the Special Education Schools. These programs are located in local businesses or organizations where students spend part of a day practicing work skills and behaviors. Students are based in local schools and transported to the work sites. There are approximately 160 CBVI programs currently in place through out St. Louis County and City.

• Special Education Schools-College Satellites - A program available to secondary students with more significant needs who need work experience training prior to graduation. These satellites are located at area colleges and a university and made available through placement in a Special Education School. Students spend all or part of their day at the satellite learning functional academics and acquiring work-related skills in order to prepare for independent living and future employment.

• NEXT Program - A community based program for students 18-21 exiting local high schools whose long-range goals include volunteering in the community, pre-vocational activities or day programming. Independent living skills are emphasized as well as providing opportunities to explore and volunteer in the community. Students in this program require additional supports to be successful.

• PREP Program - A community based program for students 18-21 who are exiting local high schools whose long-range goals includes employment. Independent living skills will be emphasized as well as providing opportunities to explore and identify career paths for employment. Students in this program may require additional supports and job coaching to be successful.

National Perspective on Transition and Youth with Disabilities

Since the mid 80’s the U.S. Department of Education and the Office of Special Education

and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), has placed an emphasis on the development and improvement of transition services nation-wide. Secondary special education programs were to provide students with disabilities with skills and behaviors needed for success as adults, as well as to overcome the problems associated with preparing them for employment. Nevertheless, not until 1990 and the enactment of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) were school districts mandated to develop transition plans and coordinate activities that would lead to employment and when appropriate, preparation for postsecondary education. Since then, for the first time ever, the Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the Rehabilitation Act were reauthorized at the same time creating an unprecedented opportunity for much needed coordinated planning in school-to-work transition services. The educational progress for students with disabilities has steadily increased as follows:

• 57% of students with disabilities graduated with a standard diploma in 2000

(Government Accounting Office Report, 2003) and



• students with disabilities accessing post-secondary education doubled (National Center on Secondary Education and Transition).

The picture, however, is not so bright for our students after high school. The realization that many young people with disabilities were graduating or exiting school unprepared for adult life remains disturbing. These national figures demonstrate some of the disturbing outcomes experienced by individuals with disabilities after graduation:

• 35% employed • 26% share a household income of $15,000 or less • 34% are very satisfied with their life

In an effort to address these problems, state and local districts support the mandate to provide transition services on a yearly basis as part of the IEP. This alone, however, does not create desirable outcomes for our students. There are many other factors that are important to prepare our students for adult life. These other factors have been identified and some have been evaluated as part of this program evaluation in the area of transition for the Special School District (SSD).



CHAPTER III

LITERATURE REVIEW

This literature review was conducted to provide a research base for future recommendations

in the area of transition and to compare current practices and programs within SSD to current best practice in the four theme areas. The literature review included articles from educational journals, on-line articles and reports, and information obtained from the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) web site. The work group read and summarized information from these sources that supported findings from the survey identified as needs or areas of improvement. As research was reviewed, the following questions were constructed to focus and frame the search around the four theme areas:

• What is considered best practice or what are the components of quality programs for

transition? • What is considered best practice in transition curriculum? • What are staff training needs in the area of transition? • What graduation follow-up data supports the findings of the program evaluation?

The transition from school to adult life is a chaotic time for students with mild disabilities as

they move into adulthood: finishing school, finding a job, leaving home, and building relationships with others. Challenges for students with more significant disabilities include: linking to the appropriate adult agencies, finding funding for expensive day programs, maintaining a social connection, staying integrated in the community and continuing to increase independence. Young adults today face other challenges that are beyond their control and are entering a playing field that has been economically, socially and culturally altered. They are juggling work and school, living at home longer, and delaying marriage and family.

Regardless of the challenges our students face in adulthood, it is our responsibility as a school district to provide programming for students that will provide them with the information, skills and knowledge needed to help them achieve the highest level of success achievable as they transition to adult life.

Quality Programs

An in-depth qualitative study (Collet-Klingenberg 1998) reported findings of best practice in transition that included vocational-related programming, self-determination skills, and specific planning activities. The National Council on Disability Report (2000) compiled a list of best practice indicators from nationally recognized researchers and includes: strong vocational component, inclusion in general education, community based vocational instruction, self-determination in the curriculum, coordinated services among teachers, counselors and vocational staff, professional development on transition, student-centered transition plans, job related skills training, development of interagency transition teams, meaningful job placement experiences,



programs for students 18-21 on college campuses, coordination between school and post-school activities, connections with adult agencies, and including assistive technology as needed.

Other researchers have enhanced and supported these components that represent best practice in transition programming. Transition researchers ( Chadsey-Rusch & Rusch, 1997; Collet-Klingenberg, 1998; Kohler, 1993) have identified a number of best practices to guide service delivery, including person-centered planning, student development, interagency collaboration, family involvement, and program evaluation. In addition to guiding service delivery, broad-based staff development in the local education agency (LEA) must occur, especially when a wide variety and large number of students are to be served successfully. Information must be gathered from the state and community to create staff development activities that best meet local school-to-work development needs. (Eisenman, Hughes 1997)

Rehabilitation counselors need to be invited to transition planning meetings to promote better collaboration. When all relevant school personnel and service agencies are fully involved, effective services and supports can be identified and implemented. (e.g., Agran, M., Cain, H., & Cavin, M., 2002).

Community Based Training Programs are an integral part of any transition program. National research shows that students who participated in Community Based Training Programs attained high wages and achieved better integration into the community (Helms, Moore, & McSweyn, 1991). Benz et al. (1997) reports that students receiving at least two years of work experiences while in high school along with job search and social skills, will achieve more successful employment after graduation. In addition, the components for developing a community based training program should be structured so that training efforts are focused on jobs that are actually available in the local community (McDonnell, Wilcox, & Hardman, 1991).

Carter and Wehby (2003) report unemployment rates for young adults with ED during the first 5 years after graduation range from 42% to 70% and suggest that secondary programs for this population include linkages to adult services, teaching specific employment skills and using strategies to naturally support students in an effective but non-stigmatizing manner.

Transition Curriculum

Curriculum for students between the ages of 14-21 supports the general education curriculum of the school the student attends. A challenge currently being faced in special education is to merge transition planning with the education reform efforts, says Debra Neubert, Professor at the University of Maryland. Students with mild disabilities may be offered academic instruction to meet adequate yearly progress in place of transition related activities such as community based vocational instruction and career classes. While all students participate in specific curricula, additional instructional strategies, based on best practices associated with their educational disability and desired long-range goals should be employed.

A review of the literature indicates that fewer than 30% of individuals with disabilities

graduate from high school with a general education diploma and fewer than 12% complete a



college program. Teaching students about their learning styles, personalities and aptitudes so that the students can match their career choice with their abilities will increase success rates for completing college (Blackman 2004). Wood et al. (2004) defines the terms: choice-making, problem-solving, decision-making, goal setting and attainment, self-regulation, self-advocacy, self-awareness, and self-efficacy (Wehmeyer & Schwartz 1998) which are commonly used when teaching self-determination to students with disabilities. Through these activities, students also learn to understand their disability and how to lead their own meetings.

To create effective transition planning, all four domains of adult life (e.g. employment, residential, post secondary education, and recreation) must be considered. Transition planning documents list people who will support students in reaching their desired post school goals. The transition planning document also describes specific activities that are intended to prepare for post school life (e.g., see Bates, 1990; Wehman, 1998; West, Corbey, Boyer-Stephens, Jones, Miller, & Sarkees-Wircenski, 1992). These activities many times will guide the curriculum and learning goals for the students.

Secondary curriculum may positively impact post school outcomes for students by including community-based and employment-oriented curriculums (Brown, 2000).

Diana Blackmon (2004) supports these components of secondary transition instruction:

• Self-Awareness • Career Awareness • Career Preparation • Work Experience • Community Awareness

The Youth Advisory Committee (2002) studies have reported student views on transition:

• Students want to be involved in their own decision making progress and need to know their rights with IDEA and knowledge of other agencies such as Vocational Rehabilitation and Social Security, etc. (Youth Advisory Committee Perspective on IDEA)

• In reference to transition planning, they report “too little, too late” • They reported they should have been taught self-determination and self-advocacy skills so

that they could have more control over their lives. Students want a challenging, and relevant curriculum and student-centered transition goals

have a, “powerful effect for at-risk students in our study”. Another important finding implicates vocational education classes the last 2 years, paid work experiences, functional academic, community living, and personal-social skills as important to include in the secondary curriculum. (Benz, Lindstrom & Yavanoff 2000)



Staff Training for Effective Transition Programs

The literature supports staff training as important to achieving outcomes for students. Students reported that if they could make a recommendation to the Department of Education, they would ask for meaningful in-service training for their teachers about disabilities, special education and IDEA, including research-based best practices and emphasize the importance of a student’s involvement in his or her education plans. (Youth Advisory Council 2002).

In addition to the student recommendations for teacher training in the area of transition, current research states that it is important to train teachers how to empower students in self-advocacy and self-determination, to address transitional needs as indicated by best practice and to add additional staff members to support teachers in the area of transition (National Transition Network 2000).

The disability category of emotional disturbance(ED) and how to plan effective transitions

for these students has become an area of high interest. One study reports that it is important to teach staff to determine which employment skills to target, for which students, and in which settings for students with ED (Carter & Wehby 2003).

Graduation Follow-Up Data

Upon leaving school, students with disabilities have a difficult time accessing appropriate adult services and/or post- secondary education and training. The National Council on Disability Research (June 2000) has revealed key components from the follow-up data:

• Effective transition planning for high school students with disabilities can facilitate their success in adult life.

• Graduates with disabilities are more likely to be employed following school if comprehensive vocation training is a primary component of their high school program and they have a job secured at the time of graduation.

• Parent participation during high school facilitates the successful transition of students with disabilities from school to their specific post-school outcome.

For those out of school youth and young adults, there is an intense need for: • Access to proven transition practices. • Access to individualized and effective post-secondary education services and supports. • Access to reasonable accommodations at the workplace. • Meaningful options for choice by individuals in pursuit of education, career training, and

individualized services and supports. Post-school outcome data is increasingly more important to teachers, administrators and

students. Results from 152 special education teachers on what kind of information would be useful to them include: type of postsecondary institution, employment, or postsecondary program, college completion status, whether the person is not working but not in school, whether the person is working and going to school, level of job satisfaction, whether a job matches student interests, job



advancement, the use of self-determination/advocacy in daily work, and financial management skills.

Educators said they would use this information to: • Inform instructional practice • Encourage curriculum development • Change, improve student preparation for the “real world” • Initiate changes in school-wide policies and practices • Change faculty and staff expectations • Measure educational reform effectiveness

(NCSET Capacity Building Initiative July 8, 2003)

Transition Planning is increasingly important as we look at some outcomes for the emotionally disturbed (ED) disability group. Bullis et al. (2002) report findings that the National Longitudinal Transition Study has identified that:

• 59% of participants with ED were unemployed 2 years after graduation • 58% of the participants who were classified as ED, were arrested at least once 3 to 5 years

after graduation. It becomes increasingly important to look at all of the indicators available to evaluate

successful outcomes of our students and to create programming and services that increasingly increase favorable outcomes.



CHAPTER IV

METHODOLOGY

The focus of this chapter includes the procedures involving the program evaluation process, population being reviewed, and methods of data collection and analysis used in the program evaluation for transition aged students (14-22 years).

Process

The program evaluation process involved a variety of stakeholders. A committee was established to work collaboratively on the program evaluation tasks. Committee members included SSD directors, SSD administrators, a parent, a student, teachers, transition consultants, transition facilitators, community members, adult agency providers, and university professors (Appendix 1). The questions posed by the committee and approved by the Board of Education were designed to provide a review of services across the county.

Population

The population of this review included all students in Special School District who are 14 years old or older having any educational diagnosis and required to have a transition plan.

Methods for Data Collection and Analysis

There were eight methods used to collect data. The data collection methods used in

addressing the evaluation questions approved by the Board of Education are noted in Table 2 and 3.



Table 2. Evaluation Focus Questions and Data Collection Methods

Data Collection Methods

Transition & Career Training Program

Evaluation Questions Litera-

ture Review

Document /IEP Compliance Review

Staff/ Administrator

Survey

Parent Survey

Student Survey

Worksite Supervisor

Survey

Public Forum

Cost Analysis

COMPLIANCE: 1. Is SSD in compliance with

the mandate of transition as identified by both IDEA and MSIP?

X X

TRANSITION SERVICES: 2. Are transition services

currently provided meeting the needs of students with disabilities in SSD?

X X Transition

survey Fall ‘04

X

COMPARISON OF FINDINGS: 3. How do the current 2004-05

survey findings compare to the survey from the 2000-01 school year?

X X Tran. Survey Spring ‘01

Tran. Survey

Fall ‘04

CAREER TRAINING PROG 4. What are the perceptions of

various stakeholders regarding the transition services provided in the Career Training Program?

X

CTP staff/admin satisfaction

survey Fall ‘04

X

CTP parent satisfaction

survey Spring ‘04

MSIP parent

survey Fall ‘04

X

CTP student satisfaction

survey Spring ‘04

MSIP

secondary student survey Fall ‘04

X

CTP worksite

supervisor survey

Spring ‘04

X

FOLLOW-UP RESULTS 5. What conclusions can we

draw from the required MSIP graduate follow-up data for students with disabilities in St. Louis County since February 2002?

X

Table 3. Data Sources and Data Collection Methods

Data Collection Methods

Data Sources

Literature Review

Document /IEP Review

Staff/ Administrator

Survey

Parent Survey

Student Survey

Public Forum

Cost Analysis

SSD Administrators X X X X

SSD Teacher Level Staff X X X

SSD Parents X X

SSD Student X

Community Members

Transition & Career Training Program Evaluation Committee

X X X X



Literature Review: Quality Indicators of Best Practices After conducting a literature review, the committee identified quality indicators that reflect

effective practices in transition. Five components of effective transitions for students with disabilities were identified: 1) components of quality transition programs, 2) quality curriculum, 3) staff training, 4) follow-up graduation data, and 5) IEP transition compliance. The quality indicators were used in the development of the teacher/administrator survey, parent/guardian survey and the public forum format. The quality indicators were also incorporated into the IEP transition compliance review.

Document/IEP Compliance Review: Transition Sections of IEP

An IEP review was used to assess the implementation of transition compliance including the 9 compliance standards and indicators which are monitored through the Missouri School Improvement Program (MSIP). For a detailed explanation of the DESE standards and indicators see Appendix 11.

1. Notification letter - appropriate parties invited and IEP purpose listed 2. Signature Page - child included 3. Signature Page - others invited, i.e., adult service agencies 4. Special Considerations Page - 17 yr. olds informed of transfer of educational rights 5. Transition Services Plan / Part 1- Transition Service Needs - post secondary goals/course of study to

attain goals included 6. Transition Services Plan / Part 2 - Needed Transition Services, in areas such as, community experiences

and daily living addressed 7. Transition Services Plan / Part 2 - linkages with other agencies 8. Goals-(transition related) - included as appropriate 9. Benchmarks/short-term objectives - (transition-related) – included as appropriate

The process involved tracking and analyzing this information from the appropriate IEP pages. The sample included 166 files that provided a sampling of middle and high school students who were transition age (14-21 years) in Special School District in the fall of 2004.

The sample included files from 11 of the 23 partner districts, Special Education Schools,

SSD Programs and Purchase of Service Programs (POS).

Partner Districts-middle and high schools (See note below): • Bayless, Hancock, Hazelwood, Ladue, Maplewood, Normandy, Parkway,

Ritenour, Riverview, Rockwood, University City Special Education Schools & Programs:

• Ackerman, Litzsinger, Neuwoehner, Northview, Southview, Bridges • Career Training Program, Juvenile Detention Center, Lakeside Center

Purchase of Service Programs: • Epworth, Logos, Evangelical Home, Hawthorn

Note: Partner districts that completed MSIP as part of DESE’s 3rd cycle review (2001-2004) were not included in the student file review as it was not necessary to duplicate efforts. The working



committee only reviewed the remaining districts that are in the MSIP schedule for this school year (2004-05) and next (2005-06). Staff / Administrator Surveys • Transition Program Questionnaire - 2000-2001. Forty-three surveys were distributed, as

follows: 35 partner district high schools, 3 special education high schools, 3 technical schools, and 2 SSD programs. One survey would be completed for each school by a teacher who collaborated with peers and administrators for a consensus. Because the survey was primarily open-ended, it yielded qualitative rather than quantitative results. (Appendix 3)

The respondents were asked to answer several questions related to the level of transition

needs of students with disabilities. The purpose of the survey was to compile an accurate picture of what existed throughout the county and what the perceived needs were at the time. Content analysis was completed by a consultant, a retired SSD employee. Once all the results were tallied manually and evaluated by the consultant, the results were included in a report to the Superintendent.

• Transition Services and Staff Needs Survey - October 2004. The survey was developed based

on the results of the Transition Program Questionnaire 2000-2001. The survey was sent to all middle and high schools. One survey was completed for each school by a teacher who collaborated with peers and administrators for a consensus. The survey was sent to 103 middle and high schools in St. Louis County. (Appendix 4)

The respondents were asked to rate their perception of the level of importance for transition

needs of students with disabilities using a five-point Likert scale with a rating of 1 denoting no need and a rating of 5 denoting essential need.

• Career Training Program Staff/Administrator Satisfaction Survey - October 2004. The

survey was sent to all middle and high school teachers who refer students to the Career Training Program, directors, executive directors, area coordinators and SSD principals who supervised high school buildings. The survey was sent to 88 teachers, administrators, and directors/executive directors. The survey was not sent to the technical schools because over the past few years, few, if any, technical staff, refer students to the CTP, thus limiting their familiarity with the program. Because of the functioning levels of the students and the different long-range career goals for these two programs, CTP typically is not a referral source for technical students.

The respondents were asked to rate their satisfaction of the Career Training Program using a

five-point Likert scale with a rating of 1 denoting strongly disagree and a rating of 5 denoting strongly agree. (Appendix 5)



Parent/Guardian Surveys • Missouri School Improvement Program (MSIP) Parent Survey – October 2004. A parent

survey that was adapted from the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) parent survey was distributed in the special education school open houses. For those who did not attend the special education school open houses, teachers gave the survey to students to bring home for their parents/guardians in October 2004. The survey was distributed to 1,130 parents/guardians of which 125 were distributed to parents of children who attend the Career Training Program. (Appendix 6)

• Career Training Program (CTP) Parent Survey – Spring 2004. A parent survey was

distributed to 155 parents/guardians of students enrolled in the CTP. The respondents were asked to rate their satisfaction of the CTP using a 5 point scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Respondents were also able to include written comments regarding their perspectives about the program by indicating what the program should begin to do, continue doing, and stop doing. The survey questions were organized into 3 focus areas– student achievement, program climate, and communication with teaching staff. (Appendix 8)

Student Surveys • MSIP Secondary Student Survey – October 2004. The survey was given to all 548 secondary

level students in October 2004 who attend Special Education Schools. Of those 548, 130 surveys were distributed to students who attend the Career Training Program. (Appendix 7)

• CTP Student Survey – Spring 2004. The survey was given to approximately 155 students

enrolled in the CTP program in the spring of 2004. Surveys were completed at the work site as part of a classroom activity or mailed to students who were working full-time in the community and no longer coming to school (a program goal). The surveys were completed with no assistance or minimal assistance from the teaching staff. The respondents were asked to rate their satisfaction with the Career Training Program using a 5 point scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Respondents were also able to include written comments regarding their perspectives about the program by indicating what the program should begin to do, continue to do and stop doing. The questions were organized into 5 areas of focus – student achievement, climate, self-advocacy, overall CTP, and site supervisor relations. (Appendix 9)

Work Site Supervisors Surveys • Worksite Supervisor Surve - Spring 2004. A survey was distributed to select work site

supervisors who are responsible for supporting student trainees in the CTP. The teaching staff determined which supervisors would receive the survey based on their familiarity with the program and the students. The sample included work site supervisors who act as ‘natural’ supports for student trainees. The respondents were asked to rate their satisfaction of the Career Training Program using a 5 point scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Respondents were also able to include written comments regarding their perspectives about the program indicating what the program needs to be teaching, should continue to do, and should stop doing.


Transition and Career Training Program Evaluation-April 2005

The survey questions were organized into 3 focus areas – student achievement, program climate, and communication with the teaching staff. (Appendix 10)

Surveys were given to supervisors at the following sites.

• Barnes Jewish Hospital • Barnes Jewish West County Hospital • DePaul Health Center • Friendship Village of South County

• • • • • • • • • •

• Jewish Community Center • Lambert St. Louis Int’l Airport • MERS/Goodwill North • MERS/Goodwill South • Missouri Baptist Medical Center • Missouri Veteran’s Home

Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DEDocument Review

The committee reviewed DESE’s Special EducatioGraduates for the State of Missouri, the 23 partner districtDistrict (SSD schools and programs). Follow-up on PreviFebruary cycle of Core Data by districts that had graduateaccount for graduates regardless of the time of graduationwas not available at the time of this evaluation. (Appendix Public Forum

A public forum was held to gather input from pareSSD staff, and community members on the Career Trainintransition. Parents were notified of the forum via email. Fof the Parent Advisory Council, the pupil personnel directdistrict administrators. Notification of the forum was also out SSD Central Administrative Office. The forum was hSchool District Central Office in Room 60 on April 4, 200of the program evaluation process, a review of the 5 guidifindings. The participants were then asked for their thougrelated questions in the following area: quality programs, IEP compliance. The participants were given the opportuwith the committee co-chairs during the forum. Participanwere recorded to determine common themes. (Appendix

Monsanto Company St. John’s Mercy Medical Center St. Louis Children’s Hospital St. Louis University Hospital St. Louis Zoo St. Luke’s Hospital St. Mary’s Health Center University of Missouri-St. Louis VA Medical Center - Jefferson Barracks Village North Retirement Center

16

SE) - Special Education Profile -

n Follow-up Data on 2002 and 2003 s, St. Louis County, and Special School ous Year’s Graduates is completed in the s in the previous year. Districts must during the school year. Note – 2004 data 11)

nts/guardians, partner district personnel, g Program and the quality indicators for lyers were also provided to the members

ors for the partner districts, and all posted on the district website and through eld from 7:00-9:00 p.m. in the Special 5. The forum included a brief overview ng questions and a summary of key hts and ideas on a series of transition-curriculum, staff training, the CTP, and nity to address the questions or concerns t perceptions and comments in each area

14)



The committee reviewed all comments provided by participants at the public forum. A content analysis was completed for the written feedback to determine strengths and areas for improvement. Cost Analysis

The estimated annual cost for educating students in the Career Training for FY 05 was calculated by dividing the FY 2005 budget ($2.8 million) by the total number of students enrolled in the program as of December 2004 (121 students). Included in the costs were: direct instructional costs, pupil support services, staff support services, SSD overhead expenses and transportation costs.

The costs associated with providing just transition-related services, for other SSD students throughout St. Louis County is unavailable. All SSD students ages 14-22 are provided transition services as determined by their IEP teams. The level and variety of those services varies for each individual student. For example, some students may spend a portion of the day in work training in the community while others might spend a part of the day learning functional academics in their home schools. Through the current student and financial data systems there is no method for capturing these transition-related costs; thus, no cost analysis can be completed.



CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

Eleven sets of findings are presented in this chapter. These analyses have been included to answer the following questions posed by the Board of Education:

1. Is SSD in compliance with the IDEA and MSIP requirements with respect to transition? 2. Are the transition services currently provided meeting student needs? 3. How do current 2004-2005 findings compare to 2000-2001 survey? 4. What are the perceptions of various stakeholders regarding transition services in

Career Training Program? 5. What conclusions can we draw from MSIP follow-up data for students in St. Louis

county since February 2002?

The sets of findings are listed below, along with the number corresponding to the evaluation question related to the finding.

1. Transition program quality indicators derived from the literature review. (BOE question 2)

2. Results of the IEP compliance review. (BOE question 1) 3. Results of teacher/administrator transition program surveys of quality indicators. (BOE

question 2) 4. Results of teacher/administrator Career Training Program (CTP) satisfaction surveys.

(BOE question 4) 5. Results of MSIP CTP parent and student satisfaction surveys. (BOE question 4) 6. Results of CTP parent satisfaction surveys. (BOE question 4) 7. Results of CTP student satisfaction surveys. (BOE question 4) 8. Results of CTP worksite supervisor surveys. (BOE question 4) 9. Results of graduate follow-up data. (BOE question 5) 10. Results of the public forum. (BOE questions 2 & 4) 11. A cost analysis. (BOE questions 2 & 4)



Transition Program Quality Indicators

Using the concerns, results, and recommendations from the 2001 transition survey, the committee identified major theme areas. The committee then reviewed the literature to verify and support the theme areas as ‘quality indicators of best practice.’ The indicators were used as a basis for development of the October 2004 staff and parent survey review. Quality Indicators: Quality Programs

1. Community based vocational programs 2. More program options for students 14-15 years of age 3. More program options for students 14-17 years and considered at risk 4. More program options for students 18-21 years of age with severe disabilities 5. Keeping students in local school districts longer 6. Sharing of sites by region 7. Job shadowing opportunities in the community 8. Apprenticeship programs that match kids with interest 9. Cooperative Work Experience Program (COOP) with Division of Vocational Rehabilitation 10. Cooperative Occupational Education program (COE) 11. Test of General Education Development (GED) 12. Hands-on training in the different career clusters/vocational areas in the partner school

districts 13. Partner school districts and Special School District schools share worksites 14. Technical schools (i.e., additional options for students with disabilities) Quality Indicators: Transition Curriculum and Supports

1. Life skills curriculum software and materials 2. Study skills 3. Self-advocacy 4. Self-determination 5. Basic skills 6. Character education/outdoor education (i.e., self-esteem building/team building via outdoor

education program) 7. A staff member that serves as a transition representative for the school 8. Information on transitional programs for students who will not successfully finish high school 9. Additional support to develop transition options 10. Transportation 11. Partner districts give credit toward their diploma for a variety of SSD programs 12. Mini job fair for students 13. Driver’s education training



Quality Indicators: Staff Training 1. Staff training on preparing students for accessing supports for post-secondary education 2. Adult agencies 3. Options/services available through SSD 4. How to develop programs/resources available for students with severe disabilities 5. How to develop programs/resources available for students with multiple disabilities 6. How to develop programs/resources available for students with emotional disturbances 7. How to develop programs/resources available for students with mental retardation 8. How to develop programs/resources available for students with autism 9. Grade/age appropriate transition services curriculum (i.e., guidelines for assessment) 10. Developing appropriate IEPs for transition age students (i.e., goals/action plans) 11. Future’s plans 12. Transition portfolio



Results of IEP Compliance Review IEP Compliance Review Process Reviewing completed student IEPs is integral to the evaluation of the transition planning process in Special School District. While effective transition planning includes much more than completing the IEP pages referring to transition, completing the appropriate sections is important and mandated through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) as well as being a measure of how a district is meeting transition requirements.

The working committee reviewed 166 files representing each of the four SSD geographic regions including: 11 partner districts, six Special Education Schools, Career Training Program (CTP), Juvenile Detention Center (JDC), Lakeside Center, and three Purchase of Service (POS) locations.

Partner districts that completed MSIP as part of DESE’s 3rd cycle review prior to 2004-2005

were not included in the student IEP review for this program evaluation. Those districts had previously been through a DESE monitored compliance review. The working committee only reviewed the remaining districts that are included in the MSIP schedule for this school year (2004-05) and next (2005-06). It was felt that the compliance findings, from the compliance review of districts who will be going through MSIP this year or next year, would be beneficial for districts. See Table 4 below.

Table 4. Missouri School Improvement Program Review Schedule Year

School Districts

2005-2006 (reviewed) Normandy, Hancock Place, Hazelwood, Special School District, Bayless, Parkway

2004-2005 (reviewed) Riverview Gardens, Ritenour, University City, Maplewood-Richmond Heights, Ladue, Rockwood

Prior to 2004 (not reviewed) Affton, Brentwood, Clayton, Ferguson Florissant, Jennings, Kirkwood, Lindbergh, Mehlville, Pattonville, Valley Park, Webster Groves, Wellston

The sample included middle and high school students between the ages of 14 and 21 years. IEPs were randomly selected from each location through SSD’s computerized student data base (Encore). The working committee collectively reviewed the IEPs with the committee chairs providing oversight. The number of IEPs reviewed varied from 5 to 10 for each location based on size and number of schools within the school district. The committee conducted a qualitative analysis of the data collected during the IEP review. The sample size information is depicted in Table 5.



Table 5. IEP Review - Sample Size by District/Program

School/District Middle School High School Total Bayless 3 7 10

Hancock 1 9 10 Hazelwood 4 6 10

Ladue 1 9 10 Maplewood Rich. Hts 0 9 9

Normandy 0 10 10 Parkway 3 6 9

Riverview 2 6 8 Ritenour 4 6 10

Rockwood 4 7 11 University City 2 7 9

Ackerman 1 0 1 Career Training Prog 0 5 5

JDC 1 4 5 Lakeside 0 5 5 Litzinger 5 0 5

Neuwoehner 0 5 5 Northview 0 4 4

Bridges 1 4 5 Southview 1 4 5 Hawthorn 0 5 5

Epworth 0 6 6 Evangelical 0 4 4

Logos 0 5 5 Totals 33 133 166

Contents of Student IEP Review

The IEP review consisted of the process of tracking and analyzing information in the

following 9 areas of the IEP pertaining to Transition Planning. See Appendix 11 for a detailed explanation of the standards required of each of these 9 areas:

1. Notification letter - appropriate parties invited and IEP purpose listed 2. Signature Page – child included 3. Signature Page – others invited, i.e., adult service agencies 4. Special Considerations Page - 17 yr. olds informed of transfer of educational rights 5. Transition Services Plan / Part 1- transition service needs: post secondary goals/course of study

to attain goals included 6. Transition Services Plan / Part 2 –needed transition services, in areas such as, community

experiences, daily living addressed 7. Transition Services Plan / Part 2 – linkages with other agencies 8. Goals-transition related - included as appropriate 9. Benchmarks/short-term objectives-transition-related – included as appropriate



The working committee verified that IEPs were in compliance by using a Transition IEP Checklist. The checklist was designed according to the format that DESE uses to determine compliance; however, only monitored transition-related items were included. Refer to Appendix 12 for the checklist.

The IEP transition checklist was used as a rubric for scoring each IEP. In order for an IEP to be scored in MSIP compliance, 80% of the appropriate items on the checklist had to be present. The total number of items needed to determine if an IEP was in compliance varied by the student’s age and possible unique circumstances. For example, for a 14-year-old student, item 4 would not be applicable as it applies to notifying a 17 year old of the transfer of educational rights to the student. Overall IEP Compliance on All Transition-Related Items

Overall, from a review of 166 IEPs, only 36 IEPs met MSIP compliance standards, yielding a 22% compliance rate. For an IEP to be in compliance, 80% of the items reviewed on the IEP had to be addressed according to MSIP indicators.



IEP Compliance on Individual Indicators Table 6 below indicates the percentage of the files reviewed that were in compliance for a

single standard. For example, for the Central Region, of the 38 files reviewed, 90% were in compliance on the DESE standard/indicator labeled -Signature page- indicating the student attended the IEP.

This information is useful in analyzing those individual items (numbered 1-9 below) in the IEP that resulted in the greatest errors. While all 9 of the items listed below present a significant concern, the areas of greatest weakness for SSD were as follows:

• 2. Signature page - only 26% of the IEPs reviewed were in compliance on this standard by documenting in the IEP that others, such as adult agencies, were included in the IEP • 7. Transition Plan – only 28% of staff indicated in the IEP what adult agencies might be likely to provide/pay for services after graduation

Table 6. Results of IEP Review on a Single Indicator Compliance standard/indicator

Central Region

North Region

South Region

West Region

SES*

POS*

Total

n=38 n=18 n=28 n=20 n=40 n=20 n=164 1.IEP Notice-student invited; transition addressed

68%

33%

46 %

55%

30%

30%

45% n=38 n=18 n=29 n=19 n=40 n=19 n=163

2. Signature page-child included

90% 89%

93%

74%

68%

68%

80%

n=9 n=10 n=10 n=7 n=18 n=15 n=69 3. Signature page-others invited

44% 30%

10%

14%

44%

7%

26%

n=14 n=6 n=13 n=7 n=17 n=7 n=64 4. Special Considerations page-rights transferred

86% 50%

77%

86%

82%

86%

80%

n=37 n=18 n=29 n=20 n=38 n=20 n=162 5. Transition Plan-needs identified

45% 44%

48%

50%

45%

25%

44%

n=29 n=13 n=25 n=13 n=32 n=15 n=127 6. Transition Plan-services identified

69% 46%

64%

62%

63%

33%

59%

n=10 n=9 n=9 n=6 n=21 n=16 n=71 7. Transition-agency linkages

0% 33%

33%

33%

43%

18%

28%

n=28 n=11 n=18 n=12 n=29 n=12 n=110 8. Goals-transition related only

57% 36%

44%

33%

76%

8%

50%

n=29 n=15 n=16 n=12 n=28 n=12 n=112 9. Objective/Benchmarks-transition related only

69% 53%

50%

42%

79%

33%

60%

*Note – N=sample size (number of files reviewed) SES-Special Education Schools, Career Training Program, and Court Programs POS-Purchase of Service Central Region-although SES is part of Central Region, SES data is not included in the Central Region totals



Results of Transition Program Survey

Transition Program Questionnaire (2000-2001) In March 2001, a committee of administrators was formed to study current transition practices within the programs provided by SSD and to make recommendations for further study and/or changes in current practices. Of the 43 surveys distributed, 40 were returned as follows: 32-partner district high schools, 4-SSD special education schools, 3-technical schools, and 1-SSD program (Lakeside Center), yielding a return rate of 93%. Because the questions were primarily open-ended, the survey yielded qualitative rather than quantitative results. Following are those results:

1. A need for appropriate programs/services for students with severe disabilities, especially those with behavioral problems. This was an area of great need. In addition, students with autism were of particular concern since so few existing programs were capable of meeting their needs or accepting these students into other programs.

2. Numerous comments indicated a need for services for the 14 to 17 year old population who were not experiencing success in school and were at-risk of dropping out of school. Typically these students were too young for technical school or other SSD programs. Keeping the students in the high school tended to lead to attendance and behavior problems.

3. A number of comments were directed to the need for greater flexibility and cooperation between SSD operated programs and partner district based programs. Staff reported they needed more programs to give students a ‘chance.’

4. Steering committee and some of the survey responses suggested that many of the current community based programs are involved in student selection and will not accept students with behavioral concerns.

5. Limited participation of community agencies in the transition planning process, especially for students in local high schools. This is especially true of the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation and Regional Center, except in select schools.

6. Staff noted a clear concern that the schools did not have a way of tracking and reporting student data. Inconsistent information about Vocational Rehabilitation counselors and Regional Center case managers also noted. Thus there was no good way to make decisions about program needs and/or program success.

7. Many schools did not offer a full range of transition options to their students. School size appeared to be a factor, but a significant number of large schools had limited options as well. This lack of options could be a factor in the number of students who dropped out before completing their schooling. Receiving programs believed that the referring school should develop more options within their school setting.

Transition Services and Staff Needs Survey October 2004

Of the 103 middle and high schools in St. Louis County, 58 surveys were returned, yielding a 56% return rate. The unit of analysis for this survey result is school instead of teacher because only one survey was completed per school. Of those schools returning the survey, the majority (56%) were middle schools and 44% were high schools.



There were 41 items on the survey, of which 28 items related to unmet transition needs and 13 items related to staff training needs. The respondents were asked to rate their perception of the unmet transition needs in four categories 1) program needs 2) curriculum needs 3) support needs, and 4) other needs. In addition, staff were asked to determine the level of staff training needed. Staff rated their unmet transition needs using a five-point Likert scale with a rating of 1 denoting no need and a rating of 5 denoting essential; the level of staff training needs was rated using a five-point Likert scale with a rating of 1 meaning no need and 5 meaning always need.

Overall, 7 items out of 28 were indicated by schools that were moderate important, very important or essential for transition needs. There were 7 areas of unmet transition needs for which scores were at or above a 3.0 average. The high level of importance is noted in Table 7.

Table 7. Unmet Transition Needs of Students with Disabilities (mean of 3.0 and above)

Indicator Mean 38. Basic skills 3.3

34. Life skills curriculum software and materials 3.2

36. Self-advocacy 3.2 37. Self determination 3.2 26. Apprenticeship programs that match kids with interest 3.1 39. Character education/outdoor education 3.1

Overall, 3 items out of 13 were indicated by schools that were moderate need, often need or

always need for staff training. There were 3 areas of staff training needs for which scores were at or above a 3.0 average. The high level of needs is noted in Table 8. Table 8. Staff Training Needs in Transition (mean of 3.0 and above)

Indicator Mean 55. How to develop programs/resources available for students with emotional disturbance 3.5

58. Grade/age appropriate transition services curriculum 3.2

57. How to develop programs/resources available for students with autism 3.1

The surveys were analyzed to determine if there were differences between school levels

since the needs for students in middle school are different from those at high school level. The middle schools rated 6 categories statistically lower than the high schools did on the unmet transition needs and staff training needs (p<.05)1. For 6 categories in which there were significant differences, the results of at least one school level were greater than 3.0. These results are noted in Table 9.

The reasons for the differences may be an issue of high school versus middle school needs.

For instance, items 20, 21, 26 and 47 present a greater need for high school staff. Because their students are in the final phase of their secondary education there may be a greater sense of urgency

1 p<.05 means there are statistically significant differences between groups (high school and middle school).



to prepare them for graduation. Thus high school staff are looking for more options for an older population of students. Middle school staff may place a greater focus on ‘traditional’ academics as they are working with younger students which are typically provided in the ‘traditional’ settings. Table 9. Comparison between School Levels on Level of Unmet Transition Needs and Level of Staff Training Needs (at least one school level with mean of 3.0 and above)

Mean

Indicator Middle School

High School

Comparison

20. More options for students 14-15 years of age 2.1 3.4 Middle <High *

21. More options for students 14-17 years and considered at-risk

2.0 3.4 Middle<High *

26. Apprenticeship programs that match kids with interest 2.5 3.7 Middle<High *

47. Mini job fair for students 2.3 3.1 Middle<High *

52. Options/services available through SSD 3.1 2.4 Middle>High *

56. How to develop programs/resources available for students with mental retardation

3.3 2.2 Middle>High *

*p <.05. There are statistically significant differences between groups. The analyses on the difference between school size and the number of students with

disabilities in the school were also conducted. No statistically significant differences were found between school size and the size of student with disabilities in the school. That is, the big schools (more than 500 student population) and the small (less than 500 student population) schools have similar transition needs; and the schools with less than 150 special education students have similar transition needs as the schools with more than 150 special education students do.

One-way ANOVA were conducted to analyze the difference of transition needs and staff

training needs among regions and special education schools. Fourteen of the 41 (34%) indicators yielded statistically significant differences on importance of unmet transition needs and staffing needs among regions (p<.01)2. These results are noted in Table 10. North region indicated needs on these indicators following by special education schools and south region. The indicators were in the area of curriculum needs, support needs and training needs. These concerns which were emphasized by North and South Region staff as well as the Special Education Schools staff may be attributed to the socio-economic needs of the areas and a higher concentration of students with significant needs.

2 p<.01 means that there are statistically significant difference among groups.



Table 10. Comparison between Regions on Level of Unmet Transition Needs and Level of Staff Training Needs (at least one region with mean of 3.5 and above)

Mean

Indicator

Central Region (C) N=12

North Region (N) N=10

South Region (S) N=14

West Region (W) N=14

Sp Ed School (SP) N=7

Comparison

Curriculum Needs

34. Life skills curriculum software and materials

2.7 4.5 3.8 2.7 2.4 N, S >C, W, SP *

39. Character education/outdoor education 2.0 4.3 3.2 2.5 3.7 N, SP >C, S, W *

Support Needs 41. A staff member that serves as a transition representative for the school

1.6 3.3 2.9 2.1 4.0 N, S, SP > C, W *

42. Information on transitional programs for students who will not successfully finish high school

2.4 3.9 3.3 1.8 4.0 N, S, SP > C, W *

43. Additional support to develop transition options

1.8 3.2 3.5 2.0 3.6 N, S, SP > C, W *

46. Local districts give credit toward their diploma for a variety of SSD programs

1.6 4.1 2.4 2.0 3.0 N, SP >C, S, W *

47. Mini job fair for students 1.6 3.8 2.6 2.1 3.3 N, SP >C, S, W *

Staff Training Needs 51. Adult agencies 1.8 3.6 2.6 1.7 3.3 N, SP >C, S, W

*52. Options/services available through SSD 2.2 3.9 2.9 2.1 3.0 N, SP > C, S, W

*55. How to develop programs/resources available for students with emotional disturbance

2.8 3.9 4.3 2.6 3.9 N, S, SP >C, W *

58. Grade/age appropriate transition services curriculum

2.4 4.3 3.2 2.7 3.6 N, S, SP >C, W *

59. Current and update information on transition

2.1 4.2 3.6 2.4 3.0 N, S > C, W, SP *

60. Developing appropriate IEPs for transition age students

2.5 3.6 3.3 1.7 3.1 N, S, SP >C, W *

61. Future’s plans 2.3 3.8 2.9 1.8 3.1 N, S, SP >C, W *

*p <.01. There are statistically significant differences among regions.



Comparison of 2001 and 2004 Transition Surveys Results

It is again noted that the 2001 transition survey was used as basis for developing the 2004 transition survey for areas needing to be addressed. However, the 2004 survey was developed so the results could be quantified and then used for future surveys and comparisons. The 2001 survey relied on staff to list their responses to various open-ended questions. For example, “Are there any unmet transition needs at your school, if yes, please list them in order of importance?”

This format then resulted in a variety of responses, some with common themes, others with no commonality. Thus the subjectivity of the reviewer had an impact on the results and how they were interpreted and compiled. Even with these limitations some obvious concerns surfaced in both surveys. Those areas which staff noted as a concern in 2001 and continue to be identified as concerns in 2004 are noted below in Table 11. Table 11. Areas of Concern in the Results of the 2001 & 2004 Surveys

2001 Common responses to open-ended questions

2004 Survey item

Need for programs for students with specific disabilities, severe disabilities, autism, BD

Item 55. How to develop programs for students with emotional disturbance Item 57. How to develop programs/ resources available for students with autism

Need for services/programs for 14-17 year old students at risk of dropping out of school and not having success in school

Item 21. More options for students 14-17 at risk of dropping out

School does not offer a full range of transition options to their students

Item 52. Options/services available through SSD

Results of Teacher/Administrator Career Training Program Satisfaction Surveys

Career Training Program Satisfaction Survey - October 2004

One hundred nine (109) surveys were sent to teachers who referred students to the Career Training Program (CTP), to directors/executive directors, to high school area coordinators and special education school principals who supervised high schools. One hundred five (105) surveys were returned and yielded a 96% return rate. Of those people returning the survey, the majority (64%) were teachers and 36% were administrators.

There were 23 items on the survey. The respondents were asked to rate their perception and

knowledge of the Career Training Program using a five-point Likert scale with a rating of 1 denoting strongly disagree and a rating of 5 denoting strongly agree.



Overall, 14 items out of 23 were rated as agree or strongly agree. There were 4 areas of strengths on the indicators for which scores were at or above a 4.5 average. The strengths are noted in Table 12.

Table 12. Strength Areas on Teacher/Administrator Survey (mean of 4.5 and above)

Indicator Mean 3. Career Training Program (CTP) is beneficial for students 4.6

9. CTP staff are cooperative 4.5

10. CTP staff treat others with respect 4.5

20. CTP staff have high expectations for their students 4.5

There were 3 indicators for which the average scores were still above average, but fell below 3.7. These areas are considered progressing. They are itemized in Table 13. There were no items below the average of 3.5. Table 13. Progressing Areas on Teacher/Administrator Survey (mean between 3.5 – 3.7)

Indicator Mean 14. CTP staff help us design programs that meet student needs 3.6

21. LEA/Building staff is familiar with the CTP 3.6

22. Over the past 2 years, would you say the CTP has improved 3.5

When asked if the Career Training Program is frequently considered as an option for the students, administrators (mean 3.3) considered CTP less frequently than the teachers did (mean of 3.9; p<.05).

One-way ANOVA were conducted to analyze the difference of perception and knowledge for the Career Training Program among regions and special education schools. Five areas received significantly lower scores (means were below 3.0) when comparing regions and the special education schools (p<.01). The comparison is noted in Table 14.



Table 14. Comparison among Regions and Special Education Schools on Satisfaction of the Career Training Program (at least one region with mean of 3.0 and below)

Mean

Indicator

Central Region (C) N=18

North Region (N) N=16

South Region (S) N=23

West Region (W) N=27

Sp Ed School (SP) N=13

Comparison

8. CTP is frequently considered as an option for my students

3.9 4.6 4.0 3.6 2.4 * Sp<C, N, S, W

11. CTP staff encourage staff to refer students to CTP

4.3 3.9 4.3 4.4 2.8 *

Sp<C, N, S, W

13. CTP staff work as a team with LEAs/SSD schools

4.3 4.1 4.2 4.4 2.8 * Sp<C, N, S, W

14. CTP staff help us design programs that meet student needs

3.9 3.8 3.6 4.1 2.4 * Sp<C, N, S, W

18. CTP staff provide guidelines for school based programming options

3.9 4.1 3.8 4.1 2.4 * Sp<C, N, S, W

*p <.01. There are statistically significant differences among regions. These differences may be attributed to the fact that the CTP is designed for students whose

long-term career goal is supported or competitive employment. Consider items 8 and 11 above. Some Special Education School (SES) staff work primarily with students whose post school outcomes may include day programs, sheltered workshops, or other services requiring more intense support and thus, they would not frequently consider the CTP as an option nor would it be expected that the CTP staff would encourage SES staff to refer these students to the program. This is not necessarily a weakness but could be a result of the survey wording. This same premise also applies to items 13, 14, and 18, as the CTP staff may not interact with SES staff who work with students with significant needs; this is the responsibility of the transition facilitator staff.

It is noted, however, the intent is not to explain away the concerns identified in the survey,

as the results may indicate a real need for improved cooperation, communication, and collaboration between the CTP and SES. In addition, for the future, the survey items should be scrutinized to account for this weakness.

Results of MSIP Parent Satisfaction Survey and MSIP Secondary Student

Satisfaction Survey

The MSIP parent survey adapted from the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) was distributed to 1,130 parents/guardians. Of these 1,130, 125 were distributed to parents of children who attend the Career Training Program. Surveys were returned from 57 families, yielding a 46% return rate. The MSIP secondary student survey also adapted from DESE was distributed to 548 secondary students. Of these 548, 130 were distributed to students who



attend Career Training Program. Surveys were returned from 74 students, yielding a 57% return rate.

There were 20 of 46 items on the parent survey which related to the secondary student

satisfaction survey. The ratings were based on a Likert scale, with a rating of 1 representing strongly disagree and a rating of 5 denoting strongly agree. Parents and students were both consistent on their satisfaction levels in the following three areas as having the highest means. These three areas of strength were rated at or above 4.2. Table 15 depicts the strengths.

Table 15. Strength Areas on Parent and Student Satisfaction Surveys

Indicator Mean Parent Student My child’s school is a good place to learn. / This school is a good place to learn. 4.4 4.2 My child’s teachers are good teachers. / My teachers are good teachers. 4.5 4.3

Teachers treat my child with respect. / Teachers treat me with respect. 4.5 5.2

Parents and students were both consistent on their satisfaction in one area having a relative

low rating for which the scores are still above average (3.0), but lower than 4.0. This area is considered progressing. Table 16 depicts the results.

Table 16. Progressing Areas on Parent and Student Satisfaction Surveys

Indicator Mean Parent Student There is a lot of teamwork in our community. /There is a lot of teamwork in our community.

3.9 3.6

Results of CTP Parent Satisfaction Surveys

In the spring of 2004, approximately 155 surveys were sent home to families with students enrolled in the CTP. Some parents returned the surveys to the classroom teacher and some chose to fax or mail them to the Career Training Program. There were 33 surveys returned yielding a return rate of 21 %.

There were 29 items on the parent survey. The ratings were based on a 5-point scale with a rating from ‘Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree.’ Responses to the ratings were grouped into three categories – Strength – Progressing – Challenging - as noted below:

• 80% or more of the respondents indicted ‘strongly agree or agree’ to a survey item and it is considered a

program strength • 60-79% of the respondents indicated ‘strongly agree or agree’ to a survey item and it is considered an area

in which the program is progressing • 0-59% of the respondents indicated ‘strongly agree or agree’ and it is considered an area of challenge for

the program



The survey questions were grouped into 3 focus areas for analysis purposes, including:

• Student achievement • Climate • Communication Of the 29 items on the survey, 18 were rated as an area of strength; 11 items were rated as

progressing and no items were rated as challenging. Overall, parents indicated all the focus areas are present in the CTP.

The top three areas of strength are those in which 93% or more of the parents rated an item in the ‘strongly agree to agree’ category. This is depicted in Table 17.

Table 17. Strength Areas on Parent Survey Focus Area Survey Question Strongly Agree -Agree Student Achievement 9. CTP expects quality performance from my child 94% Student Achievement 8. CTP plans for the work training needs of my child 93%

Communication 15. I know what my child’s teacher expects of him/her 93%

There were 3 items of relative weakness in which 60-79% of the parents rated the program

in the ‘strongly agree to agree’ category. These areas are considered progressing as seen in Table 18. There were no items in the area of challenge. Table 18. Progressing Areas on Parent Survey

Focus Area Survey Question Strongly Agree -Agree Climate 17. New students receive adequate orientation to CTP 72% Communication 18. The school provides adequate info about services

after graduation

63%

Communication 11. My child shares info about CTP experiences 60%



The survey gave parents an opportunity to comment about the CTP by responding to three leading questions as noted in Table 19. Comments were categorized in common areas. Table 19. Parent Survey Results - Comments

Area

Comments – not rank ordered

Needs to begin • Inform the schools, teachers & SSD staff about CTP (Partner District & SSD) • Inform parents about student activities & what program offers • Paying students • Expand program • Find employment for students • Add more time for academics, drivers classes, bus training, YMCA Should continue • Continue as is; very satisfied; everything; doing a good job • Independent living skills • Communicate with parents; keep in touch; updates on concerns • Careful student placements • Hands-on job skills • Field trips Should stop • Nothing; meets student needs as is • Only volunteering (pay students for work) • Less work; more functional academics • Trying out different jobs

The parents indicated the program should begin to improve communication between home

and school and with the partner district staff, including updating them about student activities, making the program better known and sharing what CTP offers. Parents expressed that students should be paid for participating in the program versus ‘volunteering’ their services. A major concern was finding paid employment for the students. Some indicated the program should expand to include more sites. Many parents noted the program was doing a good job and were very satisfied with the program ‘as is.’ Parents also noted that staff should continue to teach independent living skills, provide hands on job skills and field trips. When asked what should the program stop doing, many indicated ‘nothing-program meets student needs as is.’ Others suggested students should work less and spend more time on functional academics.

Results of CTP Student Surveys

In the spring of 2004, surveys were distributed to approximately 155 students enrolled in the Career Training Program. Students attending school on a daily basis completed the survey as part of a class activity. Surveys were also mailed to prospective graduates who were employed full-time in off-site locations in the community. Surveys were returned from 84 students, yielding a 54% return rate. A review of the student’s home schools indicated students were from 20 partner districts, 2 SSD Special Education Schools and 2 SSD technical schools.



There were 40 items on the student survey. The ratings were based on a 5-point scale with a rating from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Responses to the ratings were grouped into three areas – Strength – Progressing – Challenging - as noted below:

• 80% or more of the respondents indicted ‘strongly agree or agree’ to a survey item and it is considered a program strength

• 60-79% of the respondents indicated ‘strongly agree or agree’ to a survey item and it is considered an area in which the program is progressing

• 0-59% of the respondents indicated ‘strongly agree or agree’ and it is considered an area of challenge for the program

For analysis purposes, the survey questions were organized into 5 focus areas:

• Student achievement • Climate • Ability to self-advocate • Overall perceptions about the CTP • Relationships with work site supervisors

Overall, the majority of the students rated the program positively. Of the 40 items on the survey, 39 were rated as an area of strength. Overall most students indicate they like being the CTP as noted in Table 20. Table 20. Overall Student Satisfaction

Focus Area Survey Question Strongly Agree -Agree

Overall satisfaction 38. I like being in CTP 89%

The top two strengths on the survey are those in which more than 95% of the students rated an item in the ‘strongly agree to agree’ category. Table 21 depicts the results.

Table 21. Strength Areas on Student Survey Focus Area Survey Question Strongly Agree -Agree

Site Relations 27. My supervisors treat me fairly 98%

Self-Advocacy 24. CTP is helping me to feel good about myself 96%

Two areas of progressing, that is relative weakness are depicted in Table 22. There were no areas of challenges. Table 22. Progressing Areas on Student Survey


Student Achievement 15. I am learning to use public transportation 84%

Site Relations 32. Site supervisors tell me when I’m doing poorly 84%



The survey gave students an opportunity to comment about the CTP by responding to three

leading questions as noted in Table 23. Comments were categorized in common focus areas: Table 23. Student Survey Results – Comments

Area of Focus

Comments (not rank-ordered)

Needs to begin • More field trips • More leisure activities/social outings • Help with employment • Provide driving classes, sports • Paying students • Nothing new; more of what currently doing • Put students where going to be hired • Hire more teachers Should continue • Field trips in community, i.e., Special Olympics, YMCA, making blankets for

sick kids • Employability activities, i.e., help with job apps, finding jobs • Teaching independent living skills • Summer paid program (WIA) • Keep up good work • Evaluation/monthly celebrations • Working students even harder to accomplish goals • Work more / less classroom Should stop • Volunteer work • Job coaching - standing over us • Journals • Nothing • Community Service Day

Overall, a majority of the comments were positive such as, keep up the good work or stop ‘nothing.’ Many of the comments indicated adding or continuing field trips and social outings. Others reflected a need for more job-related activities such as help with finding employment or placing students in locations where they can get hired. Some respondents noted specific learning activities such as, continue teaching independent living skills and working with students to accomplish their goals. An often-repeated comment indicated a desire to get paid for the work portion of the program.



Results of CTP Worksite Supervisor Survey

In the spring of 2004, surveys were distributed to select supervisors at the 21 work sites that made up the Career Training Program. The teaching staff were asked to submit the surveys to those supervisors who were familiar with the students and would be receptive to completing a survey on the program. Primarily surveys were given to supervisors in the departments where the students work. There were 34 surveys returned.

There were 35 items on the supervisor survey. The ratings were based on a 5-point scale with a rating from ‘Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree.’ Responses to the ratings were grouped into three areas – Strength – Progressing – Challenging - as noted below:

• 80% or more of the respondents indicted ‘strongly agree or agree’ to a survey item and it is considered a program strength

• 60-79% of the respondents indicated ‘strongly agree or agree’ to a survey item and it is considered an area in which the program is progressing

• 0-59% of the respondents indicated ‘strongly agree or agree’ and it is considered an area of challenge for the program

Strengths were depicted in all three areas of focus on the survey, including:

• Student Achievement/High program standards • Climate • Communication Overall, supervisors indicated that major areas of strengths are present in the CTP. Of the

35 items on the survey 31 were rated as an area of strength. The top three strengths are those in which 95% or more of the supervisors rated an item in the ‘strongly agree to agree’ category. This is depicted in Table 24.

Table 24. Strength Areas on Supervisor Survey


High Standards 11. Staff insures tasks are performed as agreed 98%

Climate 18. Students appear to be accepted by other coworkers/staff

98%

Climate 19. Students are a welcome addition to the site 96%

Reponses to the survey items 17 and 34 are also considered a strength. However, unlike the majority of the questions on the survey, for these items a lower percentage in the ‘strongly agree or agree’ is considered a positive. For example, it is a positive indicator that a low percentage (44%) of supervisors are finding student behaviors to be more challenging as well not seeing students as needing to spend more time in a single job (47%). See Table 25 below.



Table 25. Strength Areas on Supervisor Survey Focus Area Survey Question Strongly Agree -Agree

Climate 17. Students are presenting more challenging behaviors than in previous years

44%

High program standards 34. Students should spend more time in a single job 47%

The two items on the survey that were rated as ‘progressing’ and are considered relative

weaknesses are depicted in Table 26. There were no items in the area of challenge. Table 26. Progressing Areas on Supervisor Survey


Communication 30. I am familiar with what is being taught 72%

High program standards 20. Students need more job coaching assistance from the teaching staff

72%

The survey gave supervisors an opportunity to comment about the CTP by responding to

three leading questions as noted in Table 27. Comments were categorized in common areas.

Table 27. Work Site Supervisors Survey Results – Comments Area

Comments – not rank ordered

Needs to be teaching • Interaction needed to perform work and appropriate social skills • Communication skills • Same; nothing new • Functional skills • Gain self-confidence; independence; assume responsibility • Prepare for real life work force • Good work habits; basic work expectations • Nothing new; curriculum is appropriate Should continue • Screen students / ensure good matches site and students • Behave responsibly; Become productive citizens • Continue as is – the program is a benefit • Provide positive work experience • Great communication • Summer paid work program • Care about students • Rotate students among departments • Everything doing, i.e., working/learning in community • Providing support to student and work site • Keep sending students to us • Should stop • Some students are inappropriate • Outings should be educational; not to mall • Nothing • Stop acting like the kids ‘mother’



The work site supervisor’s comments reflect an overall positive opinion of the program. Many indicated the program should continue as is and saw the program as a benefit. Others indicated that staff should be teaching communication skills, social skills and functional skills. In addition, they also suggested that staff prepare students for the real life work force with employability skills such as, good work habits and basic work expectations. Again, supervisors noted that the program should continue as is as they see it as a benefit. Others noted satisfaction with the communication, the support to the students, and the paid summer work program. Areas of concern were reported as inappropriate students and outings that were not educational.

Comparison of CTP Student, Parent and Site Supervisor Surveys

While most of the survey questions are worded differently and do not allow for comparisons

of the responses, there were a few items that yielded consistent positive results between groups as noted in Table 28.

Table 28. Comparison of Strength Areas on Student, Parent & Supervisor Surveys

Focus Area

Survey Question Strongly Agree –Agree Student Parent Supervisors

Climate 22. I feel safe at school/3. My child is safe at school 91% 81% -

Climate 2. Staff is understanding of my problems/5. Teacher understands my child’s needs

89% 81% -

Climate Climate

7. Teachers treat students fairly/19. Students are treated fairly by teachers 21. CTP has a good image/26. CTP has a good image

88% 88% -

- 88% 90%

- not a survey item for respondent

A review of the comments indicates both students and parents report students should get paid for the work component and staff should help students find employment. Many respondents, including students, parents, and supervisors, indicate the program is fine as is.

Results of Graduate Follow-up Data The committee reviewed DESE’s Special Education Profile Report on Follow-up Data on 2002 and 2003 Graduates for the state, the 23 partner districts and Special School District (SSD buildings and programs). It is noted that 2004 follow-up data was not available at the time of this evaluation. “Follow-up on Previous Year’s Graduates” is completed in February Core Data by districts that have graduates in the previous year. Districts must account for graduates regardless of the time of graduation during the school year. Information about the graduates is reported by head count for male/female, racial/ethnic categories, disabled and previous participants in a Vocational Rehabilitation cooperative schoolwork program. Student outcomes are categorized as 4-year



college, 2-year college, non-college, military, employment, unknown, and other. The data is submitted to DESE as part of their Core Data reporting requirements. Each of the 23 partner school districts and SSD are responsible for collecting the graduate follow-up data and reporting the results to DESE. SSD reports follow-up data only for those students who graduate with an SSD diploma from the Special Education Schools, SSD programs and the Technical Schools. The local districts are responsible for conducting the follow-up on students with a disability that earn a diploma from their local school district.

After reviewing this profile data available from DESE for St. Louis County, the committee concluded that the follow-up information is incomplete and inconsistent. Weakness After reviewing DESE’s Special Education Profile Report, we have determined that the definition of data to be collected for graduate follow-up has varied. Therefore, we have to be cautious in interpreting DESE’s report.

Results of the Public Forum

During the public forum on transition, the comments from the participants were recorded.

Following is a summary of responses from the SSD participants: 2 teachers, 1 parent & 1 administrator. Quality Programs

• What do you think a program should contain that helps a 14-17 year old student transition who is at-risk for dropping out of school? Is this an area of need in your opinion? All respondents felt that this was a need based on their personal experience. A Career Exploration Component to help students develop a career path was recommended.

• What program components should be included for students 14-15 years old? The development of an in-house pre-vocational program would help these students during the formative years. Also, the opportunity to participate in clubs.

Curriculum

• What do you think students who are focusing on transition should be learning? Some of the responses included: self-advocacy, self-determination, helping students identify realistic long-range goals, social skills, life skills

Staff Training

• What would you like included in training for teachers who work with students during transition? Training on what is available for students with more significant disabilities, practical hands-on activities and materials are beneficial, peer-coaching is a positive.

Career Training Program



• What do you perceive as strengths of the Career Training Program? The program has a great philosophy and benefits students by providing extra training for students in the area of working. Provides an opportunity for students to leave the “nest” of the high school setting.

• What do you perceive as weaknesses of the Career Training Program? The program should be expanded to include students with more significant needs.

Compliance

• What do you think could be changed in the IEP to make it more effective in transition planning? The Transition page is confusing and people complete it differently. One teacher indicated that each of her 3 area coordinators asked staff to complete it differently. Would be a good idea to have a model of a correctly completed form. Middle school teachers did not know what to do on transition.

Results of the Cost Analysis Cost Analysis

The estimated annual cost for educating students in the Career Training Program for FY 05 is about $23, 000 per pupil. This cost was calculated by dividing the FY 2005 budget ($2.8 million) by the total number of students enrolled in the program as of December 2004 (121 students). Included in the costs were: direct instructional costs, pupil support services, staff support services, SSD overhead and transportation costs.

Given the uniqueness of the CTP it is not feasible to make costs comparisons and an analysis is not practical as with other programs/service delivery models. CTP serves students with a variety of disabilities, while other delivery models such as, autism, have a more narrow focus and thus are better able to develop comparative data across various settings. In addition, given the CTP is housed in the community, certain costs associated with other programs such as, building costs and food service, are not applicable to CTP.

The costs associated with providing transition services only, for other SSD students through out St. Louis County is unavailable. All SSD students ages 14-22 are provided transition services as determined by their IEP teams. The level and variety of those services varies for each individual student. For example, some students may spend a portion of the day in work training in the community while others might spend a part of the day learning functional academics in their home schools. Through the current financial system there is no method for capturing these transition-related costs; thus, no cost analysis can be completed.



CHAPTER VI

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary The committee members met to review, assimilate, and analyze the program evaluation data. Through discussion and questioning, the committee evaluated strengths and weaknesses and analyzed costs that were noted across multiple data sources. Program evaluation addressed two major areas – District-wide transition services and the Career Training Program. The following discussion is primarily organized around the focus of the guiding questions as noted below:

• IEP Transition Compliance • Transition Services • Career Training Program • Graduate Follow-Up Data • Costs Analysis

Strengths IEP Transition Compliance The teaching staff consistently insures that transition age students are included in their IEP meetings as well as informs students and parents in a timely manner that the student becomes the educational decision-maker at age 18. Transition Services Per a review of the literature on Quality Programs, SSD has made significant efforts to improve the transition services for students with disabilities including, a) the addition of staff solely dedicated to transition efforts, and b) a variety programming options to help students meet their long-term career goals, such as the 20 CTP sites and approximately 160 Community Based Vocational Instruction (work-training) programs through out the city and county. Career Training Program (CTP) Several areas of strength were identified as follows: Overall CTP Satisfaction Overall, students like being in the CTP. The SSD staff view CTP as beneficial for students. The Regions also note a general satisfaction with the program. Following are the specifics with respect to: Student Achievement/High Program Standards, Climate, Communication, Self-Advocacy and Work Site Relations:

• Student Achievement/High Program Standards

Students commonly noted that the program is helping them to prepare to live independently and to find paid employment – a goal for the CTP. Parents commonly



noted that the CTP expects quality performance from the students and plans for the work training needs of their child. Work site supervisors indicate the teaching staff insures tasks are performed as agreed and are available as needed. Of importance, is their report that the students are reliable workers who appear to benefit from the training experience and are a welcome addition to the worksite.

• Climate

Student reports on school climate were positive especially regarding the staff’s expectations for them to do their best and to make learning interesting. Over 90 percent of the parents would recommend the program to other families. Parents also reported that students are treated fairly by the teachers.

• Communication Both parents and students indicate they know the teacher’s expectations. In addition, the SSD staff report that CTP staff are cooperative, treat others with respect and have high expectations for their students.

• Self-Advocacy Students reported that instructional staff is helping them to feel good about themselves, be responsible for their learning and be independent.

• Work Site Supervisor Relations

Ninety-eight percent of the students feel strongly that the work site supervisors treat them fairly.

Costs Analysis The estimated annual cost for educating students in the Career Training for FY 05 is about $23,000 per pupil. This cost was calculated by dividing the FY 2005 budget ($2.8 million) by the total number of students enrolled in the program as of December 2004 (121 students). Included in the costs were: direct instructional costs, pupil support services, staff support services, SSD overhead expenses and transportation costs. This is neither a strength nor a weakness but an accounting of the expenses associated with the CTP. Costs for providing District-wide transition services to students is discussed as a weakness only. Given the uniqueness of the CTP it is not feasible to make costs comparisons with other programs/service delivery models. CTP serves students with a variety of disabilities, while other delivery models such as, autism, have a more narrow focus thus it is practical to analyze the data and draw conclusion of autistic students in various settings. In addition, given the CTP is housed in the community, certain costs associated with other programs such as, building costs and food service, are not applicable to the CTP.



Weaknesses IEP Transition Compliance In the final analysis of the IEP file review focusing on transition, SSD scored 22% compliant, which is well below the MSIP standard of 80%. All nine areas of the IEP related to transition indicate a need for improvement: 1) IEP Notice, 2) Signature page-child included 3) Signature page-others invited, i.e., adult agencies, 4) Special Considerations page-rights transferred 5) Transition Plan-needs identified 6) Transition Plan-services identified 7)Transition Plan-agency linkages 8) Goals-transition-related 9) Objectives/benchmarks-transition-related. Transition Services Overall, based on the Transition Services Survey, the highest level of importance for the middle and high school staff, unless otherwise noted, in highest-ranking order is as follows:

• Quality Program needs – greater concern for high school staff: - More options for students 14-15 years of age - More options for students 14-17 at risk of dropping out of school - Apprenticeship programs that match students with interests

• Transition Curriculum needs – concern for middle and high schools staff: - Basic skills - Life skills curriculum software and materials - Self-advocacy - Self-Determination - Character education/outdoor education

• Transition Support/Training needs - concern as noted: - How to develop programs/resources available for students with emotional

disturbance - concern for middle & high school staff - Grade/age appropriate transition services curriculum - concern for middle & high

school staff - How to develop programs/resources for students with autism - concern for middle

& high school staff - Options/services available through SSD - middle school only concern - How to develop programs/resources available for students with MR - middle

school only concern • Other Needs-concern for high school staff

- Mini job fair for students CTP The evaluation did not find any areas of major challenge, however, there are three areas in which the program is progressing and are considered relative weaknesses. Overall CTP The SSD staff indicate a need for more help with designing programs that meet student needs and familiarizing the LEA/Building staff about the CTP. SSD staff also sees the CTP as remaining the



same in practice; they do not see that it has changed over the past 2 years. The Special Education School staff note concerns with referring student to the program, teamwork among staff, and CTP support offered. Following are the specifics with respect to: Student Achievement/High Program Standards, Climate, and Communication:

• Student Achievement/High Program Standards The following statements from parents for which the percentages were still above 75% but fell below 80% and are considered progressing include: insuring the child has made positive changes, planning for the child’s academic needs, and helping the students achieve their future career goals. Through open-ended survey comments, a site supervisor noted that the CTP staff should begin to insure the training received in class is helpful at work as well as help students find jobs. Both parents and students also noted the students need more help with finding employment.

• Climate

Students indicated the teaching staff did not know them ‘well.’ Parents noted there were concerns with the timeline for referring students to the program, with adequate cooperation between the work site and teaching staff and the orientation for new students. Both students and parents note the program should pay the students.

• Communication

The parent survey identified weaknesses in the following areas: sharing information about their child’s experiences in CTP and providing adequate information about services after graduation. Site supervisors indicated they do know what is being taught in class.

Graduate Follow-up Data After reviewing DESE’s Special Education Profile Report, we have determined that the definition of data collection for graduate follow-up has varied annually. Therefore, we have to be cautious in interpreting DESE’s report. Cost Analysis The costs associated with providing only transition-related services for SSD students throughout St. Louis County are unavailable. All SSD students, ages 14-22, are provided transition services as determined by their IEP teams. Because the District does not collect cost data separately for transition services, the committee was unable to provide a cost analysis or even an estimate for these services. Transition services differ greatly between locations. There are no apparent common characteristics in the level of service, delivery of service, or program design that would allow a reasonable estimate of costs. For example, some students may spend a portion of the day in work training activities in the community while others might spend a part of the day learning functional academics in their home schools. It would require an excessive amount of time and resources to collect the data needed to prepare any type of reasonable estimate. Since the current data systems do not provide an efficient method for capturing and quantifying these transition-related costs; no cost analysis can be completed.



Limitations

The data collected for this evaluation provided the committee a vast amount of information, both quantitative and qualitative, that had to be sorted, organized, analyzed and interpreted. This data had not previously been systematically reviewed as a whole in an effort to draw conclusions about transition and the CTP. The committee saw this project as a daunting task and noted several limitations that may or may not have affected the results. These factors should be taken into consideration when interpreting the results and designing future program evaluation activities.

1. A certain amount of human error must be attributed to the IEP compliance review, as each

reviewer may not have uniformly applied the guidelines. Each IEP reviewed resulted in some subjectivity on the part of the reviewer, however, the process is the same as conducted via MSIP.

2. The IEP compliance review represented only transition-related items, which is a small portion of the entire IEP that would be monitored under MSIP.

3. The IEP compliance review was not a representative sample because it did not include all 23 districts and the technical schools. Sample size could skew the results.

4. The transition surveys – 2001 and 2004 – did not lend themselves to a quantitative comparison. The 2001 survey was not designed to provide a statistical analysis.

5. The DESE graduate follow-up data on students with disabilities in St. Louis County was inconsistent and did not allow for meaningful comparisons. In addition, some data appeared to be over reported and/or under reported.

6. Input from general educators was not collected regarding their perceptions and knowledge about transition and the CTP.

7. The attendance at the open forum included information provided by four SSD participants: two teachers, one parent and one administrator.

8. Using the current financial and student data system there is no method for capturing or estimating the transition-related costs for students across the District.

Recommendations

The recommendations identified needs in the areas of training, technical support, compliance monitoring, student achievement, climate, options for select students, and communication. Action plans have been developed to address the recommendations and align with the district’s rolling plan objectives. Transition Services/Compliance/Follow-up

1. Strong, ongoing, technical assistance and staff training needs to be available to staff to

support the implementation of IDEA transition service requirements and the development of appropriate programs and services across the county.



2. Merge transition planning practices with general education reform at local school level. 3. Investigate how parent participation and student self-determination needs can be

enhanced. 4. Monitor graduate follow-up data so that all SSD schools and programs are uniformly

collecting data submitted to DESE. 5. Develop needed options, for select populations of students, i.e., BD/ED, at-risk, and

autism, with strong consideration given to developing programs/services within the local school district.

6. Expand district or region specific practices throughout the county as needed to meet student need.

CTP

1. Develop a set of action plans and activities to foster effective communication and teamwork between the SSD staff, students, parents, and site supervisors. Consideration should be given to the availability of resources and the limitations of the program, i.e., program is county wide and sites have different rules and regulations as imposed by the work place.

2. Develop a system to better educate SSD staff, students, parents and work site

supervisors about the CTP, its procedures, guidelines, activities, and limitations.

3. Implement a consistent and meaningful guide to planning for instruction and a student’s long-range career goals. Provide feedback to parents regarding supports available after graduation.



REFERENCES

Agran, M., Cain, H., & Cavin, M. (2002). Enhancing the involvement of

rehabilitation counselors in the transition process. Council for Exceptional Children 25, p. 141.

Benz, M.R, Yovanoff,P., Doren,B. (1997) School-to-work components that predict post school success for students with and without disabilities. Exceptional Children

63, 151-165 Benz, M.R.,Lindstrom,L. Yovanoff,P. (2000) Improving graduation and employment

outcomes of students with disabilities: predictive factors and student perspectives. Exceptional Children 64, 509-529.

Blackmon, D. (2004). Transition from school to adult living. The Special Edge, 17, 3, 10-12.

Brown,P., (2000). Linking transition services to student outcomes for students with moderate/severe mental retardation. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 23, p.39-55.

Bullis,M., Moran,T., Benz,M.R., Todis,B., Johnson, M.D. (2002) Description and evaluation of the ARIES Project: Achieving rehabilitation, individualized

education, and employment success for adolescents with emotional disturbance. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals. 25, 41-58.

Carter, E.W., Wehby, J.H. (2003). Job performance of transition-age youth with emotional and behavioral disorders. Exceptional Children, 69, 449 -465.

Chadsey-Rusch,J.,&Rusch,F.R. (1997). Promising transition practices for youths with disabilities. Contemporary Education, 68, 9-12.

Collet-Klingenberg,L. (1998) The reality of best practice in transition: a case study. Exceptional Children, 65, 67-78.

Eisenman, L., Hughes, C. (1997). School to work system development needs: Perspectives of local education agencies. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 20, p.25.

Florida Network Community Based Vocational Training Technical Assistance Packet #2, 1992-1993. Government Accounting Office Report: Special Education. (2003) Federal actions can

assist states in improving postsecondary outcomes for youth. http://www/gao.ovv/cgi-bin/getrpt/GAO-03-773

National Center on Secondary Education and Transition. (July 2003). Current challenges facing the future of secondary education and transition services for youth with disabilities in the United States.

National Center on Secondary Education and Transition.(July 2003). Capacity Building Institute. Critical issues in reform and inclusion of youth with disabilities in secondary education and transition.



National Council on Disability (June 2000). Transition and post-school outcomes for youth with disabilities: Closing the gaps to post-secondary education and employment.

National Transition Network (June 2000). Critical challenges facing the future of transition services in the United States. University of Minnisota Repetto, J.B., Webb, K.W., Wilson Garvan, C.&Washington, T. (2002) Connecting

student outcomes with transition practices in Florida. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 25, p.123-139

Taylor-Ritzler, T., Balcazar, F., Keys, C., Hayes, E., Garate-Serafini, T., Ryerson Espino, S. (2001). Promoting attainment of transition-related goals among low income ethnic minority students with disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 24, p. 148-149.

Wood, W.M., Karvonen, M., Test, D.W., Browder, D., & Algozzine, B. (2004) Promoting student self-determination skills in IEP planning. Teaching Exceptional Children.36, 8-16. Youth Advisory Committee: Perspectives on the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: Youth with Disabilities and Others Respond ( November 20, 2002)

http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/advisory/youth/yac_perspectives_11-20-02.html



APPENDIX

Steering Committee and Work Group Members Chair-Leslie Caldwell Co-Chair-Marilyn Smith Area Coordinator for Career Training Program Effective Practice Specialist for Transition

Steering Committee SSD Facilitative Function for Transition

1. Becky Kostedt – South Region 2. Donna Griffiin – North Region 3. Pat Harkins – West Region 4. Leslie Caldwell – CentralRegion

EPS-Transition 5. Marilyn Smith

Teacher-Level Staff 6. Mindy Abell - CBVI Teacher –North Region 7. Agency/Community Reps 8. Phil Ferguson-University of Missouri-St. Louis 9. Harry Bahr-Fontbonne University 10. Jeff Basin-Productive Living Board 11. Jay Mendell , Division of Vocational Rehabilitation

SSD Parent Education & Parent of SSD graduate 12. Joann Noll, Parent Education

Parent & Student 13. Vanessa Hughes, parent

14. Justin Hughes, CTP student

Working Committee AC Region Representation

1. Margaret Gerling, AC-West 2. Jewell Jenkins, AC-Central

Teachers from Regions 3. Julie Harris, SSD Schools-Central 4. Sue Cooper, CTP- UMSL-Central 5. Mary Beth Kuhlman -South-LEA

Transitional Consultants 6. Michele Barnidge 7. Lisa Gagnon 8. Anne Lund 9. Tina Wymer

Transitional Facilitators 10. Linda Cantrell 11. Anne Watts

District MR ED SP LD OHI AU Other TotalAffton 7 7 12 96 29 2 8 161Bayless 5 6 16 57 16 1 5 106Brentwood 0 1 1 47 10 3 5 67Clayton 2 10 7 138 23 5 3 188Ferg-Flo 50 74 37 623 139 27 12 962Hancock 8 10 7 78 18 3 11 135Hazelwood 39 97 87 825 220 24 26 1318Jennings 20 21 12 169 22 0 16 260Kirkwood 12 28 19 330 37 7 11 444Ladue 4 8 20 145 32 4 6 219Lindbergh 9 16 40 236 62 5 9 377Maple-Rich 2 7 5 69 10 0 3 96Mehlville 25 60 85 522 150 9 16 867Normandy 42 49 29 266 25 6 4 421Parkway 53 90 129 916 232 26 44 1490Pattonville 23 34 29 280 57 11 22 456Ritenour 19 28 40 306 55 3 13 464Riverview 43 40 18 398 35 4 4 542Rockwood 36 67 119 1032 161 27 36 1478Univ City 18 14 17 201 11 7 5 273Valley Park 3 3 2 77 8 1 1 95Webster 5 19 12 222 42 10 9 319Wellston 3 1 2 37 2 0 0 45SSD Sch/Prog 310 247 86 603 170 87 105 1608Totals 738 937 831 7673 1566 272 374 12391

Spring 2001 Questionnaire on Transition Services and Needs

District:____________________ School:_________________ Date:___________ Persons completing the questionnaire:_____________________________________ Phone Number:_____________________ SSD Voice Mail:___________________ 1. Size of School: (Check one) 2. Number of Special Education Staff: __Less than 500 students __Special Ed Teachers __500 to 1000 students __Speech Pathologists __1001 to 1500 students __Paraprofessionals __1501 to 2000 students __Over 2000 students 3. Number of Special 4. Number of students receiving 5. Number of students Ed Students: self-contained level of service: in self-contained classes: (traditional model) __Less than 50 __Less than 5 __Less than 5 __50 to 75 __5 to 10 __50 to 10 __76 to 100 __11 to 15 __11 to 15 __101 to 125 __16 to 20 __16 to 20 __126 to 150 __21 to 25 __21 to 25 __151 to 175 __26 to 30 __26 to 30 __176 to 200 __over 30 __over 30 __over 200 6. Number of students with severe or multiple disabilities who are included:____ 7. Please indicate the approximate number of special education students who are enrolled in each of the following options: __Community based special education classes __Campus based special education work experience __Paid off-campus work experience for credit __Regular education COE program __Dually enrolled in vocational technical school and/or community college classes __Regular ed practical arts classes such as woodworking, home-ec., drafting, auto maintenance, etc. offered at your school __Special ed functional academics __GED program __WIA (the old JTPA program which provides jobs to students)

8. Please identify any other class options, other than regular academics, which are available to special education students:

________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ 9. Is there any limit on the number of credits a student may earn for attending special

education classes: __Yes __No If yes, what is the limit?__________________ 10. Do students in your school have the option of earning the number of credits necessary for

graduation, but having the diploma withheld so the students can receive additional transition training? __Yes __No If yes, how many students have taken advantage of this during the last two school years?__

11. Please indicate the number of special education students who did each of the following last

school year and are anticipated to do so this school year: Last Year This Year ________ _________ Graduated with a regular diploma (regular credits) ________ _________ Graduated with a regular diploma (special ed credits) ________ _________ Received a certificate of completion ________ _________ Completed school due to age 21 ________ _________ Dropped out of school ________ _________ Graduated and went on to post-secondary academic training ________ _________ Graduated and went on to post-secondary vocational training ________ _________ Graduated and were competitively employed ________ _________ Were referred to Vocational Rehabilitation for sheltered employment ________ _________ Obtained a GED ________ _________ Received training/college from DVR or Rehab Services for Blind _________ Other (Please explain)___________________________________ _____________________________________________________ 12. How many students had Vocational Rehabilitation or Rehab Services for the Blind

Counselors assigned to them? _______ 13. How many students had Regional Center case workers? ______ 14. Are there any unmet transition needs at your school? __Yes __No If yes, what are the

needs? Please list them in the order of importance: (use back of page if necessary)

15. Please indicate the areas or types of training that should be provided to secondary level teachers to improve development and implementation of transition plans.

16. Please indicate any other needs, concerns or suggestions that you believe should be given

further consideration:

Transition Services and Staff Needs Survey 2004

The purpose of this survey is to evaluate transition services in middle schools and high schools. Please take a few moments to complete the attached questionnaire with the assistance of your teachers. As a team please complete one survey for each school. Collaborate with your peers in responding to each question and try to reach a consensus if possible. If you have any questions, please contact Leslie Caldwell, Area Coordinator (314)989-8264. Please return the survey to Leslie Caldwell at SSD Central Office by October 22, 2004. If you do not know an answer, please leave it blank.

1. Your district

$ Affton $ Bayless

$ Brentwood $ Clayton

$ Ferguson-Florissant $ Hancock Place

$ Hazelwood $ Jennings

$ Kirkwood $ Ladue

$ Lindbergh $ Maplewood Richmond Heights

$ Mehlville $ Normandy

$ Parkway $ Pattonville

$ Ritenour $ Riverview Gardens

$ Rockwood $ University City

$ Valley Park $ Webster Groves

$ Wellston $ Special Education School

$ Technical Education School $ Career Training Program

2. Your school:_________________________________________3. Your School Level

$ Middle School $ High School

4. Your School Size

$ Less than 500 students $ 500-1000 students $ 1001-1500 students

$ 1501-2000 students $ Over 2000 students

5. Number of special education staff___ Special education teachers___Speech pathologists___Paraprofessionals

6. Number of special education students in your school

$ Less than 50 $ 50 to 75 $ 76 to 100 $ 101 to 125 $ 126-150

$ 151 to 175 $ 176 to 200 $ Over 200

7. Number of students in self contained classes (traditional model)

$ Less than 5 $ 5 to 10 $ 11 to 15 $ 16 to 20 $ 21 to 25

$ 26 to 30 $ Over 30

4 2

5 0 1425 Page 1

9/04 Transition


8. Number of students with severe or multiple disabilities who are included in regular education classes and/or part of self-contained classes?

$ Less than 5 $ 5 to 10 $ 11 to 15 $ 16 to 20 $ 21 to 25

$ 26 to 30 $ Over 30

9. Please indicate the number of special education students who are enrolled in each of the following program options.___Community based vocational instruction (formerly community access (CA))___Paid off-campus work experience for credit (COOP)___Regular education COE program___Dually enrolled in vocational technical schools and/or community college classes___Regular education practical arts classes such as woodworking, home-economics, drafting___Special education functional academics/IEP classes___GED program___WIA (Work Investment Act--paid summer work experience program offered in local school)___Other____________________________________________

10. Is there any limit on the number of credits a student may earn from attending special education classes?

$ Yes. What is the limit?__________ $ No

11. Do the students in your school have the option of earning the number of credits necessary for graduation, but having issuance of the diploma delayed (i.e., diploma withheld) so the students can receive additional transition training?

$ Yes. How many student have taken advantage of this during the last 2 school year? _________

$ No

12. Do you know how to refer students to Division of Vocational Rehabilitation (DVR)?

$ Yes $ No

13. How do you make decisions about which students to refer to DVR?

$ I refer all of my students and let RC decide

$ I never refer any students to RC

$ I am selective about who I refer to RC, factors I consider are __________________________

14. How often do you refer students to VR?

$ Not at all $ Rarely $ Occasionally $ Regularly

15. Do you know how to connect student/families to the St. Louis Regional Center?

$ Yes $ No

16. How do you make decisions about which students/families to refer to Regional Center (RC)?

$ I refer all of my students and let RC decide

$ I never refer any students to RC

$ I am selective about who I refer to RC, factors I consider are __________________________

17. How often do you refer students to Regional Center?

$ Not at all $ Rarely $ Occasionally $ Regularly

4 2

5 0 2425 Page 2

9/04 Transition


Are there any unmet transition needs at your school? If yes, indicate level of importance for the unmet transition needs of students with disabilities.

18. More CBVI (formerly referred to as community access program or CBI. ......................................................

Response Definition: NO=No need YS=Yes, slightly important YM=Yes, moderate important YV=Yes, very important YE=Yes, essential

$ $ $ $ $ NO YS YM YV YE

19. CBVI for more involved students, i.e., ED, Autistic, MR............................................................................... $ $ $ $ $ 20. More options for students 14-15 years of age ................................................................................................. $ $ $ $ $ 21. More options for students 14-17 years and considered at risk. ....................................................................... $ $ $ $ $ 22. More options for students 18-21 years of age with severe disabilities. ........................................................... $ $ $ $ $ 23. Keeping students in local school districts longer. ........................................................................................... $ $ $ $ $ 24. Sharing of sites by region................................................................................................................................ $ $ $ $ $ 25. Job shadowing opportunities in the community. ............................................................................................. $ $ $ $ $ 26. Apprenticeship programs that match kids with interest. (i.e., painters, carpenters) ........................................ $ $ $ $ $ 27. COOP (Cooperative work experience program with DVR)............................................................................ $ $ $ $ $ 28. COE program. ................................................................................................................................................. $ $ $ $ $ 29. GED programming.......................................................................................................................................... $ $ $ $ $ 30. Hands on training in the different career clusters/vocational areas in the LEA............................................... $ $ $ $ $ 31. LEAs and SSD schools share worksites. ......................................................................................................... $ $ $ $ $ 32. Technical schools. (i.e., additional options for students with disabilities) ...................................................... $ $ $ $ $ 33. Other___________________________ ......................................................................................................... $ $ $ $ $

34. Life skills curriculum software and materials..................................................................................................

NO YS YM YV YE

$ $ $ $ $ 35. Study skills...................................................................................................................................................... $ $ $ $ $ 36. Self-advocacy.................................................................................................................................................. $ $ $ $ $ 37. Self-determination........................................................................................................................................... $ $ $ $ $ 38. Basic skills. ..................................................................................................................................................... $ $ $ $ $ 39. Character education/outdoor education. (i.e., self-esteem building/team building via outdoor education

program.)......................................................................................................................................................... $ $ $ $ $ 40. Other___________________________________ ......................................................................................... $ $ $ $ $

41. A staff member that serves as a transition representative for the school. (i.e., information sharing, attends transition trainings) .........................................................................................................................................

NO YS YM YV YE

$ $ $ $ $ 42. Information on transitional programs for students who will not successfully finish high school. ................... $ $ $ $ $ 43. Additional support to develop transition options. ........................................................................................... $ $ $ $ $ 44. Other___________________________________ ......................................................................................... $ $ $ $ $

4 2

5 0 3425 Page 3

9/04 Transition


45. Transportation. (i.e., SSD bus available as needed)........................................................................................

NO YS YM YV YE

$ $ $ $ $ 46. Local districts give credit toward their diploma for a variety of SSD programs. ............................................ $ $ $ $ $ 47. Mini job fair for students. ............................................................................................................................... $ $ $ $ $ 48. Driver's education training. ............................................................................................................................. $ $ $ $ $ 49. Other_____________________________________ ..................................................................................... $ $ $ $ $

Please indicate the level of the staff training you do not need or you need. If you need, indicate level of needs for staff training.

50. Post-secondary education................................................................................................................................

Response Definition: NO=No need YS=Yes, slightly need YM=Yes, moderate need YO=Yes, often need YA=Yes, always need

$ $ $ $ $ NO YS YM YO YA

51. Adult agencies................................................................................................................................................. $ $ $ $ $ 52. Options/services available through SSD. ........................................................................................................ $ $ $ $ $ 53. How to develop programs/resources available for students with severe disabilities. ...................................... $ $ $ $ $ 54. How to develop programs/resources available for students with multiple disabilities. ................................... $ $ $ $ $ 55. How to develop programs/resources available for students with emotional disturbance. ............................... $ $ $ $ $ 56. How to develop programs/resources available for students with mental retardation. ..................................... $ $ $ $ $ 57. How to develop programs/resources available for students with autism......................................................... $ $ $ $ $ 58. Grade/age appropriate transition services curriculum. (i.e., self-advocacy).................................................... $ $ $ $ $ 59. Current and update information on transition. (i.e., guidelines for assessment).............................................. $ $ $ $ $ 60. Developing appropriate IEPs for transition age students. (i.e., goals/action plans). ....................................... $ $ $ $ $ 61. Future's plans. ................................................................................................................................................. $ $ $ $ $ 62. Transition portfolio. ........................................................................................................................................ $ $ $ $ $ 63. Additional Comments

4 2

5 0 4425 Page 4

9/04 Transition

Transition Needs SurveyCreation Date: 3/16/2005Time Interval: 10/28/2004 to 12/9/2004Total Respondents: 58

1. Your district

25

20

15

10

5

01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

1. Affton 2 3% 14. Normandy 1 2%2. Bayless 0 0% 15. Parkway 9 16%3. Brentwood 2 3% 16. Pattonville 2 3%4. Clayton 2 3% 17. Ritenour 1 2%5. Ferguson-Florissant 6 10% 18. Riverview Gardens 1 2%6. Hancock Place 2 3% 19. Rockwood 6 10%7. Hazelwood 3 5% 20. University City 0 0%8. Jennings 1 2% 21. Valley Park 0 0%9. Kirkwood 3 5% 22. Webster Groves 0 0%

10. Ladue 2 3% 23. Wellston 2 3%11. Lindbergh 1 2% 24. Special Education School 6 10%12. Maplewood Richmond Heights 1 2% 25. Technical Education School 1 2%13. Mehlville 4 7% 26. Career Training Program 0 0%

Total Responses: 583. Your School Level

75

60

45

30

15

01 2

1. Middle School 31 56%2. High School 24 44%

Total Responses: 55Mean: 1.44 Standard Deviation: 0.50

4. Your School Size

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5

1. Less than 500 students 22 39%2. 500-1000 students 19 34%3. 1001-1500 students 3 5%4. 1501-2000 students 7 12%5. Over 2000 students 5 9%

Total Responses: 56

Page 1Page 1


50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Less than 50 7 12%2. 50 to 75 3 5%3. 76 to 100 7 12%4. 101 to 125 8 14%5. 126-150 5 9%6. 151 to 175 5 9%7. 176 to 200 6 11%8. Over 200 16 28%

Total Responses: 57


50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Less than 5 25 46%2. 5 to 10 9 17%3. 11 to 15 7 13%4. 16 to 20 2 4%5. 21 to 25 2 4%6. 26 to 30 2 4%7. Over 30 7 13%

Total Responses: 54


75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5 6 7


Total Responses: 54


100

80

60

40

20

01 2

1. Yes. What is the limit?__________ 1 2%2. No 44 98%


Transition Needs Survey

Page 2


75

60

45

30

15

01 2

1. Yes. How many student have taken advantage... 21 62%2. No 13 38%



75

60

45

30

15

01 2

1. Yes 38 75%2. No 13 25%



75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3

1. I refer all of my students and let RC decide 5 11%2. I never refer any students to RC 14 32%3. I am selective about who I refer to RC, factors ... 25 57%

Total Responses: 44


50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4

1. Not at all 18 37%2. Rarely 4 8%3. Occasionally 13 27%4. Regularly 14 29%

Total Responses: 49


Page 3


100

80

60

40

20

01 2

1. Yes 45 80%2. No 11 20%



75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3


Total Responses: 50


50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4



18. More CBVI (formerly referred to as community access program or CBI.

75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5

1. No need 27 52%2. Yes, slightly important 3 6%3. Yes, moderate important 8 15%4. Yes, very important 9 17%5. Yes, essential 5 10%



Page 4

19. CBVI for more involved students, i.e., ED, Autistic, MR.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



20. More options for students 14-15 years of age

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



21. More options for students 14-17 years and considered at risk.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



22. More options for students 18-21 years of age with severe disabilities.

75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5




Page 5

23. Keeping students in local school districts longer.

75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5



24. Sharing of sites by region.

75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5



25. Job shadowing opportunities in the community.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




Page 6

26. Apprenticeship programs that match kids with interest. (i.e., painters, carpenters)

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



27. COOP (Cooperative work experience program with DVR).

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



28. COE program.

75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5



29. GED programming.

75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5



Report Title

Page 7

30. Hands on training in the different career clusters/vocational areas in the LEA.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



31. LEAs and SSD schools share worksites.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



32. Technical schools. (i.e., additional options for students with disabilities)

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



33. Other___________________________

75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5



Report Title

Page 8

34. Life skills curriculum software and materials.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



35. Study skills.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



36. Self-advocacy.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



37. Self-determination.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



Report Title

Page 9

38. Basic skills.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



39. Character education/outdoor education. (i.e., self-esteem building/team building via outdoor education program.)

25

20

15

10

5

01 2 3 4 5



40. Other___________________________________

75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5



41. A staff member that serves as a transition representative for the school. (i.e., information sharing, attends transition trainings)

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



Report Title

Page 10

42. Information on transitional programs for students who will not successfully finish high school.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



43. Additional support to develop transition options.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



44. Other___________________________________

100

80

60

40

20

01 2 3 4 5



45. Transportation. (i.e., SSD bus available as needed).

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



Report Title

Page 11

46. Local districts give credit toward their diploma for a variety of SSD programs.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



47. Mini job fair for students.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



48. Driver's education training.

75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5



49. Other_____________________________________

100

80

60

40

20

01 2 3 4 5



Report Title

Page 12

50. Post-secondary education.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5

1. No need 21 39%2. Yes, slightly need 8 15%3. Yes, moderate need 15 28%4. Yes, often need 6 11%5. Yes, always need 4 7%


51. Adult agencies.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



52. Options/services available through SSD.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



53. How to develop programs/resources available for students with severe disabilities.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



Report Title

Page 13

54. How to develop programs/resources available for students with multiple disabilities.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



55. How to develop programs/resources available for students with emotional disturbance.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



56. How to develop programs/resources available for students with mental retardation.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



57. How to develop programs/resources available for students with autism.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



Report Title

Page 14

58. Grade/age appropriate transition services curriculum. (i.e., self-advocacy).

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



59. Current and update information on transition. (i.e., guidelines for assessment).

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



60. Developing appropriate IEPs for transition age students. (i.e., goals/action plans).

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



61. Future's plans.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



Report Title

Page 15

62. Transition portfolio.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



Report Title

Page 16

Transition Needs Survey: Central & North Regions

Creation Date: 3/16/2005Time Interval: 10/28/2004 to 12/9/2004Total Respondents Central Reg : 13 Total Respondents North Reg : 10

1. Your district

75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Central Reg North Reg

Central Reg North Reg Central Reg North Reg1. Affton 0 0% 0 0% 14. Normandy 1 0% 0 0%2. Bayless 0 0% 0 0% 15. Parkway 0 0% 0 0%3. Brentwood 2 15% 0 0% 16. Pattonville 2 15% 0 0%4. Clayton 2 15% 0 0% 17. Ritenour 1 15% 0 0%5. Ferguson-Florissant 0 0% 6 60% 18. Riverview Gardens 0 0% 1 60%6. Hancock Place 0 0% 0 0% 19. Rockwood 0 0% 0 0%7. Hazelwood 0 0% 3 30% 20. University City 0 0% 0 30%8. Jennings 1 8% 0 0% 21. Valley Park 0 8% 0 0%9. Kirkwood 0 0% 0 0% 22. Webster Groves 0 0% 0 0%

10. Ladue 2 15% 0 0% 23. Wellston 2 15% 0 0%11. Lindbergh 0 0% 0 0% 24. Special Education School 0 0% 0 0%12. Maplewood Richmond Heigh... 0 0% 0 0% 25. Technical Education School 0 0% 0 0%13. Mehlville 0 0% 0 0% 26. Career Training Program 0 0% 0 0%

Total Responses: 13 103. Your School Level

75

60

45

30

15

01 2

Central Reg North Reg Central Reg North Reg1. Middle School 8 73% 6 67%2. High School 3 27% 3 33%

Total Responses: 11 9Mean: 1.27 1.33Standard Deviation: 0.47 0.50

Page 1Page 1

4. Your School Size

75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5

Central Reg North Reg Central Reg North Reg1. Less than 500 students 6 55% 2 20%2. 500-1000 students 5 45% 4 40%3. 1001-1500 students 0 0% 0 0%4. 1501-2000 students 0 0% 3 30%5. Over 2000 students 0 0% 1 10%

Total Responses: 11 10


50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Central Reg North Reg Central Reg North Reg1. Less than 50 3 25% 0 0%2. 50 to 75 1 8% 0 0%3. 76 to 100 1 8% 2 20%4. 101 to 125 2 17% 1 10%5. 126-150 1 8% 0 0%6. 151 to 175 2 17% 0 0%7. 176 to 200 0 0% 3 30%8. Over 200 2 17% 4 40%



50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6 7

Central Reg North Reg Central Reg North Reg1. Less than 5 5 45% 5 50%2. 5 to 10 1 9% 1 10%3. 11 to 15 2 18% 1 10%4. 16 to 20 1 9% 1 10%5. 21 to 25 0 0% 1 10%6. 26 to 30 1 9% 1 10%7. Over 30 1 9% 0 0%



100

80

60

40

20

01 2 3 4 5 6 7

Central Reg North Reg Central Reg North Reg1. Less than 5 7 54% 10 100%2. 5 to 10 4 31% 0 0%3. 11 to 15 0 0% 0 0%4. 16 to 20 2 15% 0 0%5. 21 to 25 0 0% 0 0%6. 26 to 30 0 0% 0 0%7. Over 30 0 0% 0 0%



Page 2


100

80

60

40

20

01 2

Central Reg North Reg Central Reg North Reg1. Yes. What is the limit?______... 0 0% 0 0%2. No 9 100% 8 100%



75

60

45

30

15

01 2

Central Reg North Reg Central Reg North Reg1. Yes. How many student have t... 4 57% 4 57%2. No 3 43% 3 43%



75

60

45

30

15

01 2

Central Reg North Reg Central Reg North Reg1. Yes 9 75% 7 70%2. No 3 25% 3 30%



50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3

Central Reg North Reg Central Reg North Reg1. I refer all of my students and le... 2 20% 2 25%2. I never refer any students to R... 4 40% 3 38%3. I am selective about who I refe... 4 40% 3 38%



Page 3


50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4

Central Reg North Reg Central Reg North Reg1. Not at all 5 45% 3 38%2. Rarely 0 0% 0 0%3. Occasionally 5 45% 2 25%4. Regularly 1 9% 3 38%



100

80

60

40

20

01 2




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3

Central Reg North Reg Central Reg North Reg1. I refer all of my students and le... 2 18% 2 25%2. I never refer any students to R... 5 45% 2 25%3. I am selective about who I refe... 4 36% 4 50%



50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4

Central Reg North Reg Central Reg North Reg1. Not at all 6 46% 3 33%2. Rarely 2 15% 1 11%3. Occasionally 5 38% 3 33%4. Regularly 0 0% 2 22%



Page 4


75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5

Central Reg North Reg Central Reg North Reg1. No need 7 64% 2 22%2. Yes, slightly important 1 9% 1 11%3. Yes, moderate important 1 9% 1 11%4. Yes, very important 2 18% 4 44%5. Yes, essential 0 0% 1 11%



75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




Page 5


75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5




100

80

60

40

20

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5



Report Title

Page 6


50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



28. COE program.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5



Report Title

Page 7


75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5



33. Other___________________________

100

80

60

40

20

01 2 3 4 5


Total Responses: 5 0Mean: 1.40 N/AStandard Deviation: 0.89 N/A

Report Title

Page 8


50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



35. Study skills.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



36. Self-advocacy.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



Report Title

Page 9

38. Basic skills.

75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5



40. Other___________________________________

100

80

60

40

20

01 2 3 4 5


Total Responses: 1 2Mean: 1.00 5.00Standard Deviation: N/A 0.00


50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



Report Title

Page 10


75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



44. Other___________________________________

100

80

60

40

20

01 2 3 4 5


Total Responses: 1 0Mean: 1.00 N/AStandard Deviation: N/A N/A


75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5



Report Title

Page 11


75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5



49. Other_____________________________________

100

80

60

40

20

01 2 3 4 5



Report Title

Page 12


75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5

Central Reg North Reg Central Reg North Reg1. No need 6 60% 1 10%2. Yes, slightly need 1 10% 1 10%3. Yes, moderate need 2 20% 3 30%4. Yes, often need 0 0% 3 30%5. Yes, always need 1 10% 2 20%


51. Adult agencies.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5



Report Title

Page 13


50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



Report Title

Page 14


50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



61. Future's plans.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



Report Title

Page 15


75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5



Report Title

Page 16

Transition Needs Survey: South & West Rgions

Creation Date: 3/16/2005Time Interval: 10/28/2004 to 12/9/2004Total Respondents South Reg : 13 Total Respondents West Reg : 15

1. Your district

75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

South Reg West Reg

South Reg West Reg South Reg West Reg1. Affton 2 15% 0 0% 14. Normandy 0 15% 0 0%2. Bayless 0 0% 0 0% 15. Parkway 0 0% 9 0%3. Brentwood 0 0% 0 0% 16. Pattonville 0 0% 0 0%4. Clayton 0 0% 0 0% 17. Ritenour 0 0% 0 0%5. Ferguson-Florissant 0 0% 0 0% 18. Riverview Gardens 0 0% 0 0%6. Hancock Place 2 15% 0 0% 19. Rockwood 0 15% 6 0%7. Hazelwood 0 0% 0 0% 20. University City 0 0% 0 0%8. Jennings 0 0% 0 0% 21. Valley Park 0 0% 0 0%9. Kirkwood 3 23% 0 0% 22. Webster Groves 0 23% 0 0%



75

60

45

30

15

01 2

South Reg West Reg South Reg West Reg1. Middle School 6 46% 7 47%2. High School 7 54% 8 53%


Page 1Page 1

4. Your School Size

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5

South Reg West Reg South Reg West Reg1. Less than 500 students 5 38% 3 20%2. 500-1000 students 4 31% 5 33%3. 1001-1500 students 0 0% 3 20%4. 1501-2000 students 2 15% 2 13%5. Over 2000 students 2 15% 2 13%



50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

South Reg West Reg South Reg West Reg1. Less than 50 0 0% 2 13%2. 50 to 75 1 8% 1 7%3. 76 to 100 4 31% 0 0%4. 101 to 125 2 15% 1 7%5. 126-150 2 15% 2 13%6. 151 to 175 0 0% 1 7%7. 176 to 200 0 0% 2 13%8. Over 200 4 31% 6 40%



50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6 7

South Reg West Reg South Reg West Reg1. Less than 5 6 50% 7 50%2. 5 to 10 3 25% 4 29%3. 11 to 15 3 25% 1 7%4. 16 to 20 0 0% 0 0%5. 21 to 25 0 0% 1 7%6. 26 to 30 0 0% 0 0%7. Over 30 0 0% 1 7%



75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5 6 7

South Reg West Reg South Reg West Reg1. Less than 5 6 46% 9 69%2. 5 to 10 4 31% 3 23%3. 11 to 15 0 0% 0 0%4. 16 to 20 0 0% 1 8%5. 21 to 25 0 0% 0 0%6. 26 to 30 0 0% 0 0%7. Over 30 3 23% 0 0%



Page 2


100

80

60

40

20

01 2

South Reg West Reg South Reg West Reg1. Yes. What is the limit?______... 0 0% 1 8%2. No 10 100% 12 92%



100

80

60

40

20

01 2

South Reg West Reg South Reg West Reg1. Yes. How many student have t... 5 71% 7 88%2. No 2 29% 1 12%



100

80

60

40

20

01 2

South Reg West Reg South Reg West Reg1. Yes 10 91% 8 67%2. No 1 9% 4 33%



75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3

South Reg West Reg South Reg West Reg1. I refer all of my students and le... 1 10% 0 0%2. I never refer any students to R... 2 20% 4 33%3. I am selective about who I refe... 7 70% 8 67%



Page 3


50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4

South Reg West Reg South Reg West Reg1. Not at all 4 33% 4 33%2. Rarely 1 8% 2 17%3. Occasionally 2 17% 3 25%4. Regularly 5 42% 3 25%



100

80

60

40

20

01 2




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3

South Reg West Reg South Reg West Reg1. I refer all of my students and le... 1 8% 0 0%2. I never refer any students to R... 2 17% 5 38%3. I am selective about who I refe... 9 75% 8 62%



50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4

South Reg West Reg South Reg West Reg1. Not at all 2 17% 6 43%2. Rarely 2 17% 4 29%3. Occasionally 6 50% 3 21%4. Regularly 2 17% 1 7%



Page 4


75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5

South Reg West Reg South Reg West Reg1. No need 4 31% 9 75%2. Yes, slightly important 0 0% 0 0%3. Yes, moderate important 4 31% 2 17%4. Yes, very important 3 23% 0 0%5. Yes, essential 2 15% 1 8%



Page 5


75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5



Report Title

Page 6


100

80

60

40

20

01 2 3 4 5




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



Report Title

Page 7


75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5



28. COE program.

75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5



Report Title

Page 8


75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5



33. Other___________________________

100

80

60

40

20

01 2 3 4 5




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5



Report Title

Page 9

35. Study skills.

75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5



36. Self-advocacy.

75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5



38. Basic skills.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



Report Title

Page 10


50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



40. Other___________________________________

100

80

60

40

20

01 2 3 4 5


Total Responses: 1 1Mean: 4.00 1.00Standard Deviation: N/A N/A


50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5



Report Title

Page 11


75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5



44. Other___________________________________

100

80

60

40

20

01 2 3 4 5


Total Responses: 1 0Mean: 1.00 N/AStandard Deviation: N/A N/A


75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5



Report Title

Page 12


75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5



49. Other_____________________________________There are no responses to this question.


75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5

South Reg West Reg South Reg West Reg1. No need 5 38% 8 57%2. Yes, slightly need 1 8% 3 21%3. Yes, moderate need 6 46% 3 21%4. Yes, often need 1 8% 0 0%5. Yes, always need 0 0% 0 0%


51. Adult agencies.

75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5



Report Title

Page 13


75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5



Report Title

Page 14


50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5



Report Title

Page 15


75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5



61. Future's plans.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5



Report Title

Page 16

Transition Needs Survey: Special Education Schools

Creation Date: 3/16/2005Time Interval: 10/28/2004 to 12/9/2004Total Respondents: 6

1. Your district

100

80

60

40

20

01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26



Total Responses: 63. Your School Level

75

60

45

30

15

01 2

1. Middle School 4 67%2. High School 2 33%


4. Your School Size

100

80

60

40

20

01 2 3 4 5

1. Less than 500 students 6 100%2. 500-1000 students 0 0%3. 1001-1500 students 0 0%4. 1501-2000 students 0 0%5. Over 2000 students 0 0%

Total Responses: 6

Page 1Page 1


50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Less than 50 2 33%2. 50 to 75 0 0%3. 76 to 100 0 0%4. 101 to 125 1 17%5. 126-150 0 0%6. 151 to 175 2 33%7. 176 to 200 1 17%8. Over 200 0 0%

Total Responses: 6


100

80

60

40

20

01 2 3 4 5 6 7


Total Responses: 6


50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6 7


Total Responses: 4


100

80

60

40

20

01 2

1. Yes. What is the limit?__________ 0 0%2. No 4 100%



Page 2


75

60

45

30

15

01 2

1. Yes. How many student have taken advantage... 1 25%2. No 3 75%



75

60

45

30

15

01 2

1. Yes 3 60%2. No 2 40%



75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3


Total Responses: 3


50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4


Total Responses: 5


Page 3


100

80

60

40

20

01 2

1. Yes 5 83%2. No 1 17%



50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3


Total Responses: 6


75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4




100

80

60

40

20

01 2 3 4 5




Page 4


75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5




Page 5


100

80

60

40

20

01 2 3 4 5




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




Page 6


50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



28. COE program.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




Page 7


50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



33. Other___________________________

100

80

60

40

20

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




Page 8

35. Study skills.

75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5



36. Self-advocacy.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



38. Basic skills.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




Page 9


50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



40. Other___________________________________

100

80

60

40

20

01 2 3 4 5


Total Responses: 1Mean: 1.00 Standard Deviation: N/A


50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




Page 10


50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



44. Other___________________________________

100

80

60

40

20

01 2 3 4 5


Total Responses: 1Mean: 1.00 Standard Deviation: N/A


75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




Page 11


50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




100

80

60

40

20

01 2 3 4 5



49. Other_____________________________________There are no responses to this question.


50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



51. Adult agencies.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




Page 12


50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




Page 13


50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




Page 14


50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



61. Future's plans.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




Page 15

Transition Needs Survey: <=150 Sp Ed Students & >150 Sp Ed Students

Creation Date: 3/16/2005Time Interval: 10/28/2004 to 12/9/2004Total Respondents <=150speds : 30 Total Respondents >150speds : 27

1. Your district

25

20

15

10

5

01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

<=150speds >150speds

<=150speds >150speds <=150speds >150speds1. Affton 2 7% 0 0% 14. Normandy 0 7% 1 0%2. Bayless 0 0% 0 0% 15. Parkway 4 0% 5 0%3. Brentwood 2 7% 0 0% 16. Pattonville 1 7% 1 0%4. Clayton 1 3% 1 4% 17. Ritenour 1 3% 0 4%5. Ferguson-Florissant 2 7% 4 15% 18. Riverview Gardens 1 7% 0 15%6. Hancock Place 2 7% 0 0% 19. Rockwood 2 7% 4 0%7. Hazelwood 0 0% 3 11% 20. University City 0 0% 0 11%8. Jennings 0 0% 0 0% 21. Valley Park 0 0% 0 0%9. Kirkwood 2 7% 1 4% 22. Webster Groves 0 7% 0 4%



75

60

45

30

15

01 2

<=150speds >150speds <=150speds >150speds1. Middle School 20 67% 10 42%2. High School 10 33% 14 58%


Page 1Page 1

4. Your School Size

75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5

<=150speds >150speds <=150speds >150speds1. Less than 500 students 18 60% 3 12%2. 500-1000 students 12 40% 7 28%3. 1001-1500 students 0 0% 3 12%4. 1501-2000 students 0 0% 7 28%5. Over 2000 students 0 0% 5 20%



75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

<=150speds >150speds <=150speds >150speds1. Less than 50 7 23% 0 0%2. 50 to 75 3 10% 0 0%3. 76 to 100 7 23% 0 0%4. 101 to 125 8 27% 0 0%5. 126-150 5 17% 0 0%6. 151 to 175 0 0% 5 19%7. 176 to 200 0 0% 6 22%8. Over 200 0 0% 16 59%



75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5 6 7

<=150speds >150speds <=150speds >150speds1. Less than 5 16 53% 9 38%2. 5 to 10 4 13% 5 21%3. 11 to 15 5 17% 2 8%4. 16 to 20 1 3% 1 4%5. 21 to 25 1 3% 1 4%6. 26 to 30 1 3% 1 4%7. Over 30 2 7% 5 21%



75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5 6 7

<=150speds >150speds <=150speds >150speds1. Less than 5 20 69% 14 58%2. 5 to 10 7 24% 4 17%3. 11 to 15 0 0% 0 0%4. 16 to 20 0 0% 2 8%5. 21 to 25 0 0% 0 0%6. 26 to 30 1 3% 0 0%7. Over 30 1 3% 4 17%



Page 2


100

80

60

40

20

01 2

<=150speds >150speds <=150speds >150speds1. Yes. What is the limit?______... 0 0% 1 4%2. No 20 100% 24 96%



100

80

60

40

20

01 2

<=150speds >150speds <=150speds >150speds1. Yes. How many student have t... 5 36% 16 80%2. No 9 64% 4 20%



100

80

60

40

20

01 2

<=150speds >150speds <=150speds >150speds1. Yes 16 67% 21 81%2. No 8 33% 5 19%



75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3

<=150speds >150speds <=150speds >150speds1. I refer all of my students and le... 2 10% 2 9%2. I never refer any students to R... 10 48% 4 18%3. I am selective about who I refe... 9 43% 16 73%



Page 3


50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4

<=150speds >150speds <=150speds >150speds1. Not at all 12 50% 6 25%2. Rarely 4 17% 0 0%3. Occasionally 6 25% 6 25%4. Regularly 2 8% 12 50%



100

80

60

40

20

01 2

<=150speds >150speds <=150speds >150speds1. Yes 22 76% 22 85%2. No 7 24% 4 15%



75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3

<=150speds >150speds <=150speds >150speds1. I refer all of my students and le... 4 15% 4 17%2. I never refer any students to R... 11 41% 5 22%3. I am selective about who I refe... 12 44% 14 61%



50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4

<=150speds >150speds <=150speds >150speds1. Not at all 12 41% 7 28%2. Rarely 8 28% 2 8%3. Occasionally 7 24% 9 36%4. Regularly 2 7% 7 28%



Page 4


75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5

<=150speds >150speds <=150speds >150speds1. No need 14 54% 13 52%2. Yes, slightly important 2 8% 1 4%3. Yes, moderate important 4 15% 3 12%4. Yes, very important 3 12% 6 24%5. Yes, essential 3 12% 2 8%



75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




Page 5


75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5




100

80

60

40

20

01 2 3 4 5




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



Report Title

Page 6


50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5



28. COE program.

75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5



Report Title

Page 7


50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



33. Other___________________________

75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5



Report Title

Page 8


50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



35. Study skills.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



36. Self-advocacy.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



Report Title

Page 9

38. Basic skills.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



40. Other___________________________________

75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



Report Title

Page 10


50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



44. Other___________________________________

100

80

60

40

20

01 2 3 4 5




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5



Report Title

Page 11


50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5



49. Other_____________________________________

100

80

60

40

20

01 2 3 4 5



Report Title

Page 12


50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5

<=150speds >150speds <=150speds >150speds1. No need 12 43% 9 35%2. Yes, slightly need 3 11% 5 19%3. Yes, moderate need 10 36% 5 19%4. Yes, often need 1 4% 5 19%5. Yes, always need 2 7% 2 8%


51. Adult agencies.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



Report Title

Page 13


50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



Report Title

Page 14


75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



61. Future's plans.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



Report Title

Page 15


50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



Report Title

Page 16

Transition Needs Survey: <500 students & >=500 students

Creation Date: 3/16/2005Time Interval: 10/28/2004 to 12/9/2004Total Respondents <500 studen : 22 Total Respondents >=500 stude : 34

1. Your district

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

<500 studen >=500 stude

<500 studen >=500 stude <500 studen >=500 stude1. Affton 0 0% 2 6% 14. Normandy 0 0% 1 6%2. Bayless 0 0% 0 0% 15. Parkway 2 0% 7 0%3. Brentwood 2 9% 0 0% 16. Pattonville 1 9% 0 0%4. Clayton 0 0% 2 6% 17. Ritenour 0 0% 1 6%5. Ferguson-Florissant 2 9% 4 12% 18. Riverview Gardens 0 9% 1 12%6. Hancock Place 2 9% 0 0% 19. Rockwood 1 9% 5 0%7. Hazelwood 0 0% 3 9% 20. University City 0 0% 0 9%8. Jennings 1 5% 0 0% 21. Valley Park 0 5% 0 0%9. Kirkwood 2 9% 1 3% 22. Webster Groves 0 9% 0 3%



75

60

45

30

15

01 2

<500 studen >=500 stude <500 studen >=500 stude1. Middle School 12 55% 19 58%2. High School 10 45% 14 42%


Page 1Page 1

4. Your School Size

100

80

60

40

20

01 2 3 4 5

<500 studen >=500 stude <500 studen >=500 stude1. Less than 500 students 22 100% 0 0%2. 500-1000 students 0 0% 19 56%3. 1001-1500 students 0 0% 3 9%4. 1501-2000 students 0 0% 7 21%5. Over 2000 students 0 0% 5 15%



50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

<500 studen >=500 stude <500 studen >=500 stude1. Less than 50 7 33% 0 0%2. 50 to 75 3 14% 0 0%3. 76 to 100 3 14% 4 12%4. 101 to 125 5 24% 3 9%5. 126-150 0 0% 5 15%6. 151 to 175 2 10% 2 6%7. 176 to 200 1 5% 5 15%8. Over 200 0 0% 15 44%



50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6 7

<500 studen >=500 stude <500 studen >=500 stude1. Less than 5 10 48% 14 44%2. 5 to 10 2 10% 7 22%3. 11 to 15 3 14% 4 12%4. 16 to 20 1 5% 1 3%5. 21 to 25 0 0% 2 6%6. 26 to 30 0 0% 2 6%7. Over 30 5 24% 2 6%



75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5 6 7

<500 studen >=500 stude <500 studen >=500 stude1. Less than 5 13 68% 21 64%2. 5 to 10 2 11% 8 24%3. 11 to 15 0 0% 0 0%4. 16 to 20 1 5% 1 3%5. 21 to 25 0 0% 0 0%6. 26 to 30 1 5% 0 0%7. Over 30 2 11% 3 9%



Page 2


100

80

60

40

20

01 2

<500 studen >=500 stude <500 studen >=500 stude1. Yes. What is the limit?______... 0 0% 1 4%2. No 15 100% 27 96%



75

60

45

30

15

01 2

<500 studen >=500 stude <500 studen >=500 stude1. Yes. How many student have t... 5 38% 14 74%2. No 8 62% 5 26%



75

60

45

30

15

01 2

<500 studen >=500 stude <500 studen >=500 stude1. Yes 14 74% 22 73%2. No 5 26% 8 27%



75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3

<500 studen >=500 stude <500 studen >=500 stude1. I refer all of my students and le... 3 19% 2 8%2. I never refer any students to R... 6 38% 8 31%3. I am selective about who I refe... 7 44% 16 62%



Page 3


50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4

<500 studen >=500 stude <500 studen >=500 stude1. Not at all 8 42% 10 36%2. Rarely 2 11% 2 7%3. Occasionally 5 26% 7 25%4. Regularly 4 21% 9 32%



100

80

60

40

20

01 2

<500 studen >=500 stude <500 studen >=500 stude1. Yes 17 81% 26 79%2. No 4 19% 7 21%



75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3

<500 studen >=500 stude <500 studen >=500 stude1. I refer all of my students and le... 6 30% 2 7%2. I never refer any students to R... 7 35% 8 29%3. I am selective about who I refe... 7 35% 18 64%



50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4

<500 studen >=500 stude <500 studen >=500 stude1. Not at all 7 33% 11 34%2. Rarely 7 33% 3 9%3. Occasionally 2 10% 14 44%4. Regularly 5 24% 4 12%



Page 4


75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5

<500 studen >=500 stude <500 studen >=500 stude1. No need 14 74% 13 41%2. Yes, slightly important 0 0% 3 9%3. Yes, moderate important 2 11% 6 19%4. Yes, very important 1 5% 7 22%5. Yes, essential 2 11% 3 9%



75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




Page 5


75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5




100

80

60

40

20

01 2 3 4 5




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




Page 6


50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5



28. COE program.

75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5




Page 7


50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



33. Other___________________________

75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5




Page 8


50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



35. Study skills.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



36. Self-advocacy.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




Page 9

38. Basic skills.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



40. Other___________________________________

75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




Page 10


50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



44. Other___________________________________

100

80

60

40

20

01 2 3 4 5




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5



Report Title

Page 11


50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5



49. Other_____________________________________

100

80

60

40

20

01 2 3 4 5



Report Title

Page 12


50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5

<500 studen >=500 stude <500 studen >=500 stude1. No need 7 37% 13 38%2. Yes, slightly need 3 16% 5 15%3. Yes, moderate need 6 32% 9 26%4. Yes, often need 1 5% 5 15%5. Yes, always need 2 11% 2 6%


51. Adult agencies.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



Report Title

Page 13


50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



Report Title

Page 14


75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



61. Future's plans.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



Report Title

Page 15


50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



Report Title

Page 16

Tranisition Needs: Middle & High Schools

Creation Date: 7/21/2005Time Interval: 10/28/2004 to 12/9/2004Total Respondents Middle : 31 Total Respondents HS : 24

1. Your district

25

20

15

10

5

01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Middle HS

Middle HS Middle HS1. Affton 1 3% 1 4% 14. Normandy 1 3% 0 4%2. Bayless 0 0% 0 0% 15. Parkway 5 0% 4 0%3. Brentwood 1 3% 1 4% 16. Pattonville 1 3% 0 4%4. Clayton 1 3% 1 4% 17. Ritenour 1 3% 0 4%5. Ferguson-Florissant 3 10% 2 8% 18. Riverview Gardens 1 10% 0 8%6. Hancock Place 1 3% 1 4% 19. Rockwood 2 3% 4 4%7. Hazelwood 2 6% 1 4% 20. University City 0 6% 0 4%8. Jennings 1 3% 0 0% 21. Valley Park 0 3% 0 0%9. Kirkwood 2 6% 1 4% 22. Webster Groves 0 6% 0 4%

10. Ladue 1 3% 0 0% 23. Wellston 1 3% 1 0%11. Lindbergh 0 0% 1 4% 24. Special Education School 4 0% 2 4%12. Maplewood Richmond Heig... 0 0% 1 4% 25. Technical Education School 0 0% 1 4%13. Mehlville 2 6% 2 8% 26. Career Training Program 0 6% 0 8%


100

80

60

40

20

01 2

Middle HS Middle HS1. Middle School 31 100% 0 0%2. High School 0 0% 24 100%


Page 1Page 1

4. Your School Size

75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5

Middle HS Middle HS1. Less than 500 students 12 39% 10 42%2. 500-1000 students 16 52% 3 12%3. 1001-1500 students 2 6% 1 4%4. 1501-2000 students 0 0% 6 25%5. Over 2000 students 1 3% 4 17%



50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Middle HS Middle HS1. Less than 50 3 10% 4 17%2. 50 to 75 1 3% 2 8%3. 76 to 100 5 17% 2 8%4. 101 to 125 6 20% 2 8%5. 126-150 5 17% 0 0%6. 151 to 175 1 3% 3 12%7. 176 to 200 4 13% 2 8%8. Over 200 5 17% 9 38%



75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5 6 7

Middle HS Middle HS1. Less than 5 11 37% 13 59%2. 5 to 10 6 20% 3 14%3. 11 to 15 5 17% 2 9%4. 16 to 20 1 3% 0 0%5. 21 to 25 1 3% 1 5%6. 26 to 30 2 7% 0 0%7. Over 30 4 13% 3 14%



75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5 6 7

Middle HS Middle HS1. Less than 5 20 67% 13 62%2. 5 to 10 7 23% 3 14%3. 11 to 15 0 0% 0 0%4. 16 to 20 1 3% 1 5%5. 21 to 25 0 0% 0 0%6. 26 to 30 1 3% 0 0%7. Over 30 1 3% 4 19%



Page 2


100

80

60

40

20

01 2

Middle HS Middle HS1. Yes. What is the limit?______... 0 0% 1 4%2. No 19 100% 22 96%



100

80

60

40

20

01 2

Middle HS Middle HS1. Yes. How many student have t... 1 11% 17 77%2. No 8 89% 5 23%



100

80

60

40

20

01 2

Middle HS Middle HS1. Yes 13 52% 23 100%2. No 12 48% 0 0%



100

80

60

40

20

01 2 3

Middle HS Middle HS1. I refer all of my students and l... 3 17% 2 9%2. I never refer any students to R... 13 72% 1 4%3. I am selective about who I refe... 2 11% 20 87%



Page 3


100

80

60

40

20

01 2 3 4

Middle HS Middle HS1. Not at all 18 78% 0 0%2. Rarely 1 4% 3 13%3. Occasionally 3 13% 8 35%4. Regularly 1 4% 12 52%



100

80

60

40

20

01 2

Middle HS Middle HS1. Yes 20 67% 22 96%2. No 10 33% 1 4%



75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3

Middle HS Middle HS1. I refer all of my students and l... 4 15% 4 20%2. I never refer any students to R... 14 52% 1 5%3. I am selective about who I refe... 9 33% 15 75%



75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4

Middle HS Middle HS1. Not at all 16 53% 2 9%2. Rarely 2 7% 8 36%3. Occasionally 9 30% 6 27%4. Regularly 3 10% 6 27%


Transition Needs Survey: Middle & High Schools

Page 4


75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5

Middle HS Middle HS1. No need 17 61% 10 45%2. Yes, slightly important 1 4% 1 5%3. Yes, moderate important 4 14% 4 18%4. Yes, very important 4 14% 4 18%5. Yes, essential 2 7% 3 14%



75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5




Page 5


75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




Page 6


50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5



28. COE program.

75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5




Page 7


50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5



33. Other___________________________

75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5




Page 8


50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



35. Study skills.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



36. Self-advocacy.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




Page 9

38. Basic skills.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



40. Other___________________________________

100

80

60

40

20

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




Page 10


50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



44. Other___________________________________

100

80

60

40

20

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




Page 11


75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5



49. Other_____________________________________

100

80

60

40

20

01 2 3 4 5




Page 12


50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5

Middle HS Middle HS1. No need 12 41% 8 35%2. Yes, slightly need 5 17% 2 9%3. Yes, moderate need 9 31% 6 26%4. Yes, often need 2 7% 4 17%5. Yes, always need 1 3% 3 13%


51. Adult agencies.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




Page 13


50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




Page 14


75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



61. Future's plans.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




Page 15


50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




Page 16

Career Training Program Satisfaction Survey 2004

The purpose of this satisfaction survey is to study people's perceptions and knowledge for Career Training Program. If you do not know or the item is not applicable to you, please darken the circle "NA" for not applicable/do not know. Please return the survey to Dr. Chialin Hsieh at SSD Central Office by October 22, 2004. If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Chialin Hsieh at (314)989-8523.

1. You are a(n)

$ Teacher $ Area coordinator $ Director/Executive director

2. Your district

$ Affton $ Bayless

$ Brentwood $ Clayton

$ Ferguson-Florissant $ Hancock Place

$ Hazelwood $ Jennings

$ Kirkwood $ Ladue

$ Lindbergh $ Maplewood Richmond Heights

$ Mehlville $ Normandy

$ Parkway $ Pattonville

$ Ritenour $ Riverview Gardens

$ Rockwood $ University City

$ Valley Park $ Webster Groves

$ Wellston $ Special Education School

$ Technical Education School $ Career Training Program

3. Career Training Program (CTP) is beneficial for students.........................................................................

Response Definition: SD=Strongly Disagree D=Disagree M=Moderate A=Agree SA=Strongly Agree NA=Not applicable/Do not know

$ $ $ $ $ $ SD D M A SA NA

4. Sufficient information is shared by the transitional consultants. ................................................................ $ $ $ $ $ $ 5. Career Training Program expectations are clearly communicated. ............................................................ $ $ $ $ $ $ 6. The community is proud of the Career Training Program. ........................................................................ $ $ $ $ $ $ 7. Students leaving the Career Training Program are likely to be employed. ................................................ $ $ $ $ $ $ 8. Career Training Program is frequently considered as an option for my students. ...................................... $ $ $ $ $ $

9. CTP staff are cooperative........................................................................................................................... $ $ $ $ $ $ 10. CTP staff treat others with respect. .......................................................................................................... $ $ $ $ $ $ 11. CTP staff encourage staff to refer students to CTP.................................................................................. $ $ $ $ $ $ 12. CTP staff offer valuable suggestions for preparing students for CTP...................................................... $ $ $ $ $ $ 13. CTP staff work as a team with LEAs/SSD schools. ................................................................................. $ $ $ $ $ $ 14. CTP staff help us design programs that meet student needs..................................................................... $ $ $ $ $ $

6 8

5 0 1685 Page 1

Career Training Program Satisfaction Survey 2004

15. CTP staff provides clearly defined guidelines for referring students. ......................................................

Response Definition: SD=Strongly Disagree D=Disagree M=Moderate A=Agree SA=Strongly Agree NA=Not applicable/Do not know

$ $ $ $ $ $ SD D M A SA NA

16. CTP staff respond to requests in a timely manner.................................................................................... $ $ $ $ $ $ 17. CTP staff provide specific actions to help students be successful in CTP. .............................................. $ $ $ $ $ $ 18. CTP staff provide guidelines for school based programming options...................................................... $ $ $ $ $ $

19. Students who attend CTP seem to benefit and succeed in CTP. .............................................................. $ $ $ $ $ $ 20. CTP staff have high expectations for their students. ................................................................................ $ $ $ $ $ $

21. LEA/Building staff is familiar with the CTP............................................................................................ $ $ $ $ $ $ 22. Over the past 2 years, would you say the CTP has improved?................................................................. $ $ $ $ $ $ 23. Overall students from my school that are in CTP are satisfied with the program. ................................... $ $ $ $ $ $

24. Overall most staff are aware of the annual open houses held at the CTP sites? .....................................................................

Response Definition: Y=Yes N=No

$ $ Y N

25. What percentage of your SSD school teacher level staff have toured a CTP site in the last 2 years?

$ 0% $ 1-25% $ 26-50% $ 51%-75% $ 76%-100%

$ I do not know

26. What additional information would you like about students after they enroll in CTP?

27. What kind of information do LEA staff need about the CTP?

6 8

5 0 2685 Page 2

Career Training Program Satisfaction 2004


1. You are a(n)

75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3

1. Teacher 66 64%2. Area coordinator 32 31%3. Director/Executive director 5 5%


2. Your district

25

20

15

10

5

01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26



Total Responses: 1013. Career Training Program (CTP) is beneficial for students

75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5 6

1. Strongly Disagree 2 2%2. Disagree 0 0%3. Moderate 3 3%4. Agree 25 24%5. Strongly Agree 69 67%6. Not applicable/Do not know 4 4%


Page 1Page 1

4. Sufficient information is shared by the transitional consultants.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6



5. Career Training Program expectations are clearly communicated.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6



6. The community is proud of the Career Training Program.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6



7. Students leaving the Career Training Program are likely to be employed.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6




Page 2

8. Career Training Program is frequently considered as an option for my students.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6



9. CTP staff are cooperative.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6



10. CTP staff treat others with respect.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6



11. CTP staff encourage staff to refer students to CTP.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6




Page 3

12. CTP staff offer valuable suggestions for preparing students for CTP.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6



13. CTP staff work as a team with LEAs/SSD schools.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6



14. CTP staff help us design programs that meet student needs.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6



15. CTP staff provides clearly defined guidelines for referring students.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6




Page 4

16. CTP staff respond to requests in a timely manner.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6



17. CTP staff provide specific actions to help students be successful in CTP.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6



18. CTP staff provide guidelines for school based programming options.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6



19. Students who attend CTP seem to benefit and succeed in CTP.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6




Page 5

20. CTP staff have high expectations for their students.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6



21. LEA/Building staff is familiar with the CTP.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6



22. Over the past 2 years, would you say the CTP has improved?

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6



23. Overall students from my school that are in CTP are satisfied with the program.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6




Page 6

24. Overall most staff are aware of the annual open houses held at the CTP sites?

75

60

45

30

15

01 2

1. Yes 62 67%2. No 31 33%



75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5 6

1. 0% 10 10%2. 1-25% 50 51%3. 26-50% 4 4%4. 51%-75% 1 1%5. 76%-100% 1 1%6. I do not know 33 33%

Total Responses: 99


Page 7

CTP Satisfaction: Teacher & AC & Directors

Creation Date: 3/16/2005Time Interval: 10/28/2004 to 11/29/2004Total Respondents Teacher : 66 Total Respondents AC & Direct : 37

1. You are a(n)

100

80

60

40

20

01 2 3

Teacher AC & Direct Teacher AC & Direct1. Teacher 66 100% 0 0%2. Area coordinator 0 0% 32 86%3. Director/Executive director 0 0% 5 14%


2. Your district

25

20

15

10

5

01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Teacher AC & Direct

Teacher AC & Direct Teacher AC & Direct1. Affton 1 2% 0 0% 14. Normandy 2 2% 1 0%2. Bayless 1 2% 1 3% 15. Parkway 13 2% 4 3%3. Brentwood 1 2% 1 3% 16. Pattonville 1 2% 1 3%4. Clayton 1 2% 0 0% 17. Ritenour 0 2% 2 0%5. Ferguson-Florissant 4 6% 2 6% 18. Riverview Gardens 2 6% 0 6%6. Hancock Place 2 3% 1 3% 19. Rockwood 8 3% 3 3%7. Hazelwood 6 9% 3 9% 20. University City 3 9% 0 9%8. Jennings 0 0% 0 0% 21. Valley Park 1 0% 0 0%9. Kirkwood 3 5% 2 6% 22. Webster Groves 1 5% 1 6%

10. Ladue 3 5% 1 3% 23. Wellston 0 5% 2 3%11. Lindbergh 2 3% 2 6% 24. Special Education School 7 3% 4 6%12. Maplewood Richmond Heights 1 2% 1 3% 25. Technical Education School 0 2% 1 3%13. Mehlville 3 5% 1 3% 26. Career Training Program 0 5% 0 3%


Page 1Page 1

3. Career Training Program (CTP) is beneficial for students

100

80

60

40

20

01 2 3 4 5 6

Teacher AC & Direct Teacher AC & Direct1. Strongly Disagree 1 2% 1 3%2. Disagree 0 0% 0 0%3. Moderate 3 5% 0 0%4. Agree 11 17% 13 36%5. Strongly Agree 50 77% 19 53%6. Not applicable/Do not know 0 0% 3 8%



50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6




Page 2


50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5 6




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5 6




Page 3


50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6




Page 4


50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6




Page 5


50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6




Page 6


50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6




75

60

45

30

15

01 2

Teacher AC & Direct Teacher AC & Direct1. Yes 44 73% 17 53%2. No 16 27% 15 47%



75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5 6

Teacher AC & Direct Teacher AC & Direct1. 0% 3 5% 7 20%2. 1-25% 37 59% 13 37%3. 26-50% 2 3% 2 6%4. 51%-75% 1 2% 0 0%5. 76%-100% 1 2% 0 0%6. I do not know 19 30% 13 37%



Page 7

CTP Satisfaction: Central & North Regions

Creation Date: 3/16/2005Time Interval: 10/28/2004 to 11/29/2004Total Respondents Central Reg : 19 Total Respondents North Reg : 17

1. You are a(n)

75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3

Central Reg North Reg Central Reg North Reg1. Teacher 11 58% 12 71%2. Area coordinator 7 37% 5 29%3. Director/Executive director 1 5% 0 0%


2. Your district

75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Central Reg North Reg

Central Reg North Reg Central Reg North Reg1. Affton 0 0% 0 0% 14. Normandy 3 0% 0 0%2. Bayless 0 0% 0 0% 15. Parkway 0 0% 0 0%3. Brentwood 2 11% 0 0% 16. Pattonville 2 11% 0 0%4. Clayton 1 5% 0 0% 17. Ritenour 2 5% 0 0%5. Ferguson-Florissant 0 0% 6 35% 18. Riverview Gardens 0 0% 2 35%6. Hancock Place 0 0% 0 0% 19. Rockwood 0 0% 0 0%7. Hazelwood 0 0% 9 53% 20. University City 3 0% 0 53%8. Jennings 0 0% 0 0% 21. Valley Park 0 0% 0 0%9. Kirkwood 0 0% 0 0% 22. Webster Groves 0 0% 0 0%



Page 1Page 1


100

80

60

40

20

01 2 3 4 5 6

Central Reg North Reg Central Reg North Reg1. Strongly Disagree 0 0% 0 0%2. Disagree 0 0% 0 0%3. Moderate 0 0% 1 6%4. Agree 3 17% 3 18%5. Strongly Agree 15 83% 12 71%6. Not applicable/Do not know 0 0% 1 6%



75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5 6




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5 6




Page 2


75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5 6




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5 6




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5 6




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6




Page 3


50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6




Page 4


50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5 6




Page 5


75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5 6




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5 6




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6



Report Title

Page 6


50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6




75

60

45

30

15

01 2



Report Title

Page 7


75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5 6

Central Reg North Reg Central Reg North Reg1. 0% 4 21% 0 0%2. 1-25% 10 53% 4 27%3. 26-50% 2 11% 0 0%4. 51%-75% 0 0% 0 0%5. 76%-100% 0 0% 0 0%6. I do not know 3 16% 11 73%


Report Title

Page 8

CTP Satisfaction: South & West Regions

Creation Date: 3/16/2005Time Interval: 10/28/2004 to 11/29/2004Total Respondents South Reg : 23 Total Respondents West Reg : 29

1. You are a(n)

100

80

60

40

20

01 2 3

South Reg West Reg South Reg West Reg1. Teacher 14 61% 22 76%2. Area coordinator 7 30% 7 24%3. Director/Executive director 2 9% 0 0%


2. Your district

75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

South Reg West Reg

South Reg West Reg South Reg West Reg1. Affton 1 4% 0 0% 14. Normandy 0 4% 0 0%2. Bayless 2 9% 0 0% 15. Parkway 0 9% 17 0%3. Brentwood 0 0% 0 0% 16. Pattonville 0 0% 0 0%4. Clayton 0 0% 0 0% 17. Ritenour 0 0% 0 0%5. Ferguson-Florissant 0 0% 0 0% 18. Riverview Gardens 0 0% 0 0%6. Hancock Place 3 13% 0 0% 19. Rockwood 0 13% 11 0%7. Hazelwood 0 0% 0 0% 20. University City 0 0% 0 0%8. Jennings 0 0% 0 0% 21. Valley Park 0 0% 1 0%9. Kirkwood 5 22% 0 0% 22. Webster Groves 2 22% 0 0%



Page 1Page 1


75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5 6

South Reg West Reg South Reg West Reg1. Strongly Disagree 0 0% 1 4%2. Disagree 0 0% 0 0%3. Moderate 0 0% 1 4%4. Agree 6 26% 6 21%5. Strongly Agree 17 74% 19 68%6. Not applicable/Do not know 0 0% 1 4%



75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5 6




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6




Page 2


50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5 6




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5 6




Page 3


75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5 6




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5 6




Page 4


75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5 6




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5 6



Report Title

Page 5


75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5 6




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5 6




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5 6



Report Title

Page 6


75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5 6




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6




100

80

60

40

20

01 2



Report Title

Page 7


75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5 6

South Reg West Reg South Reg West Reg1. 0% 3 14% 2 7%2. 1-25% 16 73% 16 55%3. 26-50% 0 0% 1 3%4. 51%-75% 1 5% 0 0%5. 76%-100% 0 0% 1 3%6. I do not know 2 9% 9 31%


Report Title

Page 8

CTP Satisfaction: Special Education Schools


1. You are a(n)

75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3

1. Teacher 7 64%2. Area coordinator 4 36%3. Director/Executive director 0 0%


2. Your district

100

80

60

40

20

01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26



Total Responses: 123. Career Training Program (CTP) is beneficial for students

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6



Page 1Page 1


50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5 6




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5 6




Page 2


50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6




100

80

60

40

20

01 2 3 4 5 6




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5 6




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6




Page 3


50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5 6




Page 4


75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5 6




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5 6




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5 6




100

80

60

40

20

01 2 3 4 5 6




Page 5


100

80

60

40

20

01 2 3 4 5 6




50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5 6




75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5 6




Page 6


75

60

45

30

15

01 2

1. Yes 8 73%2. No 3 27%



50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6

1. 0% 1 9%2. 1-25% 4 36%3. 26-50% 1 9%4. 51%-75% 0 0%5. 76%-100% 0 0%6. I do not know 5 45%

Total Responses: 11


Page 7

Special Education/Technical Education Schools Program Evaluation Parent Survey

The purpose of this parent survey is to study your perception of your child's school/program. The results of this survey will help Special School District (SSD) to improve educational services. Your input is important to the success of this evaluation. To ensure confidentiality, please do not write any name on the survey. If you choose not to answer any of the questions, please simply leave it (them) blank. If you have any questions, contact the principal or Dr. Chialin Hsieh (314-989-8523). 1. School your child attends

$ Ackerman School $ Bridges Program $ Career Training Program

$ Court Program $ Litzsinger School $ Neuwoehner School

$ Northview School $ Southview School $ North Technical School

$ South Technical School

2. How many years has your child attended this school?

$ First year $ 1 to 2 years $ 3 to 4 years $ 5 to 10 years

$ 11 to 15 years $ Over 15 years

3. Please mark any of the following educational programs in which your child participates. (Mark all that apply)

$ Vocational education $ Title I services $ Gifted/Talented program

$ Special education

4. Which of the following best describes your child's grades so far in this school?

$ Mostly A $ Half A & B $ Mostly B

$ Half B & C $ Mostly C $ Half C & D

$ Mostly D $ Below D $ Letter grades are not given

5. Would you say that public schools in this community have improved from 5 years ago, gotten worse, or stayed the same?

$ Gotten worse $ Stayed the same $ Improved

6. How much time does your child spend on homework each day?

$ Does not have any $ Does not do it $ 1/2 hour or less $ 1 hour

$ 2 hours $ More than 2 hours

Please fill in the circle below that best describes how often during the past 12 months you have done each of the following things:

7. Talked to your child's teacher

$ Never $ Once or twice $ 3-5 times

$ 5-10 times $ More than 10 times

8. Gone to open house at school



9. Attended parent/teacher meetings



3 3

D 0 133D Page 1


10. Visited the school on your own



11. Helped with after-school activities



12. Helped with classroom learning



13. Students are often given the grades A, B, C, D, and F to denote the quality of their work. If the school your child is attending was graded the same way, what grade would you give--A, B, C, D, or F? ..........

Response Definition: A=Excellent B=Good C=Fair D=Poor F=Failing NK=Do not know

$ $ $ $ $ $ A B C D F NK

14. How about the public schools in this community as a whole? What grade would you give them--A, B, C, D, or F?................................................................................................................................................ $ $ $ $ $ $

15. How about the public schools in the nation as a whole? What grade would you give public schools nationally--A, B, C, D, or F?.................................................................................................................... $ $ $ $ $ $

16. I know the first name of 5 or more of my child's closest friends. ...........................................................................................

Response Definition: Y=Yes N=No

$ $ Y N

17. I know the parents of 5 or more of my child's closest friends. ............................................................................................... $ $ 18. I enforce family rules about how many hours our child can watch TV. ................................................................................. $ $ 19. I have expectations for our child to maintain a certain grade average. .................................................................................. $ $ 20. I enforce family rules for our child about doing homework................................................................................................... $ $ 21. My child has a computer at home to use for school work. ..................................................................................................... $ $ 22. My child has access to the internet at home. .......................................................................................................................... $ $

23. How often do you talk to your child about his/her experiences in school? .............................................................

Response Definition: N=Not at all RA=Rarely O=Occasionally RE=Regularly

$ $ $ $ N RA O RE

24. How often do you talk to your child about his/her plans for high school classes? .................................................. $ $ $ $ 25. How often do you talk to your child about his/her plans for after high school?...................................................... $ $ $ $

26. The way they teach at this school works well for my child. ............................................................................

Response Definition: SD=Strongly Disagree D=Disagree N=Neutral A=Agree SA=Strongly Agree

$ $ $ $ $ SD D N A SA

27. My child is given a fair chance to succeed at school....................................................................................... $ $ $ $ $ 28. There are good learning materials at my child's school................................................................................... $ $ $ $ $ 29. My child likes attending this school................................................................................................................ $ $ $ $ $ 30. I can talk with my child's teachers or principal whenever I need. ................................................................... $ $ $ $ $ 31. My child's school is a good place to learn....................................................................................................... $ $ $ $ $ 32. My child uses computers effectively at school................................................................................................ $ $ $ $ $ 33. I know how well my child is doing in class..................................................................................................... $ $ $ $ $

3 3

D 0 233D Page 2


34. I feel my child is safe at school. ......................................................................................................................


$ $ $ $ $ SD D N A SA

35. I am welcome to discuss my child's educational needs with the school. ......................................................... $ $ $ $ $ 36. My child's school building is in good condition.............................................................................................. $ $ $ $ $ 37. The community provides enough money for the schools to do a good job. .................................................... $ $ $ $ $ 38. Discipline in my child's school is handled fairly. ............................................................................................ $ $ $ $ $ 39. If I could, I would send my child to a different school.................................................................................... $ $ $ $ $ 40. In our community people tend to trust each other. .......................................................................................... $ $ $ $ $

41. The school encourages parents to be involved................................................................................................


$ $ $ $ $ SD D N A SA

42. The school board listens to parents concerns. ................................................................................................. $ $ $ $ $ 43. It is important for students to have access to computers at school .................................................................. $ $ $ $ $ 44. My child has been taught in school about respect for other cultures............................................................... $ $ $ $ $ 45. The school encourages my child to do well on MAP tests.............................................................................. $ $ $ $ $ 46. Vocational education is an essential part of the district's program of studies. ................................................ $ $ $ $ $ 47. My child's teacher makes learning interesting................................................................................................. $ $ $ $ $ 48. Teachers in my child's school really care about my child. .............................................................................. $ $ $ $ $

49. If a student in my child's school has a problem, teachers will listen and help.................................................


$ $ $ $ $ SD D N A SA

50. Teachers treat my child with respect. .............................................................................................................. $ $ $ $ $ 51. My child knows what he/she is supposed to be learning. ................................................................................ $ $ $ $ $ 52. My child's teacher expects very good work from my child. ............................................................................ $ $ $ $ $ 53. The school has helped my child establish educational and career goals. ........................................................ $ $ $ $ $ 54. The guidance counselor is available to help my child if he/she has a personal problem................................. $ $ $ $ $ 55. The school has a written plan for improving student achievement.................................................................. $ $ $ $ $ 56. What is taught at school meets the needs of my child. .................................................................................... $ $ $ $ $

57. The school offers suggestions about how I can help my child learn at home..................................................


$ $ $ $ $ SD D N A SA

58. I am a partner with the school in my child's education.................................................................................... $ $ $ $ $ 59. I receive information about the educational programs available to my child at school................................... $ $ $ $ $ 60. I know what my child's teachers expect in school. .......................................................................................... $ $ $ $ $ 61. The school board has high expectations for student learning.......................................................................... $ $ $ $ $ 62. My child has fun learning................................................................................................................................ $ $ $ $ $ 63. The community is proud of this school. .......................................................................................................... $ $ $ $ $

3 3

D 0 333D Page 3


64. I receive regular communications from school about how well my child is doing in school. .........................


$ $ $ $ $ SD D N A SA

65. I believe my child can do well in school. ........................................................................................................ $ $ $ $ $ 66. Other children are friendly to my child. .......................................................................................................... $ $ $ $ $ 67. My child's teachers are good teachers. ............................................................................................................ $ $ $ $ $ 68. There is a feeling of belonging at my child's school. ...................................................................................... $ $ $ $ $ 69. My child's teachers think my child can learn................................................................................................... $ $ $ $ $ 70. My child is treated fairly at school.................................................................................................................. $ $ $ $ $ 71. There is a lot of teamwork in our community. ................................................................................................ $ $ $ $ $ 72. Comments

To ensure confidentiality, please return the survey in the enclosed self-addressed return envelope to Dr. Chialin Hsieh, Program Evaluation, Special School District, 12100 Clayton Road, Town & Country, MO 63131. Please do not fax it. Thank you.

3 3

D 0 433D Page 4

MSIP Career Training Program Parent Survey Oct 2004


1. School your child attends

100

80

60

40

20

01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Ackerman School 0 0%2. Bridges Program 0 0%3. Career Training Program 57 100%4. Court Program 0 0%5. Litzsinger School 0 0%6. Neuwoehner School 0 0%7. Northview School 0 0%8. Southview School 0 0%9. North Technical School 0 0%

10. South Technical School 0 0%Total Responses: 57

2. How many years has your child attended this school?

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6

1. First year 25 45%2. 1 to 2 years 24 43%3. 3 to 4 years 5 9%4. 5 to 10 years 0 0%5. 11 to 15 years 0 0%6. Over 15 years 2 4%

Total Responses: 56

3. Please mark any of the following educational programs in which your child participates. (Mark all that apply)

100

80

60

40

20

01 2 3 4

1. Vocational education 11 21%2. Title I services 3 6%3. Gifted/Talented program 0 0%4. Special education 50 94%

Total Responses: 53

4. Which of the following best describes your child's grades so far in this school?

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Mostly A 8 19%2. Half A & B 7 17%3. Mostly B 2 5%4. Half B & C 5 12%5. Mostly C 1 2%6. Half C & D 1 2%7. Mostly D 0 0%8. Below D 0 0%9. Letter grades are not given 18 43%

Total Responses: 42

Page 1Page 1

5. Would you say that public schools in this community have improved from 5 years ago, gotten worse, or stayed the same?

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3

1. Gotten worse 8 15%2. Stayed the same 22 42%3. Improved 23 43%

Total Responses: 53

6. How much time does your child spend on homework each day?

100

80

60

40

20

01 2 3 4 5 6

1. Does not have any 40 82%2. Does not do it 1 2%3. 1/2 hour or less 4 8%4. 1 hour 4 8%5. 2 hours 0 0%6. More than 2 hours 0 0%

Total Responses: 49

7. Talked to your child's teacher

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5

1. Never 3 5%2. Once or twice 13 23%3. 3-5 times 11 20%4. 5-10 times 12 21%5. More than 10 times 17 30%

Total Responses: 56

8. Gone to open house at school

75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5


Total Responses: 50


Page 2

9. Attended parent/teacher meetings

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5


Total Responses: 50

10. Visited the school on your own

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5


Total Responses: 52

11. Helped with after-school activities

75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5


Total Responses: 50

12. Helped with classroom learning

100

80

60

40

20

01 2 3 4 5


Total Responses: 48


Page 3

13. Students are often given the grades A, B, C, D, and F to denote the quality of their work. If the school your child is attending was graded the same way, what grade would you give--A, B, C, D, or F?

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6

1. Excellent 19 41%2. Good 17 37%3. Fair 6 13%4. Poor 1 2%5. Failing 0 0%6. Do not know 3 7%

Total Responses: 46

14. How about the public schools in this community as a whole? What grade would you give them--A, B, C, D, or F?

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6

1. A 3 7%2. B 15 33%3. C 18 39%4. D 2 4%5. F 3 7%6. Do not know 5 11%

Total Responses: 46

15. How about the public schools in the nation as a whole? What grade would you give public schools nationally--A, B, C, D, or F?

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6

1. A 2 4%2. B 9 19%3. C 23 49%4. D 4 9%5. F 2 4%6. Do not know 7 15%

Total Responses: 47

16. I know the first name of 5 or more of my child's closest friends.

100

80

60

40

20

01 2

1. Yes 46 85%2. No 8 15%



Page 4

17. I know the parents of 5 or more of my child's closest friends.

75

60

45

30

15

01 2

1. Yes 28 54%2. No 24 46%


18. I enforce family rules about how many hours our child can watch TV.

75

60

45

30

15

01 2

1. Yes 33 62%2. No 20 38%


19. I have expectations for our child to maintain a certain grade average.

100

80

60

40

20

01 2

1. Yes 38 76%2. No 12 24%


20. I enforce family rules for our child about doing homework.

100

80

60

40

20

01 2

1. Yes 43 96%2. No 2 4%



Page 5

21. My child has a computer at home to use for school work.

75

60

45

30

15

01 2

1. Yes 33 65%2. No 18 35%


22. My child has access to the internet at home.

75

60

45

30

15

01 2

1. Yes 32 60%2. No 21 40%


23. How often do you talk to your child about his/her experiences in school?

100

80

60

40

20

01 2 3 4



24. How often do you talk to your child about his/her plans for high school classes?

75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4




Page 6

25. How often do you talk to your child about his/her plans for after high school?

75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4



26. The way they teach at this school works well for my child.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5

1. Strongly Disagree 0 0%2. Disagree 2 4%3. Neutral 6 12%4. Agree 17 35%5. Strongly Agree 24 49%


27. My child is given a fair chance to succeed at school.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



28. There are good learning materials at my child's school

75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5




Page 7

29. My child likes attending this school.

75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5



30. I can talk with my child's teachers or principal whenever I need.

75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5



31. My child's school is a good place to learn.

75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5



32. My child uses computers effectively at school.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




Page 8

33. I know how well my child is doing in class.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



34. I feel my child is safe at school.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



35. I am welcome to discuss my child's educational needs with the school.

75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5



36. My child's school building is in good condition.

75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5




Page 9

37. The community provides enough money for the schools to do a good job.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



38. Discipline in my child's school is handled fairly.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



39. If I could, I would send my child to a different school.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



40. In our community people tend to trust each other.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




Page 10

41. The school encourages parents to be involved.

75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5



42. The school board listens to parents concerns.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



43. It is important for students to have access to computers at school

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



44. My child has been taught in school about respect for other cultures.

75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5




Page 11

45. The school encourages my child to do well on MAP tests.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



46. Vocational education is an essential part of the district's program of studies.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



47. My child's teacher makes learning interesting.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



48. Teachers in my child's school really care about my child.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




Page 12

49. If a student in my child's school has a problem, teachers will listen and help.

75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5



50. Teachers treat my child with respect.

75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5



51. My child knows what he/she is supposed to be learning.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



52. My child's teacher expects very good work from my child.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




Page 13

53. The school has helped my child establish educational and career goals.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



54. The guidance counselor is available to help my child if he/she has a personal problem.

75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5



55. The school has a written plan for improving student achievement.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



56. What is taught at school meets the needs of my child.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




Page 14

57. The school offers suggestions about how I can help my child learn at home.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



58. I am a partner with the school in my child's education.

75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5



59. I receive information about the educational programs available to my child at school.

75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5



60. I know what my child's teachers expect in school.

75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5




Page 15

61. The school board has high expectations for student learning.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



62. My child has fun learning.

75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5



63. The community is proud of this school.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



64. I receive regular communications from school about how well my child is doing in school.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




Page 16

65. I believe my child can do well in school.

75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5



66. Other children are friendly to my child.

75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5



67. My child's teachers are good teachers.

75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5



68. There is a feeling of belonging at my child's school.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




Page 17

69. My child's teachers think my child can learn.

75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5



70. My child is treated fairly at school.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



71. There is a lot of teamwork in our community.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




Page 18

Special/Technical Education Schools Program EvaluationSecondary Student Survey (7th grade to 12th grade)

The purpose of this survey is to study your perception about your school. The results of this survey will help Special School District (SSD) to improve educational services and your input is important to the success of this evaluation.

1. Your school

$ Ackerman School $ Bridges Program $ Career Training Program

$ Court Program $ Litzsinger School $ Neuwoehner School

$ Northview School $ Southview School $ North Technical School

$ South Technical School

2. What grade are you in?

$ 7th $ 8th $ 9th $ 10th

$ 11th $ 12th $ Post High School

3. How many days of school did you miss last month?

$ None $ 1 or 2 days $ 3 or 4 days $ 5 to 10 days

$ More than 10 days

4. What do you plan to do when you leave high school?

$ Work full-time

$ Attend a 2-year, vocational-technical or business school

$ Attend a 4-year college, service academy, or university

$ Serve in the military

$ Other________

5. Which of the following best describes your grades so far in school?

$ Mostly A $ Half A & B $ Mostly B $ Half B & C $ Mostly C

$ Half C & D $ Mostly D $ Below D

6. How would your describe the quality of education available to you in this school?

$ Poor $ Below average $ Average $ Good

$ Excellent

7. I use computers in school

$ Daily $ Several times a week $ Once a week

$ Once every 2 weeks $ Infrequently $ Not at all

8. Which of the following best describes the kind of program you are taking?

$ College preparatory $ Vocational or Technical $ General studies

$ Other

1 3

9 0 1139 Page 1


How often do you do the following?

9. Talk to one of your parents about your experiences in school. .................................................................................

Response Definition: N=Not at all RA=Rarely O=Occasionally RE=Regularly

$ $ $ $ N RA O RE

10. Talk to your parents about your plans for high school classes. ............................................................................... $ $ $ $ 11. Talk to one of your parents about your plans for after high school........................................................................ $ $ $ $

12. The classes I have at school cover material that is important to me................................................................


$ $ $ $ $ SD D N A SA

13. I am satisfied with the variety of courses this school offers. ........................................................................... $ $ $ $ $ 14. My teachers make clear what I am supposed to learn. .................................................................................... $ $ $ $ $ 15. The classes I took last year prepared me for this year's subjects..................................................................... $ $ $ $ $ 16. Most of my teachers are organized and well prepared to teach....................................................................... $ $ $ $ $ 17. In most classes, if I am having trouble learning something, my teacher usually finds another way to help me

understand. ...................................................................................................................................................... $ $ $ $ $ 18. Most of my teachers inform me about my progress in their class. .................................................................. $ $ $ $ $ 19. My teachers make learning interesting............................................................................................................ $ $ $ $ $ 20. I am given opportunities to work and learn independently. ............................................................................ $ $ $ $ $ 21. My teachers want me to contribute my thoughts in class. ............................................................................... $ $ $ $ $

22. In my school, all students are given a chance to succeed. ...............................................................................


$ $ $ $ $ SD D N A SA

23. There is good communication between teachers and students. ....................................................................... $ $ $ $ $ 24. I feel safe at school. ........................................................................................................................................ $ $ $ $ $ 25. There is a feeling of belonging at my school................................................................................................... $ $ $ $ $ 26. My parents have a good idea of what goes on at school. ................................................................................ $ $ $ $ $ 27. Most teenagers around here drink a lot. .......................................................................................................... $ $ $ $ $ 28. Teachers in my school really care about me. .................................................................................................. $ $ $ $ $ 29. I learn about other cultures in school. ............................................................................................................. $ $ $ $ $ 30. I am encouraged to do my best on the MAP test............................................................................................. $ $ $ $ $ 31. I know how to find information I need to complete class projects. ................................................................. $ $ $ $ $

32. My teachers can assist me in using computers effectively. .............................................................................


$ $ $ $ $ SD D N A SA

33. If a student has a problem there are teachers who will listen and help............................................................ $ $ $ $ $ 34. In our community people tend to trust each other. .......................................................................................... $ $ $ $ $ 35. Our classes are often interrupted..................................................................................................................... $ $ $ $ $ 36. Vocational education is an essential part of the district's program of studies. ................................................ $ $ $ $ $

1 3

9 0 2139 Page 2


37. I have fun learning. ......................................................................................................................................... $ $ $ $ $ 38. My teachers think I can learn. ......................................................................................................................... $ $ $ $ $ 39. The community is proud of this school. .......................................................................................................... $ $ $ $ $ 40. Our library has up-to-date resource materials. ................................................................................................ $ $ $ $ $ 41. Students at my school are friendly. ................................................................................................................. $ $ $ $ $ 42. This school is a good place to learn. ............................................................................................................... $ $ $ $ $

43. My school provides me with the textbooks and learning materials I need to learn. ........................................


$ $ $ $ $ SD D N A SA

44. My teachers are good teachers. ....................................................................................................................... $ $ $ $ $ 45. My school building is in good condition......................................................................................................... $ $ $ $ $ 46. Drugs are a problem among teenagers in this community............................................................................... $ $ $ $ $ 47. I can get access to the internet at school when I need it. ................................................................................. $ $ $ $ $ 48. I like going to this school. ............................................................................................................................... $ $ $ $ $ 49. My family believes that I can do well in school. ............................................................................................. $ $ $ $ $ 50. This community is a good place for a kid to grow up. .................................................................................... $ $ $ $ $ 51. I would attend a different school if I could. .................................................................................................... $ $ $ $ $ 52. Teachers treat me with respect. ....................................................................................................................... $ $ $ $ $

53. All students have an equal opportunity to take the courses they want.............................................................


$ $ $ $ $ SD D N A SA

54. My teachers expect very good work from me. ................................................................................................ $ $ $ $ $ 55. I am treated fairly at school............................................................................................................................. $ $ $ $ $ 56. I have had lessons in school on how to use computers.................................................................................... $ $ $ $ $ 57. There is a lot of teamwork in our community. ................................................................................................ $ $ $ $ $ 58. Discipline is handled fairly in my school. ....................................................................................................... $ $ $ $ $ 59. I have been encouraged to establish career or educational goals at school. .................................................... $ $ $ $ $ 60. If I have a personal problem, I can talk to the counselor. ............................................................................... $ $ $ $ $ 61. My counselor has helped me create a plan to reach my educational and/or career goals................................ $ $ $ $ $ 62. I know how to use electronic resources to locate information. ....................................................................... $ $ $ $ $

Put your survey in the envelope and seal it. Turn it to the Principal's Office. Do not fax it. If you have any questions, please ask your principal. The deadline of returning survey to your principal is Oct 18, 2004

1 3

9 0 3139 Page 3

MSIP Career Training Program Student Survey Oct 2004


1. Your school

100

80

60

40

20

01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Ackerman School 0 0%2. Bridges Program 0 0%3. Career Training Program 74 100%4. Court Program 0 0%5. Litzsinger School 0 0%6. Neuwoehner School 0 0%7. Northview School 0 0%8. Southview School 0 0%9. North Technical School 0 0%

10. South Technical School 0 0%Total Responses: 74

2. What grade are you in?

75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. 7th 0 0%2. 8th 0 0%3. 9th 1 1%4. 10th 0 0%5. 11th 2 3%6. 12th 39 53%7. Post High School 31 42%

Total Responses: 73

3. How many days of school did you miss last month?

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5

1. None 36 49%2. 1 or 2 days 25 34%3. 3 or 4 days 6 8%4. 5 to 10 days 7 9%5. More than 10 days 0 0%

Total Responses: 74

4. What do you plan to do when you leave high school?

75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5

1. Work full-time 52 70%2. Attend a 2-year, vocational-technical or busine... 6 8%3. Attend a 4-year college, service academy, or u... 7 9%4. Serve in the military 2 3%5. Other________ 7 9%

Total Responses: 74

Page 1Page 1

5. Which of the following best describes your grades so far in school?

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Mostly A 25 36%2. Half A & B 23 33%3. Mostly B 7 10%4. Half B & C 10 14%5. Mostly C 0 0%6. Half C & D 3 4%7. Mostly D 0 0%8. Below D 1 1%

Total Responses: 69

6. How would your describe the quality of education available to you in this school?

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5

1. Poor 0 0%2. Below average 1 1%3. Average 12 16%4. Good 29 40%5. Excellent 31 42%


7. I use computers in school

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6

1. Daily 5 7%2. Several times a week 7 9%3. Once a week 13 18%4. Once every 2 weeks 3 4%5. Infrequently 20 27%6. Not at all 26 35%

Total Responses: 74

8. Which of the following best describes the kind of program you are taking?

75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4

1. College preparatory 1 1%2. Vocational or Technical 31 42%3. General studies 4 5%4. Other 37 51%

Total Responses: 73


Page 2

9. Talk to one of your parents about your experiences in school.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4



10. Talk to your parents about your plans for high school classes.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4



11. Talk to one of your parents about your plans for after high school.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4



12. The classes I have at school cover material that is important to me.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




Page 3

13. I am satisfied with the variety of courses this school offers.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



14. My teachers make clear what I am supposed to learn.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



15. The classes I took last year prepared me for this year's subjects.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



16. Most of my teachers are organized and well prepared to teach.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




Page 4

17. In most classes, if I am having trouble learning something, my teacher usually finds another way to help me understand.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



18. Most of my teachers inform me about my progress in their class.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



19. My teachers make learning interesting.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



20. I am given opportunities to work and learn independently.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




Page 5

21. My teachers want me to contribute my thoughts in class.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



22. In my school, all students are given a chance to succeed.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



23. There is good communication between teachers and students.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



24. I feel safe at school.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




Page 6

25. There is a feeling of belonging at my school.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



26. My parents have a good idea of what goes on at school.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



27. Most teenagers around here drink a lot.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5




Page 7

28. Teachers in my school really care about me.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



29. I learn about other cultures in school.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



30. I am encouraged to do my best on the MAP test.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



31. I know how to find information I need to complete class projects.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



Report Title

Page 8

32. My teachers can assist me in using computers effectively.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



33. If a student has a problem there are teachers who will listen and help.

75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5



34. In our community people tend to trust each other.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



35. Our classes are often interrupted.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



Report Title

Page 9

36. Vocational education is an essential part of the district's program of studies.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



37. I have fun learning.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



38. My teachers think I can learn.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



39. The community is proud of this school.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



Report Title

Page 10

40. Our library has up-to-date resource materials.

75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5



41. Students at my school are friendly.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



42. This school is a good place to learn.

75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5



43. My school provides me with the textbooks and learning materials I need to learn.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



Report Title

Page 11

44. My teachers are good teachers.

75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5



45. My school building is in good condition.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



46. Drugs are a problem among teenagers in this community.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



47. I can get access to the internet at school when I need it.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



Report Title

Page 12

48. I like going to this school.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



49. My family believes that I can do well in school.

75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5



50. This community is a good place for a kid to grow up.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



51. I would attend a different school if I could.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



Report Title

Page 13

52. Teachers treat me with respect.

75

60

45

30

15

01 2 3 4 5



53. All students have an equal opportunity to take the courses they want.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



54. My teachers expect very good work from me.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



55. I am treated fairly at school.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



Report Title

Page 14

56. I have had lessons in school on how to use computers.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



57. There is a lot of teamwork in our community.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



58. Discipline is handled fairly in my school.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



59. I have been encouraged to establish career or educational goals at school.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



Report Title

Page 15

60. If I have a personal problem, I can talk to the counselor.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



61. My counselor has helped me create a plan to reach my educational and/or career goals.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



62. I know how to use electronic resources to locate information.

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5



Report Title

Page 16

Parent Survey Spring – 2004 Career Training Program Please place an X in the square that best describes what you think or how you feel - leave blank those questions that may not apply to you.

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Unable to D

etermine

1. I am informed about my child’s progress 2. I am informed about problems my child experiences 3. My child is safe at school 4. There is adequate supervision for my child during school 5. The classroom teacher understands my child’s needs 6. My child enjoys attending the Career Training Program 7. The Career Training Program plans for the academic needs of my child 8. The Career Training Program plans for the work training needs of my child 9. The Career Training Program expects quality performance from my child 10. My child has shown positive changes since coming the program 11. My child shares information about his/her experiences in the program 12. I am kept informed about the tasks my child performs at the work site 13. I think the program will help my child achieve his/her future career goals 14. I was well informed about the program prior to my child attending 15. I know what my child’s teachers expect of him/her 16. My child knows what his/her teachers expect of him/her 17. New students receive adequate orientation to the school program 18. The school provides adequate information about services available after graduation 19. Students are treated fairly by teachers 20. Students are treated fairly by administration 21. The Career Training Program has a good image 22. I would recommend the program to other families 23. I have found the Career Training Program responsive to my needs and concerns 24. I am satisfied with my child’s timeline for referral to the program 25. I am satisfied with the communication and teamwork among the educational staff 26. I understand the SSD processes and procedures for IEP development 27. I understand the SSD process for documenting student progress in the IEP 28. My calls to the school are returned in a timely manner 29. There is adequate cooperation between the work site and teaching staffs

What do you think the program should start to do?

What do you think the program should continue to do?

What do you think the program should stop doing?

Career Training Program - Parent Perceptions – Spring 2004 Parent Survey Results

Area of Focus

Questions Number

Responses to Survey Questions

STRENGTH > 80%

Strongly Agree

or Agree

PROGRESSING 79-60%

Strongly Agree or Agree

CHALLENGING 59-0%


Student Achievement

9 • Expects quality performance from my child

94%

8 • Plans for work training needs of my child

93%

10

• Shown positive changes since coming to CTP

79%

7 • Plans for academic needs of child

78%

13 • Helps students achieve future career goals

75%

Climate 22 • Recommend CTP to other

families 91%

4 • ProvideAdequate supervision during school

90%

19 • Students treated fairly by teachers

88%

21 • CTP has good image 88% 6 • Child enjoys attending CTP 85% 20 • Students treated fairly by

administration 82%

3 • Child is safe at school 81% 5 • Teacher understands my child’s

needs 81%

24 • Satisfied with referral process timeline

78%

29

• Adequate cooperation between worksite and teaching staff

75%

17

• Receive adequate orientation to the program (new students)

72%

Communication 15 • I know teacher’s expectations

for my child 93%

16 • My child knows teacher’s expectations

90%

27 • Understand the process for documenting student progress in the IEP

88%

1 • Informed about child’s progress 87% 28 • Calls returned promptly to

parents 85%

26 • Understand the process/procedures for IEP development

84%

14

• Well-Informed about CTP prior to child attending

84%

23 • Responsive to parents needs and concerns

81%

2 • Informed about problems my child experiences

78%

12

• Well-Informed about tasks child performs at work site

78%

25 • Satisfied with teamwork/communication among staff

78%

18

• Provides adequate info about services after graduation

63%

11 • Child shares info about CTP experiences

60%

Student Survey Spring – 2004 Career Training Program Please place an X in the square that best describes what you think or how you feel - leave blank those questions that may not apply to you.

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Unable to D

etermine

My teachers: 1. expect me to do my best 2. are understanding when students have personal problems 3. set high standards for learning in their classes 4. help me gain confidence in my ability to learn 5. know me well 6. care about me 7. treat students fairly 8. make learning interesting 9. are excited about teaching 10. give me individual attention when I need it 11. provide classroom activities that will help me live on my own 12. provide me with regular feedback about how I am doing I feel ready for the real world because I am learning to: 13. complete job applications 14. use what is taught in school at home and in the community 15. use public transportation 16. find a job with or without some help 17. speak up for myself 18. be independent The Career Training Program is helping me to: 19. learn to use services in the community 20. prepare to get a job 21. learn about adult services that will help me after I’m done with school 22. feel safe at work and school 23. prepare me to live on my own 24. feel good about myself My supervisors at the work site: 25. help me to learn the job duties 26. treat me like the other employees 27. treat me fairly 28. challenge me to learn more 29. assign me work that I can perform 30. tell me how I’m doing on the job 31. tell me when I’m doing a good job 32. tell me when I’m doing poorly on the job 33. are there to help when I need them

Over

Student Survey con’t Spring – 2004 Career Training Program Please place an X in the square that best describes what you think or how you feel - leave blank those questions that may not apply to you.

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Unable to D

etermine

I help plan my future, because: 34. I speak up for myself at my IEP 35. I feel responsible for my learning 36. I help to monitor my own work 37. I can give input into choosing where I will work at the site I like: 38. being in the Career Training Program 39. participating in activities in the community 40. the other students in the program

What do you think the program should start to do?



Career Training Program - Student Perceptions - Spring 2004

Student Survey Results

Area of Focus

Question Number


STRENGTH > 80%


PROGRESSING 79-60%


CHALLENGING 59-0%


Student Achievement

23 • Prepare to live on my own 95%

11 • Provide activities to help me live on my own

95%

20 • Prepare to get a job 94% 13 • Complete job applications 94% 16 • Find a job with/ without support 94% 19 • Use services in the community 91% 14 • Use what is taught at home/in community 90% 21 • Learn about adult services that help me 87% 15 • Use public transportation 84% Climate/Teachers 1 • Expect students to do their best 95% 8 • Make learning interesting 94% 12 • Provide regular feedback 92% 10 • Provide individual attention when needed 92%

6 • Care about students 91% 22 • Feel safe at work / school 91% 2 • Understand student problems 89% 9 • Excited about teaching 89%

4 • Help students gain confidence in ability to

learn

88%

7 • Treat students fairly 88% 3 • Set high standards for learning 86% 5 • Know students well 76% Self-Advocacy 24 • Feel good about myself 96% 35 • Feel responsible for my learning 95% 18 • Be independent 95% 34 • Speak up for myself at my IEP 93% 17 • Speak up for self 88% 36 • Help monitor my own work 86% 37 • Give input into where I work 86% Overall - CTP 39 • Like participating in activities in

community 90%

38 • Like being in CTP 89% 40 • Like other students in CTP 89% Site Supervisors 27 • Treat me fairly 98% 29 • Assign me work that I can perform 94% 28 • Challenge me to learn more 93% 31 • Tell me when I am doing a good job 93% 30 • Tell me how I am doing on the job 90% 26 • Treat me like the other employees 90% 33 • Are there to help me when I need them 90% 25 • Help me learn the job duties 85%

32 • Tell me when I am doing poorly 84%

Employer Survey Spring – 2004 Career Training Program Please place an X in the square that best describes what you think or how you feel - leave blank those questions that may not apply to you.

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Unable to D

etermine

The teaching staff: 1. is available and cooperative in discussing any problems that arise 2. insures that the student workers do not interrupt the normal business operations 3. interact appropriately with workers and others at the site 4. help me to see the connection between a student’s class work and job expectations 5. know what is expected of the student workers 6. provide adequate training and supervision for the student workers 7. treat students fairly 8. is excited about teaching 9. is available when needed 10. make me aware of each student’s needs 11. insures that tasks are performed according to agreed upon criteria 12. help coworkers and customers feel comfortable working with disabled students 13. communicate with work site staff on a regular basis 14. provide needed information related to students with disabilities The Student Trainees, overall 15. appear to benefit from the training experience 16. have shown improvement in their work performance 17. are presenting more challenging behaviors than in previous years 18. appear to be accepted by other coworkers and staff 19. are a welcome addition to the work site 20. need more job coaching assistance from the teaching staff 21. are good, reliable workers The Career Training Program 22. has staff to help students find employment 23. is preparing students for real life responsibilities 24. is providing students with the training needed to be successful after graduation 25. has an educational team to help students when problems occur on the job 26. has a good image among your coworkers I believe: 27. the program is a benefit to the community 28. I am familiar with the Career Training Program 29. I am informed about school activities that effect student’s at work, i.e. the school

calendar – days when the students do not attend, graduation 30. I am familiar with what is being taught to students prior to coming to work 31. the training students receive in class is helpful at work 32. I am comfortable evaluating the student’s performance 33. the staff provide information needed to work with disabled individuals 34. the students should spend more time in a single job 35. the student graduates are prepared to find and keep a job

Over

What do you think the program should be teaching students?



Career Training Program - CTP Worksite Supervisors Perceptions – Spring 2004 Table - Work Site Supervisors Survey Results

Area

Question Number


STRENGTH > 80%


PROGRESSING 79-60%


CHALLENGING 59-0%


Student Achievement/ High program standards

11

• Staff insure tasks are performed as

agreed

98%

9 • Staff available when needed 95% 21 • Students are reliable workers 93%

5 • Staff know what is expected of student

workers

92%

15 • Students appear to benefit from the training experience

92%

6

• Staff provide adequate training and supervision

92%

16

• Students have shown improvement in their work experience

92%

23 • CTP is preparing students for real life responsibilities

92%

24

• Is providing students with training needed to be successful after graduation

92%

35 • Student graduates are prepared to find and keep a job

88%

31 • Training received in class is helpful at work

78%

22 • Staff available to help students find jobs 78% 20 • Students need more job coaching

assistance from the teaching staff

72%

34 • Students should spend more time in a single job

47% ** (Positive rating)

Climate

18 • Students appear to be accepted by other

coworkers and staff

98%

19 • Students are a welcome addition to the work site

96%

3 • Staff interact appropriately with students 93% 7 • Staff treat students fairly 92% 8 • Staff excited about teacher 92% 27 • CTP is a benefit to the community 92%

2 • Staff insure students don’t interrupt

normal business operations

91%

12

• Staff help coworkers/customers feel comfortable

90%

26 • CTP has a good image among your coworkers

90%

32 • I am comfortable evaluating student performance

88%

25

• Has an educational team to help students when problems occur

87%

17

• Students are presenting more challenging behaviors than in previous years

44% ** (Positive rating)

Communication 10

• Staff supervisors aware of student needs 95%

13

• Staff communicate regularly with worksite

95%

28 • I am familiar with the CTP 93%

1 • Staff are available/cooperative in

discussing problems

92%

14

• Staff provided needed information regarding students

90%

4

• Staff show a connection between work and job expectations

89%

33 • Staff provides info needed to work with disabled population

85%

29 • I am informed about school activities that effect student workers, i.e., school calendar

84%

30 • I am familiar with what is being taught

72%

** Two survey questions, numbers 17 and 34, are worded such that a lower percentage of responses in the strongly agree to agree category is preferred.


Presented to Board of Education 1

SPECIAL EDUCATION MONITORING IEP FILE REVIEW Transition Services

DESE Compliance Standards and Indicators

The following was extracted from the DESE Compliance Standards and Indicators-Document B. It provides a detailed explanation of the legal requirements that must be met in each IEP. These standards and indicators provided the guidelines used to complete the file review. Only those requirements that are transition-related were addressed and are listed below. 1. IEP Notification Letter

• Standard 104510 – Parent informed of all purposes of the meeting. There is a box that should be checked if the purpose of the meeting will include transition planning

• Standard 104520 – If purpose includes transition, students 14 and older are invited. Reviewers were asked to look for student’s name as being invited.

• Standard 104560 – If the purpose of the meeting includes consideration of transition, the agency must invite the student and representatives from any other agency likely to provide or pay for services. The agency must obtain a signed Release of Information from the parent prior to inviting representatives from other agencies to the meeting

The IDEA states that students ages 14 and older (13 if turning 14 before next IEP date) must be invited to attend their IEP. School districts must be able to demonstrate that a student was invited to attend the meeting. Copies of correspondence with invited agencies should be included in the student’s records to document the invitation. 2. Page 1: Signature Page

• Standard 105600 – For IEP meetings addressing secondary transition services, the child is included beginning at age 14, or younger, if appropriate. If, after age 14 the student does not attend, documentation is present that the child’s preferences and interests related to transition services were considered at the IEP meeting. The documentation may include interest inventories, interviews, evaluation data etc. NOTE: The SSD has developed a comprehensive Transition Planning Assessment document that is required to be completed prior to every transition IEP. This document provides information on each student’s needs in the area of transition and provides a base for developing a meaningful transition plan. Since this document is not part of the IEP, it was not reviewed during this program evaluation.

4/26/05



3. Page 1 - Signature page

• Standard 105800 – If purpose includes transition, for students 16 and older, representatives of other agencies who are responsible for providing or paying for transition services attended - OR – if an agency representative did not attend, documentation is present that the agency took other steps to obtain their participation in planning any transition services.

The IDEA states that steps must be taken to obtain agency participation in the planning of transition services prior to the IEP meeting if a representative is not expected to attend. School districts may involve agencies through conference calls, or written communication. If there is no commitment and the agency is unable to provide the service, the school district must reconvene the IEP to consider alternative strategies.

4. Special Considerations Page

• Standard 106600 – No later than the child’s 17th birthday, the IEP includes a statement that the child has been informed of the rights under IDEA that will transfer to the child upon her/his 18th birthday.

5. Form C: Transition Services Plan

• Standard 106700 – a statement of the transition service needs (age 14+): • Standard 106710 – Addresses anticipated post-secondary goals or career choices. Long-

range goals were identified in at least one of the areas of: Postsecondary Education, Employment, Living Arrangements, and Community Participation.

• Standard 106720 – Includes the proposed courses related to the post-secondary goals. A listing of the proposed courses (algebra, computer, keyboarding, chemistry, etc. related to the students desired post-secondary goals or a description of the instructional focus (independent living skills, self-determination, job training etc) Note: if the student’s 4 year plan is used to meet the above requirements, a copy of the plan must be attached.

6. Form C: Transition Service Plan

• Standard 106810 – Required by age 16 a statement of needed transition services. Boxes on Form C should be checked for all that apply: instruction, related services, community experiences, employment, and daily living.

• Standard 106820 – addresses a coordinated set of activities • Standard 106830 – activities or goals are written • Standard 106840 – Student’s needs or preferences are considered

4/26/05



7. Form C: Transition Service Plan • Standard 106900 – a statement of the interagency responsibilities or needed linkages related

to transition services (age 16+) • Standard 106910- Statement of public and/or participating agency • Standard 106920 – Linkages with other agencies

8. Goals: To be reviewed only if goals were identified as transition related and identified on the bottom of Form C

• Standard 10700 – Goals must be written consistent with the present level, must be measurable, and can be accomplished in one year.

9. Benchmarks or short-term objectives: To be reviewed only if goals were identified on the bottom of Form C

• Standard 107100 – benchmarks are measurable major milestone and an objective is a measurable intermediate step

4/26/05

Transition IEP Checklist for File Review Student ID#_____________________________________________ Date: Oct. 18, 2004 School _______________________________MS ______HS ______Grade Level________ Reviewer name_________________________________________________ Transition Planning Completed

Correctly (Check) Y

Completed Incorrectly (Check) N

Not Completed (Check)/ Comments X

Y N X 1. Content of Notification Letter of IEP meeting – Compliance (104500) If purpose includes transition (box is ) , & students 14 years and up are invited Participants invited to attend -Agency Rep

(Release of Info req’d if agency invited by school)

2 & 3. Page 1: (Signature Page) Y N X Child invited/attends IEP meeting (or preferences/interests regarding transition are

considered if not in attendance) 14+ - (105600)

Y N X Others invited to the IEP meetings (specify – agency attendance) -16+ (105800) (or if agency not in attendance school took steps to obtain their participation in planning)

4. Special Considerations Page-Compliance Y N X Child informed of the transfer of rights by the 17th birthday (106600) 5, 6, & 7. Form C: Transition Service Plan -Compliance Y N X A statement of the transition service needs (106700) – age 14+ Addresses anticipated post secondary goals or career choices Includes the proposed courses related to the post secondary goal(s) Y N X A statement of the needed transition services – (106800) age 16+ Addresses needed transition services in one or more areas Addresses a coordinated set of activities Activities or goals are written (goals related to Students preferences and interests are considered Y N X A statement of interagency responsibilities or needed linkages related to transition services

(age 16+) (106900)

A statement of public and/or participating agency responsibilities and/or Linkages with other agencies Y N X 8. A statement of measurable goals (107000) - transition related G/O/B only Are consistent with present level of performance Are written in measurable terms (accomplished within duration of IEP, achievable,

direction, i.e, increase decrease & attainment)

Demonstrate involvement in the general curriculum, as appropriate Address the child’s other educational needs resulting from disability Are present for each special education and related service Y N X 9. Include benchmarks or short term instructions objectives (measurable) &( the goal

can be monitored through out the year) (107100)

Missouri Department of Elementary & Secondary Education

Special Education District Profile Reports*

“To review the special education district profile reports, please follow these steps:

1. Log on to the SSD First Class System 2. Open the conferences folder 3. Open the program evaluation reports folder 4. Open the Special Education Profile Update 11-12-04 5. Select a school district via the appropriate attachment 6. Scroll to Table 8, 9, and 10 for graduation data

* Note: The following data was obtained from the DESE Web site. After reviewing this information, the committee has determined that the definition of data collected for graduation follow-up has varied. Therefore we have to be cautious in implementing DESE’s report.

- OPEN FORUM -

Transition Services

& Career Training Program

Program Evaluation

Monday, April 4

7-9 pm Special School District

Central Office – Room 60

To register- call or email: Leslie Caldwell – (314) 989-8264 / [email protected] Marilyn Smith – (314) 989-8741 / [email protected]

Program Evaluation On

Transition Services and Career Training Program

April 4, 2005

1. Introductions and Brief Overview 2. Guiding Questions

Area the transition services currently provided meeting student needs?

What are the perceptions of various stakeholders regarding transition services in the Career Training Program?

3. Perceptions on Transition Quality Indicators – Areas of strength and need

Quality programs Transition curriculum

4. Perceptions on Career Training Program – Areas of strength and need

Student Achievement Climate Communication with teaching staff

5. Recommendations for Future Investigation 6. Questions/Comments

Public Forum Questions: Quality Programs

1. What do you think a program should contain that helps a 14-17 year old student transition who is at-risk for dropping out of school?

2. What program components should be included for students 14-15 years old?

Curriculum

1. What do you think students who are focusing on transition should be learning? Staff Training

1. What would you like included in training for teachers who work with students during transition?

Career Training Program 1. What do you perceive as strengths of the Career Training Program? 2. What do you perceive as weaknesses of the Career Training Program?

Compliance 1. What do you think could be changed in the IEP to make it more effective in transition planning?

special school district transition and career training ... · transition and career training...

Documents