Individualized TransitionPlanning for Students WithLearning Disabilities

Rhoda CummingsCleborne D. Maddux

Jack Casey

Many transition plans for students with learning disabilities suffer because (a)they often focus on the employment needs of students with more severe cog­nitive and physical disabilities and (b) they are not required until as late as 14years old, sometimes too late for many students with learning disabilities. Lackof effective transition planning may result in inadequate postsecondary ad­justment problems (e.g., under- or unemployment, restricted participation incommunity and leisure activities). The authors describe specific problems intransition planning for students with learning disabilities and offer suggestionsfor designing K-12 transition plans that are uniquely suited for these students.

Career development ofindividuals with disabilities has been given "scantattention in the theoretical literature" (Patton & McMahon, 1999, p.157). Even when issues related to disability are included in the careerdevelopment literature, they usually refer specifically to individualswith physical or emotional disabilities (see Herr & Cramer, 1996;Isaacson & Brown, 1993; Patton & McMahon, 1999). Even within thevocational special education literature, significantly more attention ispaid to the career needs of individuals with physical disabilities orthose who are moderately to severely mentally retarded than to theneeds of individuals with learning disabilities (Defur, Getzel, & Kregel,1994; Grigal, Test, Beattien, & Wood, 1997). Only during the past fewyears have professional educators recognized that a learning disabilityis a lifelong condition that may result in pervasive and lasting deficits(Kavale & Forness, 1996) that have serious social, education, and vo­cational implications. Consequently, the literature in learning disabili­ties has begun to address the need for systematic transition planningfor students with learning disabilities (Biller & Horn, 1991; Blalock &Patton, 1996; Collet-Klingenberg, 1998; Cummings & Maddux, 1987;

Rhoda Cummings and Cleborne D. Maddux are professors, andJack Casey is an assistant professor, all in the Counseling andEducational Psychology Department at the University of Nevada,Reno. Correspondence regarding this article should be sent to RhodaCummings, Counseling & Educational Psychology DepartmentMS281, College ofEducation, University ofNevada, Reno, NV 89557­0213 (e-mail: cummings@unr.edu).

60 THE CAREER DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY ISEPTEMBER 20001 VOL. 49

Dunn, 1996; Kavale & Forness, 1996; Koller, 1994; Levinson & Ohler,1998; Michaels, 1997; Shapiro & Lentz, 1991).Various deleterious characteristics are associated with learning dis­

ability. Adolescents with learning disabilities frequently are plaguedby weakness in general organizational skills, difficulty in focusingattention, deficits in processing oral and written language, low self­esteem, and poor social skills (Levinson & Ohler, 1998; Terman, Larner,Stevenson, & Behrman, 1996). In addition, secondary students withlearning disabilities are more likely than students without disabilitiesto fail or drop out of school. Reported dropout rates for these studentshave ranged from 28% to 56% (Adelman & Vogel, 1990; Edgar, 1987;Malcolm, Polatajko, & Simons, 1990; Wagner, 1989,1991).

As adults, many individuals with learning disabilities continue toexperience the deleterious effects of the disability and have been de­scribed as experiencing "dismal post-school outcomes" (Collet­Kingenberg, 1998; p. 67). For example, in the vocational realm, adultswith learning disabilities experience higher rates of unemployment,underemployment, and low earnings than adults without disabilities(Collet-Klingenberg, 1998; Kavale & Forness, 1996; Koller, 1994;Levinson & Ohler, 1998). Furthermore, they are less satisfied withtheir employment status (Kavale & Forness, 1996; Levinson & Ohler,1998) and are viewed by their employers less positively than otherworkers (Minskoff, 1994; Minskoff, Sautter, Hoffman, & Hawks, 1987).

Regarding education, the statistics for adults with learning dis­abilities are not much better. For example, although the number ofindividuals with learning disabilities entering college is increas­ing (Kavale & Forness, 1996; Levinson & Ohler, 1998), their rate ofenrollment continues to be low. Fairweather and Shaver (1991)reported, for instance, that only 17% of all persons with learningdisabilities are enrolled in postsecondary education institutions com­pared with 56% of all nondisabled persons. For those who are enrolledin postsecondary education, the learning disability often has a negativeimpact on their educational experiences (Biller, 1987), and theirspecial academic and career development needs are often misunder­stood and unmet (Levinson & Ohler, 1998).

Because of the educational, social, and psychological impact oflearningdisabilities, it is imperative that students with learning disabilitiesreceive timely and appropriate intervention transition services longbefore they graduate from high school. These services are mandatedby the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1990,which requires that a transition plan be included in the Individual­ized Education Plan (IEP) for all students with disabilities beginningat age 16 (or younger if determined to be appropriate by the student'sIEP committee). According to IDEA, the transition plan must in­clude a statement of needed transition services, such as vocationaltraining, supported employment, arrangements for independentliving and community participation, or preparation for postsecondaryeducation in 2- or 4-year colleges and universities.

Stowitschek (1992) reviewed the literature and produced a list ofthe 16 most frequently mentioned characteristics of "best practices"in transition planning. These are (1) annual goals and short-term

THE CAREER DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY / SEPTEMBER 2000 / VOL. 49 61

objectives, (2)appropriate vocational options, (3)residential options, (4)leisure opportunities, (5) case management services, (6) a program toestablish eligibility for services, (7) a program to monitor eligibilityservices, (8) long-term support, (9) names of persons who will provideservices, (10) names of agency or persons who will have major respon­sibility for initiating and following through on the plan, (11) transpor­tation to and from work, (12) money management, (13) social skillstraining, (14) timeline for activities, (15) concrete outcomes of transi­tion services, and (16) evaluation of activities. However, transition ser­vices for students with learning disabilities frequently are inappropriate,and many of these ''best practices" are not addressed in students' IEPs(Collet-Klingenberg, 1998; Levinson & Ohler, 1998; National JointCommittee on Learning Disabilities, 1994).This lack ofplanning mightoccur because of the misconception that a learning disability is a "mild"disability and that students with learning disabilities will succeed ontheir own and, thus, will need fewer transition services than studentswith more severe disabilities (Grigal et al., 1997; Levinson & Ohler,1998). No empirical evidence has been found to support such thinking,however (Benz & Halpern, 1987). In fact, it is becoming increasinglyapparent that when transition planning is not specifically designed tomeet the unique characteristics and needs of students with learningdisabilities, they might not become successfully integrated into theadult world of life and work (Collet-Klingenberg, 1998; Levinson &Ohler, 1998). However, despite ofthis increased awareness, problemscontinue to be associated with transition planning for students withlearning disabilities.

INADEQUATE TRANSITION PLANNING

Learning disabilities are heterogeneous and are, therefore, mani­fested differently in individuals. Most definitions of learning dis­abilities include the following (Kavale & Forness, 1996; Lerner, 1997):

1. A disorder in the psychological processes that is involved in learn­ing, perceiving, understanding, and conceptual understanding

2. Deficits in attention, reasoning, memory processing, commu­nication, reading, writing, spelling, calculation, coordination,social competence, and emotional maturity

3. Perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunc­tion, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia

4. The problem is intrinsic to the individual5. The existence of a severe discrepancy between intellectual po­

tential and academic achievement

Although these characteristics manifest themselves differently inindividuals, when compared with those without learning disabili­ties, individuals with learning disabilities often demonstrate a slowerrate of career maturity (Biller, 1987; Biller & Horn, 1991; Bingham,1978, 1980; Kendall, 1981; Kronick, 1981, 1988; Ohler, Levinson, &Barker, 1996); an inability to advocate for themselves (Davie, 1987;Deshler, Ellis, & Lenz, 1996; Wilson, 1994); a failure to understandhow personal characteristics relate to career choice (Gerber, 1994;

62 THE CAREER DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY /SEPTEMBER 2000/ VOL. 49

Gerber & Reiff, 1991; Gerber et al., 1990; H o f i a n et al., 1987; Polloway, Schewel, & Patton, 1992); and low self-esteem, identity problems, and “learned helplessness”-an expectation of failure regardless of effort (Buchanan &Wolf, 1986; Hoy, 1986; Rosenthal, 1985; Schumaker, Hazel, Sherman, & Sheldon, 1982; Watt & Cushion, 1982).

Career maturity is a developmental process that begins early in the life of the child (Levinson & Ohler, 1998), which may be ad- versely affected by problems associated with learning disabilities (Alley, Deshler, Clark, Schumaker, & Warner, 1983; Hershenson, 1984; Rosenthal, 1985). For example, according to Levinson and Ohler (1998),

Various interactions and activities that facilitate career maturity, such a s the work routines of childhood and observation and imitation of the work routines of family members, are complicated by several factors spe- cifically related to learning disabilities. For example, in early childhood, persons with learning disabilities may have unique difficulties estab- lishing routines of all kinds a s well as accurately observing and effec- tively imitating the work habits of role models. . . . Also, persons with learning disabilities have problems processing information correctly . . . and may find facts about the world of work to which they have been ex- posed in texts, lectures, and literature to be both confusing and over- whelming. Persons with learning disabilities have been found to be pas- sive learners who then might not engage in exploratory activities such a s part time jobs or extracurricular activities. @. 65)

Because of their lack of career maturity, adolescents and adults with learning disabilities often hold unrealistic job expectations, their individual career goals are inappropriate, and they neither consider nor have awareness of their functional strengths and weaknesses and how these affect vocational success (Koller, 1994).

Self-advocacy has been defined as “the ability of a n individual to effectively communicate, convey, negotiate, or assert one’s own in- terests, desires, needs, and rights. The term assumes the ability to make informed decisions. It also means taking responsibility for those decisions” (Van Reusen, Bos, Schumaker, & Deshler, 1995, p. 6). Individuals with learning disabilities may not be effective self- advocates because they are not aware of their personal strengths and limitations and, thus, cannot communicate how these may in- fluence academic and vocational experiences. consequently, because they lack self-awareness and self-advocacy skills, many students with learning disabilities cannot effectively participate in formulat- ing realistic and appropriate transition service goals for themselves (Durlak, Rose, & Bursuck, 1994; Van Reusen e t al., 1995).

Finally, because individuals with learning disabilities usually ex- perience fewer triumphs and successes than those who are not dis- abled, they often consider themselves to be personal f d u r e s @hchaels, 1997). Moreover, individuals with learning disabilities frequently attribute all failures to themselves and all successes to luck or some other external force not associated with themselves mchaels, “haler, Zwerlein, Gioglio, & Apostoli, 1988). Consequently, according to Michaels (1997),

THE CAREER DEVELOPMENTQUARTERLY / SEPTEMBER 2000/ VOL. 49 63

The result is an individual with a poor sense of personal competencywho lacks the will to try in pre-anticipation of failure. Due to the pre­anticipated sense of failure and lack of competency, many young adultswith learning disabilities have been described as having difficulties withall the skills necessary for making the transition from dependence toindependence. (p. 189)

Michaels (1997) identified these necessary transition skills as tak­ing responsibility for oneself, separating from parental control andvalues, separating from the control of the school system, and devel­oping an internal locus of control.

SECONDARY CURRICULUM AND POSTSECONDARYREQUIREMENTS MISMATCH

Although IDEA requires that transition services include a variety ofactivities in addition to academics, most secondary programs thatserve students with learning disabilities focus almost exclusively onacademics within general education classrooms (Blackorby & Wagner,1997; Grayson, Wermuth, Holub, & Anderson, 1997). Consequently,transition plans for these students provide few, ifany, recommenda­tions for other types of transition services such as vocational orcareer counseling, independent living support, or goals for leisureand recreation (Collet-Klingenberg, 1998; Grigal et al., 1997).

The continued emphasis on academics for students with learningdisabilities is puzzling because participation in regular classroomcourses may have little, if any, impact on post-school adjustmentof many of these students (Edgar, 1987; Grayson et al., 1997).Blackorby and Wagner (1997) found, for example, that although about80% of students with learning disabilities take their academic coursesin regular education classrooms, these classes are "precisely theenvironments where students with learning disabilities were mostlikely to fail classes, and to start a cycle of negative academicexperiences that often lead to the failure to complete high school"(p. 65). Consequently, almost lout of 3 students with learningdisabilities does not receive a high school diploma (Blackorby &Wagner, 1997). Furthermore, when compared with peers who per­sist in school (independent of other differences between them), theyare less likely to enroll in postsecondary vocational or academic pro­grams (Blackorby & Wagner, 1997; Wagner & Blackorby, 1996) orto be competitively employed 3-5 years after they leave high school(Wagner & Blackorby, 1996).

LACK OF COORDINATION BETWEEN PUBLICSCHOOL AND POSTSECONDARY EDUCATIONAND COMMUNITY AGENCIES

IDEA defines transition services as "a coordinated [italics added]set of activities" between public schools and postsecondary agenciesthat "promote movement from school to post-school activities" (Wright& Wright, 1999, p. 12). IDEA also requires that each student's IEP

64 THE CAREER DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLYISEPTEMBER 20001 VOL. 49

include a statement of interagency responsibilities for providing theseactivities and of any needed linkages to services, such as vocationalrehabilitation or independent living arrangements. These linkages topost-school services have been identified in the literature as critical topositive, ongoing, post-school success (Collet-Klingenberg, 1998;Koller,1994; Rusch, Enchelmaier, & Kohler, 1994). However, even thoughIDEA requires that post-school transition activities be available to allstudents with disabilities, they are included most frequently in transi­tion plans for students with more severe disabilities and only infre­quently, ifat all, in plans for students with learning disabilities (Defur,Getzel, & Kregel, 1994; Grigal et al., 1997; Levinson & Ohler, 1998).

INADEQUATE TRANSITION SERVICES

Postsecondary education is possible for students with learning dis­abilities who have higher than average intellectual abilities andhave experienced academic success in the secondary school (Kavale& Forness, 1996). In fact, the number of students with learningdisabilities who attend postsecondary education institutions has in­creased substantially (Levinson & Ohler, 1998), and the number offull-time college freshmen who report the presence oflearning dis­abilities has more than doubled since 1985 (Kavale & Forness, 1996).

Although the number of college students with learning disabilitiesis increasing, many of these students experience difficulties thatusually are related to the differences between high school and col­lege requirements, such as class meeting times, class size, studyrequirements, testing approaches, grading methods, and teachingstrategies (Levinson & Ohler, 1998).

INDIVIDUAL TRANSITION PLANS DEVELOPEDTOO LATE

IDEA mandates that an Individualized Transition Plan be incorpo­rated into a student's IEP no later than the age of 16 years and thattransition services that will relate to the student's educational coursesbe incorporated into the IEP no later than the age of 14 years. How­ever, transition planning that begins even as early as age 14 may betoo late for several reasons.

Career development theory suggests that career awareness andinterests develop over time, beginning as early as preschool (Ginzberg,Ginsburg, Axelrad, & Herma, 1951; Levinson, Darrow, Klein,Levinson, & McKee, 1978; Super, 1953), and that "people's voca­tional interests flow from their life history and personality"(Holland, 1992, p. 7).lfthis is the case, then career planning shouldbegin early for all children, regardless of whether they have a learningdisability. However, early planning is even more critical for indi­viduals with learning disabilities, who have unique characteristicsthat may interfere with normal career development (Koller, 1994;Levinson & Ohler, 1998).

Another reason that transition planning should begin early forstudents with learning disabilities is related to their general lack of

THE CAREER DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY 1 SEPTEMBER 20001 VOL. 49 65

career awareness (Kendall, 1981; Koller, 1994; Levinson & Ohler,1998; Ohler et al., 1996). For example, adolescents and adults withlearning disabilities often hold unrealistic job expectations, haveinappropriate career goals, and do not consider nor have awarenessof how their individual strengths and weaknesses will affect theirlives educationally, socially, and vocationally (Koller, 1994).

Finally, the skills needed to be successful in postsecondary educa­tional and employment settings take years to develop (Levinson &Ohler, 1998). These skills include the ability to engage in effectiveinterpersonal communication, increased self-awareness, confidenceto engage in self-advocacy, and awareness of various career opportu­nities and their requisite requirements.

To avoid many of these problems, transition planning for studentswith learning disabilities must begin early in their educational ca­reer and be conceptualized as a goal of a K-12 career-education pro­gram (Levinson & Ohler, 1998).

K-12 TRANSITION PLANNING

Because early and ongoing planning is crucial to the future educa­tional, social, and vocational success of students with learning dis­abilities, we suggest a framework for K-12 transition planning thatconsiders the unique characteristics of these students. According toLevinson and Ohler (1998), the foundation of transition planning isan ongoing assessment program that begins in elementary school,continues through high school, and is continually linked to develop­mental objectives. The assessment program should be theory based,provide understanding of what is developmentally appropriatevocational behavior for an individual at any time, provide informationabout individual traits that should be assessed at different ages andgrade levels, and result in the generation of developmentally appro­priate recommendations for transition services for individual students.Also, oversight of the assessment process should be the responsibilityof a transdisciplinary team that consists of different professionalswho are responsible for various aspects of assessment depending ontheir knowledge and expertise. Finally, only standardized assess­ment instruments with acceptable psychometric properties shouldbe used.

According to Levinson and Ohler (1998), the transition assessmentprogram for students with learning disabilities should consist ofthree levels. Levell assessments begin during the elementary schoolyears and should identify individual students' needs, values, interests,abilities, interpersonal skills, and decision-making skills. Assess­ment outcomes at this level should be linked to transition goals andobjectives that focus on vocational and career exploration activitiesand development of self-awareness. (Although some children withlearning disabilities are not identified until middle elementary schoolor later, many are identified much earlier through preschool andkindergarten screening assessments. However, as soon as specialeducation eligibility is determined, transition goals and objectivesshould be included in the child's IEP.)

66 THE CAREER DEVELOPMENTQUARTERLY ISEPTEMBER 20001 VOL. 49

At Levell, children with learning disabilities should receive di­rect instruction about work and its importance in the lives of people.They should be introduced to diverse work environments and haveplenty of opportunities to meet people who work in those environ­ments. Children can also learn about work and workers throughextensive use of videos and movies and by reading stories and novelsthat depict workers in diverse occupations. Teachers and parentscan also use fantasy and role-playing activities to help children imaginethemselves as different kinds of workers.

Finally, Levell transition planning should incorporate career guid­ance activities that are designed to begin the process of familiarizingchildren with their unique personal characteristics and how these mayaffect their future vocational and educational goals. According tocareer development theorist Holland (1992),development ofa "differen­tiated, consistent personality pattern or clear sense of vocational iden­tity" (p. 150) depends on these early school experiences. Although suchactivities are relevant for all elementary-age children, they are espe­cially crucial for children with cognitive learning disabilities, who havedifficulty internalizing a sense of selfand identity (Kronick, 1981).

Level 2 assessments occur during the middle school or junior highschool years and should measure vocational interests, vocationalaptitudes, work habits, and career maturity. Assessment strategiesmay include interviews, observations, and standardized norm­referenced assessment instruments. We suggest, however, that cautionbe exercised to ensure that formal assessment at this level is devel­opmentally appropriate. Interest and aptitude assessment will notbe effective with children who are younger than 14 years becausethey lack career development maturity (Holland, 1992). However,because some middle-school students with learning disabilities maybe immature developmentally, waiting until high school to formallyassess vocational interests and aptitudes may be more prudent.

Level 2 assessment outcomes should continue to focus on careerexploration activities that assist students in making tentative choicesabout education and career goals. Students should have many oppor­tunities to practice job-related skills, such as punctuality, depend­ability, and understanding of work routines. Although instruction inthese skills may be incorporated within the special education or aca­demic classroom, the most relevant instruction will come from vol­unteer work or through summer and part-time jobs (Kavale & Forness,1996; Koller, 1994; Levinson & Ohler, 1998; Ohler, Levinson, &Sanders, 1995). Preliminary planning now also may be necessary toestablish links with various adult service agencies. For example,representatives of vocational rehabilitation agencies, independentliving facilities, the business community, and postsecondary educa­tion institutions might be invited to meet with students formallyand informally to advise them ofthe range of available communityand regional services.

Level 2 transition goals and objectives also should focus on careerguidance activities that assist young adolescents as they attempt toincorporate a vocational identity within their overall sense of self. Ifstudents have incorporated a vocational identity by the time they

THE CAREER DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY I SEPTEMBER 2000 I VOL. 49 67

enter high school, they stand a greater chance of making good deci­sions about what courses and work-related experiences they mustundertake at the high school level to ensure an effective transitionfrom school to adult life (Holland, 1992). To facilitate identity devel­opment, students should receive direct instruction from teachersand counselors to give them factual information about learning dis­abilities and teach them how to build on their strengths and com­pensate for their weaknesses. Having this knowledge allows stu­dents to learn how to advocate for themselves with teachers andemployers and suggest appropriate accommodations that may benecessary. Students should also be taught how to engage in effectiveinterpersonal communication through practice with parents, teachers,and peers, and how to set short-term academic and work-relatedgoals, such as setting up effective study routines or seeking outvolunteer opportunities. Students should also receive encouragementfor, and even be assisted in, participating in nonacademic activitiessuch as clubs and sports. Finally, students at this level should at­tend their own IEP meetings and have a voice in setting transitiongoals and objectives that are meaningful to them (Grigal et al., 1997).

Level 3 assessment occurs in high school and includes experience­based measures such as work samples and situational assessment.Also, assuming that appropriate transition goals and objectives wereimplemented in earlier grades, vocational interest and aptitude as­sessments now should be more reflective of students' actual inter­ests and personality traits. Thus, Level 3 assessment outcomes shouldresult in a more fine-tuned focus on identifying specific skills oracademic interventions that will be necessary for post-school em­ployment or education opportunities that are congruent with indi­vidual students' personalities and work or career interests.

High school students who plan to enter the workforce after highschool graduation should be allowed flexibility in their secondaryprograms to pursue vocational as well as academic interests(Blackorby & Wagner, 1997; Grayson et al., 1997). For these students,transition activities should be incorporated into all course work.These activities should emphasize vocational self-awareness; knowledgeabout the world of work; and instruction in appropriate employ­ment behaviors, such as punctuality, dependability, and adherenceto work routines (Kavale & Forness, 1996). Work-related transitionservices also should provide for formal meetings between studentsand various postsecondary agency personnel. These professionalsmight include vocational rehabilitation counselors, vocationalresource educators, career counselors, and human resource profes­sionals (Collet-Klingenberg, 1998; Grigal et al., 1997; Koller, 1994;Levinson & Ohler, 1998; Shapiro & Lentz, 1991).

Although most high school students with learning disabilities willenter the workforce after graduation (Blackorby & Wagner, 1997),those with mild learning disabilities who are intellectually and aca­demically competent may choose to enroll in 2- or 4-year colleges oruniversities (Kavale & Forness, 1996; McGuire, 1997). For thesestudents, career counseling services will be as important as aca­demic instruction and should include social skills training in in-

68 THE CAREER DEVELOPMENTQUARTERLY1SEPTEMBER 20001 VOL. 49

terpersonal communication, self-awareness, and self-advocacy. Coun- selors also should provide college-bound students with information about the differences between high school and college requirements, such as time spent in class, class size, testing and grading methods, teaching strategies, increased freedom and independence. Finally, career counselors should help students make early arrangements with the SAT and ACT testing services if they will need special testing accommodations, such as extra time or a writer to record answers. Students needing such accommodations will be required to provide documentation of their learning disabilities, and they must inform the testing services in advance if they will need special accommoda- tions (Cummings & Maddux, 1999). Finally, when students are ac- cepted into a college or university, counselors should provide them with information about how to access campus student support ser- vices. These services are available to assist college students with learn- ing disabilities in malung arrangements with instructors if they need modlfied testing, note-takers, or permission to tape-record lectures. When these services are available, retention and graduation rates of students with learning disabilities are as h g h as those of students without dmabilities (Kavale & Forness, 1996).

CONCLUSION

A significant number of students with learning disabilities are not making a successful transition from school to adult living. They experience high rates of unemployment or underemployment, they are not satisfied as workers, and they often fail to adjust socially and emotionally to community life. Transition outcomes are not much better for the few students with learning disabilities who enroll in colleges and universities and struggle to adjust to academic and interpersonal demands of the college environment.

These problems exist because of the misconception that a learning disability is a “mild’ disability that will disappear in adulthood. Recent research findings suggest, however, that learning disabili- ties frequently have a significant negative impact on successful postsecondary work and educational outcomes. To ensure more positive outcomes for students with learning disabilities, transition plan- ning must begin in the elementary grades, be built on theory-based assessment, and focus on academic and counseling activities that teach vocational and social skills, self-awareness, and self-advocacy.

REFERENCES

Adelman, P. B., & Vogel, S. A. (1990). College graduates with learning disabili- ties-Employment attainment and career patterns. Learning Disability Quarterly, 13, 154-166.

Alley, G. R., Deshler, D. D., Clark, F. L., Schumaker, J. B., & Warner, M. M. (1983). Learning disabilities in adolescent and adult populations: Research implications (Part 11). Focus on Exceptional Children, 15, 1-14.

Benz, M., & Halpern, A. (1987). Transition services for secondary students with mild disabilities: A statewide perspective. Exceptional Children, 53, 507-5 14.

THE CAREER DEVELOPMENTQUARTERLY / SEPTEMBER 20001 VOL. 49 69

Biller, E. F. (1987). Career decision making for adolescents and young adults withlearning disabilities: Theory, research, and practice. Springfield, IL: Thomas.

Biller, E. F., & Horn, E. E. (1991). A career guidance model for adolescentswith learning disabilities. The School Counselor, 38, 279-286.

Bingham, G. (1978). Career attitudes among boys with and without specificlearning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 44, 341-342.

Bingham, G. (1980). Career maturity oflearning disabled adolescents. Psychologyin the Schools, 17, 135-139.

Blackorby, J., & Wagner, M. (1997). The employment outcomes of youth withlearning disabilities: A review offindings from the National Longitudinal Tran­sition Study of special education students. In P. J. Gerber, & D. S. Brown (Eds.),Learning Disabilities and Employment (pp. 57-74). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Blalock, G., & Patton, J. R. (1996). Transition and students with learning dis­abilities: Creating sound futures. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 7-16.

Buchanan, M., & Wolf, J. S. (1986). A comprehensive study of learning dis­abled adults. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 34-38.

Collet-Klingenberg, L. L. (1998). The reality of best practices in transition: Acase study. Exceptional Children, 65, 67-79.

Cummings, R., & Maddux, C. D. (1987). Holland personality types among learningdisabled and nonlearning disabled high school students. Exceptional Children,54, 167-170.

Cummings, R., & Maddux, C. D. (1999, September). Special accommodations forcollege entrance exams: Is your child eligible? Exceptional Parent, 29, 86-90.

Davie, A. R. (1987). Young adults with learning disabilities and other specialneeds. Washington, DC: Heath Resource Center.

Defur, S., Getzel, E. E., & Kregel, J. (1994). Individual transition plans: A workin progress. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 4, 139-145.

Deshler, D. D., Ellis, E. S., & Lenz, B. K. (1996). Teaching adolescents withlearning disabilities: Strategies and methods (2nd ed.). Denver: Love.

Dunn, C. (1996). A status report on transition planning for individuals withlearning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 17-30.

Durlak, C. M., Rose, E., & Bursuck, W. D. (1994). Preparing high school stu­dents with learning disabilities for the transition to postsecondary educa­tion: Teaching the skills of self-determination. Journal of Learning Disabilities,27, 51-59.

Edgar, E. (1987). Secondary programs in special education: Are many of themjustifiable? Exceptional Children, 53, 555-561.

Fairweather, J. S., & Shaver, D. M. (1991). Making the transition to postsecondaryeducation and training. Exceptional Children, 57, 264-270.

Gerber, P. J. (1994). Researching adults with learning disabilities from an adult­development perspective. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 6-9.

Gerber, P. J., & Reiff, H. B. (1991). Speaking for themselves: Ethnographicinterviews with adults with learning disabilities. Ann Arbor, MI: Univer­sity of Michigan Press.

Gerber, P. J., Schneiders, C. A., Paradise, L. V., Reiff, H. B., Ginsberg, R. J., &Popp, P. A. (1990). Persisting problems of adults with learning disabilities:Self-reported comparisons from their school age and adult years. Journal ofLearning Disabilities, 23, 570-573.

Ginzberg, E., Ginsburg, S. W., Axelrad, S., & Herma, J. L. (1951). Occupationalchoice: An approach to a general theory. New York: Columbia University Press.

Grayson, T. E., Wermuth, T. R., Holub, T. M., & Anderson, M. L. (1997). Effec­tive practices of transition from school to work for people with learning dis­abilities. In P. J. Gerber, & D. S. Brown (Eds.), Learning disabilities andemployment (pp. 77-99). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Grigal, M., Test, D. W., Beattie, J., & Wood, W. M. (1997). An evaluation oftransition components of individualized education programs. Exceptional

70 THE CAREER DEVELOPMENTQUARTERLY / SEPTEMBER 2000/ VOL. 49

Children, 63, 357-373. Retrieved June 4, 1999 from InfoTrac SearchBankon the World Wide Web: http://www.searchbank.com

Herr, E. L., & Cramer, S. H. (1996). Career guidance and counseling throughthe lifespan: Systematic approaches (3rd ed.). New York: HarperCollins.

Hershenson, D. B. (1984). Vocational counselling with LD adults. Journal ofRehabilitation, 50, 40-44.

Hoffmann, F. J., Sheldon, K. L, Minskoff, E. H., Sautter, S. W., Steidle, E. R.,Baker, D. P., Bailer, M. B., & Echols, L. D. (1987). Needs oflearning disabledadults. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 43-52.

Holland, J. L. (1992). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational per­sonalities and work environments (2nd ed.). Odessa, FL: PsychologicalAssessment Resources.

Hoy, C. (1986). Preventing learned helplessness. Academic Therapy, 22, 11-18.Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, Pub. L. No. 101-476 (1990).Isaacson, L. E., & Brown, D. (1993). Career information, career counseling, &

career development (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (1996). Learning disability grows up: Rehabili­

tation issues for individuals with learning disabilities. The Journal of Reha­bilitation, 62, 34-42.

Kendall, W. S. (1981). Affective and career education for the learning disabledadolescent. Learning Disability Quarterly, 4, 69-75.

Koller, J. R. (1994). Improving transition outcomes for persons with specificlearning disabilities. American Rehabilitation, 20, 37-43.

Kronick, D. (1981). Social development of learning disabled persons: Examin­ing the effects and treatments of inadequate interpersonal skills. San Fran­cisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kronick, D. (1988). New approaches to learning disabilities: Cognitive,metacognitive, and holistic. Philadelphia: Grune & Stratton.

Lerner, J. (1997). Learning disabilities: Theories, diagnosis, and teaching strat­egies (7th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Levinson, D. J., Darrow, C. N., Klein, E. B., Levinson, M. H., & McKee, B. (1978).The seasons of a man's life. New York: Knopf.

Levinson, E. M., & Ohler, D. L. (1998). Transition from high school to collegefor students with learning disabilities: Needs, assessment, and services. HighSchool Journal, 82, 62-80.

Malcolm, C. B., Polatajko, H. J., & Simons, J. (1990). A descriptive study of adults withsuspected learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 518-520.

McGuire, J. M. (1997). Four-year college programs: Effective practices fordeveloping employment skills. In P. J. Gerber, & D. S. Brown (Eds.), Learn­ing disabilities and employment (pp. 117-141). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Michaels, C. A. (1997). Preparation for employment: Counseling practices forpromoting personal competency. In P. J. Gerber, & D. S. Brown (Eds.), Learn­ing disabilities and employment (pp. 187-212). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Michaels, C. A., Thaler, R., Zwerlein, R., Gioglio, M., & Apostoli, B. (1988). Fromhigh school to college: Keys to success for students with learning disabilities.Albertson, NY: Human Resources Center.

Minskoff, E. H. (1994). Postsecondary education and vocational training: Keysto success for adults with learning disabilities. In P. J. Gerber, & H. B. Reiff(Eds.), Learning disabilities in adulthood: Persisting problems and evolv­ing issues (pp. 111-120). Boston: Andover Medical Publishers.

Minskoff, E. H., Sautter, S. W., Hoffman, F. J., & Hawks, R. (1987). Employer attitudestoward hiring the learning disabled. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 53--57.

National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (1994). Secondary topostsecondary education transition planning for students with learning dis­abilities. Author. Retrieved June 4, 1999 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ldonline.org/ ld_indepth / transition / njcld_transition. html

THE CAREER DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY 1 SEPTEMBER 20001 VOL. 49 71

Ohler, D. L., Levinson, E. M., & Barker, W. F. (1996). Career maturity in col­lege students with learning disabilities. The Career Development Quarterly,44, 278-288.

Ohler, D. L., Levinson, E. M., & Sanders, P. (1995). Career maturity amongcollege students with learning disabilities: What employment counselors shouldknow. Journal of Employment Counseling, 32, 64-78.

Patton, W., & McMahon, M. (1999). Career development and systems theory: Anew relationship. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Polloway, E. A., Schewel, R., & Patton, J. R. (1992). Learning disabilities in adult­hood: Personal perspectives. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 520-522.

Rosenthal, 1. (1985). A career develoment program for learning disabled col­lege students. Journal of Counseling and Development, 63, 308-310.

Rusch, F. R., Enchelmaier, J. F., & Kohler, P. D. (1994). Employment outcomesand activities for youth in transition. Career Development for ExceptionalIndividuals, 17, 1-16.

Schumaker, J. B., Hazel, J. S., Sherman, J. A., & Sheldon, J. (1982). Socialskills performance oflearning disabled, non-learning disabled, and delinquentadolescents. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 5, 388-397.

Shapiro, E. S., & Lentz, F. E. Jr. (1991). Vocational technical programs: Follow­up of students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 58, 47-60.

Stowitschek, J. J. (1992). Policy and planning in transition programs at thestate agency level. In F. Rusch, L. DeStefano, J. Chadsey-Rusch, L. A. Phelps,& E. Szymanski (Eds.), Transition from school to adult life: Models, link­ages, and policy (pp. 519-536). Sycamore, IL: Sycamore.

Super, D. E. (1953). A theory of vocational development. American Psycholo­gist, 8, 185-190.

Terman, D. L., Lamer, M. 8., Stevenson, C. S., & Behrman, R. E. (1996). Specialeducation for students with disabilities: Analysis and recommendations. Thefuture of children: Special education for students with disabilities, 6, 4-24.

Van Reusen, A. K., Bos, C. S., Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (1995). Theself-advocacy strategy. Lawrence, KS: Excell.

Wagner, M. (1989). Youth with disabilities during transition: An overview ofdescriptive findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study. PaloAlto, CA: SRI International.

Wagner, M. (1991). Dropouts with disabilities: What do we know? What canwe do? Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

Wagner, M., & B1ackorby, J. (1996). Transition from high school to work orcollege: How special education students fare. The Future of Children: Spe­cial Education for Students with Disabilities, 6, 103-120.

Watt, W. J., & Cushion, M. B. (1982). Enhancing the self-concept of LD adoles­cents: One approach. Academic Therapy, 18, 95-101.

Wilson, G. L. (1994). Self-advocacy skills. In C. A. Michaels (Ed.), Transitionstrategies for persons with learning disabilities (pp. 153-184). San Diego,CA: Singular.

Wright, P. W. D., & Wright, P. D. (1999). Final IDEA regulations: Appendix A topart 300 [On-line]. Available: http://www.wrightslaw.comllaw/code_regs/IDEARegs_AppendixA.htm

72 THE CAREER DEVELOPMENTQUARTERLY ISEPTEMBER 20001 VOL. 49