15.full

CAREER DEVELOPMENT FOR EXCEPTIONAL INDIVIDUALS/VOL. 28/NO. 1/2005/PP. 1525 15

DALUN ZHANGJOY G. IVESTER

LI-JU CHENANTONIS KATSIYANNIS

Effective transition programming is a crucial component in ensuringthat individuals with disabilities receive an appropriate education.The current study addressed transition practices as viewed by specialeducation lead teachers and district-level transition personnel inSouth Carolina. These individuals reported their various responsibil-ities. They also reported that teacher, parent, and student participa-tion in transition planning meetings ranged from 82% to 89% andthat the majority of schools offered school-based work experiencesas well as an array of other school-based functional learning oppor-tunities. Transition personnel rated their districts transition servicesbetter than the lead teachers did. The study also found that schoolsaddressed certain areas of the transition process better than others.Several areas of transition services were not adequately addressedand need to be strengthened, including supported employment, ad-vocacy and legal services, medical services management, communityresidential life, and approaches to providing life skills and functionalskills instruction in relationship to state standards.

Since Will (1983) introduced transition services as apriority for students with disabilities, federal man-dates and support for providing transition services

have been the impetus for systemic changes in transitionpractices (Johnson & Halloran, 1997; Katsiyannis, Zhang,Woodruff, & Dixon, in press). The Individuals with Dis-abilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1990 provided a man-date for transition services for youth with disabilities nolater than age 16. The IDEA Amendments of 1997 reaf-firmed this mandate and expanded transition servicesto begin at age 14. In IDEA, the definition of transitionincluded four key phrases that are crucial for providingquality transition services to youth with disabilities(McMahan & Baer, 2001). These key phrases include acoordinated set of activities, outcome-oriented pro-cess,based on students preferences and interests, andpromotes movement from school to post-school activ-ities. IDEA 1997 identified issues related to (a) coordina-tion and responsibility (including general responsibility,postsecondary education, students in residential schools,and adjudicated students) and (b) transition plans (ap-propriateness of plans, preview and modification ofplans, graduation, community-based instruction, andprocedural issues; McAfee & Greenawalt, 2001).

To support state and local education programs inimplementing the transition service requirements, theU.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Educa-tion and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) established atransition systems change grant program in 1991 (Guy& Johnson, 1997; Guy & Schriner, 1997). This programprovided federal funds to support a series of 5-year statesystems change projects, which served as an importantbase of support for state education and rehabilitationagencies, in partnership with other state and local agen-cies, to increase capacities and to improve postschooloutcomes (Johnson & Halloran, 1997). In the 6-year pe-riod from 1991 to 1996, 45 states and the District of Co-lumbia received funding under this program. Each grantrecipient was required to address four goals:

1. to increase the availability, access, andquality of transition assistance;

2. to improve the ability of professionals, par-ents, and advocates to work with youth withdisabilities in making successful transitions;

3. to improve working relationships amongthose involved in providing transition ser-vices; and

Perspectives on Transition Practices

16 CAREER DEVELOPMENT FOR EXCEPTIONAL INDIVIDUALS/VOL. 28/NO. 1/2005

4. to create an incentive for accessing and using the expertise and resources of pro-grams, projects, and activities related totransition (Johnson & Halloran).

A multiyear evaluation of the state systems changeprojects conducted by the National Transition Networkfound that these initiatives did create changes in the de-livery of transition services (Guy & Schriner, 1997). Ac-cording to Guy and Schriner, the states included in theevaluation were successful in increasing stakeholderawareness of transition needs and issues, increasing theparticipation of students and parents, enhancing col-laborations, and developing or improving transitionpolicies. Test (2000) evaluated the impact of North Caro-linas systems change project and found that the systemsthat focused on implementing coordinated transitionprograms had provided a more complete array of bestpractice transition services.

Since the early 1990s, in an attempt to provide stu-dents with disabilities the best transition services pos-sible, numerous research studies have focused onidentifying factors that facilitate the transition fromschool to adulthood, developing recommendations orguidelines for providing effective transition services,and screening models and practices to identify bestpractices (e.g., Benz, Lindstrom, & Yovanoff, 2000;Chadsey-Rusch & Rusch, 1996; Garay, 2003; Halpern,1985; Kohler, 1993; Kohler, DeStefano, Wermuth, Gray-son, & McGinity, 1994; Morningstar, Kleinhammer-Tramill, & Lattin, 1999; Nelson, 1999; Wehman, 2002).Greene and Kochhar-Bryant (2003) reviewed transitionresearch and identified 10 best practices:

1. interagency collaboration;2. interdisciplinary collaboration;3. integrated schools, classrooms, and

employment;4. functional life-skills curriculum and

community-based instruction;5. social and personal skills development and

training;6. career and vocational assessment and

education;7. business and industry linkages with schools;8. development of effective Individualized

Education Program (IEP) planning docu-ments and processes addressing IDEA 1997transition services language requirements;

9. student self-determination, advocacy, andinput in transition planning; and

10. parent or family involvement in transitionplanning (see also Chadsey-Rusch &Rusch, 1996; Furney, 1997; Garay, 2003;Harrington, 1997).

These components also have been reported by otherresearchers. For example, on the basis of a 5-year im-plementation of a community capacity building modelin Oregon, Benz (1995) emphasized the importance ofactive participation by diverse stakeholders. Similarly,Blalock (1996) identified community-level transitionteams as crucial support vehicles for improving transi-tion (see also Johnson, Stodden, Emanuel, Luecking, &Mack, 2002). DeFur and Taymans (1995) found that tran-sition specialists rated coordination, communication,and collaboration as the most important competenciesfor transition personnel. Stronger interactions betweentransition teams and other school personnel, such ascounselors, was also identified as an important factorfor success in transition services (Wandry, Pruitt, Fox,& Anderson, 1998). Wehman (2002) recommended part-nerships among school personnel and staff from thestate and federal vocational rehabilitation one-stop ca-reer centers, federal financial support of competitiveemployment, professional development for postsecond-ary faculty, and financial incentives for postsecondaryinstitutions that enroll and support students with dis-abilities. To facilitate interagency collaboration, Aspel,Bettis, Quinn, Test, and Wood (1999) recommended atransition-planning process that involves multilevel in-teragency teams: a community-based team, a school-level team, and an individual-level team.

Furthermore, some studies have linked employ-ment outcomes to transition programs that emphasizework-related goals and help students make progress inachieving them (Nurmi, Salmela-Aro, & Koivisto, 2002;Sample, 1998). Harvey (2002) found that individualswith disabilities who participated in vocational educa-tion while in high school earned more wages than theirpeers with disabilities who did not participate in voca-tional education. Karpinski, Neubert, and Graham (1992)found that graduates of transition programs had workedfor proportionately more time since leaving high schoolthan program dropouts and had been employed in theircurrent job more than twice as long (phone interviewswere conducted 21 and 28 months after leaving school).After examining secondary and transition practices intwo studies involving adolescents with disabilities, Benzet al. (2000) concluded that career-related work experi-ence and completion of student-identified transition goals

CAREER DEVELOPMENT FOR EXCEPTIONAL INDIVIDUALS/VOL. 28/NO. 1/2005 17

are highly associated with improved graduation and em-ployment outcomes. Izzo, Cartledge, Miller, Growick,and Rutkowski (2000) examined the effects of extendingtransition services beyond graduation on the employ-ment earnings of vocational students with disabilities.They found that the youth who received the extendedservices had higher earnings and were more likely to beemployed or in a training program at 2 and 5 years aftergraduation from high school.

Finally, researchers have developed and implementeda variety of models to facilitate successful transition. TheTransition Service Integration Model combines avail-able resources in several agencies to support students withdisabilities as they make the final transition to adult-hood during the students final year at school. Someof these agencies include public schools, rehabilitationagencies, and developmental disability systems (Certo etal., 2003). Teaching All Students Skills for Employmentand Life involves a three-level interagency transition-planning process: a community-level team, school-levelteam, and individual-level team. Evaluation data indicatethat consumers are satisfied with this initiative (Aspel etal., 1999). Project RENEW provides comprehensive casecoordination for participants ongoing education, em-ployment, social and emotional development, and com-munity adjustment. Participants involved in this projectimproved in high school completion, enrollment in post-secondary education programs, hours worked per week,and hourly wages (Malloy, Cheney, & Cormier, 1998).

Given the wealth of information regarding bestpractices in providing transition services, we saw a needto examine the degree to which these practices are im-plemented by school districts. The current investigationexamined South Carolina school districts engagementin providing transition practices described in the litera-ture. Specifically, middle and high school special educa-tion lead teachers and district-level transition personnelwere surveyed on a variety of transition topics to deter-mine the extent to which their district engaged in thesepractices. The topics included types of services, meansof service delivery, division of responsibilities, levels ofparticipation, agency involvement, and self-evaluation.

METHOD

ParticipantsThe target population for this study was middle andhigh school special education lead teachers and transi-tion personnel in all school districts in South Carolina.

Participants included 105 middle and high school leadteachers and 37 transition personnel across South Car-olina who completed and returned the survey. The jobtitles of the lead teachers included 95 (91%) special ed-ucation teachers, 2 (2%) vocational teachers, and 8 (7%)others, including special education consultant, transi-tion facilitator, employment specialist, counselor,speechlanguage pathologist, placement chair, and spe-cial needs coordinator. Their instructional settings in-cluded resource rooms (n = 37, 35%), self-containedspecial education classrooms (n = 43, 41%), inclusiveclassrooms (n = 1, 1%), itinerary settings (n = 3, 3%),multiple settings (n = 13, 12%), and other (n = 13, 12%).Of the transition personnel, 23 (62%) had the job titleof transition coordinator, specialist, or facilitator; 10(27%) were special education director or coordinator;and 4 (11%) had other job titles, such as job coach.Thirty-four (92%) of the transition personnel also as-sumed other responsibilities. Some of these responsibil-ities included teacher (n = 4, 11%), administration (n =12, 32%), and other (n = 6, 16%). Twelve (32%) of therespondents reported assuming multiple roles.

Instruments

The staff of Project SIGHT, the South Carolina transi-tion systems change project, developed the survey in-struments: the Lead Teacher Survey and the TransitionPersonnel Survey. The format of the surveys was similarto that used in an earlier study conducted by ProjectSIGHT and was developed with input and reviews fromspecial education coordinators and personnel repre-senting the University of South Carolinas Center for Ex-cellence, the South Carolina Department of Education,local education agencies, the Department of VocationalRehabilitation, and the Developmental Disabilities Coun-cil, Office of the Governor. Survey items were generatedon the basis of a review of the literature on best transi-tion practices, which included service coordination, keystakeholders involvement, linkages to service agencies,adult service agencies participation, work-based expe-riences, school-based experiences, transportation, andtransition service categories.

Items in the Lead Teacher Survey were divided intothree sections. Section I collected data on participantsbackground, including their professional roles, their in-structional settings, and the grade levels and number ofstudents in their classes. Section II asked respondents toreport how services were provided in their district. In-formation requested included who coordinates transi-


tion programs in the district, that individuals responsi-bilities, regular participants in IEP and transition plan-ning meetings, and agencies that provide information orassistance to the team. In Section III, respondents wereasked to check items from a list to indicate services andexperiences that students received. These included work-based experiences and school-based skills training, aswell as the types of businesses that employed studentsand the percentage of time students were employed. Therespondents also rated how well their districts addressedeach of 15 transition service categories.

The Transition Personnel Survey contained four sec-tions. Section I collected data on participants backgroundinformation, including official title and additional pro-fessional duties. Sections II and III were identical to Sec-tions II and III in the Lead Teacher Survey. The transitionpersonnel survey, however, also had a Section IV to col-lect information about district-level practices. Respon-dents were asked to rate the level of their districtscompliance with these requirements by circling one offive choices: strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly dis-agree, and not addressed by school.

Data Collection and Analysis

The staff of Project SIGHT mailed lead teacher surveysto all high school, middle school, and junior high schoolspecial education department coordinators or leadteachers and transition personnel surveys to the transi-tion personnel in all school districts in South Carolina.The lead teachers and transition personnel were askedto complete the survey and return it within 1 month in aself-addressed stamped envelope that was included withthe survey. At the conclusion of the 1 month, follow-upletters were mailed to each of the original survey recip-ients to encourage follow-through with participation.Returned surveys were coded and entered into the Sta-tistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS).

Two types of statistical analyses were conducted.First, frequency and descriptive statistics were calculatedto obtain an overall summary of the data and patterns ofratings for certain items. Second, comparative analyseswere conducted to examine similarities and differencesbetween lead teacher ratings and transition personnelratings on their school or districts transition practices.

RESULTS

One hundred five middle and high school lead teachersand 37 transition personnel across South Carolina par-

ticipated in this study. Survey results addressed the fol-lowing areas: (a) transition service delivery process,(b) transition services and experiences received by stu-dents, (c) quality of school or district services, and (d) com-parison of lead teacher and transition personnel ratings.

Transition Service Delivery Process

Respondents were asked to identify the person respon-sible for coordinating transition programming in theirschool or district. The responses included transition co-ordinator (n = 63, 44.4%), multiple personnel (n = 34,23.9%), special education director (n = 27, 19.0%),classroom teacher (n = 13, 9.2%), guidance personnel(n = 2, 1.4%), and other (n = 3, 2.1%). According to therespondents, the districts transition coordinator carriedmultiple responsibilities. These responsibilities includedestablishing employment sites for students with disabil-ities (n = 74, 52.1%), facilitating student job placement(n = 74, 52.1%), facilitating student assessment (n = 64,45.1%), facilitating teacher training for special educa-tion transition curriculum and services (n = 63, 44.4%),providing supported employment services (n = 61, 43%),and other (n = 23, 16.2%).

Regarding involvement in IEP and transition plan-ning meetings, special education teachers were identi-fied by 89.4% (n = 127) of the respondents as usuallypresent at the meetings, followed by parents (n = 122,85.9%), general education teachers (n = 117, 82.4%), thestudent (n = 117, 82.4%), guidance counselors (n = 92,64.8%), and vocational teachers (n = 54, 38%). In termsof agencies involvement, nearly three quarters (n = 101,71.1%) of the respondents indicated that the VocationalRehabilitation Department participated in transitionservices, followed by the Department of Disabilities andSpecial Needs (n = 88, 62%), the Department of Men-tal Health (n = 49, 34.5%), and the Department of So-cial Services (n = 41, 28.9%). Other agencies identifiedincluded Continuum of Care (n = 28, 19.7%), the Em-ployment Security Commission (n = 24, 16.9%), theCommission for the Blind (n = 21, 14.8%), the SocialSecurity Administration (n = 17, 12%), the Health De-partment (n = 15, 10.6%), and the South Carolina Ser-vices Information System (n = 12, 8.5%).

Transition Services and Experiences Received by Students

Respondents were asked to identify the types of work-based experiences or information that their studentswith special needs received through the school district


(see Table 1). School-based work experiences were themost common experiences students with special needsreceived through their school districts, followed by vo-cational and occupational courses, career information,job shadowing, and assistance from a job coach. Intern-ships and supported employment were the two leastcommon experiences that students received throughtheir school districts. Respondents also were asked to in-dicate from a list the types of school-based skills train-ing their students received (see Table 2). Functionalskills curriculum was identified by respondents (92.3%)as the most common service received.

Respondents also indicated from a list the types ofbusinesses where the students were employed, includinggrocery store (n = 97, 68.3%), fast food, (n = 93, 65.5%),restaurant (n = 84, 59.2%), retail store (n = 60, 42.3%),service industry (n = 58, 40.8%), construction (n = 47,33.1%), and manufacturing (n = 40, 28.2%). Farmingwas the least reported business (n = 17, 12%). A total of130 respondents from both surveys answered the ques-tion How does your district provide transportation forstudents to and from work/training? Of those who re-sponded, 23 (16.2%) believed that this item did not ap-ply to their situations, 53 (37.3%) reported using aschool bus, 30 (21.1%) reported using an activity bus,25 (17.6%) reported using a teachers personal vehicle,and 38 (26.8) reported using other types of transporta-tion, such as students or parents vehicles.

Quality of School and District Services

Respondents were asked to rate how well their schoolsor districts addressed each of 15 criteria regarding tran-sition education/services. The rating scale consisted offive choices: 0 = not addressed by school, 1 = stronglydisagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, and 4 = strongly agree.IEPs and transition plans, career information, functionalskills curriculum, transition education for complianceto special education legislation, and independent liv-ing skills curriculum appeared to be addressed moreoften than other issues (see Table 3). Five transition prac-tices (internships, job coaching, supported employment,community-based instruction, and service learning ex-periences) were reported by more than 10% of the re-spondents as not addressed by their schools or districts.

Comparison of Lead Teacher and Transition Personnel Ratings

To examine whether lead teachers and transition per-sonnel rated these practices differently, we conducted a

comparative analysis of the two groups responses toeach statement using the explore procedure and ananalysis of their overall responses to all 15 statements us-ing an independent t test. The dependent variable of thist test was rating total (sum of all 15 ratings), and the in-dependent variable was professional role (including105 lead teachers and 37 transition personnel). Tran-sition personnel rated 14 of the 15 practices higher thanlead teachers (see Table 4). The only exception was onIEPs and transition plans, for which the ratings of thetwo groups were similar (teachers M = 3.01; personnel

TABLE 1Types of Work-Based Experiences or Information That Students Received

Type of experiences or information n %

School-based work experiences 119 83.8

Vocational/occupational courses 106 74.6

Receiving career information 105 73.9

Job shadowing 98 69.0

Assistance from job coach 79 55.6

Volunteer work 79 55.6

Service learning 75 52.8

Community-based training 74 52.1

Supported employment 55 38.7

Internship 44 31.0

Other 12 8.5

TABLE 2Types of School-Based Training Skills Students Received at School

School-based training skills n %

Functional skills curriculum 131 92.3(daily living, job seeking and keeping, etc.)

Assessment (interviews, career 104 73.2occupational profile, etc.)

Vocational/occupational skills 104 73.2curriculum

Social skills curriculum 103 72.5

Independent living skills curriculum 99 69.7

School-to-work education 96 67.6

Employability skills curriculum 90 63.4

Other 4 2.8


M = 2.97). The major discrepancies between the twogroups were ratings on the following transition prac-tices: assessment, employability skills training, careerinformation, community-based instruction, and tran-sition education for compliance to special education leg-islation. The overall rating differences between the twogroups was statistically significant (t = 2.80, df = 113,p < .01). Transition personnels ratings (M = 44.57) weresignificantly higher than lead teachers ratings (M =38.19).

Furthermore, transition personnel were asked torate how well their districts comply with regulations re-garding IEPs and transition planning. These includedsix categories and 16 statements. The rating scale con-sisted of five choices: 0 = not addressed by school, 1 =strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, and 4 = stronglyagree (see Table 5). Almost all (94%) of the transitionpersonnel indicated that students in their districts havetransition plans in place by age 16; however, only 54%indicated that students have transition plans in place byage 14. More than 80% of the transition personnel re-ported that parents and students were involved in thetransition planning process, and 92% of them indicatedthat individual assessments are used to determine a

students interests, skills, and abilities. Of the 11 adultlife areas, employment and personal management wereaddressed by school districts the most, followed by self-management and adult social and interpersonal rela-tionships. Advocacy and legal services, medical servicesmanagement, and community residential life were ad-dressed by school districts the least.

DISCUSSION

Research in the area of transition education and ser-vices has identified practices that appear to be directlyrelated to student success in postsecondary environ-ments (Chadsey-Rusch & Rusch, 1996; Garay, 2003;Greene & Kochhar-Bryant, 2003; Harvey, 2002; Karpin-ski et al., 1992). These practices, however, have not beenwidely adopted at the local school level across the nation(Baer et al., 2003). Some programs based on these prac-tices have remained as optional or are being cut back inmany school improvement efforts (Federal ResourceCenter for Special Education, 1999). The purpose of thisstudy was to investigate whether schools in South Car-olina are implementing the transition practices reflected

TABLE 3Respondents Ratings on How Well Their School/District Engaged in Transition Practices

SA A D SD NA

Transition practice n n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%)

Individualized education/transition plan 134 37 (28) 75 (56) 15 (11) 3 (2) 4 (3)

School-to-work education 134 32 (24) 67 (50) 21 (16) 7 (5) 7 (5)

Functional curriculum 135 36 (27) 69 (51) 23 (17) 3 (2) 4 (3)

Supported employment 131 20 (15) 51 (39) 27 (20) 10 (8) 23 (18)

Community-based instruction 131 30 (23) 58 (44) 24 (18) 5 (4) 14 (11)

Assessment 133 15 (11) 32 (24) 62 (46) 22 (17) 2 (2)

Social skills curriculum 134 34 (25) 64 (48) 29 (22) 2 (1) 5 (4)

Independent living skills curriculum 133 34 (25) 70 (53) 21 (16) 2 (2) 6 (4)

Vocational/occupational skills curriculum 133 38 (29) 63 (47) 17 (13) 10 (7) 5 (4)

Employability skills curriculum 132 33 (25) 56 (42) 27 (20) 6 (5) 10 (8)

Internship 130 17 (13) 42 (32) 36 (28) 7 (5) 28 (22)

Job coaching 133 33 (25) 37 (28) 29 (22) 7 (5) 27 (20)

Service learning experiences 131 26 (20) 60 (46) 28 (21) 3 (2) 14 (11)

Providing career information 132 35 (26) 71 (54) 12 (9) 9 (7) 5 (4)

Transition education for compliance to 128 28 (22) 71 (56) 19 (15) 3 (2) 7 (5)special education legislation

Note. SA = strongly agree, A = agree, D = disagree, SD = strongly disagree, NA = not addressed.


in the literature (e.g., Guy & Schriner, 1997; McAfee &Greenawalt, 2001; McMahan & Baer, 2001). The out-comes of the study provide a reference point for thelarger national picture regarding adoption of transitionpractices at the local level and can be used to identifyproblems, assist policy development, and guide trainingand technical assistance.

Involvement in Transition Services and Planning

Various school personnel assume the responsibilities ofcoordinating transition services in school districts. In ap-proximately 63% of the school districts, the transition co-ordinator or special education director is responsible fortransition coordination. This clear designation of respon-sibilities is preferable, especially in large school districts,for gathering supports, securing and sharing resources,

and ensuring compliance with federal and state regula-tions. In some districts, however, the responsibilities oftransition coordination fall on classroom teachers, whooften do not have the authority or knowledge base toaccess and disseminate resources and information. Thismay, in turn, affect the quality of transition services andcoordination. Nearly 24% of the respondents identifiedmultiple personnel as responsible for coordinating tran-sition services in their districts. If responsibilities are notclearly defined and delineated among these personnel,certain aspects of transition coordination can be lost indaily activities.

Transition personnel often have various responsibil-ities. Approximately half the respondents reported thattransition coordinators are responsible for establishingemployment sites and facilitating student job place-ment; but fewer than half of them identified facilitatingstudent assessment as a responsibility of the transitioncoordinator. Given the importance of assessment infor-mation in planning transition services, the transitioncoordinators low involvement in assessment poses apotential problem for effective transition planning. Fur-thermore, because employment has been viewed con-sistently as most important in transition education andservices, transition coordinators should be more involvedin employment-related transition planning and services.

According to the respondents, special educationteachers were the most frequent participants in IEP andtransition planning. Their participation rate, however,was reported as only 89%, rather than 100% as requiredby law. This is a major concern and leaves a question asto who is representing absent special education teach-ers. General education teachers participation rate wasreported as 82%, which is relatively high given that manystudents are being educated in self-contained class-rooms. Parent and student participation rates are re-ported as 82.4%. This is far from meeting federalrequirements and research-based recommendations, al-though it may seem to be reasonable in reality, espe-cially for students. More initiatives targeting studentself-determination and self-directed transition planningare warranted due to overwhelming empirical evidencethat students active participation in IEP meetings re-sults in a higher degree of engagement (Field, Martin,Miller, Ward, & Wehmeyer, 1998). Wehmeyer (1998)pointed out that active participation in the IEP processmakes students more motivated to pursue goals thatthey have helped select and that students who are in-volved in setting goals have more positive outcomes re-lated to achieving those goals than they do with goalsselected by others.

TABLE 4Comparison of Mean Ratings by Lead Teachers and Transition Coordinator

Lead Transition Transition practice teachera personnelb

Individualized education/ 3.01 (1) 2.97 (6)transition plan

Functional curriculum 2.88 (2) 3.10 (4)

Social skills curriculum 2.81 (3) 3.20 (3)

Independent living skills 2.75 (4) 3.23 (2)curriculum

Vocational/occupational 2.75 (5) 3.10 (4)skills curriculum

Providing career information 2.72 (6) 3.33 (1)

Transition education for 2.69 (7) 3.23 (2)compliance to special education legislation

School-to-work education 2.62 (8) 3.10 (4)

Employability skills 2.52 (9) 3.20 (3)curriculum

Community-based 2.49 (10) 3.03 (5)instruction

Service learning experiences 2.48 (11) 2.83 (7)

Job coaching 2.29 (12) 2.37 (9)

Supported employment 2.14 (13) 2.47 (8)

Assessment 2.02 (14) 3.03 (5)

Internship 1.99 (15) 2.37 (9)

Note. Within-group rank indicated in parentheses.an = 85. bn = 30.


In terms of agency involvement in transition plan-ning, vocational rehabilitation agencies rank the highest.This was expected because the agency has a mandatedresponsibility to collaborate with schools and becauseresearch constantly emphasizes the importance of re-habilitation counselors involvement in transition plan-ning (e.g., Agran, Cain, & Cavin, 2002). Other agenciesinvolvement was reported as considerably lower. This iscertainly an area that needs to be addressed to bridge thegap between high school and postsecondary environ-ments.

School-Based and Community-Based Experiences

Schools are successful in providing students with as-sistance to gain an array of work-based experiences inschools and in the community. The most common

(83.8%) is school-based work experiences that studentsreceive from their school district. Vocational and occu-pational courses and job shadowing were also reportedas popular work-based experiences that students withdisabilities receive. Supported employment, however, isone of the least common experiences that students re-ceive, although research findings have consistently doc-umented that supported employment is one of the mosteffective ways for individuals with disabilities to gainand retain employment and that individuals with dis-abilities placed in supported employment earn 3.5 timesthe earnings of persons employed on the premises of theservice provider (Conley, 2003). Obviously, schools needto do a better job in providing supported employmentexperiences to their students with disabilities. Populartypes of school-based training that students receiveinclude functional skills curriculum, assessment, voca-tional and occupational skills curriculum,and social skills

TABLE 5Summary of Transition Personnels Ratings on Transition Planning

SA A D SD NA

Transition planning practice n n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%)

All students have transition plans by age 16 37 22 (59) 13 (35) 0 (0) 1 (3) 1 (3)

All students have transition plans by age 14 37 10 (27) 10 (27) 14 (38) 2 (5) 1 (3)

Parents are involved in the planning process 37 6 (16) 24 (65) 5 (14) 2 (5) 0 (0)

Students are involved in the planning process 37 11 (30) 21 (57) 5 (13) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Individual assessments are used to determine 37 14 (38) 20 (54) 3 (8) 0 (0) 0 (0)students interests, skills, and abilities

Plans reflect intent to facilitate transition into

employment 37 16 (43) 18 (49) 3 (8) 0 (0) 0 (0)

recreation and leisure 37 6 (16) 20 (54) 9 (24) 0 (0) 1 (3)

postsecondary education 37 11 (30) 19 (51) 7 (19) 0 (0) 0 (0)

community residential life 36 10 (28) 16 (44) 9 (25) 0 (0) 1 (3)

advocacy and legal services 36 5 (14) 14 (39) 16 (44) 0 (0) 1 (3)

self-management 36 8 (22) 24 (67) 4 (11) 0 (0) 0 (0)

personal management 36 15 (42) 18 (50) 3 (8) 0 (0) 0 (0)

medical services management 36 3 (8) 20 (56) 12 (33) 0 (0) 1 (3)

transportation responsibilities 36 6 (17) 20 (55) 9 (24) 0 (0) 1 (3)

adult social/interpersonal relationships 36 9 (25) 22 (61) 5 (14) 0 (0) 0 (0)

participating in community service 36 7 (19) 21 (59) 7 (19) 0 (0) 1 (3)

Note. SA = strongly agree, A = agree, D = disagree, SD = strongly disagree, NA = not addressed.


curriculum. These services appear to reflect researchfindings in the past decade that emphasize life skills(Cronin & Patton, 1993) and functional skills training(Valletutti, Bender, & Sims-Tucker, 1996).

According to the survey respondents, students withdisabilities tend to be employed in grocery stores, fastfood and other restaurants, retail stores, and the serviceindustry. This type of employment is appropriate formany students; however, schools must do a better job ofproviding students with an array of experiences in di-verse fields. The limited selection of employment op-tions may be the result of students being placed inavailable, convenient jobs in lieu of matching individualstudent interests to specially selected positions. Further,the majority of schools reported that they are not pro-viding adequate employment skill development for theirstudents. This finding is of grave concern when researchindicates time and time again that employment levelsfor adults with disabilities fall well below those of othercitizens and that work experience and placement duringhigh school is directly correlated to postschool employ-ment success (Benz, Lindstrom, & Yovanoff, 2000; Rab-ren, Dunn, & Chambers, 2002).

As in many other states with extensive rural areasand little or no access to public transportation, schoolsin South Carolina struggle with transportation optionsfor students with disabilities. School buses and personalvehicles were reported as the two most common meansof transportation options for working students with dis-abilities. Although school buses can be a valuable trans-portation resource during vocational training activities,the use of school buses for transporting students to andfrom work often leads to overdependence on a servicethat will not be available in postschool environments.Schools could help the students more by identifyingnatural community supports when assisting the studentswith the selection of transportation options for workexperiences.

Quality of Transition Services

The majority of the respondents approved of their dis-tricts provision of some types of transition services. Thetypes of transition services that received approval (stronglyagree and agree) from more than 75% of the respondentsinclude IEP and transition planning, career information,functional skills curriculum, transition education forcompliance to special education legislation, and inde-pendent living skills curriculum. Because these servicesare either required by law or have been recommended

constantly in the literature (e.g., Greene & Kochhar-Bryant, 2003), schools have done an adequate job in ad-dressing these important transition services. More than20% of the respondents reported that their schools didnot even address supported employment, internships,and job coaching.This finding is consistent with responsesto previous items. Schools systems need to do more to ad-dress supported employment services for transition-ageyouth with disabilities in South Carolina.

Comparisons of ratings between lead teachers andtransition personnel reveal that the transition personnelsoverall ratings are significantly higher than the leadteachers overall ratings. Transition personnel rated 14 ofthe 15 statements higher than the lead teachers did; fiveof the differences are substantial (mean difference > .5).The major differences are related to assessment, employa-bility skills training, career information, community-basedinstruction, and transition education for compliance tospecial education legislation. If these significant differ-ences can be attributed to the transition personnels bet-ter knowledge of services provided in their districts, thequality of transition services may be better than the over-all ratings provided by all respondents. On the otherhand, school districts may need to do a better job of con-tinually educating and informing teachers about transi-tion processes and provisions.

Nearly all (94%) of the transition personnel re-ported that students with disabilities have a transitionplan in place by age 16, and 54% reported that studentshave a transition plan in place by age 14. This indicatesthat schools tend to comply with minimum federalmandates, but a surprising number of schools are fail-ing to follow best practice recommendations, which em-phasize starting transition planning by age 14 (e.g.,Greene & Kochhar-Bryant, 2003). The majority (92%)of the transition personnel believed that student assess-ment information is used in planning transition services.Eighty percent of the transition personnel reported par-ent and student involvement in transition planning.This is of concern, as federal legislation requires that allstudents 14 years of age or older participate in their ownIEP meetings. Employment, personal management, self-management, and social and interpersonal relationshipsare the four adult areas that received the most attentionin planning student transitions to adult life (more than85%). Postsecondary education was not viewed as appro-priately addressed by 19% of the respondents. This is cer-tainly an area that needs more attention given that manystudents with disabilities who have the potential to attendpostsecondary education are not motivated to do so.


Limitations and Recommendations

Findings from this study provide insight into the statusof local schools adoption of transition practices. Thesefindings may apply to many other states with large ruralareas and many families of low socioeconomic status.Interpretations of the findings, however, should be madewith caution as they represent only one state. Future re-search is needed to investigate trends in multiple statesor nationwide regarding adoption of transition prac-tices. Results from such studies can be used to identifyproblems and training needs in the implementation oftransition practices.

Findings also represent the perspectives of specialeducation lead teachers and district-level transition per-sonnel, but only a fraction (about 25%) of the totalnumber of lead teachers in South Carolina participatedin the study. These respondents may represent only theviews of that particular group (e.g., those with more ex-perience in providing transition services). If this is thecase, the responses may be skewed. Furthermore, as inany survey study, the survey items may not provide thor-ough lists of choices and do not lend themselves to in-depth investigations. Further research is needed to domore in-depth investigations of certain practices (e.g.,parent and student participation, issues related to sup-ported employment, and special education teachersknowledge about transition planning). Further researchalso is needed to examine why advocacy and legal ser-vices, medical services management, and communityresidential life were not adequately addressed in school-based transition services. Such research should be tied topostschool follow-up investigations.Additional researchis also warranted to identify approaches to providing lifeskills and functional skills curricula in relation to highstandards and requirements for students with disabili-ties to participate in high-stakes testing.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Dalun Zhang, PhD, is an associate professor at TexasA & M University. His current research interests includetransition education and services for individuals withdisabilities, self-determination instruction, and educa-tional disparities. Joy G. Ivester, MEd, is the secondarytransition specialist for the University of South CarolinaSchool of Medicine/Center for Disability Resources andthe South Carolina Department of Education. Her presentprofessional studies include school to postsecondaryeducation issues, community development, and imple-mentation of evidence-based practices in transition

planning. Li-Ju Chen, PhD, is an associate professor atChang Gung University in Taiwan. Her research inter-ests include transition education and assessment issues.Antonis Katsiyannis, EdD, is a professor of special edu-cation at Clemson University. His research and profes-sional interests include legal and policy issues in specialeducation, outcomes for students with emotional or be-havioral disorders, and delinquency.

CONTACT INFORMATION

Dalun Zhang, Department of Educational Psychology,4225 Texas A & M University, College Station, TX 77843-4225.

REFERENCES

Agran, M., Cain, H. M., & Cavin, M. D. (2002). Enhancing the in-volvement of rehabilitation counselors in the transitionprocess. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 25,141155.

Aspel, N., Bettis, G., Quinn, P., Test, D. W., & Wood, W. M. (1999). Acollaborative process for planning transition services for all stu-dents with disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Indi-viduals, 22, 2142.

Baer, R. M., Flexer, R. W, Beck, S., Amstutz, N., Hoffman, L., Broth-ers, J., et al. (2003). A collaborative follow-up study on tran-sition services utilization and post-school outcomes. CareerDevelopment for Exceptional Individuals, 26, 725.

Benz, M. R. (1995). Mobilizing local communities to improve tran-sition services. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals,18, 2132.

Benz, M. R., Lindstrom, L., & Yovanoff, P. (2000). Improving gradu-ation and employment outcomes of students with disabilities:Predictive factors and student perspectives. Exceptional Chil-dren, 66, 509529.

Blalock, G. (1996). Community transition teams as the foundationfor transition services for youth with learning disabilities. Jour-nal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 148159.

Certo, N. J., Mautz, D., Pumpain, I., Sax, C., Smalley, K., Wade, H., etal. (2003). A review and discussion of a model for seamless tran-sition to adulthood. Education and Training in Mental Retarda-tion and Developmental Disabilities, 38, 317.

Chadsey-Rusch, J., & Rusch, R. R. (1996). Promising transitionpractices for youths with disabilities. Contemporary Educa-tion, 68, 912.

Conley, R.W. (2003). Supported employment in Maryland: Successesand issues. Mental Retardation, 41, 237249.

Cronin, M. E., & Patton, J. R. (1993). Life skills instruction for all stu-dents with special needs: A practical guide for integrating real-lifecontent into the curriculum. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

DeFur, S. H., & Taymans, J. M. (1995). Competencies needed fortransition specialists in vocational rehabilitation, vocationaleducation, and special education. Exceptional Children, 62,3851.

Federal Resource Center for Special Education. (1999). Synthesis ofstate needs identified by state education agencies in the 1998 grantapplications. Washington, DC: Author.


Field, S., Martin, J., Miller, R., Ward, M., & Wehmeyer, M. (1998). Apractical guide for teaching self-determination. Reston,VA: Coun-cil for Exceptional Children.

Furney, K. S. (1997). Transition policies, practices, and promises:Lessons learned from three states. Exceptional Children, 63,343355.

Garay, S. V. (2003). Listening to the voices of deaf students: Essentialtransition issues. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35(4), 4448.

Greene, G., & Kochhar-Bryant, C. A. (2003). Pathways to successfultransition for youth with disabilities. Upper Saddle River, NJ:Merrill Prentice Hall.

Guy, B., & Johnson, D. R. (1997). Career development for exceptionalindividuals: Topical issue on systems change in transition. Ca-reer Development for Exceptional Individuals, 20, 107108.

Guy, B., & Schriner, K. (1997). Systems in transition: Are we there yet?Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 20, 141164.

Halpern, A. S. (1985). Transition: A look at the foundations. Excep-tional Children, 51, 479486.

Harrington, S. A. (1997). Transition programming for students withlearning disabilities. Journal for Vocational Special Needs Educa-tion, 20, 2224.

Harvey, M. W. (2002). Comparison of postsecondary transitionaloutcomes between students with and without disabilities by sec-ondary vocational education participation: Findings from theNational Education Longitudinal Study. Career Development forExceptional Individuals, 25, 99121.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990, 20 U.S.C. 1400et seq. (1990) (amended 1997)

Izzo, M. V., Cartledge, G., Miller, L., Growick, B., & Rutkowski, S.(2000). Increasing employment earnings: Extended transitionservices that make a difference. Career Development for Excep-tional Individuals, 23, 139156.

Johnson, D. R., & Halloran, W. H. (1997). The federal legislative con-text and goals of the state systems change initiative on transitionfor youth with disabilities. Career Development for ExceptionalIndividuals, 20, 109121.

Johnson, D. R., Stodden, R. A., Emanuel, E. J., Luecking, R., & Mack,M. (2002). Current challenges facing secondary education andtransition services: What research tells us. Exceptional Children,68, 519531.

Karpinski, M. J., Neubert, D. A., & Graham, S. (1992). A follow-upstudy of postsecondary outcomes for graduates and dropoutswith mild disabilities in a rural setting. Journal of Learning Dis-abilities 25, 376385.

Katsiyannis, A., Zhang, D., Woodruff, N., & Dixon, A. (in press).Transition supports to students with mental retardation: An ex-amination of data from the National Longitudinal TransitionStudy 2. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities.

Kohler, P. D. (1993). Best practices in transition: Substantiated orimplied? Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 16,107121.

Kohler, P. D., DeStefano, L., Wermuth, T. R., Grayson, T. E., & McGin-ity, S. (1994). An analysis of exemplary transition programs:How and why are they selected? Career Development for Excep-tional Individuals, 17, 187202.

Malloy, J., Cheney, D., & Cormier, G. (1998). Interagency collabora-tion and the transition to adulthood for students with emotionalor behavioral disabilities. Education and Treatment of Children,21, 303320.

McAfee, J. K., & Greenawalt, C. (2001). IDEA, the courts, and the lawof transition. Preventing School Failure, 45, 102107.

McMahan, R., & Baer, R. (2001). IDEA transition policy complianceand best practice: Perceptions of transition stakeholders. CareerDevelopment for Exceptional Individuals, 24, 169184.

Morningstar, M. E., Kleinhammer-Tramill, P. J., & Lattin, D. L.(1999). Using successful models of student-centered transitionplanning and services for adolescents with disabilities. Focus onExceptional Children, 31(9), 119.

Nelson, R. (1999). Promoting student participation through statetransition initiatives in rural settings. Journal for Vocational Spe-cial Needs Education, 21(3), 1317.

Nurmi, J. E., Salmela-Aro, K., & Koivisto, P. (2002). Goal importanceand related achievement beliefs and emotions during the tran-sition from vocational school to work: Antecedents and conse-quences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60, 241261.

Rabren, K., Dunn, C., & Chambers, D. (2002). Predictors of post-high school employment among young adults with disabilities.Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 25, 2540.

Sample, P. L. (1998). Postschool outcomes for students with signifi-cant emotional disturbance following best-practice transitionservices. Behavioral Disorders, 23, 231242.

Test, D. W. (2000). Implementing the transition mandate: The rela-tionship between programs, personnel, and services. Special Ser-vices in the Schools, 16, 2334.

Valletutti, P. J., Bender, M., & Sims-Tucker, B. (1996). A functionalcurriculum for teaching students with disabilities functional aca-demics. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Wandry, D., Pruitt, P., Fox, R., & Anderson, G. (1998). Special edu-cators and school counselors: An emerging team in transitionservices. B.C. Journal of Special Education, 21(3), 95111.

Wehman, P. (2002). A new era: Revitalizing special education forchildren and their families. Focus on Autism and Other Develop-mental Disabilities, 17, 194197.

Wehmeyer, M. L. (1998). Student involvement in education plan-ning, decision making, and instruction: An idea whose time hasarrived. In M. Wehmeyer & D. Sands (Eds.), Making it happen:Student involvement in educational planning, decision-makingand instruction (pp. 323). Baltimore: Brookes.

Will, M. (1983). OSERS programming for the transition of youths withdisabilities: Bridges from school to working life. Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education andRehabilitative Services

/ColorImageDict > /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict > /JPEG2000ColorImageDict > /AntiAliasGrayImages false /DownsampleGrayImages false /GrayImageDownsampleType /Average /GrayImageResolution 300 /GrayImageDepth 8 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /FlateEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages false /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict > /GrayImageDict > /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict > /JPEG2000GrayImageDict > /AntiAliasMonoImages false /DownsampleMonoImages false /MonoImageDownsampleType /Average /MonoImageResolution 1200 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict > /AllowPSXObjects false /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox false /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2) /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName (http://www.color.org) /PDFXTrapped /Unknown

/SyntheticBoldness 1.000000 /Description >>> setdistillerparams> setpagedevice

15.full

Documents

Transcript of 15.full