• 9/11/14

• 1

Mary E. Morningstar Transition Coalition and University of Kansas

David W. Test National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center and

University of North Carolina at Charlotte

A Multi-Tiered System of Support for Transition: Are We Ready?

Post-school Engagement of Young Adults Out of High School up to 8 years

Postsecondary education only, 5%

Employment and Job Training, 2%

Other, 1%

Employment Only, 48%

Employment and Postsecondary education, 9%

Not engaged, 35%

• Newman, L., Wagner, M., Knokey, A.-M., Marder, C., Nagle, K., Shaver, D., Wei, X., with Cameto, R., Contreras, E., Ferguson, K., Greene, S., and Schwarting, M. (2011). The Post-High School Outcomes of Young Adults With Disabilities up to 8 Years After High School. A Report From the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) (NCSER 2011-3005). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Available at www.nlts2.org/reports/

Where Did Secondary School Reform Come From?

�  Before 1995 (Standards-based reform, school to work reform, comprehensive school reform….)

�  1997: National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) Breaking Ranks I (1997) & BR II (2004)

�  2000(ish): Bill & Melinda Gates College-Ready for All �  2002 Partnership for 21st Century Skills (P21). �  2004(ish) Response to Intervention/ Multi-Tiered Systems of Support �  2005: National Governor's Association P-16 Cradle to College Systems �  2006: National High School Center launched �  2010: National Governors’ Association (NGA) & Council of Chief

State School Officers (CCSSO) College and Career Ready Standards (CCSS)

�  2010: National Assoc. of State Boards of Ed High School Redesign

College and Career Readiness Standards (CCRS)

�  Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and National Governors Association (NGA) Common Core State Standards (CCSS)

�  Career Standards •  SCANS Skills (1990) •  Are They Ready to Work? (2006) •  Career Clusters (2002) •  21st Century skills •  P-16 Councils •  Next Generation Learners (2009) •  CCSS (2010) •  Common Career Technical Core(2012)

• 9/11/14

• 2

Common Core State Standards �  “The Common Core State Standards provide a

consistent, clear understanding of what students are expected to learn, so teachers and parents know what they need to do to help them. The standards are designed to be robust and relevant to the real world, reflecting the knowledge and skills that our young people need for success in college and careers.” www.corestandards.org

What’s YOUR Definition of a Multi-Tiered Model?

Multi-Tiered Systems of Support �  School-wide multi-level approach for improving student

academic and behavioral performance �  A three-tiered model of support

� Tier 1- research-based interventions provided to students school-wide

� Tier 2- research-based interventions selected for students not responding in Tier 1

� Tier 3- students receive specialized and individualized instruction using research-based interventions

�  RTI is embedded within MTSS (this is a recent conversation with SWIFT schools about how RTI is distinct for MTSS)

Common Features of Multi-Tiered (Prevention) Models

�  Tiered system of matching interventions to meet academic and behavioral needs

�  Systematic screening of young children using scientifically acceptable measures

�  Interventions are evidence-based & aligned with standards �  Progress monitoring of students to make informed

decisions and track progress �  Data-based decision making concerning levels of support

(tiers) �  Shared ownership among school staff in assessment and

instruction �  Parent engagement

• 9/11/14

• 3

• Academic Systems & Intervention

• Behavioral Systems & Interventions

Tier 3: Intensive & Individualized

Tier 1: Core Instructional Interventions

Tier 2: Targeted Group Intervention

Multi-Tiered Models of School Reform

• Transition-Focused Systems & Interventions: College and

Career Readiness

• Duration Frequency Tim

e

Features of Transition-focused

MTSS model • Integrated

resources • Progress

monitoring systems • Greater levels of

intensity • Interventions

ensure student engagement

What’s Different about Secondary Schools?

� Developmentally different learners � Student engagement in learning � Youth literacy

� Demands of curriculum and environment � Curricular demands � Structure and culture of schools � Teacher roles � High stakes for graduation

� Post-school outcomes for youth

• Curriculum focused on

Postsecondary Outcomes

• Instruction Promotes

Independence &

Engagement

• Family Engagement

• Ass

essm

ent fo

r Studen

t-

focuse

d Planning

• Col

labo

ratio

n W

ithin

Sch

ool a

nd

Com

mun

ity

• All • Some • Few

• Curricular connections to

careers & educational goals &

interests

• Supplemental transition,

academic, and/or

behavior curriculum • Individualized

Transition Curricula

• Assessment for a

cademic

and career planning

• Supplemental assessment

& planning for p

ostschool

outcomes

• Transition

assessment &

planning

• Family-focused

individualized

planning

• Supporting parents as

partners in education

• Parent involvement in

secondary academic &

career planning

• Adapted from Morningstar & Clark, (2003)

• Instruction

emphasizing choice &

application • Supplem

ental small group

instruction and

instructional support

• Individualized

Comm

unity-based

Instruction

• Broad-based C

ollaboration with

• Adult A

gencies, Families,

Employers,

• & C

omm

unity Resources

• Collaboration w

ithin school and com

munity

targeted for groups

• Interagency C

ollaboration transition

Assessment for Student-focused Planning

• All

• Some

• Few

Intensive

transition

assessment

& planning

Assessment for academic and

career planning

Supplemental assessment & planning

for postschool outcomes

•  Screening

•  Diagnostic

•  Progress Monitoring

•  Outcomes

FROM: Morningstar, M.E., Gaumer Erickson, A. & Noonan, P.M. (2009). Multi-Tiered Systems of Support and Transition to Adulthood: Can We Do Both Well? DCDT National Conference, Savannah, GA.

• 9/11/14

• 4

Assessment for Student-focused Planning Tier 1: All Students = Universal

Early & ongoing assessment for developing career & graduation plans with high expectations for postsecondary education and employment and necessary supports for success “Emphasize rigor, relevance & engagement” Focused on student engagement and student-directed planning Planning for college and career readiness

Examples �  Early Career Assessments �  Student-directed Progress

Monitoring �  Personal Plans of Study �  State Assessments + SAT/ACT

tests �  College Planning (including

documentation needs) �  “Advisories” throughout HS w/

same educator �  Aligning HS to postsecondary

education �  Postschool tracking systems for

all students – longitudinal �  Early Warning System

Screening

Curriculum Focused on Postsecondary Outcomes

Individualized

Transition

Curricula

Supplemental

transition, academic,

and/or

behavior curriculum

Curricular connections to careers &

educational goals & interests • All

• Some

• Few

FROM: Morningstar, M.E., Gaumer Erickson, A. & Noonan, P.M. (2009). Multi-Tiered Systems of Support and Transition to Adulthood: Can We Do Both Well? DCDT National Conference, Savannah, GA.

Tier 2: Curriculum to Supplement Transition

Supplemental Curriculum for Student Engagement: �  Transition �  Academic �  Behavior

� Dropout Prevention (student-specific: Check &Connect)

� Wilson Reading � Algebra ½ � Elective Careers course � Online courses in summer

maintain credit hrs. � Self-determination interventions � Study skills (learning strategies)

course � WIA Summer Youth Programs

Instruction that Promotes Independence & Engagement

Individualized

Community-based

Instruction

Supplemental

small group instruction and

support

Instruction emphasizing

choice & application • All

• Some

• Few

FROM: Morningstar, M.E., Gaumer Erickson, A. & Noonan, P.M. (2009). Multi-Tiered Systems of Support and Transition to Adulthood: Can We Do Both Well? DCDT National Conference, Savannah, GA.

• 9/11/14

• 5

Tier 3: Intensive & Individualized Instruction

�  Instructional modifications � Assistive technology for communication � Generalization of skills to multiple settings � Small group instruction or 1:1 � Dedicated support from trained personnel � Customized Interventions

Family Involvement Supporting Postschool Outcomes

Family-focused

Transition

Planning

Supporting parents as

Partners in education

Parent involvement

in secondary academic & career planning

• All

• Some

• Few

FROM: Morningstar, M.E., Gaumer Erickson, A. & Noonan, P.M. (2009). Multi-Tiered Systems of Support and Transition to Adulthood: Can We Do Both Well? DCDT National Conference, Savannah, GA.

Family Involvement Supporting Postschool Outcomes

Tier 1: Parent involvement in secondary academic & career planning •  PTA Standards for Family School Partnerships •  The Family Involvement Network of Educators

(FINE) •  Communication with parents (newsletters, online

grades) •  School events (e.g., job fairs, college fairs)

involve parents •  Parents collaborate to develop graduation plans •  Parent advocate models

Collaboration within the School and Community

Broad-based Collaboration with

Adult Agencies, Families, Employers,

& Community Resources

• All

• Some

• Few Inter and Intra-agency Collaboration for transition

Collaboration within school and community targeted for groups

FROM: Morningstar, M.E., Gaumer Erickson, A. & Noonan, P.M. (2009). Multi-Tiered Systems of Support and Transition to Adulthood: Can We Do Both Well? DCDT National Conference, Savannah, GA.

• 9/11/14

• 6

Tier 2: Collaboration In School

In-school collaboration among diverse staff providing services

�  Screening Teams �  Social Worker/Guidance Counseling �  Community Transition Team Model for At Risk Youth �  Participation of school staff in community organizations �  Community Resource Mapping �  Wrap Workers �  Co-funded staff for At-risk Students (e.g., VR or MH +

District $)

What’s Missing for Transition? A reliable, valid measurement system �  PBIS has student level data (SWIS) and program level (School-

wide Evaluation Tool, Team Implementation Tool, Benchmarks of Quality, Implementation Blueprint and Self-Assessment )

�  RTI has Screening and Progress Monitoring tools ( AIMSweb, DIBELS, mClass, STAR)

�  Inclusive Education has SWIFT Fit (Schoolwide Integrated Framework for Transformation, new, being piloted)

�  Transition-focused MTSS could use current PBIS and RTI assessments and add Early Warning Tools and SWIFT Fit BUT still lacks a simple, cohesive, overall assessment of quality transition services and student progress monitoring tools

What Might We use? 1. Could NSTTAC’s Predictor Self-Assessment

work as a secondary transition data system?

NSTTAC Predictors �  Career Awareness �  Occupational Courses �  Paid Employment �  Vocational Education �  Work Study �  Community Experiences �  High School Diploma

Status �  Inclusion in General

Education

�  Program of Study �  Self-Determination Skills �  Self-Care Skills �  Social Skills �  Interagency Collaboration �  Parent Expectations �  Parent Involvement �  Student Support �  Transition Program

• 9/11/14

• 7

• 25

Predictor  Implementation  School/  D istrict  Self -­‐Assessment    The  checkl ist  b elow  is  int ende d  to  p ro vide  schoo ls,  d istr ic ts,  o r  o the r  st ak eho lders  in  secondary  t ran sition  w ith  a  framework   fo r  determ in in g  the  deg re e  to  w hich  t heir  p rog ram  is  im p lem en tin g  p ractices  which  a re  l ike ly  t o   lead  to  m ore  po sitive  po st -­‐school  out com es  fo r  st ude nt s  w ith  d isab il itie s.  The  pred ic to r  ca tego ries  li sted  h ave  be en  extracte d   from  h igh  qua li ty  co r re la tiona l  research   in clud in g  studen ts  w ith  d isab ilit ies.  S ee  h ttp://www .ns tta c .o rg/ ebp /P re dictorResou rces.asp x  fo r  m o re   in fo rm ation  on  the  p ro cess  by  wh ich  these  p red ic to rs  were  id en tif ied .    A  t eam  shou ld  consider  t he  de scr ip tion s  o f  p red ic to r  ca tego ries  and  po ssib le  exam ples  b elow ,  a s  well  a s  th e  De gree  of  Im plem entation  and  the  Evid en ce  o f  Im p lem en tation  sca les   to  gu ide  de cision s  re garding  p rog ram  st rength s  and  pr io ri ties  fo r  ch ange .  To  ask  que stion s  o r  con tr ibu te  comm en ts  on  t his  o r   o ther  N STTAC  too ls ,  p le ase  contact  N STTAC ,   ch fow ler@uncc.edu .      D e gree  o f  Im p lem entation  Sca le             Ev ide nce  o f  Im p lem entation  S ca le  1  =  No t   imp lemen te d                 1  =  N o  e viden ce  2  =  Im plem ented  spo rad ica lly               2  =  L im it ed  eviden ce  (e .g .,  cop ies  o f  cur ricu la ,  cop ies  o f  3  =  Im plem ented  b y  m any  O R  fo cu s  o f   tra in in g  o r  fund in g           tra in in g  m aterials,   in  som e  IEPs )  4  =  S choo l  o r  district -­‐w ide,  con sisten t  p ractice             3  =  S om e  evide nce   (e .g .,  refe re nced  in  schoo l  o r  d is trict                         p ro cedu res  and  po lic ies ,  d o cum en ted  in   IEP s)                         4  =  Con sist en t  evide nce  of  im plemen tation  and  im pact  Pred icto r  Category  

De scrip tion   Poss ib le  Exam p les   Degree  o f  Im p lem entat ion  

Ev idence  o f  Im p lem entat ion  

Career  Awarene ss    S tu den t  D eve lo pm ent  P ro gram  S tru c tures    

1. Studen ts     in    th e  S choo l  t o  W ork  Tran sition  Program  w ho  ex ited  school  w ith  h igh  job  search  ski lls  w ere  mo re  like ly  to    b e  engaged  in  po st -­‐schoo l  emp loymen t   (Ben z  et  al .,  1 997 )    

2. Studen ts     in    th e  S choo l  t o  W ork  Tran sition  Program  w ho  ex ited  school  w ith  h igh  ca reer  awareness  sk ills  w ere  m ore  l ike ly  t o  be  engaged  in  po st-­‐s choo l  em p loym en t  o r  edu cation  (Ben z  et  a l.,  1 997 )  

S peci fic  ca reer  awareness  s kill s  ga in ed  b y  student s  w ith  d isab il ities  wh ile   in  h igh  schoo l;      S peci fic  ca reer  awareness  s tra tegy ,  cu rr icu lum ,  o r  p rog ram  delivered  and  inc ludes  st uden ts  w ith  d isab il itie s  

   

What Might We use? 1. Could NSTTAC’s Predictor Self-Assessment

work as a secondary transition data system?

2. Could the Transition Coalition’s Quality Indicators of Transition Programs work here? 

* Quality Indicators of Transition �  Transition Planning

�  IEP requirements �  Methods of planning

�  Transition Assessment �  Methods of assessing & linking to

MPG’s as well as SOP �  Family Involvement

�  Participation in planning �  Information/training to families �  Supports for families

�  Student involvement �  Decision-making, goal setting skills �  Opportunities for making choices �  Leading transition planning

�  Transition-Focused Curriculum & Instruction �  Academic skills �  Accommodations �  Effective instructional methods �  Career development, IL, etc.

�  Interagency Collaboration �  School-business partnerships �  Processes for collaboration �  Information

�  Systems Level Infrastructure �  Data used to evaluate programs �  Staffing �  Dropout prevention, etc.

* Based on Halpern’s early work + Transition Taxonomy + EBP’s and Predictors in latest revision (2013)

• 9/11/14

• 8

Quality Indicators of Exemplary Transition Programs

Morningstar, Gaumer Erickson, Lattin, & Hyunjoo Lee (University of Kansas)

How about a Student-level EBP & Predictors Measure?

Pros/Cons… �  They might be used at the program level

�  Both are designed to be used by states, districts, and/or schools to assess current status of the quality of transition services

�  But both rely on general rating scales (completely achieved, not implemented)

�  Can they become direct (student level) measures ? For example, could data be gathered on: � Number or percent of students who access predictors/

indicators? �  School self-assessment scores by predictor/indicator? � Could both be tracked over time/per year?

Using the Predictors might look like this…

0

25

50

75

100

1 2 3 4 5 6

Num

ber

of S

tude

nts

Predictors

2011

2012

2013

• 9/11/14

• 9

Using the Quality Indicators might look like this…

0

1

2

3

4

TP TA FI SI TFC IC SLI

Scho

ol R

atin

g

Quality Indicators

2011

2012

2013

Pulling it all together, Questions to Consider….

1.  Is the current implementation of MTSS in secondary schools effective in engaging students and promoting post-school outcomes?

2.  What happens if we only focus on academic and behavioral interventions to the exclusion of those that address outcomes (careers, college, independent living)?

3.  How do we merge academic and behavioral systems in a transition-focused approach that includes adolescent engagement (student-focused planning, IEPs, ILPs)?

4.  How do we develop a system to track all students into post-school outcomes?

5.  How do we ensure treatment fidelity with transition practices?

Your Thoughts on What’s Next? �  Screening at student level (all relevant data in one place – EWS, A, B, CCR) �  Screening at program/school level �  Training of secondary staff (all) on transition/sec school reform �  Must be tied to accountability – at school, district level and state level (e.g.,

PBIS in IN) �  Assessment must target Elem/MS not just HS – targeting academic and

behavior readiness for postschool (VA) �  Pay attention to CCS and the assessments to come – how it integrate

“transition” into core content (e.g., literacy + career w/ technology - Envision it, OH)

�  How do you “roll up” (and roll down) data (student to teacher to school to district) that is easy to collect and functional to interpret and shared across stakeholders (Chicago + VA)

�  Creation of Data Teams – progress monitoring (e.g., data walls) every Weds. All in district look at data + identify interventions for all students in building (SC)

Contact Information

Mary Morningstar mmorningstar@ku.edu

www.transitioncoalition.org

David Test dwtest@uncc.edu www.nsttac.org