Issues Influencing the Future of Transition Programs … Influencing the Future of Transition...

Issues Influencing the Future ofTransition Programs and Servicesin the United States

Edited by

■ DAVID R. JOHNSON

■ ELLEN J. EMANUEL

National Transition NetworkInstitute on Community Integration (UAP)University of Minnesota

A collection of articles by leading researchers insecondary special education and transition servicesfor students with disabilities

Issues Influencing the Future ofTransition Programs and Servicesin the United States

Edited by

■ DAVID R. JOHNSON

■ ELLEN J. EMANUEL

National Transition NetworkInstitute on Community Integration (UAP)University of Minnesota

A collection of articles by leading researchers insecondary special education and transition servicesfor students with disabilities

November 2000

The development and dissemination of this publication by the National Transition Network at theInstitute on Community Integration, University of Minnesota was supported by the U.S. Departmentof Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) grant numberH158M50001. The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflectthose of the Institute, the University of Minnesota, or their funding sources.

The University of Minnesota is committed to the policy that all persons shall have equal access to itsprograms, facilities, and employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin,sex, age, marital status, disability, public assistance status, veteran status, or sexual orientation.

Additional copies of this publication may be obtained from the National Transition Network,Institute on Community Integration (UAP), University of Minnesota, 103 U-Tech Center,1313 Fifth Street S.E., Minneapolis, MN 55414, 612/627-4008 (Voice), 612/627-1998 (Fax).Alternative formats are available upon request.

Editorial Support:Gwen WillemsPatricia MerrillInstitute on Community Integration

Layout and Design:Patricia MerrillPeter AleshireInstitute on Community Integration

Published November 2000

Implementing the IDEA Transition Mandates, by Susan Brody Hasazi, Katharine S. Furney andLizanne DeStefano was reprinted with persmission from Exceptional Children, Vol. 65, No. 4, pp.555-566, 1999 by The Council for Exceptional Children. To request permission to reprint anyportion of this article, please contact the Council for Exceptional Children, 1920 AssociationDrive, Reston, VA 20191-1589, 703/620-3660.

c

Introduction 1David R. Johnson

1. Students with Disabilities in Transition: A Review of Four Reforms 3Brian Cobb, Jean Lehmann, Suzanne Tochtertman and Sally Bomotti

2. Implementing the IDEA Transition Mandates 21Susan Brody Hasazi, Katharine S. Furney and Lizanne DeStefano

3. Analysis of Local Education Agency Efforts to Implement theTransition Services Requirements of IDEA of 1990 31

David R. Johnson and Michael N. Sharpe

4. Transition: What We’ve Learned and Where We Go From Here 49Jane M. Williams and Ed O’Leary

5. Federal Funding Trends for National Transition Projects 67Andrew S. Halpern

6. State Graduation Requirements for Students With and Without Disabilities 85Barbara Guy, Hyeonsook Shin, Sun-Young Lee and Martha Thurlow

7. Rhetoric and Reality: A Review of the Literature on Parent andStudent Participation in the IEP and Transition Planning Process 111

Katharine S. Furney and George Salembier

8. Teacher Attitudes and Practices Regarding the Inclusion of Students withDisabilities in School-to-Work and Technical Preparation Programs:Strategies for Inclusion and Policy Implications 127

Robert J. Miller, Richard C. Lombard and Michael N. Hazelkorn

9. Meeting Attendance and Transition Outcomes as Relfected inStudents’ Individualized Education Programs 137

John S. Trach and Debra L. Shelden

10. Impact of a Fraud and Abuse Investigation of the Supplemental SecurityIncome Program on Transition Age Youth With Disabilities 145

Sarah Henderson and Jane Ann Razeghi

Challenges Facing the Future of Transition Services 153David R. Johnson

Table of Contents

1

Since the mid-1980s, the US Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services

(OSERS), has stressed the importance of improving transition services nationally. The federal government has assumed a

crucial role in stimulating state and local efforts to improve transition services through a variety of policy, interagency,

systems change, model demonstration, and research efforts. Specific language on transition was included in the IDEA of

1990, and again in the IDEA Amendments of 1997. From this federal legislation, regulations were established requiring state

and local education agencies specifically to address the school and post-school transition service needs of students with

disabilities. These needs would be met through coordinated planning among special education and parents and students,

general education, and community service agencies.

Much of the rationale for establishing these new provisions was based on the recognition that many young adults with

disabilities were exiting high school unprepared for adult life. Follow-up studies conducted on former special education

students during the past two decades have consistently documented the limited outcomes achieved by young adults with

disabilities as they leave school and attempt to access employment, postsecondary education programs, and adult community

services. Predominant themes emerging from the findings of these and other studies included lower than desired academic

achievement levels; high dropout rates; substantial levels of unemployment and underemployment; economic instability,

dependence, and social isolation; and low levels of participation in postsecondary education and training programs. The

transition services requirements of the IDEA of 1990 and the IDEA Amendments of 1997 were established for the specific

purpose of addressing these and other difficulties that youth with disabilities experience as they attempt to prepare for and

make the transition to adult life.

For nearly two decades, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) has sponsored transition research, demonstra-

tion, and training initiatives that have resulted in a knowledge-base of essential and promising approaches and strategies for

the delivery of transition services for students with disabilities. Advances and innovations in interagency cooperation, access

to postsecondary education and training, supported employment, transition planning, student and parental involvement in

school and post-school decision making, development of adult living skills, self determination and self advocacy, and the

like, are all valued examples of previous and current efforts. These varied approaches and strategies serve as the foundation

upon which state and local education agencies, in partnership with community service agencies, parents, and students have

based the development of their transition programs and services.

This monograph presents the views of leading researchers in secondary special education and transition services for

students with disabilities. These authors were invited by the National Transition Network (NTN) at the University of

Minnesota to submit papers that identify and address key issues influencing the provision of transition programs and services

at the state and local level. The objectives were to: (a) present research findings that identify key issues influencing the

implementation of the federal transition services requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)

Amendments of 1997 and policies at the state and local level, (b) identify “effective” or “promising” transition practices and

strategies that promote meaningful school and post-school results for youth with disabilities, and (c) examine the impact and

implications of recent general education reform initiatives on secondary special education and transition services. NTN also

sought the authors’ recommendations for changes needed to improve state and local policies, programs, and practices.

From these articles emerged several challenges facing the future of transition services for youth with disbilities and

families across the United States. They are briefly discussed at the end of this monograph. These challenges have broad

implications for special education and its relationship with general education and a wide range of community agencies and

organizations responsible for supporting youth with disabilities as they make the transition from high school to

postsecondary education, employment, independent living options, and other aspects of adult life.

David R. JohnsonUniversity of Minnesota

Introduction

Issues Influencing the Future of Transition Programs and Services in the United States

2

3

Introduction

In 1997, Congress passed the Comprehensive SchoolReform Demonstration Program (Obey-Porter Program)which included nearly $150 million annually for schooldistricts that emulated one or more of 17 “successful,externally developed, comprehensive school-reformapproaches.” These 17 school reform approaches were listedby name in the legislation, begetting a flurry of criticismfrom those reform programs that were not listed (Viadero,1999). Clearly, a thorny policy question exists as to how itwas that the 17 approaches found themselves in the legisla-tion, and hence eligible to benefit greatly by replicationefforts by others attempting to access the Obey-Porterdollars. Perhaps an even more basic question, however,would focus on how so many approaches have come to existin the first place, and what has been the cumulative impacton various aspects of the educational enterprise of these andother reform initiatives (c.f. Florio, 1999).

Most contemporary educational scholars agree that thegenesis of the most recent school reform (or restructuring)movement began in the late 1970s and early 1980s, andreached a national visibility with the American publicthrough the publication of A Nation at Risk: The Imperativefor Educational Reform (National Commission on Excel-lence in Education, 1983). In the 16 years since the publica-tion of this report, it has become clear to researcherstracking the nation’s progress on educational reform that the“reform movement” is actually made up of several “waves”or “stages”-each building upon the successes and failures ofearlier attempts. The first wave, dated roughly between1982-1985, was characterized by Murphy (1990):

Students with Disabilities in Transition:A Review of Four Reforms

This approach assumes that the conditions of schoolingcontributing to poor student outcome measures are attributableto poor quality of the workers and to the inadequacy of theirtools, and that they are subject to revision through mandated,top-down initiatives-especially those from the state. Using thebureaucratic model to institute improvement proposals led inturn to the emphasis in early reform efforts on policy mecha-nisms such as prescriptions, tightly specified resource alloca-tions, and performance measurements. (p. 23)

Here, the emphasis was on reworking or fixing a wide-ranging array of educational components, such as teachers,curriculum, accountability processes, etc.

Although the pervasiveness and impact of the first waveof reform cannot be overstated, by the mid-1980s researchersand policymakers were beginning to recognize that top-down,state- and federally-mandated approaches to school reformwere not working. Farrar (1990) summarizes these concerns:

The chief difficulty with the first-wave reports is their assump-tion that the existing educational system is basically sound, thatschools can be improved by fine tuning and doing more ofwhat they do rather than by redesigning the system. (p. 10)

Murphy (1990) then characterized the second wave,corresponding to the period from 1986-1989, as pushing thelocus of reform efforts down to the classroom level-byempowering teachers and to a lesser extent, parents, throughpower redistribution at the school level. The claim here wasthat this power redistribution was necessary since during thefirst wave of reform, local school districts provided state andfederal bureaucracies with compliance-oriented proposals toacquire state and federal reform-driven dollars, but seldomimplemented those reforms with fidelity to original intent.

Brian Cobb; Jean Lehmann; Suzanne Tochterman ; Sally BomottiColorado State University

Abstract: This article presents a brief historical review of school reform movements from 1982 to present and an in-depthanalysis of the most recent reform initiatives (standards movement, high stakes testing, school-to-work, and charter schools) andexplores the apparent cumulative effects of these reforms on youth with disabilities in secondary school. A review of the literatureon best practices in secondary special education is provided, against which the practices, policies, and outcomes of these reformscan be judged. Several commonalities among these educational reform initiatives are noted. These include paying attention toincreasing achievement levels, holding state and local education agencies accountable for educational results, and increasingparental involvement. Issues concerning the inclusion and accommodation of students with disabilities are also noted. While thefindings of this review indicate that these reforms have many good intentions and features, both for students without and withdisabilities, little empirical evidence exists to date regarding the impact and benefits of education reforms for students withdisabilities. Systematic evaluations conducted at the national, state, and local levels must be undertaken to document the effectsof these reforms on the achievement and outcomes of children and youth with disabilities.

1


4

Green (1987) summarized the difference from the first waveof reform:

Perhaps most importantly, however, the individualschool is the focus of the second wave of reform. Whileprevious reports called for leadership, it was generally atthe state level; now the cry is for local involvement andreforms that improve what happens in the classroomitself. (p. 4)

Second-wave reformers began to view teachers more asprofessionals than as technicians (Petrie, 1990). Thesereform efforts were characterized more by decentralizeddecision making in schools, and by restructuring initiativesthat were managed by school-site councils and parent groups(Carlson, 1996).

The third wave of reform began in the late 1980s andearly 1990s, and by many accounts is continuing through theend of the century. The differentiating factor from earlierreform waves according to O’Day (1995), however, was thefocus on systemic change “combin(ing) the vitality andcreativity of bottom-up change efforts with an enabling andsupportive structure at more centralized levels of the system”(p. 100). Murphy (1990) adds to this notion of systemicreform an additional difference from prior reform efforts-adirect focus on children through an “integrated,interorganizational, interprofessional service model” (p. 29).He states:

Unlike . . . the two earlier eras, those in Wave 3 gobeyond schooling to encompass a comprehensive systemfor delivery of services to children. (p. 29)

An additional defining feature of third wave reforms is afocus on the whole school, not just classrooms or curricula,as the unit of change (Wasley, Hampel, & Clark, 1997). TheGoals 2000 and School-to-Work legislation are clearlycharacteristic of third-wave reform initiatives, in that theyprovide federal support to states and local communities forlocally identified approaches to whole school reform whilerequiring a unifying vision, a coherent set of instructionalpolicies aligned with that vision, and restructured gover-nance and resource allocation that places authority anddecision making at the school level (O’Day, 1995).

As third wave reform initiatives have moved from a top-down centralized orientation, through local school empower-ment, and finally to a systemic coordination of servicesfocused on children, these transformations would appear tosuccessively benefit children and youth who are most at risk,and for whom the broadest array of confusing and intercon-necting services are available. The purpose of this article isto explore the apparent cumulative effects of these waves ofreform on youth with disabilities in our nation’s secondaryschools.

This article contains four sections. First, a brief histori-cal review of the school reform movement has been pro-vided. Second, several key reforms that are currentlyunderway nationwide have been selected for review throughan examination of the theoretical and empirical literature.Third, a review of the literature on best practices in second-ary special education schooling has been provided, againstwhich the practices, policies, and outcomes of these severalreforms can be judged. Finally, a set of conclusions andpolicy recommendations is provided.

Reforms

This section reviews several school reform or restructur-ing efforts that have dominated the educational landscape forthe past decade. These reform initiatives were selected usingseveral criteria. First, they had to be substantive and sus-tained, with a track record of several years of past historyand a reasonable likelihood of continued momentum.Second, these reforms had to impact secondary education-not exclusively, but inclusively. Third, they had to haveimpact upon an entire school, not just programs or class-rooms. Finally, these several reforms had to have had theirprimary impetus in a variety of sources-particularly federaland state (top-down) and local (more bottom-up). Hence, thefour reforms reviewed are the standards movement (asexemplified through the Goals 2000 legislation), high-stakestesting (treated as a separate issue from standards), theschool-to-work initiative, and charter schools.

The Standards Movement

Since the publication of A Nation at Risk, there has beenmuch discussion aimed at making schools more effective interms of how many students complete school and how wellthey do on achievement measures (Gandal, 1995;McLaughlin, 1995; U. S. Department of Education, 1995;Waters, Burger, & Burger, 1995). Indeed, one aspect of thisdiscussion has been a sustained call for new standards forstudent achievement and the consistent use of the district-level consequences when standards have not been met. Thispolicy strategy has emerged as the “standards movement,”and was initiated to overcome challenges created byAmerica’s fragmented governance system (Firestone 1997)where a centralized governmental approach to educationalreform would create a more consistent set of school improve-ments across the 50 states. Standards-based reforms seek to:(a) establish challenging academic standards for whatstudents should know and be able to do; (b) align policiessuch as teacher licensure/certification and professionaldevelopment, testing, and accountability to those standards;(c) restructure governance in schools, districts, and localcommunities; and (d) create specific curricula and instruc-tional approaches to meet state standards (Consortium for

5

Public Policy and School Reform, 1996). Marshall andO’Day (1996) characterize the standards movement as theepitome of what is meant by systemic reform in the lastdecade of the twentieth century.

While the standards movement has been in existence formore than a decade (i.e. outcomes-based education in the1980s), it probably received its greatest and most consistentimpetus nationwide through the Goals 2000: EducationAmerica Act of 1994. The Goals 2000 legislation generatednoncompetitive grants to participating states and districts tosupport communities in the development and implementa-tion of their own standards-based education reforms. Theauthorization of Goals 2000 was based on recognition offundamental principles that underlie effective school change:(a) all students can learn; (b) lasting improvements dependon school-based leadership; (c) simultaneous top-down andbottom-up reform is necessary; (d) strategies must be locallydeveloped, comprehensive, and coordinated; and (e) thewhole community must be involved in developing strategiesfor system-wide improvement (Title III, Sec. 301 of the Act).Therefore, Goals 2000 supports the development and imple-mentation of state standards for student learning and achieve-ment that drive systemic improvement at the various levels.

In general, states have used their Goals 2000 grants toestablish both statewide minimum content and performancestandards, along with assessment, accountability, andprofessional development systems to support those two typesof standards. Content or curricular standards are broaddescriptions of the knowledge and skill students shouldacquire in particular subject areas (Sec. 3[4]). Performancestandards are defined as concrete examples and explicitdefinitions of what students have to know and be able to doto demonstrate that they are proficient in the skills andknowledge framed by the content standards (Sec 3[9]).

The quality of the development of content standardsboth across states, and within states but across disciplinaryareas, has been explored as more and more states havebrought standards on line across the various disciplines.According to a 1996 survey conducted by the Council ofChief State School Officers, 41 states and federal jurisdic-tions had developed standards which were at various stagesof implementation across the grade levels in the subjectmatter areas of math, science, English/language arts, historyand social studies. It appears, however, that educationalstandards at the national, state, and district levels are ofteninconsistent (Linn, 1997). Reviews of state content standardsshow that the content standards ranged from very strong tovery weak (Raimi & Braden, 1998). A report of the NationalAcademy of Education (McLaughlin & Sheppard, 1995)noted the tremendous variability among states with respectto the conception of curriculum evidenced in the standards,as well as how the standards would be applied. State levelstudies conducted by the Center for Policy Research on theImpact of General and Special Education investigating

educational reform indicated substantial differences in howstates were choosing to implement standards (Goertz &Friedman, 1996).

What appear to be the effects of this national standards-based school reform movement? Although ongoing now fornearly a decade, there is very little outcome researchavailable to judge effects. Much of the ongoing researchappears to be studying the processes of developing standards(i.e., Goldman & Conley, 1997; Massell, Kirst, & Hoppe,1997; McLaughlin & Sheppard, 1995), the nature of thosestandards (i.e., Raimi & Braden, 1998), or the best mecha-nisms to use to implement standards (Newman & Wehlage,1995; Wasley, Hampel, & Clark, 1997). In fact, Massell et al.(1997), in their study of educational reform in nine states,found that states are continuously developing and revisingtheir academic content standards. This makes it extremelydifficult to establish point-in-time or longitudinal effects ofstandards-based reform efforts, either within or across states.

Students with Disabilities. More germane to this article,however, would be the question of what effects appear to beoccurring for youth with disabilities as a result of thenational standards movement. Again, we could find nospecific outcome studies that have been published document-ing how standards-based reforms affects students broken outby disability status. Indeed, McLaughlin, Henderson, andRhim (1998) began their conclusion by stating: “A majorquestion raised, but not answered, by this research is whetheror not standards-based reform is working for students withdisabilities (p. 20).” It appears to be just too early to tell.

There have been, however, some researchers who haveexamined how standards-based reforms have fared from ageneral equity perspective. For example, Massell et al.(1997) characterized attention to equity issues as “episodicand weak” (p. 9). Most states in their study had not involvedthe disability community in discussions about adoptingstandards, nor in their development. They concluded:

If the goal of achieving higher standards for all studentsis not to be hollow rhetoric, resources and attention mustbe focused on how to best serve all students in achallenging academic environment. (p. 10)

Roach & Caruso (1997) recently concluded that despitethe vast array of statewide education reforms occurring invirtually all the states, most states have yet to considerspecial education and students with disabilities an integralpart of their overall reform efforts. All too often, studentswith disabilities are maintained in separate, segregatedspecial education systems. Students with disabilities areoften absent from discussions of systemic reform. When theyare considered, they are sometimes treated as an afterthoughtor seen as having less potential than do their peers withoutdisabilities. Yet the data suggest that systemic policy reformthat addresses the needs of all students can lead to improved

Cobb et al: A Review of Four Reforms


6

outcomes for students with disabilities. Kentucky andVermont are two states where special education is beingconducted as part of the states’ total reform effort. In thesestates content-based reform policies are driving new class-room practices resulting in enhanced outcomes for studentswith disabilities (Roach & Caruso, 1997).

High Stakes Testing

High stakes assessment is a top-down driven, schoolperformance accountability system created in order tomonitor the progress of educational reform initiatives(Oldham, 1993). According to Linn (1998), current large-scale high stakes testing in schools is directly tied to thestandards movement and assessment results are directed atthe accountability of schools and educators. The currentwidespread implementation of high stakes testing is aresponse to President Clinton’s 1997 State of the UnionAddress during which he urged:

Every state should adopt high national standards and by1999, every state should test every fourth grader inreading and every eighth grader in math to make surethe standards are met. . . . Good tests will show us whoneeds help, what changes in teaching to make, andwhich schools to improve. They can help us to endsocial promotion. For no child should move from gradeschool to junior high, or junior high to high school untilhe or she is ready.

The term high stakes refers to the fact that test resultslead to consequences including rewards such as financialbenefits and/or sanctions against schools. These tests areused to make “high stakes” decisions regarding students,schools, and/or staff (Madaus, 1988). Heubert and Hauser(1999) describe several ways that large scale high stakes testresults are used by policymakers. Results are typically usedto effect change for individual students, educators, andschools. For students, test results are used to make instruc-tional decisions about how to track students according tolearning ability and to provide valid evidence of students’progress towards standards. Test results are used to motivateeducators to make instructional and curricular changedecisions. Most recently, however, test results have beenused as a mechanism for reporting about the general status ofthe educational system to parents and lawmakers and thegeneral public. This program evaluation informationindicates the educational system’s success or failure inteaching students and thus holds schools accountable foreducation.

The call for improving students’ learning of reading andmath and for more school accountability is not new. Histori-cally, the use of large scale testing began in the 1970s as aresult of federal legislation such as Goals 2000: Educate

America Act of 1994, and Title 1 of the Elementary andSecondary Education Act of 1965. According to Linn (1998),what is unique about the current wave of high stakes testingis that using the results as accountability measures relating toschool performances is the predominate purpose of the test.This purpose is not only contrary to the President’s statedbeliefs about testing but also contrary to the Department ofEducation’s position. According to Deputy Secretary ofEducation, Marshall Smith, the purpose is to “change theodds for kids in the two critical areas of basic skills, readingand mathematics” (U. S. Department of Education, 1997).Smith suggested that test results will lead to interventions forstudents to help them attain standards.

One of the major benefits of using high stakes testing isthat it is influential in promoting school reform (Taylor,1994). As a lever for reform, testing is relatively inexpensiveparticularly when compared to other initiatives such areducing class size. High stakes testing allows publicscrutiny-results are found on the front pages of newspapers-because results can be reported quickly and in a mannergenerally understood by the public (i.e. quantitative terms).Responses to the results and concomitant changes ineducation can also occur in a relatively short period of time(according to Linn, 1998, response can be made within apolitician’s term of office). In other words, high stakestesting can facilitate school reform that is quickly imple-mented and with immediate gains shown (Linn, 1998).

Most research on the effects of high stakes testingaddresses curriculum and instruction. Studies show that highstakes tests are reported by teachers to narrow the curriculumfocus (Corbett & Wilson, 1991). Teachers teach to the testcontent, with basic skills being emphasized (Shepard &Doughty, 1991). This same conclusion has also been drawnby Mehrens (1998) from his recent review of the literature.He concluded that if the consequences are high enough andteachers agree that the content being measured is important,then teachers will narrow the focus of curriculum in theirclasses and alter their instruction to match the format of thetest in order to improve their students’ scores. Noble andSmith (1994) noted that much class time can be consumedby preparing for the test. Teachers’ sense of professionalismand autonomy may be affected negatively when theirprofessional knowledge and beliefs about teaching arechanged to match testing requirements (Shepard &Dougherty, 1991; Smith & Rothenberg, 1991). In a morepositive light, Baker and her colleagues (1992) found thatinstruction designed to prepare students for tests wasimproved. The question that remains, however, is: does thenarrowed curriculum improve the education of students?

Concerns surrounding the use of high stakes testingappear to outweigh the positive factors and fall into tworelated categories: (a) technical properties of the tests, and(b) use of scores by policymakers. In terms of design, severalauthors have questioned the trustworthiness of high stakes

7

tests. For example, Heubert and Hauser (1999) discuss thedilemma that expectations for test utility far outstrip thetechnical capacities. Specific concerns include reliability oftest scores, development of clear performance criteria, andthe need for informed judgments of student performancefrom judges who are knowledgeable about standards content.An additional issue is test scoring, particularly because of theneed for clear rubrics (Taylor, 1994) and because scores donot provide information that leads to the development ofindividual remediation plans (Koretz, 1987). Also of concernis that test results are being used for a multitude of purposessimultaneously. The question that must be answered is: Whatexactly is the test designed to do?

Concerns about use of the scores are directed at the useof the test as an accountability tool. Noble and Smith (1994)pointed out that consequences of tests are related to scoresand not to actual mastery of the standard. Scores are only anindication of students’ performance on the test and do notreflect actual knowledge of the content area. Further,Heubert and Hauser (1999) question the fairness of using onetest as a sole factor in classifying students and they arguethat high stakes tests may be inappropriately used for manyother purposes. This position is a reiteration of Stake’s(1995) earlier contention that one test does not provide acomplete picture of subject matter mastery. Further, compari-sons drawn on a single variable between schools or any othersystem ignore the influence of a number of importantvariables such as poverty, family, and community. In light ofall of these concerns, Linn (1998) stated unequivocally thathigh stakes tests have not been found to improve learning.There is no evidence that the student learning sampled byhigh stakes tests is maintained or useful. Additionally,generalization of results to other tests or to the broadercontent area does not occur (Linn, 1998). Shepard (1991)also noted that these tests have far too many unintendedoutcomes such as the negative effects for school and teachersto be of great value for improving education.

Students with Disabilities. There are two major issuesassociated with the use of high stakes tests with studentslabeled as having a disability: (a) including students withdisabilities in testing and (b) reasonably accommodatingstudents who take the test. Accommodations are made in testadministration (e.g., reading test directions aloud) or in howthe test is taken (e.g., extended time) but do not alter thecontent of the test.

Federal mandates including Goals 2000 and Title 1 ofthe Improving America’s School Act of 1994, Individualswith Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and Section 504 ofthe Rehabilitation Act address the inclusion of students withdisabilities into high stakes testing. Specifically, IDEA1997’s amendments mandate that students with disabilitiesbe included in district and school test processes with neces-sary accommodations provided. The accommodation processis tied to the Individual Education Planning (IEP) process for


which a team is convened to determine appropriate accom-modations assuring the success of the student; specificmodifications the student needs in order to participate inassessment programs must be listed in the IEP. If it isdetermined by the IEP team that the student should notparticipate in the testing, the IEP must contain a statementabout why participation in testing is not warranted. Statesmust develop an alternative assessment for nonparticipatingstudents by year 2000 (this presumes that alternative studentperformances can measure the same standard construct).IDEA also mandates that states establish policies andprocedures specifying how testing information is reported.

Forty-three states have guidelines for including studentinto high stakes testing (National Research Council, 1997).According to Heubert and Hauser (1999), however, few ofthese states include very many students. Students withdisabilities are not and traditionally have not been involvedin high stakes testing because of questions related to the useof accommodations in test administration and scoring anddue to concerns regarding school composite scores. Forexample, McLaughlin et al., (1998), in their case studies offive districts’ struggles with standards-based reforms, foundthat four of the five districts exempted all students withdisabilities from taking high stakes tests. The 1997 reauthori-zation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act hasmandated a change in this behavior, requiring students withdisabilities to be included in all state and district assessments.

There are several questions related to the use of reason-able accommodations with students. There is the questionabout “what is reasonable?” Further, someone must beknowledgeable about creating test modifications andunderstand the effects of accommodations on the reliabilityof the test scores. Heubert and Hauser (1999) suggest thattests that have been modified be “flagged” in order to alertscorers that the test has been altered in some way. Thereseems to be little research regarding on the validity ofaccommodated test scores (National Research Council,1997). In fact, McLaughlin et al. (1998) found that for manyteachers the notion of validity with respect to inter- and intra-district accountability comparisons was far less of a concernthan other functions associated with the testing process.These researchers stated:

Because teachers and principals had varied understandingsof assessments as well as some wariness about theusefulness of large-scale assessments for students withdisabilities, accommodations were frequently guided bythe desire to help the student do as well as possible on thetest or to just participate in the testing event. The notionthat it might be important to have a valid indication ofwhere a student with a disability is achieving relative toother students was not a particularly important goal. . . .No one questioned whether a high score was meaningfulto a teacher or student, or if it would change expectationsand programs. (p. 15, italics original)


8

Schools have excluded students with disabilities for manyreasons. Given the high stakes attached to tests and publicscrutiny of this information, schools have not included studentsin order to raise their school average score. Given the capri-cious nature of the special education labeling process that leadsto differences in how students are labeled from district todistrict, the practice of exempting students distorts the accuracyof the data and compromises comparisons made betweenschools, or other educational systems. Another concern aboutthe use of high stakes testing is that the curriculum (whichmight be functional and not academic) offered to students withdisabilities is not aligned with the standards being assessed. Butif students are not included, the message sent is that theycannot achieve high standards or that they are receiving asecond and unequal curriculum. One reason to include studentsis to assure that they and their teacher and the schools are beingheld to the same high standards for learning that is beingmandated for all students. It may also drive regular and specialeducation teachers to work more closer together in order toalign curriculum for all students.

School to Work

In 1991, the Office of Vocational and Adult Education inthe U. S. Department of Education published a report entitledCombining School and Work: Options in High Schools andTwo-Year Community Colleges and drawn from earlier workby David Stern (Stern, 1990). This report discussed expand-ing work experiences in schools through apprenticeships,cooperative education, and school-based enterprises. It alsomade a strong case for a program model called “vocationalacademies,” which would enhance the integration of voca-tional and academic education; and it recommended strength-ening tech prep programming as well as business-schoollinkages. These recommended components very clearlyformed the basis of the School-to-Work Opportunities Act of1994 (P. L. 103-239) (STWOA), and were built on severalstudies of the California Peninsula Academies in the 1980s(Stern, Dayton, Paik, Weisberg, & Evans, 1988; Stern,Dayton, Paik, & Weisberg, 1989), as well as a series ofstudies decrying the preparedness of American workers uponleaving high school (Bailey, 1991).

The STWOA was initiated as a joint initiative betweenthe Departments of Education and Labor. The STWOA waspart of a broader national initiative for comprehensiveeducational reform in 1994, which also included the Goals2000: Educate America Act, and the National Skill StandardsAct of 1994. The purpose of the STWOA, similar to theGoals 2000 legislation, was to establish a national frameworkwithin which all states could create statewide school-to-worksystems (Policy Update, Summer 1994). As stated in Section3 (a), the major purpose of this act was to “offer opportuni-ties to all students to participate in a performance-basededucation and training program that will enable students to

earn portable credits, prepare the students for first jobs inhigh-skill high-wage careers and increase their opportunitiesfor further education.” Ideally, this would result in thecreation of an expanded pool of qualified workers, thusdeveloping a reliable source for a high-skilled workforce,reducing turnover of entry-level employees, promotingcurriculum development to meet industry requirements, andincreasing the competitive edge in the international market(Petteway, 1998). The STWOA included a variety of school-based learning, work-based learning, and connectingopportunities throughout high school to achieve this ideal,including: (a) career exploration and counseling, (b) aca-demic and occupational instruction that was integrated andfocused on high standards of achievement, and (c) a varietyof structured work experiences that taught broad transferableworkplace skills (Goldberg, Kazia, & O’Flanagan, 1994; U.S. Department of Labor, 1991).

The STWOA also made several specific references tostudents with disabilities. As further referenced in Section 3,additional purposes of the act were:

to motivate all youths, including low-achieving youths,school dropouts, and youth with disabilities, to stay in orreturn to school or a classroom setting and strive tosucceed, by providing enriched learning experiences andassistance in obtaining good jobs and continuing theireducation in postsecondary educational institutions; andto increase opportunities for minorities, women andindividuals with disabilities, by enabling individuals toprepare for careers that are not traditional for their race,gender or disability.

These statements emphasize the act’s specific purposesin addressing the national dropout rate among students,including students with disabilities (National TransitionNetwork, Summer, 1994).

The Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development(1995) stated that school-to-work programs should help allstudents, especially those with disabilities, address the fullrange of issues they will confront as they transition fromschool to adult life. The transition process involves “changein status from behaving primarily as a student to assumingemergent adult roles in the community. These roles includeemployment, participating in postsecondary education,maintaining a home, becoming appropriately involved in thecommunity and experiencing satisfactory personal and socialrelationships” (p. 117).

Students with Disabilities. What are the interim effectsof the school-to-work initiative thus far? How do thoseeffects appear to relate to students with disabilities? On thefirst of these questions, the evidence is beginning to accumu-late, although it is still extremely limited and largely centeredon procedural and organizational developments across thecountry. For example, Medrich, Ramer, Merola, andMoskovitz (1998) reported on the school-to-work progress

9

measures, a component of the national evaluation of theschool-to-work initiative. Their report, however, outlined thenumbers of partnerships that have emerged in the past fewyears, the general percentages of schools and studentsparticipating in some aspects of school-to-work, indicators ofemployer involvement, and longevity of the partnerships.Indeed, half of the sixteen tables in the report focused on thepercentage of possible partnerships that actually reportedthese progress measures in different areas. Virtually nostudent outcome data, either for students with our withoutdisabilities, appeared in this report.

Using U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of LaborStatistics data (National Longitudinal Survey of Youth,[NLSY]1996-97), Visher, Lauen, Merola, and Medrich(1998) also studied the types and prevalence rates of school-to-work activities in high schools across the United States, aswell as how those rates varied by community and schoolcharacteristics. These authors were able to formulate somestudent outcome estimates, however, but the data were basedupon school-level rates generated by a composite indexmeasuring school-to-work involvement. These authors foundthat in those schools with “high school-to-work scores”(versus those with “low school-to-work scores”), there wereslightly lower graduation rates (85% vs. 90%), slightly lowerattendance rates (92% vs. 94%) and slightly lower percent-ages of students taking college entrance tests (53% vs. 59%).On the other hand, Visher et al., (1998) also found that highschool-to-work schools had slightly higher percentages ofstudents who actually enrolled in four-year colleges (41% vs.40%), and in two-year colleges (24% vs 20%).

Two other national-level reports appeared more recently(National Employer Leadership Council, 1999; NationalSchool-to-Work Learning Center, 1999), although bothreported data produced by others. Citing local evaluations inPhiladelphia and Boston, both reports asserted that studentsin school-to-work programs had higher academic achieve-ment, lower dropout rates, better attendance rates, bettercollege preparation, and improved graduation rates. Thesestudent outcomes seem to contradict several of the trendsseen in the NLSY data by Visher et al. (1998).

Perhaps the most comprehensive national study of theschool-to-work initiative to date was published by Hershey,Silverberg, Haimson, Hudis, & Jackson (1999), which is thefirst report of the national evaluation of the school-to-workinitiative by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. Again,however, almost no student outcome data were included inthis report-only participation rates and other school-to-workcomponent prevalence information. A comparison ofparticipation rates in three school-to-work components(comprehensive career development, workplace activitylinked to school, and career-related academics) across both1996 and 1998 cohorts is broken out for students with andwithout disabilities (Table C.1, p. 167). No statisticallysignificant differences appeared in the data for any compo-


nent or cohort group. Students with disabilities participatedslightly less frequently in comprehensive career developmentcomponents, slightly more frequently in workplace activitylinked to school, and about equally in career-related academ-ics. For the 1996 cohort, students with disabilities whoparticipated in all three component activities did so atslightly lesser rates than their nondisabled counterparts.However, by 1998, the participation rate for students withdisabilities had nearly doubled that of students withoutdisabilities.

Several states have also published evaluation studies ofthe school-to-work initiative in their respective states. Mostof these reports, however, are process-oriented, with verylittle outcome data (i.e., Bernier, Lopez, Miller, & Partin,1998; Woloszyk, 1997). One exception is the state of NewYork. In an evaluation of New York’s state implementationgrant (Westchester Institute for Human Services Research,1998), a number of student outcomes were reported. In thatstudy, students who participated in school-to-work activitieswas found to have greater interest in school and studies,better work experiences (including problem-solving activi-ties, situations requiring creativity and teamwork skills, andopportunity to learn new skills), better connections betweenschool and work, and better career direction. The study alsoconcluded that school-to-work programming does not steerstudents away from postsecondary education nor doesacademic learning for school-to-work students decline.

One aspect of the Woloszyk (1997) study of interest inthis monograph, however, is his conclusion concerningschool-to-work processes for youth at risk. Results fromqualitative data indicated that at-risk advocacy groups hadlittle or no membership on regional workforce developmentboards, and minimal “official” decision-making authority.Few staff were explicitly responsible for ensuring access forall students, seemingly belying the intent of the legislation inits language mandating coordinated services for all children.

Charter Schools

Charter schools are one of the fastest-spreading,dynamic, and controversial educational reform movements toemerge in response to widespread demands for better publicschools and more school choice. A majority of states havenow passed legislation allowing parents, teachers, andcommunity members to start these more autonomousschools, which receive public funds but operate unfettered bymost state and local school district regulations governingother public schools. Charter schools attract a diverse arrayof people who advocate reform of the current public schoolsystem for a variety of reasons. But at the heart of the charterschool concept is a shared set of assumptions about how andwhy such schools will improve public education (Corwin &Flaherty, 1995; Garcia & Garcia, 1996; RPP International,1998; Wells and Associates, 1998).


10

Supporters claim that, in exchange for freedom fromburdensome rules and regulations, charter schools will bemore accountable for student learning. Vandersall (1998), forexample, speaks to the need to decentralize large citysystems, engage the public in decision making at the schoolsand district levels, and enhance community control ofschools, again suggesting that increased accountability willoccur.

In addition, charter school advocates assert that charterschools infuse a healthy competition into a bureaucratic andunresponsive public system by providing more educationalchoices to parents and students. Because of their enhancedautonomy, charter schools will encourage educationalinnovation, provide more professional opportunities forteachers, and operate more efficiently than regular publicschools. For these reasons, charter schools are also expectedto serve as educational research and development laborato-ries and as a spur to reform of the public education system asa whole. The appeal of these ideas is apparent in the speedyrate at which new charter schools are opening. Althoughcounts vary, it is conservatively estimated that, during the1997-1998 school year, more than 1,000 charter schoolswere in operation in 23 states and the District of Columbia,serving more than 100,000 students (RPP International,1998). The majority of the schools are at the elementarylevel and federal funding has increased from $6 million in1995 to $51 million in 1997. President Clinton has called forquadrupling the number of charter schools by the year 2002.Proponents of charter schools suggest that charter schoolscombine the best aspects of a public school system-publicsupport, public access, and accountability-with the increasedflexibility of private schools.

Charter school laws passed in many states explicitlyintend to empower teachers to become more self-directedprofessionals by providing them with the autonomy, flexibil-ity, and authority they need to design new and innovativeapproaches to teaching and learning (Contreras, 1995;Mulholland & Bierlein, 1993; Wells and Associates, 1998).Advocates suggest that such empowerment means thatteachers in charter schools will be encouraged to take onaspects of a more “professional” role outside the classroom.Examples of this more professional role could includeexerting greater influence over school-wide decisions, andhaving more say in how they organize their day and howthey structure relationships with colleagues (Corwin &Flaherty, 1995). Ultimately, according to this theoreticalperspective, these more empowered teachers would be betterable to serve their students by creating educational environ-ments that will lead to improved student outcomes (Marks &Louis, 1997).

Early studies of charter schools have provided prelimi-nary evidence about who teaches in charter schools. Charterschool teachers are often younger than their counterparts intraditional schools, have less teaching experience, hold fewer

advanced degrees, and are mostly-but not always-certified,although charter school legislation generally does not requirecertification (Center for Applied Research and EducationalImprovement [CAREI], 1997; Colorado Department ofEducation, 1996; 1998; Finn, Manno, Beirlein, & Vanourek,1997a). Teachers report going to work in charter schools fora variety of reasons, including more freedom and flexibility,family teaching and learning atmosphere, increased decisionmaking, dedicated staff, and enhanced accountability(Beirlein, 1996). The research suggests that charter schoolteachers are generally quite satisfied so far with theirexperiences despite what appear to be some fairly commonconcerns, such as heavy workloads, inadequate facilities,relatively low salaries, and tenuous job security (Beirlein,1996; Corwin & Flaherty, 1995; Finn, Manno, Beirlein, &Vanourek, 1997; Wells and Associates, 1998).

Students with Disabilities. As with the other threereforms discussed earlier, the existence of good-qualityoutcome data on the effects of charter schools on studentswith disabilities is extremely limited. Part of the problem isthat only about one quarter of charter schools are 8th-12thgrade or 9th-12th grade schools, and those that are werecreated most recently in the movement as a whole. Too,while the charter school movement is nine years old now,most charter schools are less than three years old-much tooyoung and immature to have good-quality outcome data thatsort out effects for an adequate sampling of students whohave attended a charter school long enough to demonstrateaccurately differential effects. Nonetheless, there have beenseveral large-scale studies of charter schools and a handful ofsmaller data-based studies of charter schools, and theremainder of this section will draw from those sources.

The earliest of the large-scale studies was conducted bythe Hudson Institute’s Educational Excellence Network(Finn, Manno, & Bierlein, 1996). This series of case studiesof charter schools in several states has no student achieve-ment data, but did put forth some estimates of the proportionof students with disabilities being served by charter schools.Finn et al. (1996) asked administrators in the 35 schools intheir sample to tell them:

The number of “students with a formal special educationindividualized plan (IEP),” the number “who do not have aformal special education IEP but who would have had onein their former public school,” and the number of “otherstudents with serious learning impediments.” (p. 56)

The responses these researchers received generated anestimated 8% special education eligible students, and about11% in the remaining two categories. In a subsequentpublication of the same research (Vanourek, Manno, Finn, &Bierlein, 1997a) these researchers estimated 12.6% of theirsample was students with disabilities. Vanourek, Manno, Finn,& Bierlein, 1997b) break out those numbers even further:

11

According to data reported by the charter schools in oursample, 7.7% of their students had an IEP, 3.5% did notnow have an IEP but probably would have had one intheir former public school, and 1.4% were students withother serious learning impediments. . . . According toparents, 9.1% of their children had a learning disabilityand 1.8% had a physical disability. . . . (p. 8)

By comparison, the RPP International (1998) nationalstudy of charter schools set the estimated percentage ofstudents with disabilities at approximately 8%, the CAREI(1998) study estimated 25%, and Wells and Associates(1998) found less than 5%.

Several observations seem appropriate here concerningthe prevalence of students with disabilities in charter schools.First, “conversion” schools (charter schools which simplyconvert from regular public school status but whose studentpopulation changes very little) seem to have a greaterpercentage of students with disabilities than “start-up”charter schools (new schools that begin as a charter school).

Second, in states like California and Minnesota wherethere are large numbers of charter schools and large state-wide percentages of students with disabilities served bythose schools, the aggregated state data are somewhatmisleading since a number of schools in both states have“magnet” type schools designed for students with disabili-ties. These schools’ enrollments artificially inflate theperception of widespread enrollments across all schools inthose states. For example, the SRI International (1997) studyof California charter schools found that fully one quarter ofthese schools had no students receiving special educationservices in them. Similarly the West and Associates (1998)study of 17 charter school in California found that 10 out ofthose 17 schools reported 2% or less prevalence rate, and 7or those 10 have no students or no data about specialeducation students.

Finally, those charter schools which do enroll studentswith disabilities, but which are not “magnet”-type schoolsappear to be selective about which types of students withdisabilities they do allow into their schools. For example,Vanourek et al. (1997b) reported only students with learningand physical disabilities in their study (at least by parentalinformation). Becker, Nakagawa, & Corwin (1997) in theirstudy of parent contracts (required involvement of parents)in charter schools suggest the possibility of school adminis-trators’ use of such contracts as a selectivity mechanism toavoid enrolling difficult to serve students. They state:

Two possibilities suggest themselves: (1) the schoolsdid not have the information to exclude people ahead oftime, and it was interpersonally difficult to do so lateron; and (2) parents not interested in the parent-involve-ment requirement knew enough not to apply in the firstplace. We suspect that both elements are involved. (p. 531)


Similar fears were cited by RPP International (1998)who stated: “we received reports that some charter schoolsseemed to counsel parents [of students with disabilities] tosend their children to other public schools where they couldreceive better services” (p. 3 of 5, http://www.ed.gov/pubs/charter/chap3bl.html). Even Finn and his colleagues from theHudson Institute, who are zealous supporters of charterschools, hint at this kind of selectivity potential in a policypaper subsequent to their initial study report (Finn, Manno,Bierlein, & Vanourek, 1997b). They state: “Charter schoolslive in fear that one day a ‘$50,000 kid’ will arrive on theirdoorstep-for example a youngster who needs a full-timeattendant of his own-and bankrupt them” (p. 11).

Beyond the aforementioned studies concerning access tocharter schools for students with disabilities, there is littleinformation about outcomes for any students-typical ordisabled. Virtually every one of the studies reviewed for thismonograph cited a host of reasons why such data were notavailable, including less well established evaluation processesin charter schools, lack of involvement by charter schools instate testing programs, the existence only of aggregated ratherthan student-level data, lack of adequate comparison groups,and the like (c.f. Anderson & Marsh, 1998).

Best Practices

Introduction

The purpose of this section is to identify educationalpractices based upon empirical studies that improve thefuture success of students with disabilities. Thus the basis ofthis section is four appropriate pieces of literature thataddress recommended practices for students with disabilitiesat the secondary level. These four publications were selectedafter a literature search that included reviewing CareerDevelopment for Exceptional Children and ExceptionalChildren journals and following a computer search of theNTA database. The primary selection criterion for includingliterature in this review was that the articles must haveincluded compilations of research conducted over the last 15years focusing on recommended secondary practices forstudents with disabilities. Therefore, Kohler (1993), whoreviewed 17 research studies to determine which transition-related practices were substantiated by data, was selected.Similarly, Phelps and Hanley-Maxwell (1997) synthesizedresearch and evaluation studies pertaining to secondaryeducational practices linked to desired outcomes for studentswith disabilities and/or to students considered to be “at risk.”In a third article, Hughes, Hwang, Kim, Killian, Jarmer, andAlcantara (1997) identified transition-related, empiricalstudies from which they derived a list of strategies. The listof strategies was validated by a national survey of research-ers in the field of secondary transition.


12

All three of these articles refer to the longitudinal studyconducted by Wagner (1989) that reported student outcomesafter exiting high school. Although Wagner’s article is not aresearch synthesis but rather a single empirical study, itscomprehensiveness in studying student outcomes suggestedits importance to the discussion.

One of the assumptions about successful practicesinherent in these four articles was that success must berelated to student achievement of positive futures. Thequestion was then: “What constitutes desirable outcomes andhow do they occur?” Wagner’s (1989) study addressed thisquestion by defining outcomes that were desirable andidentifying practices that led to those outcomes.

Additional positive outcomes for students were definedby Wagner (1989): (a) students’ productive engagementfollowing high school in employment or postsecondaryeducation; and (b) students’ quality of life (also suggested by

Halpern [1992]) in terms of financial and residential inde-pendence, and students’ development of positive socialaffiliations. These outcomes were dependent upon studentsbeing able to meaningfully participate in educationalopportunities (Phelps & Hanley-Maxwell, 1997). Table 1provides a framework for discussing the educational practices/opportunities reported in the articles as having an empiricalbasis. The major headings/categories are derived from theanalytic framework presented by Phelps and Hanley-Maxwell(1997). Within each cell are elements identified by the authorsof the four articles in this review. According to Phelps andHanley-Maxwell, “Such comprehensive frameworks, whichexamine broadly the variables and factors that could potentiallyinfluence student learning and post-school outcomes, are anessential beginning point for documenting the effects ofpractices on attainment of valued outcomes” (p. 209). Each ofthese elements is briefly described.

Table 1. Secondary Recommended Practices

Curriculum FormalizedProgram and Support Articulation and

Reference Administration Instruction Services Communications

Hughes, Choice making and Co-worker, peer, IndependenceHwang, decision making family & objecties identifiedKim, Self-management and environment supportKillian, independence Student preferences andJarmer, and decision-makingAlcantara identification(1997) Support matched to

student needsSocial acceptance assessed and monitored

Kohler (1993) Vocational training Parent involvementPaid work InteragencySocial skills training collaboration and

service delivery

Phelps and Leadership Integration of vocational Career guidance and Parent involvementHanley- Resources and academic curricula counseling Early notificationMaxwell Staff development Work experience Job placement of vocational(1997) Evaluation opportunities Assessment of interests opportunities

Cooperative education and abilities Vocational and regular educator involvement in planningInteragency collaboration

Wagner Leadership in Vocational training Group affiliations(1989) school policy Work experience

objectives

13

Descriptions of Secondary Education Practices

Program Administration. Program administration greatlyinfluences what educational practices are implemented andthe degree to which they are supported. Two sources notedthe importance of program administration to educationalpractices-Phelps and Hanley-Maxwell (1997) and Wagner(1989). Phelps and Hanley-Maxwell (1997) highlightedseveral elements which appear to contribute to studentsuccess. For example, program administrators’ ability to leadis related to their understanding of and support for theappropriate placement of students with disabilities ininclusive academic and vocational settings. In addition,leaders must be willing to budget and spend adequateamounts of money to support students with special needs. Inother words, facilitating the learning of students with specialneeds must be a priority with leaders if positive outcomes aregoing to occur for these students. Given that students withdisabilities, on average, spend over 70% of their educationaltime in inclusive settings (U. S. Department of Education,1998), leaders must also support the staff development,specifically concerning how to accommodate students withspecial needs in their instruction, and how to implementvarious programmatic aspects of transition includingassessment, evaluation, referral, and job placement.

Phelps and Hanley-Maxwell (1997) also found programevaluation to be an important element in this category.Evaluation in this context refers to the need for ongoingreviews relating to the quality of school programs, theircompliance with accreditation requirements, and the need toconduct follow-up studies regarding post-school outcomesof students.

Wagner (1989) is the only other researcher who notedthese aforementioned programmatic administrative elementsas critically important to positive student outcomes. Shestated that “ the educational experiences of students inspecial education are shaped not only by the nature of theircourses but by the environment in which they were taken”(p. 320). Specifically, she identified the importance schoolpolicy plays in enabling students to access a variety ofdifferent programs including vocational and academiccourses, and how grading occurred for these students.

Curriculum and Instructional Settings. In our review, weconsistently located eleven elements within the broad rubricof curriculum and instruction that were found to be importantto positive student outcomes. Curriculum and instructionrefers primarily to the interrelationships between the types ofclasses in which students enroll and the types of curriculathey receive. For example, Wagner (1989), Kohler (1993),and Phelps and Hanley-Maxwell (1997) found muchsupporting evidence regarding the importance of vocationaleducation while in school. Additionally, both Kohler, andPhelps and Hanley-Maxwell referred to studies that high-lighted the importance of community-based work experi-


ences that often occur as the result of cooperative educationprograms. Because students must typically make a choicebetween vocational and academic education, Phelps andHanley-Maxwell argued that the integration of academicconcepts into vocational education courses was criticallyimportant to the long-term successes of students. Wagner(1989) also noted the difficulties for students that mutuallyexclusive dual tracks offered, and suggested that studentstake courses most related to their futures-taking academiccourses to prepare for postsecondary education and takingvocational courses to access postsecondary vocationaltraining or the job market.

The broader sense of the appropriateness of studentplacement into regular education (i.e., inclusive) settings isdealt with less directly by all of these researchers. Wagner(1989), for example, did not conclusively find that inclusionled to better outcomes, but that placement of students intoeither inclusive settings or into special education settings hada profound effect on the curriculum students received, theirfriendships, and their overall socialization skills. Placementof students also affected the expectations by teachers of thelikelihood that students with disabilities would achieve tosimilar standards as their non-labeled peers. Phelps andHanley-Maxwell (1997) concurred that placement decisionsare critical and cited the National Center on EducationalOutcomes concerning the value of equal opportunities for allstudents. Both Wagner, and Phelps and Hanley-Maxwellmentioned the need for age appropriate placements. Hugheset al. (1997) did not separate inclusive practices from thestrategies they identified. Instead they used the concept ofintegrated settings as one criterion for selecting researcharticles in their validation of transition support strategies.

In addition to the integration of academic and vocationalcontent, social skills training, life skills training, and skillsassociated with self-determination were also identified asimportant to positive student outcomes. Both Kohler (1993)and Hughes et al. (1997) cited research highlighting theimportance of social skills. Hughes et al. defined social skillsas “social behaviors that facilitate interactions” (p. 5).Hughes et al. also cited research supporting the need to teachskills such as functional household tasks and extended theconcept of independence to include skills associated withself-determination such as how to make choices, anddecisionmaking. Similarly Wagner (1989) highlightedstudies documenting the importance of life skills training,also defined as daily living skills in the literature.

Support Services. The notion of support services refersto services provided by schools that are not generally part ofcurriculum or instruction. Both Hughes et al. (1997) andPhelps and Hanley-Maxwell (1997) reported the importanceof support services. In some cases support services werebrought to the classroom to improve the success of students,as in the case of assistive technology or teacher aides. Inother instances the support occurred outside of the class-


14

room, such as guidance counseling and job placementservices. Some services, such as assessment, were conductedin a variety of locations-in an assessment laboratory, inclassrooms, on jobs, or in the community.

Phelps and Hanley-Maxwell (1997) found three supportservices to which they attributed successful student out-comes. These were career guidance, assessment activities,and job placement. Assessment of students’ interests andabilities was found to be critical to future successful out-comes. Phelps and Hanley-Maxwell highlighted the use ofone particular assessment strategy-the informal assessmentstrategy called ecological assessment. In terms of careerguidance and job placement, Phelps and Hanley-Maxwellnoted the importance of having students directly receiveinformation about potential careers, followed by assistancein obtaining the jobs.

Hughes et al. (1997) concurred with Phelps and Hanley-Maxwell (1997) relative to the importance of career-relatedstudent assessment. According to Hughes et al, empiricalevidence showed the benefits of assessing student interestsand choices for the express purpose of identifying students’decision-making skills. Like Phelps and Hanley-Maxwell,these researchers found informal and ecological approachesto assessment to be the most empirically sound. Theirdescription of how to assess workplace independence, forexample, stated: “Survey the student’s environments (i.e.,home, community, school, work) through observation and byinterviewing the student and significant others and toidentify the areas in which the student’s performance is notconsistent with expectations” (p. 5).

Both the Hughes et al. (1997) and the Phelps andHanley-Maxwell (1997) syntheses found an importantcharacteristic of the assessment process-that it must be acontinuous or ongoing process. For example, according toHughes et al., monitoring students’ social appropriatenessover time and across settings was an important strategy.Furthermore, there was agreement regarding the importanceof inextricably linking services to students needs.

Formalized Articulation and Communication. Thisdomain refers to the people and agencies that must jointogether in their efforts to promote students’ pursuit ofsuccessful outcomes during the transition from school topost-school activity. The process of formal transitionplanning is highlighted here because it is the formal mecha-nism for communicating activities that must be accomplishedand for bringing various parties together in order to decideupon and articulate those activities. Collaborative planningdepends upon communication between parents of students,adult service agencies, and teachers. According to Kohler(1993), interagency collaboration and parental involvementwere cited in over half of the research and follow-up studiesshe reviewed as important to positive student outcomes.Additionally, Phelps and Hanley-Maxwell (1997) foundresearch supporting the need for vocational and academic

teachers to collaborate with each other, because that collabo-ration increased the likelihood that formalized transitionalplans were implemented. Specifically, the manner in whichstudents’ goals are developed was an equally important issueas were the specific goals themselves (Hughes et al., 1997).Multiple sources of information such as teachers, peers,employers, and families, are needed in defining expectationsfor students’ positive future outcomes.

As noted earlier, families were found by several re-searchers to play a major role in promoting positive studentoutcomes. In the literature syntheses by Kohler (1993) andPhelps and Hanley-Maxwell (1997), family input intoprogramming was mentioned, although the exact role andnature of that input by families was not specified in either ofthose syntheses. According to Hughes et al. (1997), parentsor other significant family members have unique andimportant information that they can communicate withprofessionals about the student that will aid in the transition-related process. Phelps and Hanley-Maxwell (1997) alsodocument the importance of schools in notifying parents(and students) about available vocational courses in theirdistricts.

While there was some overlap in the domains identifiedby these four researchers, there is not as much commonalitybetween elements found in each of the articles. For example,neither Hughes et al. (1997) nor Kohler (1993) reportedadministrative elements as significant in best practices; thetwo reports that did identify administrative support (Phelpsand Hanley-Maxwell, 1997; Wagner, 1989) differed fromeach other in the nature of that administrative support.

Conclusions

The variation in these syntheses is likely to be related todifferences in the procedures and orientations of the re-searchers when they approached the process of identifyingresearch articles on which to base their syntheses. Hughes etal. (1997) applied the lens of socially validated transition-related strategies; Kohler (1993) examined transitionpractices that had been substantiated in the literature as beingbeneficial to students; finally, Phelps and Hanley-Maxwell(1997) synthesized research linking secondary practices topositive student outcomes.

Beyond these differences in orientation to synthesizingresearch, perhaps the most interesting finding is in what ismissing from their reviews, rather than what is presentwithin and across the reviews. There were no studiesreported about pedagogy-only the curricular content thatwould appear to improve student outcomes. It may well bethat certain content such as vocational education has beenfound to increase students’ outcomes because this content isdelivered in a way that is different from traditional academ-ics. For example, more cooperative and contextual learning,and problem-based and “hands-on” teaching and learning

15

approaches typically occur in vocational education class-rooms. Further, the ability of teachers to accommodate oradapt instruction is mentioned only by Phelps and Hanley-Maxwell (1997) and then only in the context of actions thatenable the student to participate in educational opportunitiesand not in terms of their analytic framework regardingservices that promote effective students outcomes. Possibleinteractions between placement of students and curriculumcontent are not described by any of the authors. Nor is thereany mention made regarding school standards and assess-ments associated with student mastery of standards.

Conclusions

What conclusions and policy recommendations can begleaned from these four reforms for their impact on studentswith disabilities and the best practices that are used withthem? Perhaps the first, most salient but disappointingconclusion is that it is too early to tell. Although the five- toeight-year history that encompasses all of these reformsseems like a long time-adequate time-for which to drawsome solid conclusions, in fact it is not. Perhaps in anotherfive to eight years the evidentiary base will be well enoughestablished to shed light on the nexus of these reforms andthe special education community. Perhaps, not even then.Until then, though, this article will have to function primarilyas a baseline paper from which to make future comparisons.

Given this limited perspective, there are some patternsor themes that emerged from the reforms and best practicesreviews that seem to stand out. First, there is both good andbad news that seems evident. The good news is that with afew exceptions, the reforms we examined have many goodintentions and features, both for typical students and forthose with disabilities. It cannot be bad that the cornerstonesof these reforms include increasing accountability andachievement, increasing the relevance or context of thelearning environment, increasing the institutionalization ofparental involvement in the schools, reducing school andclass size, and tying schools more closely to the communityin which they are found. These are some of the most salientfeatures and goals of these reforms and must be consideredpositively.

But even these laudable goals can become clouded anddistorted when one looks at them through the lens of thespecial education community. At the risk of over-simplifica-tion, the two most prominent facets of this lens that canproduce these distortions are the omnipresent issues ofaccess and equity-or more contemporarily-inclusion andaccommodation. And on these two issues alone, there ismuch to be worried about from the perspective of thedisability community. In every one of the four reformsreviewed in this article, there are significant issues ofinclusion. They take on a different shape and form dependingon the reform, but they are there, from lack of presence in

state-level planning for the standards and school-to-workreforms, to situational exclusions in some districts’ highstakes testing, to exclusions from many charter schools (seealso Vanderwood, McGrew, & Ysseldyke, 1998).

There is a paradox about this inclusion/exclusion issue,however, that makes it all the more important and refracts itsimage directly back on the special education community.Without exception, the numerous theoretical and (much lessnumerous) empirical writings that were reviewed for each ofthe four reforms contained abundant references to specialeducation and students who were disabled and at risk. Thesewritings, unfortunately, contained very little outcome data(and not always the most inclusive perspective) but didcontain ample attention to these students as an issue in needof attention. It is clear that those researching and describingthese reforms were acutely aware of disability issues. Thatwas not the case of the special education literature wereviewed for the best practices component of this article.Seldom was the language of school reform prominent inthese writings, and when it was, it was school reform inspecial education, not general education. It seems likely thatthe extent to which the professional disability communityfinds itself excluded from the processes driving mainstreamreforms is as much a by-product of its own separatist culturalevolution over the past 40 years as it is capricious behaviorby the general education community. A similar point wasmade recently by Halpern (1999), and our reading of bothsets of literature (general and special education) bears it out.

There is also another interesting paradox that emergedfrom our readings. When we looked at what researchers ingeneral education reform said were the most important stepsin making whole school reform work, arguably the mostconsistently appearing step, guideline, or clue was thepresence of parents in the schools (i.e., Lane, 1998). But it isnot just their presence that matters-rather the form andstructure of that presence. It seems the presence of parents, inthe aggregate, must be centered as much or more on a wideragenda of school improvement than it is on a narrow agendaof advocacy for their own children (Wasley, Hampel, &Clark, 1997).

Now if there is a segment of the school culture that hasdominated parental involvement in the schools, it is specialeducation, although its involvement has historically andappropriately centered on child advocacy. Nonetheless, itmay well be that evolutionary building blocks at the micro-level which define the current perception of parents ofchildren with disabilities-grounded in child advocacy andpushing the system for appropriate services-has worked, insome measure, at cross-purposes to integrating their influ-ences with mainstream parents in the reform of wholeschools (Bagdi, 1997; Harry, Allen, & McLaughlin, 1995).

To conclude, the reforms reviewed herein cannot yet beevaluated for their effects on youth with disabilities. Thesereforms appear to be grounded in good intentions (or at least



16

their rhetoric is), but their potential effects on students withdisabilities are at best extremely worrisome, since theseintentions appear heavily weighted on the side of improve-ments for higher ability students.

Implications and Policy Recommendations

Assuming these reforms continue long enough to allowa good evidentiary base to be established about their efficacy,what would be the most likely findings of those studiesrelative to students with disabilities? In theory, the school-to-work movement would seem to hold the most promisesince its focus and practices are so closely linked to many ofthe best practice elements we identified in the literature.Conversely, the standards and high stakes assessmentinitiatives, because of their orientation towards aggregatedhigh performance in traditional academic areas (standards)and because of the intensely political and economic contextsassociated with high stakes testing, do not bode well, in ourestimation, for students with disabilities. Some considerationfor the momentum and long-term potential for these reformsmust temper these estimations, however. On this criterion,the school-to-work initiative seems the least likely to sustainits momentum, a scenario that does not bode well for youthwith disabilities in transition. For once the school-to-workinitiative is eliminated from the long-term reform agenda,one is hard-pressed to find any mention whatsoever of theconcepts and best practices of transition in the language ofstandards, high stakes testing, and charter schools. We knowfrom years of research and practice in special educationtransition that youth with disabilities need the curricular andinstructional elements we have highlighted earlier, yet theseelements appear nowhere on the radar screens of these threeremaining reforms.

Of the four reforms we reviewed, charter schools are themost interesting and purely “third wave” (in a perverse kindof way) in that their most fundamental feature-their raisond’etre-is whole school reform. The perversion of “thirdwave” reform philosophy, though, has to do with the“systemic” characteristics of charter schools-that is, theirrelationship to a comprehensive system of the delivery ofservices to children. On this “third wave” characteristic, onecould argue there is a clear move away from a systemicapproach to education. Indeed, an anti-systemic perspectiveappears to be the animating force behind charter schools.

As such, the most probable effect of the charter schoolmovement on students with disabilities is still very much indoubt. As Wells, Grutzik, Carnochan, Slayton, and Vasudeva(1999) suggest, there are a variety of motives underlyingwhy some groups of individuals initiate a charter school, andin many cases those motives do not include serving the entirearray of students who populate traditional schools.

At a much broader level, it ultimately takes caring,compassionate, and competent teachers to make whole

school reform work. But these teachers must work in schoolswhose climate sustains and fosters these attributes. Suchclimates, in turn, are nurtured by parents and professionalswho are motivated by long-term, whole school improvement.

As Vinovskis (1996) seems to suggest, third-wavereformers may have finally gotten it right by setting the levelof reform at the whole school, their empowerment of parents,and their interest in a systemic scope. But although neces-sary, these third-wave reform features may not be sufficientsince none of these features factor in or control for the variedmotives of those most powerful individuals who lead thereform efforts at each and every school. Whole schoolreform will not work for students with disabilities unless itworks for all students in the school. And it will not work forall students unless the underlying motives for school reformare characterized by an apolitical and pure interest in wholeschool advocacy.

In the final analysis, whether or not third-wave, wholeschool reform works is ultimately an empirical question, nota theoretical one. As such, whether it works or not must beassessed by measuring its varied impacts on all who teachand learn within the context of a reformed school. It appearsthat the more reforms at the whole school level conform tothe “systemic” nature of the third wave, the more difficult itis to design studies that unambiguously measure its effects.Such studies take long periods of time and will rely heavilyon mixed-method (perhaps case study) designs which arelabor intensive and expensive to conduct.

Until such studies are conducted, school-level andcommunity policymakers will have to continue their relianceon applying the templates of known best practices for youthwith disabilities at the secondary level as an overlay for eachnew reform they encounter. At the same time, it is incumbentupon agencies with resources and capacities to encourage andsupport the kinds of studies that will build the accumulation ofevidence that is needed to measure these reforms’ effects.

References

Anderson, L., & Marsh, J. (1998). Early results of a reformexperiment: Charter schools in California. Paperpresented at the annual meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association, San Diego, CA.

Bagdi, A. (1997). Parent-professional partnerships in familyfocused intervention. Paper presented at the annualconference of the National Council on Family Relations,Arlington, VA.

Baker, E., Aschbacher, P., Niemi, D., & Sato, E. (1992).CRESST performance assessment models: Assessingcontent area explanations. Los Angeles: University ofCalifornia, Center for Research on Evaluation, Stan-dards, and Students Testing.

17

Becker, H. J., Nakagawa, K., & Corwin, R. G. (1997). Parentinvolvement contracts in California’s charter schools:Strategy for educational improvement or method ofexclusion? Teachers College Record, 98(3), 512-536.

Bernier, R., Lopez, G., Miller, J., & Partin, S. (1998).Nebraska school-to-career: An evaluation. Omaha:University of Nebraska at Omaha.

Bierlein, L. A. (1996). Charter schools: Initial findings.Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University, LouisianaEducation Policy Research Center.

Carlson, R. V. (1996). Reframing & reform: Perspectives onorganization, leadership, and school change. WhitePlains, NY: Longman Publishers.

Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement(1997). Minnesota charter schools evaluation: Interimreport. Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota.

Colorado Department of Education (1998). 1997 Coloradocharter schools evaluation study. Denver, CO: ClaytonFoundation.

Colorado Department of Education (1996). Colorado charterschool information packet and handbook. Denver:Author.

Contreras, A. R. (1995). Charter school movement inCalifornia and elsewhere. Education and Urban Society,27(2), 213-228.

Corbett, H. D. & Wilson, B. (1991). Testing, reform, andrebellion. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Corwin, R. G., & Flaherty, J. F. (1995). Freedom andinnovation in California’s charter schools. Dallas, TX:Southwest Regional Laboratory.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1991) The implications for testingpolicy for quality and equality. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(3),220-225.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn: A blueprintfor creating schools that work. San Francisco: JosseyBass.

Farrar, E. (1990). Reflections on the first wave of reform:Reordering America’s educational priorities. In S. L.Jacobson and J. A. Conway, (Eds.). Educationalleadership in an age of reform. White Plains, NY:Longman Publishers.

Finn, C. E., Manno, B. V., & Bierlein, L. (1996). Charterschools in action: What have we learned? Washington,DC: Hudson Institute.

Finn, C., Manno, B., & Bierlein, L., & Vanourek, G. (1997a).Charter schools in action: Final report. Washington,DC: Hudson Institute.

Finn, C. E., Manno, B. V., Bierlein, L. A., & Vanourek, G.(1997b). Charter schools in action: The policy perils ofcharter schools. Washington, DC: Hudson Institute.

Finn, C. E., Manno, B. V., Bierlein, L. A., & Vanourek, G.(1997c). Charter schools in action: The birth-pains andlife-cycles of charter schools. Washington, DC: HudsonInstitute.

Florio, K. L. (1999). Twenty-one educational renewalinitiatives. Seattle, WA: Institute for EducationalLeadership.

Garcia, G. F., & Garcia, M. (1996). Charter schools - anothertop-down innovation. Educational Researcher, 25(8),34-36.

Golham, P. & Conley, T. (1997). Persistence, disillusion-ment, and compliance in educator reactions to stateschool reform. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting ofthe American Education Association (Chicago, IL,March 24-28, 1997).

Halpern, A. S. (1999, June). Transition: Is it time for anotherrebottling? Paper presented at the 1999 Annual OSEPProject Director’s Meeting, Washington, DC.

Harry, B., Allen, N., & McLaughlin, M. J. (1995). Communi-cation versus compliance: African-American parents’involvement in special education. Exceptional Children,61, 364-377.

Hershey, A. M., Silverberg, M. K., Haimson, J., Hudis, P., &Jackson, R. (1999). Expanding options for students:Report to Congress on the national evaluation of school-to-work implementation. Princeton, NJ: MathematicaPolicy Research.

Heubert, J. P., & Hauser, R. M. (1999). High stakes: Testingfor tracking, promotion, and graduation. Washington,D.C.: National Academy Press.

Hughes, C., Hwang, B., Kim, J., Killian, D., Jarmer, M., &Alcantara, P. (1997). A preliminary validation ofstrategies that support the transition from school to adultlife. Career Development for Exceptional Children,20(1), 1-11.

Kohler, P. D. (1993). Best practices in transition: Substantialor implied? Career Development for ExceptionalIndividuals, 16 1-18.

Koretz, D. M. (1987). Educational achievement: Explana-tions and implications of recent achievement trends.Washington, D.C.: U.S. Congressional Budget Office.

Lane, B. (1998). Choice matters: Policy alternatives andimplications for charter schools. Portland, OR: North-west Regional Educational Laboratory.

Linn, R. L. (1998, November). Assessment and accountabil-ity. (CSE Technical Report No. 490. Los Angeles:University of California, Center for Research onEvaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).

Lobosco, A. & Newman, D. (1992). Stakeholder informa-tion needs and implications for evaluations practice andspolicy development in early childhood special educa-tion. Evaluation Review (16)5, 443-63.

Madaus, G. (1988). The influence of testing on curriculum.In L. Tanner (Ed.), Critical issues in curriculum: 87thYearbook of the NSSE Part 1. Chicago, IL: University ofChicago Press (ERIC Document Reproduction ServiceNo. 263 183).



18

Marks, H. M., & Louis, K. S. (1997). Does teacher empower-ment affect the classroom? The implications of teacherempowerment for instructional practice and studentacademic performance. Educational Evaluation andPolicy Analysis, 19(3), 245-275.

Massell, D. (1994). Determining national content standards:An introduction. Education and Urban Society. (26)2,107-17.

McLaughlin, M.J. (1995). Defining special education:Response to Zigmond and Baker. Journal of SpecialEducation (29)2, 200-08.

McLaughlin, M. J., Henderson, K., & Rhim, L. M. (1998).Snapshots of reform: How five local districts areinterpreting standards-based reform for students withdisabilities. Alexandria, VA: Center for Policy Researchon the Impact of General and Special Education Reform.

Medrich, E., Ramer, C., Merola, L., & Moskovitz, R. (1998).School to work progress measures: A report to theNational School-to-Work Office. Berkeley, CA: MPRAssociates.

Mehrens, W. A. (1998). Consequences of assessment : Whatis the evidence? Vice- Presidential Address for theDivision D annual meeting of the American EducationalResearch Association, San Diego.

Miles, K., & Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Rethinking theallocation of teaching resources: Some lessons fromhigh-performing schools. Educational Evaluation andPolicy Analysis, 20(1), 9-29.

Mulholland, L. A., & Bierlein, L. (1993). Charter schools: Aglance at the issues. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State Univer-sity Morrison Institute for Public Policy.

Murphy, J. (1990). The educational reform movement of the1980s: A comprehensive analysis. In J. Murphy (Ed.).The educational reform movement of the 1980s: Per-spectives and cases. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.(1996). What matters most: Teaching for America’sfuture. New York: Author.

National Employer Leadership Council, (1999). The bottom-line return on school-to-work investment for studentsand employers: Intuitions confirmed. Washington, DC:Author.

National Research Council (1997). Educating one and all:Students with disabilities and standards-based reform. L.M. McDonnell & M. J. McLaughlin (Eds). Committeeon Goals 2000 and the Inclusion of Students withDisabilities, Board on Testing and Assessment. Washing-ton, DC: National Academy Press.

National School-to-Work Learning Center, (1999). Imple-mentation of the School-to-Work Opportunities Act of1994: 1998 report to Congress. Washington, DC: Author.

Newman, J. (1995). Comparing private schools and publicschools in the 20th century: History, demographics and thedebate over choice. Educational Foundations (9)3, 5-18.

Noble, A. J., & Smith, M. L. (1994, April). Old and newbeliefs about measurement-driven reform: “The morethings change, the more they stay the same (CSETechnical Report No. 373). Los Angeles: University ofCalifornia, Center for Research on Evaluation, Stan-dards, and Student Testing (CRESST).

O’Day, J. (1995). Systemic reform and Goals 2000. In J. F.Jennings (Ed.). National issues in education: Goals2000 and school-to-work. Bloomington, ID: Phi DeltaKappa International.

Petrie, H. G. (1990). Reflections on the second wave ofreform: Restructuring the teaching profession. In S. L.Jacobson and J. A. Conway, (Eds.). Educationalleadership in an age of reform. White Plains, NY:Longman Publishers.

Phelps, L. A., & Hanley-Maxwell, C. (1997). School-to-work transition for youth with disabilities: a review ofoutcomes and practices. Review of Educational Re-search, 67(2), 197-226.

Raimi, R. & Braden, T. (1998). State mathematics standards:An appraisal of math standards in 46 states, the Districtof Columbia, and Japan. Fordham Report (2)4.

Roach, V., & Caruso, M. G. (1997, February). Policy andpractice: Observations and recommendations to promoteinclusive practices. Education and Treatment of Chil-dren, 20(1), 105-121.

RPP International (1998). A national study of charterschools. Second-year report. Washington, DC: U. S.Department of Education.

Shepard, L. (1991) Will national tests improve studentlearning? Phi Delta Kappan, 73(3), 232-238.

Shepard, L. A., & Dougherty, K.C. (1991, April). Effects ofhigh stakes testing on instruction. Paper presented at theannual meetings of the American Educational ResearchAssociation and National Council on Measurement inEducation, Chicago.

Smith, M. L., & Rottenberg, C. (1991) Unintended conse-quences of external testing in elementary schools. Educa-tional measurement: Issues and Practice, 10, 7-11.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The invalidity of standardized testing formeasuring mathematics achievement. In T. A. Romberg,Ed. Reform in school mathematics and authenticassessment. Albany NY: State University of New YorkPress, pp.173-235.

Taylor, C. (1994). Assessment for measurement or standards:The peril and promise of large-scale assessment reform.American Educational Research Journal, 31(2), 231-262.

U. S. Department of Education. (1997) Voluntary nationaltests. Transcript for Public Meeting in Washington, DC:The White House, March 27.

19

Vandersall, K. (1998). Post-Brown school finance reform. InM. J. Gittell (Ed.). Strategies for school equity: Creatingproductive schools in a just society. New Haven, CT:Yale University Press.

Vanderwood, M., McGrew, K. S., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (1998).Why we can’t say much about students with disabilitiesduring education reform. Exceptional Children, 64(3),359-370.

Vanourek, G., Manno, B. V., Finn, C. E., & Bierlein, L. A.(1997). Charter schools in action: The educationalimpact of charter schools. Washington, DC: The HudsonInstitute.

Viadero, D. (1999, January 20). Who’s in, who’s out: Grantsprogram’s list of 17 reform models attracts criticism.Education Week, 18, 1, 12-13.

Vinovskis, M. A. (1996). An analysis of the concept and usesof systemic educational reform. Educational Researcher,33(1), 53-85.

Visher, M. G., Lauen, D., Merola, L., & Medrich, E. (1998).School-to-work in the 1990s: A look at programs andpractices in American high schools. Berkeley, CA: MPRAssociates.


Wagner, M. (1989). Youth with disabilities during transition:An overview of descriptive findings from the NationalLongitudinal Transition Study. Menlo Park, CA: SRIInternational.

Wasley, P., Hampel, R., & Clark, R. (1997). The puzzle ofwhole-school change. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(9), 690-697.

Wells, A. S., Grutzik, C., Carnochan, S., Slayton, J., &Vasudeva, A. (1999). Underlying policy assumptions ofcharter school reform: The multiple meanings of amovement. Teachers College Record, 100(3), 513-535.

Wells and Associates (1998). Beyond the rhetoric of charterschool reform: A study of ten California school districts.Los Angeles: University of California at Los Angeles.

Westchester Institute for Human Services Research (1998,July). New York State’s school-to-work initiativedemonstrates promising results: Recent findings fromthe statewide school-to-work evaluation. School-to-WorkReporter, 1(2), 1-6.

Woloszyk, C. (1997). Cross cutting analysis study for at riskyouth in Michigan’s school-to-work system. (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No. ED 415 442).

Author Information

Authors may be contacted at:

Brian Cobb, Ph.D.; Colorado State University, School of Occupational and Educational Studies, 214 Education Building,Fort Collins, CO 80523, 970/491-6835, [email protected]

Jean Lehmann, Ph.D.; Colorado State University, School of Occupational and Educational Studies, 241 EducationBuilding, Fort Collins, CO 80523; 970-491-5169, [email protected]

Susanne Tochterman, Ph.D.; Colorado State University, School of Occupational and Educational Studies, 243 EducationBuilding, Fort Collins, CO 80523; 970-491-0453, [email protected]

Sally Bomotti, Ph.D.; Colorado State University, School of Occupational and Educational Studies, 24 Education Building,Fort Collins, CO 80523; 970-491-0465, [email protected]


20

21

Susan Brody Hasazi; Katharine S. FurneyUniversity of Vermont

Lizanne DeStefanoUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Introduction

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)Amendments of 1997 (Public Law 105-17) mandate that theIndividualized Education Programs of students with disabili-ties include a statement of transition needs related tostudents’ courses of study beginning at age 14, and atransition services component for students with disabilitiesage 16 and older. The initial passage of the federal mandatefor transition planning occurred in the context of at least adecade of attention to the need to develop transition policies,programs, and services for youth with disabilities that wouldallow them to make successful transitions from school toadult life (DeStefano & Wermuth , 1992; Wehman, 1992).The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act emphasizesthe importance of including students and parents as activeparticipants in Individualized Education Program andtransition planning, and using collaborative and interagencyapproaches to developing outcome-oriented plans based onstudents’ needs, taking into account their preferences andinterests.

Much of the research occurring prior and subsequent tothe legislative mandate for transition planning has focusedon identifying promising practices related to achievement ofpositive adult life outcomes such as employment, independentliving, and participation in postsecondary education andcommunity life (Stowitschek & Kelso, 1992). These promisingpractices include utilizing the transition planning process andrelated instruction as vehicles for fostering self-determina-tion and self-advocacy skills among students with disabili-ties (Field, 1996; Field, Martin, Miller, Ward, & Wehmeyer,1998; Martin & Marshall, 1996; Martin, Marshall, &Maxson, 1993; Ward, 1996; Wehmeyer, 1996; Wehmeyer &Schwartz, 1997; Wehmeyer & Ward, 1995), incorporating

diverse family and cultural perspectives in transition plan-ning (Boone, 1992; Harry, 1992; Sontag & Schacht, 1994;Turnbull & Turnbull, 1996), and using person-centeredplanning processes to create a more responsive and familycentered meeting context (Forest & Pearpoint, 1992;Salembier & Furney, 1994; Salembier & Furney, 1997;Turnbull et al., 1996).

Along with growing attention to the concept of transi-tion and related promising practices , the literature identifiesa number of systemic challenges that appear to have resultedin uneven implementation of transition mandates, includingbarriers to effective interagency collaboration and a lack ofappropriate services and community networks for youth andadults with disabilities (DeStefano & Wermuth, 1992;Furney, Hasazi, & DeStefano, 1997; Szymanski, 1994). Inaddition, the nature of policy implementation poses its ownset of challenges. Recent studies portray policy implementa-tion as a complex and multidimensional process that ischaracterized by variability among implementing sites andcommunities (Argyris & Schon, 1996; Fullan, 1991).Implementation may be positively or negatively affected byfactors such as the degree to which systems have the capacityand will to implement specific policies (Elmore, 1996;Spillane & Thompson, 1996); the presence or absence ofpositive relationships among policymakers, administrators,and practitioners (Elmore & McLaughlin, 1988); the natureof the implementation strategies used by policy makers(McDonnell & Elmore, 1987); and the extent to which thecore values and beliefs of schools, human service agencies,and communities are consistent with one another and theunderlying assumptions of a given policy (Argyris & Schon,1996; Stone, 1997).

These challenges are real and complex, but they havebeen dealt with in numerous ways and with relative success

Implementing the IDEA Transition Mandates

Abstract: A policy study initiated in 1996 investigated implementation of the transition mandates of the Individuals withDisabilities Education Act (IDEA) in nine sites across the United States. Five sites were identified as model sites because theyhad a national reputation for effective implementation of transition policies and practices, while four were identified as represen-tative sites demonstrating progress in the face of challenges typically associated with local level implementation. Visits to eachsite included in-depth interviews, observations, and document reviews. Following the visits, procedures associated with qualita-tive inquiry were used to prepare individual summary reports and conduct a cross-case analysis. Results of the cross-case analysisare presented, including factors supporting and posing challenges to implementation.

2


22

in some areas of the United States. In order to understand themeaning of and processes associated with effective policyimplementation, we conducted an earlier study of the waysin which the transition-related policies and practices hadbeen implemented at the state level during the first few yearsfollowing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act’s1990 mandate to include transition services in the Individual-ized Education Program process (Furney et al., 1997). Thestudy focused on three states considered to be exemplarswith respect to implementation of transition policies andpractices; thus, its findings described the characteristics ofeffective state-level implementation. In an effort to movefrom this statewide perspective to a focus on the local level,we initiated a second study in which we explored implemen-tation efforts in nine sites located throughout the country.The purpose of this study was to describe local implementa-tion of transition policies, practices, and procedures, and toidentify factors that either supported or inhibited implemen-tation across the sites.

Method

Our primary data collection activities occurred throughin-depth visits to each of the nine sites, and included inter-views, observations, and document reviews. In order to gainan understanding of the contextual and evolutionary natureof implementation , sites were purposefully selected torepresent varying degrees of progress in their efforts toimplement the transition services requirements of IDEA.Five sites were identified as “models,” while four wereidentified as “representative” sites in which initial implemen-tation efforts had occurred but were at times inhibited by avariety of challenges typically associated with the changeprocess. Given our belief that the implementation of thetransition requirements of IDEA constituted a multidimen-sional and complex process, it seemed appropriate to utilizequalitative research methods that would encourage inquiryinto local context, values, and beliefs, and the perceivedsuccesses and challenges associated with policy implementa-tion (Furney et al., 1997; Hasazi, Johnston, Liggett, &Schattman, 1994; Maxwell, 1996; Moustakas, 1990; Rist,1994). Data-gathering and analysis procedures were derivedfrom a theoretical foundation of naturalistic inquiry (Lincoln& Guba, 1985), ethnography (Glesne, 1999) and groundedtheory (Glazer & Strauss, 1967), and utilized cross-caseanalysis procedures (Miles & Huberman, 1994) in the finalphase of analysis.

Site Selection

The identification of model and representative sitesconstituted one of our initial research activities. Model siteswere nominated by a panel of national experts in transition,based on the sites’ reputations for providing quality services

and practices related to transition. Panel members includeduniversity professors involved with transition and policyimplementation, parent advocates, U.S. Department ofEducation personnel, state special education directors, andrepresentatives of private foundations. All were knowledge-able of and had experiences with secondary schools andtransition programs throughout the country. As such, theywere able to nominate local sites meeting the followingcriteria for model site designation: (a) demonstration of theuse of best practices related to the individual transitionplanning process and delivery of transition services; and (b)evidence of collaborative relationships among school andcommunity agencies. The four representative sites weredescribed as being committed to appropriately implementingthe transition components of IDEA; however, we hypoth-esized that their programs, services, and associated chal-lenges were fairly typical of those that might be observed atthe local level elsewhere in the country. In addition to theaforementioned criteria, we purposefully selected sites acrossfour geographic regions (i.e., Northeast, South, Midwest, andWest) and urban, suburban, and rural locations . Table 1depicts characteristics present among participating modeland representative sites.

Data Gathering and AnaIysis

The authors conducted three- to five-day site visits toeach of the nine selected sites for the purpose of completinginterviews, observing selected transition -related programs,and reviewing relevant documents. One or two key infor-mants at each site (usually the special education administra-tor or transition specialist) assisted us in identifying 20 to 25knowledgeable and experienced persons to be interviewed,including general and special education teachers, transitionspecialists, central office and building administrators,parents, and adult service providers. The interviews wereguided by the use of a semistructured interview protocoldesigned to explore the interviewees’ perceptions of howtransition practices and services had evolved, and whatstrengths and challenges were associated with implementa-tion of transition policies. Most interviews lasted about onhour and were audiotaped with permission of theinterviewees. Additional site visit activities included five to10 observations of selected transition programs and services,and reviews of relevant documents, including interagencyagreements and local policies and procedures related totransition.

Following each site visit, all interviews were transcribedand coded along with notes of observations and documentreviews. We then reread the coded data to identify specifictransition practices and services present at each site, as wellas emerging patterns and themes related to implementation(Glesne, 1999) . Draft versions of summary reviews of eachsite visit were forwarded to selected interview participants

23

for their comments, with feedback obtained through thisprocess being used to inform final revisions to the reports.Finally, a cross-case analysis (Huberman & Miles, 1994;Miles & Huberman, 1994; Patton, 1990) of the nine sum-mary reviews was conducted to identify themes emergingacross the sites.

Findings

The findings reported in this article focus on theoutcomes of the cross-case analysis of the nine summaryreviews. One theme that emerged clearly across all nine siteswas the positive impact of the federal transition mandate.Most of the sites had initiated at least some form of transitionplanning and practices prior to IDEA 1990, but they viewedthe mandate as critical in terms of validating and extendingtheir previous efforts. In addition, many of the intervieweesbelieved that the federal mandate provided the “legal clout”necessary to ensure implementation.

Beyond this finding, the cross-case analysis revealedsubstantive differences between model and representativesites with respect to themes associated with the implementa-tion of transition policies and practices. The narrative thatfollows summarizes factors supporting and challengingimplementation of transition policies at the model and repre-sentative sites. For the model sites, six themes related toeffective implementation are presented, while a remainingsection presents challenges and proposed solutions identifiedacross the sites. Three factors indicating support for implemen-tation, as well as three factors related to challenges and futuredirections are summarized for the representative sites.

Implementation in Model Sites

Implementation at the model sites was characterized bythe presence of a number of factors that tended to support theadoption and continuation of transition-related policies andpractices. These factors included (a) incorporation ofsystemwide, student- and family-centered strategies; (b)fostering of effective and substantive interagency collabora-tion; (c) facilitation of systemic professional development;(d) a visionary, supportive, and inclusive form of leadership;(e) coordination of an integrated set of reform efforts; and (f)emergence of connections among a variety of local andfederal transition initiatives. Of critical importance was thefact that these six factors were present throughout the varioussystems present in the model sites. That is, practices andstrategies related to the six factors had been intentionallyintroduced and sustained over time in schools and humanservices agencies for the purpose of promoting the imple-mentation of transition-related policies and practices.

The model sites were not, however, without challengesto implementation. Three primary concerns were identifiedacross the five sites, including the need to increase studentparticipation and leadership in the IEP/transition planningprocess, extend opportunities available to youth labeledemotionally disturbed, and improve and expand processesfor using post-school outcome data to evaluate and improveprograms. Each of the factors supporting and challengingsupport for implementation is described in the sections thatfollow.

Hasazi et al: IDEA Transition Mandates

Urban, Suburban General Education Special Education Geographic LocationSites or Rural Designation Population (K-12) Population (K-12) U.S.

Model

1 Suburban/urban 140,000 18,000 Eastern

2 Rural I ,300 130 Northeastern

3 Suburban 4,600 425 Northeastern

4 Rural 3,600 540 Northeastern

5 Rural 18.000 1,800 Western

6 Rural I ,000 110 Southern

7 Urban 140,000 14,000 Western

8 Urban 25,300 2,600 Western

9 Urban 6,000 660 Midwestern

Table 1. Characteristics of Participating Model and Representative Sites


24

Incorporating Systemwide, Student- and Family-Centered Srategies. Throughout the five model sites, theinterviewees articulated a clear and common set of valuesand beliefs that resulted in systemic attempts to promote thedevelopment of students’ self-determination skills andincreased student and family participation. Underlying thesevalues and beliefs was a sense of caring for students and arelated commitment to support them in engaging in meaning-ful experiences during and after high school. The commit-ment to care for students was demonstrated through con-certed and systemic attempts to keep the planning processfocused on their personal goals, interests, and needs. Meet-ings were structured specifically to promote the participationof students and parents and to ensure that their voices werecentral to the planning process and evaluation of studentoutcomes. A majority of the students received specificinstruction in self-determination and self-advocacy skillsand/or participated in preplanning meetings to help themorganize their ideas for upcoming transition planningmeetings. Many teachers in the model sites were skilled inthe use of person-centered planning processes designed toenhance student and parent participation in the IEP/transitionplanning process, and an increasing number were imple-menting curricula designed to teach students how to leadtheir own IEP/transition planning meetings.

Fostering Effective and Substantive InteragencyCollaboration. The sense of caring for students and familieswithin the five model sites was frequently described as beingconnected to a strong belief in the necessity and power ofcollaborating within and across schools and communityagencies to enhance transition-related services for studentswith disabilities. Examples of sustained and systemicinteragency collaboration included establishing key positionsfunded jointly by education and adult service agencies (e.g.,transition coordinators and job placement specialists co-funded through education and vocational rehabilitation),written agreements articulating policies and proceduresregarding students’ transition from school to adult serviceagencies or postsecondary education, monthly interagencyplanning meetings, cross-agency training opportunities, andthe use of a variety of practices associated with collaborationand team-building. One site was noted especially for itsfocus on developing and utilizing interagency approaches toserving students with emotional disturbance, including itsestablishment of an interprofessional office within the highschool guidance department housing representatives from avariety of local social service agencies.

Positive student outcomes associated with successfulinteragency collaboration included high percentages ofstudents participating in employment and other communityprograms during high school, high rates of students partici-pating in co-funded career assessment and developmentopportunities, increasing rates of concurrent enrollment in

high schools and community colleges, and increasingnumbers of students with disabilities being referred to andserved by a variety of adult service agencies following highschool. Three model sites with established post-school datacollection systems also reported longitudinal data indicatingincreasing rates of post-school employment and attendanceat post-secondary education and training institutions.

Facilitating Systemic Professional Development.Administrators, teachers, and providers throughout the fivemodel sites recognized the importance of professionaldevelopment as a means to build local capacity for promot-ing systemic changes related to transition. As such, educa-tors, adult service providers, employers, and other commu-nity providers codeveloped or participated in a variety ofinteragency and cross-agency training opportunities, includ-ing workshops, conferences, summer institutes, inservice andpreservice education, and graduate level courses. Each of thefive model sites employed a person with specific responsi-bilities for facilitating the implementation of transitionpolicies and practices, and in each case, this person coordi-nated professional development activities for educators,service providers, and employers who were both new to andexperienced in their professions. Many professional devel-opment activities were held in conjunction with institutionsof higher education or state level transition systems changeprojects in order to ensure that capacity building andtechnical assistance activities would be ongoing and linkedto the development, evaluation, and dissemination ofpromising transition practices. In several sites, these linkagesalso resulted in the establishment of a variety of research andevaluation efforts involving university personnel as well aslocal administrators, teachers, and community providers.

Leading in Visionary Supportive and Inclusive Ways.Interviewees throughout the model sites described howregional, central office, and building level administrators ineducation and adult services had provided leadership criticalto the implementation of federal transition policies andrelated promising practices. These individuals, includingsuperintendents, principals, special education administrators,directors of adult service agencies, and coordinators oftransition services, were credited with helping to establish avision for transition and a structure to support its implemen-tation. They had helped to promote initial awareness oftransition policies and practices and to ensure that educators,service providers, employers, parents, and other communitymembers were provided ample opportunities and resourcesto learn about and implement innovative practices andservices. Central office administrators and regionally basedadult services administrators were credited with havingconvinced their governing agencies of the need to providefunding for local personnel implementing transition-relatedservices and for ensuring that newly established positionswere maintained over time.

25

In addition, interviewees across the five sites noted thatadministrators in education and adult services had facilitatedinclusive and participatory forms of leadership in whichteachers and service providers felt empowered to take theinitiative to introduce promising transition practices. Withassurance and support from their administrators, these“front-line” individuals advocated for new programs andservices, developed and implemented new curricula, createdpartnerships with members of the business community, andworked on a daily basis to ensure that the needs of studentsand parents were being met. Implementation of transitionpolicies and practices occurred in both a “top-down” and“bottom-up” fashion; as a result, it was effective and far-reaching.

Coordinating and Integrating Educational ReformEfforts. At the model sites, educational reform was typicallyviewed as an integrated process. Specific initiatives inspecial and general education were not separate or polarized;rather, potential reforms were developed and implementedwith careful attention to their potential impact on all stu-dents. The result of this multidimensional approach was thatthe implementation of transition policies was connected toinitiatives such as block scheduling, interdisciplinarycurricula, applied learning, career development, and theimplementation of state and local curriculum standards andassessment measures. For example, one site had recentlyshifted to using block scheduling designed in part to supportimplementation of its community-based learning option. Theinterviewees reported that in a given year, at least 50% of theentire student population participated in one or morecommunity-based learning experiences designed to facilitateachievement of their career and transition goals. Learningoutcomes associated with these experiences were directlylinked to the attainment of state and local curriculumstandards; thus, community-based learning was perceived asa valued educational component that contributed to students’achievement of personal academic goals and high schoolgraduation standards.

Making Connections Between Local and FederalTransition Initiatives. Closely related to the use of integratedapproaches to educational reform was emerging evidencethat special education transition initiatives were being linkedto local implementation of the School-to-Work OpportunitiesAct (STWOA). While the model sites were in differentstages with respect to the levels of integration they hadachieved between the two initiatives, the interviewees ateach site agreed that such a connection was necessary andpotentially beneficial to students both with and withoutdisabilities. Persons associated with both initiatives partici-pated on many of the same advisory board and transition-related committees and action groups. In some cases, highschool positions associated with the provision of employ-ment and applied learning opportunities to students were co-

funded by special education, vocational rehabilitation, orother local funds earmarked for implementation of theSTWOA. A majority of the interviewees in the model sitesbelieved that the partnerships being formed between schoolsand businesses through local implementation of STWOAinitiatives had the potential to promote expanded post-schoolopportunities for all students, including those with disabilities.

The Road Less Traveled. The interviewees at each of themodel sites were proud of their accomplishments withrespect to the implementation of transition policies andpractices; still, they saw a continuing need to address certainissues that sometimes challenged their implementationefforts. Across the sites, three primary concerns wereidentified. The first of these was the need to continue toimplement strategies de signed to allow increased numbersof students to play an active leadership role in their IEP/transition planning meetings. Many of the educators inter-viewed believed that more needed to be done to ensure thatstudents with a range of abilities and needs would haveopportunities to lead or take a greater leadership role in theirIEP/transition planning meetings. They were particularlyinterested in promoting practices that would enhance theability of students with severe disabilities to identify theirchoices for the future.

Second, many of the interviewees believed that theirschools, local agencies, and communities needed to continueto expand the opportunities available to students labeledemotionally disturbed to ensure these students’ full participa-tion in school and community life and to promote positiveadult life outcomes. Most often, the interviewees perceived alack of progress in this area to be related to an insufficientnumber of appropriate opportunities and services for thesestudents both during and following high school. One modelsite, however, had devoted significant resources to theestablishment and continuation of services to studentslabeled emotionally disturbed and students at risk foracademic failure.

Finally, while all five of the model sites had some post-school outcome evaluation processes in place, mostinterviewees believed that these processes had the potentialto become more comprehensive and better utilized inprogram evaluation and improvement efforts. Some notedthat while their connections allowed them to keep track ofstudents accessing adult services such as vocational rehabili-tation, they were less able to evaluate the degree to whichstudents were gaining access to support services in post-secondary education and training institutions. Two sites hadprocedures in place to collect anticipated needs data onstudents with disabilities and to share this data with adultservice agencies for the purpose of informing future servicedelivery. Even so, all five sites looked forward to a timewhen post-school outcome and satisfaction data would beroutinely used by schools, adult service agencies, and post-



26

secondary education institutions to plan for future serviceneeds and to improve the quality of services being offered.

Implementation in the Representative Sites

The results of the cross-case analysis suggested thatwhile a number of promising practices related to transitionwere identified in the representative sites, they were fewer innumber and less widespread than they were in the modelsites. Three factors indicating support for implementationincluded a sense of caring on the part of the teachers forindividual students and their families, the establishment ofselected programs involving schools and adult servicesagencies, and the provision of professional developmentactivities focused on specific transition issues. Intervieweesacross the representative sites were well aware of the need tocontinue their implementation efforts to ensure that theywould become more pervasive and connected. As such, theydescribed a series of challenges and future directions,including the need to expand comprehensive transitionservices for students with a range of needs, provide inter-agency models to support students ages 18 to 21, and resolveperceived tensions among various reform initiatives.

Indicators of Support for Implementation CommonAmong Representative Sites. Although the representativesites lacked systemic examples of the implementation ofstudent and family centered strategies related to transition,many of the interviewees described a related indicator ofsupport for implementation in their sense of caring for andbeing committed to the futures of students with disabilitiesand their families. They gave numerous accounts of the waysin which their advocacy efforts had resulted in the creation ofsome innovative practices and the identification of positiveoutcomes for individual students and family members.

Second, while the representative sites had not developedcomprehensive models of interagency collaboration, theinterviewees provided several examples of the ways in whichschool and agency personnel worked together to implementspecific shared initiatives that had resulted in positivestudent outcomes and the establishment of selected pro-grams. For example, one site had established a studentapprenticeship program co-funded by the schools andvocational rehabilitation, while another had developed acomprehensive transition curriculum for students withdisabilities in grades 9-12 which was co-taught and sup-ported by teachers as well as adult service providers.

Third, the implementation of federal transition mandatesin the representative sites was enhanced through a variety ofprofessional development activities around various transitionissues, such as the development of IEP/transition plans.Some of these activities were provided across schools andagencies, while others were specific to schools or agencies.In general, professional development opportunities had been

provided most intensively following the passage of the 1990IDEA and less frequently in recent years. As such, a numberof the interviewees commented that they had not been assuccessful as they had hoped in building systemwidecapacity to implement the transition mandates of IDEA.

Challenges and Future Directions. Interviewees acrossthe representative sites described a number of future plansand directions which were intended to expand current effortsand address challenges and unresolved issues. First, all fourrepresentative sites indicated a need to increase their capacityto provide a comprehensive set of services to students with arange of disabilities both during and following high school.Each site could identify well-established programs meetingthe needs of specific groups of students (e.g., studentapprenticeships for students with mild disabilities andcommunity-based programs for students with significantdisabilities), but each also identified the need to expandservices to a wider range of students. It appeared thatresources, opportunities, and services were especially lackingfor students labeled emotionally disturbed. A second andrelated challenge centered on the needs of students in the 18-to 21-year-old range. Some sites identified a lack of adequateservices for these students, while others struggled withquestions regarding the appropriate source of financialresponsibility for services. To some, it seemed that theeducational system was being asked to support a dispropor-tionate percentage of the financial burden for students ages18-21, and they looked forward to greater levels of inter-agency collaboration and support.

Third, the representative sites identified several chal-lenges falling under the umbrella of educational reform.Many of the interviewees identified emerging tensionsbetween the academic focus of standards-based reforms andthe more applied nature of activities and curricula associatedwith transition. In some schools, students were being askedto choose between either pursuing a standards-based aca-demic program potentially leading to a diploma, or acommunity-based program focused on gaining experiencesrelated to employment and transition. For some students, thelatter course of studies led to a certificate of completionrather than a standard high school diploma. This choice wasespecially problematic for students with mild disabilitieswho wished to include vocational and transition componentsin their curriculum, yet preferred to obtain a standard highschool diploma.

Discussion

In summary, the results of the cross-case analysis of sitevisits to the five model and four representative sites indicatedthat the federal mandate for transition planning and serviceshad played a critical role in promoting the establishment andcontinuation of promising transition practices. Within this

27

policy context, however, we found that the model sitesexhibited more indicators of support for implementation thandid the representative sites, and that their implementation oftransition policies had resulted in widespread and systemicuse of promising transition-related practices. In contrast,while the representative sites were actively engaged inimplementing the transition requirements of IDEA, theycontinued to face a number of challenges that at timesinhibited their efforts. Innovative practices initiated in therepresentative sites tended to be limited to individualstudents or programs and had not been extended to orabsorbed by the system as a whole. Table 2 summarizes andcompares factors supporting and challenging implementationin the model and representative sites.

Implications for Improving Practice

Given the qualitative methods used in the study and therelatively small number of participating sites, caution mustbe utilized in interpreting and generalizing the results to

other contexts. At the same time, the study suggests thatthere may be a set of emerging practices associated with“model” implementation, and as such, that these practicesand their implications ought to be considered at the local,state, and federal levels. The following set of implicationsfor improving practice is offered to those concerned withcontinued and effective implementation of the transitionmandates of the IDEA Amendments of 1997.

Promote Self-Determination Through Instruction andStudent-Centered Planning Processes. A distinctive featureof the model sites was their systematic approach to promot-ing skills and beliefs related to self-advocacy and self-determination. A combination of strategies used in thisregard including the use of curricula specifically designed toteach self-determination skills and student leadership of IEP/transition meetings, and the use of person-centered planningstrategies designed to promote student and parent participa-tion may constitute a holistic approach to promoting self-determination that could be adopted in other settings. In


Factors Supporting Implementation in Factors Supporting Implementation in Model Sites Representative Sites

1 .Incorporation of system-wide, student and 1. Caring for and commitment to students withfamily-centered support strategies. disabilities and their families.

2. Fostering of effective and substantive 2.Specific programs jointly funded by schoolsinteragency collaboration. and agencies.

3. Facilitation of systemic professional development. 3. Targeted professional development activities.

4. Visionary and inclusive leadership.

5. Coordinated and integrated educationalreform efforts.

6. Establishment of connections between localand federal transition initiatives.

Challenges and Future Directions Challenges and Future Direotionsfor Model Sites for Representatiue Sites

1. Increase studentsl participation and 1. Increase school and post-school services forleadership role in IEP/transition planning. students with a range of disabilities.

2. Expand opportunities for students labeled 2. Expand services for students ages 18-21.emotionally disturbed.

3. Expand use of postschool outcome measures 3. Address perceived tensions between reforms infor program evaluation and improvement. general and special education.

Table 2. Summary and Comparison of Factors Supporting andChallenging Implementation


28

terms of future policy development and related research, itappears important to continue to support model demonstra-tion and research initiatives associated with promoting self-determination and student-led IEP/transition meetings. Inaddition, it seems appropriate to consider ways in which toincorporate these practices earlier on so that students at theelementary and middle school levels have increased involve-ment in the IEP planning process.

Develop Substantive Approaches to InteragencyCollaboration. The presence of sustained interagencycollaboration emerged as a defining characteristic among themodel sites. In this regard, it appears important for schools,adult service agencies, and communities to continuallyevaluate the degree to which interagency collaborationoccurs and is effective, and to make improvements asnecessary. Interagency approaches need to be supported atthe state and federal levels through the use of incentives andflexible funding options and the elimination of policies thatinhibit the development of collaborative practices. Asschools and communities expand their collaborative ap-proaches to serving students with disabilities and theirfamilies, opportunities to conduct and disseminate the resultsof related post-school outcomes-based research need to beincreased.

Develop and Systematically Monitor ProfessionalDevelopment Opportunities. The model sites were character-ized by their attention to providing ongoing, systemic, andcross-agency professional development activities which werefrequently conducted in conjunction with institutions ofhigher education and in response to needs identified throughpost-school outcomes research. Local and state administra-tors, as well as federal level policymakers, need to continueto promote the use of processes for evaluating post-schoolstudent outcomes and using their results to determinestrategies for systemic improvement and related professionaldevelopment needs. Incentives, financial resources, and increased opportunities for research are needed to ensure thatschools and communities are able to engage in an ongoingand coordinated cycle of evaluation, program improvement,and professional development.

Maximize Transition Outcomes by Fixing Roles andResponsibilities. In each of the model sites, one or morepersons known as transition facilitators or specialists weredesignated to carry out responsibilities associated withimplementation of the transition mandates of IDEA. Some ofthese positions were funded by the schools, while otherswere funded through vocational rehabilitation or a combina-tion of funding sources. Here too, central office support andleadership was critical in the initial establishment andcontinued funding of such positions. School districts andcommunities lacking transition facilitators may want toexplore the possibility of adding personnel or shifting currentroles and responsibilities to ensure that transition issues are

addressed by one or more designated individuals. At thefederal level, model demonstration and systems changeprojects related to transition could be encouraged to examinethe ways in which organizational changes might be made atthe local and state levels to accommodate the need to assignspecific responsibility for the implementation of transitionpolicies and practices.

Expand School and Post-school Options for SpecificPopulations of Students. Throughout the study, theinterviewees articulated the need for expanded high schooland post-school opportunities for specific populations ofstudents with disabilities. In particular, they identified needsrelated to expanding opportunities for developing self-advocacy and self-determination skills among students withsevere disabilities, increasing options for learning in thecommunity for students with mild disabilities, and improvingand expanding both high school and post-school options foryouth labeled emotionally disturbed. The last issue appearsespecially critical and requires attention at the local, state,and federal levels. The federal government may play a keyrole in expanding services to students with emotionaldisturbance by focusing research and evaluation efforts onrelated promising practices and promoting widespreaddissemination of such practices among state and localaudiences.

Promote Integrated Approaches to Educational Reform.Finally, the results of the study suggest that educationalreform initiatives are most effective when they are conceptu-alized in an integrated and holistic way. The processes ofchange observed in the model sites indicated that such anapproach is possible, as long as the developers andimplementors of transition and related educational initiativesmake an effort to (a) consider the ways in which variousinitiatives are related to one another and/or are in potentialconflict, (b) consider the impact of various reforms onstudents with a variety of strengths and needs, and (c)address the transition needs of students with and withoutdisabilities.

References

Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1996). Organizational learningII: Theory, method, and practice. Reading, MA:Addison-Wesley.

Boone, R. (1992). Involving culturally diverse parents intransition planning. Career Development in ExceptionalIndividuals, 15, 205-221.

DeStefano, L., & Wermuth, T. R. (1992). IDEA (P.L. 101-476): Defining a second generation of transitionservices. In F. R. Rusch, L. DeStefano, J. ChadseyRusch, A. Phelps, & E. Szymanski (Eds.), Transitionfrom school to adult life: Models, linkages, and policy(pp. 537-549). Sycamore, IL: Sycamore.

29


Elmore, R. F. (1996). Getting to scale with successfulpractices. In S. H. Fuhrman & J. A. O’Day (Eds.),Rewards and reform: Creating educational incentivesthat work. (pp. 294-329). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Elmore, R. F., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1988). Steady work:Policy, practice, and the reform of American education.Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.

Field, S. (1996). A historical perspective on student involve-ment in the transition process: Toward a vision of self-determination for all students. Career Development forExceptional Individuals, 19, 169-176.

Field, S., Martin, J., Miller, R., Ward, M., & Wehmeyer, M.(1998). Self-determination for persons with disabilities:A position statement of the Division on Career Develop-ment and Transition. Career Development for Excep-tional Individuals, 21, 113-128.

Forest, M., & Pearpoint, 1. (1992). Putting kids on the map.Educational Leadership, 50(2), 26-31.

Fullan, M. G. (1991). The new meaning of educationalchange. New York: Teachers College Press.

Furney, K. S., Hasazi, S. B., & DeStefano, L. (1997).Transition policies, promises, and practices: Lessonsfrom three states. Exceptional Children, 63, 343-356.

Glazer, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of groundedtheory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago:Aldine.

Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers: Anintroduction (2nd edition). New York: Longman.

Harry, B. (1992). An ethnographic study of cross-culturalcommunication with Puerto Rican-American

families in the special education system. American Educa-tional Research Journal, 29, 471-494.

Hasazi, S. B., Johnston, A. P., Liggett, A., & Schattman, R.(1994). A qualitative study of the Individuals withDisabilities Education Act. Exceptional Children, 60,491-507.

Huberman, M., & Miles, M. (1994). Data management andanalysis methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 428-444).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of1997. (P.L. 105-17). (1997). 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.(Congressional Record 1997).

Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Martin, J. E., & Marshall, L. H. (1996). Choice Maker:Infusing self-determination into the IEP and transitionprocess. In D. J. Sands & M. L. Wehmeyer (Eds.), Self-determination across the life span (pp. 215 236).Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Martin, J. E., Marshall, L. H., & Maxson, L. L. (1993).Transition policy: Infusing self-determination and self-advocacy into transition programs. Career Developmentof Exceptional Individuals, 16(1), 53-61.

Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative research design: Aninteractive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

McDonnell, L., & Elmore, R. F. (1987). Getting the jobdone: Alternative policy instruments. EducationalEvaluation and Policy Analysis, 9, 133-151.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative dataanalysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Moustakas, C. (1990). Heuristic research: Design, methodol-ogy, and applications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and researchmethods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Rist, R. C. (1994). Influencing the policy process withqualitative research. In N. K Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 545-558).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Salembier, G., & Furney, K. S. (1994). Promoting self-advocacy and family participation in IEP and transitionplanning. Journal for Vocational Special Needs Educa-tion, 17(1), 12-17.

Salembier, G. S., & Furney, K. S. (1997). Facilitatingparticipation: Parents’ perceptions of their involvementin the IEP/transition planning process. Career Develop-ment for Exceptional Individuals, 20(1), 29 42.

Sontag, J. C., & Schacht, R. ( 1994 ) . An ethnic comparisonof parent participation and information needs in earlyintervention. Exceptional Children, 60, 422-433.

Spillane, J. P., & Thompson, C. L. (1996). Reconstructingconceptions of local capacity: The local educationagency’s capacity for ambitious instructional reform.Unpublished manuscript.

Stone, D. A. (1997). Policy paradox: The art of politicaldecision making. Boston: W. W. Norton & Co.~

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

Szymanski, E. M. (1994). Transition: Life-span and life-space considerations for empowerment. ExceptionalChildren, 60, 401-410.

Turnbull, A. P., Blue-Banning, M. J., Anderson, E. L.,Turnbull, H. R., Seaton, K, & Dinas, P. A. (1996).Enhancing self-determination through group actionplanning. In D. J. Sands & M. L. Wehmeyer (Eds.), Self-determination across the life span (pp. 237-256).Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Turnbull, A. P., & Turnbull, H. R. (1996). Self-determinationwithin a culturally responsive family systems perspec-tive: Balancing the family mobile. In L. E. Powers, G.H. S. Singer, & J.A. Sowers (Eds.), On the road toautonomy: Promoting self-competence in children andyouth with disabilities (pp.195-220). Baltimore: Paul H.Brookes.


30

Ward, M. J. (1996). Coming of age in the age of self-determination: A historical and personal perspective. InD. J. Sands & M. L. Wehmeyer (Eds.), Self-determina-tion across the life span (pp. 3-16). Baltimore: Paul H.Brookes.

Wehman, P. (1992). Life beyond the classroom: Transitionstrategies for young people with disabilities. Baltimore:Paul H. Brookes.

Wehmeyer, M., & Schwartz, M. A. (1997). Self-determina-tion and positive adult outcomes: A follow-up study ofyouth with mental retardation and learning disabilities.Exceptional Children, 63, 245-255.

From Exceptional Children, Vol. 65, No. 4, pp.555-566. 1999 The Council for Exceptional Children.Reprinted with permission.c

Author Information


Susan Brody Hasazi, Ph.D.; University of Vermont, CESS, Department of Special Education, Waterman Building,Burlington, VT 05405-0160, 802/656-1353, [email protected]

Katherine S. Furney, Ph.D.; University of Vermont, CESS, Department of Special Education, Waterman Building,Burlington, VT 05405-0160, 802/656-1353, [email protected]

Lizanne DeStefano, Ph.D.; University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, College of Education, Bureau of EducationalResearch, 1310 South 6th Street, Champaign, IL 61820, 217/333-8520, [email protected]

Wehmeyer, M. L. (1996). Self-determination as an educa-tional outcome. In D. J. Sands & M. L. Wehmeyer(Eds.), Self-determination across the life span (pp. 1736). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Wehmeyer, M. L., & Ward, M. J. (1995). Student involve-ment in transition planning: Fulfilling the intent ofIDEA. Journal of Vocational Special Needs Education,17, 108-111.

31

David R. Johnson; Michael N. SharpeUniversity of Minnesota

3Analysis of Local Education Agency Efforts toImplement the Transition Services Requirementsof IDEA of 1990

For more than a decade, research, demonstration, andadvocacy interests have given rise to a powerful consensuson the benefits of assisting young people with disabilitiesand their families during their critical transition years.Building on a variety of interdisciplinary and programmaticperspectives, the field of secondary special education,vocational rehabilitation, vocational education, and otherdisciplines have been actively developing a knowledge basethat posits and tests alternative approaches to the delivery oftransition services for students with disabilities. The federalgovernment has supported the development of this knowl-edge base through a variety of policy, interagency, systemschange, model demonstration, and research efforts thateventually culminated in the passage of the Individuals withDisabilities Education Act of 1990 (IDEA). For the first timesince the passage of the Education of the Handicapped Act in1975, Congress established legislative provisions to specifi-cally address the school to adult life transition needs ofyoung people with disabilities.

Much of the rationale for establishing these newprovisions was based on the recognition that many youngadults with disabilities exit high school unprepared for adultlife. Post-school follow-up and follow-along studies con-ducted over the past two decades provide substantialdocumentation concerning the difficulties these young adultswith disabilities experience upon leaving school (DeStefano& Wagner, 1991; Halpern, 1990; Hasazi, Gordon, & Roe,1985; Hasazi, Hasazi, Gordon, Hull, & Johnson, 1989;Johnson, McGrew, Bloomberg, Bruininks, & Lin, in press;Wagner, 1993). These and other studies uniformly reporthigh levels of unemployment and underemployment,economic instability, dependence, social isolation, and lowlevels of participation in postsecondary education andtraining programs. The final regulations for IDEA, published

in 1992, were intended to improve the post-school outcomesof youth with disabilities by requiring state and localeducation agencies to develop and implement formalprocedures and strategies to address this critical period oftransition. Even though the regulations focusing on transitionservices will help to alleviate post-school problems experi-enced by youth, there nevertheless remains some concernabout consistency and perhaps even the vigorousness withwhich state and local education agencies (LEAs) areimplementing these transition service requirements.

In order to obtain information regarding the nature andstatus of state and local efforts to implement the federalrequirements, the Office of Special Education Programs(OSEP), U.S. Department of Education made funds availableto support a national implementation study. This studyentitled: State and Local Efforts to Implement the TransitionService Requirements of IDEA, was jointly conducted by theUniversities of Vermont, Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, andMinnesota; and the National Association of State Directorsof Special Education (NASDSE). This national policyimplementation study was conducted during the period1995-1999. This study involves several national- and state-level quantitative and qualitative sub-studies designed todocument and describe state and local implementationpolicies, procedures and practices associated with thetransition requirements of IDEA 1990. This article presentsthe findings and results of one of the project’s major sub-studies, a national survey of local special education direc-tors, supervisors, and coordinators concerning the range andvariation in the practices and strategies used to implementthe transition service requirement of IDEA across the UnitedStates.

Abstract: A survey was administered to 548 special education administrators across the U.S. to obtain informationregarding local efforts to implement policies and practices related to the transition service requirements of IDEA of1990. Designed as a descriptive study, the central purpose of this research is to describe the range and variation ofthis implementation effort by identifying the most and least “likely to be used” practices in four main areas: (1)parent notification, (2) participation in meetings, (3) content of the IEP, and (4) agency responsibility. While thefindings of this study illustrate that progress has been made, there remains a considerable distance to go to achievethe purposes and intent of transition requirements. Recommendations to improve local implementation efforts in thefuture include creating a more meaningful role for parents, expanding curriculum options for students, and securing agreater level of participation of community service agencies in the provision of transition services.


32

National Perspective on Transition PolicyImplementation

IDEA of 1990 contained several important statutoryprovisions intended to guide state and local actions whenaddressing the needs of youth with disabilities and familiesin the transition from school to adult life. IDEA of 1990mandated specific transition services for youth with disabili-ties 16 years of age and older. The overall intent of thefederal legislation was to promote “effective” transitionprogramming by: (a) providing a definition of transitionservices, (b) listing the set of coordinated activities thatcomprised transition services and detailing the basis fordetermining which activities are appropriate for an individualstudent, (c) specifying the process by which a statement ofneeded transition services is to be included in the student’sIEP, and (d) determining agency responsibilities in themonitoring and provision of transition services.

The final regulations for IDEA were published in theSeptember 29, 1992, Federal Register (Vol. 57, No. 189, pp.44794-44852) and revised in the October 27, 1992, edition(Vol. 57, No. 208, pp. 48694-48704). While the regulationsadded clarity to the original statutory language, there remainssufficient latitude for varying implementation approaches tooccur at the state and local levels. The most highly prescrip-tive aspect of the regulations, however, can be observed infour major transition services requirements. These include:(1) parent notification, (2) student and agency participationin meetings, (3) content of the IEP, and (4) agency responsi-bility. Documenting state and local responses to theseregulations is critical to better understanding the relationshipbetween federal and state policy and state and local imple-mentation practices. The reauthorization of IDEA in 1997expanded the transition services requirements of the 1990Act. In addition to transition services beginning at age 16, astatement of transition service needs is required at age 14. Atage 14 and annually thereafter for updates, the IEP teamlooks at the child’s courses of study (such as advancedplacement courses of vocational education programs) anddetermines whether or not those courses of study are leadingthe student to where the student needs to be upon graduation.This places additional responsibilities upon state and localeducation agencies to begin IEP planning with a focus ontransition earlier, and engage students in discussions con-cerning the appropriateness of course work leading tograduation. Federal regulations for IDEA of 1997 that werefinalized in 1999, in addition to the aforementioned changes,continue to focus on the four major transition servicesrequirements..

Method

Conducting this study required the use of the so-called“Bottom-Up” approach (Linder & Peters, 1987; Maynard-

Moody, Musheno, & Palumbo, 1990); that is, one whosebasic premise is that implementation issues are often beststudied from the perspective of those who are actuallyresponsible for implementing policy at the service deliverylevel. A key assumption made by researchers who favor thisperspective is that the “success” of a program is largelydetermined by those who must interpret policy so that it canbe implemented at the “street-level.” Also, the informationobtained from employing this type of approach is likely to bemore sensitive with regard to identifying the range andvariation of transition practices and policies within LEAs.For this reason, data collection activities were aimed atobtaining information from special education directors,coordinators, and other supervisory personnel largelyresponsible for the implementation of such policies andpractices within their LEAs.

Participants

The participants in this national study included 548 localspecial education directors, coordinators, and supervisorswho were selected from the membership list of the Councilof Administrators of Special Education (CASE), a subdivi-sion of the Council of Exceptional Children. To increase thelikelihood that a representative sample was obtained, theselection process was stratified by U.S. population criteriabased on the four geographic regions established by the U.S.Bureau of the Census: Northeast, Midwest, South, and West.To reach the initial goal of obtaining survey informationfrom 500 special education directors across all 50 states,1,500 names were drawn at random by region from the 1994-95 CASE membership list (N=4,537). Because CASEmembership is not always found to be equally distributedthroughout states within each census region, a criterion wasestablished for minimal representation of each state by fivesurvey respondents.

Approximately one-third of the initial 1,500 namesrandomly selected were ineligible because they were notlocal special education directors, supervisors, or coordinators(e.g., university faculty, SEA staff, teachers, parents, others).A total of 1,000 surveys were mailed. Based on the totalreturned surveys, the overall response rate was 54.8%.

Approximately 71% of the respondents identifiedthemselves as either a director, assistant director, supervisor,or coordinator of special education at the local level. Theremaining 29% identified as “other” included persons whowere responsible for supervising or coordinating localtransition programs and services. Of the total sample, 96%were administering special education programs in localeducation agencies or independent school districts, 2% in anintermediate school district or special education cooperative,1% in state-operated programs, and 1% indicated a responseof “other.”

33

Based on the analysis of returned responses (n=548), itwas confirmed that the study sample included directors,supervisors, and coordinators from all 50 states, representingurban and rural localities and regions consistent with thedemographic profile of the U.S. population used by the U. SBureau of the Census. By locality, 70% of the respondentswere administrating special education programs in urbansettings and 30% in rural areas. Based on the census regions,the sample was represented by 32% from the Midwest, 28%South, 21% Northeast, and 19% from the West.

Respondents and nonrespondents were examined toidentify differences between the two groups that mayindicate a response bias. A series of independent t-tests wereconducted comparing the groups on demographics (i.e.,degree level, gender, urbanicity, ethnicity, others). Theresults of this analysis revealed no significant differences

between study respondents and nonrespondents. The readeris also cautioned not to over interpret the results of this study.Survey responses were requested directly from individuals(special education administrators) who were the principalindividuals responsible for the implementation of the federaltransition requirements. As responsible parties, the respon-dents of this national survey may be biased toward favorableresponses regarding current implementation activities.

Instrumentation

A structured survey was developed and used to collectstandardized information from special education directors,supervisors, and coordinators representing local educationagencies across the United States. Specific questions weredeveloped for each of the four major transition service

Johnson & Sharpe: Results of a National Survey on Transition

Section II: Parent Notification1. How are parents notified of the transition IEP meeting?2. What alternative steps are taken if communication is not established after the first notice?3. How is a mutually agreed-upon time and location arranged for the meeting?4. How are contacts with parents documented?5. What methods are used to involve parents in planning when they cannot attend?6. How do districts prepare parents to participate in the transition IEP meeting?7. How do staff become knowledgeable about the parent notification process?

Section II: Participation in Meetings

8. How are students invited to transition IEP meetings?9. What strategies are used to enhance student decision making and student participation?10. How are students’ preferences and interests incorporated into the IEP?11. How do staff become knowledgeable about facilitating student participation?12. How frequently do students participate in their transition IEP meetings?13. How are agencies encouraged to participate in the transition process?14. What steps are taken when an agency representative does not attend the meeting?15. How do staff become knowledgeable about facilitating agency participation?

Section III: Content of the IEP16. What strategies are used to determine needs in the four transition areas?17. What strategies are used to address employment and other post-school adult living objectives?18. What strategies are used to address daily living skills and functional vocational evaluation objectives?19. What strategies are used to address relating to community experiences?20. What strategies are used to meet student transition instructional needs?21. How do staff become knowledgeable about developing transition goals?

Section IV: Agency Responsibilities22. How is agency involvement and follow-through fostered?23. What happens when a participating agency fails to provide services contained in the IEP?24. How do staff become knowledgeable about promoting participation25. How frequently do community agencies participate in transition IEP meetings?26. What types of agency personnel participate in transition IEP meetings?

Table 1: National Transition Implementation Evaluation Questions


34

requirements for IDEA: (1) parent notification, (2) participa-tion in meetings, (3) content of the IEP, and (4) agencyresponsibility. These key questions are illustrated in Table 1.

This survey was jointly developed by research staff atthe University of Minnesota, the University of Vermont, andthe University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. A significantamount of item content for the survey was based on thespecific rules contained in the federal transition servicerequirements published in the October 27, 1992, FederalRegister (Vol. 57, No. 208, 48694-48704). In addition, itemswere also derived from: (a) individual interviews anddiscussions with several local special education directors inMinnesota, Vermont, and Illinois, (b) a review of the stateplan language addressing the Part B transition servicerequirements, (c) a review of selected federal monitoringreports concerning state implementation of the transitionservice requirements, (d) input from OSEP staff, and (e) theearlier policy evaluation research experience of the studyteam at the Universities of Minnesota, Vermont, and Illinois.

The final survey, the National Survey of the Implementa-tion of IDEA Transition Requirements, consisted of 83 totalitems addressing each of the major federal requirements ofPart B of IDEA. Of this total, 26 items were targeted toobtain information concerning the range and variation inlocal implementation policies and practices specific to theevaluation questions in the four major transition require-ments. The remaining items included those designed tocollect demographic information about participants, samplepractices about “what’s working,” and identifying barriersrelated to implementation. This version of the survey wasdistributed to approximately 25 local special educationdirectors in Minnesota and Vermont for a final round offeedback and field recommendations. With the exception ofminor editing and rewording of several items, all originalitems were retained.

Procedure

A letter explaining the purposes of the study andintended uses of the results accompanied each surveyinstrument. Special education directors, supervisors, andcoordinators were asked to rate the frequency of practices orpolicies related to local efforts to implement the federaltransition requirements. Ratings of practices within each ofthe four transition service requirements were made using aLikert-type scale consisting of four points. The scale isdescribed below:

1=Almost Never (used with less than 10% of the intendedaudience, i.e., students, parents, or agencies)

2=Sometimes (used with less than 50%, but more than 10%,of the intended audience)

3=Frequently (used with 50% to 75% of the intendedaudience)

4=Almost Always (used with more than 75% of the intendedaudience)

Within sections of the survey instrument that address thecontent of the IEP and agency responsibility, respondentswere requested to make independent ratings for students withmild disabilities and those with moderate to severe disabili-ties. The research team considered this important because ofthe variations often noted in relation to IEP content as well asthe expected differences that occur in relation to agencyresponsibility. Results are reported separately for practicesconcerning students with mild disabilities and those withmoderate to severe disabilities.

Results

Descriptive and cross-tabulation methods were used toanalyze the data. For each item the percentage of respondentswho selected a particular category (i.e., Almost Never,Sometimes, Frequently, and Almost Always) was reported.Frequency categories were combined for all options thataccompanied each item to provide a general sense of how aparticular item was rated and to highlight important differ-ences among respondents. In this case, the categories ofFrequently or Almost Always were combined and reported inorder to describe practices and procedures which are beingimplemented most often. Combinations selected by thehighest percentage of respondents were deemed practicesmost likely to be implemented. A similar method wasemployed using the Sometimes and Almost Never combina-tions for each option; once again, combinations selected bythe highest percentage of respondents were deemed thoseleast likely to be implemented. By combining and selectingthose options rated by the highest percentage of respondents,it was then possible to generate tables to summarize informa-tion about practices and policies for the 26 key itemsincluded on the survey.

The findings and results of the study are grouped intosections representing parent notification, participation inmeetings, content of the IEP, and agency responsibility. Inthe section Student and Agency Participation in Meetings,results are reported separately for items pertaining to studentand agency participation in IEP meetings. In addition,separate analyses were conducted and reported for studentswith mild disabilities and those with moderate and severedisabilities for the Content of the IEP and Agency Responsi-bility sections of the survey.

Section I: Parent Notification

Table 2 summarizes survey results by highlighting themost and least frequently used strategies for notifyingparents about IEP meetings when transition goals and

35

objectives are to be discussed. The following examinessurvey results in relation to each item presented in the table.

How are parents notified of the transition IEP meeting?The most common practice used to notify parents of thetransition IEP meeting was to mail a standard form or memo,a procedure 82% of the survey respondents indicated wasused Frequently or Almost Always. Mailing a standard formfar exceeded all other alternative options selected byrespondents, although 60% of the sample indicated theyFrequently or Almost Always notified the parent by making atelephone contact. These procedures are similar to thosecurrently used by LEAs in informing parents of IEP meet-ings in general. Mailing a personalized letter to the parentwas the least preferred option, with 75% of the respondentsreporting either Sometimes or Almost Never to this survey item.

What alternative steps are taken if communication is notestablished after the first notice? Approximately 80% of therespondents indicated that calling parents at various times(e.g., nights, weekends) was the method used Frequently orAlmost Always to establish communication with parents inthe event the initial notice was not successful. Less fre-quently used alternatives included: attempting to contact theparents through another agency, attempting to contactparents through a relative, making a home visit, or mailing anew notice to a different address. More than 85% of the

respondents indicated that these practices were used Some-times or Almost Never.

How is a mutually agreed upon time and locationarranged for the meeting? Most respondents (66%) indi-cated that contacting the parent prior to sending the noticewas a practice that was Frequently or Almost Always used.More than half (55%) reported that offering a parent a choiceconcerning the time and location of the meeting was onlySometimes or Almost Never to occur.

How are contacts with parents documented? Document-ing contacts with parents involved two options: (1) attachinga standardized form to the student’s file, a practice used by72% of the respondents who indicated Frequently or AlmostAlways, or (2) by attaching a personal note or log to the file,an option in which 36% of the respondents indicatedSometimes or Almost Never.

What methods are used to involve parents in planningwhen they cannot attend? Based on survey responses, 54%of the sample reported they Frequently or Almost Alwayseither: (1) conducted a telephone conference call with theparent, or (2) mailed a draft of the goals for the parents toreview. Further, half of the respondents (50%) reported theyFrequently or Almost Always held an individual meeting(independent of the IEP meeting) with the parent to review theproposed education program. Encouraging an advocate to


Transition Implementation Strategy

Most likely to... Least Likely to ...

Transition Objective (Percent Indicating (Percent IndicatingFrrequently” or “Almost Always”) “Sometimes” or Almost Never”)

Notifying parents of the mail a standard form mail a personalizedtransition IEP meeting letter or memo (82%) letter (75%)

Contacting parents when the call at various contact parent throughinitial notification attempt was successful times—evenings (80%) another service provider (91%)

Reaching a mutually agreed upon time and contact parent by telephone mail a notice that offers timelocation for the transition IEP meeting prior to sending the initial notice (66%) and location choices (55%)

Documenting contacts to reach a meeting attach a standard form to document attach a personal note or logtime and location agreement with parents contacts to the student’s file (72%) of contacts to the student’s file (36%)

Involving parents in the planning process mail a draft of transition IEP goals encourage parents to send a friendwhen they are unable to attend the meeting for parental review (54%) or advocate (83%)

Preparing parents to participate in the notify parents prior to meeting provide formal workshopsin the transition IEP meetings (e.g., telephone, mail—91%) to parents (76%)

Helping staff to become knowledgeable participate in training offered by the assume that staff must takeabout the parent notification process LEA or professional association (87%) responsibility for informing

themselves (89%)

Table 2. Parent Notifiction Strategies


36

attend the meeting in lieu of parents appeared to be a practiceused with much less frequency. Most (83%) of the respondentsindicated this practice Sometimes or Almost Never occurred.

How do districts prepare parents to participate in thetransition IEP meeting? Most respondents (91%) indicatedthat notifying parents prior to the transition IEP meeting byphone or mail was the most frequent means to prepareparents for participation in the planning process. A secondmethod was to send information to parents about the transi-tion planning process. Approximately 64% of the surveyrespondents indicated this approach was used Frequently orAlmost Always. The least frequently used strategy was toprovide formal workshops to help parents prepare for thetransition planning meeting (76% responded Sometimes orAlmost Never).

How do staff become knowledgeable about the notifica-tion process? Most (87%) of the special education directors,supervisors, and coordinators reported that in-servicetraining provided by the LEA or professional association wasFrequently or Almost Always used to help staff becomefamiliar with the parent notification process. Other fre-quently used methods to promote staff knowledge were theinformal sharing of information among educators anddistribution of state and federal information on notification

requirements to staff. Seldom were staff responsible forbecoming knowledgeable about these requirements themselves.

Barriers

Barriers that impede the process of scheduling andnotifying parents of upcoming IEP meetings included lack ofparental response, scheduling difficulties, and other difficul-ties that occur in attempting to reach parents by telephone(i.e., wrong numbers and disconnected phone lines). Thesedifficulties have been recognized as problematic in the fieldof special education for many years. These findings suggest,however, that alternative methods to actively involve parentsin transition planning decision making must be identified.

Section II: Student and Agency Participationin Meetings

Student Participation

Table 3 reports on the most and least frequently usedpractices and strategies for facilitating the participation ofstudents in IEP meetings concerning transition.

How are students invited to transition IEP meetings? A




Inviting students to attend the provide the student with a verbal send a formal notice to thetransition IEP meeting invitation by a staff member (87%) student (47%)

Promoting student participation and interview or talk to the student use MAPS or other student-knowledge in the development of the about future goals (89%) centered planning strategies (74%)transition plan

Incorporating student interests and verbally verify with student that facilitate a student-ledpreferences in the transition IEP interests and preferences are IEP meeting (92%)

included on IEP (85%)

Incorporating interests and preferences use indirect methods (e.g. survey) have someone else attend towhen the student is unable to attend the to obtain interest and preference represent student interests (32%)transition IEP meeting information (79%)

Helping staff to become knowledgeable participate in training offered assume that staff must takeabout strategies that can be used to notify by the LEA or professional responsibility for informingand promote student participation association (84%) themselves (90%)

Table 3. Student Participation Strategies

37

verbal invitation was identified as the most frequently usedstrategy to encourage students’ attendance at transition IEPmeetings. Approximately 87% of the respondents indicatedthat this method was Frequently or Almost Always used. Thispractice was followed in frequency by sending a formalnotice (e.g., letter) to the student: 53% of the respondentsindicated that this strategy was employed Frequently orAlmost Always.

What strategies are used to enhance student decisionmaking and student participation? Four strategies wereidentified as being commonly used to involve students in thetransition planning process. These include: (1) interviewingor talking with the student about future goals, (2) offering averbal invitation to the meeting, (3) engaging students in thediscussion during their IEP meeting, and (4) promoting self-determination goals in instructional programs. Surveyrespondents indicated these four strategies were used eitherFrequently or Almost Always at the rate of 89%, 87%, 85%,and 64%, respectively. These were also viewed as the mosteffective strategies for promoting student participation inmeetings. In contrast, the three least likely-Sometimes toAlmost Never- methods include the use of MAPS or otherperson-centered planning strategies (74%), offering specificclasses or training in the area of decision making skills(62%), and sending information home that is aimed athelping the student prepare for their participation in the IEPmeeting.

How are students’ preferences and interests incorpo-rated into the IEP? The most common methods of incorpo-rating student interests and preferences into the IEP involveverbal verification of preferences expressed by the student(85% indicated Frequently or Almost Always) and/orobtaining information about the student from knowledgeableadults (80% Frequently or Almost Always). The leastpracticed strategy was to have students lead the meetingthemselves. Most (92%) of the respondents indicated thatthis practice occurred Sometimes or Almost Never. When thestudent does not attend the transition IEP meeting, surveyrespondents reported that educators will either try to useavailable information obtained from assessments, or havesomeone else present to represent the interests and prefer-ences of the student. Most respondents (79%), indicated thatinformation from assessments was used Frequently or AlmostAlways, and somewhat fewer (68%) indicated that studentpreferences and interests were addressed by having someonerepresent the student.

How do staff become knowledgeable about facilitatingstudent participation? Formal in-service training by theLEA or a professional association, along with the informalsharing of information among educators at the local level,appear to be the primary means by which staff becomeknowledgeable about facilitating student participation intransition IEP planning meetings. In-service training is themost common approach, with approximately 84% of the

respondents indicating that this method was Frequently orAlmost Always employed. Gaining knowledge throughinformation shared at the local level was also selectedfrequently by most respondents; 79% indicated that thismethod was used Almost Always or Frequently.

How frequently do students participate in their transi-tion IEP meetings? This question was intended to provide anoverall estimate of how frequently students with disabilitiesparticipate in their IEP transition planning meetings. Eighty-two percent (82%) of the survey respondents reportedstudents are participating in meetings Frequently or AlmostAlways.

Barriers

Several barriers that limit student participation wereidentified. First among these is concerns is that students areunprepared to represent themselves in large group, adult-dominated discussions. Other barriers included a lack ofresponse or interest from students to participate, and theacknowledgement that student involvement may not be apriority in some school districts. These findings suggest thatwhile progress is being made by LEAs nationally, additionalefforts must be undertaken to ensure that students participateand are prepared to do so.

Agency Participation

The most and least frequently used strategies to promotethe participation of community service agencies in IEPmeetings are shown in Table 4.

How are agencies encouraged to participate in thetransition process? The majority of respondents reportedthey Frequently or Almost Always used three approaches toencourage agencies to participate in IEP meetings: (1)maintaining regular contact with agency representatives(76%), (2) inviting agency representatives by telephone(73%), and (3) inviting agency representatives through astandard form or memo (73%). These were also among thethree highest ranked “what’s working” items. In contrast,78% of the respondents indicated they either Sometimes orAlmost Never drafted a customized letter to invite otheragency representatives, and 71% of the group reported thesame on an option that probed whether students and parentswere expected to contact an agency representative toparticipate in IEP meetings.

What steps are taken when an agency representativedoes not attend the meeting? Approximately 62% of therespondents indicated they Frequently or Almost Alwaysmade a follow-up contact with the agency via mail ortelephone to secure their agreement to provide services. Half(50%) of the respondents reported that they Frequently orAlmost Always forwarded a copy of the student’s IEP to theagency (with student and parent approval) following the



38

meeting. The least frequently used method was to arrange asubsequent meeting: 54% of the respondents reported theyonly Sometimes or Almost Never arranged for another meeting.

How do staff become knowledgeable about facilitatingagency participation? Most respondents indicated themethods used most often to obtain information on facilitat-ing agency participation include: (1) formal in-servicetraining through the LEA or professional association (78%),(2) informal information sharing among educators (76%), (3)dissemination of state and federal policies (67%), and (4)distribution of procedural guidelines designed to promoteagency participation (60%). The majority of respondents(89%) indicated staff were Sometimes or Almost Neverresponsible for informing themselves about the requirementsconcerning agency participation in the transition process.

Barriers

Problems that impede agency participation includedscheduling conflicts, insufficient numbers of agency person-nel to cover a given community or region, and the fact thatjob descriptions of agency representatives do not includeparticipation in student IEP meetings. These findings placeinto question the degree to which formal steps are beingtaken by LEAs to secure the involvement of agencies, whoserole is critical in supporting the post-school service needs ofstudents with disabilities.

Section III: Content of the IEP

Tables 5 and 6 summarize the practices and strategiesmost and least frequently used when determining IEPtransition goals and objectives for students with mild

disabilities (Table 5) and those with moderate to severedisabilities (Table 6).

What strategies are used to determine student needs inthe four transition areas? For students with mild disabili-ties, the most frequently used strategy by LEAs is to obtainsuggestions and recommendations from the student, family,or other knowledgeable persons regarding future goals. Mostsurvey respondents (94%) indicated this practice was usedFrequently or Almost Always. While this option was selectedmost often, respondents also frequently reported using otherstrategies as well. These include: preference and interestinventories (89%); reviewing student records to obtaininformation about academic history and work experienceactivities (89%); and informal observations of the student toobtain information on performance and behavior (88%). Thestrategy selected least often for students with mild disabili-ties was the use of functional vocational assessments.Approximately 40% of the respondents reported that thistype of assessment was Sometimes or Almost Never used todetermine transition needs.

Based on the survey findings, a variety of methods areFrequently or Almost Always used to determine the needs ofstudents with moderate/severe disabilities in the four majorcontent areas of the IEP. These include: using informalobservations of student performance behavior (95%),obtaining suggestions and recommendations from thestudent and other family members (93%), conducting areview of school records to obtain information about thestudent’s academic history and previous work experienceactivities (87%), and conducting a functional vocationalassessment (81%). Interest inventories and standardized testsalso appear to be used by school staff, but somewhat lessoften. More than half of all respondents (55%) indicated




Encouraging agency representatives to maintain regular contact with send an individually draftedattend the transition IEP meeting service agencies over time (76%) letter or memo (78%)

Steps taken when an agency representative contact the agency via telephone or arrange a subsequent meeting with andoes not attend the transition meeting by mail to secure an agreement agency representative to discuss

to provide services (62%) student needs (54%)

Helping staff to become knowledgeable participate in training offered by LEA assume that staff must takeabout strategies to facilitate agency or professional association (78%) responsibility for informingparticipation themselves (89%)

Table 4. Agency Participation Strategies

39

interest inventories were used Frequently or Almost Always,and 46% provided a similar response concerning the use ofstandardized assessments.

What strategies are used to address employment andother post-school adult living objectives? The strategy mostoften used to address the employment and other adult livingneeds of students with mild disabilities involved instructionin school-based vocational programs. Most (90%) of therespondents reported that this practice was used Frequentlyor Almost Always. This was closely followed by strategiesthat involved instruction and experience in employabilityskills (e.g., filling out a job application, interviewing) (89%),use of career vocational assessments (83%), and providingguidance counseling and instruction to prepare students forentering postsecondary education (78%). The least fre-quently used practice was to provide unpaid community-based work training opportunities to students: 54% reportedusing unpaid work experience Sometimes or Almost Never.

The majority of respondents indicated they Frequentlyor Almost Always utilized the following strategies to identify

employment and adult living needs for students withmoderate and severe disabilities: paid community employ-ment experiences (66%), unpaid community-based worktraining (64%), instruction in the area of work competenciesand employability skills (63%), and career vocationalassessments (58%). However, 74% of the respondentsreported that guidance counseling was Sometimes or AlmostNever used to identify employment and adult living needs forstudents with moderate and severe disabilities.

What strategies are used to address daily living skillsand functional vocational evaluation objectives? Theoptions selected most frequently by survey respondents wereto provide functional community living skills instruction(e.g., money management, mobility) and community-basedassessments for students with mild disabilities. Approxi-mately two-thirds of the respondents reported they Fre-quently or Almost Always used these strategies. Approxi-mately 62% of the respondents indicated they Sometimes orAlmost Never utilized community-based assessments, and61% reported limited use of daily living skills programs





Determining student needs in the obtain suggestions and conduct a functionalfour transition areas recommendations from the student, vocational assessment (40%)

family, and other knowledgeablepersons (94%)

Meeting IEP objectives related to provide school-based vocational provide students with non-paidemployment and post-school adult living course work (90%) community-based work training (54%)

Meeting IEP objectives related to provide functional community living conduct a community-baseddaily living skills and functional skills instruction and experience assessment (62%)vocational needs (e.g., managing money, mobility—66%)

Meeting IEP objectives related to access information from community provide community-basedcommunity experience needs service providers; then inform students instruction (62%)

and families about options (62%)

Meeting IEP objectives related to the provide instruction in general provide instruction in dailytransition instructional needs of academic skills (93%) living skills (e.g., dressing,students cooking—64%)

Helping staff to become knowledgeable share information informally through assume that staff must takeabout strategies for developing goals and lead teachers or other responsibility for informingobjectives in the four transition areas knowledgeable personnel (84%) themselves (88%)

Table 5. Content of IEP - Students with Mild Disabilities


40

(e.g., dressing, cooking, personal hygiene) for students withmild disabilities.

Providing students with daily living skills programs wasselected as the method Frequently or Almost Always used toaddress daily living skills and vocational needs. Most (93%)of the respondents indicated they relied on this approach tomeet the transition needs of students with moderate/severedisabilities. This strategy was closely followed by providingstudents instruction in functional living skills (e.g., moneymanagement, mobility). Again, most (88%) reported that thiswas Frequently or Almost Always used in working withstudents with moderate/severe disabilities.

What strategies are used to address IEP goals relatingto community experiences? The strategy most widely usedto meet IEP goals of students with mild disabilities related tocommunity experiences was to access community serviceprograms and inform students and families about theiroptions. Sixty-two percent (62%) of the respondents reportedthis strategy was used Frequently or Almost Always. Otherstrategies used less frequently (Sometimes or Almost Never)

included training in self-advocacy skills (including the use ofaccommodations) (46%), training regarding housing andsupport options (e.g., availability of low cost rental, Section8 housing, types of support, how to choose a place to live)(60%), providing community-based assessment (61%), andcommunity-based instruction (e.g., riding bus routes, visitinga recreation center) (62%).

For students with moderate to severe disabilities, themajority of survey respondents (86% reported Frequently orAlmost Always) reported accessing community serviceprograms and informing students and parents of theiroptions. In addition, 79% of the respondents reported thatproviding students with community-based instructionFrequently or Almost Always occurred, and 72% usedcommunity-based assessment strategies. Half of the respon-dents (50%) indicated education and training in the area ofself-advocacy and use of accommodations was used toidentify IEP goals relating to community experiences. Theleast frequently used strategy was to provide studentstraining on housing and support options. Based on the survey




Determining student needs in the conduct informal observations of use standardized tests to assessfour transition areas student performance and academic, social, and behavioral

behaviors (95%) skills (54%)

Meeting IEP objectives related to provide students with paid community provide guidance counseling toemployment and post-school adult living and supported employment prepare students for postsecondary

experiences (66%) education (74%)

Meeting IEP objectives related to provide instruction in daily living conduct a community-baseddaily living skills and functional skills (e.g., dressing, cooking—93%) assessment (23%)vocational needs

Meeting IEP objectives related to access information from community provide education and trainingcommunity experience needs service providers; then inform students regarding housing and support

and families about options (86%) options (53%)

Meeting IEP objectives related to the provide instruction in daily provide instruction in generaltransition instructional needs of living skills (95%) academic skills (89%)students

Helping staff to become knowledgeable share information informally through assume that staff must takeabout strategies for developing goals and lead teachers or other responsibility for informingobjectives in the four transition areas knowledgeable personnel (87%) themselves (86%)

Table 6. Content of IEP - Students with Moderate/Severe Disabilities

41

results, 53% reported that this was Sometimes or AlmostNever practiced.

What strategies are used to meet the transition instruc-tional needs of students? Most respondents (93%) indicatedthey Frequently or Almost Always provided instruction ingeneral academic skills as the primary means of meeting thetransition needs of students with mild disabilities. Otherfrequently used practices included the provision of instruc-tion through vocational education programs (88%) andinstruction in regular education and college preparationcourse work (81%). Instruction in daily living skills was theleast frequently used strategy, with more than half (64%) ofthe respondents indicating that daily living skills instructionwas Sometimes or Almost Never used with students with milddisabilities.

Approximately 95% of respondents reported thatinstruction in daily living skills was Frequently or AlmostAlways used to meet the transition needs of students withmoderate to severe disabilities. Similarly, instruction infunctional community living skills was also cited as beingfrequently used by LEAs. Most (89%) reported this strategywas used Frequently or Almost Always for students withmoderate and severe disabilities. In contrast, 89% of therespondents indicated that instruction in the regular educa-tion and college preparation course work occurred only

Sometimes or Almost Never. Instruction in general academicskills also received a relatively low frequency rating, with69% of the respondents reporting that this Sometimes orAlmost Never occurred.

How do staff become knowledgeable about developingtransition goals? Based on survey results, more than 80% ofthe special education administrators reported that staffFrequently or Almost Always acquire knowledge and skillsabout developing transition goals through informal informa-tion sharing with other educators. A similar percentageindicated that formal in-service training through the LEA orprofessional association was also used frequently. Approxi-mately three-fourths of the respondents indicated staffFrequently or Almost Always gain knowledge by receivinginformation about procedural guidelines and through thedistribution of information by state and federal sources. Lessthan half reported that preservice training and educationFrequently or Almost Always accounted for their knowledgeconcerning the federal requirements. The least frequentlyused method was to make staff responsible for informingthemselves. Most of the respondents (88%) reported Some-times or Almost Never to this survey item.




Fostering agency involvement and follow- communicate routinely with distribute a written descriptionthrough responsibilities in the IEP process community agencies regarding to agencies outlining their financial

transition services (58%) and service responsibilities underIDEA (79%)

Steps taken when a participating agency reconvene the IEP team to identify ask a different agency orfails to provide agreed-upon transition alternative strategies and, if necessary representative to deliver theservices contained in the IEP to revise the IEP (62%) needed services (73%)

Helping staff to become knowledgeable share information informally through assume that staff must takeabout promoting agency involvement lead teachers or other knowledgeable responsibility for informingin the IEP process personnel (71%) themselves (85%)

How often community service agencies attend the IEP meeting (36%) attend the IEP meeting (64%)attend transition IEP meeting for students

Types of agency personnel who participate receive participation from vocational receive participation by residentialin transition IEP meeting for students rehabilitation staff (44%) services staff (88%)

Table 7. Promoting Agency Responsibility - Students with Mild Disabilities



42

Barriers

Efforts to develop transition goals and objectives withinstudents’ IEPs were influenced by several limiting factorsand barriers. These barriers included the discrepancy in theexpectations of parents, students, and educators regardingthe types of transition services schools and communityservice agencies can provide; limit in access or opportunityin the school, community, or home settings for students tomeet transition goals and objectives; and the difficultiesoften encountered in staffing community-based experiences.These are common problems that impede the developmentof transition goals and objectives for both students withmild and moderate/severe disabilities.

Section IV: Agency Responsibility

Tables 7 and 8 report on the most and least frequentlyselected implementation practices and strategies for promot-ing agency responsibility. Table 7 summarizes study findingsfor students with mild disabilities and Table 8 summarizesfindings for students with moderate to severe disabilities.

How is agency involvement and follow-through fos-tered? Among the practices used Frequently or AlmostAlways for students with mild disabilities, 58% of surveyrespondents reported that they consulted agency representa-

tives about the development of student’s transition goals andobjectives prior to the IEP meeting (with parent and studentapproval); 57% reported routinely communicating withcommunity agencies regarding transition services for youthwith disabilities (with parent and student approval); 54%routinely check on the implementation status of agreed-upontransition services with the student, parent, and participatingagencies; and 53% reported clearly stating and documentingeach local education agency’s and participating agency’sresponsibilities and linkages. The least frequently usedmethod was to distribute to agencies a written description ofthe IDEA requirements that define agencies responsibilitiesto provide and/or pay for agreed upon transition services. Atotal of 79% of the survey respondents indicated that thisSometimes or Almost Never occurred.

Most respondents (74%) indicated routine communica-tion with community agency representatives was Frequentlyor Almost Always used to promote involvement in transitionIEP meetings for students with moderate to severe disabili-ties. In addition, 62% of the respondents reported that staffFrequently or Almost Always consulted with agency repre-sentatives prior to IEP meetings, clearly documented agencyroles and responsibilities, or routinely checked that agreedupon services actually had been delivered to students withmoderate or severe disabilities.




Fostering agency involvement and follow- communicate routinely with distribute a written descriptionthrough responsibilities in the IEP process community agencies regarding to agencies outlining their financial

transition services (74%) and service responsibilities underIDEA (77%)

Steps taken when a participating agency reconvene the IEP team to identify modify or remove the transition IEPfails to provide agreed-upon transition alternative strategies and, if necessary goal if no agency can provide theservices contained in the IEP to revise the IEP (68%) service (73%)

Helping staff to become knowledgeable share information informally through assume that staff must takeabout promoting agency involvement lead teachers or other knowledgeable responsibility for informingin the IEP process personnel (82%) themselves (84%)

How often community service agencies attend the IEP meeting (63%) attend the IEP meeting (38%)attend transition IEP meeting for students

Types of agency personnel who participate receive participation from vocational receive participation by postsecondaryin transition IEP meeting for students rehabilitation staff (60%) education staff (91%)

Table 8. Promoting Agency Responsibility - Students with Moderate/Severe Disabilities

43

What happens when a participating agency fails toprovide services contained in the IEP? For students withmild disabilities, approximately two-thirds (62%) of therespondents indicated IEP teams were typically reconvenedby the LEA for the purposes of identifying alternativestrategies to meet the transition objectives and, if necessary,revise the students’ IEPs. Less than half (46%) Frequently orAlmost Always developed an alternative plan with the sameagency representative for meeting the identified needs ofstudents. The least used practice was to modify or removethe IEP goal or objective in question (with parent or studentapproval) because no other agency was available to deliverthe service. Based on survey results, 73% of the respondentsindicated that this practice was Sometimes or Almost Neverused in their LEA.

When an agency fails to provide the services indicatedin the IEP for students with moderate to severe disabilities,68% of respondents indicated that education staff Frequentlyor Almost Always reconvene the IEP team to consideralternative strategies. However, more than half (54%) of therespondents reported that an alternative plan is only Some-times or Almost Never developed with the same communityagency. In addition, 73% of respondents indicated thatmodification or removal of the transition IEP goal orobjective is Sometimes or Almost Never employed as astrategy, and 68% indicated that requesting a differentagency was also a strategy that was Sometimes or AlmostNever used as an option by the IEP team.

How do staff become knowledgeable about promotingparticipation? Most respondents (79%) indicated staffFrequently or Almost Always acquire knowledge and skillsabout promoting agency participation through two principalmeans: (1) formal in-service training offered by a profes-sional association, or (2) informal information sharing withother educators. Also, the majority of staff Frequently orAlmost Always gain knowledge about involving communityagency representatives through the distribution of informa-tion by state and federal sources and procedural guidelinesdescribing policies concerning agency involvement distrib-uted by their LEA. More than half of the respondentsreported that preservice training and education Sometimes orAlmost Never accounted for the development of skills amongstaff.

How frequently do community agencies participate intransition IEP meetings ? Approximately two-thirds (64%)of the respondents reported that community service agenciesSometimes or Almost Never participated in transitionplanning meetings of students with mild disabilities. Of thisresponse, 22% indicated that representation and attendancefrom outside agencies Almost Never occurred.

The majority of survey respondents (63%) reported thatcommunity service agency representatives Frequently orAlmost Always attend IEP meetings for students with moderate

to severe disabilities. Of this response, 25% indicated that thesepersonnel attended meetings Almost Always.

What types of agency personnel participate in IEPmeetings? When asked about participation of differentcommunity service agency personnel participate in transitionIEP meetings for students with mild disabilities, the person-nel identified most frequently were vocational rehabilitationstaff. Approximately 44% of the respondents indicated thatvocational rehabilitation staff participated Frequently orAlmost Always in the planning process. Other communityservice agency professionals participating Sometimes orAlmost Never include parent advocacy staff (88%), residen-tial services staff (87%), postsecondary education staff(87%), and social service agency staff (69%).

Barriers

The study identified the following factors as impedi-ments or barriers to effective agency provision of transitionservices: lack of agency personnel to attend meetings; lackof formal interagency agreements or memorandums ofagreement at the local level; lack of informal networkingamong schools and agency personnel; and the fact thatagencies are resistant to participate because of concerns overassociated financial responsibility. These barriers wereconsistently reported in relation to both students with mildand those with moderate/severe disabilities.

Discussion

Parent Notification

The federal requirements are clear-parents must benotified when the purpose of the IEP meeting is the consider-ation of transition services. The federal regulations do notrequire, however, that the education agency provide aseparate notice to parents for this purpose. Rather, proce-dures that have been standardized by LEAs for the purposesof notifying parents of the IEP meeting can be used so longas the notice to parents indicates that a purpose of themeeting is to consider transition services and that the studentand representatives from other agencies will be invited. Thispractice appeared to be followed by most LEAs participatingin the national study.

Parents were most frequently mailed a standard formletter or memorandum of notification. If communicationcould not be established through this means, school person-nel attempted contacting the parents by phone. Thesestrategies were also viewed by survey respondents as themost effective informal notification of parents. Less clearwere the specific strategies used by LEAs if parents wereunable to attend the transition IEP meeting. Respondentsreported using a range of strategies that included holding an



44

individual meeting with a parent, conducting an informa-tional conference over the phone, mailing a draft of thestudent’s transition goals home for review and feedback bythe parent, or inviting the parent to submit commentsregarding the plan in writing. These strategies, however,were reported to be infrequently used by LEAs.

Student and Agency Participation

Student Participation. The field of special educationand related advocacy interests have, for many years, stressedthe importance of involving students in discussions anddecisions regarding future goals and plans. The importanceof student participation is further reinforced by emergingpractices in public schools emphasizing the core values ofself-determination, personal choice, and shared responsibil-ity. The IDEA regulations are explicit and require that allspecial education students, age 16 or older, are to be invitedto the IEP meeting when transition services are beingdiscussed. Further, if the student does not attend the meeting,the public agency shall take other steps to ensure that thestudent’s preferences and interests are fully considered.

The respondents in this study reported that students withdisabilities generally do attend their IEP meetings. Studentsare most often extended a verbal invitation to the meeting bya school staff member. Students were less frequently sent awritten notice, i.e., letter or memo, concerning the meeting.While it is apparent from results of the study that manystudents are currently attending their IEP meetings, thereremains a significant number who are not involved. Thisraises obvious concerns as to whether students are not beingextended opportunities for involvement, or whether they aresimply choosing not to attend. It is difficult, however, toimagine conditions under which a student would not attendhis or her IEP meeting other than by personal choice.Addressing students’ participation in meetings remains amajor goal and challenge of the IDEA amendments of 1997.

As students are increasingly involved in IEP meetings,they must be prepared to assume a meaningful role indiscussions concerning their future goals. For many students,this will mean that well before the IEP meeting, both in andout of school, they must participate in activities designed toenhance their knowledge base in decision-making andcommunication skills. Students and families must beprepared before the IEP meeting; opportunities must becreated for the parent and student to engage in discussionsconcerning future goals prior to the meeting; and studentsmust receive instruction, counseling, and other supportnecessary to make their participation meaningful. Whilesurvey results document a range of “frequently” usedstrategies to support student participation (i.e., interviewingstudents about future goals, engaging students in the dia-logue during IEP meetings, and promoting self-determinationin the high school curriculum), other important strategies

were not as frequently used. These included offering classesspecifically designed to enhance decision-making skills,sending information home to assist parents in preparing theirchild for the transition IEP meeting, and using person-centered planning strategies.

Agency Participation. The requirement to involvecommunity service agencies that are responsible for provid-ing or paying for student services reflects one of the mostcritical concerns of transition nationally. Achievement of theanticipated goals of post-school employment, postsecondaryeducation participation, and independence in communityliving often requires the financial support of communityservice agencies. The federal requirements, however, do notspecifically stipulate when an agency should be involvedduring a student’s public education experience, the methodthe LEA should use to invite agency representatives, or thesteps the LEA should take to obtain the participation ofagencies when they are unable to attend.

The special education directors, supervisors, andcoordinators participating in this survey reported that themost effective strategies for gaining agency participationinclude: (a) extending agency representatives a verbalinvitation over the phone, (b) maintaining regular contactwith the agencies over time, and/or (c) inviting agencies bymeans of a form letter or memo. When an agency representa-tive is unable to attend the IEP meeting, however, it wasuncertain, based on survey results, what actions LEAs weretaking to ensure their participation and commitment.Subsequent meetings were only infrequently arranged withthe agency to discuss students transition service needs.Further, it was reported that a copy of the IEP plan is seldomforwarded to the agency for review. Also in question was thefrequency with which LEAs contact agencies via telephoneor mail to secure their agreement to provide transitionservices.

Content of IEP

The federal regulations require that, at a minimum, theIEP team must address the transition service areas ofinstruction, community experiences, employment, and post-school adult living objectives, and, if necessary, acquisitionof daily living skills and functional vocational evaluation.This survey examined the range of strategies within each ofthe four IEP content areas with a corresponding interest indetermining differences between students with mild versusmoderate/severe disabilities.

The findings of this study illustrate, for example, thatseveral formal and informal assessment practices are used indetermining the “statement of needed transition services.”Frequently used strategies for both students with mild andmoderate/severe disabilities include obtaining suggestions orrecommendations from the student, family, and otherknowledgeable persons regarding the student’s future goals;

45

conducting informal observations of student performanceand behavior; and reviewing the student’s school records.

Several differences in the strategies used for studentswith mild versus moderate/severe disabilities were noted.For example, the transition service needs for students withmild disabilities were more frequently determined by meansof standardized tests of academic, social, and behavioralskills as well as formal preference and interest inventories.The strategy viewed as most effective for both groups,however, was to obtain suggestions and recommendationsfrom the student, family, and other knowledgeable personsregarding the youth’s goals for the future. Students withmoderate/severe disabilities were less likely to receiveinstruction in regular education and college preparatorycourse work, receive guidance counseling and instruction toprepare for entering postsecondary education, and receiveinstruction in general academic skills than were studentswith mild disabilities.

Overall, the most effective strategies for facilitating thedevelopment of the four transition service areas for studentswith mild disabilities included instruction and experiences inemployability skills (e.g., filling out applications, interview-ing) and school-based vocational course work (e.g., typing,computers, auto mechanics). These strategies were reportedto occur more frequently than paid community employmentexperiences or non-paid community-based work training forthese students. In contrast, study findings revealed a differ-ence in the practice used for students with moderate/severedisabilities. The strategies reported as most effective inaddressing the transition needs of these students includedinvolvement in daily living skills programs (e.g., dressing,cooking, personal hygiene) and functional and communityliving skills instruction (e.g., money management, mobility).Further, students with moderate/severe disabilities were morelikely to receive this instruction in community-basedsettings.

Findings of this study suggest a need to expand parentand professional awareness and reach consensus on the rangeof curricular and instructional strategies that need to be putinto place to address the transition service needs of studentswith disabilities. Also suggested by these findings is the needto formalize planning at the local level to examine concernsover limited access and opportunity for students to meet theirtransition goals and objectives through a wider range ofschool, community, and/or home learning experiences. Formore than a decade, the Office of Special Education andRehabilitative Services (OSERS) has supported numerousresearch and demonstration projects all focused on thedesign, development, and validation of innovative andexemplary transition services and practices. This existingknowledge base needs to be reviewed by LEAs to identifyadditional school and community-based approaches andstrategies.

Further, the IDEA amendments of 1997 are now placingadditional requirements upon schools concerning the contentof IEPs. Beginning at age 14, the IEP team must look at achild’s courses of study which include the full range ofacademic course offerings, advanced placement courses and/or vocational education programs. The IEP team must makedeterminations as to whether or not those courses of studyare leading the student to where the student needs to be upongraduation. This includes assisting students in addressing andmeeting state graduation requirements and exit exams.

Agency Responsibility

In addition to inviting outside agency representatives tothe transition IEP meeting, IDEA requires that “the IEPshould contain, if appropriate, a statement of each public andparticipating agency’s responsibilities and linkages (or both)before the student leaves the school setting.” The LEA isresponsible for ensuring that this occurs. This study exam-ined several procedures used to encourage agency responsi-bility in the provision of transition services.

Overall study findings reveal a limited level of participa-tion by community service agency representatives intransition IEP meetings. As noted in the results of this study,participation does vary as a function of disability level. Asomewhat higher rate of agency participation is found forstudents with moderate/severe disabilities than for studentswith mild disabilities. For both students with mild and thosewith moderate/severe disabilities, vocational rehabilitationstaff participate most often in transition IEP meetings. Asalso noted in Table 8, students with moderate/severe disabili-ties are more likely to experience the involvement of otheragency personnel, i.e., social service agency personnel andresidential services staff. While the expectation of the federaltransition requirements regarding agency participation isclear, these findings suggest concern over the type, nature,and extensiveness of their actual involvement.

Based on study results, the most effective strategies forpromoting agency involvement included: (a) routinelycommunicating with community agencies regarding transi-tion services for youth with disabilities (with parent andstudent approval), (b) clearly stating and documenting eachLEA’s and participating agency’s responsibilities andlinkages, (c) consulting with agency representatives abouteach student’s transition goals and objectives prior to the IEPmeeting, and (d) routinely checking on the implementationstatus of agreed-upon transition services with the student,parent, and participating agencies.

Less clear, however, were the specific procedures LEAsused if a participating agency failed to provide the transitionservices agreed upon in the IEP. Reconvening the IEP teamwas cited as the practice most often used; however, based onsurvey findings, this does not frequently occur. Otherstrategies, such as developing an alternative plan, modifying



46

IEP goals and objectives, or pursuing a different agency toprovide the services needed were identified as seldom used.It is evident that a number of procedural difficulties remainconcerning: (a) how and when agency commitments toprovide transition services are reviewed by LEAs, (b) whatprocedures are used for identifying alternative strategies tomeet transition objectives (and, if necessary, revising thestudent’s IEP), and (c) what the responsibility of the LEA isif outside agencies fall to provide agreed upon services.

While schools cannot compel other agencies to provideagreed upon services, opportunities for networking and thedevelopment of interagency agreements may increase thelikelihood that agencies reach consensus on the actions thatmust be taken when addressing the transition needs of youthwith disabilities. It is necessary to create opportunities foropen discussion and dialogue among schools and agencypersonnel regarding staffing limitations, financial responsi-bility, policies, and procedures for reconvening the IEPmeeting, or defining service alternatives.

Recommendations

Overall, this study has documented the range andvariation in policies, procedures, and practices used by LEAsin implementing the federal transition service requirements.The remainder of this article offers recommendations on thesteps that need to be taken to support LEA efforts in fullyimplementing the transition service requirements of IDEAnationwide.

Parent Notification

• When parents are unable to attend their child’s IEPmeeting where transition goals and objectives are beingdiscussed, alternative strategies and systematic methodsmust be used to obtain their participation and input onidentified goals and objectives. Because of the critical rolethat parents often play in assisting their child in making thetransition from school to adult life, additional attention mustbe given to establishing the strategies and methods needed toactively engage them in discussions and decisions concern-ing school and post-school options. This may includeoffering workshops and sharing information on school andpost-school service options, providing individual consulta-tions, establishing more convenient meeting times andlocations, and other strategies.

Student and Agency Participation

• When the student is unable or chooses not to attend theirtransition IEP meeting, an approved series of steps must betaken to ensure that their preferences and interests are fullyconsidered and used in the determination of transition goalsand objectives. Students need to be formally invited, anddecisions not to attend should be based on personal choice.

In those instances when a student does not attend, anapproved series of steps must be taken to collect informationfrom the student and informed family members, friends, andprofessionals, and to present that information at the meeting.Further, if the student cannot attend, it is important that anadvocate of the student (i.e., family member, teacher,counselor, others), be present at the meeting to represent andcommunicate the interests and preferences of the student.• LEAs must create the curricula and individual supportservices to ensure that students develop the decision making,communication, and self advocacy skills necessary to assumea leadership role in transition IEP meetings. This mustinclude offering classes specifically designed to enhancedecision making, increasing efforts to promote self-determi-nation and goal setting throughout the curriculum andinstructional approaches, sending information home to assistparents in preparing their child for participation, and usingperson-centered planning strategies. Investing in thesestrategies also helps to support opportunities for students tolead discussions concerning their future goals and makedecisions regarding their school and post-school involve-ments.

• LEAs must assume responsibility for establishing theprocedures and strategies essential to ensure the activeparticipation of community service agencies in the planningof transition services. While a number of strategies are beingused by LEAs to invite agencies to participate in transitionIEP meetings, there remains a concern over their actuallevels of involvement and the steps taken by LEAs to gaincommitments from these agencies to participate in transitionservices. School personnel must become more knowledge-able about the services and policies of community serviceagencies and their role in supporting the transition serviceneeds of youth with disabilities. Community service agen-cies, in turn, must examine current policies and their role andresponsibilities with students while still in school as well asto support their post-school goals and service needs. Variedstrategies that need to be considered in formalizing agencyresponsibilities might include revising job descriptions ofagency representatives to include participation in studenttransition IEP meetings, developing interagency agreements,and formalizing follow-up procedures and actions whenagencies are unable to attend.

Content of the IEP

• LEAs are encouraged to institute an organized system oftraining and information sharing to ensure that school staffand other personnel are aware of current “best practices”on curriculum and instruction to meet the transition needs ofyouth with disabilities. An organized system of training andinformation sharing is needed to establish the critical linkbetween the IDEA requirements and “effective” or “bestpractices” for their implementation. Based on the survey

47

results, LEAs were using a range of school and community-based strategies to facilitate the development of IEP goalsand objectives across each of the four transition serviceareas. For more than a decade, OSEP has sponsored numer-ous research and demonstration projects all focused on thedesign, development and validation of innovative andexemplary transition services and practices. This existingknowledge base needs to be reviewed by LEAs to identifyadditional school and community-based approaches andstrategies.

• Parents and professionals must be well informed andreach consensus on the range of curricular and instructionalstrategies necessary to address the transition service needsof students with disabilities. There currently exists a discrep-ancy in the expectations of parents, students, and educatorsin the types of transition services that schools and commu-nity service agencies can provide. IEP team discussions mustcontinue to focus on the full range of school, community, andhome settings that can and should be used for studentlearning and development.

Agency Responsibility

• An interagency agreement delineating financial andlegal responsibilities concerning the provision of post-schoolservices must be developed and followed by LEAs andcommunity service agencies. Resolution of this concern iscontingent upon: (a) the awareness and understanding ofschool staff on the critical importance and need to involveoutside agencies in these discussions, (b) the quality of therelationship between schools and agency staff, and (c) theexistence of local and state interagency agreements thatclearly delineate the financial and legal responsibilities ofagencies involved in transition services. Opportunities mustbe created, if not required, for school and agency staff tomeet for the purposes of discussing their shared responsibil-ity in the development of transition goals and objectives andprovision of services as mutually agreed upon. Improvedinteragency coordination and collaboration must be viewedas the primary means by which these issues are resolved.

References

Asselin, S. B., Hanley-Maxell, C., & Szymanski, E. M. (1992).Transdisciplinary personnel preparation. In F. R. Rusch,L. DeStefano, J. Chadsey-Rusch, L. A. Phelps, & E.Szymanski (Eds.), Transition from school to adult life:Models, linkages, and policy (pp. 266-283). Sycamore,IL: Sycamore Publishing Company.

Bates, P. E., Bronkema, J., Ames, T., & Hess, C. (1992). State-level interagency planning models. In F. R. Rusch, L.DeStefano, J. Chadsey-Rusch, L. A. Phelps, & E.Szymanski (Eds.), Transition from school to adult life:

Models, linkages, and policy (pp. 116-129). Sycamore, IL:Sycamore Publishing Company.

Benz, M. R., Yovanoff, P., & Doren, B. (1997). School-to-work components that predict postschool success forstudents with and without disabilities. ExceptionalChildren, 63, 151-166.

Brinckerhoff, L. C. (1996). Making the transition to highereducation: Opportunities for student empowerment.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 118-136.

Calkins, C. F., Walker, H. M., Bacon-Prue, A., Gibson, B.,Martinson, M. C., & Offner, R. (1985). The learningadjustment process: Implications of a national profile ofadult development. Logan: Utah State University,Developmental Center for Handicapped Persons.

DeStefano, L. (1989). Facilitating the transition from school toadult life for youth with handicaps. In W. K. Kiernan & R.L. Schalock (Eds.), Economics, industry, and disability, Alook ahead (pp. 337-349). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

DeStefano, L., & Wagner, M. (1991). Evaluating specialeducation programs. Washington, DC: U.S. Departmentof Education, Office of Special Education Programs.

Dowdy, C. A. (1996). Vocational rehabilitation and specialeducation: Partners in transition for individuals withlearning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29,137-147.

Edgar, E., Horton, B., & Maddox, M. (1984). Postschoolplacements: Planning for public school students withdevelopmental disabilities. Journal for Vocational SpecialNeeds Education, 6, 15-18, 26.

Elliot, N. E., Alberto, P. A., Arnold, S. E., & Taber, T. A.(1996). The role of school district interagency transitioncommittees within an overall collaborative structure.Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 27, 63-68.

Falvey, M. A. (1986). Community based curriculum: Instruc-tional strategies for students with severe handicaps.Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Federal Register, 57(189), (1992, September 29), 44794-44852. Washington, DC: U.S. Government PrintingOffice.

Federal Register, 57(208), (1992, October 27), 48694-48704.Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Furney, K. S., Hasazi, s. B., & DeStefano, L. (1997). Transi-tion policies, practices, and promises: Lessons from threestates. Exceptional Children, 63, 343-355.

Halpern, A. S. (1990). A methodological review of follow-upand follow-along studies tracking school leavers fromspecial education. Career Development for ExceptionalIndividuals, 51, 455-469.

Halpern, A. S., Close, D. W., & Nelson, D. J. (1986). On myown: The impact of semi-independent living programs foradults with mental retardation. Baltimore: Paul H.Brookes Publishing Co.



48

Hasazi, S. B., Gordon, L. R., & Roe, C. A. (1985). Factorsassociated with the employment status of handicappedyouth exiting high school from 1979 to 1983. ExceptionalChildren, 51, 455-469.

Hasazi, S. B., Hasazi, J. E., Gordon, L. R., Hull, M., &Johnson, R. (1989). Employment of youth with andwithout handicaps following high school: Outcomes andcorrelates. Journal of Special Education, (23), 243-255.

Hayden, M. F., & Abery, B. H. (1994). Challenges for aservice system in transition: Ensuring quality communityexperiences for persons with developmental disabilities.Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Johnson, D. R., Bruininks, R. H., & Thurlow, M. L. (1987).Meeting the challenge of transition service planningthrough improved interagency cooperation. ExceptionalChildren, 53(6), 522-530.

Johnson, D. R., McGrew, K. S., Bloomberg, L., Bruininks, R.H., & Lin, H-C. (in press). Results of a national follow-upstudy of young adults with severe disabilities. Journal ofVocational Rehabilitation.

Linder, S.H. & Peters, B.G. (1987). A design perspective onpolicy implementation: The facilities of misplacedprescription. Policy Studies Review 6(3), 459-475.

Mallory, B. L. (1996). The role of social policy in life-cycletransitions. Exceptional Children, 62, 213-223.

Maynard-Moody, S., Musheno, M., & Palumbo, D. (1990).Street-wise social policy: Resolving the dilemma of street-level influence and successful implementation. TheWestern Political Quarterly, 43(4), 833-849.

McDonnell, J., & Hardman, M. (1985). Planning the transitionof severely handicapped youth from school to adultservices: A framework for high school programs. Educa-tion and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 20, 275-286.

Stainback, W., & Stainback, S. (1992). Controversial issuesconfronting special education: Divergent perspectives.Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Stark & Karan. (1987). Transition services for early adult ageindividuals with severe mental retardation. In R. N.Ianacone & R. A. Stoddard (Eds.), Transition issues anddirections. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

Stodden, R. A., & Boone, R. (1987). Assessing transitionservices for handicapped youth: A cooperative inter-agency approach. Exceptional Children, 53, 537-545.

Stoker, R. (1996). Enabling young people to become keyactors in planning their futures: A constructivist approach.Educational & Child Psychology, 13, 49-59.

Wagner, M. (1993). The transition experiences of youngpeople with disabilities: Implications for policy andprograms. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

Ward, M., Wehmeyer, M., Martin, J., & Marshall, L. H. (1992).Student involvement in transition planning: Fulfilling theintent of IDEA. Washington, DC: USDOE Office ofSpecial Education and Rehabilitative Services.

Wehmeyer, M. (1992). Self-determination: Critical skills foroutcome-oriented transition services. The Journal forVocational Special Needs Education, 15, 3-7.

Wehmeyer, M., & Schwartz, M. (1997). Self-determinationand positive adult outcomes: A follow-up study of youthwith mental retardation or learning disabilities. Excep-tional Children, 63, 245-256.

West, M. D., & Parent, W. S. (1992). Consumer choice andempowerment in supported employment services: Issuesand strategies. Journal of the Association for Personswith Severe Handicaps, 17, 47-53.

Wilcox, B., & Bellamy, G. T. (1982). Design of high schoolprograms for severely handicapped students. Baltimore:Paul H. Brookes.

Zigmond, N., & Miller, S. (1992). Improving high schoolprograms for students with learning disabilities: A matterof substance as well as form. In F. R. Rusch, L.DeStefano, J. Chadsey-Rusch, A. L. Phelps, & E.Szymanski (Eds.), Transition from school to adult life (pp.17-33). Sycamore IL: Sycamore Publishing Company.

Author Information


David R. Johnson, Ph.D.; University of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration, 150 Pillsbury Drive SE, 102 PatteeHall, Minneapolis, MN 55455,612/624-6300, [email protected]

Michael N. Sharpe, Ph.D.; University of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration, 150 Pillsbury Drive SE, 108 PatteeHall, Minneapolis, MN 55455,612/626-8155, [email protected]

This study was conducted as part of a national implementation study on the transition service requirements of IDEA conductedjointly by the University of Vermont, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, University of Minnesota, and the NationalAssociation of State Directors of Special Education under grant number H159D50001, Office of Special Education Programs ofthe U.S. Department of Education. Points of view or opinions stated in this study do not necessarily represent the official policy orposition of the U.S. Department of Education.

49

Jane M. WilliamsArizona State University West

Ed O’LearyMountain Plains Regional Resource Center

4 Transition: What We’ve Learned andWhere We Go From Here

Introduction

The genesis for ensuring that youth with disabilities areprovided with the transition services necessary for movingfrom the school to post-school activities consistent with theirneeds, preferences, and interests can be traced to Public Law98-199, Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments of1983 (EHA). With the enactment of this legislation, thefederal government introduced its initiative to address theneeds of transitioning youth with disabilities and announceda number of competitive grant opportunities to assist stateswith achieving the following goals: (1) strengthen andcoordinate education, training, and related services forhandicapped youth to assist in the transitional process topostsecondary education, vocational training, competitiveemployment, continuing education, or adult services; and (2)stimulate the development of programs for secondaryspecial education (Education of the Handicapped Amend-ments of 1983, Public Law 98-199, 1983).

In 1984, the government’s initiative to support programsfor transitioning youth with disabilities to postsecondaryexperiences was expressed in Madeline Will’s seminal paper,OSERS Programming for the Transition of Youth withDisabilities, Bridges from School to Work (Will, 1984). Sixyears later, in 1990, with the reauthorization of the Educationof the Handicapped Act (Public Law 101-476, or theIndividuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of1990 (IDEA), monies to support this initiative were appro-priated by Congress for one-time, five-year State systemschange grants for transition services. Between 1991 and1996, 45 states received these state systems grants whichwere financially substantive, with awards of approximately

$500,000 per year for five years. One of the purposes ofthese grants was to “develop effective strategies and proce-dures for implementing the new transition service require-ments contained within Part B of the Individuals withDisabilities Education Act of 1990” (U.S. Department ofEducation, 1997).

Additionally, in the IDEA of 1990, transition servicesbecame formally recognized and mandated as part ofIndividualized Education Programs (IEPs). The statutedefines transition services as—

a coordinated set of activities for a student, designedwithin an outcome-oriented process, which promotesmovement from school to post-school activitiesincluding post-secondary education, vocationaltraining, integrated employment (including sup-ported employment), continuing and adult education,adult services, independent living, or communityparticipation. The coordinated set of activities shallbe based upon the individual student’s needs, takinginto account the student’s preferences and interests,and shall include instruction, community experi-ences, the development of employment and otherpost-school adult living objectives, and whenappropriate, acquisition of daily living skills andfunctional vocational evaluation.

Promulgation of the implementing regulations inSeptember 1992 reiterated the definition of transitionservices and required that the—

IEP (Individualized Education Program), beginningno later than age 16 (and at a younger age, if

Abstract: Public Law 101-476, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1990, required states andentities to design a statement of needed transition services for all students with disabilities, beginning no later thanage 16. Since 1992, with the promulgation of implementing regulations, the Office of Special Education Programs(OSEP) has monitored the implementation of the transition services provisions of the act by States and entitiesreceiving IDEA-Part B monies. This article (1) analyzes the monitoring findings for the transition services require-ments of IDEA for the 1993-94 through 1996-97 monitoring cycles; and (2) offers extensive recommendations forpolicy changes needed to ensure that states and entities provide the required transition services in a manner consis-tent with the statutory and regulatory provisions.


50

appropriate), must include a statement of neededtransition services, including, if appropriate, astatement of each participating agency’s responsibili-ties or linkages, or both, before the student leaves theschool setting [U.S.C. 34 CFR 300.346(b)(2)].

The 1992 regulations reiterated the statutory require-ment that transition services must be addressed in the IEP ofevery student 16 years of age and older or younger, ifappropriate. This new regulation required IEP teams tobecome familiar with the purpose of transition services,identify the transition services needed by the student, anddevelop a statement describing the needed transition ser-vices. The statement of needed transition services alsorequired schools to identify, link, and stipulate the responsi-bilities of other agencies in the provision of needed transitionservices.

The regulations specified that the statement of neededtransition services must address instruction, communityexperiences, development of employment and other post-school adult living objectives, and, if appropriate, dailyliving skills and functional vocational evaluation. Theregulations further stated that if the IEP team determined thatservices were not needed in any of the three areas that mustbe addressed in the statement of needed transition services(instruction, community experiences, or the development ofemployment or other post-school adult living objectives), theIEP must include a statement to that effect and the basis uponwhich the determination was made [U.S.C. 34 CFR300.346(b)(2)].

In addition, the regulations required each public agency(school) to invite (a) the student and (b) a representative ofany other agency that is likely to be responsible for provid-ing or paying for transition services if a purpose of the IEPmeeting is the consideration of transition services for thestudent [U.S.C. 34 CFR 300.344(c)(1)]. A note followingthe regulation reminds readers that for students 16 years ofage and older (or younger, if appropriate) one of the purposesof the IEP meeting will always be the consideration oftransition services. The regulations also provided guidance inthe event that the student or other agency personnel cannotattend the IEP meeting. The regulations state that if thestudent or the invited representative from another agency didnot attend the meeting, the public agency must take steps toensure that (a) the student’s preferences and interests wereconsidered in the design of the statement of needed transitionservices; and (b) other steps are taken by the school to obtainparticipation of other agencies in the planning of anytransition services [U.S.C. 34 CFR 344(c)(2) and300.344(c)(3)].

Beginning in 1993, the Office of Special EducationPrograms (OSEP), began monitoring the implementation ofthe transition services provisions of IDEA. The monitoringactivities included the following: (1) review and approval of

the transition services provisions of the IDEA-Part B StatePlan submitted by each state and entity receiving Part Bmonies; (2) review and approval of state and territoriallegislation, policy guidance, and monitoring proceduresrelative to transition services; and (3) on-site monitoring ofthe State’s policies and procedures. The on-site componentincluded (1) conducting public meetings to gather informa-tion from constituents; (2) visiting local education agenciesto conduct student file reviews (e.g., IEPs, parent notices,and other data) and interviews (with parents, advocates,school, district, and state personnel, disability and advocacyorganization representatives, and other interested parties);and (3) interviewing SEA personnel to validate the imple-mentation of their policies and procedures. Findings weremade when an absence of documentation of a requirement(e.g., no written statement of needed transition services) iscorroborated through interview data.

On March 3, 1995, OSEP issued Memorandum 95-13,Monitoring Procedures of the Office of Special EducationPrograms. This memorandum stated that OSEP would directits monitoring efforts toward the requirements that have thegreatest impact on student results. OSEP identified fourrequirements on which to concentrate. One of the four was“the development of a statement of needed transition servicesno later than age 16” (U.S. Department of Education, 1995).The memorandum said that OSEP would direct its monitor-ing efforts on this requirement, as well as the other three, andexpected the states and entities to do the same.

In the 18th Annual Report to Congress on the Implemen-tation of IDEA, OSEP reiterated its position declaring—

OSEP places the highest priority on compliance withthose IDEA requirements that have the strongestrelationship with improved services and results forstudents with disabilities and their families. . . .Based in large part on the results of the NationalLongitudinal Transition Study1, OSEP has deter-mined that the requirements with the strongest linksto results and general supervision include thoseaddressing: “Statements of needed transitionservices for students with disabilities beginning nolater than age 16 (and younger if determinedappropriate) (U.S. Department of Education, 1996).”

Continuing with the initiative to ensure that federalmonitoring occurs for provisions that are likely to result inimproved outcomes for students, the OSEP ContinuousMonitoring Process Document (Office of Special EducationPrograms, 1998) indicates that future monitoring procedureswill include gathering data on (1) whether the studentparticipates in his or her IEP meeting; (2) whether the IEPaddresses post-school activities; and (3) whether the IEPaddresses transition needs. During its 1999 MonitoringAcademy, OSEP disseminated its Continuous Improvement

51

Monitoring: 1999-2000 Monitoring Manual (U. S. Depart-ment of Education, 1999). During the academy and through-out the document, OSEP continues to emphasize that itsmonitoring process is premised on ensuring improved resultsfor infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities.Appendix A identifies Secondary Transition as a criticalcomponent of its monitoring process. The document lists theobjective that “all youth with disabilities, beginning at age14 and younger when appropriate, receive individualized,coordinated transition services, designed within an outcome-oriented process which promotes movement from school topost-school activities.” The two components cited to meetthis objective are the following: (1) appropriate services areprovided to prepare youth with disabilities for employment,postsecondary education, independent living, communityparticipation, and life skills; and (2) youth with disabilitiesare actively involved in appropriate transition planning. It isclear that OSEP has continued to place significant impor-tance on transition services in its monitoring efforts.However, implementation of the provisions of IDEA,including the transition services requirements, continuesto be problematic (after 24 years, IDEA still lacks teeth,says NCD, 1999; National Council on Disability, 1995,1999, in press).

Since the promulgation of the regulations in 1992, muchhas been written regarding key components for providingefficacious transition services. The literature has includedmuch research regarding the value of, and many practicalsuggestions for, designing quality transition programming toprepare each student with skills and competencies necessaryfor successful post-school outcomes. Four major studieshave identified the characteristics most likely to result ineffective transition outcomes for students.

Kohler’s (1993) analysis of 49 articles and studies listedvocational training, parent involvement, interagency collabo-ration and service delivery, social skills training, paid workexperience, individualized transition planning, employabilitytraining, and participation in general education programmingas the practices consistently identified as most likely to resultin improved post-school outcomes. Three later studies-apolicy study by Furney, Hasazi, and DeStefano (1997), afollow-up study by Colley and Jamison (1998), and a surveyof experts in the field of transition services conducted byDeStefano, Heck, Hasazi, and Furney (1998)-substantiatedKohler’s findings. Furney, Hasazi, and DeStefano (1997)suggested the following elements as key to ensuring qualitytransition services: (1) students with disabilities are includedin general education settings; (2) interagency collaboration isoperational; (3) capacity building initiatives are supported byongoing technical assistance; (4) the state’s transitioninitiative is linked to general education reform and restruc-turing issues as well as to the school-to-work initiative; and(5) high school curriculum focusing on community experi-ences, self-advocacy and problem-solving skills, vocational

and technical education, and authentic assessment is in place.Colley and Jamison (1998), in their follow-up study of

720 graduates with disabilities from New York’s publicschools, reported that paid or unpaid work experiencesduring high school resulted in higher wages, longer hours,and more continuous employment. Similarly, taking coursesin occupational education resulted in finding competitiveemployment and working full-time. Consistent with thefindings of Furney et al. (1997), Colley and Jamison foundthat (1) students who had received their special educationservices in integrated settings, rather than in segregatedsettings, were more likely to obtain competitive employment,and (2) students who reported that transition planning washelpful were more likely to have graduated and to beworking than those who did not believe transition planningto be helpful. Colley and Jamison also recommended thattransition planning be an integral component of standards-based reform efforts, and staff development relative totransition services be part of a comprehensive plan forpersonnel development.

In an attempt to identify elements critical for ensuringthat the transition services components of the IDEA wereimplemented consistent with the law’s requirements,DeStefano et al. (1998) invited field experts to a nationalforum. The elements identified as key to successful transitionplanning were the following: (1) formulating post-schoolgoals beginning during the early grades as part of the IEPprocess; (2) conducting professional development activitiesregarding transition services for all school personnel, not justspecial educators; and (3) providing extensive dissemination,technical assistance, and monitoring activities that focus onoutcomes for all students, not just students with disabilities.

Three studies have specifically investigated the compli-ance of statements of needed transition services with federaland state laws. Lawson and Everson (1994) reviewedtransition statements of 61 deaf-blind students from acrossthe United States. Their results indicated that (1) the majorcomponents of statements of needed transition services(instruction, community experiences, the development ofemployment and other adult living skills) and interagencylinkages were not present; and (2) IEP meetings did notinclude the required participants. The authors recommendedintensive personnel training activities regarding transitionservices, utilizing exemplars of quality statements of neededtransition services. deFur, Getzel, and Kregel (1994) ana-lyzed the transition plans of 100 students with learningdisabilities in 14 school districts in Virginia. They found that(1) students were present at only 48% of the IEP meetingsfor students in grades 10-12; (2) few interagency linkageshad been established between the school and adult serviceproviders; and (3) IEP teams had not identified the post-school activity to which the student would be transitioning;hence the IEPs that were developed did not contain acoordinated set of activities designed to promote movement

Williams & O’Leary: Transition: What We’ve Learned and Where We Go From Here


52

to the desired post-school activity. Grigal, Test, Beattie, andWood (1997) analyzed the transition components of the IEPsof 94 students, ages 18-21, who were categorized as havingmild and moderate mental retardation, learning disabilities,and emotional/behavioral disorders. Their sample includedstudents who were attending either senior high schools orseparate schools in a large southeastern city. Results indi-cated that (1) the student attended his or her IEP meetingapproximately 64% of the time; (2) the only adult serviceagency mentioned in the IEPs was vocational rehabilitation,and a representative of that agency attended only 17% of themeetings; (3) statements of needed transition services werenot reviewed annually; (4) only a few IEPs in the samplelisted any post-school outcome; and (5) the category ofdisability, rather than the needs, preferences or interests ofthe individual student, dictated the kind of post-schoolactivity identified on the IEP. The authors echoed Lawsonand Everson’s (1994) recommendation for intensive person-nel preparation efforts to actualize the transition servicesprovisions of the IDEA.

Williams (in progress), in a study of 70 charter schoolsin Arizona serving students in grades 9-12, found thatadministrators were generally unfamiliar with the transitionservices provisions of IDEA. For instance, approximately75% of the respondents stated that there were no proceduresin place to make an individual determination of any agencyor agencies that were likely to be responsible for providingor paying for transition services; thus no other agencies wereidentified nor interagency linkages included as part of astudent’s IEP. Consistent with the recommendations from theLawson and Everson (1993) and Grigal et al. (1997) studies,the majority of school administrators indicated that they, andtheir staff, were in need of personnel preparation activitiesrelative to the transition services provisions of IDEA.

Finally, the results of one part of a multipart studyprovide data relative to the consistency with which practicesof state and local education agencies conform to the transi-tion services requirements. Based on data obtained via aquestionnaire completed by state and local education agencyadministrators throughout the country, Johnson, Sharpe,Sinclair, Hasazi, Furney, and DeStefano (1997) found that(1) students generally attend their IEP meetings, thoughsome students are not adequately prepared to participate intheir IEP meetings and student attendance is not a priority forsome districts; (2) a representative of a participating agencyroutinely does not attend IEP meetings and few districts haveinteragency agreements with adult service providers; and (3)parents and professionals are in need of professional devel-opment activities regarding appropriate instructional andcurricular strategies to include in statements of neededtransition services. Another part of the study reviewed 147IEP/transition plans. The results indicated that the IEPsgenerally did not contain transition-related information,including linkages and responsibilities with outside agencies

or service needs after the students graduated. Their data alsosuggested, however, that while students were engaged intransition-related activities, their IEPs did not adequatelyreflect the activities or services being provided (Hasazi,Furney, DeStefano, and Johnson, 1999).

While these studies provide a glimpse of the status ofimplementation of the transition services requirements ofIDEA since the regulations were issued in 1992, to date nosystematic examination has been made of the OSEP’sfindings with regard to implementation of the transitionservices provisions of the IDEA by all entities receivingIDEA-Part B monies between 1993 and 1997. The research-ers hypothesized that there should be a change-that is, anincrease-in the number of states or entities for which therewas no finding for each of the transition services provisionsover the course of the four years. The researchers reasonedthat this change should occur because of the followingfactors: (1) the amount of policy guidance issued by theOffice of Special Education Programs, including monitoringreports and policy letters relative to transition services; (2)the technical assistance provided by OSEP personnel throughits review of state plans, annual monitoring academies,teleconferences with State Education Agency (SEA) person-nel, and secretarial reviews; (3) the efforts of the technicalassistance and dissemination providers funded by the Officeof Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS);(4) the development of numerous model programs andpersonnel preparation programs in the area of transitionservices funded through the OSERS’ discretionary monies;and (5) the contributions of the 45 state systems changegrants projects.

Therefore, this study was designed to investigate thefollowing three research questions:

1. To what extent are states and entities implementingeach of the transition services provisions?

2. Was there a difference in findings between monitor-ing cycles one and four?

3. Was there a difference in findings between states thatdid and did not have a state systems change grant?

Method

This study began with the identification of the states andentities for which the OSEP provided Part B monies duringthe 1993-1994 monitoring cycle. The 1993-1994 monitoringcycle was selected as the first cycle for analysis because itwas the first monitoring cycle after the issuance of theimplementing regulations for the IDEA, Public Law 101-476.2 The 1996-1997 monitoring cycle was selected as thelast year for analysis for two reasons: (1) it was the firstmonitoring cycle after which the OSEP notified states thatthe transition service provisions was one of the four areas onwhich it would focus its monitoring efforts; and (2) it was

53

Williams & O’Leary: Transition:What We’ve Learned and Where We Go From Here

Table 1. States and Entities Utilized for Data Analysis


54

the last cycle prior to the reauthorization of P.L. 101-4763

which included new transition requirements. This populationof states and entities, stratified by four monitoring cycles,provided a basis for determining the extent to which statesand entities were implementing the transition serviceprovisions of the IDEA of 1990 and for comparing changesin the status of implementation of the transition servicesrequirements over a four-year period. The data also permittedinsight into the accomplishments of one of the purposes ofthe state systems change grants-that is, developing effectivestrategies and procedures to assist states with the implemen-tation of the transition services provisions.

Data Sources

Sixty states and entities were identified as receivingIDEA-Part B monies beginning with the 1993-94 monitoringcycle. Table 1 presents the 60 entities, the date of visit, dateof report, monitoring cycle, whether the state or entity had astate systems change grant at the time of the visit, andwhether findings in the area of transition services were made.Of the 60 entities, six were deleted because the OSEP’smonitoring visit occurred prior to the 1993-1994 monitoringcycles.4 Therefore, the final number of monitoring reportsthat met the criteria for inclusion in the study was 54.

The data was stratified based on the monitoring cycle.

Table 2 presents the states and entities by the four monitoringcycles. The number of states and entities visited by monitor-ing cycle was relatively even, with analysis of 13 reports formonitoring cycles 1 and 3, 17 reports for monitoring cycle 2,and 11 reports for monitoring cycle 4.

The transition services section of each monitoringreport, whether presented as a separate section or embeddedwithin the Individualized Education Program (IEP) sectionof the report, served as the sole data source. According toSchriner and Bellini (1994), since the IEP is the vehiclethrough which policies relative to services to students withdisabilities are implemented, the IEP is an appropriate unit ofanalysis for determining whether the transition servicesrequirements are implemented. Therefore, the utilization ofthe OSEP’s monitoring reports to provide data on the extentto which states and entities are implementing the transitionservices provisions of the IDEA is not only appropriate butyields information that has not been examined to date.

Data Analysis Procedures

The transition services section of each monitoring reportwas reviewed by both principal investigators. The research-ers utilized a checklist itemizing each transition servicesrequirement for recording the findings made in each report.

Monitoring Cycle 1 Monitoring Cycle 2 Monitoring Cycle 3 Monitoring Cycle 4

Arizona Arkansas Alabama AlaskaBIA California Colorado American SamoaConnecticut Delaware Georgia Commonwealth of the

Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)

Iowa Florida Indiana GuamMontana Hawaii Kansas MaineNew Hampshire Idaho Kentucky MississippiNew Mexico Illinois Nevada MissouriNorth Dakota Louisiana New Jersey OregonSouth Dakota Maryland New York TexasUtah Massachusetts Oklahoma Virgin IslandsWashington Michigan Rhode Island West VirginiaWisconsin Minnesota TennesseeWyoming North Carolina VermontOhioPuerto RicoSouth CarolinaVirginia

N = 13 N = 17 N = 13 N = 11

Table 2. States and Entities by Monitoring Cycle

55

Table 3 presents the checklist utilized for coding.

The following rules applied for recording a finding:

1. The report included a description of data thatmatched the regulatory citation presented in thefindings section. If data were not presented to matchthe regulatory citation listed in boilerplate languageof the findings section, it was not counted.

2. The report included a description of data thatmatched the corresponding corrective action. If therewere data presented that appeared to be a finding, butthere was no matching corrective action, a findingwas not recorded.

3. Both principal investigators agreed that the reportmet the two criteria and thus contained a findingrelative to a transition services requirement. There-fore, the inter-rater agreement was 100%.

Results

The number and percentage of states and entities withfindings for each transition services provision were tabulatedby monitoring cycle and as an aggregate to answer researchquestions one and two and a phi-coefficient was computed toanswer research question three. The results of these analysesare below.

Question 1: To what extent are states and entities imple-menting each of the transition services provisions?

Table 4 presents the number and percentage of states andentities in which findings were made for each of the transi-tion services provisions during each of the four monitoringcycles and for the four-year period.

Transition services participants [Section 300.344(c)].The transition services participants regulations require that,if a purpose of the meeting is the consideration of transitionservices, the public agency shall invite (a) the student and (b)a representative of any other agency that is likely to beresponsible for providing or paying for transition services;and (c) if the student does not attend, the public agency shalltake other steps to ensure that the student’s preferences andinterests are considered, and (d) if an agency invited to senda representative to a meeting does not do so, the publicagency shall take other steps to obtain the participation of theother agency in the planning of any transition services.

As Table 4 indicates, during the four-year period,slightly more than one-third of the states and entities (35%)were found not to have invited the student to his or her IEPmeeting when one of the purposes of the meeting was theconsideration of transition services. Though Cycle 2 showeda decrease from Cycle 1 in the number of states and entitieswhich were found to be out of compliance for this regulation,the number of reports which cited the states and entities fornot inviting students increased in both cycles 3 and 4, to 31%


Table 3. Checklist for Recording Transition Services Provisions Findings


56

and 45%, respectively. Slightly more than one-quarter of thestates and entities (26%) did not take other steps to ensurethat the student’s preferences and interests were considered ifthe student did not attend the meeting. Over half of the statesand entities (52%) did not invite a representative of any otheragency that is likely to be responsible for providing orpaying for transition services, and 22% of the monitoringreports indicated the states and entities did not ensureparticipating agency involvement in the planning of transi-tion services for the student if a representative did not attendthe meeting.

Parent participation [Section 300.345(b)(2)]. Theseprovisions require that, if a purpose of the meeting is theconsideration of transition services for the student, the notice

for the meeting must (a) indicate this purpose, (b) indicatethat the agency will invite the student, and (c) identify anyother agency that will be invited to send a representative.

As indicated by Table 4, approximately two-thirds of thestates and entities did not issue notices that indicated that thepurpose of the meeting would be the consideration oftransition services (69%) or indicate that the public agencywould invite the student to his or her IEP meeting (61%).Similarly, 44% of the states and entities did not identify anyother agency that will be invited to send a representative.

Content of individualized education program: Transitionservices [Sections 300.346(b) and 300.18]. The transitionservices section of IDEA requires that the IEP for eachstudent, beginning no later than age 16 (and at a younger

Table 4. Percentage/Number of States With Findings* for IDEA’sTransition Services Requirements

57

age, if determined appropriate) include a statement of theneeded transition services as defined in Section 300.18,including, if appropriate, a statement of each public agency’sand each participating agency’s responsibilities or linkages,or both, before the student leaves the school setting. Section300.18 defines transition services as a coordinated set ofactivities for a student, designed within an outcome-orientedprocess, that promotes movement from school to post-schoolactivities, including postsecondary education, vocationaltraining, integrated employment (including supportedemployment), continuing and adult education, adult services,independent living, or community participation. The regula-tion specifies that the coordinated set of activities must (1)be based on the individual student needs, taking into accountthe student’s preferences and interests; and (2) include (a)instruction; (b) community experiences; (c) the developmentof employment and other post-school adult living objectives;and (d) if appropriate, acquisition of daily living skills andfunctional vocational evaluation. The regulation indicatesthat if the IEP team determines that services are not neededin one or more of the areas in (a) through (c) that the IEPmust include a statement to that effect and the basis uponwhich the determination was made.

According to Table 4, during the four monitoring cycles,approximately half of the IEPs reviewed by the OSEPpersonnel did not include instruction (48%), communityexperiences (54%), and employment and other post-schooladult living objectives (50%). During cycle 4, 73% of theIEPs reviewed did not include these three components.Forty-one percent of the IEPs did not include a statement onthe IEPs indicating that services were not needed in the areasof instruction, community experiences, and/or the developmentof employment and other post-school adult living objectives orthe basis upon which the determination was made.

Regarding the other requirements for a statement ofneeded transition services during the four-year period, Table4 indicates the following: (a) 13% of the states and entitieswere found to have statements of needed transition servicesthat did not address post-school activities; (b) 7% of thestatements did not present the statement of needed transitionservices as a coordinated set of activities; (c) 4% of thestatements of needed transition services did not address thestudent’s needs, preferences, and interests; (d) 17% of thestatements of needed transition services did not include astatement of each agency’s responsibilities and linkages; and(e) 4% of the statement of needed transition services werenot reviewed on an annual basis as required by Note 2 inSection 300.346.

Agency responsibilities for transition services [Section300.347(a)]. This provision states that if a participatingagency fails to provide the agreed-upon transition servicescontained in the IEP of a student with a disability, the publicagency responsible for the student’s education shall, as soonas possible, initiate a meeting for the purpose of identifying

alternative strategies to meet the transition objectives and, ifnecessary, revising the student’s IEP. During the four-yearperiod, 2% of the states or entities were found to be innoncompliance with this requirement.

Question 2: Was there a difference in findings betweenmonitoring cycles 1 and 4?

Table 4 presents the percentage and number of stateswith findings for each of the IDEA’s transition servicesrequirements. Examination of the percentage of states andentities for which the OSEP made findings in each of thetransition services provisions from cycle 1 to cycle 4indicates little change in the frequency with which states andentities were found to be in compliance during the four-yearperiod.

During the four-year period, the percentage of states thatwere found to be out of compliance with the requirement thatthe public agency must invite the student to his or her IEPmeeting if one of the purposes of the meeting is the consider-ation of transition services decreased slightly (Cycle 1: 54%to Cycle 4: 45%). However, the percentage of states andentities that were found to be out of compliance with therequirement that, if the student did not attend his or her IEPmeeting, the public agency must take other steps to ensurethat the needs, preferences and interests of the student weretaken into account during the IEP planning process remainedstatic (Cycle 1: 38% to Cycle 4: 36%). Similarly, thepercentage of states and entities that were found to be basingthe student’s statement of needed transition services on his orher needs, preferences, and interests remained static (Cycle1: 8% to Cycle 4: 9%.) Moreover, the data indicates that themeeting notices consistently did not indicate that the studentwould be invited to his or her IEP meeting (Cycle 1: 69% toCycle 4: 82%).

Examination of the findings for agency involvementindicates that between cycles 1 and 4, the percentage ofstates that did not invite another agency(ies) increased from46% to 55%, while the engagement of these agencies in thetransition planning for students if a representative of theagency did not attend remained relatively static (Cycle 4:31% to Cycle 4: 27%). The data suggest that more states andentities were including participating agencies on the meetingnotices (Cycle 1: 62% to Cycle 4: 45%), though the data alsoindicates that a statement of each agency’s linkages andresponsibilities was not consistently included on thestudent’s IEP (Cycle 1: 31% to Cycle 4: 18%).

Analysis of the findings for the required components ofa statement of needed transition services indicates that thestatements were consistently lacking the required compo-nents throughout the four-year period for all three requiredareas: instruction, community experiences, and the develop-ment of employment and other post-school living objectives(Cycle 1: 62% to Cycle 4: 73%). Further, the data indicates



58

that the statements of needed transition services did notaddress the post-school activities of the student (Cycle 1: 8%to Cycle 4: 45%), nor were they written as a coordinated setof activities designed to promote movement to the desiredpost-school activities (Cycle 1: 8% to Cycle 4: 27%). Finally,the data suggests during the four year period, states andentities were not reviewing the student’s statement of neededtransition services on an annual basis (Cycle 1: 8% to Cycle4: 9%), nor initiating a meeting to identify alternativestrategies for meeting the student’s transition objectives if aparticipating agency did not provide the agreed-upontransition services contained in the IEP (Cycle 1: 8% toCycle 4: 0%).

Question 3: Were there differences in findings betweenstates that did and did not have a state systems changegrant?

Table 5 presents a tally of the number of states with astate systems change grant at the time of the monitoring visitand whether the OSEP made findings in the states. A phi-coefficient was computed to examine this relationship. Uponconverting the phi-coefficient to a chi-square, resultsindicated a positive relationship between whether a state hada state systems change grant at the time of monitoring andwhether findings were made. In other words, states with astate systems change grant were more likely to have findings

made by the OSEP in the area of transition services thanstates that did not have a state systems change grant at thetime of the monitoring visit. The phi-coefficient was 3.941,which was significant at the .05 level of confidence.

Discussion

The results of this study are generally consistent with thefindings of previous studies that have investigated the extentto which the transition services participants and the contentof the IEP requirements, including the statement of inter-agency linkages and responsibilities, have been met. In

addition, the results provide information relative to the extentto which the activities of the state systems change grantshave resulted in states complying with the transition servicesrequirements of the IDEA as measured by the presence orabsence of monitoring findings made by the Office ofSpecial Education Programs.

Transition Services Participants

Despite continued emphasis in the literature regardingthe value of student involvement in transition planning(Field, Hoffman, & Spezia, 1998; Field, Martin, Miller,Ward, & Wehmeyer, 1997; Hasazi, Furney, & DeStefano,1999; Miner & Bates, 1997; The National Joint Committeeon Learning Disabilities, 1995; National Transition Network,1993, Powers, Singer & Sowers, 1998; Rusch & Chadsey,1998; Sands, 1999; Thoma, 1999; Van Reusen, Bos,Schumaker, & Deschler, 1994; Wehman, 1996; & Wehmeyer,Agran, & Hughes, 1998), this study suggests that there arestill many public agencies that are not inviting students toattend their IEP meetings. These findings support Johnson etal. (1997) who reported that state and local education agencyadministrators throughout the country often do not viewstudent participation in their transition planning as a priority.

Not only are a number of students not invited to attend,it appears that for at least one-fourth of the states and entities(26%), no other steps were taken to assure that student’s

preferences or interests were considered in any transitionplanning if they did not attend. While there have beenimproved practices, new materials developed, and greaterstudent participation in IEP meetings over the past severalyears, these findings suggest that schools need to make agreater effort. Schools that are not actively involvingstudents in developing their IEPs need to revise theirpractices. The student’s active involvement is not only apriority, it is a necessity. It is impossible for schools to doany type of future life transition planning with students if,at a minimum, the students are not invited and theirpreferences and interests are not considered.

The results of this study corroborate the findings ofevery study conducted to date relative to the lack ofinteragency involvement in transition planning (deFur etal., 1994; Grigal et al., 1997; Hasazi et al., 1999; Johnson

et al., 1997; Knott & Asselin, 1999; Lawson & Everson,1993; and Williams, in press). Though numerous documentsare available to provide guidance for engaging agencies thatare likely to be responsible for providing or paying fortransition services after the student leaves the school setting(Bates, Bronkema, Ames, & Hess, 1992; Benz, Lindstrom, &Halpern, 1995; Blalock, 1996; deFur, & Patton, 1999; deFur,1999; Everson, 1993; Everson & Guillory, 1998; Rusch &Chadsey, 1998; Stowitschek, 1992; Wehman, 1996), stateand local education agencies consistently appear to plan anddeliver transition services without the benefit of these

State Systems Number of StatesChange Grant at Time With Monitoring Findings

of Monitoring Visit in Transition Services

No No = 7No Yes = 14Yes No = 3Yes Yes = 30

Table 5: Relationship Between Presence ofState Systems Change Grant andMonitoring Findings

59

agencies in the identification and delivery of the programs,services, and supports that would facilitate attainment of thestudent’s post-school goals. An explanation for this contin-ued disconnect between the secondary education practitio-ners who plan transition services and personnel fromparticipating agencies may be found in a study conducted byFoley and Mundschenk (1997). They investigated theknowledge and skills of secondary educators to engage incollaboration activities with other special educators, generaleducators, and community service providers. The 407respondents indicated that they (1) interacted very infre-quently with community service providers, vocationaleducators, transition specialists, or vocational rehabilitationspecialists; and (2) were unaware of the services provided by14 identified community agencies within their geographiclocation, the procedures for referral to the agencies, or theappropriate contact person within the agency. The authorsconcluded that preservice personnel preparation programscurrently are not preparing secondary special educators withthe collaboration skills needed to ensure the interagencycooperation needed to meet the needs of students withdisabilities. With neither the knowledge of the agencyresources available nor the collaborative skills needed forinteracting with these service providers, secondary specialeducators are ill-equipped to make an individual determina-tion of the agency(ies) likely to be responsible for providingor paying for transition services or establish the linkageswith, or determine the responsibilities of, adult serviceproviders. Hence, this provision of the law remains largelyunfulfilled.

Content of the IEP

The results of this study support the findings of theprevious studies regarding the lack of compliance withstatements of needed transition services (deFur, Getzel, &Kregel, 1994; Grigal, Test, Beattie, & Wood, 1997; Hasazi,Furney, DeStefano, & Johnson, 1999; & Lawson & Everson,1993). Indeed, the OSEP found that approximately 50% ofthe states and entities monitored during the four-year perioddid not have statements of needed transition services thatcontained the required components (instruction, communityexperiences, and the development of employment and otherpost-school living objectives). Because states and entitieswere not involving students or agency representatives in theplanning of transition services, the OSEP had alreadyestablished that the statements of needed transition servicescould not address post-school activities targeted by thestudent; be based on the student’s needs, preferences, andinterests; or include a statement of each agency’s linkages orresponsibilities. Hence, the percentage of monitoring reportsduring the four-year period for these three provisions was13%, 4%, and 17%, respectively. Similarly, since the data

indicated that only about half of the statements of neededtransition services contained all required components, therequirement that the statement be presented as a coordinatedset of activities was not likely, nor was it likely that thestatement of needed transition services was being reviewedat least annually. Hence, it is reasonable to deduce that thereason that there were so few findings for these two require-ments, 7% and 4%, respectively, was that the OSEP monitorswere not actively reviewing the IEPs to ascertain compliancewith these provisions since it had already been determinedthat the foundational requirement had been met in only abouthalf the cases. Finally, since it has been established that veryfew of the meetings included a representative of a participat-ing agency, it was reasonable to assume that it was unlikelythat a participating agency had failed to provide agreed-uponservices, and hence, the OSEP monitors made findings forSection 300.347(a) in only 2% of the states and entitiesvisited.

The findings of this study, as well as the others, indicatethat the key elements that have consistently been identifiedas critical for effective transition services are continuing tonot be in place within secondary schools throughout thecountry. Schools are not involving students in individualizedtransition planning, are not developing statements of neededtransition services that include all required components, andare not engaging representatives of participating agencies inthe design and delivery of transition services Even moredistressing is the fact that the data suggests the percentage ofstates and entities that are in compliance with the transitionservices requirements was essentially static throughout thefour-year period.

State Systems Change Grants

As stated, the results show that the presence of a statesystems change grant at the time of monitoring did notdirectly link to absence of monitoring findings. Informationin Appendix E of the Nineteenth Annual Report to Congress(U.S. Department of Education, 1997) and other studies(Cobb & Johnson, 1997; Guy & Schriner, 1997; Johnson &Guy, 1997; Johnson & Halloran, 1997) indicate substantivechanges have occurred in a number of systems as a directresult of the state systems change grants. While significantchanges through the efforts of the state systems changegrants are evident at the system level, the actual implementa-tion of the transition services requirements at the school leveldoes not appear to be consistently affected. The authors offerthe following possible reasons:

1. The analysis did not take into account whether thestate systems change grant was in the first year orwhether the grant had been operational for two ormore years at the time of the OSEP monitoring visit.



60

Examination of the grant year at the time of theOSEP monitoring visit for the 30 states for whichfindings were made revealed that approximately two-thirds (21) of the states were in the first or secondyear of funding, whereas approximately two-thirds(9) were in the third through fifth year of funding.Experience with the grants has shown that it takes anumber of months to get staff on board and have thegrant activities operational. If the grant were in itsfirst one or two years, it would not have had the timeto show widespread impact across districts statewide.In fact, research has shown that it takes at least fiveyears before any significant systems change is seenin educational settings.

2. While addressing the transition services requirementswas a part of each state’s grant activities, not allstates began, nor equally emphasized, meeting all ofthe transition services requirements in the first yearsof their grant. While each state systems change grantchose and prioritized its own activities based upon(their) individual(s) needs-e.g., designing inter-agency agreements, developing state and localtransition teams, working with institutions of highereducation to implement coursework, the OSEPmonitoring looked only for documentation of thespecific transition services requirements. However,many of the grant activities, while critical andconsidered “best practices,” were not always directlytied to meeting all of the requirements that the OSEPmonitored.

3. The new transition services requirements necessitatednew skills, changes in practices and attitudes, and thetraining of a host of personnel. For many, thelanguage was ambiguous and resulted in differentinterpretations. The lack of a common understandingand consistency of “what” must be done, “who isresponsible,” “how” the requirements should bewritten or addressed in student’s IEPs, and thedevelopment of criteria for determining whether therequirement had been met complicated both profes-sional development and monitoring activities. Thus,many training activities conducted by personnelaffiliated with the Office of Special EducationPrograms, state and local education agencies, andstate systems change grants led to more questionsthan answers. Developing a rubric for understandingwhat was considered “best practices” and what wasa requirement and how to address both proveddifficult during the monitoring cycles in which thisstudy was conducted.

Recommendations

Throughout the literature, three major interrelatedthemes emerge as necessary for the provision of quality,integrated, and coordinated transition services-namely,professional development, technical assistance, and monitor-ing (Colley & Jamison, 1998; DeStefano et al., 1998; Furneyet al., 1997; Grigal et al., 1997; Johnson et al., 1997; Hasazi,Furney, & DeStefano, 1999; Lawson & Everson,1993;Williams, in press). The findings of this study document thecontinuing critical need for all stakeholders (federal, state,and local education agencies, parent information and trainingcenters, community parent resource centers, the OSEP’stechnical assistance and dissemination centers, and institu-tions of higher education) to focus on the transition servicesprovisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.This need is acute in light of the fact that the IDEA intro-duced several new transition services requirements in May1997. Given the status of compliance findings with theprovisions that have been in effect for nearly a decade, it iscrucial that all individuals (educators, families, students, andadult service agencies and providers) have a clear under-standing of what the requirements say, what they mean, andhow they should be addressed and implemented. To accom-plish this goal, professional development, technical assis-tance, and monitoring activities must be provided that focuson the transition services requirements. The followingrecommendations are based on this premise and will bestructured to address each of these themes.

Professional Development

The results of this study corroborate the findings ofother studies that federal, state, and local monies must bededicated to providing professional development activities.Additional support for intensified personnel developmentactivities may be found in reports by the National Commis-sion on Teaching and America’s Future (1996) and the U.S.Department of Education (1999a). The first report indicatedthat institutions of higher education are not adequatelypreparing teachers to meet the needs of students in today’sclassrooms. The second indicated that fewer than 20% ofteachers working with students with disabilities believe theyare well prepared to meet their needs. Intensive, coordinated,professional development activities that focus on providingcoordinated, transdisciplinary transition services is desper-ately needed to ensure improved educational outcomes forstudents with disabilities upon exiting the school setting. Theauthors suggest that we heed the body of literature on thepower of staff development for improving the educationaloutcomes of students (Asayesh, 1993; Guskey, 1994; Sparks,1995). Specifically, the authors recommend the following to

61

ensure that the key elements of effective transition servicespreviously cited are implemented:

1. The authors recommend that resources at all levels beallocated to providing general, special and vocationaleducators, work-study teachers, counselors, adminis-trators, related services personnel, community-basedpersonnel, parents, students, OSEP monitors, and thebusiness community with clear information anddirections regarding what they must do to meet thetransition services requirements as well as how toplan, develop, and implement transition servicesconsistent with the requirements. To be effective, thepersonnel development activities must involve allstakeholders and should include cross-disciplinarytraining efforts. The training activities must includeexemplars and practice in formulating statements ofneeded transition services that: (a) are presented as acoordinated set of activities; (b) promote movementto the post-school activities; and (c) are based on thestudent’s preferences, interests, needs, and future lifegoals. These statements must describe and show howall parties will work together, identify any neededpost school programs, supports, and services andensure that the student is prepared to move success-fully from the school to adult life. Personnel prepara-tion activities should also include training for bothprofessionals and students on how to actively involvestudents in their transition planning. Moreover, itmust be clear that transition planning is central to theeducational planning for youth with disabilities andnot an “add on” or “afterthought.”

2. The authors recommend that a portion of the StateImprovement Grants (SIG) awarded to states throughPart D of the IDEA of 1997 be allocated to thispurpose. In concert with institutions of highereducation in the state and the technical assistanceprojects funded by the OSEP, state educationagencies must ensure that transition services areprominent within State Improvement Plans andensure professional development in transition at boththe preservice and in-service level. For states withoutpreservice transdisciplinary personnel preparationprograms for secondary, vocational, and specialeducators and administrators, the State ImprovementPlans should allot a portion of the funds for initiationof these programs. For states with teacher prepara-tion programs in transition services, but whoseprograms are not currently transdisciplinary, the SIGfunds should be utilized to integrate these programs.For states without certification and/or licensure in thearea of transition services, a portion of the SIGmonies should be dedicated to establish suchcertificates. In addition, the OSEP should require theexisting State systems change grants to collaborate

with the institutions of higher education to offer acourse in transition services.

3. The authors recommend that the OSEP offer apersonnel preparation competition for the solepurpose of preparing transition services personnel.This money, which could be coupled with the dollarsfrom the SIG, would be earmarked to initiate atransdisciplinary personnel preparation program intransition services. Preference would be given toprograms that integrate elementary, secondary,vocational, special education, vocational rehabilita-tion, counseling, human services, and/or special andgeneral education administration disciplines. Theprofessional preparation activities must includepractical experiences in educational settings,including the community, to ensure meaningfulapplication and partnerships between schools, adultagencies, and the business community. The competi-tion must require components that focus on strategiesfor enhancing student involvement in transitionplanning, including student-led IEP meetings,integrating instruction for students within the generaleducation setting, including contextual learning(Contextual learning, 1997), working collaborativelywith participating agencies, including designinginteragency agreements, and working with parentsand community and business stakeholders. Thecompetition should also give preference to programsthat are designed to demonstrate that the buildingblocks of transition planning are seamless fromelementary through high school and into the adultworld.

Technical Assistance

The authors recommend that federal, state, and localeducation agencies implement the concept of research topractice in the area of transition services. The literature hasclearly identified the key components to ensuring efficacioustransition practices. Strong, ongoing technical assistancefocused on transition services, coupled with intensiveprofessional development, must be the second prong in thethree-prong approach to ensuring results-oriented research topractice initiatives. In this area, the authors recommend thefollowing:

1. The authors recommend that the OSEP require theParent Training and Information Centers (PTIs) andthe Community Parent Resource Centers to devote asubstantial portion of their activities to ensuringparents, beginning no later than when their childrenare in the upper elementary grades, are fully knowl-edgeable about the transition services requirementsand possess the collaboration skills needed for



62

working in concert with state and local educationagencies. The authors also recommend that the OSEPrequire that the State Improvement Plans fullyinvolve the PTIs and CRRCs in their efforts to ensureeffective transition services and that this activitycontain a stringent evaluation component.

2. The authors recommend that one of the tasks of theOSEP-funded Elementary and Middle SchoolsTechnical Assistance Center be to provide informa-tion linked to career awareness and explorationactivities (Clark & Kolstoe, 1995; Gillet, 1980;Harrington, 1997). This material should includeinformation on initiatives such as career pathways(Arizona Department of Education, no date; Careerpathways, 1997) and work-related competenciesbeginning with the elementary levels (ArizonaDepartment of Education, 1997; Bender, Valletutti, &Baglin, 1998; Elksnin & Elksnin, 1998; Marzano,Kendall, & Cicchinelli, 1999; Neubert, 1997; U.S.Department of Labor, 1994; Weiner, 1995). Thepurpose of this recommendation is to ensure that thefoundation for effective transition planning is inplace at an early age.

3. The authors recommend that the Office of SpecialEducation Programs strengthen its working relation-ships with other federal agencies to maximize thetechnical assistance efforts in the area of transitionservices. For example, one of the foci of its technicalassistance efforts should be working with the Officeof Elementary and Secondary Education to ensurethat charter schools in the country receive thetechnical assistance needed to provide qualitytransition services to eligible students with disabili-ties. Another avenue for facilitating improvededucational results for students with disabilitiescould be accomplished by working collaborativelywith the Office of Adult and Vocational Education(OVAE). For example, students with disabilitiesshould be participating in OVAE’s initiatives,including their New American High Schools andNew Urban High Schools. Research has consistentlydemonstrated that participation in vocationaleducation courses for students with disabilities is akey component of achieving meaningful post-schoolemployment (U.S. Department of Education, 1994;Wagner & Blackorby, 1996). Therefore, partnershipsbetween the OSEP and the OVAE would increase thelikelihood of effective post-school results forstudents with disabilities.

4. The authors recommend that the OSEP ensure thattransition services is a priority of their four linkedprojects that are designed to provide information andtechnical assistance to specific audiences of policy

makers, local administrators, service providers,families, and communities. These projects-Policymakers: Policymaker Partnership (PMP),Local Administrators: The IDEA Local Implementa-tion by Local Administrators (ILIAD), ServiceProviders: The Associations of Service ProvidersImplementing IDEA Reforms in Education(ASPIIRE), and Families and Advocates Partnershipfor Education (FAPE)-should serve as a vehicle forcommunicating to stakeholders the power of transi-tion services in ensuring improved educationalresults for students with disabilities.

5. The authors recommend that the OSEP increase thebudget of each Regional Resource Center with theincreased funds targeted for additional personnel toprovide professional development and technicalassistance in the area of transition services.

6. The authors recommend that the OSEP hold anothercompetition for state systems change grants. In thiscompetition, their effectiveness would be measuredby implementation of the transition services require-ments at the school level, not at the system level.Therefore, a requirement would be grant activitiesand training be linked with personnel at the StateDepartment of Education who are responsible formonitoring.

7. The authors recommend that the OSEP provide acompetition to ensure the functions and services ofthe National Transition Network and/or the NationalTransition Alliance are continued. With the expira-tion of the National Transition Alliance slated for theyear 2000, it is critical that the OSEP take steps toensure that its technical assistance responsibilities donot lapse.

Monitoring

The authors recognize the importance of compliancemonitoring as part of the federal government’s overarchingstrategic effort to ensure that transition services provisionsare implemented within every school in the country. There-fore, monitoring activities are the third vehicle throughwhich the OSEP can communicate what is required, as wellas strategies for achieving full implementation. It is withinthis context that the authors make the following recommen-dations:

1. The authors recommend that every monitoring teamhave at least one expert in transition services and thatthere be consistency in understanding exactly what isrequired and how to determine whether the require-ment is met. The authors recommend that an aggres-sive approach to monitoring the transition services

63

requirements be undertaken, with findings made forevery transition services requirement that is not incompliance. It is only through comprehensivefindings in the area of transition services that changewill occur at the local level.

2. The authors recommend that an explicit emphasis beplaced on bringing charter schools into compliancewith the federal statutory and regulatory transitionservices provisions. Additionally, results fromProject SEARCH, Special Education As Require-ments in Charter Schools, should be disseminated toservice providers as well as policy makers.

3. The authors recommend that the OSEP monitorsexamine implementation of the two new provisionsrelated to interagency agreements in the IDEA of1997. These requirements were added to facilitateinteragency involvement between state and localeducation agencies and participating agencies. It isclear from the findings of this study, as well as otherscited previously, that the area of interagency linkagesand responsibilities is not being fully maximized.Monitoring these provisions will assist with fullrealization of the power of identifying and providingthe services of participating agencies prior thestudent’s leaving the school setting.

4. The authors recommend that the OSEP work with theRehabilitation Services Administration and otheradult agencies to develop strategies and/or policiesthat address the responsibility of schools to identifyand invite agencies to IEP meetings, but not compeltheir attendance or involvement. Without thisauthority, these specific regulations continue to bedifficult for state and local education agencies toimplement.

Conclusion

The results of this study, as well as the findings ofcountless other studies, suggest that the transition servicesprovisions of the IDEA pose continuing challenges for stateand local education agencies. Efforts to fully recognize theimportance of transition services to students with disabilitieshas been ongoing for nearly 25 years with specific legislationin place for the past nine years. Based on the results of thisstudy and numerous others, we have not yet accomplishedour goal of ensuring that the transition services provisions ofthe IDEA are fully implemented.

References

After 24 years, IDEA still lacks teeth, says NCD. (1999,September 29). Special Education Report, 22(20).Alexandria, VA: Capitol Publications, Inc., 5-6.

Ahearn, E. M. (1995, May 25). State compliance monitoringpractices: An update. Alexandria, VA: NationalAssociation of State Directors of Special Education.

Arizona Department of Education. (1997, September).Arizona academic standards: Workplace skills stan-dards. Phoenix, AZ: Author.

Arizona Department of Education, STW/Vocational Techni-cal Division. (No date). Career pathways: An implemen-tation and resource guide. Phoenix, AZ: Author.

Asayesh, G. (1993). Staff development for improving studentoutcomes. Journal of Staff Development, 14(3), 24-27.

Bates, P. E., Bronkema, J., Ames, T., & Hess, C. (1992).State-level interagency planning models. In F. R. Rusch,L. DeStefano, J. Chadsey-Rusch, L. A. Phelps, & E.Symanski (Eds.), Transition from school to adult life:Models, linkages, and policy. (pp.115-129). Sycamore,IL: Sycamore Publishing.

Bender, M., Valletutti, P. J., & Baglin, C. A. (1998). Afunctional curriculum for teaching students withdisabilities: Interpersonal, competitive, job-finding, andleisure-time skills (Vol. 4). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Benz, M. R., Lindstrom, L. E., & Halpern, A. S. (1995,Spring). Mobilizing local communities to improvetransition services. Career Development for ExceptionalIndividuals, 18(1), 21-32.

Blalock, G. (1996, March). Community transition teams asthe foundation for transition services for youth withlearning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities,29(2), 148-159.

Career pathways. (1997, March). Alliance, 2(1). Champaign,IL: National Transition Alliance, 7-8.

Clark, G. M., & Kolstoe, O. P. (1995). Career developmentand transition education for adolescents with disabilities(2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Cobb, B., & Johnson, D. R. (1997). The Statewide SystemsChange Initiative as a federal policy mechanism forpromoting education reform. Career Development forExceptional Individuals, 20(2), 179-190.

Colley, D. A., & Jamison, D. (1998, Fall). Post school resultsfor youth with disabilities: Key indicators and policyimplications. Career Development for ExceptionalIndividuals, 21(2), 145-160.

Contextual learning. (1997, March). Alliance, 2(1).Champaign, IL: National Transition Alliance, 1, 3-4, 9.

deFur, S. (1999, January). Transition planning: A teameffort. Washington, DC: National Information Clearing-house for Children and Youth with Disabilities.

deFur, S. H., & Patton, J. R. (Eds.). (1999). Transition andschool-based services: Interdisciplinary perspectivesfor enhancing the transition process. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

defur, S., Getzel, E. E., & Kregel, J. (1994). Individualtransition plans: A work in progress. Journal of Voca-tional Rehabilitation, 4, 139-145.



64

DeStefano, L., Heck, D., Hasazi, S., & Furney, K. (1998,February). Enhancing the implementation of thetransition requirements of IDEA: A report on the PolicyForum on Transition: A report of state and localeducation efforts to implement the transition require-ments of IDEA . Burlington, VT: University of Vermont.

ED to emphasize quality in IDEA monitoring effort. (1998,March 4). Special Education Report, 24(5). Alexandria,VA: Capitol Publications, Inc., 1, 3-4.

Education of the Handicapped Amendments of 1983. PublicLaw 98-199. (December 2, 1983). 20 U.S.C. 1401 etseq., 97 Statute 1357.

Elksnin, N., & Elksnin, L. K. (1998). Teaching occupationalsocial skills. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Everson, J. M. (1993). Youth with disabilities: Strategies forinteragency transition programs. Boston: AndoverMedical Publishers.

Everson, J. M., & Guillory, J. D. (1998). Building statewidetransition services through collaborative interagencyteamwork. In F.R. Rusch & J.G. Chadsey. Beyond highschool: Transition from school to work. Belmont, CA:Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Field, S., Hoffman, A., & Spezia, S. (1998). Self-determina-tion strategies for adolescents in transition. Austin, TX:Pro-Ed.

Field, S., Martin, J. E., Miller, R., Ward, M., & Wehmeyer,M. (1997). A practical guide for teaching self-determi-nation in the schools. Reston, VA: The Council forExceptional Children.

Foley, R. M., & Mundschenk, N. A. (1997). Collaborationactivities and competencies of secondary school specialeducators: A national survey. Teacher Education andSpecial Education, 20(1), 47-60.

Freed, M. N., Ryan, J. M., & Hess, R. K. (1991). Handbookof statistical procedures and their computer applicationsto education and the behavioral sciences. New York,NY: American Council on Education, MacmillanPublishing Company.

Furney, K. S., Hasazi, S. B., & DeStefano, L. (1997, Spring).Transition policies, practices, and promises: Lessonsfrom three states. Exceptional Children, 63(3), 343-355.

Gillet, P. (1980). Career education in the special elementaryeducation program. Teaching Exceptional Children,13(1), 17-21.

Grigal, M., Test, D., Beattie, J., & Wood, W. M. (1997,Spring). An evaluation of transition components ofIndividualized Education Programs. ExceptionalChildren, 63(3), 357-372.

Guskey, T. R. (1994). Results-oriented professional develop-ment: In search of an optimal mix of effective practices.Journal of Staff Development, 15(4), 42-50.

Guskey, T. R., & Sparks, D. (1996, Fall). Exploring therelationship between staff development and improve-ments in student learning. Journal of Staff Development,17(4), 34-38.

Guy, B., & Schriner, K. (1997). Systems in Transition: AreWe There Yet? Career Development for ExceptionalIndividuals, 20(2), 141-164.

Harrington, T. F. (Ed). (1997). Handbook of career planningfor students with special needs. (2nd ed). Austin, TX:Pro-Ed.

Hasazi, S. B., Furney, K. S., & DeStefano, L. (1999).Implementing the IDEA transition mandates. Excep-tional Children, 65(4), 555-566.

Hasazi, S. B., Furney, K. S., DeStefano, L., & Johnson, D.(1999, April 20). State and local education efforts toimplement the transition requirements of the Individualswith Disabilities Education Act (IDEA): Report on theNational Survey of the Implementation of the IDEATransition Requirements. Burlington, VT: University ofVermont.

Hehir: Local monitoring is top task under new IDEA. (1997,November 26). Special Education Report, 23(24).Alexandria, VA: Capitol Publications, Inc., 1-2.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Public Law 101-476 (October 30, 1990). 20 U.S.C. 1401 et. seq.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of1997, Public Law 105-17 (June 4, 1997), 20 U.S.C. 140et. seq.

Johnson, D. R., & Guy, B. (1997). Implications of thelessons learned from a State Systems Change Initiativeon Transition for Youth with Disabilities. CareerDevelopment for Exceptional Individuals, 20(2), 191-200.

Johnson, D. R., & Halloran, W. H. (1997). The federallegislative context and goals of the State SystemsChange Initiative on Transition for Youth with Disabili-ties. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals,20(2), 109-121.

Johnson, D. R., Sharpe, M., Sinclair, M. F., Hasazi, S.,Furney, K., & DeStefano, L. (1997, July). State andlocal education efforts to implement the transitionrequirements of IDEA: Report on the National Surveyof the Implementation of the IDEA Transition Require-ments. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont.

Kohler, P. D. (1993, Fall). Best practices in transition:Substantiated or implied? Career Development forExceptional Individuals, 16(2), 107-121.

Knott, L., & Asselin, S. B. (1999). Transition competencies:Perception of secondary special education teachers.Teacher Education and Special Education, 22(1), 55-65.

Lawson, S., & Everson, J. (1994, October). A national reviewof statements of transition services for students who aredeaf-blind. Great Neck, NY: Helen Keller NationalCenter/Technical Assistance Center.

65

Marzano, R. J., Kendall, J. S., & Cicchinelli, F. F. (1999).What Americans believe students should know: A surveyof U.S. adults. Washington, DC: United States Depart-ment of Education.

Miner, C. A., & Bates, P. E. (1997, September/October).Person-centered transition planning. Teaching Excep-tional Children, 30(1), 66-69.

National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.(1996). What matters most: Teaching and America’sfuture. New York, NY: Teachers College, ColumbiaUniversity.

National Council on Disability. Back to school on civilrights. Washington, DC: Author. (In press)

National Council on Disability. (1995, May 9). Improving theimplementation of the Individuals with DisabilitiesEducation Act: Making schools work for all of America’schildren. Washington, DC: Author.

National Council on Disability. (1999, February 16).National disability policy: A progress report (November1, 1997-October 31, 1998). Washington, DC: Author.

The National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities.(1995). Secondary to postsecondary education transitionplanning for students with learning disabilities. LDForum, 20(3), 33-35.

National Transition Network. (1993, Winter, Number 2).Parent brief: Student participation at IEP meetings.Minneapolis, MN: Author.

Neubert, D. A. (1997, May/June). Time to grow: The history-and future-of preparing youth for adult roles in society.Teaching Exceptional Children, 29(5), 5-17.

O’Leary, E. (1998, February). Transition: Terms andconcepts. Des Moines, IA: Mountain Plains RegionalResource Center.

OSEP [Office of Special Education Programs] ContinuousMonitoring Process. (1998, April 22). Paper presented atthe annual OSEP Monitoring Academy, Washington,DC.

Powers, L. E., Singer, G. H. S., & Sowers, J. A. (Eds.).(1998). On the road to autonomy: Promoting self-competence in children and youth with disabilities.Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company.

Rusch, F. R., & Chadsey, J. G. (1998). Beyond high school:Transition from school to work. Belmont, CA:Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Sands, D. (1999). Best practices in transition. Denver, CO:University of Colorado at Denver.

Schriner, K. F., & Bellini, J. L. (1994, Spring). Analyzingtransition policy implementation: A conceptual ap-proach. Career Development for Exceptional Individu-als, 17(1), 17-27.

Simpson, R. L., Whelan, R. J., & Zabel, R. H. (1993, March/April). Special education personnel preparation in the21st century: Issues and strategies. Remedial andSpecial Education, 14(2), 7-22.

Sparks, D. (1995). Focusing staff development on improvingstudent learning. In G. Cawelti (Ed.), Handbook ofresearch on improving student achievement (pp. 163-169). Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.

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

Thoma, C. A. (1999, May/June). Supporting student voicesin transition planning. Teaching Exceptional Children,31(5), 4-9.

U.S. Department of Education. (1992, September 29). 34CFR Parts 300 and 301. Assistance to states for theeducation of children with disabilities program andpreschool grants for children with disabilities; Final rule.Federal Register, 57(189). Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Education. (1996). To ensure a freeappropriate public education of all children withdisabilities: Eighteenth annual report to Congress onthe implementation of the Individuals with DisabilitiesEducation Act. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Education. (1997). To ensure a freeappropriate education of all children with disabilities:Nineteenth annual report to Congress on the implemen-tation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.Activities and results of the state transition grants,Appendix E. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of EducationalResearch and Improvement. (1994, June 30). Nationalassessment of vocational education: Final report toCongress, Volume I, Summary and Recommendations.Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of EducationalResearch and Improvement. (1999). Teacher quality: Areport on the preparation and qualifications of publicschool teachers. Washington, DC: Author.

U. S. Department of Education, Office of Special EducationPrograms (1999, May 7). Continuous improvementmonitoring process: 1999-2000 monitoring manual.Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special EducationPrograms. (1995, March 2). Monitoring procedures ofthe Office of Special Education Programs. Washington,DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Labor. (1994). Learning a living: Ablueprint for high performance-A SCANS report forAmerica 2000. Washington, DC: Author.

Van Reusen, A. K., Bos, C. S., Schumaker, J. B., & Deschler,D. D. (1994). The self-advocacy strategy for educationand transition planning. Lawrence, KS: Edge Enter-prises, Inc.



66

Wagner, M., & Blackorby, J. (1996). Transition from highschool to work or college: How special educationstudents fare. The Future of Children, 6(1), 103-12.

Wehman, P. (1996). Life beyond the classroom: Transitionstrategies for young people with disabilities. (2nd ed.).Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company.

Wehmeyer, M. L., Agran, M., & Hughes, C. (1998). Teach-ing self-determination to students with disabilities:Basic skills for successful transition. Baltimore, MD:Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company.

Weiner, C. S. (1995). Employers do not accept 85%. Teach-ing Exceptional Children, 28(1), 10-11.

Will, M. (1984). OSERS programming for the transition ofyouth with disabilities: Bridges from school to workinglife. Enhancing transition from school to the workplacefor handicapped youth. Conference ProceedingsDocument 1. Champaign, IL: National Network forProfessional Development in Vocational SpecialEducation, Office of Career Development for SpecialPopulations. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, College of Education.

Williams, J. M. (1999). Transition services and Arizona’scharter schools: A look at the state of the art. (In press).

Footnotes

1 The National Longitudinal Transition Study identifiedseveral factors as strong predictors of post-school success inliving independently, obtaining employment, and earninghigher wages for youth with disabilities, including: highschool completion, participation in regular education withappropriate supplementary aids and services, and access tosecondary vocational education, including work experience.

2 The implementing regulations were promulgated onSeptember 29, 1992.

3 P.L. 105-17, The Individuals with Disabilities Educa-tion Act Amendments of 1997, was passed on June 4, 1997.

4 Two of these six were also deleted from the samplebecause their Part B-IDEA funding terminated in 1996.

Author Information


Jane M. Williams, Ph.D.; Arizona State University-West, College of Education, MC 3151, 4701 West Thunderbird Road,Glendale, AZ 95306-4900, 602/543-5500, [email protected]

Ed O’Leary, Ph.D.; Mountains Plains Regional Resource Center, Utah State University, 1780 North Research Parkway,Suite 112, Logan, UT 84341, 605/355-0649, [email protected]

67

Federal Funding Trends forNational Transition Projects

Andrew S. HalpernUniversity of Oregon

5Abstract: Over the years, the Of fice of Special Education Programs within the U.S. Of fice of Education has playeda major role in the funding of national discretionary projects in support of transition. Following the 1997 IDEAamendments, which grant the OSEP extensive freedom in determining its own funding priorities, there appears to bea decline in resources being allocated for transition projects. In this paper , the OSEP’ s funding history in the area oftransition is carefully reviewed, using funded project abstracts as a source of information. After documenting thefunding history from several perspectives, five broad recommendations are presented and argued for continuingtransition ef forts into the 21st century within the OSEP’ s new permissive environment for determining its priorities.

I n t r o d u c t i o n

Since the transition initiative was formally launched byMadeleine W ill in 1984 (Will, 1984), the Of fice of SpecialEducation Programs (OSEP) within the U.S. Department ofEducation, through its Individuals with Disabilities Educa-tion Act Part D budget, has played an active role in fundingnational projects that support this initiative. The purpose ofthis review is to examine federal funding trends for transitionprojects over an 1 1-year period from Fiscal Year 1988through Fiscal Year 1998. Based upon these analyses, someimplications and recommendations will emerge concerningthe future of the transition initiative as we move into thetwenty-first century .

The raw information for these analyses came from twosources: (1) funding records maintained by the OSEP for theprojects that they supported, and (2) funding records main-tained by the Transition Research Institute at the Universityof Illinois for all of the transition projects supported by theOSEP . In addition to funding history , each of these projectreports also contained an abstract documenting the purposesof the project, the proposed methods, the intended outcomes,and the length of the project, which ranged from two to fiveyears. The information presented below is based upon 567projects that began between October 1, 1987 and September30, 1998. It was not possible to extend the analyses back to1984, when the transition initiative began, because thedocumentation maintained during these early years wasincomplete.

The projects that were examined included all that werefunded by the OSEP in the areas of secondary special educationand transition and postsecondary education, as identified in thecontent of the abstracts. The index in the Appendix shows thatidentified projects included more than the “obvious” ones, suchas those that were funded from the Secondary, TransitionalServices Special Purpose Fund (84.158).

Method of Analysis

Two types of information were collected and aggregatedfrom the abstracts for each funded transition project: (1) theamount of money allocated to the project during each of itsfiscal years, and (2) the type of project that was funded. Inorder to describe the type of project, a post hoc taxonomywas developed based upon two criteria: (1) the competitioncategories utilized by the OSEP staf f in their awarding ofgrants and contracts, and (2) a content analysis of eachproject abstract. Two persons participated in the contentanalysis and any disagreements that emerged were discusseduntil consensus was reached. In order to provide a commonmetric for the dollar presentations, the raw data for dollarsspent were converted into constant 1998 dollars in order toacknowledge the real value of dollars spent over the 1 1-yearperiod with adjustments for inflation.

Three types of analyses are presented below. The first twomethods document a “big picture,” showing overall trends intransition funding, juxtaposed against total funding that wasavailable to the OSEP for all of its discretionary funding.

Method one documented expenditures for both new andcontinuing transition projects during any given fiscal yearand then examined these data for trends over a series offiscal years. This analysis was further illuminated bycomparing dollars spent for transition projects with the totalOSEP expenditures for national discretionary projects duringthe same fiscal years.

Method two examined only new transition projects thatwere initiated during a given fiscal year . Such projectsranged from two to five years in duration. By presenting thetotal dollar commitment for each new project during theyear it began, including the current fiscal year plus the so-called “out years,” an image emerged concerning the OSEP’ stotal investment in new transition ef forts during any givenfiscal year .


68

The third method of analysis documents how thetransition portion of the OSEP budget was distributed intocategories over time, using the taxonomy that we developedfor this purpose.

Method One

In this method of analysis, the first year expenditures fornew transition projects were summed with the continuationyear expenditures for transition projects that also receivedfunding during the same fiscal year , but received their initialawards between one and four years earlier depending on thetotal length of the initial award. Such funds represented totalactual expenditures on transition projects during each fiscalyear . We began this analysis in Fiscal Year 1991, since ourfirst year of accurate data came from Fiscal Year 1988. Theonly possible missing data for Fiscal Year 1991 would be thelast year of five-year projects that began in Fiscal Year 1987.This means that there may have been a slight underestima-tion in our accounting of dollars spent for transition projectsin Fiscal Year 1991. This should not present a major distor-tion, however , since there were very few five-year projectsscattered throughout our database with the exception of thestate systems change projects that did not begin until FiscalYear 1991.

Funding trends for Fiscal Years 1991 through 1998 arepresented in Table 1 and Figure 1. The dollars spent ontransition projects during these years are contrasted withtotal OSEP funding for discretionary projects during thesame fiscal years. Between Fiscal Years 1991 and 1996,there was a rising trend for transition funding. During thissame period of time, overall OSEP discretionary fundingrose sharply in Fiscal Year 1992, leveled of f for four years,and then dipped a bit in Fiscal Year 1996. Between FiscalYears 1996 and 1998, there was a 21.5% decline in transition

funding accompanied by a 9.5% increase in overall OSEPdiscretionary funding.

This ultimate decline in transition spending seems evenmore dramatic when expressed as a proportion of total OSEPfunding for discretionary projects, which was 10.7% inFiscal Year 1991, rose to 16.9% in Fiscal Year 1996, andthen declined back to 12.1% in Fiscal Year 1998 (see Table1). This proportional decline occurred during Fiscal Years1997 and 1998 because the OSEP’ s total discretionary fundswere either holding steady or increasing at the same time thatfunds earmarked for transition were decreasing (see Table 1and Figure 1).

Another way of considering the method one informationis to examine the total number of new and continuingprojects focusing on transition that were funded during anygiven fiscal year . Table 1 shows a rising trend from 157projects in Fiscal Year 1991 to 216 projects in Fiscal Years1995 and 1996, before falling back to 163 projects in FiscalYear 1998. This trend is illustrated graphically in Figure 2.As one would expect, the decline in dollars between FiscalYears 1996 and 1998 was accompanied by a decline innumber of projects funded during the same years.

Method Two

The method one findings presented in Table 1 andFigures 1 and 2 represent a mixture of continuation and newcommitments within any given fiscal year . An examinationof new commitments only , along with their extensions intofuture fiscal years, provided a measure of the investment thatthe OSEP was making in the area of transition at any point intime. We used this approach for our method two analyses,documenting the total amount of funds awarded to each newproject, including both the actual funding level for thecurrent fiscal year plus the projected funding level for eachof the remaining years of the project.

1Dollar amounts are millions2All dollar amounts are adjusted to constant 1998 dollars3Dollars spent for transition projects as a proportion of total OSEP discretionary dollars

Table 1. Number of Transition Projects and Total Funding for Transition Projects,Contrasted With Total OSEP Funding for Discretionary Projects

69

Halpern: Federal Funding Trends

Figure 2. Total Number of New and Continuing TransitionProjects Funded

Projects Funded

OSEP

Transition

Figure 1. Total Funding for Transition Projects, Contrasted with Total OSEPFunding for Discretionary Projects


70

Method two can be construed as a discretionary invest-ment because the OSEP’ s allocation of new funds is alwayscompetitive, both within a given funding category and acrosscategories as well. Through Fiscal Year 1997, the OSEPutilized 14 “special purpose funds,” mandated by Congress,to structure its awarding of national discretionary projects.Ten of these funds either required (e.g., the Secondary ,Transitional Services fund) or permitted (e.g., the SpecialEducation Technology fund) a focus on transition. The finalmagnitude of new “transition-oriented” projects that emergedduring any given fiscal year was a combination of projectsfunded from the “mandatory” special funds and the “op-tional” special funds. The carving of the OSEP’ s discretion-ary budget into 14 special funds was eliminated by the 1997IDEA amendments [Public Law 105-17, Individuals withDisabilities Education Act Amendments, Sec 661(e) (2)], andthe implications of this change will be discussed at a laterpoint in this paper .

Table 2 and Figure 3 show funding trends for theOSEP’ s investments in transition projects between FiscalYears 1989 and 1998 contrasted with overall OSEP discre-tionary funding for the same fiscal years. During this 1 1-yearperiod of time, total OSEP funding for discretionary projectsexhibited the following pattern:

1. A decline between FY 88 and FY 892. A sharp rise between FY 89 and FY 923. A slight decline between FY 92 and FY 954. A sharper decline between FY 95 and FY 965. Steady funding between FY 96 and FY 97, with a

sharp rise in FY 98

Although this 1 1-year pattern clearly indicates annualfluctuations in appropriations, the overall trend is neverthe-less upward. Total funding ultimately grew approximately20% in constant 1998 dollars, from $233.07 million in FY 88to $278.96 million in FY 98 (see Table 2).

During this same 1 1-year period of time, the investmentin new transition projects produced the following trends:

1. A decline between FY 88 and FY 892. A sharp rise between FY 89 and FY 923. A sharp decline between FY 92 and FY 944. A sharp increase between FY 94 and FY 965. A very sharp decline between FY 96 and FY 98

As was the case for total OSEP discretionary funding,annual appropriations for new transition projects fluctuatedduring this period of time, but ultimately fell 40% in constant1998 dollars, from $17.96 million in FY 88 to $10.77 millionin FY 98 (see Table 2 and Figure 3).

Figure 4 presents an interesting contrast between totalcommitments and new investments in transition projectsbetween Fiscal Years 1991 and 1998. New investmentsexceeded total commitments between Fiscal Years 1991 and1993, the trend reversed during Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995,investment reached a new peak during Fiscal Year 1996, andboth total commitments and investments declined betweenFiscal Year 1996 and 1998, with the fall in new investmentsbeing particularly precipitous.

Summary of findings for methods one and two. Whetherexamined from the perspective of total commitments or newinvestments, a similar image emerges concerning the OSEP’ s

1Dollar amounts are millions2All dollar amounts are adjusted to constant 1998 dollars

Table 2. OSEP’s Investment in New Transition Projects, Contrasted WithTotal OSEP Funding for Discretionary Projects

71

OSEP

Transition

Figure 3. Funding for New Transition Projects, Including Out-years,Contrasted With Total OSEP Funding for DiscretionaryP r o j e c t s

New Investments and Continued Commitments

Figure 4. Comparisons of Continuing Commitments andNew Investments in Transition Projects



72

expenditures for transition projects as a proportion of its totaldiscretionary budget. After generally rising until Fiscal Year1996, with one dip followed by a recovery in new invest-ments, a significant decline occurred between Fiscal Years1996 and 1998, at the same time that overall discretionaryfunds available to the OSEP were rising.

Unless this trend is reversed during the next severalfiscal years, the decline in total transition project funding fora given fiscal year will accelerate as continuation projectsfrom previous years end and are not replaced by newprojects. Before of fering some possible responses to theseprojections, it is useful to examine the specific categoriesthat have received funding over the past 1 1 years within thebroad area of transition.

Method Three

In order to cast some additional light on these trends, itwas necessary to disaggregate the fiscal information intofunding categories that characterized the types of projectsthat OSEP funded under the broad title of “transition.” Thebest way to identify transition priorities was to examine thetypes of projects that were funded as the OSEP invested innew competitions. Our examination of project abstractsresulted in identification of the following 1 1 categories,arranged in descending order of funding magnitude, into

which we were able to classify the 567 transition projectsthat began between Fiscal Years 1988 and 1998:

1. Statewide systems change for improving transitionservices.

2. Postsecondary programs for students in transition.3. Personnel preparation in university settings for

training and certifying new teachers at the second-ary level.

4. Research on transition topics and issues.5. Model demonstrations focusing on transition of

students with severe disabilities.6. Student self-determination within a transition

context.7. Model demonstrations focusing on transition of

students with mild disabilities.8. Short-term training and technical assistance for

improving transition services.9. Demonstrations on reducing drop-out rates.10. Technology innovations within a transition context.11. Follow-along studies of students in transition.

A cross-tabulation between the OSEP funding competi-tions and our 1 1 categories can be found in Table 5 which islocated in Appendix A.

The findings from this analysis are presented in Table 3.During the 1 1 years between Fiscal Years 1988 and 1998, the

Table 3. OSEP’s Investment in New Transition Projects Within Funding Categories

* Millions of dollars, expressed in contstant 1998 dollars.**Number of projects funded.

73

OSEP invested approximately $362 million in 567 transition-oriented projects. More than one-third of these dollars wentto systems change projects in 46 states, along with a nationalcenter at the University of Minnesota that provided technicalassistance and also evaluated the accomplishments of eachproject.

An examination of the funding commitments for these46 projects explains the V -shaped pattern of new investmentsbetween Fiscal Years 1992 and 1996 as portrayed in Figures3 and 4. Instead of continuing the pattern of funding 12 newsystems change projects each year , as was started in FiscalYears 1991 and 1992, only six new projects were funded inFiscal Year 1993, none were initiated in Fiscal Year 1994,four began in Fiscal Year 1995, and the last 12 started inFiscal Year 1996. These “lean” years from Fiscal Year 1993through Fiscal Year 1995 occurred because of the high costof the systems change projects. Each of these projectsreceived approximately $500,000 per year for a period offive years. A growth pattern of 12 new projects could not besustained without exceeding the total funds available fromthe Secondary , Transitional Services Special Purpose Fundwithin which all systems change projects were funded.

Further examination of Table 3 indicates large dif fer-ences in funding levels across the remaining ten categories.Personnel preparation and postsecondary education projectsreceived relatively “high” levels of funding. Research, modeldemonstrations for students with severe disabilities, andprojects focusing on student self-determination received“medium” levels of funding. Model demonstrations forstudents with mild disabilities, dropout prevention projects,short-term training/technical assistance projects, technologyprojects, and follow-along projects received relatively “low”levels of funding.

A potential alarm signal should again be raised from thevery low funding levels that occurred during Fiscal Year1998. It would be tempting to attribute this decline to the endof new funding for systems change projects. But thistermination actually occurred during Fiscal Year 1997, andthe investment levels for all other categories actuallyincreased around $10 million between Fiscal Year 1996 andFiscal Year 1997. During Fiscal Year 1998, however , therewas a serious decline in funding levels across the board. Thisseems to be a direct consequence of the 1997 IDEA amend-ments, implemented for the first time in Fiscal Year 1998,which eliminated the Special Purpose Funds.

Implications and Recommendations

It would be tempting, but inappropriate, to simplylament the decline in resources that the OSEP has targetedfor transition over the course of the past 1 1 years. The issuesand concerns that underlie the “transition movement” beganlong before Madeleine W ill announced the OSEP initiative in1984 (W ill, 1984) and these issues and concerns will not

disappear as we move into the twenty-first century . Adoles-cents will continue to falter as they struggle for indepen-dence and control over their life choices and outcomes, bothas students in high school and emerging young adults in theircommunities. Whether or not we label our support foradolescents as “transition programs,” such programs willendure in some manner or another with sources of funding,perhaps not fully identifiable right now .

Having said this, it does appear that the priorities fortransition within the OSEP may be changing. The 1997IDEA amendments eliminated all discretionary programsthat targeted “special populations,” such as deaf/blindstudents, seriously emotionally disturbed students, programssupporting early childhood education, and transition pro-grams. They were replaced by programs focused on the typesof activity to be supported (e.g., research, training, technol-ogy, dissemination). The OSEP was given the authority todetermine its own funding priorities within these newprograms with only minimal restrictions on its discretion[Public Law 105-17, Individuals with Disabilities EducationAct Amendments, Sec 661 (e) (2)].

Given this new freedom to determine its own priorities,the OSEP seems to be moving in the direction of allocatingnew monies mostly to large-scale institutes or smallerprojects that cut across specific populations. For example,during the first three years since reauthorization, there wereno model demonstration or outreach competitions with fundsdesignated for transition. Such competitions are now generic,so that applications focusing on transition must compete withapplications focusing on early childhood or elementaryschool education, all within a pool of money that has notgrown to accommodate the potentially larger range ofapplicants.

No one can predict with certainty whether the decreasein OSEP-designated funds for transition projects will prevailas we move into the twenty-first century . Regardless offunding levels and strategies, however , it is both possible anddesirable to identify broad funding priorities for futuretransition endeavors. I recommend that we focus ourenergies in five areas to:

1. Evaluate our past investments in transition projects.2. Focus our new commitments upon proven programs

and policies.3. Access the OSEP and other federal funding sources

successfully .4. Align many of our new transition commitments

with general education reform.5. Document the impact of our ef forts with an empha-

sis on student outcomes.

Evaluating Past Investments

In spite of the severe decline in OSEP-targeted funds fortransition during Fiscal Year 1998, a substantial amount of



74

money was spent on transition projects during the precedingdecade. The systems change projects, as noted above, wereawarded to 46 states and used more than one-third of thetotal federal allocations for transition. Several other areas, asdocumented in Table 3, also received substantial fundingduring this period of time.

An important first step in planning for the future is tounderstand the collective impact of this total OSEP invest-ment. A starting set of questions, considering the prioritiesand funding levels documented in Table 3, might include thefollowing:

1. What is the legacy and impact of the 46 systemschange projects?

2. Which postsecondary programs seem to be mosteffective for students with disabilities?

3. What components of preservice training programs aremost effective for training teachers to educate highschool students with disabilities?

4. How can we use the outcomes of research ontransition issues and policies to influence the waysthat we design and implement transition programs?

5. What promising new programs have emerged fromthe model demonstration and outreach projects, forhigh school students with severe and mild disabilities?

6. How can we assist high school students with disabili-ties in exercising appropriate self-determination asthey plan and implement their transitions from schoolinto the adult community?

7. What types of short-term training and technicalassistance are most effective for helping serviceproviders, employers, and families of high schoolstudents with disabilities?

8. What have we learned about dropout prevention forhigh school students with disabilities?

9. Are there any innovations in technology that seem tobe particularly effective for high school students withdisabilities?

10. What can we learn from the outcomes of the follow-along projects to influence the priorities that weestablish for future transition efforts?

Some of our future national discretionary dollars,whatever their source, should be used to address these 10questions, if we are to maximize the potential benefits fromour previous investments in transition projects.

Although all of the above questions are important, Ibelieve that the issues and concerns surrounding student self-determination are central as a foundation for everything else.The future success of all high school programs, including ourown secondary special education and transition programs,must begin with the empowerment of students to assume ahigh level of responsibility in an appropriate manner for theirown educations. The very essence of adolescence involvesan emerging and surging drive toward independence, which

is often accompanied by strong feelings of self-doubt withinthe adolescent and resistance from parents and teachers. W ehave been working on this issue in special education for thepast decade from a variety of perspectives, includingdefining student empowerment with the words “self-determination,” developing programs and instructionalmaterials that teach students and significant others how toenhance student self-determination, and establishing organi-zations to promote self-determination (Halpern, 1998; W ard,1996; W ehmeyer , 1996).

In order to identify the most promising innovations thathave emerged across all of the funding areas presented inTable 3, the OSEP should target some of its new funds forevaluating its past investments not only with respect to self-determination, but also with respect to the other ninequestions raised above. A variety of techniques would beappropriate, including research syntheses, meta-analyses, andreexamination of extant databases that were produced by thepast investments. As one step in this direction, the OSEPintends to support a new five-year institute, beginning inFiscal Year 2000, that will search for best practices throughexamination of completed projects and published findings(Federal Register , 1999).

Focusing on Proven Programs and Policies

The outcomes that will emerge from careful andthoughtful evaluations of our past ef forts should do morethan simply result in increased awareness of “proven”transition programs and policies. Once best practices havebeen identified, they should become one focus of futurefunding ef forts. Some beginning ef forts already exist thatprovide a foundation for identifying best practices, such asthe research synthesis provided by Cobb and his colleagues(Cobb, Lehmann, Tochterman, & Bomotti, 2000). Anotherrecent ef fort has been completed by the National TransitionAlliance, in which this organization identified 27 “promisingprograms” following its review of 50 nominations (Kohler ,1999). I think that our field is now in the position where todevote substantial resources to disseminating and replicatingthose programs that have shown the most progress. It is time tomove from demonstration to widespread implementation, fromusing our discretionary funds to affect the lives of a few peopleto using these funds to affect the lives of many people.

Accessing Resources of the OSEP and Other FederalFunding Agencies

As documented above, even as funds that the OSEPtargeted for transition began to decrease, the overall level offunding for OSEP’ s discretionary program has remainedmostly steady or increased. As mentioned above, since FiscalYear 1998, the OSEP has also been given great latitude indetermining its own funding priorities. Although transition

75

projects are no longer mandated by any Special PurposeFunds, the OSEP is still permitted to establish reasonablepriorities including those that might focus on transition. W emust learn how to lobby ef fectively for such priorities withinthe new permissive environment. Even without such priori-ties, there are many opportunities still available for accessingfunds to serve students in transition. Three examples areillustrative of such opportunities.

When the OSEP altered its funding priorities in FiscalYear 1998 from transition competitions to generic competi-tions, the number of applications for transition projectsdecreased substantially . This trend was exacerbated in FiscalYear 1999, as illustrated by the competition summary for theOSEP’ s Outreach Competition (Gonzalez, 1999). During FY1998, 153 applications were submitted. Fifty-three of theseapplications focused on early childhood, and 1 1 of thesewere funded. Eighteen applications focused on transition,and 4 were funded. During FY 1999, a total of 76 applica-tions were submitted in the Outreach Competition, including50 with an emphasis on early childhood and 5 with anemphasis on transition. Twelve early childhood projects and3 transition projects were funded. It would appear that thosewho were willing to apply for targeted transition fundsbecame unnecessarily discouraged when the previouslytargeted competitions became generic in nature. The oppor-tunity for accessing generic competitions, however , remainsviable for those who respond.

A second area of opportunity involves teacher training.If teachers are to become proficient in implementing whatwe have learned over the years and hope to learn in thefuture, we must assist them in such endeavors. Both in-service and preservice training are needed, along with somefocused demonstrations and evaluations on how innovationscan be accomplished by restructuring teacher time andeffort, rather than by adding new responsibilities on top of aburden that is already quite large. The OSEP’ s overallcommitment to personnel preparation is substantial, approxi-mately $82 million in both Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999,representing nearly 30% of their entire budget for nationalactivities (U.S. Department of Education, 1999a). Assumingthat this commitment remains strong in the future, we needto ensure that a meaningful proportion of these dollars is usedto support special and general education teachers in implement-ing high school and transition programs successfully.

In addition to enhancing the roles and responsibilities ofstudents and teachers in the educational enterprise, we mustalso somehow find a way to involve parents more ef fectively.The most important role for parents to play , in my opinion, isto interact ef fectively with their sons or daughters at home.This is not always easy , especially when the normal stressesof adolescent/parent relationships are exacerbated by suchdifficulties as dysfunctional families, or parents workingsuch long hours that they are unavailable to spend meaning-ful time with their children. But students need this time, notonly to help them deal ef fectively with important educational

issues, but also to help them deal successfully with the manysocial and interpersonal concerns of adolescence. In FiscalYears 1998 and 1999, the OSEP allocated $18.5 million eachyear for parent information and training centers (U.S.Department of Education, 1999b). W e should continue tosupport these ef forts, and of fer whatever insights andassistance we can in order to help these programs attendeffectively to transition issues and concerns.

In addition to exercising continuing vigilance foraccessing the OSEP funds to facilitate transition ef forts, weshould also pay close attention to other federal dollars thatmay be available for this purpose. In particular , fundingpriorities that address transition are likely to remain availablefrom the Rehabilitation Services Administration, the Na-tional Institute on Disabilities and Rehabilitation Research,and the Administration on Developmental Disabilities.

The discussion thus far has focused on accessing federaldiscretionary funds. There is one other source that we shouldalso consider , namely , the discretionary proportion of thePart B, IDEA funds that are awarded each year to statedepartments of education to support special educationprograms and services in school districts throughout thestates. Up to 20% of Part B funds based on Fiscal Year 1997appropriations, which amounts to approximately $660million in Fiscal Year 1999, can be earmarked by states fordiscretionary activities, including those that might deal withtransition (Public Law 105-17, Individuals with DisabilitiesEducation Act Amendments, Section 61 1(f) (1), 1997).Although these funds have long “histories” of utilizationwithin the states, including simply flowing them through toschool districts without restrictive earmarks, there might beways in which some state education agencies could bepersuaded to use part of their discretionary funds to supporttransition programs and services.

Aligning Transition with General Education Reform

There is little doubt that general education reform willremain a centerpiece of national domestic policy as we moveinto the twenty-first century . The nature of such reforms hasalready begun to crystalize around such issues as redefiningeducational outcomes in terms of improved student achieve-ment on performance standards, measuring relevant out-comes through a voluntary national assessment program,redesigning instruction to reflect a more authentic pedagogy ,involving parents and community members more ef fectivelyin the educational enterprise, creating safe and drug freeschools, and providing “school choice” options through suchmechanisms as vouchers and charter schools. Underlying allof these reforms is a public perception that education in theUnited States has somehow taken a turn for the worse,placing our entire society at risk of economic, political, andsocial deterioration (Conley , 1997; Hodgkinson, 1993; Riley ,1999; Rose & Gallup, 1998).



76

As these reforms have unfolded through legislation,policy, and program development, representatives of thespecial education community have remained largely on thesidelines. W e cannot af ford to remain there, even thoughsome of the reforms may lead to outcomes that are notbeneficial to students with disabilities, for example, raisingacademic standards in a manner that results in lower gradua-tion rates for students with disabilities. During Fiscal Year1998, federal funding for general education reform was$2.86 billion, which is 10 times larger than the total amountof $278.9 million that OSEP spent for all of its nationalprograms during that year (U.S. Department of Education,1999b). If one contrasts instead the $2.86 billion for generaleducation reform with the $33.9 million that the OSEP spenton new and continuing transition projects during Fiscal Year1998, the ratio becomes 84 to 1. How can we leverage thisdollar to infuse our agenda into theirs? At least some of theOSEP’ s transition dollars should be targeted toward answer-ing this question.

Documenting the Impact of Our Efforts

Although the federal definition of transition states that itis “an outcome-oriented process,” we have not been ef fectivein focusing on outcomes over the years. Providing such afocus requires more than simple documentation, such as weaccomplished, at least partially , through the NationalLongitudinal Follow-Along Study that ended in 1993(Wagner , Blackorby , Cameto, Hebbler , & Newman, 1993).We must cast this documentation within the context ofdesired performance standards.

At the federal level, we are beginning to encounter astrong impetus towards standards-based documentation inresponse to the Government Performance Results Act(GPRA) of 1993 (Public Law 103-62). This legislationamends the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 whichstipulates most of the procedures for fiscal management ofthe federal government (U.S. Department of Education,1999c). The requirements of GPRA are somewhat similar toa business plan, requiring each government agency as part ofthe budget request and allocation process to include infor-mation about (1) its purpose, (2) the activities it intends topursue, and (3) its anticipated results. Three distinct types ofproduct are required by GPRA to be submitted to Congress(U.S. Department of Education, 1999c):

1. A strategic plan covering a period of five years.2. An annual performance plan.3. An annual report on program performance.

An agency’ s strategic plan must address the followingsix elements:

1. A comprehensive mission statement.2. General strategic goals and objectives that are

results-related.

3. A description of how the goals and objectives are tobe achieved.

4. A description of how annual performance goals arerelated to general goals and objectives.

5. Identification of key factors external to the agencyand beyond its control that could af fect agencyperformance.

6. A description of program evaluation procedures thatwill be employed to evaluate agency performance.

Each federal agency was required to submit its first strategicplan on September 30, 1997, with updates scheduled forevery three years.

Annual performance plans are more specific thanstrategic plans, and must address the following elements:

1. Annual program goals.2. Resources required to achieve goals.3. Links between annual program goals and more

general strategic plan goals.4. Performance objectives that will lead to the achieve-

ment of annual program goals.5. Performance indicators that will demonstrate whether

annual goals and performance objectives have beenachieved.

Each federal agency submitted its first annual performanceplan as part of its Fiscal Year 1999 budget request.

Annual performance reports must be submitted toCongress and the President within six months following theend of each fiscal year . The essence of this report will be tocompare actual accomplishments with promises that werepresented in annual performance plans. Agencies will beallowed to explain any discrepancies and make suggestionsfor future changes in either annual performance plans orstrategic plans. The first due date for annual performancereports was March 31, 2000.

An examination of the OSEP’ s Annual Program Perfor-mance Plan for Fiscal Year 2000 provides a good indicationof how important standards-based performance indicatorswill become in future federal decisionmaking about fundingpriorities. Table 4 provides a few examples from this planthat are clearly relevant for the future of funding ef forts thataddress transition programs and services (U.S. Departmentof Education, 1999d). These examples are directed at thePart B funding stream authorized by IDEA, but the plan alsocontains several components addressing Part D funding insuch areas as research and innovation, educational technol-ogy and media services, personnel preparation in highereducation, and technical assistance to parents, teachers, otherpractitioners, and individuals with disabilities. As Table 4indicates, some of the information designated as a source fordocumenting performance in the transition area will bederived from a new National Longitudinal Transition Study .A design contract for this study is currently underway , and

77

the full study will begin implementation in January , 2001(Gonzalez, 1999).

As transition resources are redeployed by the OSEP andother federal agencies in Fiscal Year 2000 and beyond, allrecipients of these resources will need to attend carefully tostandards-based outcomes such as those presented in Table 4.These indicators for the OSEP and similar indicators forother federal agencies will increasingly surface as bench-marks for structuring the allocation of resources and evaluat-ing the impact of funding decisions. The interpretation of thisinformation will be challenging, since the outcomes willreflect our nation’ s total expenditures on education, andfederal financial participation has fluctuated between onlyfive and 10 percent of these expenditures over the past 40years (National Center for Educational Statistics, 1999;Odden, Monk, Nakib, & Picus, 1995).

S u m m a r y

During the past 1 1 years, the Of fice of Special Educa-tion Programs within the U.S. Of fice of Education has beenvery active in supporting national projects that focus ontransition programs and services for high school studentswith disabilities. During this period of time, the OSEPfunded 567 projects with a total commitment of $362 million

from its IDEA Part D discretionary budget. More than one-third of these allocations were used for systems-changeprojects in 46 states plus a national center to assist andevaluate these projects. For a variety of reasons, it nowappears that the OSEP intends to reduce its prioritizing ofprojects that focus on transition.

Whether or not the observed OSEP reduction in finan-cial support becomes a consistent trend as we move into thetwenty-first century , the need for good transition programsfor high school students with disabilities will prevail. Fivesuggestions have been of fered and discussed for continuingto address these needs regardless of the OSEP’ s participationin future funding ef forts. We must::

• Evaluate our past investments in transition projects inorder to document what we have learned from theseprojects.

• Focus at least some of our new funding commitmentson the widespread replication of proven programs andpolicies.

• Relearn how to access the continuing OSEP and otherfederal funding sources for the purpose of implement-ing new transition-oriented projects.

• Align and coordinate many of our new transitionproject commitments with emerging trends and

Table 4. Some Examples from the OSEP’s FY 2000 Annual Program Performance Plan



78

opportunities that emanate from our national preoccu-pation with general education reform.

• Document the impact of our transition ef forts with anemphasis on student outcomes, paying particularlyclose attention to the requirements for federal agenciesthat have been stipulated by the Government Perfor-mance Results Act.

If we are able to respond ef fectively to these five areasof endeavor , there is every reason to believe that projects andprograms for addressing the transition needs of high schoolstudents with disabilities will continue to improve into thenext century , even within the changing funding environmentof the OSEP for addressing these needs.

References

Cobb, B., Lehmann, J., Tochterman, S., & Bomotti, S. (2000).School reform and students with disabilities: A review. In...[OSEP monograph, yet to be titled]

Conley, D. (1997). Roadmap to restructuring: Charting thecourse of change in American education (2nd ed.).Eugene, OR: University of Oregon, ERIC Clearinghouseon Educational Management.

Federal Register (1999). Absolute Priority 7 - Improving postschool outcomes: Identifying and promoting what works(84.324W). August 30, 1999.

Gonzalez. P. (1999). Personal communication.Halpern, A. (1998). NEXT S.T.E.P.: Student transition and

educational planning. In M. Wehmeyer & D. Sands (Eds.),Making it happen: Student involvement in educationalplanning, decision-making and instruction. Baltimore:Paul H. Brookes. 167-186.

Hodgkinson H. (1993). American education: the good, the bad,and the task. In S. Elam (Ed.) The state of the nation’spublic schools: A conference report. Bloomington, IN: PhiDelta Kappa Foundation.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of1997. (P.L. 105-17). (1997). 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.

Kohler, P. (1999). The NTA identifies promising programs. TheNewsletter of the National Transition Alliance, 3(2), April,1999.

National Center for Education Statistics. (1999). EarlyEstimates of Public Elementary and Secondary EducationStatistics: School Year 1998-99. U.S. Department ofEducation, Office of Educational Research and Improve-ment. NCES Report #1999-347. January, 1999.

Odden, A., Monk, D., Nakib, Y., & Picus, L. (1995). The storyof the education dollar: No academy awards and no fiscalsmoking guns. Phi Delta Kappan, October, 1995, 161-172.

Riley, R. (1999). New challenges, a new resolve: MovingAmerican education into the 21st century. Long Beach,CA: Sixth Annual State of American Education Speech.February 16, 1999.

Rose, L., & Gallup, A. (1998). The 30th annual Phi DeltaKappa/Gallup poll of the public’s attitudes toward thepublic schools. Phi Delta Kappan, September, 1998, 41-56.

U.S. Department of Education. (1999a). FY 2000 budget report:Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services[On-line], Appendix Table 2g. Available: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/Budget00/BudgetSumm/apndx-2g.html

U.S. Department of Education. (1999b). Fiscal year 2000budget report: Detailed budget table by program [On-line].Available: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/Budget00/BudgetSumm/apndx-2.html

U.S. Department of Education (1999c). Requirements of GPRA[On-line]. Available: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/DemoResults/Requirements.html

U .S. Department of Education (1999d). FY 2000 Annual Plan,Volume 2: Special Education (IDEA) [On-line], pp 81-91.Available: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/AnnualPlan/vol2.html

Wagner, M., Blackorby, J., Cameto, R., Hebbler, K., &Newman, L. (1993). The transition experiences of youngpeople with disabilities: A summary of findings from theNational Longitudinal Transition Study of special educa-tion students. Menlo Park, Ca: SRI International.

Ward, M. (1996). Coming of age in the age of self-determina-tion: A historical and personal perspective. In D. Sands &M. Wehmeyer (Eds), Self-determination across the lifespan: Independence and choice for people with disabilities.(pp. 3-16). Baltimore: Paul H Brookes Publishing Co.

Wehmeyer, M. (1996). Self-determination as an educationaloutcome: Why is it important to children, youth, and adultswith disabilities? In D. Sands & M. Wehmeyer (Eds), Self-determination across the life span: Independence andchoice for people with disabilities. (pp. 17-36). Baltimore:Paul H Brookes Publishing Co.

Will, M. (1984). OSERS programming for the transition ofyouth with disabilities: Bridges from school to working life.Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Education.

Author Information

Author may be contacted at:

Andrew S. Halpern, Ph.D.; Secondary Special Education and Training Program, University of Oregon, 175 College ofEducation, Eugene, OR 97403, 541/346-1409, [email protected]

79


A p p e n d i x

Cross-Referencing of Funding Sources with Derived Funding Categories


80

Table 5. Cross Referencing of Funding Sources with Derived Funding Categories

81


Table 5 (Continued)


82

Index of Competition Numbers and Titles

Number Title

84.023A Advancing and Improving the Research Knowledge Base

Small Grants

84.023B Student Initiated Research

84.023C Field Initiated Research

84.023D Directed Research Projects: The Sustainability of Promising Innovations

Directed Research Projects: Students Approaching Graduation and the Supplemental Security IncomeProgram

84.023F Examining Alternatives for Results Assessment for Children with Disabilities

84.023N Initial Career Awards

84.023R Including Children with Disabilities as Part of Systematic Ef forts to Restructure Schools ContractStrategic and Technical Support

84.025B Preparation of Personnel for Careers in Special Education

84.025E Technical Assistance for Transitional Services

84.025L Utilization of Best Practices in Transition for Students with Deaf-Blindness

84.029A Training Personnel to Serve Low-Incidence Disabilities

84.029B Preparation of Personnel for Careers in Special Education

84.029D Preparation of Leadership Personnel

84.029E Minority Institutions

84.029F Preparation of Related Services Personnel

84.029G Preservice Personnel Training

84.029H State Education Agency Grants

84.029K Special Projects

84.029N Training of Personnel for Careers in Special Education - SED

84.068R Model In-service Training Projects

83


Number Title

84.078A Research and Innovation to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities

84.078C Career Placement Opportunities for Students with Disabilities in Postsecondary Programs

Center to Advance the Quality of Technology , Media, and Materials for Providing Special Education andRelated Services to Children

Model Demonstration Projects to Improve the Delivery & Outcomes of Secondary Education Servicesfor Students with Disabilities

Model Demonstration Projects to Improve the Delivery & Outcomes of Postsecondary Education forIndividuals with Disabilities

Postsecondary Demonstration Projects for Career Placement Opportunities Contract Evaluation andDissemination of Ef fective Practices

Postsecondary Education Program

84.086U Outreach Projects: Serving Children with Severe Disabilities in General Education and Community Settings

Outreach: Serving Students with Severe Disabilities in Integrated Environments

84.158A State Systems for Transition Services for Youth with Disabilities

84.158C Secondary Education and Transitional Services for Youth with Disabilities Program

84.158D Model Demonstration Projects to Identify , Recruit, Train, and Place Youth with Disabilities Who HaveDropped Out of School

Model Demonstration Projects to Improve the Delivery & Outcomes of Secondary Education Servicesfor Students with Disabilities Who Have Dropped Out of School

84.158G Institute to Evaluate and Provide Technical Assistance to States Implementing Cooperative Projects toImprove Transition Services

84.158J Research Institute on Secondary Education Services for Children and Youth with Disabilities

84.158K Demonstration Projects to Identify and Teach Skills Necessary for Self-Determination

84.158M Accessing School-to-W ork and Postsecondary Environments – Technical Assistance

84.158N No Competition Title

84.158P Research Projects on the Transition of Special Populations to Integrated Postsecondary Environments

Transition Strategies and Techniques

84.158Q Multi-District Outreach Projects for Youth with Disabilities

Outreach Projects for Services for Youth with Disabilities

84.158R No Competition Title

84.158S No Competition Title

84.158U Research Projects on Student Involvement in Transition Planning

Index of Competition Numbers and Titles (continued)


84

Number Title

84.158V Model Demonstration Projects to Improve the Delivery & Outcomes of Secondary Education Servicesfor Students with Disabilities

84.159A State Agency/Federal Evaluation Studies Projects

84.159D State and Local Education Ef forts to Implement the Transition Requirements in IDEA

84.159F State Agency/Federal Evaluation Studies Projects

84.159H Testing the Use of an Instrument to Measure Student Progress

84.180A Innovative Cooperative Models to Expand Technology Benefits

84.180B Using Technology to Improve Assessment of Children with Handicaps

84.180T Technology , Educational Media, & Materials Projects that Create Innovative Tools for Students withDisabilities

84.237B Facilitating Interagency and Private Sector Resource Ef forts to Improve Services

84.237D Development and Support for Enhancing Professional Knowledge, Skills, and Strategies

84.237F Preventing the Development of Serious Emotional Disturbance among Children & Youth with Emotionaland Behavioral Problems

84.237H Developing Ef fective Secondary School-Based Practices for Youth with SED

84.324C Field Initiated Research Projects

84.324D Directed Research

84.324M Model Demonstration Projects for Children with Disabilities

84.324R Outreach Projects for Children with Disabilities

84.325D Preparation of Leadership Personnel

84.325H Improving the Preparation to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities

84.325N National Significance / Non-directed

SBIR 97 No Competition Title

Contract National Longitudinal Transition Study

Index of Competition Numbers and Titles (continued)

85

State Graduation Requirements forStudents With and Without Disabilities

Barbara GuyIowa Department of Special Education

Hyeonsook Shin; Sun-Young Lee; Martha ThurlowUniversity of Minnesota

6


Recent attention to the ef fectiveness and quality ofpublic education has resulted in federal and state ef forts toimprove curriculum content, instructional practices, andstudent performance. Federally , legislation such as Goals2000, Improving America’s Schools Act (IASA), whichsupports Title I programs, and the School-to-W ork Opportu-nities Act has encouraged the development of high contentstandards and the implementation of procedures that accountfor improved student performance. State attempts to improvethe ef fectiveness and quality of public education include therefinement of graduation requirements, establishment ofcontent and performance standards, and implementation oflarge-scale assessments.

The development and implementation of these reformefforts have been dif ficult to accomplish, in part because oftheir complexity . Individually, each strategy representschange that involves and af fects a variety of student popula-tions and education departments. In addition, the interrela-tionship of the strategies means that policies and procedures inone area will affect policies and procedures in another area.

The complexity and potential impact of each strategynecessitates the involvement of a diverse group of stakehold-ers, many of whom have not previously worked together .Unfortunately , stakeholder involvement in many states hasvaried. Individuals with disabilities, their advocates, andspecial education organizations typically have not been anintegral part of either the development or implementation ofthese reform ef forts (Center for Policy Research on theImpact of General and Special Education Reform, 1996;Lipsky & Gartner , 1997; National Center on Educational

Restructuring and Inclusion, 1995; Thurlow, Ysseldyke,Gutman, & Geenen, 1998). In some states, special educationhas engaged in parallel discussions and activities (Ysseldyke,Algozzine, & Thurlow, 2000).

Many changes accompanied the 1997 reauthorization ofthe Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Atleast two of the changes, those requiring the participation ofstudents in the general education curriculum and in large-scale assessments, encourage closer alignment of general andspecial education reform ef forts. This alignment becomescritical as states continue to develop, refine, and implementtheir reform strategies. The policies and procedures thatstates develop and implement will af fect graduation deci-sions for students with disabilities and, ultimately , their post-school activities. More stringent graduation requirements, forexample, may result in a greater number of students whodrop out (Langenfeld, Thurlow, & Scott, 1997). For thosewho choose to leave school without a diploma, post-schoolchoices are limited. W ithout a high school diploma, studentswith disabilities are not candidates for military service orformal postsecondary education, and frequently are excludedfrom high-paying jobs (W agner , Blackorby , Cameto, &Newman, 1993; Lichtenstein & Michaelides, 1993).

The decision of when to graduate and the manner inwhich to graduate relates directly to the type of high schooleducation that students with disabilities experience. In somecases, for example, students must focus on academicrequirements in order to receive a general diploma. Thislimits the time that they can spend on course work invocational education and career education, as well as onother experiences that relate to the development of socialskills and independent living-all areas of well-documented

Abstract: A survey was administered to state assessment directors and transition specialists in each of the 50 states andthe District of Columbia to update and clarify knowledge about state high school graduation requirements for studentswith and without disabilities. While the results of this study revealed more complexity in graduation requirement policiesthan expected, several conclusions that have important implications for students’ educational outcomes, particularly forstudents with disabilities, were reached. Recommendations for policy makers as they set policies for graduation require-ments include ensuring that graduation requirements reflect the variety of knowledge and skills that students are learningin school and will need following high school; assessing the impact that leaving high school without a standard diplomawill have on opportunities available to students with disabilities; and making high school graduation decisions on thebasis of multiple, relevant sources of information about students’ knowledge and skills.


86

need for students with disabilities. Increased academicrequirements for standard diplomas, then, may additionallydecrease the amount of time students with disabilities have tolearn other essential skills related to employment, indepen-dent living, and social interactions, thus inhibiting theirpotential for high-wage employment and independent living.

General and special education reform ef forts shouldresult in a variety of graduation policies and options thatmeet the needs of all students. To ensure that this happensand that graduation policies are not conflicting, graduationrequirements for students with disabilities should be exam-ined and developed in conjunction with graduation require-ments for students without disabilities. Two previous studies(Bodner , Clark, & Mellard, 1987; Thurlow, Ysseldyke, &Anderson, 1995) provide a foundation from which toexamine trends for changes in graduation policies andprocedures for students with disabilities. Findings from thesestudies indicated that the number of states with an explicittotal number of credit requirements decreased (from 46 to44), but the number of credits required for graduationincreased in the majority of states that had credit require-ments. The number of states that required students to passgraduation exams in order to receive a standard diploma alsoincreased (from 15 to 17), as did the number of states thatprovided only a standard diploma (from 14 to 19). Unfortu-nately , in both studies, information on the requirements forstudents without disabilities was limited to requirements fora standard diploma. In addition, Bodner et al. (1987)reported their data in the aggregate, thus prohibiting analysisof specific state change. Thurlow et al. (1995), however ,reported state-by-state data.

The study reported here builds on the work of Thurlowet al. (1995). The respondents targeted to participate in thisstudy were state assessment directors and transition special-ists from each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia.Specifically , the purposes of this study were to: (a) providepolicy makers information that would help them as theydesign, implement, and refine reform strategies, and (b)create a database from which to track changes in policy asreform strategies in general and special education areimplemented.

M e t h o d

The main purpose of this study was to update and clarifythe field’s knowledge about state high school graduationrequirements for students with and without disabilities. Thebasis for the current study was a survey conducted byThurlow et al. in 1995, which was used to guide method-ological procedures and instrumentation. This permitted acomparison of the two data sets, and thus provided theopportunity to determine changes in policy since 1995.

Participants

This study included two groups of participants-stateassessment directors and transition specialists-from each ofthe 50 states and the District of Columbia. State assessmentdirectors were identified through the Council of Chief StateSchool Of ficers (CCSSO) list of members of the Associationof State Assessment Personnel (ASAP). Systems changeprojects in transition, funded by the Of fice of SpecialEducation Programs (OSEP), were used to identify transitionspecialists. In states with current transition systems changeprojects, the transition specialists were the project directors.In states with previous projects, the transition specialistswere those identified by the states as the primary contactsregarding transition. Transition specialists in the five statesthat had never received a transition systems change projectwere the directors of special education at the state depart-ments of education (or their designees). Their names weretaken from the database of directors maintained by theNational Association of State Directors of Special Education(NASDSE). State assessment directors and transitionspecialists from all 50 states and the District of Columbiaresponded (100% response rate).

Instrumentation

Two surveys were developed to inquire about highschool graduation requirements for students with and withoutdisabilities. The first survey , completed by state assessmentdirectors, examined high school graduation requirements ingeneral. The second survey , completed by state transitionspecialists, examined graduation requirements specific tostudents with disabilities. Survey questions were developedto align with previous studies and were reviewed by expertsnot directly involved in this project. The external expertsincluded individuals who were involved in special educationand transition services for students with disabilities andindividuals working on the development of state-level highschool graduation standards. The survey questions wererevised on the basis of these external reviews.

The High School Graduation Requirements Surveyconsisted of a summary table of each state’ s graduationrequirements (from Thurlow et al.’ s 1995 report and theCCSSO’ s 1998 web report) and 17 questions. The informa-tion in the summary table included course credits in subjectareas (i.e., English, Math, Science, Social Studies, Health/Physical Education, Other , Electives), graduation exams, andtypes of exit options. The respondents then were asked toverify the accuracy of the given information and to correctany inaccurate information. The 17 questions were presentedin three sections: (a) sources of high school graduationrequirements (3 questions), (b) examinations required toreceive a high school diploma (9 questions), and (c) policychanges (5 questions).

87

The High School Graduation Requirements and Studentswith Disabilities Survey focused on graduation requirementsfor students with disabilities. It was a separate survey ,consisting of 20 questions presented in four sections: (a)sources of high school graduation requirements (4 ques-tions), (b) examinations required to receive a high schooldiploma (4 questions), (c) transition services (5 questions),and (d) policy changes (7 questions). On both the generaland special education surveys, respondents were asked toskip the questions about exit exams if their state did not haveone. Otherwise, they were instructed to answer all questions.

Procedures

Information for this study was gathered in two ways.First, surveys were mailed to both sets of respondents. Toincrease the response rate, follow-up requests were made byfax and telephone. Second, document analysis also wasconducted when states included copies of state documentswith their returned surveys. State documentation took theform of state statutes, rules, or regulations from the depart-ment of education. This information was reviewed to clarifythe types of options available for graduation and specificrequirements. Some respondents who did not includedocumentation were called to clarify written answers. Allinformation was collected between February and August1998.

R e s u l t s

Survey responses from both state assessment directorsand transition specialists are summarized here in terms of thetypes of exit options that were available for students withand without disabilities. An overview of the general gradua-tion requirements and their source is followed by a moredetailed description of course credits and examinationsrequired for graduation. Changes in graduation policies andprocedures then are presented in terms of current surveyresponses and a comparison of these data with Thurlow etal.’s (1995) survey responses.

Exit Options

In this section, we describe exit options available tostudents with and without disabilities. Because variousnames and requirements were used for exit options indifferent states, we organized the exit options into fivecategories: (a) standard diploma (an option granted forsatisfaction of course requirements, passage of exit exams,other requirements as identified, or any combination of thethree requirements); (b) Individualized Education Program(IEP) diploma (an option available only to students withdisabilities who have not met standard diploma require-ments, but who have completed IEP goals and objectives);

(c) certificate of attendance (an option available to studentswith disabilities or students without disabilities who haveaged out or who have not completed graduation requirementsfor a standard diploma, an IEP diploma, or both); (d) honorsdiploma (an option available to students with disabilities orstudents without disabilities who have met more requirementsthan those for standard diplomas); and (e) other (options thatdid not meet criteria of the other four categories).

In each state we surveyed both the assessment director(to obtain information on high school graduation require-ments in general) and the transition specialist (to obtaininformation specific to students with disabilities). Theinformation we obtained from the two respondents within astate was not always the same. For example, assessmentdirectors in 51 states (including the District of Columbiahere) identified the standard diploma as an exit option forstudents in general, whereas the transition specialist in onlyone state (Massachusetts) did not identify exit options forstudents with disabilities (see Table 1). In Massachusetts,local education agencies (LEAs) determine exit options forstudents with disabilities. Transition specialists also did notindicate that the certificate of attendance was available tostudents with disabilities in two of the states with this option(Florida, Hawaii). Transition specialists indicated that honorsdiplomas were available to students with disabilities in onlythree of the twelve states with this exit option (Alabama,Indiana, New York).

Because of the occasional discrepancies between optionsidentified by assessment directors and transition specialists,we have based this summary on the most comprehensivedata available (i.e., options identified by either respondent,as reflected in Table 1).

Every state had standard diplomas as one exit option forboth students with and without disabilities (see Table 1).Nearly half or more of the states also had exit options thatwere IEP-based (n = 24) or that were based on schoolattendance (n = 31). About one-fourth of states had someform of honors diploma, and another one-fourth had otherexit options such as occupational diplomas, local diplomas,adult diplomas, and General Education Development (GED)diplomas. Five states (Connecticut, Indiana, Maryland,Pennsylvania, V irginia) identified the GED diploma as anexit option. Occupational or work/study diplomas wereavailable in three states (Alabama, Colorado, New Mexico).In Virginia, special diplomas were also available. In Kansasand Nebraska, locally determined diplomas were optionsdelineated by the states. Indiana of fered a certificate ofachievement to students with disabilities for whom adiploma track program was not appropriate. Nevada of feredadult diplomas, and Ohio of fered diplomas of adult educa-tion. In New York, annotated local diplomas were alsoidentified as an exit option.

Table 2 summarizes the arrays of exit options availablein each state. Across the 51 states (including the District of

Guy et al: State Graduation Requirements


88

89



90

Columbia), the most common array of options was astandard diploma combined with a certificate of attendance(n = 11). A standard diploma as the only option for exit fromschool was the next most frequently available option (n = 9).The next most common array (n = 7) was a standard diplomacombined with an IEP diploma and a certificate of atten-dance. Each of the other arrays was available in fewer thanfive states. Still, the total number of states (including theDistrict of Columbia) that had options beyond just thestandard diploma was 42.

Many states used the term certificate in the exit optionsavailable to students with disabilities. The special names ofthese certificates are shown in Table 3 (note that thesecertificates fall in either the categories certificate of atten-dance or IEP diploma in Table 1). For example, 22 statesoffered a certificate of attendance to students with disabili-ties; 5 of fered a certificate of completion; 2 of fered agraduation certificate; and 2 of fered a certificate of achieve-ment. Still other states of fered certificates with dif ferentnames. The District of Columbia of fered a certificate ofattainment and a certificate of IEP . Kentucky of fered acertificate of program completion of IEP to students withmoderate or severe cognitive disabilities upon completion of

IEP goals and objectives. Florida of fered a special certificateof completion. Arkansas of fered a certificate of completionof IEP. In Maryland, a high school certificate was awardedonly to students with disabilities who did not meet therequirements for a standard diploma.

General Graduation Requirements

In this section, we describe the general nature ofgraduation requirements, and the level(s) at which theserequirements are set (e.g., state, local). First, we describegraduation requirements and their sources in general. Then,we summarize changes in graduation requirements forstudents with disabilities. In subsequent sections we examinespecific requirements for course credits and graduationexams, and identify the sources of the requirements.

Requirements for earning a high school diploma are ofthree types: (a) earn a certain number of course credits, (b)pass some form of a graduation exam, and (c) meet bothcourse credits and graduation exam requirements. Table 4shows the requirements that states have for students toreceive a standard diploma. The largest number of states (n =27) required completion of course credits. The second largest

91



92

number of states (n = 19) required students to earn a specificnumber of credits and pass an exam. Just one state (Minne-sota) only required its students to pass an exam to earn astandard diploma.

The discretion that LEAs had in setting graduationrequirements varied across states. In three states (Colorado,Michigan, Pennsylvania), LEAs established their own creditrequirements. Additionally, in Iowa, minimum course creditrequirements were established by the state; however ,additional credits were required by local boards. Massachu-setts had statewide credit requirements for certain contentareas, but LEAs decided credits for other content areas. Forexample, the Massachusetts state department of educationestablished credit requirements for Social Studies andHealth/Physical Education, and LEAs determined creditrequirements for the remaining. In Nebraska, the staterequired a total of 200 credits. The distribution of those 200credits, however , was decided at the local level, as long as80% of the credits were in the core curriculum subjects.

In the 20 states that had statewide graduation exams,passing score levels for the exams were all determined by thestate. Even in Alaska and the District of Columbia, whichwere in the process of instituting an exit exam, transitionspecialists indicated that passing scores would be determinedby the state.

Table 5 shows which changes from standard diplomarequirements are allowed for students with disabilities. In allstates, students with disabilities could meet the same criteriaas other students and earn the same standard diploma. Manystates, however , had also identified alternate ways in whichstudents with disabilities could earn a standard diploma. Themost common alternate route to a standard diploma was toallow modified course work to count the same as regularcourse work (n = 23). Completion of IEP goals and objec-tives also was considered adequate in eight states.

Of the states that had only course credit requirements,there were five that did not allow any changes in require-ments for students with disabilities. A certificate option wasavailable to students with disabilities in four states (Alaska,District of Columbia, Nebraska, Oregon) (see Table 1). Twoof these states (Alaska, District of Columbia) also had an IEPdiploma option available for students with disabilities (seeTable 1). Of the states that had both course credit require-ments and graduation exams, there were seven that allowedno changes in the requirements for students with disabilities.Each of these had other options for exit documents (again,see Table 1), including IEP diplomas (Alabama, Nevada,North Carolina, V irginia), certificates of attendance (Ala-bama, Louisiana, Nevada, North Carolina, South Carolina),and others (e.g., Certificate of Achievement - Indiana).

According to transition specialists, graduation require-ments for students with disabilities also were established bystate-level policies, but at the same time LEAs were left todetermine some specific requirements. For example, al-

though graduation requirements in general were establishedby Wisconsin’ s State Education Agency, diploma require-ments for students with disabilities were set by LEAs. InMassachusetts, although a standard diploma was the onlyexit option for students without disabilities, the exit optionsavailable for students with disabilities were determined byLEAs. In Oregon, the state provided minimum requirementsand LEAs may add to them and grant certificates for studentswho have met only part of the requirements. Six states(Colorado, Iowa, Montana, New Hampshire, Rhode Island,Wyoming) did not have state requirements for students withdisabilities; in these states, LEAs set their own requirements.The transition specialists in three other states (Idaho,Oklahoma, W ashington) did not specify whether theirgraduation requirements were established at the state or locallevel.

Course Credit Requirements

Results from the general education survey indicated that41 states required completion of Carnegie course units,defined as (a) a measure of study time representing 120hours of class work completed in one year , (b) five periodsof 40 to 60 minutes for at least 36 weeks, or (c) five hours ofrelated work per week (Kapel, Gif ford, & Kapel, 1991, p. 87;Ysseldyke, Algozzine, & Thurlow, 1992, p. 249). Table 6presents these data. In the states using Carnegie Units, theactual number of credits required for graduation variedwidely from state to state, ranging from 14.5 credits (V er-mont) to 24 credits (Alabama, Florida, Hawaii, Utah, W estVirginia), distributed among English, Mathematics, Science,Social Studies, Health or Physical Education, Arts, Electives,and others.

The 10 states not included in Table 6 either: (a) haddifferent credit unit systems (California, Idaho, Indiana,Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Jersey), (b) left the determi-nation of credits to LEAs (Colorado, Michigan, Pennsylva-nia), or (c) did not require course credits (Minnesota) (seeTable 7). In California and Massachusetts, course require-ments were recorded as the number of years of course work.In Nebraska, a total of 200 credit hours was required by thestate, but LEAs determined the distribution of the totalnumber of credit hours across curricular areas. In Idaho, atotal of 42 semester credits was required. In New Jersey , thenumber of credits required was 1 10.

Graduation Exams

In addition to course credits, some states required thatstudents pass an exit exam before they earn a high schooldiploma (see Table 8). Overall, 20 states indicated that theyhad a graduation exam in place on a statewide basis and thattheir students without disabilities must pass it before they areeligible to receive a standard diploma. A summary of

93



94

95

whether students can be exempted from graduation examsand still receive a diploma is provided in Table 9. One state(Arizona) was as yet unsure of its exam requirement policy .According to transition specialists, modifications to theexam requirements were available to students with disabili-ties in four states (Minnesota, New Jersey , Ohio, Texas). Inthree of the four states, the modification was that thestudents could be exempted from the test and still receive astandard diploma (Minnesota, New Jersey , Ohio). Minnesotawas the only state that allowed students with disabilities topass the exit exam with dif ferent scores. Only in Texas werestudents with disabilities who were exempted from thegraduation exam required to participate in an alternativeassessment. Table 10 shows more detailed information aboutgraduation exams, including the graduating class for whichthe exam was first implemented, the grade in which studentscan first take the exam, and content areas covered. Topicsincluded on the exit exams typically were core curricularareas such as English/Language Arts (including reading andwriting) and Math.

In addition to the states listed in Table 10, three (Alaska,District of Columbia, Massachusetts) had graduation examspending for future years. Assessment directors in anotherthree states (California, Colorado, Illinois) indicated thatadministration of some type of exit exam was an LEA

decision. Indications of pending exams were evident in otherstates. For example, Delaware’ s state assessment directorindicated that there was no statewide graduation examrequirement in place. The transition specialist, however ,reported that students with disabilities were required to passan exam to obtain a high school diploma. The dif ference inresponses was most likely due to impending changes in thestate law .

In nearly all states with statewide graduation exams,students were allowed to have multiple opportunities to passthe exams. In 15 states, any students who failed the gradua-tion exam were allowed to take another form of the exam(Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana,Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, New York, NorthCarolina, Ohio, South Carolina, V irginia) or, in 5 states, toretake the exam several times (Hawaii, Maryland, NewJersey , Tennessee, Texas).

The 20 states with graduation exams had dif ferentpolicies on how to implement the exams and assign passingscores to students with disabilities (see Table 1 1). Twelvestates clearly indicated that all students with disabilities,regardless of the severity levels of disabilities, were requiredto attain the same score to pass the graduation exam as werestudents without disabilities. These 12 states were: Alabama,Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Mississippi, Nevada, New



96

97



98

Mexico, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, andVirginia. In three states (Louisiana, Maryland, Tennessee),the use of the same graduation test and the same passingscore depended on the severity level of the student’ s disabil-ity. Louisiana and Tennessee gave the same test and appliedthe same passing score only to students with mild disabili-ties. In Maryland, students with mild or moderate disabilitieswere required to pass the same exit exam with the samescore as those for students without disabilities, whereasstudents with severe disabilities were allowed to takedifferent tests and pass the tests with dif ferent scores.

Of the 20 states that had a graduation exam, 16 indicatedthat they kept records of the participation of students withdisabilities and 14 reported that they kept records of theperformance of students with disabilities on the exam (seeTable 12). Eleven states disaggregated participation data bydisability category , and ten disaggregated performance databy disability category at the time we conducted the survey .

Status of Graduation Policies

In this section, we discuss data from the current surveyand compare them to data collected by Thurlow, Ysseldyke,and Anderson in 1995. Policy changes that have occurredsince 1995 and indications of the stability of current policiesare also presented.

Comparison of data from the current survey and thosecollected in 1995 indicated that the policies about exitoptions available to students with disabilities are continuallychanging. Approximately one-third of the states had eitherchanged the number of options available to students withdisabilities to exit school, with more options now available,or had changed the requirements to receive a standarddiploma. In 1995, for example, the standard diploma was thesingle exit option for students with disabilities in 19 states.Eleven of these states indicated in the current study that theyhad changed their policies to include other exit options.

99



100

101



102

The provision of standard diplomas to students withdisabilities based on completion of IEP goals and objectivesalso has changed somewhat since 1995. Half of the eightstates that currently award standard diplomas based solely oncompletion of IEP goals and objectives had the same policyin 1995. The majority of the remaining states that awardedstandard diplomas in 1998 based only on completion of IEPgoals had changed their policies from requiring coursecredits (Missouri, Oklahoma) or from having both credit andexam requirements (T ennessee) for students with disabilitiesin 1995. Of the nine states that allowed students withdisabilities to receive standard diplomas based only oncompletion of IEPs in 1995, three no longer applied thispolicy to students with disabilities in 1998. These states nowrequire students with disabilities to complete modified creditrequirements. One other state now has LEAs or IEP commit-tees decide standard diploma requirements for students withdisabilities.

Relatively little change has occurred in terms of thesource of graduation policies. Of the six states that left thefinal decision of graduation credit requirements to LEAs in1995, five still did so in 1998 (through addition or distribu-tion decisions or determination of credits required forspecific courses). W yoming now has state-level creditrequirements. Only Pennsylvania has changed the locus fordecision-making to local districts.

Similarly, changes in the number of states with creditrequirements also have been minimal. In 1995, 44 states hada total number of credits that students had to earn, and in1998, 41 states specified a total number of credits. Changesare more evident in the number of credits required. Of the 40states for which there are both 1995 and 1998 data on totalcredit requirements, approximately a fourth have increasedthe number of credits required for receipt of a standarddiploma. Of these states, six increased credits in coreacademics such as math and science. Other states broadenedthe content of courses through the establishment of creditrequirements in other courses such as physical education orhealth. One other state has slightly decreased the totalnumber of credits required. The other three states appear tohave changed the unit of the credit measurement.

The number of states that have an exit exam linked tograduation requirements has increased from 17 to 20. Onestate (Michigan) still has an exit exam but it is no longerlinked to receipt of a local standard diploma. Instead, it isused for receipt of state endorsements on the local diplomas.Four states (Arizona, Indiana, Minnesota, North Carolina)have added exit exams since 1995.

To examine the extent to which policies may continue tochange, state assessment directors were asked about thestatus of general graduation policies in 1998, and transitionspecialists were asked about the status of graduation policiesspecifically for students with disabilities in 1998. Theirresponses are organized according to whether the status was

the same for students with and without disabilities, orapplied only to policies for one group. If the state assessmentdirector and the transition specialist indicated the sameresponse, the status was recorded as applying to bothstudents with and without disabilities. If only the stateassessment director indicated a specific status, it wasrecorded as applying to students without disabilities. If onlythe transition specialist indicated a specific status, it wasrecorded as applying to students with disabilities.

As indicated in Table 13, it appears that policies aboutexit options will continue to change, especially for studentswith disabilities. In 18 states, options for students withoutdisabilities to exit school were either under revision orconsideration of revision. This compares to 23 states thatindicated that options for students with disabilities to exitschool were either under revision or under consideration ofrevision. In contrast, 31 states had no plans to revise thetypes of exit options available to students without disabilitiesand 24 had no plans to revise the types of exit optionsavailable to students with disabilities.

The relationship between the existence of a statewideexam, the types of exit options available, and the status ofexit option policies is displayed in Table 14. These dataindicate that of the 20 states that had some form of a state-wide graduation exam, 16 were either revising or consideringrevision of the types of exit documents available to studentswith disabilities or students without disabilities or bothgroups. Of the 10 states that of fered standard diplomas (withor without honors diplomas) as the only option available tostudents with disabilities, half (California, Idaho, Massachu-setts, New Jersey , Washington) were either revising orconsidering revisions on the types of exit options available.

Information about the status of high school graduationrequirements is summarized in Table 15. Sixteen statesreported that they were either revising or consideringrevisions on their graduation requirements for studentswithout disabilities and 14 indicated revision plans forstudents with disabilities. In nine states (Alabama, Delaware,Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, South Carolina,Virginia, Wyoming), new graduation requirements had beendeveloped for students without disabilities. Four states(Alaska, Arizona, Indiana, Minnesota) had developed newgraduation requirements for students with disabilities. Thestates (n=13) that developed new graduation requirementsfor students with disabilities or students without disabilitieswill implement those requirements sometime between 1998and 2002. Twenty-five states indicated no plans to revisegraduation requirements for students without disabilities.This compares to 21 states that indicated no plans to revisetheir graduation requirements for students with disabilities.

Table 16 displays the status of policies on graduationexams. The majority of the 20 states that had some form of agraduation exam (70%) were either revising or consideringrevisions on their policies. Only five states indicated no

103



104

plans to revise their graduation exam policies. Ten additionalstates (Alaska, Arkansas, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts,Missouri, Pennsylvania, W ashington, W isconsin, District ofColumbia) were developing or considering the developmentof graduation exams.

D i s c u s s i o n

Given the importance of graduating from high school,we did not expect to find the complexity in graduationrequirement policies that we found. Not quite as unexpectedwas our finding that policies are not the same across the 50states and the District of Columbia. Unfortunately , thecomplexity in state policies is multiplied many times overwhen considering what students with disabilities must do toearn an exit document of one kind or another .

The complexity of the system exists in more than justthe requirements that students must meet to earn a standarddiploma. It begins with the array of exit options that studentshave available to them (e.g., certificates of completion, IEPdiplomas, honors diplomas), and the specific requirementsthat must be met to earn each of those types of documents.Further , the source of graduation requirements varies, withsome states having everything set at the state level, othershaving everything set at the local level, and many states witha variety of combinations in between. For students withdisabilities, the complexities are increased by the existenceof exit options not available to students without disabilities

(such as the IEP diploma) and by the possibility of modifica-tions in requirements or even exemption from requirementsthat students without disabilities must meet to receive thesame exit document.

General Conclusions

Despite the complexities, however , it is possible to reachsome general conclusions about graduation requirements forstudents with and without disabilities. These conclusionshave important implications for students’ educationaloutcomes, particularly for students with disabilities.

A wide array of exit options are available to students inmost states. Just nine states indicated that the standarddiploma was the single exit option available to students. Oneadditional state had an honors diploma and the standarddiploma as the only exit options. Thus, approximately 80%of the states have alternative exit options for students.Generally , these exit options involve some type of certifica-tion that the student has been in school, reflecting attendancerather than attainment of specific skills or completion ofcertain courses. The number of states that have alternativeexit options for students has grown.

States have raised and are continuing to raise theirrequirements for graduation. Since 1995, and even beforethat when Bodner et al. (1987) provided summary informa-tion on graduation requirements, there has been an increasein the number of states raising their requirements, either by

105



106

adding to the number of credits required or by administeringa graduation exam that students must pass. And, at the timeof the current survey , many states indicated that they wereplanning to make changes that would result in increasedgraduation requirements. Nearly 20% of the states wereeither developing or considering the development of gradua-tion exams as an added requirement for a standard highschool diploma. Because of the possible consequences ofsuch developments, it will be important to follow theconsiderations of these states as they decide how to includestudents with disabilities and the exit options that they makeavailable to all students.

States that allow flexibility for students with disabilitiesin meeting graduation requirements tend to provide thatflexibility in multiple ways. Among the ways in which statesare building greater flexibility in graduation requirements forstudents with disabilities are course work modifications, IEPcompletion, local-level decisions about applicability ofrequirements to individual students, and others. Some statesembrace providing a range of approaches to flexibility , whileothers do not.

Modified course work to meet course credit require-ments is the most common type of change provided to

students with disabilities. Of the states that had state-levelcourse credit requirements for earning a standard diploma,not quite half allowed students to meet those requirementsthrough modified course work. Based on materials sent bysome of these states, the substitute course work generallywas in the same content areas as that required of otherstudents, but might be a more practical application of thecontent (e.g., consumer mathematics rather than advancedmathematics; reading for independent living and work-related literacy rather than world literature). The extent towhich these alternative courses really were performance-based approaches to the same general content area, or insteadwere lower-level or “watered-down” content was impossiblefor us to determine.

IEP completion is not a universally accepted way forstudents with disabilities to meet graduation requirements.Slightly more than 10% of the states with course creditrequirements allowed students to receive a standard diplomaby completing their IEPs. Yet, several additional statesindicated that an IEP team or an LEA could decide to changestate-determined graduation requirements. It is unclear whatis occurring when an IEP team decides that state- or district-determined criteria do not apply (presumably for individual

107

students) or an LEA decides that its students with disabilitiesdo not have to meet state requirements. The fact that deci-sions can be made to remove graduation requirements forstudents with disabilities may suggest that these students arebeing held to dif ferent standards than other students.

States with graduation exams generally had more exitoptions available to students, but less flexibility in howstandard diploma requirements could be met. The 20 stateswith graduation exams are dif ferent in several ways fromstates without graduation exams. First, a greater number ofexit documents seem to be available in those states withgraduation exams (on average, 3.2 exit options available)than in those states without graduation exams (on average,2.2 exit options available). This is particularly evident inthose states that have been implementing exams for a longtime (at least five years). States with graduation exams alsodiffered in the extent to which they allowed changes to theirgraduation requirements for students with disabilities. Aboutone-third of the states with graduation exams allowed nochanges in either credit or exam performance requirements,while slightly more than 10% of the states without gradua-tion exams allowed no changes. It is important to note that,whether the states had graduation exams or not, those statesthat did not allow changes in requirements had at least twoexit options available to students; most had three or fouroptions.

The current status of states in documenting the partici-pation and performance of students with disabilities on exitexams suggests that states are going to have a difficult timemeeting some of the requirements of the 1997 amendments toIDEA. About 80% of the states with graduation examsindicated that they had records of the participation ofstudents with disabilities in those exams, and more than halfof these also disaggregated their data by disability category(not a federal requirement). Less than 75% of the states withgraduation exams had records of the performance of studentswith disabilities; approximately 70% of these states haddisaggregated performance data by category of disability(again, not a federal requirement). Even though thesenumbers reflect a majority of the states with graduationexams, the survey was conducted just before the time whenstates had to be able to report participation and performancedata for the first time. W e expected that all states would haveresponded positively to questions about state records ofparticipation and performance of students with disabilities.The fact that they did not suggests that many states willstruggle to be in compliance with the federal reportingrequirements entailed in IDEA 97.

The different responses of assessment directors andtransition specialists reflect more than just differences inpolicies for students with disabilities and other students. Webelieve that the dif ferences reflect, in part, the disconnectthat has been noted in the past between the two programswithin state education departments (McGrew , Thurlow, &


Spiegel, 1993; Thurlow, Langenfeld, Nelson, Shin, &Coleman, 1998). W ith the 1997 IDEA requirement that statesinclude students with disabilities in state assessments, thatthey report on the participation and performance of thesestudents in the same way and with the same frequency asthey do for other students, and that they develop an alternateassessment for students unable to participate in regular stateassessments, there is clearly a need for the two programs tocollaborate. The extent to which this happens certainly willhave a dramatic ef fect on how students are integrated intostates’ educational accountability systems, and perhaps evenon the extent to which the total educational system assumesresponsibility for the education of these students. Certainly itwill reduce the amount of “parallel play” by general educa-tion and special education teachers as they strive to meet theletter and intent of the law .

Further Considerations

The interest in high stakes testing and graduationrequirements continues as more and more states seem to beincreasing their graduation requirements and as more statesturn to graduation exams as a way to determine whetherstudents should receive a standard diploma. V arious organi-zations are now producing reports or maintaining web sitesthat document the policies of the states (e.g., Achieve, 1998;Council of Chief State School Of ficers, 1998; Roeber , Bond,& Connealy , 1998; Education Commission of the States,1997; National Center on Educational Outcomes, 1997). TheNational Research Council (1998) produced a report entitled“High Stakes: Testing for Tracking, Promotion, and Gradua-tion,” which identified the issues and research evidence onthese assessments. This document is unique in that itaddresses the accurate assessment of students with disabili-ties and students who are English-language learners. Itrecognizes that the objectives of large-scale assessments andthe need to find ways to adjust for the ef fects of disability areoften in conflict, and suggests that these tensions should beconsidered as assessments are developed.

As we look at graduation requirements that currentlyexist, it is equally important to consider the consequences ofthe tremendous reforms that are now taking place across thenation. Further policy development and refinement should bebased on the intended and unintended consequences ofcurrent policies. Multiple exit options, for example, mayreflect a belief that the school is no longer responsible for theeducation of those students who receive some kind ofalternative exit option. Or , multiple exit options may reflectthe belief that some students with disabilities have a dif ferentset of knowledge and skills, and need an exit option thatreflects that dif ference. Both of these assumptions will af fecthow and where students with disabilities are educated. Whatis the endpoint of education-achievement of certain knowl-edge and skills or receipt of an exit document (even if


108

achieved through modified standards)? The reasons forwhich students are exempted from graduation exams shouldalso provide direction for future policy development andrefinement. To what extent are decisions to exempt studentsfrom graduation exam requirements a function of lowexpectations for those students? Or , do they reflect a failureto provide the types of accommodations that students need toappropriately access the assessments?

Although it is easy to leap to the conclusion thatmodifications in requirements for students with disabilitiesreflect lower-level standards, this may not be the case. Nogood data are available to verify or deny that modifiedcourse work or alternative forms of assessment reflect thesame high levels of knowledge and skills as those in thestandard courses and exams. This kind of information isneeded for states and future employers to fully understandthe achievements of those individuals who do not obtainstandard diplomas. This need applies most notably tostudents with disabilities since they are the ones for whomthese modifications are most often made.

On the other hand, it is also important to ask about theextent to which the failure to provide flexibility in graduationrequirements prevents students who do have the skills thatthey need to succeed in postsecondary work or educationalsettings from progressing into those settings. The stories of“gifted” students with learning disabilities who are unable tocomplete course work or pass exams because of theirprocessing dif ficulties are familiar to all special educators.Examples are emerging in post-school settings as well. Thereare adults with disabilities who are successfully performingin their jobs, but are receiving lower pay than their cowork-ers because they lack the proper credentials. They areindividuals who could not get a community college certifi-cate in a vocation (e.g., diesel mechanics) because they didnot have a high school diploma. Concerns about thesestudents have spurred approaches like that taken by Texas,which allows both modified course work and an alternativeexam for its students with disabilities.

The confluence of Goals 2000, Improving America’sSchools Act, and the School-to-W ork Opportunities Act,topped by the reauthorization of IDEA, have generated muchinterest in developing an integrated educational system thataccounts for all of its students. Yet, the fact that this meansthat students with disabilities may be merged into a systemthat has a heavy focus on academics, often to the exclusionof more applied and vocational kinds of skills, threatenswhat has been working for students with disabilities. Thereare clearly advantages to continuing to emphasize vocationaleducation, career education, and other experiences related tothe development of social skills and independent living. Theideal, of course, is the integration of academic and vocationaleducation (Ascher & Flaxman, 1993; Bottoms, Presson, &Johnson, 1992; Phelps & Hanley-Maxwell, 1997). It will beimportant to monitor the extent to which students continue to

receive this type of education, and when and where theyreceive it. W e must also continue to work on educationalapproaches that foster the integration of academic andfunctional skills and knowledge.

Again, we come back to the ability of the educationalsystem to meet the needs of all students. Changes in gradua-tion requirements are pushing education leaders to figure outa better way to do that. At this time, however , not enough isknown about the consequences of these changes. Unfortu-nately , the variability that exists within the states limits thefeasibility of a comprehensive, national study of the facts ofdifferent exit options and policies. Yet, there are some clearrecommendations that policy makers should consider as theyset policies for graduation requirements.

1. Specify the assumptions underlying graduationpolicies. Be specific as to why requirements mightdiffer for subgroups of students (e.g., recognizingthat disabilities may interfere with the expression ofknowledge and skills through typical assessments).

2. Ensure that graduation requirements reflect thevariety of knowledge and skills that students arelearning in school and will need after high school.Use indicators of the knowledge and skills necessaryfor successful work, learning, and living after highschool.

3. Consider the impact that leaving high school withouta regular diploma will have on the opportunitiesavailable to students after high school. Createpolicies that will not exclude students whose learningcharacteristics require more time to meet graduationrequirements, and policies that will provide themample time to gain additional knowledge and skills.

4. Allow plenty of time for changes in requirements tobe phased into place. Prior court cases have sug-gested that four years are needed as a phase-in periodfor graduation requirements (e.g., students mustknow about a graduation exam four years before itwill determine whether they graduate). Yet, forstudents with disabilities, who have experiencedexclusion from the general education curriculum andlow expectations, four years may not be enough.Instead, it may be reasonable to hold these studentsto a set of graduation requirements, only if therequirements have been in place since the studentsstarted school.

5. Make high school graduation decisions on the basisof multiple, relevant sources of information aboutstudents’ knowledge and skills (see National Re-search Council, 1998).

109

These recommendations and others that might begenerated for a given state context can form the foundationof policies that are more appropriate for students withdisabilities and for other at-risk students.

R e f e r e n c e s

Achieve (1998). A snapshot of state school accountabilitysystems in 1998 [On-line]. Available: www .achieve.org

Ascher , C., & Flaxman, E. (1993). A time for questions: Thefuture of integration and tech prep. New York: Instituteon Education and the Economy , Teachers College,Columbia.

Bodner , J. R., Clark, G. M., & Mellard, D. F . (1987). Stategraduation policies and program practices related tohigh school special education programs: A nationalstudy. Lawrence: University of Kansas Department ofSpecial Education, National Study of High SchoolPrograms for Handicapped Youth in Transition. (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No. ED 294-347)

Bottoms, G., Presson, A., & Johnson, M. (1992). Makinghigh schools work: Through integration of academicand vocational education. Atlanta, GA: SouthernRegional Education Board.

Center for Policy Research on the Impact of General andSpecial Education Reform (1996). Standards-basedschool reform and students with disabilities. Alexandria,VA: Author.

Council of Chief State Of ficers (1998). Key state educationpolicies K-12 education: Standards, graduation,assessment, teacher licensure, time, and attendance. A50-state report [On-line]. Available: www .ccsso.org

Education Commission of the States (1997). Educationaccountability in the 50 states. Denver , CO: Author.

Kapel, D. E., Gif ford, C. S., & Kapel, M. B. (1991). Ameri-can educators’ encyclopedia (rev. ed.). W estport, CT :Greenwood Press.

Langenfeld, K., Thurlow, M., & Scott, D. (1997). Highstakes testing for students: Unanswered questions andimplications for students with disabilities. Minneapolis:National Center on Educational Outcomes, University ofMinnesota.

Lichtenstein, S., & Michaelides, N. (1993). Transition fromschool to young adulthood: Four case studies of youngadults labeled mentally retarded. Career Developmentfor Exceptional Individuals, 16(2), 183-195.

Lipsky, D. K., & Gartner , A. (1997). Inclusion and schoolreform: Transforming America’s classrooms. Baltimore,MD: P. H. Brooks.

McGrew, K. S., Thurlow, M. L., & Spiegel, A. N. (1993). Aninvestigation of the exclusion of students with disabili-ties in national data collection programs. EducationalEvaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(3), 339-352.

National Center on Educational Outcomes (1997). 1997 statespecial education outcomes: A report on state activitiesduring educational reform. Minneapolis, MN: Author.

National Center on Educational Restructuring and Inclusion(1995). National study of inclusive education. NewYork: The City University of New York.

National Research Council (1998). High stakes testing fortracking, promotion, and graduation (prepublicationcopy). W ashington, DC: National Academy Press.

Phelps, L. A., & Hanley-Maxwell, C. (1997). School-to-work transitions for youth with disabilities: A review ofoutcomes and practices. Review of Educational Re-search, 67(2), 197-226.

Roeber , E., Bond, L., & Connealy , S. (1998). Annual surveyof state student assessment programs (Volume 1).Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Of fic-ers.

Thurlow, M. L., Langenfeld, K. L. H., Nelson, J. R., Shin,H., & Coleman, J. E. (1998). State accountabilityreports: What are states saying about students withdisabilities? Minneapolis: National Center on Educa-tional Outcomes, University of Minnesota.

Thurlow, M. L., Ysseldyke, J. E., & Anderson, C. L. (1995).High school graduation requirements: What’s happeningfor students with disabilities. Minneapolis, NationalCenter on Educational Outcomes, University of Minne-sota.

Thurlow, M., Ysseldyke, J., Gutman, S., & Geenen, K.(1998). An analysis of inclusion of students withdisabilities in state standards documents. Minneapolis:National Center on Educational Outcomes, University ofMinnesota.

Wagner , M., Blackorby , J., Cameto, R., & Newman, L.(1993). What makes a difference? Influences onpostschool outcomes of youth with disabilities. The thirdcomprehensive report from the National LongitudinalTransition Study of Special Education Students. MenloPark: SRI International.

Ysseldyke, J. E., Algozzine, B., & Thurlow, M. L. (2000).Critical issues in special education. Boston: HoughtonMifflin.

Ysseldyke, J. E., Algozzine, B., & Thurlow, M. L. (1992).Critical issues in special education. Boston: HoughtonMifflin.


110

Author Information


Barbara Guy, Ph.D.; Iowa Department of Education, Grimes State Of fice Building, 400 East 14th Street, Des Moines, IA50319, 515/281-5265, [email protected]

Hyeonsook Shin, University of Minnesota, National Center for Educational Outcomes, 350 Elliot Hall, Minneapolis, MN55455, 612/626-1530

Sun-Young Lee, University of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration, 103-U Tech Center , Minneapolis, MN55414, 612/627-4008

Martha Thurlow, Ph.D. ; University of Minnesota, National Center for Educational Outcomes, 350 Elliot Hall, Minneapolis,MN 55455, 612/624-4826, [email protected]

The research and the preparation of this paper were supported by cooperative agreements between the U.S. Department ofEducation, Of fice of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) and the University of Minnesota’ s NationalTransition Network (NTN, Cooperative Agreement H158M50001) and National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO,Cooperative Agreement H159C50004). This report was first published as a technical report by NCEO (T echnical Report 24).Appendices in that report have been deleted from this report. Opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of theU.S. Department of Education or of fices within it.

111

Rhetoric and Reality: A Review of the Literature onParent and Student Participation in the IEPand Transition Planning Process

Katharine S. Furney; George SalembierUniversity of Vermont

7


Significance of the Issue

Parent participation in the Individualized EducationProgram (IEP) planning process had its formal inception in1975 with the passage of Public Law 94-142, the Educationfor All Handicapped Children Act (EHA) (Federal Register ,1977). A primary intent of the mandate was to includeparents as educational decision makers in the process ofdeveloping, evaluating and revising individualized educa-tional programs for their sons and daughters with disabilities(Turnbull & Turnbull, 1990). Fifteen years later , the EHAwas reauthorized as the Individuals with Disabilities Educa-tion Act (IDEA, 1990) and was expanded to include transi-tion planning as a required component of the IEP process forstudents with disabilities 16 years of age and older . In 1997,amendments to the IDEA specified that a statement oftransition needs related to the high school course of studymust be included in students’ IEPs beginning at age 14, and atransition services component must be developed forstudents with disabilities age 16 and older . The purpose ofthe transition plan was to identify outcome-oriented goals,objectives, and activities to promote a successful transition toadult life, and to involve adult-service agencies as necessaryin implementing identified services.

IDEA 1990 and 1997 reaffirmed the importance of parentinvolvement in the IEP and transition planning process andexpanded the notion of student involvement in transitionplanning (Lombard & Neubert, 1994). The law mandates thatstudents of transition age are to be invited to IEP meetings atwhich transition is discussed, and specifies that the transitioncomponent of IEPs must take into account students’ needs,preferences, and interests. In addition, IDEA 1997 requires thatpublic agencies notify students of any rights that will betransferred to them upon attaining the age of majority (Field,Martin, Miller, Ward, & Wehmeyer, 1998).

In spite of legislative intent, however , a review of theliterature reveals that the notion of parent and studentparticipation has been challenging both to define andimplement. In regard to parents, it appears that their partici-pation in the IEP process has been generally regarded asvaluable and linked to numerous benefits, including thedevelopment of positive parent and professional relation-ships, and the attainment of positive educational outcomesfor students (Izzo, 1988; Turnbull & Turnbull, 1990; V anReusen & Bos, 1994). At the same time, the literaturesuggests that parent participation has not occurred uniformlyin the IEP process (Carney & Atwood, 1998; Cone,Delawyer , & Wolfe, 1985; V acc, Vallecorsa, Parker , Bonner ,Lester , Richardson, & Yates, 1985). Initial studies of parentinvolvement reported that many parents appeared to assumea passive role in the planning process and perceived IEPconferences to be more focused on compliance with legalprocedures than on the collaborative development ofindividualized plans for their sons and daughters (Cone et al.,1985; Lusthaus, Lusthaus, & Gibbs, 1981; V acc et al., 1985;Vaughn, Bos, Harrell, & Lasky , 1988).

In a similar way , the literature has identified positivebenefits of student participation that have been dif ficult torealize in practice. Most of the literature on student participa-tion has focused on developing students’ self-determinationskills as a means to ensure that they are prepared to expresstheir needs, preferences, and interests and participate ingenerating goals and activities during IEP and transition plandevelopment (Field, 1996; Field et al., 1998; Ianacone &Kochhar , 1996). Even so, Field et al. (1998) recognize self-determination as a “new concept in schools” (p. 123) thatmust be more fully developed and supported in order torealize its potential for promoting student participation andengagement in IEP and transition planning.

The irony inherent in discussions of parent and studentparticipation is that while special education’ s recent focus on

Abstract: This review of literature suggests that little has changed in actual practices regarding parent participation in the IEP andtransition planning process that was mandated 25 years ago with the passage of the Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA) in1975, and reinforced by the IDEA in 1990 and amendments to it in 1997. Nor have there been major changes in the ways inwhich students participate in their transition planning. The literature suggests, however, that there is an increasing knowledgebase on a collective definition of parent participation and the barriers to it. There is also an increase in the breadth and depth ofthinking about ways to involve both parents and students in IEP and transition planning. This article describes the nature andstatus of student and parent participation in the IEP and transition planning process and the factors that appear to promote orinhibit parent participation, and provides recommendations regarding the directions for further research and practice.


112

transition is consistent with a perceived need to expand theroles of consumers in the development of career and lifegoals, the process of transition itself adds new challengesthat may make it even more dif ficult to realize the goal ofactive participation by family members in the IEP process.While transition planning has been described as a processthat should empower students, families, and communities(Szymanski, 1994), the body of additional information andskills that is needed to understand and access the array ofservices and resources available in the adult world is so greatthat there is concern that parents may once again feel theyare outsiders to a highly professionalized and technicalmodel of service provision (Ferguson, Ferguson, & Jones,1988; Gallivan-Fenlon, 1994; Nisbet, Covert, & Schuh,1992). Expansion of the traditional IEP team configurationbrings about new issues, roles, and potential conflicts forparents, students, and professionals. If the complexities ofthe relationships and power structures that may exist amongstudents, parents, and professionals are not recognized in thecontext of transition planning, there is a danger that oldpatterns of communication and planning will persist, andvisions of enhanced student and parent participation will notbe realized (Gallivan-Fenlon, 1994; Szymanski, 1994).

Purpose and Questions

Given these issues, the purpose of the literature reviewthat follows is to describe the nature and status of studentand parent participation in the IEP and transition planningprocess, the factors that appear to promote or inhibit parentparticipation, and directions for further practice and research.Given the historical and legislative developments describedin the introduction, the review begins with a discussion ofparents’ roles in special education prior to and during thefirst 10 years following passage of the EHA. It then moves toa discussion of the more recent literature on parent participa-tion in the transition planning process, and student participa-tion and self-determination within the context of transition.The review concludes with a discussion of implications forfuture practice and research. The following four questionswill guide the review:

1. What do the early studies on parent participationreveal about the nature of parent participation andparent roles in the IEP planning process?

2. What do recent studies of parent participation in theIEP and transition planning process reveal about thefactors that may promote or inhibit parent participa-tion?

3. What does the current literature on student participa-tion and self-determination suggest regarding factorsthat may promote or inhibit student participation inIEP and transition planning?

4. What are the implications for future practice andresearch on parent and student participation in thetransition planning process?

Parent Participation Prior to and During theFirst Decade Following the EHA

Introduction

The early literature on parent participation, includingthat published prior to and during the first 10 years followingpassage of the EHA, is important in that it serves as both acontext for the current status of family participation and as aseries of lessons learned that may inform current issuesrelated to parent and student participation in transitionplanning. Prior to passage of the EHA in 1975, parentparticipation was viewed broadly . It included accounts ofboth the ways in which parents of children with disabilitieswere involved in and excluded from participation in theirsons’ and daughters’ educational and community experi-ences, and parents’ roles in the evolution of legislationsupporting the rights of children and adults with disabilitiesto federal entitlement, including public education (Hardman,Drew, & Edgan, 1999). Following passage of the EHA, theliterature has focused primarily on the roles of parents in theIEP process. While this definition of participation is morelimited in some ways, it is also consistent with federallegislation that defined parent participation within the IEPplanning context.

Parent Participation Prior to the EHA

Over the years, the roles of parents of children andadults with disabilities have been viewed in a variety ofways, each of which has influenced the definition of parentparticipation and the roles that parents were expected to takein educational planning. The eugenics movement of the late1800s and early 1900s, for example, focused on the geneticorigins of disability and thus contributed to the notion thatparents were the cause of their children’ s disabilities(Hardman, Drew , & Egan, 1999; Turnbull & Turnbull, 1990).Similarly, prevailing cultural notions about disabilitymaintained that individuals with disabilities were unable tolearn and generally socially deviant and dangerous; thus,social isolation was viewed as a logical and rational socialresponse to the “problem” of disability . At this time, thou-sands of children with mental retardation were institutional-ized. For those who were not institutionalized, few optionsexisted. Some children attended separate day or residentialschools established to serve children with specific disabili-ties, but many were excluded altogether from public educa-tion. The values and beliefs associated with institutionaliza-tion and segregation diminished the value of parent contribu-tions and reinforced the notion that professionals outside of

113

the family were more knowledgeable and able to determinethe lives and futures of children with disabilities than weretheir parents.

Fortunately , a growing number of parents expressedtheir dissatisfaction with the educational and residentialservices available in institutions and communities during the1940s to 1970s through their assumption of new roles aspolitical advocates and organizers (T urnbull & Turnbull,1990). Parents played a critical role in the decision of theAmerican Psychiatric Association in the 1950s to conductroutine inspections of hospitals and institutions servingpersons with disabilities. Reports of such inspections helpedto raise public awareness of the deplorable conditions andinhumane treatment experienced by many residents and tobuild the case for the need to educate and provide meaning-ful services to persons with disabilities (Hardman et al.,1999). In 1950, a group of parents in Minnesota cametogether on behalf of their children with mental retardation toform the National Association of Retarded Children (ARC).This organization, along with others, later became involvedin a series of class action suits against public school systemswhich in turn established legal precedence for the right ofchildren with disabilities to gain access to the public educa-tion system. In 1975, many parents, parent advocates,representatives of the justice system, and legislators sawtheir ef forts culminate in the passage of the EHA. In additionto mandating the right of children with disabilities to receivea free, appropriate education in the least restrictive environ-ment, the EHA conferred upon parents a series of proceduralsafeguards and rights to due process, including the right toprovide consent to initial evaluations for special educationeligibility and placement, and the right to be notified of andparticipate as team members in IEP development and review(Federal Register , 1977; Turnbull & Turnbull, 1990; V aughnet al., 1988).

Initial Studies of Parent Participation Following the EHA

The legal provisions of the EHA did not, however ,translate into immediate changes in educational practices orthe actual roles of parents. During the 10 years that followedits passage, researchers and critics of special educationdevoted a good deal of time to understanding the roles ofparents in the IEP process and identifying factors whichappeared to promote or inhibit their participation (Foster ,Berger , & McLean, 1981; Turnbull & Turnbull, 1990). Oneof the first studies reported in the literature involved observa-tions of the IEP conferences of fourteen elementary studentswith mild disabilities. The results of this study indicated thatthe contributions made by parents accounted for less than25% of the total conference contributions (Goldstein,Strickland, Turnbull, & Curry, 1980). The parents’ verbalcontributions were described as being primarily passive in

nature, indicating parents’ apparent agreement with informa-tion provided by the professionals in attendance.

Similar studies corroborated these findings. A studyusing behavior rating forms to categorize the contributions ofparents and teachers during 47 IEP conferences reported thatwhile 33% of all parent contributions were described aspassive, only 3% of special educators’ responses werecategorized in a similar way (V acc et al., 1985). Passivecontributions included behaviors such as responding toquestions and acknowledging the receipt of information,while active contributions included initiating questions,providing information without being asked to do so, andexpressing opinions. A study of 400 parents of childrenrepresenting a range of age and disability types found thatwhile 71% of the parents described themselves as activeparticipants in IEP meetings, only 14.6% reported that theyhad expressed their opinions and made suggestions duringthe meeting (L ynch & Stein, 1982). Significantly , only 6.3%stated that they understood all that had occurred during themeeting.

Low levels of overall participation, questioning, andinitiation of comments were also reported in a study of theparents of students with learning disabilities who wereobserved during IEP meetings in which the initial placementof their sons and daughters was discussed (V aughn, Bos etal., 1988). Parents were reported to have spoken for anaverage of only 14.8% of the total conference time, and tohave asked questions less than one percent of the time. Thisfinding was somewhat surprising to the authors of the study ,who had anticipated that parents would be more likely toparticipate in and initiate questions during an IEP conferencein which the initial educational placement of their sons anddaughters was being considered.

Identification of barriers to parent participation. Havingcharacterized parent participation in IEP conferences asgenerally passive, a number of studies attempted to identifyfactors inhibiting a more active form of participation andstrategies that might help to overcome these barriers. Ingeneral, this literature tended to focus on either a perceivedlack of skills and information among parents, or negativeattitudes and behaviors among teachers.

Authors focused on barriers confronting parents sug-gested that in spite of the EHA ’s requirements, many parentshad insuf ficient knowledge of their children’ s disabilities andimplications for education programming, insuf ficientinformation on legal rights and procedures associated withspecial education, and a lack of skills and experience inparticipating as team members (Foster et al., 1981; Turnbull& Turnbull, 1990). The chief strategy proposed for overcom-ing such barriers was to involve parents in training programs,many of which were implemented in the early to mid-1980swith varying degrees of success (Foster et al., 1981; Gerber ,Banbury , & Miller, 1986). A retrospective look at some of

Furney & Salembier: Parent and Student Participation


114

the parent training programs concluded that those that werenot successful were limited by the fact that educators, ratherthan parents, generally identified the skills which were to betaught (Edge, Strenecky , McLaughlin, & Edge, 1984). Inaddition, some parent training programs were based in adeficit model that focused on the negative aspects of parentsand their children, and appeared to blame parents for theirchildren’s problems and/or their lack of participation in theIEP process (Foster et al., 1981; W itt, Miller, McIntyre, &Smith, 1984).

Other studies looked beyond parents to examine teacherperceptions and behaviors that might be inhibiting activeparent participation in the IEP process. In a commonly citedstudy, 1,500 special educators and teachers were asked toidentify which of 24 types of activities parents ought toengage in with regards to educational programming for theirchildren with disabilities (Y oshida, Fenton, Kaufman, &Maxwell, 1978). The study found that only two activities-gathering and presenting information-were selected by themajority of the study’ s participants as appropriate forparents. Activities which were not considered to be appropri-ate for parent participation included more active roles, suchas developing and judging programs, and finalizing educa-tional decisions. Thus, the authors concluded that theeducators who had participated in the study were defining“appropriate” parent roles in a passive rather than an activesense. Similarly , a study of 145 special educators from sixstates (Gerber et al., 1986) reported that only 50% of therespondents believed in the merit of parent participation inthe formulation of IEPs. Seventy-one percent agreed with thestatement that parents should be given an option to waive thelegal requirement of parental participation and place educa-tional decision making solely in the hands of professionals.

Along with teacher perceptions, some studies reportedteacher behaviors and practices that appeared to inhibit orpreclude the active participation of parents. These includedthe use of unexplained technical educational jargon in thereporting of test results, and insuf ficient amounts of timeallocated for IEP meetings (Hughes & Ruhl, 1987; W itt etal., 1984). A number of studies reported that educatorsfrequently presented parents with completed or nearlycompleted IEPs at IEP conferences and asked parents toagree to the documents rather than to help create it (Gerber etal., 1986; Goldstein et al., 1980; V acc et al., 1985). Thispractice was in direct violation of the EHA, and againindicated that some professionals lacked a belief in the valueof parent participation.

Researchers who viewed professional attitudes andbehaviors as the root of barriers to parent participationproposed that teachers receive increased opportunities fortraining in the beliefs and practices associated with parentparticipation in IEP development (Gerber et al., 1986;Hughes & Ruhl, 1987). Their suggestions included a need toexpand preservice and in-service teacher training programs

to include a greater focus on skills such as facilitatinggroups, communicating with parents in an open and non-threatening way , explaining test results in nontechnicalterms, and involving parents in decision making processes.In a related vein, W itt and colleagues (1984) suggested thatspecial educators change the structure of IEP meetings tofacilitate parent involvement. Based on parent descriptionsof factors that enhanced their satisfaction with IEP meetings,Witt et al. suggested that teachers extend the length of IEPmeetings, ask more questions of parents, and incorporateparent information in discussions and decision making. Eachof these suggestions implied that special educators and otherteachers were responsible for and could facilitate increasedinvolvement by parents.

The Paradox of Participation

On the whole, the studies conducted during the first 10years following the EHA suggested that parents whoparticipated in IEP development did so in a passive way .Some of the studies characterized the lack of active parentparticipation in a dichotomous way , viewing as related eitherto a lack of information and training on the part of parents, orto barriers posed by the attitudes and practices of theeducation professionals involved in the planning process.

Many of the studies, however , pointed to the need tounderstand parent participation in a more complex way . Afinding which was initially perplexing was that parents,including those who were characterized as passive partici-pants, reported that they were generally satisfied with theplanning process (Goldstein et al., 1980; W itt et al., 1984;Vaughn et al., 1988). This finding contradicted the widelyheld assumption that parents would be more satisfied by aprocess in which they were active participants, and not at allsatisfied with a process in which professionals maintainedcontrol over decision making. The literature of fered severalpotential explanations for this apparent contradiction,including limitations of the early studies (W itt et al., 1984),family systems perspectives (Benson & Turnbull, 1986;MacMillan & Turnbull, 1983; Turnbull & Turnbull, 1990),and multicultural perspectives (Boone, 1992; Harry , 1992a;Harry, 1992b; Sontag & Schacht, 1994; Stein, 1983).

Limitations of parent participation studies. In hindsight,it was noted that the sampling procedures and designs of anumber of the studies cited above contained some threats totheir validity that needed to be considered in the interpreta-tion of results, especially with regard to the issue of parentsatisfaction (T urnbull & Turnbull, 1990). Many of the initialstudies overlooked or were not able to gain informationabout participation from parents who might have been likelyto express dissatisfaction with the planning process. Some ofthe studies either noted that their samples did not includeparents from low-income or minority backgrounds, or

115

omitted this important information entirely . Studies involv-ing direct observation of IEP conferences were by design notable to include the population of parents who did not attendIEP meetings. A finding consistent across the studies wasthat mothers attended IEP meetings more frequently thanfathers, and were generally perceived to be more involved inthe education of their children with disabilities (Cone et al.,1985; Goldstein et al., 1980; L ynch & Stein, 1982; W itt etal., 1984). Thus, measures of parent participation andsatisfaction might in many cases have been more accuratelydescribed as measures of mothers’ participation in andperceptions of the IEP process. In general, the absence ofdata on fathers, parents from low-income and minoritybackgrounds, and parents who did not attend IEP meetingsconstituted a significant limitation of the early studies andmay have led to the impression that parents were moresatisfied with their participation in IEP meetings than wasactually the case.

Family systems perspectives. In the early to mid-1980s,some proponents of parent participation began to describe anapproach known as the family systems theory or familysupport model (Benson & Turnbull, 1986; Foster et al., 1981;Macmillan & Turnbull, 1983; Turnbull & Turnbull, 1990;Turnbull, Turnbull, Bronicki, Summers, & Roeder-Gordon,1989). This model proposed that educators needed tounderstand each family that included a child with a disabilityas a social system with unique characteristics and needs, and,as such, suggested changes in a whole range of educationalpractices and patterns of communication with parents.

The family systems model had several implications forthe issue of parent participation in IEP conferences. First, itsuggested that educators revisit the whole concept of parentparticipation (Benson & Turnbull, 1986; Turnbull &Turnbull, 1990). Whereas the EHA had created an expecta-tion that all parents would be involved in educationalplanning for their sons and daughters with disabilities, thefamily systems approach asked educators to consider thepossibility that some parents might choose to be lessinvolved, based on the needs of their individual familysystems. This way of thinking called upon educators to workwith families to establish individual family expectations forparticipation, rather than to define parent participationuniformly as meaning the active form of participationsuggested by the EHA. Thus, while the earlier literatureappeared to devalue parents’ satisfaction with a more passiverole in IEP development, the family systems model at-tempted to remove professional judgment as to the nature ofparticipation and to define parent participation more broadly(Benson & Turnbull, 1986; Macmillan & Turnbull, 1983). Itappears to be up for debate whether or not the familysystems perspective has had as profound an influence onpractice as Turnbull and others would have liked (Gallivan-Fenlon, 1994; Lichtenstein, 1993; Szymanski, 1994).

However , its ef fect on the concept of parent participation wasevident in the literature.

Multicultural perspectives. Beginning in the early1980s, a number of researchers also became interested inmulticultural issues related to parent participation in the IEPprocess (Boone, 1992; Harry , 1992a; Harry , 1992b; Sontag &Schacht, 1994; Stein, 1983). Their perspectives made severalcontributions to the literature on parent participation. First,on one level, these studies confirmed several of the findingsof the earlier studies. They also found that during IEPmeetings, parents acted primarily as recipients of informa-tion, asked few questions of professionals, seldom disagreedwith professional opinions, engaged little in decision makingaround their children’ s educational programs, and eitherreported or were described by others as being generallysatisfied with the IEP process (Boone, 1992; Harry , 1992a;Harry, 1992b; Sontag & Schacht, 1994; Stein, 1983). Theyfound some similar barriers to active parent participation,including parents’ lack of information about their children’ sdisabilities, the availability of educational and communityservices, and the legal and technical nature of specialeducation and the IEP planning process (Sontag & Schacht,1994; Harry , 1992a; Harry , 1992b).

The multicultural studies also raised new issues forconsideration. Studies including cross-cultural comparisonsof parent participation (Harry , 1992a; Sontag & Schacht,1994; Stein, 1983) suggested that parents of culturallydiverse backgrounds tended to experience even lower levelsof active participation in planning process than did parentswho were Caucasian and/or English-speaking. Parents ofdiverse backgrounds reported lower levels of confidence, andless knowledge of their roles and rights in the specialeducation system, than did white and English-speakingparents. For these parents, barriers to participation appearedto be increased by poverty , language and communicationbarriers, and logistical barriers, such as dif ficulties inattending meetings scheduled during work hours, and a lackof transportation and child care (Boone, 1992; Harry , 1992a;Harry, 1992b; Sontag & Schact, 1994; Stein, 1983).

In addition to logistical barriers, studies incorporatingmulticultural perspectives provided further support to thenotion that parent participation is a complex concept thatmust take into consideration family and cultural context.Harry’s (1992a) study of twelve low-income Puerto-Ricanparents of children with disabilities and the white, English-speaking teachers with whom they dealt in IEP meetingsconcluded that it was not accurate to simply describe parents’participation in IEP meetings as passive. Her observationsindicated that during IEP meetings, parents tended to abideby their cultural norms, and as such, deferred to the opinionsand wishes of professionals. While the teachers interpretedtheir “passive” behavior as reflecting a lack of interest inplanning and education as a whole, Harry’ s subsequent



116

interviews with parents indicated that their submission toauthority was accompanied by underlying feelings ofmistrust, intimidation, and inferiority . The parents found itdifficult to understand the language and processes associatedwith assessment, eligibility , and IEP planning; as such theyperceived the special education system to be rigid, confus-ing, and legalistic. To Harry, parent and professional relation-ships would be improved not by providing parents with moretraining, support, transportation, or child care, but by de-professionalizing special education, establishing a sense oftrust among school professionals and families, and creating asense of empowerment among families.

Parent Participation and Transition Planning

Introduction

During the late 1980s and subsequent to the 1990 IDEAmandate for transition planning, a second body of literatureemerged around the issue of parent participation andtransition planning. The earlier writings on the subject wereprimarily theoretical in nature, and included a rationale forinvolving parents in the transition planning process, as wellas a discussion of potential challenges. A smaller number ofresearch-based studies conducted since 1990 have exploredparent participation in the transition planning process. As awhole, the literature on parent participation in transitionplanning suggests that while some benefits and challengesmay be unique to the transition planning process, manyappear to mirror the benefits and challenges described in theearlier literature on parent participation in the IEP process.The section that follows focuses on four major themesemerging in the literature around parent participation intransition planning: (a) the purported benefits of involvingparents in the transition planning process, (b) the stressfulnature of the transition process, (c) potential barriers toparent participation in the planning process, and (d) empow-erment of parents as a goal of the transition planning process.

Benefits of Involving Parents in the Transition PlanningProcess

The literature identifies at least four potential benefits ofparent participation in transition planning. First, parents arebelieved to have the greatest amount of information availableon the skills, interests, needs, and desires of their sons anddaughters (Goodall & Bruder , 1986; Hasazi, Collins, &Cobb, 1988; Lombard & Neubert, 1994; Johnson, Bruininks,& Thurlow, 1987; W ittenstein, 1993). This information isperceived to be essential for transition planning teammembers, including adult-service providers and representa-tives of postsecondary education and training institutionswho are situated outside of the school and who need to learnabout the student’ s skills, needs, and preferences in order to

create individualized transition plans (DeStefano, Heck,Hasazi, & Furney , 1999; Lichtenstein, 1993).

Second, active parent participation in the transitionplanning process is seen as having the potential to prepareparents for the new roles they are likely to encounter as theirsons and daughters with disabilities make the transition toadulthood. Thorin and Irvin (1992) note that while parentsmay be able to rely on a special educator to provide casemanagement services for their child during high school,many students with disabilities will not be eligible for thesame level of services following their exit from high school.Active parent participation in the IEP and transition planningprocess is thus viewed as a means through which parents canbecome more skillful in participating in meetings andadvocating for their sons and daughters.

A third benefit of parent participation is the establish-ment of stronger parent-professional relationships andcollaborative planning processes that result in the develop-ment of future-oriented goals and objectives, and connec-tions to adult-service providers (Brown, Halpern, Hasazi, &Wehman, 1987; Chadsey-Rusch & Rusch, 1996; Furney ,Hasazi, & DeStefano, 1997; Lombard & Neubert, 1994;Salembier & Furney , 1998; W ittenstein, 1993). Both parentsand adult-service providers report that the transition to adultservices is facilitated when professionals have an opportunityto become acquainted with the interests and needs ofstudents with disabilities and their parents prior to graduationfrom high school. Fourth, increased parent participation inthe transition planning process is believed to have thepotential to promote a sense of empowerment among parentsand students that will help families assume some of theirnew roles and help youths navigate the complexities of theadult world (Carney & Atwood, 1998; Royster &McLaughlin, 1996; Salembier & Furney, 1994; Szymanski,1994; Wittenstein, 1993). Some authors maintain that parentparticipation in transition planning is related to positivepost-school outcomes for youth with disabilities (Chadsey-Rusch & Rusch, 1996; Izzo, 1989); others, however, suggestthat the relationship between parent participation in plan-ning and post-school outcomes for youth is inconclusive andneeds to be studied further (Gallivan-Fenlon, 1994; McNair& Rusch, 1991).

Family Stress and the Complexities of TransitionPlanning

Despite these potential benefits, parent participation inthe transition planning process appears to be challenged bythe complex nature of transition planning. Several authors ofresearch studies and theoretical articles on transition plan-ning have characterized the period of transition from highschool to adult life as a stressful time for families, particu-larly those with children with disabilities (Ferguson et al.,

117

1988; Szymanski, 1994; Thorin & Irvin, 1992). For the latter ,transition signifies a time in which parents and youth need todeal with changing individual and family needs, and a wholenew array of options, supports, and services (Hardman &McDonnell, 1987; Szymanski, 1994; Thorin & Irvin, 1992).Both students and parents may find it challenging to identifylong-term goals regarding employment, postsecondaryeducation and community living, especially those who find itdifficult to cope with the stress of daily living. The additionof adult-service providers to the transition team adds a newtechnical language for parents to negotiate and new commu-nity options and resources about which they need to learn(Gallivan-Fenlon, 1994).

The stress that many families experience is oftenexacerbated by the fact that the transition to adult life seemsinherently contradictory . For many families, transitionsignifies a period in which children become more indepen-dent and parental influence decreases. At the same time, theneed for parental involvement and advocacy in the commu-nity may be increasing (Ferguson et al., 1988; Nisbet et al.,1992). Ferguson and her colleagues describe this situation asposing the “complicated challenge of greater need andreduced involvement” (p. 177). Those parents needing tointeract with adult-service providers may find that this timeis characterized by a sense of movement from the familiarworld of the public school system to the unfamiliar anduncertain world of the adult-services system. While thepublic school system grants an entitlement to a free andappropriate education, the adult-service system operates on asystem of eligibility that often includes waiting lists forservices (Hardman & McDonnell, 1987; Thorin & Irvin,1992). Parents who do not perceive their increased role asadvocates to be desirable or possible may experience stressor anger about the planning process and the adult-servicesystem (Ferguson et al., 1988; Nisbet et al., 1992), andquestion the extent to which the ensuing responsibilitiesbelong to them or to schools and adult-service providers(Halpern, 1992).

Issues related to the need to conduct transition planningwithin a multicultural perspective continue to be addressedin the literature (Boone, 1992; Greene, 1996; Sileo, Sileo, &Prater , 1996). A lack of attention to ethnic, linguistic, andcultural diversity appears to be linked to poor communica-tion among parents and professionals, as well as the continu-ation of negative stereotypes related to ethnicity and socio-economic status.

Finally, while the IDEA legislation characterizes thetransition planning process in public schooling as one thathelps facilitate a student’ s movement from school to adultlife, several authors described transition in far less linearterms (Ferguson et al., 1988; Halpern, 1992; Szymanski,1994). Halpern (1992) notes that many recent high schoolgraduates require several years of experimentation andsearching before they assume satisfying adult roles in their

communities, while Szymanski (1994) views transition as aprocess that occurs during a person’ s entire life span andaffects the individual as well as his or her family andcommunity .

Results of Studies of Parent Participation in TransitionPlanning

While the recent literature of fers numerous commentar-ies on the benefits of parent participation and the features oftransition planning that need to be considered in promotingparticipation, few studies have specifically investigated thenature and degree of parent roles in the transition planningprocess. The results of those that have, however , suggest thatparent participation in transition planning remains a complexissue with challenges similar to those identified in earlierstudies of participation in the IEP process, including chal-lenges related to providing parents with adequate informa-tion and skills, encouraging active parent participationduring meetings, and fostering collaborative parent andprofessional relationships.

Challenges identified in studies of transition planning.Studies involving interviews with parents or direct observa-tions of IEP and transition meetings suggest that someparents continue to enter into IEP and transition planningwithout adequate information necessary for informeddecision making about potential options (Brotherson,Turnbull, Bronicki, Houghton, Roeder-Gordon, Summers, &Turnbull, 1988). As a result, many decisions about their sons’and daughters’ future employment and links to adult servicesare being made for them. Reports of parent participation intransition planning meetings suggest that while parentsparticipate in a variety of ways, their level of active partici-pation remains low , when active participation is defined asinitiating questions and conversations frequently duringmeetings (Gallivan-Fenlon, 1994; Salembier & Furney ,1997). One study of the school involvement of 85 parents oftransition-aged youth concluded that significantly moreparents desired to assume active roles in their transitionteams than had actually done so (McNair & Rusch, 1991). Astudy of culturally diverse parents that used a parent trainingstrategy to increase parent participation in transition planningfound no significant dif ferences between the degree andlevels of active participation of parents receiving and notreceiving the intervention (Boone, 1992).

Many of the recent studies on IEP and transitionplanning report that in general, parents do not characterizetheir relationships with educators and adult-service profes-sionals as being highly collaborative and/or leading to thekinds of parent-professional partnerships that are promotedin the literature (Brotherson et al., 1988; Salembier &Furney , 1997). Brotherson and colleagues (1988) concludedthat while parents valued the social support of family



118

members, friends, neighbors, and other adults with disabili-ties during the IEP and transition planning process, they wereless satisfied with the support of fered by professionals fromadult-service agencies. The parents in this study providedexamples of the ways in which professionals lacked sensitiv-ity, used educational jargon, and appeared unable to assistparents in solving problems and generating solutions.Interviews conducted with parents of former students withdisabilities one year following the students’ graduation(Salembier & Furney , 1997) indicated that while someparents were satisfied with their participation in meetingsand relationships with parents, those who were not satisfiedreported that they lacked good communication and strongrelationships with educators and adult services. Theseparents reported that while transition planning meetings wereimproved when certain meeting conditions were present(e.g., meetings were held at a convenient time and in acomfortable place, ample notice was given, the purpose ofthe meeting was reviewed prior to the meeting, etc.), thepresence or absence of parent-professional relationships andopen and continuous communication were most critical totheir overall assessment of their participation in the transitionplanning process.

Two studies with a slightly dif ferent emphasis focusedon the ef fects of incorporating person-centered planningstrategies into the transition planning context (Miner &Bates, 1997; Salembier & Furney , 1994). Both studiesutilized strategies designed to focus planning discussions onstudents’ needs, preferences, and interests within the schooland community context, and to develop student and family-centered transition plans based largely on student and parentinput. While the studies acknowledge the need for furtherresearch to determine the relationship between the use ofperson-centered strategies and student outcomes, theyconcluded that the use of such strategies resulted in increasedactive participation on the part of students and families, aswell as increased satisfaction with the planning process andthe development of stronger parent and professional relation-ships. In general, the more recent studies suggest thatoptimal parent participation cannot be achieved duringmeetings alone; rather , it needs to be fostered over timethrough a focus on developing strong relationships amongparents, educators, and adult-service providers.

Future Directions for Parent Participation in TransitionPlanning

The more recent studies of parent participation in thecontext of transition planning offer a number of suggestionsfor ways to enhance parent participation in the IEP andtransition planning process. One of these is to ensure thatparents received adequate information about options andresources that will allow them to make informed choices(Gallivan-Fenlon, 1994; Hardman & McDonnell, 1987).

Professionals are urged to listen, value, and act on thevoices of parents and students (Harry, 1992b; Lichtenstein,1993; Lichtenstein & Michaelides, 1993; Miner & Bates,1997; Salembier & Furney, 1994; Salembier & Furney,1997). Proponents of the family systems and multiculturalperspectives reiterate the need for professionals to under-stand family and cultural context and to involve parents inmaking informed choices about the nature of their participa-tion in IEP and transition planning (Boone, 1992). Otherssuggest that professionals and families learn to recognizethe complexity of the transition issue and its ongoing naturethroughout a person’s life span (Ferguson et al., 1988).Attempts to address the ongoing nature of transition may beenhanced by the development of collaborative interagencyteams in which responsibility for developing and imple-menting students’ plans are jointly assumed by students,parents, educators, and adult-service professionals(Carney & Atwood, 1998; Furney et al., 1997; Lombard& Neubert, 1994).

Finally, much of the current literature has articulated abelief in the need to promote a sense of empowermentamong students, families, and communities involved in thetransition process (Harry , 1992a; Harry , 1992b; Miner &Bates, 1997; Nisbet et al., 1992; Salembier & Furney , 1994;Salembier & Furney , 1997; Siegel & Sleeter , 1991;Szymanski, 1994). This viewpoint asserts that throughrecognizing the complex and ongoing nature of transitionwithin the culture of families and communities, and byplacing control over the future in the hands of parents andindividuals with disabilities, the transition planning processcan and should serve as a vehicle for empowering individu-als and families to become independent and determine theirown futures. Personal futures planning (Forest & Lusthaus,1989; O’Brien, 1987; Racino & W alker, 1993) suggests oneway to redirect the process from a professionally-orientedactivity to a consumer-directed activity . In addition, strate-gies focused on empowering families focus on the relational,rather than the behavioral aspects of participation, and looktoward the development of parent and professional partner-ships over time.

Student Participation and Self-Determination

Introduction

The emerging paradigm shift in conceptions of parentparticipation in IEP and transition planning-a shift from amodel emphasizing professional definitions of parentparticipation and professional control of the planningprocess, to a model emphasizing the need for increasedattention to family , cultural context, and the empowerment ofparents-finds parallel shifts in thinking around the role ofstudents in IEP and transition planning. This shift is noted infederal legislation, which added requirements pertaining to

119

student participation in transition planning in 1990, as wellas in the literature, where discussions of the need forincreased student participation and self-determination havebecome more prominent in recent years. Student participa-tion has, in fact, been defined largely through the concept ofself-determination for persons with disabilities. The latter isgenerally regarded as a cultural and political movement thatemphasizes the need to ensure that persons with disabilitieshave the skills and opportunities necessary for them toidentify their current needs and desires for the future, and totranslate these into the realization of career and life goals(Wehmeyer , 1996). The discussion that follows highlightshistorical developments in student participation and self-determination in transition, the rationale for increased self-determination within the IEP and transition planning process,and strategies for enhancing self-determination.

Historical Context of Self-Determination

The history of the self-determination movement forstudents has its roots in changing perceptions about the wayspersons with disabilities ought to have their needs identifiedand met, and accompanying changes in federal legislationand programming. W ard (1996), a spokesperson for personswith disabilities and one of the founders of the self-determi-nation movement in this country , traces the concept of self-determination to Nirje’ s (1976) normalization principle. Thisprinciple asserts that the aim of special education andservices to persons with disabilities ought to be to ensure thattheir lives were as close as possible to the cultural norms andconditions of mainstream society (Field, 1996). Althoughthe concept of normalization has not been without contro-versy , many believe that it helped give rise to the principlesof the least restrictive environment, mainstreaming, andinclusion in the field of special education. In a related way ,adult-services models have moved toward greater involve-ment of persons with disabilities and the emergence ofconsumer-choice models designed to promote greaterindependence (Sands & W ehmeyer , 1996). The IndependentLiving movement and the establishment of Centers forIndependent Living in the United States provide furtherevidence to support the notion that concepts of self-advocacyand self-determination have played an important role in thedevelopment of services to adults with disabilities (Field etal., 1998; W ard, 1996; W ehmeyer , 1996). W ithin each ofthese principles and practices is a belief that children, youth,and adults with disabilities are entitled to participate fully ascitizens of their schools and communities. To do so, how-ever , requires that they develop beliefs and skills that allowthem to believe in themselves and their capacities, and to acton their beliefs in the presence of family members andprofessionals.

Recognition of the need to promote self-determination isevident in recent federal legislation for persons with disabili-

ties, including the Americans with Disabilities Act (P.L. 101-336) and the requirements to involve students in transitionplanning specified in IDEA 1990 and 1997. In addition,legislation targeted at broader constituencies, including theSchool-to-W ork Opportunities Act (P.L. 103-239) and Goals2000: Educate America Act (P.L. 103-227), also includelanguage specifying the need to ensure full participation ofstudents with disabilities (Field, Martin, Miller , Ward, &Wehmeyer , 1998). The federal government’ s specificcommitment to enhancing self-determination for studentswith disabilities was evidenced by the establishment of 26model demonstration projects in self-determination, fundedby the U.S. Department of Education, Of fice of SpecialEducation and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS). Outcomesassociated with these projects have been disseminatednationally and were infused into many federally fundedtransition systems change projects in the early to mid-1990s(Field et al., 1998). It is important to note, too, that thevoices of students themselves have helped to inform devel-opments in self-determination (Field, 1996). The transitionmovement grew in large part out of the results of follow-upstudies conducted a decade after passage of the EHA(Hasazi, Gordon, & Roe, 1985; Mithaug, Horiuchi, &Fanning, 1985), which concluded that far too few youngadults with disabilities had adequate employment, livingsituations, and community experiences that would lead themto independence and satisfaction (Edgar , 1987).

Rationale for Promoting Self-Determination Within theIEP and Transition Planning Process

The literature provides a strong rationale for promotingself-determination within the IEP and transition planningprocess. W ehmeyer and W ard (1995) describe studentinvolvement as being at the heart of the transition servicesmandates of IDEA, and note that the transition planningprocess provides an opportune time for students to partici-pate in goal setting, decision making, and problem solving.The IDEA’s mandate to base transition plans on students’needs and interests sends a strong message about the need toinvolve students so that their preferences can be made knownto others. Students who are able to advocate for themselvesand to assume a self-determining stance are believed to havean increased sense of control and responsibility , which inturn helps to facilitate their successful transition from schoolto adult life (Field, Martin, Miller, Ward, & Wehmeyer, 1997).

The literature notes a relationship between self-determina-tion and research on career development (Halpern 1994;Kohler & Rusch, 1995; Ianacone & Kochhar, 1996). Super(1983) identified a number of cognitive factors related tosuccessful career development, including (a) information fordecision making, (b) decision-making skills, (c) self-knowl-edge, (d) work experience, (e) crystallization of personal valuesand interests, and (f) preferences in occupations. A number of



120

these factors overlap with those cited as important for thedevelopment of self-determination, and thus strengthen theargument for linking career and transition planning to thedevelopment of self-determination skills and attitudes.

A growing body of empirical evidence supports many ofthe assertions made around the need to promote self-determination for students with disabilities (W ehmeyer &Schwartz, 1998). In a study of students with cognitivedisabilities leaving school, W ehmeyer and Schwartz (1997)found that those students who appeared more self-deter-mined had more positive adult life outcomes than those whoappeared less self-determined. Similarly , adults with mentalretardation who were described as self-determined experi-enced a higher quality of life than those not considered self-determined. Other evidence suggests that students who areinvolved in educational planning and are described as self-determined are more likely to have feelings of self-worth andself-ef ficacy, and in turn, to achieve positive adult lifeoutcomes (W ehmeyer , Agran, & Hughes, 1998).

The evidence pointing to positive outcomes in associa-tion with the presence of self-determination is balanced bystudies indicating that negative outcomes may accompany alack of self-determination skills (Field, 1996). In spite ofattempts to enhance transition planning and the developmentof self-determination skills, the more recent follow-upstudies of the post-school experiences of youth with disabili-ties indicate that disability status continues to have a nega-tive effect on outcomes such as employment, participation inpostsecondary education, friendship, recreation and leisure,and overall satisfaction with life (Colley & Jamison, 1998;Siegel, Robert, W axman, & Gaylord-Ross, 1992; Sitlington,Frank, & Carson, 1993). Two studies of the perceptions ofyoung adults with mental retardation and learning disabilitieswho had dropped out of high school concluded that IEPconferences had not ef fectively involved these students inplanning for their futures, and cited students’ lack of partici-pation as a critical factor in their decisions to leave school(Lichtenstein, 1993; Lichtenstein & Michaelides, 1993). Intheir review of the literature on the transition of studentswith learning disabilities, Basset and Smith (1996) con-cluded that students with learning disabilities may be at agreater disadvantage than their peers with more significantdisabilities, as the former are often ineligible for supportfrom adult-service agencies upon their exit from high school.As such, they may face a lifetime of challenges and limitedopportunities. They of fer suggestions for improving thetransition planning process for these youth, including stepsnecessary to promote skills related to self-advocacy and self-determination.

Strategies for Enhancing Self-Determination

As described above, the rationale for promoting studentinvolvement and self-determination within the transition

planning process includes a sense of urgent need for schoolsto actively prepare students to assume self-determined lives.While a complete review of strategies designed to enhanceself-determination and student involvement in transitionplanning is beyond the scope of this literature review , a fewgeneral points will be made. First, it appears that ef forts topromote self-determination must be broad in scope and mustoccur over a period of time (Sands & W ehmeyer , 1996;Wehmeyer & Schwartz, 1997). That is, ef forts to promoteself-determination need to include (a) specific instruction inthe acquisition of skills related to self-advocacy and self-determination, (b) early student invovlement (e.g., beginningin elementary or middle school) in the IEP process, (c) totalstudent invovlement, including involvement in assessment,educational and career planning, and general educationaldecision making, (d) multiple opportunities for students topractice their skills in functional environments, and (e)multiple experiences in the school and community that allowstudents to validate their skills and continue to increase theirsense of choice, control, self-ef ficacy, and responsibility . Avariety of curricula related to the development of self-determination and self-advocacy skills are currently avail-able, and as described in the section on parent participation,person-centered planning strategies suggest a promisingpractice for enhancing self-advocacy and self-determinationamong students with disabilities and their parents (Miner &Bates, 1997; Salembier & Furney , 1994).

As Sands and W ehmeyer (1996) suggest, self-determina-tion is a concept that is easily extended to all students, andone that should be considered a necessary outcome ofsecondary education. The School-to-W ork Opportunities Actprovides one avenue for expanding current options forpromoting self-determination to students both with andwithout disabilities. At this time, however , few data areavailable to determine the degree to which these practices arebeing implemented on a broad scale and to determine therelative ef fectiveness of specific approaches. While theholistic and systems-wide approach to enhancing self-determination articulated in the literature has been embracedby many (Field et al., 1998), full implementation of thisapproach remains to be realized.

D i s c u s s i o n

Summary

Parent and student participation in the IEP and transitionplanning process are complex issues which have taken onnew meanings over time, but have been consistently de-scribed as exhibiting dif ferences between their rhetoric andreality. In the early part of the century , parents were fre-quently seen as the cause of their children’ s disabilities, andthus, were often excluded from decision making around theeducational and/or residential services provided to their sons

121

and daughters. From 1950 to 1975, unsatisfactory conditionsin residential institutions, communities, and schoolsprompted many parents across the United States to assumeadvocacy roles in their children’ s lives. This period wit-nessed the growth of parent advocacy organizations focusedon the needs of children with specific disabilities, a series ofclass action suits and other court cases in which parentssuccessfully argued for better educational conditions for theirchildren, and finally , passage of P .L. 94-142 in 1975. Thefederal law mandated new forms of parent participation,including participation in the special education evaluationand IEP planning processes, and guaranteed parents a seriesof rights, including the right to due process.

Following the EHA, most of the literature on parentinvolvement in special education focused on parents’participation in the IEP process. The early studies of parentparticipation characterized parents’ participation as “pas-sive,” hypothesizing that barriers to a more active form ofinvolvement were related to parents’ lack of knowledge andskills, and/or negative teacher attitudes and behaviors.Studies conducted in the early to mid-1980’ s expanded onthis conception of parent participation, concluding thatparents’ passive behavior did not always constitute satisfac-tion or agreement with educational decision making, andsuggesting that educators needed to take a more holisticapproach to understanding family systems and culturalcontext. These studies indicated that parent participationcould not be inferred solely from the behavior of parents andteachers during IEP meetings; rather , it needed to be under-stood as a dimension of parent-professional relationshipsemerging over time.

The 1990 IDEA mandate for transition planning as a partof the IEP process re-emphasized the need for parentparticipation in the planning process and added a require-ment for student participation. The mandate underscored theneed for active participation on the part of parents andstudents by stating that transition plans needed to be basedon students’ needs, preferences, and interests. The literatureon family systems, multicultural perspectives, and empower-ment seemed consistent with the intent of the IDEA, andmuch of the emerging literature spoke to the purportedbenefits of family participation in the transition planningprocess.

It is clear from the more recent literature, however , thatparent participation in the transition planning process bringswith it a new set of challenges for both families and profes-sionals. Many view transition as a complex process whichcontinues over the life span of individuals and has thepotential to af fect not only that individual, but his or herfamily and community . The literature speaks to the impor-tance of having professionals understand the ways in whichthe transition from high school to adult life changes the rolesof students, parents, and professionals, and may be stressfulto families.

Few empirical studies of parent participation in thetransition planning process exist in the literature, and thosethat do have generally investigated the issue in combinationwith other factors related to transition. The results of thesestudies appear to confirm some, though not all, of thefindings of earlier studies on general IEP participation. Thestudies on transition planning suggest that parents continueto participate in more passive than active ways, and that theylack information on the services and supports available tothem. The transition literature does, however , suggest that abroader view of participation may be emerging: one thatviews participation less as a behavior to be observed duringmeetings, and more as an outcome of strong parent andprofessional relationships that are developed over time andcharacterized by good communication.

The literature on student involvement in transitionplanning is more recent and is most often connected to theliterature on self-determination. It draws on the broader self-determination movement that took root in the 1970s in theprinciple of normalization and was realized in the emergenceof the Independent Living movement and Centers forIndependent Living for adults. The underlying beliefs andpractices associated with this movement were more clearlyarticulated for students with disabilities in the 1990 IDEAmandate for student involvement in transition planning andthe establishment of federally funded projects on self-determination. These historical and legislative developmentshave led to increased discussions about the need to promotestudent self-determination during high school in order tofacilitate students’ successful transition to adult life.

Strategies for increasing self-determination, includingcurricula targeted at teaching specific skills, and strategies(including person-centered planning processes) designed toenhance the context in which transition planning occurs,have become more prevalent in the literature during the past10 years. Such strategies have been accompanied by aholistic and systemic approach to enhancing self-determina-tion, in which it is argued that students both with and withoutdisabilities must be included in a movement to more activelyengage students in planning for their educational, career , andlife choices. Recent studies suggest that various approachesto increasing self-determination are in place in many schoolsand are associated with improved post-school outcomes forstudents. Even so, there is a felt need to continue to ensurewidespread implementation of the IDEA ’s mandate forincreased student involvement in transition planning, and therelated enhancement of self-determined attitudes and skillsamong youth with and without disabilities.

Conclusions

On the one hand, it would be easy to be discouraged bythis review of the literature, since the investigations of actualpractices regarding parent participation suggest that little has



122

changed since it was mandated 25 years ago. Gallivan-Fenlon’s (1994) conclusion that the process and outcomesassociated with transition planning have generally failed totranslate educational and political rhetoric into reality seemsat times painfully correct. Similarly , while the rationale forincreased student involvement and self-determination hasbeen well-established in the literature, we have not yetwitnessed major changes in the ways in which studentsparticipate in transition planning or the adult life outcomesthat they have experienced.

On the other hand, the theoretical and philosophicalforces that guide the research and discussion of its findingsseem to have grown in their scope, comprehensiveness, andunderstanding of these dif ficult and multifaceted issues. Theliterature suggests there is an increasing knowledge base on acollective definition of parent participation and the barriersto it. The contributions made by the family systems andmulticultural perspectives serve as a reminder that despitethe EHA’s intent to involve parents as partners in educationaldecision making, the IEP process has typically cast them in avulnerable role in which their knowledge and opinions areless valued than are those of professionals. These perspec-tives have contributed to the more recent focus on promotingparent empowerment and student self-determination, andhave been paralleled by the IDEA ’s mandate to includestudents in IEP and transition plan development and to basetransition plans on their needs, preferences, and interests.While practices have not necessarily kept pace with currentphilosophies of participation and empowerment, the litera-ture indicates there is an increase in both the breadth anddepth of thinking about ways to involve both parents andstudents in IEP and transition planning.

Directions for Further Research

The literature review clarifies at least four directions forfurther research, each of which would continue to add to theknowledge base around parent and student participation inIEP and transition planning, and as such, could contribute tothe development of promising practices. Both quantitativeand qualitative methods may be useful, depending on thenature of the questions being asked.

To begin with, there is an obvious need to know moreabout the status of student and parent participation intransition planning. Definitions of status could includeattendance (e.g., how many parents and students are attend-ing and participating in IEP conferences, and who are they?),levels and types of participation, and student/parent satisfac-tion with participation. The more recent literature onparticipation indicates that parents and students find theirparticipation enhanced when they have strong relationshipsand good communication with professionals. Future research

could explore this relational aspect of participation, as wellas ways to promote positive relationships among students,parents, and professionals.

Second, lessons learned from the early literature onparent participation suggest that future research shouldattempt to include parents and students of diverse culturalbackgrounds, and parents and students who do not currentlyattend IEP and transition planning meetings. Because theconcept of participation appears to mean dif ferent things todifferent people, it also seems important to learn more abouthow parents and students from diverse backgrounds defineparticipation, and in what ways their desired levels ofparticipation dif fer from the levels of participation that theyexperience.

To the extent that the research is able to identify barriersto participation, there is a need for studies on the ef fects ofstrategies designed to enhance student and parent participa-tion and student self-determination. Personal futures plan-ning models, which are based on the principles of empower-ment and choice for students and families, have beenproposed for addressing the issue of participation need to befurther explored to establish their ef fectiveness in promotingpositive outcomes associated with transition planning. Theliterature advocates for specific as well as systemic ap-proaches to enhancing self-determination among students,yet few studies have examined how these are established andmaintained, and/or what student outcomes are associatedwith them. In general, the base of knowledge around thecorrelation between parent and student participation andpostsecondary outcomes for youth with disabilities needs tobe expanded. It seems important to know whether or notimproved transition planning practices actually have the powerto produce changes in the lives of youth with disabilities.

Finally, it appears that a new direction for research willinclude studies that attempt to understand the interactionsbetween parents and students as they become partners in theeducational process. While their partnership seems impor-tant, it is likely that it will add new dimensions and potentialsources of conflict to the transition planning process.

As the issue of participation continues to be addressed,it will be important to continue to reflect on some of the hardlessons learned so far: that participation does not mean thesame to everyone, that there are no easy answers, and thateven in the best of situations, student and family participa-tion is not a panacea for solving all of the problems ofspecial education or guaranteeing positive school and post-school outcomes for students. Still, there seems to be goodreason to continue to explore the ways in which students,family members, and professionals can work together to planfor a smoother and more successful transition from school toadult life.

123

R e f e r e n c e s

Benson, H. A., & Turnbull, A. P. (1986). Approachingfamilies from an individualized perspective. In R. H.Horner , L. H. Meyer , & H. D. Fredericks (Eds.),Education of learners with severe handicaps: Exemplaryservice strategies (pp. 127-157). Baltimore: Paul H.Brookes Publishing Company .

Boone, R. (1992). Involving culturally diverse parents intransition planning. Career Development in ExceptionalIndividuals, 15(2), 205-221.

Brotherson, M., Turnbull, A., Bronicki, G., Houghton, J.,Roeder-Gordon, C., Summers, J., & Turnbull, H. (1988).Transition into adulthood: Parental planning for sonsand daughters with disabilities. Education and Trainingin Mental Retardation, 165-174.

Brown, L., Halpern, A. S., Hasazi, S. B., & W ehman, P .(1987). From school to adult living: A forum on issuesand trends. Exceptional Children, 53(6), 546-554.

Carney , I., & Atwood, B. (1998). Beyond good intentions:Full inclusion of parents on decision making teams. In F .Orelove & H. Garner (Eds.), Teamwork: Parents andprofessionals speak for themselves (pp. 31-52) W ashing-ton, DC: CWLA Press.

Chadsey-Rusch, J., & Rusch, F . (1996). Promising transitionpractices for youths with disabilities. ContemporaryEducation, 63(1), 9-12.

Colley, D., & Jamison, D. (1998). Post school results foryouth with disabilities: Key indicators and policyimplications. Career Development for ExceptionalIndividuals, 21(2), 145-160.

Cone, J. D., Delawyer , D. D., & Wolfe, V. V. (1985).Assessing parent participation: The parent/familyinvolvement index. Exceptional Children, 51, 417-424.

DeStefano, L., Heck, D., Hasazi, S., & Furney , K. (1999).Enhancing the implementation of the transition require-ments of IDEA: A report on the policy forum ontransition. Career Development for Exceptional Indi-viduals, 22(1), 85-100.

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

Edge, D., Strenecky , B. J., McLaughlin, J. A., & Edge, S. M.(1984). Involving parents and families in the educationalprocess. In C. A. Maher , R. J. Illback, & J. E. Zins(Eds.), Organizational psychology in the schools: Ahandbook for professionals (pp. 262-280). Springfield,IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Federal Register. (1977, August). W ashington, D.C.: U.S.Government Printing Of fice.

Ferguson, P ., Ferguson, D., & Jones, D. (1988). Generationsof hope: Parental perspectives on the transitions of theirchildren with severe retardation from school to adultlife. Journal of the Association for Persons with SevereHandicaps, 13(3), 177-187.

Field, S., Martin, J., Miller , R., W ard, M., & Wehmeyer , M.(1998). Self-determination for persons with disabilities:a position statement of the division on career develop-ment and transition. Career Development for Excep-tional Individuals, 21(2), 113-128.

Field, S. (1996). A historical perspective on student involve-ment in the transition process: Toward a vision of self-determination for all students. Career Development forExceptional Individuals, 19(2), 169-176.

Forest, M., & Pearpoint, J. (1992). Putting all kids on themap. Educational Leadership, 50(2), 26-31.

Forest, M., & Lusthaus, E. (1989). Promoting educationalequality for all students: Circles and maps. In S.Stainback, W . Stainback, & M. Forest (Eds.), Educatingall students in the mainstream of education (pp. 43-57).Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Foster , M., Berger , M., & McLean, M. (1981). Re-thinking agood idea: A reassessment of parent involvement. Topicsin Early Childhood Special Education, 1, 55-65.

Furney , K., Hasazi, S., & DeStefano, L. (1997). Transitionpolicies, practices, and promises: Lessons from threestates. Exceptional Children, 63(3), 343-355.

Gallivan-Fenlon, A. (1994). “Their senior year”: Family andservice provider perspectives on the transition fromschool to adult life for young adults with disabilities.Journal for the Association for Persons with SevereHandicaps, 19(1), 11-23.

Gerber , P. L., Banbury , M. M., & Miller, J. H. (1986).Special educators’ perceptions of parental participationin the Individual Education Plan process. Psychology inthe Schools, 23, 158-163.

Goldstein, S., Strickland, B., Turnbull, A.P., & Curry, L.(1980). An observational analysis of the IEP conference.Exceptional Children, 46(4), 278-286.

Goodall, P ., & Bruder , M. B. (1986). Parents and thetransition process. Exceptional Parent, 16(2), 22-28.

Greene, G. (1996). Empowering culturally and linguisticallydiverse families in the transition planning process.Journal for Vocational Special Needs Education, 19(1),26-30.

Halpern, A. S. (1994). The transition of youth with disabili-ties to adult life: A position statement of the Division onCareer Development and Transition. Career Develop-ment for Exceptional Individuals, 17, 115-124.

Halpern, A. S. (1992). Transition: Old wine in new bottles.Exceptional Children, 58(3), 202-218.

Hanline, M. F ., Suchman, S., & Demmerle, C. (1989,Winter). Beginning public preschool. Teaching Excep-tional Children, 61-65.



124

Hardman, M., Drew , C., & Egan, D. (1999). Human excep-tionality: School, society, and family. Boston: Allyn andBacon.

Hardman, M., & McDonnell, J. (1987). Implementingfederal transition initiatives for youths with severehandicaps: The Utah community-based transitionproject. Exceptional Children, 53(6), 493-498.

Harry, B. (1992a). An ethnographic study of cross-culturalcommunication with Puerto Rican-American families inthe special education system. American EducationalResearch Journal, 29(3), 471-494.

Harry, B. (1992b). Making sense of disability: Low-income,Puerto Rican parents’ theory of the problem. Excep-tional Children, 59(1), 27-40.

Hasazi, S., Collins, M., & Cobb, R. B. (1988). Implementingtransition programs for productive employment. In B. L.Ludlow, A. P. Turnbull, & R. Luckasson (Eds.), Transi-tion to adult life for people with mental retardation:Principles and practices (pp. 177-195). Baltimore, MD:Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company .

Hasazi, S. B., Gordon, L. R., & Roe, C. A. (1985). Factorsassociated with the employment status of handicappedyouth exiting high school from 1979 to 1983. Excep-tional Children, 53, 555-561.

Hughes, C. A., & Ruhl, K. L. (1987). The nature and extentof special educator contacts with students’ parents.Teacher Education and Special Education, 10(4), 180-184.

Ianacone, R. N., & Kochhar , C. A., (1996). Great expecta-tions: Perspectives on transition policy and practice inthe context of social change. Career Development forExceptional Individuals, 19(2), 177-200.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990, PublicLaw 101-476 (October 30, 1990). Title 20, U.S.C. 1400-1485: U.S. Statutes at large, 104, 1 103-1151.

Izzo, M. V. (1989). Critical points for involving parents inthe transition process. In G. F . Elrod (Ed.), Careereducation for special needs individuals: Learning,earning, contributing (pp. 155-163). Columbia, SC:Dance Graphics.

Johnson, D. R., Bruninks, R. H., & Thurlow, M. L. (1987).Meeting the challenge of transition service planningthrough improved interagency cooperation. ExceptionalChildren, 53(6), 522-530.

Lichtenstein, S. (1993). Transition from school to adult-hood: Case studies of adults with learning disabilitieswho dropped out of school. Exceptional Children,59(4), 336-47.

Lichtenstein, S., & Michaelides, N. (1993). Transition fromschool to adulthood: Four case studies of young adultslabeled mentally retarded. Career Development forExceptional Individuals, 16(2), 183-95.

Lombard, R. C., & Neubert, D. (1994). Collaborativetransition planning: Federal mandates and local solu-tions. B.C. Journal of Special Education, 18(1), 85-94.

Lusthaus, C. S., Lusthaus, E. W ., & Gibbs, H. (1981).Parents’ role in the decision process. ExceptionalChildren, 48(3), 256-257.

Lynch, E. W ., & Stein, R. (1982). Perspectives on parentparticipation in special education. Exceptional Educa-tion Quarterly, 3, 56-63.

MacMillan, D., & Turnbull, A. P. (1983). Parent involvementin special education: Respecting individual preferences.Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 4-9.

Miner, C. A., & Bates, P. E. (1997). The effect of personcentered planning activities on the IEP/transitionplanning process. Education and Training in MentalRetardation and Developmental Disabilities, 32(2),105-112.

McNair, J., & Rusch, F . R. (1991). Parent involvement intransition programs. Mental Retardation, 29(2), 93-101.

Mithaug, D. E., Horiuchi, C. N., & Fanning., P . N. (1985). Areport on the Colorado statewide follow-up survey ofspecial education students. Exceptional Children, 51,397-404.

Nirje, B. (1976). The normalization principle and its humanmanagement implications. In M. Rosen, C. R. Clark, &M. S. Kivitz (Eds.), The history of mental retardation:Collected papers (pp. 363-376). Baltimore: UniversityPark Press.

Nisbet, J., Covert, S., & Schuh, M. (1992). Family involve-ment in the transition from school to adult life. In F . R.Rusch, L. DeStefano, J. Chadsey-Rusch, L. A. Phelps, &E. M. Szymanski (Eds.), Transition from school to adultlife: Models, linkages and policy (pp. 407-424). Sy-camore, IL: Sycamore.

O’Brien, J. (1987). A guide to lifestyle planning: Using theActivities Catalog to integrate services and naturalsupport systems. In B. W ilcox & G. T. Bellamy (Eds.), Acomprehensive guide to the activities catalog: Analternative curriculum for youth and adults with severedisabilities (pp. 175-189). Baltimore: Paul H. BrookesPublishing Company .

Racino, J. A., & Walker, P. (1993). Whose life it is anyway:Life planning, choices, and decision making. In J. A.Racino, P . Walker, S. O’Connor & S. J. Taylor (Eds.),Housing, support, and community (pp. 57-80). Balti-more, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company .

Royster , A. J., & McLaughlin, T. F. (1996). Parent partner-ships in special education: Purposes, models andbarriers. B.C. Journal of Special Education, 20(2), 24-33.

Salembier , G., & Furney , K. S. (1997). Facilitating participa-tion: Parents’ perceptions of their involvement in theIEP/transition planning process. Career Development forExceptional Individuals, 20(1), 29-42.

125

Salembier , G., & Furney , K. S. (1994). Promoting self-advocacy and family participation transition planning.Journal for Vocational Special Needs Education, 17(1),12-17.

Salembier , G., & Furney , K. S. (1998). Speaking up for yourchild’s future. Exceptional Parent, 28(7), 62-64.

Sands, D. J., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (1996). Self-determinationacross the life span: Independence and choice forpeople with disabilities. Baltimore, MD: Paul H.Brookes, Publishers.

Siegel, S. R., Waxman, M., & Gaylord-Ross, R. (1992). Afollow-along study of participants in a longitudinaltransition program for youths with mild disabilities.Exceptional Children, 58, 346-356.

Siegel, S., & Sleeter, C. (1991). Transforming transition:Next stages for the school-to-work transition move-ment. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals,14(2), 27-41.

Sileo, T. W., Sileo, A. P., & Prater, M. A. (1996). Parent andprofessional partnerships in special education:Multicultural considerations. Intervention in School andClinic, 31(3), 145-153.

Sitlington, P. L., Frank, A. R., & Carson, R. (1993). Adultadjustment among high school graduates with milddisabilities. Exceptional Children, 59, 221-233.

Sontag, J. C., & Schacht, R. (1994). An ethnic comparisonof parent participation and information needs in earlyintervention. Exceptional Children, 60(5), 422-433.

Stein, R. C. (1983). Hispanic parents’ perspectives andparticipation in their children’s special educationprogram: Comparisons by program and race. LearningDisability Quarterly, 6, 432-439.

Super, D. E. (1983). Assessment in career guidance: Towardtruly developmental counseling. The Personnel andGuidance Journal, 61, 555-561.

Szymanski, E. M. (1994). Transition: Life-span and life-space considerations for empowerment. ExceptionalChildren, 60(5), 402-410.

Thorin, E. J., & Irvin, L. K. (1992). Family stress associatedwith transition to adulthood of young people withsevere disabilities. Journal of the Association forPersons with Severe Handicaps, 17(1), 31-39.

Turnbull, A. P. & Turnbull, H. R. (1990). Families, profes-sionals, and exceptionality: A special partnership.Columbus: Merrill Publishing Company.

Turnbull, H. R., Turnbull, A. P., Bronicki, G. J., Summers, J.A., & Roeder-Gordon, C. (Eds.). (1989). Disability andthe family: A guide to decisions for adulthood (pp. 5-11). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes PublishingCompany.

Vacc, N. A., Vallecorsa, A. L., Parker, A., Bonner, S., Lester,C., Richardson, S., & Yates, C. (1985). Parents’ andeducators’ participation in IEP conferences. Educationand Treatment of Children, 8(2), 153-162.

Van Reusen, A. K., & Bos, C. S., (1994). Facilitatingstudent participation in individualized programsthrough motivation strategy instruction. ExceptionalChildren, 60.

Vaughn, S., Bos, C. S., Harrell, J. E., & Lasky, B. A. (1988).Parent participation in initial placement/IEP conference:Ten years after mandated involvement. Journal ofLearning Disabilities, 21, 82-89.

Ward, M. J. (1996). Coming of age in the age of self-determination: A historical and personal perspective. InD. J. Sands & M. L. Wehmeyer (Eds.) Self-determina-tion across the lifespan (pp. 3-16). Baltimore: Paul H.Brookes.

Wehmeyer, M. (1996). Self-determination as an educationaloutcome: Why is it important for children, youth andadults with disabilities? In D. J. Sands & M. L.Wehmeyer (Eds.) Self-determination across thelifespan: Independence and choice for people withdisabilities (pp. 1-14). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Wehmeyer, M. L., Agran, M., & Hughes, C. (1998).Teaching self-determination to youth with disabilities:Basic skills for successful transition. Baltimore, MD:Paul H. Brookes Publishers.

Wehmeyer, M. L., & Schwartz, M. (1997). Self-determina-tion and positive adult outcomes: A follow-up study ofyouth with mental retardation or learning disabilities.Exceptional Children, 63, 245-255.

Wehmeyer, M. L., & Ward, M. J. (1995). The spirit of theIDEA mandate: Student involvement in transitionplanning. Journal of Vocational Special Needs Educa-tion, 17, 108-111.

Wehmeyer, M. L., & Schwartz, M. (1998). The self-determination focus of transition goals for students withmental retardation. Career Development for Excep-tional Individuals, 21(1), 75-86.

Witt, J. C., Miller, C. D., McIntyre, R. M., & Smith, D.(1984). Effects of variables on parental perceptions ofstaffings. Exceptional Children, 51(1), 27-32.

Wittenstein, S. H. (1993). A parent-professional collabora-tion model of transitional planning. Journal of VisualImpairment and Blindness, 87(6), 227-229.

Yoshida, R. K., Fenton, K. S., Kaufman, M. J., & Maxwell,J. P. (1978). Parental involvement in the specialeducation pupil planning process: The school’s perspec-tive. Exceptional Children, 44(7), 531-534.



126

Author Information


Katharine S. Furney, Ph.D.; University of Vermont, CESS, Department of Special Education, W aterman Building Room499, Burlington, VT 05405-0160, 802/656-1354, [email protected]

George Salembier,Ph.D.; University of Vermont, CESS, Department of Special Education, W aterman Building Room 499,Burlington, VT 05405-0160, 802/656-1354, [email protected]

127

Robert J. MillerMinnesota State University, Mankato

Richard C. LombardUniversioty of Wisconsin-Whitewater

Michael N. HazelkornWisconsin Dells School District, Wisconsin Dells, Wisconsin

8Teacher Attitudes and Practices Regarding theInclusions of Students With Disabilities inSchool-to-Work and Technical Preparation Programs:Strategies for Inclusion and Policy Implications


During the past 15 years there has been much discussionof the changes needed in public education. Among thecompeting and complementary education initiatives identi-fied by scholars and community members is the reemergenceof interest in meaningful vocational education for allstudents. The renaissance of interest in vocational educationhas been influenced by numerous factors including: (a) highnational dropout rates for all students, (b) continuingcriticism by employers that students are leaving high schoolwithout the skills necessary to find and maintain meaningfulwork, and (c) systemic changes in the nature of work inAmerica (Lombard, Miller , & Hazelkorn, 1998).

For students with disabilities, Field, Martin, Miller ,Ward, and W ehmeyer (1998) confirmed that many youngadults are making the transition to adult life without theskills required to be successful members of society . Too fewpersons with disabilities live independently , are employed ata living wage, or are competitively employed in a full-timecapacity (e.g., Hasazi, Gordon, & Roe, 1985; Siegel, Robert,Waxman, & Gaylord-Ross, 1992; Sitlington, Frank, &Carson, 1992). Fairweather and Shaver (1991) noted that fartoo few persons with disabilities are continuing inpostsecondary education to learn the employment skillsneeded for the twenty-first century .

Among the issues addressed in the Individuals withDisabilities Education Act (IDEA) Amendments of 1997 isthe concern for ef fective and appropriate transition planningfor students with disabilities. According to IDEA 1997, “one

of the primary purposes of the IDEA is to . . . ensure that allchildren with disabilities have . . . a free appropriate publiceducation that emphasizes special education and relatedservices designed to meet their unique needs and preparethem for employment and independent living” [Sec.300.1(a)]. IDEA addresses the need for transition planningfor youth with disabilities and includes additional require-ments for transition planning under Section 300.347 (b), (c),and (d). First, beginning at age 14 (or younger , if determinedto be appropriate by the IEP team) and updated annually ,students are guaranteed that IEPs will include a statement oftransition service needs under the applicable components ofthe students’ IEPs that focus on the students’ courses of study(such as participation in advanced-placement courses or avocational education program). Second, beginning at age 16(or younger , if suitable), a statement of needed transitionservices for the student will be included when appropriate,including a statement of the interagency responsibilities orany needed linkages to be included in the IEP . Third, IDEA(1997) now requires that beginning at least one year beforethe student reaches the age of majority under state law ,students must be informed of their rights that transfer at theage of majority and the IEP must contain a statement that theindividual has received this notification. The new focus onstudents’ rights at the age of majority reflects the growingrecognition of the importance of students’ rights and self-determination.

The importance of individualized transition planning forstudents with disabilities as required contents of the IEPunder IDEA cannot be overestimated since one of the

Abstract: An important element for the successful inclusion of students with disabilities in school-to-work systems andtechnical preparation programs is educators’ attitudes. A national survey was administered to 278 school-to-work and tech prepeducators concerning practices, accommodation strategies, and teacher attitudes regarding the inclusion of students withdisabilities in school-to-work and tech prep programs. Sixty-one percent (61%) or 169 of the 278 questionnaires originallydisseminated were returned, representing 45 states. This research found six critical concerns with policy ramifications. Thisarticle summarizes these findings and provides discussion and recommendations for addressing these concerns. Recommenda-tions include providing professional development opportunities for general and special education personnel involved in imple-menting school-to-work programs serving all students; and establishing collaboration between general and special educationpersonnel to address the specific learning needs and accommodations required for students with disabilities to participate in thefull range of school-to-work activities and programs being developed nationally.


128

fundamental goals of education is to prepare students withdisabilities for employment and independent living. Therequirements as identified in IDEA 1997 are fully compatiblewith other federal legislation (e.g., the Carl D. PerkinsVocational and Applied Technology Education Act of 1998(P.L. 105-332) and the School-to-W ork Opportunities Act of1994 (P . L. 103-239)) which has been passed by Congress toensure all students access to meaningful integrated vocationaleducation while in high school and beyond.

The Carl Perkins V ocational and Applied TechnologyEducation Act of 1998 provides authorization for funding ofTechnical Preparation programs. Technical Preparation (techprep) programs are defined as programs with a common coreof required proficiency in math, science, reading, writing,communications, and technologies [section 204(c) (2)], thatstrengthen the applied academic component of vocationaland technical education through the integration of academicand vocational and technical education [section 2(26)]. Techprep programs consist of at least two years of secondaryschool preceding graduation and two or more years of highereducation or an apprenticeship program of at least two years[section 204 (c) (2)], leading to high-skill, high-wageemployment, or further training [section 202 (a) (3) F)].Section 204 (c) (6) of this legislation provides for equalaccess for special populations to tech prep programs. Specialpopulations as defined in the 1998 Perkins legislation includestudents with disabilities. According to Mathematica PolicyResearch, as referenced in the Career Pathways Report(1998), access to some form of tech prep programming isnow fairly widespread for many students with more than1,000 tech prep consortia nationwide.

The School-to-W ork Opportunities Act of 1994 extendsthe reform ef forts of technical preparation programs byproviding a framework to prepare all students for work andfurther education and to increase the opportunities for allstudents to enter first jobs in high-skill, high-wage careers(U.S. Department of Education, 1994a). The School-to-W orkAct encourages the use of existing programs (such as techprep) within educational reform to build a school-to-worksystem that makes sense of educational components (Benz &Kochhar , 1996). According to Benz and Kochhar , the threecomponents in a comprehensive school-to-work system areschool-based learning, work-based learning, and activitiesthat connect school and work. School-to-work componentsare designed to (a) encourage all students to stay in schooland attain high standards of occupational and academicachievement; (b) make education more meaningful tostudents by integrating academic and occupational activities;and (c) enhance students’ opportunities for employment andlearning by building partnerships between postsecondaryschools, secondary schools, employers, community agencies,parents, and students (U.S. Department of Education, 1994a;U. S. Department of Labor , Education and Training Admin-istration, Of fice of Work-based Learning, 1992). According

to Danzig, Cobb and Mister (1998), unlike other educationalreforms, the school-to-work system is accountable tomultiple and often competing constituents including stu-dents, educators, parents, local business communities, andmultiple state agencies.

If school-to-work systems and tech prep programs are tobe for all students and if IDEA 1997 is to ensure that allstudents with disabilities have available to them a free andappropriate public education designed to prepare them foremployment and independent living, then vocationalprograms must be designed to be more inclusive of studentswith disabilities and other special needs populations.Educators must utilize support services, employer/educatortraining, and other equity components to ensure that mean-ingful vocational education is inclusive of all students,including students with disabilities.

Educators’ attitudes toward accommodating studentswith disabilities in their classrooms will also af fect thesuccess of individuals who are included in school-to-worksystems and tech prep programs. In a study of generaleducators, Schumm and V aughn (1991) found teachersconsidered most classroom adaptation to be more desirablethan feasible. Adaptations considered most feasible includedthose related to the social or motivational well-being ofstudents, and those considered least feasible includedadapting regular materials, using alternative materials, andproviding individualized instruction. Schumm and V aughn(1992) conducted a second survey to investigate generaleducation teachers’ perceptions and planning practices forteaching students with disabilities in the general educationclassroom. Teachers reported little differential planning forstudents with or without disabilities other than ongoing andspontaneous adaptations such as extra help with assignments ortests. Teacher attitudes have great effect on the successfulimplementation of school-to-work initiatives with someteachers fearful to change and reluctant to devote the time andeffort required to learn and incorporate new ways of teachingand learning into their instruction, curriculum, and classroommanagement. According to Brown (1998) teacher attitude is amajor barrier to the success of school-to-work efforts.

The purpose of this chapter is two-fold. First, the authorswill summarize the findings of a research study conducted ona national sample of school-to-work and tech prep educatorsregarding educators’ attitudes and practices toward theinclusion of students with disabilities in secondary school-to-work programs. Second, the authors will make policyrecommendations that address the barriers to the fullinclusion of students with disabilities in school-to-worksystems and tech prep programs as required by federal law .

National Study Research Summary

In 1997, Lombard, Miller , and Hazelkorn conducted anational survey of school-to-work and technical preparation

129

educators’ attitudes and practices regarding the inclusion ofstudents with disabilities into secondary programs. Educatorswere randomly selected from a list of tech prep personnel foreach of the 50 states found in the National Directory of TechPrep and School-to-W ork Personnel (Center for Occupa-tional Research and Development on Tech Prep, 1995). Of300 school-to-work and tech prep teachers randomly selectedfor this survey , a total of 278 agreed to participate.

Lombard, Miller , and Hazelkorn redesigned a preexist-ing instrument called the Coates Questionnaire (Coates,1989) in order to answer the following four research questions:

1. What are the attitudes of educators toward theinclusion of students with disabilities in school-to-work and tech prep courses?

2. What inclusionary practices and procedures are beingutilized by educators to insure the inclusion ofstudents with disabilities in school-to-work and techprep courses?

3. How much in-service training are educators receivingregarding the inclusion of students with disabilitiesto insure their inclusion in school-to-work and techprep courses?

4. What post-school outcomes do educators believe areattainable for students with disabilities who haveparticipated in school-to-work and tech prep courses?

In addition, the questionnaire was structured to providedemographic data pertaining to the size of the school wherethe respondent worked and his or her gender , teachingexperience, and primary teaching assignment. The instru-ment included 14 items related to the inclusion of studentswith disabilities in school-to-work or tech prep programs.

Items that were designed to determine teacher attitude andpractices were evaluated by use of a five-point Likert typescale. On items dealing with educators’ personal experiencesor beliefs about inclusion, teachers were able to choose froma set of four options. Of the 278 questionnaires originallydisseminated, 169 (61%) were returned, representing 45(90%) states.

Demographics

Ninety-eight of the 169 teachers (58%) indicated thatthey were teaching in high schools with more than 1000students, 47 (28%) were working in medium-size schoolswith between 500 and 1000 students, and the remaining 24teachers (14%) indicated that they were working in schoolswith fewer than 500 students. A total of 96 (57%) werefemales and 73 (43%) were males. Seventy-seven (46%) ofthe participants had more than 20 years of teaching experi-ence, 71 (42%) had between 7 and 20 years of experience,and 21 (12%) of the respondents had been teaching for 6years or less.

Research Question #1 (Attitudes of educators toward theinclusion of students with disabilities in school-to-work andtech prep courses)

In response to questions regarding the inclusion ofstudents with disabilities in school-to-work and tech prepcourses, the majority of respondents (58%) indicated that theskills needed to teach students with and without disabilitieswere not the same. More than one half (54%) of the respon-dents agreed that they would be able to meet the needs ofstudents with disabilities enrolled in their courses if given

Question Agree Undecided Disagree

1. Are the skills needed to teach students withand without disabilities the same? 32% 10% 58%

2. Would you be able to meet the needs of studentswith disabilities enrolled in your courses if givenadditional preparation and training? 54% 26% 20%

3. Would you be able to meet the needs of studentswith disabilities enrolled in your courses if givenadditional consultative support fromspecial education staf f? 53% 25% 22%

4. If given an ef fective set of methods, materials, andtechniques, would it be possible to modify the curriculumfor students with disabilities without detracting fromlearner outcomes for all students? 51% 21% 28%

Table 1. Questions and Data Pertaining to Teacher Attitudes About Inclusion

Miller et al: Teacher Attitudes and Practices


130

additional preparation and training to do so. About the samenumber (53%) of the respondents indicated that, with supportfrom special education staf f, the educational needs ofstudents with disabilities could be met in their courses.Slightly more than half (51%) of the respondents agreed thatgiven an ef fective set of methods, materials, and techniques,it would be possible to modify the curriculum for studentswith disabilities without detracting from learner outcomesfor all students (see Table 1).

Respondents also were asked to characterize their ownattitudes and the attitudes of their colleagues toward theinclusion of students with disabilities in school-to-work ortech prep courses (see Table 2). Regarding the inclusion ofstudents with disabilities in their courses, more than one-third (39%) of the teachers rated the attitudes of theircolleagues as positive. When asked about their own attitudesregarding inclusion, more than half (51%) of the secondaryteachers rated their attitudes as positive.

Research Question #2 (Inclusionary practices and proce-dures being utilized by educators to ensure the inclusion ofstudents with disabilities in school-to-work and tech prepcourses)

More than half (58%) of the respondentsreported that no assistance was provided byspecial education staf f to make course modi-fications. Slightly more than one-third (38%)of the teachers reported that career interestsand abilities determined the placement of stu-dents with disabilities in their courses. Forty-three percent indicated that guidance and coun-seling personnel did not routinely assist stu-dents with disabilities in choosing appropri-ate school-to-work or tech prep courses (seeTable 3).

Twenty percent of the teachers reported that at least 50%of the time they participated in the development of IEPs forstudents with disabilities who enrolled in their courses. Seven-teen percent of the respondents indicated that they participatedin the IEP process at least 25% of the time, but the majority ofteachers (62%) reported that they never participated in the de-

velopment of IEPs for students with disabilities who enrolledin their courses.

Participants in the study were asked if their schooldistricts were implementing a school-to-work or tech prepmodel that advocated the inclusion of students with disabili-ties. Forty-six percent of the teachers reported that the localmodel did advocate the inclusion of students with disabili-ties. Slightly more than half (53%) indicated that the localschool-to-work or tech prep model did not advocate for theinclusion of students with disabilities.

Research question #3 (In-service training for educatorsregarding the inclusion of students with disabilities inschool-to-work and tech prep courses)

Seven percent of the respondents reported that they hadreceived 12 or more hours of in-service training related toinclusion, 14% indicated that they had received between 6and 12 hours of in-service training, and 30% of the teachers

reported having had between 1 and 5 hours of training.Slightly less than half (49%) indicated that they had notreceived any in-service training related to inclusionarypractices for students with disabilities.

Research question #4 (Post-school outcomes forstudents with disabilities who have participated inschool-to-work and tech prep courses)

Sixty-five percent of the teachers indicated thatschool-to-work and tech prep programs adequatelyprepare students with disabilities for employment and55% reported these programs prepare students with

disabilities for apprenticeship programs after high school.Slightly more than half (53%) of the teachers reported thatvocational/technical schools were realistic outcomes, and

40% indicated that two-year community colleges werereachable outcomes for students with disabilities. Only 3%of the respondents reported that four-year colleges oruniversities were attainable for students with disabilities whohad participated in school-to-work or tech prep programs.

Question Positive Neutral Negative

1. How would you characterize theattitudes of your STW and tech prepcolleagues regarding the inclusion ofstudents with disabilities? 39% 36% 25%

2. How would you characterizeyour own attitude regarding theinclusion of students with disabilities? 51% 27% 22%

Table 2. Questions and Data Pertaining to Perceived andPersonal Attitudes About Inclusion

Question Yes Unsure No

1. Have you received assistance from special educationstaff to make course modifications? 23% 19% 58%

2. Do career interests and abilities determine theplacement of students with disabilities in your courses? 38% 28% 34%

3. Do guidance and counseling staff routinely assiststudents with disabilities in choosing appropriatecourses of study? 31% 26% 43%

Table 3. Questions and Data Pertaining to Inclusive Practices/Procedures

131

Discussion and Policy Implications

Issue One: The findings of this national study suggestthat there is a significant lack of in-service training and staf fdevelopment regarding methods, materials, and strategies tomeet the educational needs of persons with disabilities forteachers in school-to-work and tech prep programs. Thefindings of this study suggest that nearly eight out of 10teachers (79%) received five hours or less of in-servicetraining to facilitate the inclusion of students with disabilitiesin their school-to-work program. Slightly less than half(49%) indicated that they received no in-service trainingrelated to inclusionary practices for students with disabilities.This lack of in-service training for school-to-work and techprep educators is unacceptable and puts at risk the successfulinclusion of students with disabilities in these criticallyimportant vocational education programs.

These findings are consistent with the recently publishedreport by the National Center for Educational Statisticsregarding the preparation and qualifications of public schoolteachers (Lewis, Parsad, Carey , Bartfai, Farris, & Smerdon,1999). This report noted that fewer than two out of ten (19%)teachers spent more than 8 hours in a year on professionaldevelopment activities to address the needs of students withdisabilities despite the fact that teachers report that profes-sional development of longer duration is more ef fective.Clearly, schools are not really investing in the inclusion ofall students in school-to-work and technical preparationprograms as required by law .

IDEA 1997 contains the language to address this issue.Section 300.380 (a) (2) states that each state shall developand implement a comprehensive system of personneldevelopment that is designed to ensure an adequate supply ofqualified special education, regular education, and relatedservices personnel. Section 300.382 (improvement strate-gies) requires that each state describe how the state willaddress the identified needs for in-service and preservicepreparation to ensure that all personnel who work withchildren with disabilities (including general education andrelated services personnel) have the skills and knowledgenecessary to meet the needs of children with disabilities. Themandate for preservice and in-service preparation of teachersis in the law . Unfortunately , the findings of this studysuggest a lack of successful implementation of these require-ments of the law .

Policy Implications: At a federal level, this apparent lackof in-service training appears to be an issue of monitoringand enforcement. These authors would suggest increasedvigilance as well as some specific strategies to focus stateson this important issue. Grant applications originating fromthe U.S. Department of Education should require applicantsto demonstrate how moneys will be utilized to provide staf fdevelopment opportunities for educators who instruct

students with disabilities. Moreover , continuation proposalsshould only be approved if the applicants can providedocumentation as to how much staf f development wasprovided to general educators and others who instructstudents with disabilities. Levels of monitoring for this issueshould be increased.

At the state level, this apparent lack of in-servicetraining may once again be an issue of enforcement andmonitoring while at the local district level this may be anissue of too many competing mandates with too little moneyand too little time to address all of these mandates. Localdistricts are often faced with many competing federal andstate mandates as well as constraints regarding the number ofin-service days available. For example, the local district mayhave five in-service days for the year based on their contrac-tual agreement with the teachers’ union. How will they spendthese five days of in-service? Many issues and constituen-cies compete for this limited time. Danzig et al. (1998)suggested that school-to-work must compete with othereducational reforms, most notably standards-based educa-tion, to capture the attention of school personnel, to obtainadministrative support and to engage the talents and energiesof teachers. In-service training for the inclusion of studentswith disabilities is a single (although critical) aspect of in-service issues related to the school-to-work movement.Perhaps one strategy to circumvent the limited number of in-service days during the school year would be for states tofund summer institutes to provide in-service training forschool-to-work, tech prep educators, and other generaleducators in methods, materials, and strategies to meet theeducational needs of all students participating in theirprograms. For example, these summer institutes for in-service training of school-to-work and tech prep educatorscould become a funding priority in State ImprovementGrants (SIGs). Ultimately , the federal and state governmentsmust review and prioritize competing mandates to assistlocal districts in designing plans of action that address thisand other critically important in-service needs.

With an increased focus on the importance of staf fdevelopment and in-service training, state departments ofeducation can also play an important role in preparingteachers to include students with disabilities in their class-rooms. In many states, a teacher cannot be licensed to teachin special education programs without taking extensivecourse work in the general education curriculum such asmath, reading, language arts, and related academic methodsclasses. Unfortunately , individuals seeking licensure ingeneral education are often not required to take any methodscourses in special education. Consequently , general educa-tion teachers may begin their careers without the knowledgeand skill required to fully include students with disabilitiesand without any experience in strategies to make meaningfulaccommodations in curricula. State departments of educationcould easily modify existing licensure requirements for



132

elementary and secondary teachers to include one or moremethods courses in special education.

In addition to the federal and state initiatives indicatedabove, activities undertaken at the local level can alsoenhance the ability of general educators to meet the needs ofstudents with disabilities. One promising method is todevelop co-teaching teams consisting of general and specialeducators. Use of the co-teaching model allows generaleducation staf f to learn about inclusionary practices bycollaborating with special educators in the general educationsetting. Conversely , special educators will learn more aboutthe general education curriculum as they observe and workwith general education staf f. Local districts can also promotejoint curriculum development between general and specialeducation staf f. By developing curriculum jointly , specialand general educators can ensure that the instructional needsof all students are met and that instructional modificationsand curriculum accommodations are provided to each andevery student that needs them.

Issue Two: The findings of this national study suggestthat there is a lack of participation in the IEP process byschool-to-work and tech prep educators. Specifically , nearlytwo out of three (62%) secondary educators surveyed hadnever participated in the development of IEPs for studentswith disabilities enrolled in their courses. Certainly , it isquestionable how often an annual goal focused on thedevelopment of vocational skills was included in the IEP ofstudents participating in these school-to-work and tech prepclassrooms. Second, one must wonder at the quality of theexisting vocational goals written for students in classroomswhere school-to-work educators have never participated inthe development of the IEP for students enrolled in theircourses.

Section 300.344 (a) (2) of IDEA 1997 has addressed theissue of requiring inclusion of a regular education teacher asa member of the IEP team. This change in IDEA requiresthat if a child is, or may be, participating in the regulareducation environment at least one regular education teacherof the child be included in the IEP team.

Policy Implications: Given the findings of this study andthe focus of IDEA on preparation of students with disabilitiesfor employment and independent living [Sec. 300.1(a)}, thefederal government may choose to consider expanding therequirement for participation of one regular educationteacher as a member of the IEP team to include the requiredparticipation of a vocational educator for students who areparticipating in general vocational education programs. Thiswould increase the likelihood that each student with adisability was accessing a high school course of studyconsistent with the student’ s postsecondary education oremployment goals. Moreover , participation of school-to-work vocational educators in the IEP process would enable

the IEP team to develop curricular and instructional accom-modations tailored to the specific needs of the studentsenrolled in the program.

An alternative to the mandated participation of voca-tional educators in the IEP process is the provision of courseinformation such as entry level skills, grading options,testing options, instructional support practices, etc. Thismandatory data would then be reviewed as part of the IEPprocess.

Issue Three: The findings of this national study suggestthat special educator personnel are not assisting school-to-work and tech prep educators in making course modifica-tions. Nearly six out of ten (58%) survey respondentsreported no assistance was provided by special educationstaf f to make course modifications. It is dif ficult for school-to-work and tech prep teachers to individualize the curricu-lum given (a) minimal training and in-service support; (b)minimal involvement in the IEP planning process; and (c) noassistance in designing course modifications and accommo-dations.

Section 300.347(a)(3)(iii) requires that the IEP for eachchild with a disability must include a statement of the specialeducation and related services and supplementary aids andservices to be provided the child, or on behalf of the child,and a statement of the program modifications or supports forschool personnel that will be provided for the child to beinvolved and progress in general education. This section ofIDEA is a key requirement for meaningful access to thegeneral education curriculum and meaningful participation inschool-to-work and tech prep programs. Unfortunately , thefindings of this research bring into question whether specialeducators are providing this support to school-to-work andtech prep educators as required by law and whether specialeducators fully understand their role as case managers in theIEP process.

Policy Implications: Under IDEA, students withdisabilities are guaranteed a free and appropriate publiceducation (Section 300.300) in the least restrictive environ-ment [Section 300.550 (b) (1) (2)]. However , there is nospecific requirement in IDEA for collaborative planningbetween special educators and general educators. Theseauthors suggest mandatory collaborative planning to (a)examine the full range of academic and vocational courseoptions for students, (b) determine program placement basedupon students interests and abilities, (c) identify discrepantskills which exist between the student skill base and theentry level skills required in a specific vocational program,(d) determine the level of need for curriculum and/orinstructional accommodations, (e) develop a plan to providecurriculum and/or instructional accommodations, and (f)develop a plan for special educators and vocational educatorsto monitor student performance during program participation.

133

Issue Four: The findings of this national study bring intoquestion whether career interests and abilities determine theplacement of students with disabilities in school-to-work andtech prep courses. IDEA defines transition services as a“coordinated set of activities for a student with a disabilitythat is designed within an outcome oriented process, thatpromotes movement from school to post-school activities,including postsecondary education, vocational training, andintegrated employment” [Section 300.29 (1)]. Transitionservices are to be based on the individual student’ s needs,taking into account the student’ s preferences and interests.Section 300.29 (2) of IDEA is, therefore, very specific thatthe preferences and the interests of the student must be takeninto account in the design of the transition plan. This studyrevealed that career interests and abilities were seldomexamined with respect to the enrollment of students withdisabilities in secondary programs. In fact, fewer than fourout of ten (38%) school-to-work and tech prep teachers wereconfident that career interest and abilities determined theplacement of students with disabilities in their courses. Ifprogram placement decisions are not being made on the basisof student interests and abilities, on what basis are thesedecisions being made?

Policy Implications: IDEA mandates that transitionservices include functional vocational evaluation whenappropriate (emphasis added) [Section 300.29 (a)(v)]. Partof the problem may reflect a need to amend IDEA. Nationalorganizations such as the Division on Career Developmentand Transition (DCDT) of the Council for ExceptionalChildren have expressed the belief that transition planningmust always take into account the interests, preferences, andabilities of individual students. A functional vocationalevaluation is, therefore, always appropriate and should be anintegral component of all transition planning. Moreover ,current IDEA policy mandates that transition planning beginsno later than age 14 and younger than 14, if appropriate[Section 300.347 (l)]. If a meaningful transition plan must bein place by age 14, then transition assessment data must becollected and interpreted prior to the onset of this planning.

Another programming issue that inhibits the meaningfuluse of transition assessment information is the timing ofannual IEP meetings. Some local school districts scheduleIEP meetings without regard to the dates students will needto register for high school classes for the following year . Inorder for program decisions to reflect the interests, prefer-ences, and abilities of individual students, the individual IEPmeeting for high school students with disabilities need to bescheduled just prior to course scheduling and not after thefact. The participation of the high school guidance counseloras a member of the IEP team could assist the team in makingsure that the agreed-upon courses for the following year did,in fact, turn up on the student’ s schedule.

Issue Five: The findings of this national study suggestthat too few guidance and counseling staf f are assistingstudents with disabilities to choose an appropriate course ofstudy . According to survey respondents, fewer than one inthree (31%) believed guidance and counseling staf f wereroutinely assisting students with disabilities in choosingappropriate courses of study . The lack of involvement ofschool counseling staf f in guidance activities for studentswith disabilities is unfortunate since school counselors haveskills that could assist students with disabilities to identifyinterest and preferences as well as assist students toward thedevelopment of career maturity .

As stated earlier , Section 300.382 (Improvementstrategies) requires that each state describe how the state willaddress the identified needs for in-service and preservicepreparation to ensure that all personnel who work withchildren with disabilities (including general education andrelated services personnel) have the skills and knowledgenecessary to meet the needs of children with disabilities.However , many counselors may lack the skills and knowl-edge needed to work ef fectively with students with specialeducation needs. In a study of school counselor certificationrequirements in all 50 states and the District of Columbia,Frantz and Prillaman (1993) found that only 1 1 of the 46(25%) states completing the survey required at least onecourse in special education for certification of schoolcounselors.

Policy Implications: Much could be done to enhance theinvolvement of guidance and counseling personnel underIDEA. Guidance and counseling staf f should participate intransition planning for students with disabilities by: (a)interpreting transition assessment data for students; (b)attending IEP meetings for all students in whose transitionplanning process they are actively involved; (c) schedulingstudents into courses which are consistent with expressedinterests, preferences, and abilities; (d) providing an orienta-tion for on-site visits to postsecondary education institutionsfor students and parents; (e) assisting in making appropriatereferrals to adult providers; (f) assisting with application/enrollment process to postsecondary educational settings; (g)assisting with the financial aid application process; and (h)conducting routine follow-up activities to evaluate studentoutcomes after high school departure. Finally , state trainingrequirements for school guidance counselors should includepreservice course work that prepares them to work ef fec-tively with students with disabilities.

Issue Six: The findings of this national study suggest thatmany local school-to-work models across the country areexcluding students with disabilities. Less than half (46%) ofthe survey respondents indicated that their school districtswere implementing school-to-work and tech prep models



134

that advocated the inclusion of students with disabilities.How is this possible?

The mandate for the appropriate inclusion of studentswith disabilities in the general education curriculum is clearand substantial. Included in the comments section of therules and regulations accompanying the IDEA Amendmentsof 1997 was the following statement: “the intent of IDEA isfull participation of each child with a disability in the generalcurriculum to the maximum extent appropriate to the needs ofthe child; and the IDEA Amendments of 1997, as reflected inthese final regulations, have given greater emphasis on thatintent” (p. 12595). In addition, the Carl Perkins Vocational andApplied Technology Education Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-332) andthe School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-239insure all students access to meaningful integrated vocationaleducation while in high school and beyond.

While Perkins, School-to-W ork, and IDEA legislationall support the premise that all students must participate, allstudents can benefit, and all students must be prepared formeaningful vocational opportunities, there remains in muchvocational literature a strong undercurrent that technicalpreparation programs and vocational education in general arehampered by the very premise that all students means allstudents. Brown, Asselin, Hoerner , Danines, and Clowes(1991) suggested that there is an increasingly commontendency among educators to consider tech-prep programsappropriate only for “elite” populations. This position isarticulated in the National Assessment of V ocational Educa-tion (NAVE) Interim Report to Congress (U.S. Departmentof Education, 1994b, p. 79) in the following verbatimselection from the report:

Since vocational education is the most marketablealternative to the college-prep curriculum, it is anatural place for all students who are not collegebound. The irony is that this noble goal can haveundesired consequences. W ell-intentioned adminis-trators and teachers who believe in the need to servespecial populations have noted that vocationalprograms with relatively high enrollments of specialneeds students often develop a self-defeating stigma.Average or middle-ability students avoid enrolling inthese programs because they do not want to beassociated with “those” students, or because theyfind classes with low-ability or unmotivated studentsslow or uninteresting. In this perspective programslose the opportunity to serve many students forwhom vocational education is potentially of interestand use, particularly since “average” studentsconstitute a large part of the future technical workforce.

This vision of who may or may not benefit fromtechnical preparation programming continues in even more

contemporary writings. Mathematica Policy Researchers asquoted in the Career Pathways Report (1998) suggest that theemphasis on broad access over depth may be a mistake.Mathematica Policy Researchers report finding (CareerPathways Report, 1998) that “where Tech Prep is promotedas ‘for all students,’ local consortia are unlikely to emphasizethe creation of comprehensive career-focused programs ofstudy . . . . Interest in extending the benefits of Tech Prepideas to all students . . .should not outweigh the importanceat the federal and state levels of insisting that Tech Prep bemeaningful for those who participate.”

As educators, we are faced with a real dilemma. Federallaw requires the participation of all students in meaningfulvocational education programming. However , there is a veryreal concern that many students may not benefit from theseprograms and may in fact limit the participation of students forwhom “vocational education is potentially of interest and use.”

According to Lombard, Hazelkorn, and Miller (1995),some vocational educators believe that students with specialneeds are being “dumped” in tech-prep programs. TheNAVE Interim Report to Congress (U.S. Department ofEducation, 1994b) suggests that there is an issue of “reverseaccess” in which “special needs students [are] enrolling invocational education to such an extent that other studentsthen avoid it” (p. 78).

These beliefs as articulated in the above quotations limitthe potential for access and opportunity to vocational andtechnical education for students with disabilities. Whilethese beliefs are unfortunate, the findings of the research byLombard et al. (1998) as summarized in this paper , suggestthat these same beliefs are not without merit and consider-ation. While many vocational educators appear to believethat students with disabilities are “dumped” into vocationalprograms, research findings suggest that many students (atleast 43% in this study) are placed in vocational programswithout participation of guidance and counseling staf f inchoosing the appropriate courses. Further , the findingssuggest that vocational educators are confident that theplacement of a student with disabilities in their programs isrelated to the interests and abilities only 35% of the time.Findings of this research suggest that nearly two-thirds ofvocational educators in this study never participated in thedevelopment of the IEP for students with disabilities whowere enrolled in their courses. If large numbers of voca-tional educators were not assisting with the design of thevocational program for students, then how could they beexpected to understand the purpose of the choice of thevocational program for those students? Certainly this lack ofcommunication and collaborative planning can only exacer-bate the vision that students are “dumped” into vocationalprograms with no rhyme or reason. Further , the findings ofthis research suggest that special education staf f rarely assistvocational teachers in course modifications for students withdisabilities. The cumulative ef fect of these findings may shed

135

some light on the perception that students with disabilitiesare “dumped” into vocational education programs, as well ason the reasons that vocational educators may believe thattheir programs are of limited value to specific students.

Policy Implications: Regardless of the rationale forexclusionary practices, the law is clear . Students withdisabilities must be included in school-to-work and tech prepprograms as appropriate. Inclusion in these programs mustbe based on the interests, preferences, and abilities of thestudents. State grant Request for Proposals (RFPs) mustinclude assurances for special populations with applicantdescriptions of how special populations will be recruited,enrolled, and provided with appropriate support duringprogram participation. State departments of education mustcreate guidelines and models, which more closely monitorand enforce the inclusion of all students in school-to-workand tech prep programs. State Departments must includerepresentatives from special populations in related advisoryand leadership committees, and ongoing committee represen-tation needs to be monitored.

C o n c l u s i o n s

This paper summarized the findings of a research studyconducted on a national sample of school-to-work and techprep educators regarding educators’ attitudes and practicestoward the inclusion of students with disabilities in theirprograms.

This study found six critical concerns with policyramifications. First, students with disabilities are beingincluded in school-to-work programs without the provisionof reasonable in-service and staf f development for school-to-work and tech prep teachers. Second, too few vocationaleducators are participating in the IEP development process.Third, too few special educators are assisting school-to-workand tech prep teachers with course modifications to ensurethe appropriate participation of students with disabilities.Fourth, student career interests, preferences, and abilitiesseem to determine the program choice for inclusion inschool-to-work and tech prep programs on a far too infre-quent basis. Fifth, too few guidance and counseling person-nel are participating in assisting students in choosingappropriate courses of study . Sixth, many local schoolprograms across the United States appear to be developingschool-to-work systems and tech prep programs that do notadvocate for the inclusion of students with disabilities asrequired by law .

School-to-work systems and technical preparationprograms are critical curriculum components for manystudents in public schools including students with disabili-ties. Meaningful vocational education leading to high-payingjobs will address the needs of many young people. Studentswith disabilities have the legal right to participate wherever

and whenever appropriate. Federal law ensures access andopportunity to participation in these programs. V ocationaleducation and special education must work together toensure all students have opportunities to participate.

Federal law is only as ef fective as its level of implemen-tation. Therefore, monitoring and enforcement are key issuesin implementing the spirit as well as the requirements of thelaw. The first key recommendation in this paper is increasedvigilance in monitoring and enforcing the law at the federal,state, and local levels. Second, at the local level, thereappears to be a lack of communication between specialeducators and general educators. There appears to be a lackof collaborative planning between general educators andspecial educators. These concerns regarding the level ofcollaboration between these key providers of educationalservices lead to inef fective or inappropriate vocationalprogramming for students with disabilities. There is anobvious need to build capacity for meaningful access forstudents with disabilities by developing systems of compre-hensive staf f development based on sound principals andcurrent research. Certainly , leadership at the federal and statelevels can be used to develop policies to address thissignificant need for staf f development.

R e f e r e n c e s

Benz, M. R., & Kochhar , C. A. (1996). School-to-workopportunities for all students: A position statement of theDivision on Career Development and Transition. CareerDevelopment for Exceptional Individuals, 19, 31-48.

Brown, B. L. (1998). What’s happening in school-to-workprograms? ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career , andVocational Education, Columbus, OH. (BBB16032)(ERIC Digest No. 190. ERIC: ED#414435)

Brown, J. M., Asselin, S. B., Hoerner , J. L., Danines, J., &Clowes, D. A. (1991). Should special needs learnershave access to tech-prep programs? The Journal forVocational Special Needs Education, 14(2&3), 21-26.

Career Pathways Report (November , 1998). Few tech prepprograms are truly comprehensive. Career PathwaysReport, 5(19), 1-2.

Carl D. Perkins V ocational and Technical Education Act of1998, PL 105-332 (1998). Congressional InformationServices [On-line], 1 12, 3076. Available: Lexis-NexisDatabase: PL 105-332 [1999, May 21].

Center for Occupational Research and Development on TechPrep. (1995). National directory of tech prep andschool-to-work personnel. Waco, TX: Author.

Coates, R. D. (l989). The regular education initiative andopinions of regular classroom teachers. Journal ofLearning Disabilities, 22, 532-536.



136

Danzig, A., Cobb B., & Mister , A. B. (1998). Politics ofaccountability within a school-to-career initiative:Implementation, representation, evaluation. EducationalPolicy, 12, (1/2), 67.

Fairweather , J. S., & Shaver , D. M. (1991). Making thetransition to postsecondary education and training.Exceptional Children, 5, 264-270. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. EJ 517 928)

Field, S., Martin, J., Miller , R., W ard, M., & Wehmeyer , M.(1998). A practical guide for teaching self-determina-tion. Reston, V A: Council for Exceptional Children

Frantz, C. S., & Prillaman, D. (1993). State certificationendorsement for school counselors: Special educationrequirements. The School Counselor, 40, 375-379.

Hasazi, S., Gordon, L., & Roe, C. (1985). Factors associatedwith the employment status of handicapped youthexiting high school from 1979-1983. ExceptionalChildren, 51, 455-469. (ERIC Document ReproductionService No. EJ 316948)

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997, PL 105-17 [On-line], 1 11, 37. Available: Lexis-Nexis Database:PL 105-17 [1999, May 21].

Lewis, L., Parsad, B., Carey , N., Bartfai, N., Farris, E., &Smerdon, B. (1999). Teacher quality: A report on thepreparation and qualifications of public school teachers(NXWA 1999-080). W ashington, DC: U.S. Departmentof Education, National Center for Educational Statistics.

Lombard, R. C., Miller , R. J., & Hazelkorn, M. N. (1998).School-to-work and technical preparation: Teacherattitudes and practices regarding the inclusion ofstudents with disabilities. Career Development forExceptional Individuals, 21(2), 161-172.

Lombard, R. C., Hazelkorn, M. N., & Miller , R. J. (l995).Special populations and tech-prep: A national study ofstate policies and practices. Career Development forExceptional Individuals, 18, 145-156.

Schumm, J. S., & V aughn, S. (1992). Planning formainstreamed special education students: Perceptions ofgeneral classroom teachers. Exceptionality, 3, 81-90.

Schumm, J. S., & V aughn, S. (1991). Making adaptations formainstreamed students: Regular classroom teachers’perceptions. Remedial and Special Education, 12(4), 18-27.

Siegel, S., Robert, M., W axman, M., & Gaylord-Ross, R.(1992). A follow-along study of participants in alongitudinal transition program for youths with milddisabilities. Exceptional Children, 58, 346-356. (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No. EJ 442994)

Sitlington, P ., Frank, A., & Carson, R. (1992). Are adoles-cents with learning disabilities successfully crossing thebridge into adult life? Learning Disabilities Quarterly,13, 97-111. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.EJ 41 1771)

U.S. Department of Education (1999, March 12). Federalregister: Assistance to states for the education ofchildren with disabilities and the early interventionprogram for infants and toddlers with disabilities: Finalregulations. 64(48). 12406-12672. W ashington, DC:Author.

U.S. Department of Education. (1994a). School-to-W orkOpportunities Act of 1994, Pub.L. No 103-239. [On-line]. Available: http://www .stw.ed.gov/factsht/act.htm

U.S. Department of Education. (1994b, January). Nationalassessment of vocational education interim report toCongress: Executive summary. Washington, DC: U.S.Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

U.S. Department of Labor , Education and Training Adminis-tration, Of fice of Work-based Learning. (1992). School-to-work connections: Formulas for success. Washington,DC: Author.

Author Information


Robert J. Miller, Ph.D.; Mankato State University , MSU 52/PO Box 8400, Mankato, MN 56002-8400, 507/389-5888,[email protected]

Richard C. Lombard, Ph.D.; University of W isconsin-Whitewater , Department of Special Education, W inther Hall 4039,Whitewater , WI 53190, 262/472-5813, [email protected]

Michael N. Hazelkorn, Ph.D.; Wisconsin Dells School District; 81 1 County Road H, W isconsin Dells, WI 53965, 608/254-8576, [email protected]

The national study summarized in this chapter may be reviewed in its entirety in the fall 1998 edition of the journal CareerDevelopment for Exceptional Children (CDEI). The authors would like to express their gratitude to the editors of thispublicationfor allowing them to republish a summary of these findings.

137

Meeting Attendance and Transition Outcomes asReflected in Students’ Individualized Education Programs

John S. Trach; Debra L. SheldenUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

9


The Individualized Education Program (IEP) is centralto the provision of special education services. The IEPdevelopment process is intended to plan for and ensure thateach child with a disability realizes his or her entitlement to afree and appropriate public education, as well as to identifythe student’ s least restrictive environment and to facilitateparental participation in the student’ s educational program.The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990 and1997 (IDEA), P .L. 101-476 and 105-17, extended thepurpose of the IEP by defining the role of the IEP in planningeducational programs that would facilitate the transition fromschool to adult life. This legislation provides a template forwhat should be in a transition IEP .

The IDEA defines transition services as “a coordinatedset of activities for a student, designed within an outcome-oriented process, which promotes movement from school topost-school activities” (Section 300.18). The law mandatesthat transition services be considered within the context ofIEP development for all students with disabilities, beginningat age 14 or younger when appropriate. Further , IEPs forstudents age 16 or older must include a statement of neededtransition services. Hence, transition services are nowcovered under the same procedural safeguards as othercomponents included in the IEP (DeStefano, Hasazi, &Trach, 1998; DeStefano, W inking, & Bullock, 1993).

In addition to the definition of transition services,legislation also mandates specific components which must beincluded in IEPs for transition-aged students. First, each IEPmust include a post-school vision statement. The post-schoolvision statement reflects the student’ s needs and preferencesrelated to the transition outcome areas. Second, the IEP must

include statements of annual needed service in the areas of(a) instruction; (b) community experiences; (c) employmentand other post-school adult living objectives; and (4) whenappropriate, daily living skills and functional vocationalevaluation. These statements of annual needed services mustinclude the school or community agency responsible forproviding the service, the extent of the service, and the dateof initiation of services. Also, the statement of neededservices must include not only school-provided services, butalso services provided by related agencies (e.g., vocationalrehabilitation, SSI, mental health).

Requirements in the legislation specify a coordination ofservices, which implies that a team of individuals includingthe student, parents, teachers (both special and regular),ancillary services (e.g., physical therapist), and careerdevelopment personnel (i.e., school guidance counselors,rehabilitation counselors) participate in transition planning.Many models which advocate for planning options forindependence and quality of life identify the necessity andimportance of a team of individuals and the inclusion of theperson for whom the planning is done (Mount, 1997; Mount& Zwernik, 1988; Perske & Perske, 1988; Trach & Shelden,1999;Vandercook, York, & Forest, 1989).

Only recently have students been af forded the sameright to participate in IEP development. The IDEA mandatesthat services identified for the student must reflect his or herneeds, preferences, and interests. The law also requires thateach student receiving transition services be invited to his orher IEP meeting. IDEA, then, provides a legislative mandateto involve students in their IEP development and transitionplanning. Despite the noted importance of student involve-ment in transition planning and recent research indicatingthat programs designed to promote student involvement can

Abstract: Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) are key to providing a free and appropriate public educationfor students with disabilities. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990 extended IEP planning totransition activities and outcomes and mandated that students be invited to their IEP meetings. Attendance at IEPmeetings of transition-aged students in two school districts was examined by gender , disability category , age, andnumber of transition outcomes and activities identified on the IEP in 1992 and 1993 and again in 1997 and 1998.More females than males attended their IEP meetings. There was an overall increase in student and parent atten-dance. Dif ferences did exist in attendance across disability categories with non-attendance of students in the TMDand Other categories higher than expected. The number of younger students who attended IEP meetings increasedsignificantly. There was a decrease in attendance by school guidance counselors and rehabilitation counselors.Finally, there was a significant increase in the number of transition outcomes and activities identified across time.


138

be ef fective (see Phillips, 1990; V an Reusen & Bos, 1994;Ward, W ehmeyer , Martin, & Marshall, 1995), the extent towhich the student involvement mandate of the IDEA is beingrealized is questionable.

Morningstar , Turnbull, & Turnbull (1995) conductedfocus groups with high school students with learningdisabilities, emotional and behavioral disorders, and mildmental retardation to examine their perceptions of the role offamily in the transition process. One of the emergent themesin the focus groups was that many students did not see theIEP process as important. Further , many did not see theirinvolvement or that of their family members as key to theprocess. Therefore, most students did not attend their IEPmeetings. Similarly , through interviews with 29 high schoolstudents with mild disabilities, Lovitt (1994) found that moststudents were not familiar with the IEP process and did notcontribute to IEP development.

Parental participation has always been a component ofthe IEP process. The law requires that parents be invited toparticipate in all IEP meetings; parents are to be viewed aspartners in educational planning for their children. Unfortu-nately , research on parental participation indicates thatparents are not active partners in their children’ s educationalplanning (Devlieger & Trach, 1999; Goldstein, Strickland,Turnbull, & Curry , 1980; L ynch & Stein, 1982; McKinney &Hocutt, 1982).

This study examined the extent to which the primarycomponents of transition planning, including transitioncontent and team composition, are reflected in the IEPs oftransition-aged youth. Attendance by students, parents,vocational rehabilitation counselors, and guidance counselorsis examined. Additionally, this study examined the numberand types of transition-related outcomes and activitiesidentified in the IEP . The following research questions wereaddressed:

1. What proportion of IEP meetings were attended by (a)students, (b) a parent or guardian, (c) a vocationalrehabilitation counselor, and (d) a guidance counselor?

2. Does attendance at the IEP meeting differ across studentdisability categories?

3. Does attendance at the IEP meeting differ across studentage?

4. Does attendance at the IEP meeting differ across studentgender?

5. To what extent are transition outcomes and activitiesidentified within IEPs?

6. Do the number of transition outcomes and activitiesidentified within IEPs differ across student disability, age,or gender?

7. To what extent has attendance at IEP meetings changedover time?

8. To what extent has the number of transition outcomes andactivities identified within IEPs changed over time?

M e t h o d

The Transition Services Checklist (TSC)

The TSC (Trach, 1999) was developed as a documenta-tion tool for transition- related outcomes and activities inIEPs. The checklist includes the seven outcomes identified inthe IDEA: (a) adult services, (b) community participation,(c) continuing and adult education, (d) independent living,(e) integrated employment, (f) postsecondary education, and(g) vocational training. Definitions for each outcome area arein Table 1. W ithin each outcome area, the six activitiesidentified in the IDEA are listed, including (a) acquisition ofdaily living skills, (b) community experiences, (c) develop-ment of employment objectives, (d) development of otherpost-school adult objectives, (e) functional vocationalevaluation, and (f) instruction.

Development of the TSC began with developingdefinitions and examples for each outcome area. Subse-quently , definitions and examples of each of the six activityareas were developed for each outcome area. The outcomeand activity definitions and activities were compiled into aTSC Guide and sent for review to three researchers in thearea of transition services. Reviewer comments wereincorporated into a revised guide. The TSC and TSC Guidewere revised and updated with the new collection of data(i.e., 1997-98).

The TSC allows for ratings of outcomes and activities aspresent, implied, or absent. A presence rating (2) indicatesthat an explicit reference to planning for the outcome area oractivity is made in the IEP goals or objectives. An impliedrating (1) indicates that an implicit reference to planning forthe outcome area or activity is made within the IEP goals orobjectives. An absent rating (0) indicates that there is noexplicit or implicit reference to the outcome area or activitywithin the IEP goals or objectives. The decision process forcategorizing outcomes and activities as present, implied, orabsent is governed by a series of rules, examples, and non-examples developed for use of the TSC. A detailed descrip-tion of the decision process can be found in Trach (1999).

Sample

The two samples of IEPs were drawn from two Midwest-ern suburban school districts. First, class lists for all junior andsenior high school special education students were obtainedfor the 1991-92 and 1992-93 school years. Only those studentswho turned 14 years old by September 1 of the year of the IEPwere included in the sample. Hence, students were eliminatedfrom the 1991-92 list if they were born after September 1, 1978;similarly, they were eliminated from the 1992-93 list if theywere born after September 1, 1979. For students who remainedon both lists, only data from the second year (i.e., spring 1993IEP) were used in this study , resulting in a sample of N=531.

139

Trach & Shelden: IEPs for Transition-Aged Students

Next, the same process was used for 1996-97 and 1997-98.However , the same data was collected on a 25% random sample(N=253). Hence, students were eliminated from the 1996-97list if they were born after September 1, 1982; similarly , theywere eliminated from the 1997-98 list if they were born afterSeptember 1, 1983. Table 2 lists the percentage of studentsincluded in the sample for each school year according to pri-mary disability category and gender .

Procedures

Data were collected by examining each student’ sIEP. Demographic data, including birth date, gender ,primary disability , and services received were recorded.Student attendance was recorded when a student signa-ture was present on the IEP on the date the meeting washeld. Attendance by parents, vocational rehabilitationcounselor , and guidance counselor was determined inthe same manner . IEP transition-related content was re-viewed using the TSC. Each outcome and each activitywithin each outcome was rated as described above. Ad-ditionally, objectives with no apparent link to transitionplanning were noted in a comments section.

Reliability. Reliability was assessed for both presenceand content data for 10% of the IEPs. Reliability wascalculated as the total number of agreements divided by thecombined number of agreements and disagreements.Reliability for student presence was 88% in 1992-93 and96% in 1997-98. For scoring outcomes, reliability was 97%in 1992-93 and 93% in 1997-98.

Outcome Area Definition

Adult Services To access services that provide the necessary support for adult persons to live, work, andrecreate in the community (e.g., be certified eligible for vocational rehabilitation services,apply for residential services).

Community Participation To participate in the community through established and recognized personal and socialroles (e.g., register to vote, join a service organization).

Continuing and Adult Education To continue education, for some stated purpose, through established state and/or commu-nity programs (e.g., enroll in an adult art class to pursue hobby , enroll in adult academicremediation courses).

Independent Living To access a living environment determined by available resources, and options (e.g., rentapartment with a friend, live in group home).

Integrated Employment To be placed in a work setting for pay , and with support if necessary , while still in school,prior to graduation, and/or immediately upon graduation. (e.g., competitive employment,supported employment).

Postsecondary Education To prepare for and entrance to an institution of higher learning with the intent of access-ing formal training to develop and prepare for a chosen career (e.g., enrollment incommunity college for associate’ s degree, enrollment in bachelor program).

Vocational Training To establish activities that would continue a student’ s training beyond high school ineither a formal or informal setting with the intent of attaining an accepted skill level in achosen profession or work area (e.g., auto mechanic program, nursing assistant program).

Table 1. Definitions of Outcome Areas From the Transition Services Checklist (TSC)

92-93 School years 97-98 School years

Disability

TMD 10 4EMD 11 10BD 16 16LD 59 60Othera 4 10

Gender

Female 32 32Male 68 68

a This category includes hearing impairment, physical disability, speechand/or language impairment, visual impairment, and autism.

Table 2. Percent of Students Included in Sample byDisability and Gender


140

Data Analysis

Disability categories used in the analysis included train-able mental retardation (TMD), educable mental retardation(EMD), behavior disorder or mental illness (BD), learning dis-ability (LD), and Other . The Other category included hearingimpairment, physical disability , speech and/or language im-pairment, and visual impairment. Age was calculated based onthe student’ s age on September 1 of the year of the IEP .

Associations between student attendance and primary dis-ability and student attendance and gender were examined us-ing the chi-square test of homogeneity . These tests were alsoconducted for attendance by parents, school guidance counse-lors, and rehabilitation counselor according to the age groups14-15, 16-17, 18-19, and 20-22.

T-tests were used to compare the frequency with whichsix activities (Instruction, Community Experiences, Develop-ment of Employment Objectives, Development of OtherPost-School Adult Objectives, Acquisition of Daily LivingSkills, Functional V ocational Evaluation) were present orimplied on IEPs within the seven outcome areas.

R e s u l t s

Meeting Attendance

In 1992-93, 53% of students in the study attended theirIEP meetings; attendance increased to 64% in 1997-98 (seeTable 3). This was a significant increase. Also, there was asignificant increase in students with learning disabilities(LD) and behavioral disorders (BD) attending their meetings.In Table 4, the distribution of student by gender indicates thatwhile both increased, males were represented in significantlygreater proportion than females across both data recordingsets (see Table 2).

Table 5 reveals a significant increase in both studentsand parents attending IEP meetings. However , in the 18-19year olds, student attendance decreased and parental atten-dance remained relatively the same. There was a significantincrease in younger students (ages 14-16) and parentsattending IEP meetings. When the age groups were dividedinto 14-16 and 17-21, there was a significant change inattendance. Overall, the younger group increased and theolder group decreased (X2 (1, n = 785) = 5.675, p = .017).

Table 6 indicates that presence of school guidancecounselor decreased significantly , and the VR counselor ’spresence declined. Significant decreases were noted forschool guidance counselor attendance at 14-15 and 16-17 agegroups and generally across all age groups. For rehabilitationcounselors there was only a slight increase for 16-17 agegroup and a significant decrease for 20-22 age group.

Transition Content

Table 7 indicates that there were significantly moretransition outcomes listed in student IEPs. All outcomesexcept for Adult Services were significantly more present in1997-98 than in 1992-93.

Table 8 indicates significantly more activities occurringin 1997-98 than in 1992-93. In the eleven cells indicated by“ND,” no instances of that combination of activity andoutcome area were observed for either time period. Signifi-cant increases in activities were noted in 15 of the 17 cellsmarked with an asterisk (*). Table 9 reports the means andstandard deviations for each significant finding. In twocases, the number of activities identified decreased.

Identification of instructional activities increased from1992-1993 to 1997-1998 for all outcomes except adultservices. More continuing education activities were presentor implied for community participation and postsecondaryeducation; however , fewer continuing education activitieswere identified for the outcome of independent living.Activities surrounding the development of EmploymentObjectives increased in the areas of Adult Services andIntegrated Employment. More activities related to the


Percentage attended Percentage attended

TMD 47 45

EMD 55 56

BD 56 68

LD 53b 68b

Othera 32 48

Total 53c 64c

a This category includes hearing impairment, physical disability, speech and/orlanguage impairment, visual impairment, and autism.

b X2 (1, n = 465) = 9.552, p = .002c X2 (1, n = 786) = 8.353, p = .004

Table 3. Percent of Students Who Attended IEPMeetings by Disability Category



Female 60a 74b

Male 50a 59b

Total 53c 64c

a X2 (1, n = 522) = 3.844, p = .05b X2 (1, n = 253) = 5.217, p = .02c X2 (1, n = 786) = 8.353, p = .004

Table 4. Percent of Students Who Attended IEPMeetings by Gender

141

development of Other Post-School Adult Objectives wereseen in the areas of Adult Services, Postsecondary Educa-tion, and V ocational Training. The frequency of Daily Livingactivities increased for the outcome area of IndependentLiving. Finally, more Functional V ocational activities wereidentified related to Integrated Employment and fewerrelated to V ocational Training. Community experienceactivities increased for the outcomes of Community Partici-pation, Independent Living, and Postsecondary Education.

D i s c u s s i o n

The preceding reported results indicate that there are posi-tive increases in attendance at IEPs, identification of post-school outcomes, and identification of transition-related activities. However , there still appears to bea considerable amount of ef fort needed to accom-plish actual transition results. While this study doesnot evaluate post-school outcomes, nor does it pre-dict success in post-school environments, it doesprovide some indication of the foundation thatschools establish prior to students’ departure. Thefollowing are some considerations that we mustmake in reviewing transition planning and the IEPprocess.

Overall attendance of students at their IEPmeetings increased from the 1992-93 school yearsto the 1997-98 school years. Still, only 64% of stu-dents attended their IEP meetings. W e must look atwhy approximately one third of students do not at-tend, and also examine strategies to engage themin the process. Students with labels of mental retar-dation (EMD and TMD) saw no increase in atten-dance from 92-93 to 97-98, while students in all

other disability categories attended at higher proportions.The discrepancy among disability categories is worthy offurther examination.

Also of concern is the decrease in attendance byboth school guidance counselors and vocational rehabili-tation counselors. Both of these professionals haveresources to bring to the table, including knowledge ofpostsecondary education and employment options, andshould be included in the transition planning process.These are the experts in career development and employ-ment, and command more resources and training thantypical teachers. It would seem logical that their consul-tation might help reverse current trends in employmentfor persons with disabilities identified by a recent LouisHarris poll which shows a decrease in overall employ-ment for persons with disabilities from 34% in 1986, to31% in 1994, to 29% in 1998 (Risher & Amorosi, 1998).These employment percentage points dif fer only slightly ,but indicate a trend. Why does this continue? Issues of

turf and professions at the expense of the students maycontribute to the employment outcomes. W e have the law(i.e., IDEA), but the policies do not support the law . What wehave are local interpretations of transition and responsibili-ties (DeStefano et al., 1998). There must be local ef fort, butthe outcomes should be similar to the intent of the law. Weneed to include career-related professionals in the transitionprocess and coordinate the local efforts across all stakeholders.

The results of this study point to a need to refocus theintent of incorporating transition planning into the IEPprocess. While progress has been made, these results do notnecessarily provide substantive evidence that comprehen-sive, outcome-oriented planning is being implemented for




Students Parents Students Parents

14-15 31a 77b 55a 95b

16-17 51c 77 72c 84

18-19 67 70 57 73

20-22 61 81 85 92

Total 53d 75e 64d 85e

a X2 (1, n = 183) = 9.837, p = .002b X2 (1, n = 183) = 10.534, p = .001c X2 (1, n = 326) = 12.402, p = .001d X2 (1, n = 786) = 8.353, p = .004e X2 (1, n = 786) = 11.146, p = .001

Table 5. Proportion of IEP Meetings by AgeAttended by Students and Parents

Table 6. Proportion of IEP Meetings by Age Attended byCounselors



School State School StateGuidance Rehabilitation Guidance Rehabilitation

14-15 65a 02 39a 00

16-17 68b 03 54b 05

18-19 64 11 55 11

20-22 61 48c 31 15c

Total 65d 08 49d 05

a X2 (1, n = 183) = 12.187, p = .001b X2 (1, n = 325) = 6.054, p = .014c X2 (1, n = 44) = 4.208, p = .040d X2 (1, n = 785) = 20.156, p = .001


142

students through their IEPs. While there has been asignficant increase for all but one outcome area in theproportion of IEPs in which they are included, the overallpicture is still bleak. Independent Living and IntegratedEmployment continue to be the most consistently includedpost-school outcome. Postsecondary Education, included inonly 5% of IEPs in the first sample, is included in more thanhalf of the IEPs in the second sample, a remarkable andhopeful change. Still, four outcome areas are found in fewer

than 20% of IEPs. While not all studentsneed to identify outcomes in all seven areas,this still reflects a narrow perspective onpost-school vision statements. W e seem tofocus on where one will live and learn, orwhere one will live and work.

Also, there is little evidence within IEPsthat a coordainted set of activities is beingdeveloped to assist students in achievingthose outcomes which are identified. W emust examine why identified outcomes arenot being translated into statements ofneeded trasntion services. It does not seemproductive to identify where students may bepost-school without a method or process forattainment of those goals. Either outcomes or

activities presuppose the other , and one without the othershould not exist.

Future Research

This study explores the incorporation of transitionplanning into the IEP process. As such, it points to severaladditional areas for investigation. Examining the progression

Table 8. P-Values for T-tests Comparing the Number of Transition ActivitiesIdentified as Present or Implied* per IEP by Outcome Areas for TwoTime Periods: 1992-1993 and 1997-1998

Table 7. Chi Square of IEPs with Transition OutcomesIdentified as Present or Implied*

1992-93 1997-98 Difference

Adult Services 13.55 13.09 -.46

Community Participation 0.00 3.96 3.96

Continuing & Adult Education 0.00 4.77 4.77

Independent Living 4.06 66.40 62.34

Integrated Employment 11.92 69.17 57.25

Postsecondary Education 5.15 56.35 51.20

Vocational Training 1.63 19.45 17.82

* All outcomes X2 p œ .001 except for Adult Services.

143

of transition planning from age 14 to exit may illuminatenew facets of the process. Do IEPs over time reflect a morecontinuous flow of planning? Is there a logical progressionin the development of post-school vision statements,transition activities, and related objectives? As Devliegerand Trach (1999) suggest, the IEP cannot be the onlyplanning tool, and mediated action is necessary for theattainment of transition goals, especially in light of who mayor may not attend IEP meetings.

While there has been a decrease in participation byguidance counselors and rehabilitation counselors, there maybe other notable dif ferences in attendance. Are more regulareducation teachers attending IEP meetings and involved inthe transition process? What impact do regular educationteachers have on developing a coordinated set of activities?It may be that having people with no training or experiencein the area of disability attend these meetings actuallyincreases the possibilities. These individuals will have only

their own experience from which to set goals. However ,there is a danger that they might also rely on traditionalstereotypes of persons with disabilities and have even lowerexpectations for their future. Regardless, there is a need forsomeone skilled in facilitating a discussion which bothpositive and future-oriented.

Finally, we need to determine why we do not do whatwe know to do. If there is consensus that comprehensive,outcome-oriented transition planning should occur , why arewe not implementing it? What are the systemic, attitudinal,competency , or other barriers preventing the true infusion oftransition planning into the educational process? Examina-tions of success stories—of students, schools, and districts—might lead to greater understanding of how the process canbe implemented and hence lead to strategies for implement-ing it elsewhere.

Activity/Outcome Area 1992-1993 1997-1998

Development of Employment Objectives

Adult Services .00 .04(.00) (.26)

Integrated Employment .02 .22(.21) (.61)

Development of Other Post-School Adult Objectives

Adult Services .00 .05(.05) (.31)

Postsecondary Education .01 .31(.14) (.72)

Vocational Training .00 .03(.00) (.25)

Acquisition of Daily Living Skills

Independent Living .29 .52(.70) (.86)

Functional Vocational Evaluation

Integrated Employment .11 .62(.42) (.82)

Vocational Training .21 .00(.65) (.00)

Table 9. Means and Standard Deviations for the Number ofTransition Activities Identified as Present or Impliedby Outcome Area for 1992-1993 and 1997-1998



144

R e f e r e n c e s

DeStefano, L., Hasazi, S. B., & Trach, J. S. (1998). Issues inthe evaluation of a multi-site federal system changeinitiative. Career Development for Exceptional Individu-als, 20, 123-139.

DeStefano, L., W inking, D., & Bullock, C. (1993). Incorpo-rating transition into the Individualized EducationProgram: Manual and resource guide. Illinois StateBoard of Education, Department of Special Education.

Devlieger , P. J., & Trach, J. S. (1999). Mediation as atransition process: The impact of post-school employ-ment. Exceptional Children, 65, 507-523

Goldstein, S., Strickland, B., Turnbull, A.P., & Curry, (1980).An observational analysis of the IEP conference.Exceptional Children, 46, 278-286.

Lovitt, T.C., Cushing, S.S., & Stump, C.S. (1994). High schoolstudents rate their IEPs: Low opinions and lack ofownership. Intervention in School and Clinic, 30, 34-37.

Lynch, E. W ., & Stein, R. (1982). Perspectives on parentparticipation in special education. Exceptional Educa-tion Quarterly, 3, 56-63.

McKinney, J. D., & Hocutt, A. M. (1982). Public schoolinvolvement of parents of learning-disabled children andaverage achievers. Exceptional Education Quarterly, 3,64-70.

Morningstar , M. E., Turnbull, A. P., & Turnbull, H. R.(1995). What do students with disabilities tell us aboutthe importance of family involvement in the transitionfrom school to adult life? Exceptional Children, 62,249-260.

Mount, B. (1997). Person-centered planning: Findingdirections for change using personal futures planning.New York: Graphic Futures.

Mount, B., & Zwernik, K. (1988). It’s never too early; It’snever too late: A booklet about personal futures plan-ning. St. Paul, MN: Metropolitan Council.

Perske, R., & Perske, M. (1988). Circle of Friends. Nash-ville, TN: Abingdon Press.

Phillips, P . (1990). A self-advocacy plan for high schoolstudents with learning disabilities: A comparative casestudy analysis of students’, teachers’, and parents’perceptions of program ef fects. Journal of LearningDisabilities, 23, 466-471.

Risher , P., & Amorosi, S. (1998). The 1998 N.O.D./Harrissurvey of Americans with disabilities. New York: LouisHarris & Associates.

Van Reusen, A. K., & Bos, C. S. (1994). Facilitating studentparticipation in individualized education programsthrough motivation strategy instruction. ExceptionalChildren, 60, 466-475.

Trach, J. S., & Shelden, D. L. (1999). Natural supports: Afoundation for employment. Innovations, 16. Washing-ton, DC: AAMR Monograph Series.

Vandercook, T., York, J., & Forest, M. (1989). The McGillaction planning system (MAPS): A strategy for buildingthe vision. Journal of the Association for Persons withSevere Handicaps, 14, 205-215.

Ward, M. J., W ehmeyer , M. L., Martin, J. E., & Marshall, L.H. (1995). Student involvement in transition planning:Fulfilling the intent of IDEA. Manuscript submitted forpublication.

Author Information


John S. Trach, Ph.D.; University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, College of Education, Bureau of Educational Research,1310 South 6th Street, Room 236, Champaign, IL 61820, [email protected]

Debra L. Shelden; Transition Research Institute, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1 17 Childrens ResearchCenter , 51 Gerty Dr ., Champaign, IL 61820; 217-244-0851, [email protected]

145

Impact of a Fraud and Abuse Investigation of theSupplemental Security Income Program onTransition Age Youth With Disabilities

Sarah HendersonUniversity of Minnesota

Jane Ann RazeghiGeorge Mason University

10


Because Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is arelatively new and dif ferent field for most special educationadministrators and teachers, they are not aware of thepotential benefits that it can of fer to students with disabili-ties. Most special education administrators and teachers donot realize that if students with disabilities currently receiv-ing SSI benefits are found ineligible during a specialreassessment at age 18, they are denied support criticallyneeded to make the transition to an independent and produc-tive life. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to present abrief overview of the potential benefits of SSI for studentswith disabilities that can be so important to the students’transition from school to independent living. Secondly , wewill summarize the history of what we call the SSI “fraudand abuse” investigation that has caused the Social SecurityAdministration (SSA) to make changes in the SSI program.These are changes that were implemented as a result of whatSSA assumed was a public perception: of children and youthwith disabilities falsifying their eligibility status in order toreceive SSI benefits. W e will highlight the specific problemsthe fraud and abuse investigation presents for specialeducation teachers and administrators, other school person-nel, and as for the students with disabilities who may suf feras a result of such investigations. Finally , we will presentrecommendations that we would like to see the SSA considerimplementing and suggestions that practitioners can take onbehalf of students with disabilities-now and in the future.

SSI Benefits Available for Students WithD i s a b i l i t i e s

The SSI Program, Title XVI of the Social Security Act,was developed to assist and support aged, blind, or disabledindividuals in maintaining a minimum level of income (SSA,1997a). Administered by the SSA, this program is ofparticular importance to transition-age youth with disabili-ties. For qualified individuals, it of fers cash benefits, healthinsurance and work incentives. All of these provide criticalfinancial assistance to young adults making the transitiontowards independence and self-suf ficiency.

In addition to cash benefits, most states allow individu-als enrolled in SSI to establish immediate Medicaid eligibil-ity. Participation in the Medicaid program is important forseveral reasons. First, when an individual with a disabilityreaches transition age, he or she is often excluded from aparent’ s or a guardian’ s medical plan. Health insurance israrely a benefit provided to employees in supported, part-time, or minimum wage employment situations, and the costof independent health insurance is too high for most of theseyoung adults. Therefore, Medicaid is often the sole source ofhealth insurance for much of this population. Second,Medicaid provides funds for community based services suchas competitive and suppported employment programs thatprovide such services as a job coach to assist the student inlearning and becoming a productive worker while on the job.Medicaid also funds many residential facilities and grouphomes. So for health insurance benefits alone, SSI eligibilityis critical for many students with disabilities.

Abstract: The SSI program is intended to provide youth with disabilities with the basic resources necessary tolive independent, productive and fulfilling lives, and is important to many youth as they transition from school towork and adult life. This article discusses the potential benefits of the SSI program; describes the sharp growth innumbers of SSI program participants, and the public allegations of fraud and abuse of the SSI program; andpresents the difficulties posed by SSA’s fraud and abuse policies, The specific problems the fraud and abuseinvestigation presents for special education teachers and administrators, other school personnel, and for thestudents with disabilities who may suffer as a result of such investigations are highlighted. Recommendations forSSA consideration on behalf of students with disabilities include removing language on the School Activity Reportrequesting that special education teachers report instances of SSI fraud and abuse; and focusing SSA attention onother possible reasons for the growth in the SSI program, such as increases of children and youth in poverty.


146

Fears of Losing SSI Benefits

Before we discuss the specific work incentives ortransition benefits of SSI, it is important for special educa-tion administrators and teachers to know that students withdisabilities and their families who have been identified aseligible and have received SSI cash benefits since childhoodmay be fearful of losing this income. For many years theargument has been made that such cash benefits were“disincentives” to employment. This was because if thestudent with a disability became employed full time, not onlywere the student’ s cash benefits terminated, but also thestudent’ s medical/Medicaid benefits. This was devastating ifmedical and medication costs exceeded the budget of anewly employed student with a disability . The fears ofparents of children with disabilities have been very real inthis regard. Therefore, as a result of ef forts on the part offamilies and advocates, as well as SSA, great strides havebeen made to turn this potentially negative situation into apositive one. SSA now provides special “work incentive”benefits for students with disabilities that enable them toreceive training, to be trained on the job, and to have theopportunity and time to test the ef fects of part-time andeventual full-time employment without the loss of neededcash benefits and/or Medicaid. W ithdrawal from thesebenefits may be spread out over time to ensure that theindividual’s income and employment status have beenstabilized.

Transition Planning and the Role of SSI Benefits

A major focus of special education at the secondarylevel is transition planning for students with disabilities. TheIndividuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1997requires that transition planning begin at age 14 (younger , ifappropriate) for all students with disabilities and that it is tobe part of the student’ s Individualized Education Plan (IEP).At age 16, the IEP must also include a statement of transitionservices that the student may need from another agency ,service provider , or support system, especially if suchsupport will be required to assure post-school opportunitiesfor the student to participate in community living and/oremployment (The Study Group, Inc., 1998). For somestudents with disabilities, it is very important that they haveaccess to what are called SSI work incentives that can bemade available to them through their local social securityoffice. It is through the IEP transition planning and discus-sion that parents and students can begin to determine theextent to which any or all of the SSI work incentives may beable to provide assistance.

It is not the purpose of this article to discuss the workincentives in depth, but simply to provide a very briefoverview . A list and brief description of several of theseimportant SSI benefits, or work incentives, specifically for

transition-age students with disabilities are as follows (TheStudy Group, Inc., 1998):

• Earned Income Exclusion. This benefit applies to allSSI program recipients and includes any student earningwages from a school-sponsored employment program orother employment. For students with disabilities, thismeans that most or all of their SSI benefits are main-tained while they participates in school-sponsored paidemployment or other paid work situations.

• Student Earned Income Exclusion (SEIE). Thisallows a student with a disability who is under the age of22 and attending school regularly to exclude up to $400of earned income per month (maximum annual exclu-sion is $1620) before applying the Earned IncomeExclusion (above). This exclusion and the one above canbe used in combination. There is a formula that can beused to determine the exact amounts that this means toan individual.

• Impairment-Related Work Expense (IRWE). The costof certain disability related items and services thatstudents with a disability requires in order to work canbe deducted from their gross earnings through an IR WEincentive. The student requesting the IR WE must be ableto verify that the items or expenses were incurred as aresult of his/her disability and necessary for job perfor-mance. There are specific criteria for such expenses.Examples are a personal care attendant or specialtransportation services to and from the job site.

• Plan for Achieving Self-Support (PASS). This workincentive allows a student to set aside income and/orresources for a specified period of time in order toachieve a work goal (postsecondary education, purchaseof job-coaching support, job-related equipment, etc.).The income and/or resources set aside in a P ASS do notcount in determining SSI benefits. SSI cash benefitscannot be used to support a P ASS. There are certaininstances when a P ASS may be used in conjunction withother SSI work incentives. If a student under the age of18 cannot satisfy the SSI income eligibility requirementonly because his or her parents’ income is too high, thestudent may apply for a P ASS incentive through whichthe parents can set aside enough income to make thestudent eligible for SSI benefits.

• Blind Work Expenses (BWE). For students who areblind, SSA has special rules allowing them to earn ahigher income and maintain SSI eligibility. It caninclude expenses for a guide dog; transportation; federal,state, and local income taxes; social security taxes;attendant care services; etc.

In one way or another , these SSI work incentive programsare important for students with disabilities. They allow

147

students who are SSI recipients to increase their incomewithout compromising their SSI status, thus maintaining SSIeligibility benefits during a transition process.

The SSI Fraud and Abuse Investigation

One of the major reasons that the SSI program cameunder the scrutiny of Congress and the media was due to anincrease in the number of individuals who were enrolled inthe SSI program. The specific growth in the transition-agepopulation is unclear; however , between 1985 and 1994, SSIenrollment among adults (age 18 and older) grew by 78%,and among children by 236% (GAO, 1995c). Accompanyingthis enrollment growth were alarming media reports of fraudand abuse. Major newspapers and television programsdescribed cases of children being coached by their parents tofake a disability in order to receive SSI benefits. Oneexample occurred in the early 1990s when an Arkansas staterepresentative, working on a hunch that one of his constitu-ents was falsifying SSI eligibility , launched an investigationof the SSI program that turned into a 30-month media frenzy .Numerous allegations surfaced that the program designed tohelp financially needy , disabled children had become amoney making venture for unscrupulous families (Georges,1995). Press reports contended that families were coachingtheir children to fake disabilities in order to receive cashbenefits (Georges, 1995; Hancock, 1994). Some members ofCongress claimed that the SSI program was being abused,and they cited the media stories to support this conclusion(Feldman, 1997).

SSI Enrollment Increase

As a result of the emphasis and concern created by themedia, Congress requested an investigation by the GeneralAccounting Of fice (GAO) to determine the reasons behindthe growth in the number of individuals with disabilitiesreceiving SSI benefits. The GAO study discovered that theincrease in enrollment for SSI services was attributed toseveral factors including: improved outreach ef forts by theSSA; increased numbers of children and youth living inpoverty; major changes in eligibility criteria; increasedimmigration; and medical advances (GAO, 1995c). Further ,the allegations of students falsifying a disability were foundto be “unsubstantiated” (Georges, 1995) and “anecdotal”(GAO, 1995c).

Improved outreach efforts. In the late 1980s and early1990s, at the direction of Congress, the SSA increased itsoutreach ef forts resulting in an increase in SSI programenrollment (GAO, 1995b). The Omnibus Budget Act (P.L.101-239) of 1989 established an outreach program fordisabled children. As part of the Sullivan v . Zelby case, theSSA was required to launch a national media campaign andconduct outreach to schools and welfare of ficers. Further , in

1990 Congress mandated that the SSA widen its outreachefforts and provided SSA with $21 million dollars of fundingfor this project (GAO, 1995b).

Increased numbers of children living in poverty. Anotherexplanation for the increase in SSI program participation istied to the economy . The recession of the early 1990s and theincrease in poverty over the last ten years (Children’ sDefense Fund, 1999) have resulted in a greater number ofpeople with disabilities who meet the financial eligibilityrequirements of the SSI program.

Major changes in eligibility criteria. Recently , theeligibility criteria for transition-age youth were tightened asa result of the W elfare Reform Act (P.L. 104-193). However ,during past 15 years the SSI eligibility standards have beenmuch less strict. The passage of the Disability BenefitsReform Act (P.L. 98-460) in 1984 expanded the definition ofdisability for both children and adults. In 1990, the Sullivanv. Zelby Supreme Court Case (493 US521) also loosened thestandards for children, and added an Individualized Func-tional Assessment (IF A) to assess how a child’ s impairmentaffected his/her ability to behave in age-appropriate ways.Both of these fundamental changes in eligibility criteriacaused an increase in growth (GAO, 1995b).

Increase in immigration. In the last 20 years the level oflegal immigration has doubled (Federation for AmericanImmigration Reform, 1999). In 1996, more than 900,000people legally immigrated to the United States (Federationfor American Immigration Reform, 1999). Logically , thispopulation of immigrants includes persons with disabilitieswho were af forded the same rights of eligibility in the SSIprogram as U.S. citizens. Consequently , immigrationenrollment accounts for some of the increase in growth in theSSI program (GAO, 1995b). During the same time period,non-citizens who were not immigrants (in other words,citizens of other nations who do not intend to take uppermanent residence in the United States) were one of thefastest growing groups of SSI recipients (GAO, 1995b).

Medical advances. Another reason for growth in SSIenrollment was medical advancement. Prevalence of somedisabilities may have increased due to medical progress(GAO, 1995b). For example, those who would not have beenexpected to survive certain health conditions 15 years agoare being kept alive by medical and therapeutic advances.

Unsubstantiated fraud and abuse charges. To date, theliterature in this area has not provided validation of themedia allegations that students with disabilities and theirfamilies were falsifying disabilities to qualify for SSI(Feldman, 1997; GAO, 1995a; Schulzinger , 1998). To thecontrary , four major studies of the SSI program-by theGeneral Accounting Of fice, the Social Security Administra-tion (1994), a Congressionally appointed Disability Policy

Henderson & Razeghi: SSI Fraud & Abuse Investigation


148

Panel, and the Inspector General of the Department of Healthand Human Services-all confirm that there has been noevidence of widespread fraud and abuse (Cohen, 1997;Georges, 1995). In 1997, the SSA acknowledged thisevidence in a section of their August Monthly InformationPacket that specifically addressed disability fraud andcoaching. It stated, “studies showed that there were fewinstances of children actually receiving benefits who werenot disabled” (1997b, p 4).

Changes Initiated by the Social SecurityA d m i n i s t r a t i o n

Despite the above findings by the GAO and the otherinvestigative studies explaining the many reasons behind thegrowth in SSI enrollment, the media and resulting publicpressure continued to perpetuate the belief that students werefalsifying disabilities in order to qualify for SSI programs.Relying heavily on these media reports, Congress took actionto scale back the SSI program to eliminate this type of “fraudand abuse” (Georges, 1995). In response to this pressure, theSSA implemented several initiatives. One initiative wasstricter eligibility criteria that were implemented through theWelfare Reform Act of 1996 (P .L. 104-193). Despiteevidence explaining the many reasons behind the growth inSSI enrollment, the SSA stated that the program was still“vulnerable to abuse” (1997a, p.6) and continued its fraudand abuse investigations through two other initiatives toidentify “coaching or other such abuses” (GAO, 1996, p.2)in the SSI program. The first of these continued “fraud andabuse” investigation initiatives involved each state’ s Disabil-ity Determination Services; the other initiative was thecreation of a telephone hotline.

Stricter Eligibility Criteria

Among the changes in standards was the implementationof a disability redetermination for individuals turning 18 whohad been receiving SSI benefits as children. These 18-year-old students with disabilities had to be evaluated under thesame rules that applied to adults with disabilities who werefiling new claims. Now , when students with disabilities whohave been receiving SSI benefits as children reach the age of18, they must meet the adult eligibility requirements byundergoing a “redetermination,” even through they are stillin school. In order to continue to qualify for SSI benefits, thestudent must “exhibit an inability to engage in any substan-tial gainful activity (paid employment) because of a medi-cally determined physical and/or mental impairment” (TheStudy Group, Inc., 1998).

Unfortunately , these initiatives have had serious,negative implications for transition-age youth who appliedfor or were undergoing an age 18 review for the SSI pro-gram. Shortly after the changes in eligibility criteria took

effect, the SSA looked at the results of these changes. Theydiscovered that between August 1996 and September 1997,56% of the initial redeterminations at age 18 resulted incessation of SSI benefits (SSA, 1998c). Recommendationsfor cessation ranged from a low of 32% of reviews con-ducted in Hawaii to a high of 77% of those conducted inLouisiana (SSA, 2998c). Nationwide 73% of cessations werein the category of mental disorders (SSA, 1998c). Althoughthe intent of the W elfare Reform Act pertaining to age 18redeterminations was never fully explained, advocatesbelieved that SSA field staf f had misread it to mean thatCongress wanted most benefits to end at age 18 (CommunityLegal Services of Philadelphia, 1999).

Disability Determination Services Initiative

To specifically target potential fraud and abuse, the SSAasked its State Disability Determination Services (theagencies funded and overseen by the SSA that determineapplicants’ eligibility for SSI) to identify the number of casesin which coaching was suspected or alleged. During a one-year period, between June 1994 and July 1995, they foundonly 1,232 cases nationwide (GAO, 1996). During this sameperiod 460,000 total cases were processed (GAO, 1996).This percentage amounts to .003% of all cases, and repre-sents alleged or suspected cases, not even proven cases offraud or abuse. From the 1,232 cases, 77 eventually resultedin award of SSI benefits, meaning that fraud allegations inthose cases were unfounded (GAO, 1996). Of the remaining1,155, cases it is not clear how many were proven to befraudulent.

Hotline Initiative

The creation of a telephone hotline was the SSA ’s otherinitiative to curb suspected fraud and abuse. SSA openedtoll-free telephone numbers in each of the SSA ’s ten regionsfor general and special education teachers and other schoolpersonnel to report suspicions of coaching and other abuses(GAO, 1996). The hotline numbers were published in severaldifferent brochures distributed to various school and healthprofessionals who worked with children receiving SSIbenefits. The SSA explained in its brochures that, in additionto cases of coaching, it was looking for potential misuse offunds by representative payees (typically , parents or guard-ians of a child with a disability receiving SSI benefits). If aschool professional believed that representative payee wasmisusing a child’ s benefits they were asked to call thehotline. During a one-year period all ten hotlines received atotal of only 166 calls reporting cases of alleged fraud orabuse (GAO, 1996). The 166 cases reported by these callsare included in the 1,232 cases mentioned above. Again, the166 cases were allegations, not necessarily proven instancesof abuse.

149

How These SSI Changes Involve SchoolP e r s o n n e l

The SSA relies heavily on school personnel, specificallyspecial education administrators and teachers, to assess SSIeligibility for students of all ages including transition-ageyouth. In reality , the SSA has actually enlisted the help ofthese school personnel in the search for fraud and abuse. Itaccomplishes this in several dif ferent ways: the hotline(discussed above); the Disability Determination Services ofeach state; SSA publications; and the “School ActivityReport.” Special education administrators, teachers, andother school personnel are also often requested by theDisability Determination Services to compile school recordsand provide information related to a student’ s functionalability. The SSA requests the help of those school profession-als, especially those in special education, who work withstudents with disabilities to report (1) any suspicions of arepresentative payee “misusing a child’ s benefits” (SSA,1998b, p. 3) or (2) “knowledge that a child has been coachedto behave poorly” (SSA, 1998b, p. 7). Examples of theserequests are evident in the publications and solicitationscreated by the SSA for educational personnel.

SSA Publications

One way in which the SSA currently elicits the assis-tance of educators in locating cases of fraud and abuse isthrough its publications. For example, in the SSA ’s October1998 brochure, Childhood Disability: The SupplementalSecurity Income Program: A Guide for School Professionals,Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of Social Security , indi-cates that the SSA relies, to a great extent, on the profes-sional expertise and judgment of school personnel in thedisability determination process. He specifically requests thateducation professionals report any suspected misuse of fundsby a representative payee. This SSA brochure also asksspecial educators and other school personnel to report anysuspicions they have of students being coached to functionpoorly in order to fraudulently qualify for SSI benefits. Also,the 10 regional SSA hotline numbers are listed in thisbrochure.

School Activity Report

Another document that SSA uses to enlist the aid ofschool personnel in locating cases of fraud and abuse is the“School Activity Report” (also called the “School ActivityQuestionnaire”). This questionnaire, which is routinelydistributed to educators, is the means by which each state’ sDisability Determination Service requests information abouta student from a school professional who works closely withthat child. Information solicited from the school professionalrelates to the student’ s school functioning and normally

includes communication ability , physical functioning, socialdevelopment, personal functioning, and concentration,persistence, and pace.

Presently , each state creates its own questionnaire, butthe SSA is in the process of developing one standardquestionnaire to be used by all states. W ithin the majority ofstate questionnaires, as well as the most recent draft of thefederal questionnaire, is an inquiry about “coaching.” As anexample, specific language from the V irginia School ActivityReport is cited below:

The Social Security Administration has received anumber of complaints from the education communitythat some children are being “coached” (e.g.,instructed to do poorly on tests or engage in disrup-tive behavior in class) in order to obtain SSI child-hood benefits.

To determine if this is a problem, the Social SecurityAdministration requests that we ask the followingquestion when developing evidence of function fromteachers and other school personnel.

This questionnaire goes on to specifically ask teachersabout recent behavior , and if they have any personal knowl-edge of whether a student has been coached by parents inorder to obtain SSI benefits.

Problems for Special Educators, Adminis-trators, and Students

Enlisting the assistance of school personnel in a fraudand abuse investigation through the School Activity Reportand SSA publications is potentially problematic for educatorsand for students and families applying for or receiving SSIbenefits. It can produce biased responses on the SchoolActivity Report, may put educators at risk of liability , andmay perpetuate a damaging stereotype of students withdisabilities and their families who are living in poverty .

Potential Questionnaire Bias

Research indicates that when questions pertaining to“coaching” are introduced into the School Activity Report-the entire questionnaire becomes invalid. School profession-als (special education administrators and teachers) haveimportant information to contribute to the disability determi-nation process. Knowledge they have about a child’ sfunctional skills is unique and needs to be shared with theDisability Determination Services. However , when questionsabout “coaching” are presented alongside the questionspertaining to functional behavior , responses to the functionalbehavior questions become biased. This occurs because thecoaching questions are considered “inappropriate” on manylevels (GAO, 1993; Fowler , 1995; Singleton, Straits, Straits,



150

& McAllister, 1998). The questions regarding coaching areinappropriate for the following reasons: (1) the information isirrelevant to the original intent of the School Activity Report;(2) the questions are loaded and worded in a leading manner;and (3) they expose the respondents, such as special educationteachers and administrators, to risk and liability if answered.

According to the GAO report (GAO, 1993, p. 80),“Questions that are not relevant to the goals of the evaluation. . . should be avoided.” Such unrelated questions that aremeant to be used for another separate evaluation, such as theSSI fraud and abuse investigation, are called “riders.” Theaddition of riders changes the context and meaning of all thequestions and is the single biggest cause of nonparticipation(GAO, 1993). Floyd J. Fowler supports this idea in his book,Improving Survey Questions (1995). He explains thatevaluators should only ask questions related to the specificevaluation being conducted, in this case, the student’ sfunctional ability .

Of specific concern is that in the introduction to thequestions about coaching on the School Activity Report, SSAdescribes the prevailing condition of coaching as existing inmore than a few isolated instances. According to the GAOreport, this is called “status quo bias” and may produceinaccurate data (GAO, 1993). Further , when questions arepreceded by this type of background information they areconsidered leading and produce biased responses (Singletonet al., 1998). Fowler (1995, p. 82) agrees, instructingquestionnaire designers to “avoid questions that imposeunwarranted assumptions.”

Professional Risk of Liability

While it would seem obvious, it is important to mentionthat questions that expose respondents (special educationteachers and administrators) to risk are unfair and inappro-priate (GAO, 1993; Fowler , 1993; Singleton et al., 1988).Providing information about potential fraud and abuse of SSIbenefits puts special education teachers, administrators, and/or school systems at risk of litigation. If such questionscannot be avoided (for example, if the respondent is the onlysource of such information) assurance of confidentiality mustbe expressed in the questionnaire (Singleton et al., 1988, p.276). The School Activity Report is a procedural tool usedby the Disability Determination Services to assess eligibility .Special educators and administrators (and any other schoolpersonnel who become involved) are put at professional riskwhen they are asked by a federal agency (the SSA) toprovide information about fraud and abuse by students and/or their parents. Providing such information not only putsthem at professional risk, but also places them in an uncom-fortable and unreasonable position. Unfortunately , there is noassurance of confidentiality for special educators or admin-istrators who complete the School Activity Report.

Perpetuation of a Damaging Stereotype

Another potential result of the SSA ’s fraud and abuseinquiry is the perpetuation of a damaging stereotype. Peopleliving in poverty are easy targets for unflattering and unfairlabels. As a result of the recent media crusade alleging abusein the SSI program, SSI recipients and their families haveshouldered an inordinate amount of this burden as evidencedby the comments made by several members of Congress atthe time of the media reports. According to Common Causemagazine, Newt Gingrich stated that there were thousands ofthese “brat kids” whose parents taught them to misbehave inorder to get checks from the government (Lutterbeck, 1995,p 8). “These brat kids,” Gingrich was quoted saying, “get$400 to $460 a month just for being jerks,” (Lutterbeck,1995, p. 8). In another example, Senator Robert Byrdclaimed that SSI was teaching young adults “that their futurelies not in hard work, but in ripping of f the government forbenefits” (Georges, 1995, p. 70). The disabilities of manySSI recipients will prevent them from earning enough tofinancially support themselves, regardless of how hard theywork. This is the fundamental principle upon which the SSIprogram was developed.

By inserting a request for information about fraud andabuse into SSA documents given to school professionals, theSSA appears to be implying that all SSI recipients and theirfamilies should be viewed with suspicion, not only by theSSA but also by the school professionals themselves.According to Jonathan Stein, a legal activist for disabledchildren, the climate created by the media reports makefamilies suspect (Feldmann, 1997), even in light of thestudies disproving the existence of coaching. The addition ofthe fraud and abuse probes in the SSA publications mayfurther be serving to arouse the suspicions of educators;however , it is likely that this is not the intention of the SSA.

Summary and Recommendations

The SSI program was developed, in part, to provideassistance to youth with disabilities and their families inhopes that they would be able to live independent, produc-tive, and fulfilling lives. The intent of this program isadmirable and its benefits are a necessary support for manytransition-age youth. The fraud and abuse inquiries that arestill included in the assessment process seem to perpetuatethe misconception that students are falsifying disabilities tobecome eligible for SSI benefits. This misconception mayhave played a role in the implementation of the age 18review that, in the first year alone, resulted in 34,344 youthbeing dropped from the SSI program. It would be unfortu-nate if other potentially damaging outcomes result from thisinvestigation. It has been proven that the investigation hasfound very few cases of fraud and abuse, so, consequently ,we might assume that few positive outcomes have resulted

151

from this ef fort. It does, however , have the potential forseveral negative outcomes.

For instance, one possible detrimental consequence isthe biased information the Disability Determination Serviceswill continue to receive while the questions about coachingremain in the School Activity Report. School professionals,especially special education teachers, have significant andunique information that is valuable to the Disability Determi-nation process. As long as coaching questions remain in theSchool Activity Report, the information received from theschool will be biased and unreliable. Students with disabili-ties and their families who rely on SSI cash benefits are, inturn, relying on school personnel, especially special educa-tion teachers and administrators, to give unbiased informa-tion to the Disability Determination Services. The coachingriders in the School Activity Report are preventing educatorsfrom being able to do this.

By answering questions related to fraud and abuse,school professionals, especially special education teachersare taking a risk. It’ s possible that the special educationadministrators are not even aware of this risk. They may notbe aware that special education teachers are being asked toshare confidential information about their students withdisabilities and their families that could make the teachers,the administrators, and the school districts who employ themall vulnerable to litigation. Most school systems facetremendous pressures as a result of due process hearings inthe field of special education alone. It is reasonable toassume that they do not want to open the door to furtherlegal involvement and unnecessary complications.

Another consequence of the SSA ’s fraud and abusesearch is the perpetuation of a stereotype: one that character-izes SSI recipients and their families as malingerers worthyof suspicion. Mistaken perceptions of people living inpoverty abound, and unfortunately , people with disabilitieslive in poverty at more than twice the rate of nondisabledpeople (Kruse, 1998). Through the fraud and abuse inquirythis population is being further marginalized.

We hope that the fraud and abuse language, probes,questions, and concerns will be completely removed from allSSA publications, but, until they are removed, we of fer thefollowing recommendations:

• Special education teachers, Administrators, and otherschool personnel should assist the SSA in revising theirrole. If the fraud and abuse probes continue to be includedin the School Activity Report, then school personnel,especially special education teachers and administrators, aswell as the professional organizations that represent them,should inform the SSA that they will not cooperate withthe Disability Determination Services and that they willadvise all other educators to not cooperate in this process.

• Development of a national questionnaire shouldinclude input from special education teachers, adminis-trators, and other school personnel. School profession-

als, particularly special education teachers and administra-tors, should be significantly represented in any futurerevisions of the School Activity Report and/or the develop-ment of any other similar questionnaire, because they arethe primary respondents of the School Activity Reports.Any development of this questionnaire, as well as anyother similar questionnaires to which they are asked torespond, should include a significant representation of thespecial and other educators who will be involved. Involv-ing these stakeholders will help ensure that SSA does notput educational personnel in at-risk situations.

• Future national questionnaires should be field testedwith their target audience. Any future questionnairesthat involve input from school personnel, especiallyspecial education teachers and administrators, should beput through the rigor of field tests with their targetaudiences to ensure acceptable levels of reliability andvalidity are achieved.

• The SSA should focus its attention on other possiblereasons for growth in the SSI program, such as theincrease of children and youth in poverty. The SSAshould look at the increasing rates of poverty and therelationship of poverty to disability as a possible explana-tion for the increase in SSI enrollment. The number ofAmericans living below the poverty line has steadilyincreased over the past three decades from 24.2 million in1969 to 36.5 million in 1996 (Fujiura & Yamaki, 1999). Aspoverty increases, the number of children and youth withdisabilities receiving special education has also increased(Fujiura & Yamaki, 1999). In other words, increasedenrollment in the SSI program would be another logicalresult of this increase in poverty.

C o n c l u s i o n

One of the most important times in the life of a studentwith a disability is the transition-age period when thesestudents are attempting to prepare for employment andindependence. For many students with more severe disabili-ties who require SSI medical and cash benefits during thetransition process, it is unfair to deny them their full potentialof development. If their SSI benefits are eliminated as theyenter or are in the middle of this important transition process,they may miss important milestones that may never again beachieved. As special educators and administrators and othereducational personnel, we need to:

• become more aware of the SSI benefits that are available forthose students with disabilities who qualify,

• understand our important role in helping these studentsmaintain their SSI eligibility status,

• be cautious about providing confidential information aboutour students with disabilities to other agencies innocentlyrequesting such information;



152

• realize that if we do share confidential information withother agencies we are putting ourselves and our schoolsystems at professional and legal risk, and, finally ,

• inform SSA that, if the fraud and abuse probes appear onquestionnaires or materials, we will not help complete them.

R e f e r e n c e s

Children’s Defense Fund. (1999). A report from theChildren’s Defense Fund: Yearbook 1999. Boston, MA:Beacon Press.

Community Legal Services of Philadelphia. (1999).Cohen, A. (1997). Are the cuts unkind? Time, 150(2), p. 50.Federation for American Immigration Reform. (1999). Issue

brief: Immigration levels in perspective. Washington,DC: Author.

Feldmann, L. (1997). Fraud-busters Cut Benefits for Dis-abled. The Christian Science Monitor. Boston, MA.

Fowler , F. J. (1995). Improving survey design questions:Design and evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications, Inc.

Fowler , F. J. (1993). Survey research methods (2nd ed.).Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Fujiura, G. T., & Yamaki, K. (1999). Emerging trends indemography of childhood poverty and disability.University of Illinois at Chicago, Department ofDisability and Human Development.

Georges, C. (1995). A media crusade gone haywire. ForbesMedia Critic, 3(1), pp. 66-71.

Hancock, L. (1994, October 31). Parents ‘crazy’ for FederalCash. Newsweek, 124, pp. 54-55.

Ivans, M. (1995, February). A time for sustained outrage.The Progressive, 59, p. 46.

Kacapyr , E. (1998, February). How hard are times? Ameri-can Demographics, 20(1998), p. 30.

Kruse, D. L. (1998). Persons with disabilities: Demographic,income, and health care characteristics, 1993. MonthlyLabor Review, 21(9), pp. 13-22.

Lutterbeck, D. (1995). Government by tantrum. CommonCause Magazine, 21(2), p. 8.

Schulzinger , R. (1998). Key transitions issues for youth withdisabilities and chronic health conditions. An occasionalpolicy brief of the Institute for Child Health Policy .Gainesville, FL: Institute for Child Health Policy .

Shriver , E. (1997, April 10). Targeting the most vulnerable.Washington Post, p. 5.

Singleton, R., Jr ., Straits, B. C., Straits, M. M., & McAllister ,R. J. (1988). Approaches to social research. New York,NY: Oxford University Press.

Social Security Administration. (1998a). Management of theSupplemental Security Income Program: Today and inthe future. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Social Security Administration. (1998b). Childhood disabil-ity: The Supplemental Security Income Program: Aguide for school professionals. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Social Security Administration. (1998c). SSI welfare reform age-18redetermination status report. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Social Security Administration, Of fice of the InspectorGeneral. (1997a). Office audit: Special joint vulnerabil-ity review of the Supplemental Security Income Program(A-04-95-0602). Baltimore, MD: Author.

Social Security Administration. (1997b). Social Securitygetting tough on fraud. Monthly Information Package(MIP), August 1997. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Social Security Administration. (1994). Findings from theStudy of Title XVI Childhood Disability Claims. Balti-more, MD: Author.

The Study Group. (1998). Meeting the needs of youth withdisabilities: Handbook on Supplemental Security IncomeWork Incentives and Transition Students. Minneapolis,MN: University of Minnesota.

United States General Accounting Of fice. (1996). SSAinitiatives to identify coaching (GAO/HEHS-96-96R).Washington, DC: Author.

United States General Accounting Of fice. (1995a). SocialSecurity: New functional assessments for children raiseeligibility questions (GAO/HEHS-95-66). W ashington,DC: Author.

United States General Accounting Of fice. (1995b). Supple-mental Security Income: Recipient population haschanged as caseloads have burgeoned (GAO/T-HEHS-95-120). W ashington, DC: Author.

United States General Accounting Of fice. (1995c). SocialSecurity: Federal disability programs face major issues(GAO/T-HEHS-95-97). W ashington, DC: Author.

United States General Accounting Of fice. (1993). Develop-ing and using questionnaires (GAO/PEMD-10.1.7).Washington, DC: Author.

Author Information


Sarah Henderson; University of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration, 150 Pillsbury Drive SE, 102 Pattee Hall,Minneapolis, MN 55455,612/624-6300, or 202/483-2587, [email protected]

Jane Ann Razeghi; Center for Human Disaiblities, George Mason University , 4400 University Drive, Fairfax, V A 22030,703/993-2055, [email protected]

153

Since the 1980s, the ef ficacy of public educationprograms has been challenged by policymakers, businessleaders, and professionals, as well as the general public.Whether the impetus for such reform comes from a percep-tion of “falling behind” our international counterparts (asasserted in A Nation at Risk), or from a belief that we are just“falling short” of providing equitable opportunities to all USchildren (as in The Forgotten Half), the public consensusseems to be that there are serious things wrong with publiceducation, that the problems are systematic rather thanprogrammatic, and that nothing short of major structuralchange will fix these problems (Cobb & Johnson, 1997).Other major reports such as The SCANS Report for America2000 have come forward in response to employers’ concernsregarding the preparedness of youth for the labor market.While these developments have been predominantly targetedon improving the general education system nationally ,special education has been initiating ef forts to closely alignits programs with those of general education to respond toemerging educational reforms. That is, special education isdefining “what” it does and the “results” it achieves foryoung people and their families parallel to those of thegeneral education system.

In particular , special education programs have beeninfluenced by several recent federal and state generaleducation reform developments. For example, the School toWork Opportunities Act of 1994, Goals 2000: EducateAmerica Act of 1994, and the Improving America’s SchoolsAct of 1994 have promoted comprehensive strategies forimproving public school programs for all students. Thereforms established through this federal legislation stresshigh academic and occupational standards; promote the useof state and local standards-based accountability systems;point to the need to improve teaching through comprehen-sive professional development programs; and have called forthe development of broad-based partnerships betweenschools, employers, postsecondary education institutions,parents, and others in designing comprehensive statewideschool-to-work systems.

These national educational reforms, now being adoptedacross states, are viewed as consistent with and complemen-tary to special education, including the transition servicesrequirements of IDEA 1997. W ithin states, these federalpolicy reforms are becoming an integral part of the transfor-mation of high school programs that address and support theneeds and interests of all students, including students withdisabilities. These federal and state educational reformshave, however , placed additional responsibilities on specialeducation to ensure that students with disabilities are fully

involved in and benefit from their participation in theseemerging initiatives. For special education, and, in particular ,secondary special education and transition programs, severalchallenges have been identified. These include, but are notlimited to:

Challenge 1: Ensure students with disabilities access to thefull range of secondary education learning experiences

IDEA 1997 includes statutory language intended toimprove the access of students with disabilities to the generaleducation curriculum. This has provided many students withdisabilities new opportunities to participate in and benefitfrom a wider range of general education courses and learningexperiences. High-stakes testing has become a commoncomponent of standards-based reform and educationalaccountability . IDEA 1997 requires that students withdisabilities participate in these high-stakes testing programs.Tests are viewed as “high stakes” when they are used tomake critical decisions about a student’ s (1) access toeducational opportunity , (2) grade-level retention or promo-tion, (3) graduation from high school, and (4) receipt of astandard diploma vs. an alternative diploma (e.g., specialeducation diploma, certificate of completion). Thesedecisions all have immediate and long-range implications forstudents.

There are, however , both intended and unintendedconsequences of high-stakes testing on students withdisabilities. There is the potential for these assessments toresult in many benefits for students with disabilities, but forthis to happen, several unintended consequences will need tobe addressed. When students with disabilities experiencedifficulties in passing high-stakes tests and minimallymeeting state general education standards, pressures mountfor school districts, schools, and professionals to ensure thatstudents ultimately pass these tests. Observable conse-quences may include: (1) increasing referrals to specialeducation for services; (2) lowering expectations of studentsas learners; (3) narrowing of the curriculum and instructionto focus on the specific learning outcomes assessed in statetests; (4) teaching to tests; (5) using test preparation materi-als that are closely linked to the assessment without makingchanges to the curriculum; (6) limiting the range of programoptions students can participate in, due to intensified ef fortsto concentrate on areas of weakness identified by testing;and (7) using test scores to impact whether a student willgraduate from school with a standard or alternative diploma(Education Commission of the States, 1998; Lane, Park, &Stone, 1998; Nelson, 1999; Thurlow & Johnson, in press). A

Challenges Facing the Future of Transition Services

David R. JohnsonUniversity of Minnesota


154

major concern is that scores on high-stakes tests will be usedto place students with disabilities in “low-track” classes,where they learn less than they are capable of learning.

Given these unintended consequences, ef forts must beundertaken to ensure that students with disabilities remain ona full “curriculum track,” with learning expectations thatguide the instruction of general education students. That is,students’ IEP teams must work to ensure that high expecta-tions for learning and achievement are maintained and thatstudents are af forded opportunities to develop skills andknowledge through a wide range of curricular options. Thehigh school curriculum in most school districts across theUnited States af fords students many opportunities to partici-pate in a wide range of academic, vocational education, andservice learning opportunities. Students’ IEPs must focus onthe broadest range of curricula and programs that supportstudents with disabilities in successfully achieving stateacademic and related standards, as well as developingessential adult-life skills. Several of these high schoolcurricular options include:

• Community-Based Work Experience: This type ofprogram of fers structured, part-time, paid and unpaidopportunities in which students can participate and earnhigh-school credit.

• Vocational Education: Programs of vocational educa-tion include vocational courses, paid work experiences,participation in student organizations, and other learningexperiences. Increasingly ef forts are underway tointegrate academic learning with vocational educationprograms.

• Dropout Reentry Programs: These programs aredesigned for students who have dropped out of schooland want to return and complete their high schooldiploma. These programs typically emphasize a strongbase of classroom, as well as experiential, learning,including paid work experiences.

• Independent Living Skills Programs: Programsspecifically designed to help students to develop dailyliving skills necessary for living independently in thecommunity . Such programs can be coordinated withlocal centers for independent living.

• Tech Prep Programs: The tech-prep educational pathcombines math, science, and communication with astrong technical core. Beginning in eleventh grade, techprep education is a four-year sequence of study thatcontinues into at least two years of postsecondaryvocational/technical education.

• Service Learning Opportunities: These programscombine experiential education and curricular goals tohelp students develop skills and knowledge concerningcommunity service/human service career options. Studentsearn high school credits for graduation in these programs.

• Postsecondary Education Options: These programs,offered in several states, allow students, typically in theeleventh and twelfth grades, to take classes at public orprivate postsecondary institutions, under the guidance oftheir high school teachers/counselors.

Challenge 2: Make high school graduation decisionsbased on meaningful indicators of students’ learningand skills and clarify the implications of differentdiploma options for students with disabilities

Requirements that states set for graduation can rangefrom Carnegie unit requirements (a certain number of classcredits earned in specific areas), successfully passing acompetency test, high school exit exams, and/or a series ofbenchmark exams (Thurlow , Ysseldyke, & Henderson,1995). States may also require almost any combination ofthese. Diversity in graduation requirements is complicatedfurther by an increasingly diverse set of possible diplomaoptions. In addition the standard high school diploma,options include special education diplomas, certificates ofcompletion, occupational diplomas, and others.

Many states have gone all out to improve the passingrates of students with disabilities on state exit exams and inmeeting other requirements for graduation. Strategies haveincluded grade-level retention, specialized tutoring andinstruction during the school day and after school, andweekend and summer tutoring programs. While these may beviewed as appropriate interventions and strategies, there islittle research evidence to suggest that this is the case.Persuasive evidence indicates, for example, that repeating agrade does not improve the overall achievement of studentswith disabilities (Allington & McGill-Franzen, 1992;Holmes, 1989). A second concern arises for students whobecome frustrated at repeated failures on state graduationtests and drop out of school. Dropping out of school is one ofthe most serious and pervasive problems facing specialeducation programs nationally , yet very little data arepresently available on dropout rates among youth withdisabilities. The last study of the secondary school experi-ences of students with disabilities that was mandated by theUS Congress found that approximately 36% exited school bydropping out (W agner , Newman, D’Amico, Jay , Butler-Naylin, Marder , & Cox, 1991). No studies to date have beenconducted to examine the relationship between “high-stakes”assessment practices and related graduation requirements ondropout rates for students with disabilities.

There is a critical need to better understand the implica-tions of state graduation requirements, considering the potentialnegative outcomes students experience when they fail to meetstate standards for graduation. There are several challenges thatmust be addressed in relation to state graduation requirementsand the granting of alternative diplomas for students withdisabilities. Several of these include the need to:

155

• Promote the use of alternate assessments to supportgraduation decisions. In addition to meeting statecourse requirements and/or passing exit examinations,other relevant, multiple sources of information anddocumentation of student knowledge and skills shouldbe used in making graduation decisions and the grantingof diploma options. While alternate assessments arebeing used by some states as a way for some students toshow that they have met graduation requirements, thesereally don’t provide the multiple sources of informationneeded. Other possible sources might include authenticor performances based assessments, portfolios, or otherdocumentation.

• Clarify the implications of developing and grantingalternative diploma options for students with dis-abilities. The question here is whether receiving lessthan a standard high school diploma may limit astudent’ s access to future postsecondary education andemployment opportunities. Currently , most states of ferand grant alternative diplomas in addition to the stan-dard high school diploma (Guy , Shin, Lee, & Thurlow,1999). State and local education agencies need tothoroughly discuss the “meaning” and “rigor” of thesealternative diplomas with, at a minimum, postsecondaryeducation program representatives and employers.Consensus must be reached on their use forpostsecondary education admissions and in making hiringdecisions.

• Clarify the implications of different diploma optionsfor continued special education services. It is impor-tant for parents and educators to know that if a studentgraduates from high school with a standard high schooldiploma, the student is no longer entitled to specialeducation services unless a state or district has a policyabout continued services under such circumstances.Most states, however , do not have such policies. Specialeducation and general education teachers shouldcarefully work with students and families to considerwhat it actually means to receive a high school diploma.In some cases, it may be advisable to delay formalreceipt of a standard high school diploma until theconditions (goals and objectives) of the student’ s IEPhave been fully met, including all transition servicerequirements outlined in IDEA 1997.

Challenge 3: Ensure students access to and full participa-tion in postsecondary education, employment, andindependent living opportunities

Young adults with disabilities still face significantdifficulties in securing jobs, accessing postsecondaryeducation, living independently , and fully participating intheir communities. Currently , only 29% of persons with

disabilities, ages 18-64, work full- or part-time, compared to79% of the nondisabled population (National Organizationon Disability/Harris poll, 1998). Further , participation ratesamong individuals with disabilities in postsecondaryinstitutions is 50% lower than the enrollment among thegeneral population (Pierangelo & Crane, 1997). At present,fewer than one in five persons with disabilities pursuespostsecondary education during their young adult years(Blackorby & Wagner , 1996). Similar dif ficulties are notedfor persons with disabilities in achieving personal goals forindependent living and participating in other aspects ofcommunity life.

One of the major reasons why young adults withdisabilities have failed to achieve desired outcomes is a lackof coordination and collaboration between schools, communityservice agencies, postsecondary education programs, andemployers. While there are “effective” models of interagencycooperation that have supported young people in the transitionfrom school to adult life, these models have not been widelyadopted by state and local education agencies in addressing thetransition service needs of students with disabilities.

It is well understood that preparation for the transitionfrom high school to postsecondary education, employment,and independent living must begin early , or at least by age14. It is at this age that students’ IEP teams must engage indiscussions regarding the types of course work students willneed, at a minimum, to be able to enroll in postsecondaryeducation programs, the types of learning options andexperiences students will need to develop basic work skillsfor employment, as well as skills needed for independentliving. Specific levels of accommodations and supports astudent will need to participate in these post-school environ-ments must also be identified. Prior to the student’ s gradua-tion from high school, it is the responsibility of the student’ sIEP team to identify and engage the responsible agencies,resources, and accommodations required for the student tosuccessfully achieve positive adult life outcomes. Allagencies responsible must:

• Ensure that community service agency participationsystematically occurs in the development of post-school transition plans. Strategies such as formalizingagency responsibilities through interagency agreementsor memorandums of understanding, and formalizingfollow-up procedures and actions when agencies areunable to attend should be considered.

• Engage in integrated service planning. The IEP shouldbe coordinated with the individualized service plansrequired under other federal and state programs (T itle Iof the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title XIX of theSocial Security Act [Medicaid], Title XVI of the SocialSecurity Act [Supplemental Security Income], and otherfederal programs).

The Challenges


156

• Provide information to parents on essential healthand income maintenance programs. Information onthe SSI program, including information on basicprogram eligibility , 18-year old benefit redeterminations,appeals processes, and use of the SSI work incentives inpromoting employment outcomes must be readilyaccessible to professionals, parents, and students withdisabilities. Special education personnel must play amajor role in making such information available andassisting parents and students in accessing neededbenefits.

• Establish partnerships with workforce developmententities. The participation of youth and young adultswith disabilities, family members, and special educationand rehabilitation professionals in state and localworkforce development initiatives should be promoted.This is critically important to ensure that initiatives suchas the W orkforce Investment Act’s youth employmentprograms are fully accessible to individuals withdisabilities as they pursue postsecondary education andemployment opportunities.

Challenge 4: Support student and family participation inthe IEP and transition planning process

The importance of student participation has beenreinforced by emerging practices in public schools emphasiz-ing the core values of self-determination, personal choice,and shared responsibility . OSEP has played a major role inadvancing a wide range of self-determination strategiesthrough sponsored research and demonstration projects. TheIDEA 1997 regulations are explicit and require that allspecial education students age 14 and older are to be invitedto their IEP meetings when transition is being discussed.Recent studies have shown that many students are attendingtheir IEP meetings (Hasazi et al., 1999; Johnson & Sharpe,2000). There remains, however , a significant number whoare not involved. This raises obvious concerns as to whetherthese students are not being extended opportunities forinvolvement, or are simply choosing not to attend. It isdifficult, however , to imagine conditions under whichstudents would not attend their IEP meetings other than bypersonal choice. Questions must also be raised as to howwell prepared these young people feel to participate in andultimately lead discussions concerning their goals.

Parent participation has been advocated for since theinception of the EHA of 1975. A large part of the discussionin the literature centers around the role of parents as partici-pants in the development of their child’ s IEP. IDEA 1990 andthe 1997 Amendments have also required that state and localeducation agencies notify parents and encourage theirparticipation when the purpose of the meeting is the consid-eration of transition services. While existing policies havestrongly encouraged the participation of parents, it is less

clear how successful these strategies have been in creating“meaningful” and “valued” roles for parents. Because of thecritical role that parents play in assisting their children inmaking the transition from school to adult life, additionalattention must be given to establishing strategies andmethods needed to actively engage them in discussions anddecisions concerning school and post-school options. Severalactions that should be taken to improve the student andparent participation include:

• Support students in the development of decision-making, communication, and self-advocacy skillsnecessary to assume a leadership role in theirtransition/IEP meetings. Strategies may includeoffering classes specifically designed to enhancedecision-making, ef forts to promote self-determinationand goal-setting throughout the curriculum, and sendinginformation home to assist parents in preparing theirchild for participation. Students’ goals for self-determi-nation must also be clearly stated within IEPs. Re-sources should also be committed to large-scale techni-cal assistance and dissemination ef forts to ensure thatelementary , middle, and high schools nationwide haveready access to relevant information, curricula, andstrategies to promote self-determination.

• Increase the participation of parents, especiallyparents from diverse cultural backgrounds and thoseliving in poverty. Research has shown that parentparticipation in IEPs has generally been passive,principally due to parents’ lack for information andtraining or due to barriers posed by the attitudes andpractices of education professionals. It is readilyacknowledged that the participation of parents fromdiverse multicultural and economic backgrounds hasbeen dif ficult to achieve. Ef forts to date to systemati-cally address this have been minimal. Additionaloutreach and training strategies must be developed andput into place to ensure broader levels of participationamong these parents.

• Ensure that each Parent Training and Informationcenter (PTI) has the information and capacity tosupport parents and students in the IEP and transi-tion planning process. These PTIs represent a nationalnetwork of organizations charged with the responsibilityof providing parents information and support in relationto their child’ s participation in special education. PTIsmust be viewed, in part, as a logical and importantnetwork for sharing information on the transition servicerequirements of IDEA 1997. Resources need to becommitted, however , to help these organizations developthe capacity to provide training and disseminate suchinformation.

157

Challenge 5: Improve collaboration at all levels

A wide range of collaborative approaches and modelshave been part of the ongoing ef fort to improve transitionservices and post-school outcomes for youth with disabilitiesand families for more than two decades. For example, thecoordination of services across federal, state, and localagencies is one of the most importance objectives of federaltransition policy . Collaboration has also been a central themein supporting students’ access to the general educationcurriculum. Broad levels of collaboration between generaleducation and special education have been stimulatedthrough recent research and demonstration projects fundedby OSEP . Collaboration has also been promoted as a meansto achieving more ef ficient services through interagencyresource pooling and cost-sharing, cross-agency training andstaf f development initiatives, coordinated service planning,and other methods. To improve collaboration at all levels tosupport the transition of youth with disabilities from schoolto adult life, there is a need to:

• Promote general education and special educationcollaboration. This would include collaborative modelsof student assessment, IEP and transition planning, andinstruction between general education and specialeducation to promote positive school and post-schooloutcomes.

• Establish cross-agency evaluation and accountabilitysystems. This would include evaluations of school andpost-school employment, independent living, and relatedoutcomes of former special education students.

• Develop innovative interagency financing strategies.Fiscal disincentives should be removed and waiveroptions provided to promote cost-sharing and resource-pooling among agencies in making available neededtransition services and supports for students with disabili-ties.

• Promote collaborative staff development programs.Approaches such as cross-training, train-the-trainer ,team-building, and others involving collaborativerelationships between state and local agencies, institu-tions of higher education, parent centers, and consumerand advocacy organizations must be promoted.

Challenge 6: Ensure the availability of a qualifiedworkforce to address the transition needs of youth withdisabilities

State and local education agencies across the US arecurrently experiencing a shortage of personnel to servechildren and youth with disabilities. In 1997-98, more than4,000 full-time equivalent special education teachingpositions were vacant, and an additional 31,000 specialeducation teachers were not fully certified for their positions(US Department of Eduction, 1999). This is coupled with

other severe shortages of related services personnel nation-wide. Included within this larger concern for special educa-tion personnel, is the growing concern over projectedshortages and current skill levels of personnel available toaddress the transition needs of students with disabilities.

Miller, Lombard, and Hazelkorn’ s research (see alsoJohnson and Sharpe) reports that few special educationteachers have received training on the methods, materials,and strategies to develop meaningful IEPs that include goalsand objectives on transition or specifically address thestudents’ transition needs through the curriculum andinstruction. Many special education personnel lack theunique skills and competencies required to engage ineffective transition planning and programming for studentswith disabilities. The article by W illiams and O’Learydiscusses this specific problem in relation to OSEP’ smonitoring findings and results. These authors comment onthe need to provide comprehensive preservice and inserviceprofessional development opportunities for special educationand related services personnel. Actions include the need to:

• Address the shortages of personnel with specificresponsibilities for transition. State and local educa-tion agencies need to recruit individuals with specificresponsibilities for transition to promote improved post-school outcomes among students with disabilities.

• Ensure that special education personnel possess theunique skills and competencies to address thetransition service needs of students with disabilities.State and local education agencies must work closelywith institutions of higher education to commit theresources necessary to ensure that current and futurespecial education teachers and related services personnelhave the skills and competencies necessary to fullyaddress the transition service needs of students withdisabilities. This could include committing a portion ofstate improvement grants (SIGs) to this purpose.

The Challenges

R e f e r e n c e s

Allington, R., & McGill-Franzen, A. (1992). Does highstakes testing improve school ef fectiveness? CareerDevelopment for Exceptional Individuals, 20(2), 179-190.

Blackorby , J., & Wagner , M. (1996). Longitudinal post-school outcomes of youth with disabilities: Findingsfrom the National Longitudinal Transition Study .Exceptional Children, 62, 399-413.

Cobb, B., & Johnson, D. R. (1997). The Statewide SystemsChange Initiative as a federal policy mechanism forpromoting education reform. Career Development forExceptional Individuals, 20(2), 179-190.


158

Education Commission of the States. (1998). Designing andimplementing standard-based accountability systems.Denver, CO: Author.

Guy, B., Shin, H., Lee, S. Y., & Thurlow, M. L. (1999). Stategraduation requirements for students with and withoutdisabilities (Technical Report 24). Minneapolis, MN:University of Minnesota, National Center on Educa-tional Outcomes.

Hasazi, S. B., Furney, K.S., & DeStefano, L. (1999).Implementing the IDEA Transition Mandates. Excep-tional Children, 65(4), 555-566.

Holmes, C. T., (1989). Grade level retention effects: A meta-analysis of research studies. In L. A. Shepard & M. L.Smith (Eds.), Flunking grades: Research and policieson retention (pp. 16-33). London: Falmer Press.

Lane, S., Park, C. S., & Stone, C. (1998). A framework forevaluating the consequences of assessment programs.Educational Measurement, 17(2), 24-28.

Louis Harris and Associates (1998). National Organizationon Disability/Harris survey of Americans with disabili-ties. New York: Author.

National Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE).(1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educationalreform. Washington DC: US. Government PrintingOffice.

Nelson, R. J. (1999). Closing or widening the gap ofinequality?: The intended and unintended consequencesof educational accountability systems for students withdisabilities. (unpublished manuscript). Minneapolis,MN: University of Minnesota, National Center onEducational Outcomes.

Pierangelo, R., & Crane, R. (1997). Complete guide tospecial education transition services. West Nyack, NY:the Center for Applied Research in Education.

SCANS (June 1991). What work requires of schools: ASCANS report for America 2000. Washington, DC:Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills,US. Department of Labor.

Thurlow, M. L., & Johnson, D. R. (in press). High stakestesting for students with disabilities. Journal of TeacherEducation.

Thurlow, M., Ysseldyke, J., & Anderson, A. (1995). Highschool graduation requirements: What’s happening forstudents with disabilities? Minneapolis, MN: Universityof Minnesota, National Center on Educational Out-comes.

US Department of Education (1999). To Assure a FreeAppropriate Public Education of All Children withDisabilities: Twenty-first Annual Report to Congress onthe Implementation of the Individuals with DisabilitiesEducation Act. Washington, DC: Author.

Wagner, M., Newman, L., D’Amico, R., Jay, E. D., Butler-Nalin, P., Marder, C. & Cox, R. (1991). Youth withdisabilities: How are they doing? The first comprehen-sive report from the national longitudinal transitionstudy of special education students. SRI International(Contract 300-87-0054). Washington, DC: US. Depart-ment of Education, Office of Special EducationPrograms.

William T. Grant Foundation Commission on Work, Familyand Citizenship-Youth and America’s Future (1988a).The forgotten half: Non-college youth in America.Washington DC: The William T. Grant FoundationCommission.

Issues Influencing the Future of Transition Programs … Influencing the Future of Transition...

Documents

Transcript of Issues Influencing the Future of Transition Programs … Influencing the Future of Transition...