What Is The Best Definition Of Transition And Transition Services For Students With Disabilities?

Previous Article / Next Article

Challenges of Secondary Educational activity and Transition Services for Youth with Disabilities

Past David R. Johnson

Since the mid-1980s, the efficacy of public education programs overall has been challenged by policymakers, business organisation leaders, professionals, and the general public. While these challenges initially focused on improving general education, there are now efforts to closely align special pedagogy programs with emerging full general didactics reforms (e.yard., Testing, Didactics and Learning, Elmore & Rothman, 1999; Educating One and All, McDonnell, McLaughlin, & Morison, 1997).

Several recent federal laws, including the Individuals with Disabilities Educational activity Deed (IDEA) Amendments of 1997, Schoolhouse-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994, Goals 2000: Educate America Act of 1994, the Improving America'south Schools Act of 1994, the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, and the No Child Left Backside Act of 2001 accept all promoted comprehensive strategies for improving public school programs for all students, including those from various, multicultural backgrounds and situations of poverty. These laws uniformly stress high academic and occupational standards; promote the use of state and local standards-based accountability systems; betoken to the need to improve teaching through comprehensive professional development programs; and call for wide-based partnerships between schools, employers, postsecondary institutions, parents, and others.

Students with disabilities have been directly affected by this legislation. With the reauthorization of Thought in 1997, pregnant new requirements were put into place to ensure students greater access to the general education curriculum and assessment systems. These requirements take been reinforced strongly past the No Kid Left Behind Act (NCLB), which requires that students with disabilities participate not simply in assessments, only also in accountability systems. The purpose of these requirements is to ensure schools are held answerable for these students' access to the general curriculum, higher expectations, and improved learning. Requirements for students with disabilities to exist included in state accountability systems and for measuring whether schools have achieved adequate yearly progress (AYP) have heightened the importance of access to the full general curriculum for all students with disabilities.

The AYP requirements of NCLB are having and will continue to take a meaning impact on public schools. Under the Title I requirements of NCLB, schools volition be held accountable for educatee progress using indicators of AYP. These indicators include measures of academic performance and rates of school completion. Schools volition be identified as needing comeback if their overall performance does not increase yearly, or if whatever of a number of sub-groups does non run into specified criteria. Students with disabilities are identified as one of the sub-groups whose performance will count towards assessment of AYP. If these students do not perform well, questions must be raised equally to what incentives schools take to focus effort and resources on these youth.

The current reauthorization of IDEA is expected to retain the focus on high academic achievement and the inclusion of students with disabilities in land and local standards-based accountability systems. Farther, discussions will go along to focus on effective strategies and interventions that assist students develop other essential adult life skills through vocational education, training, community participation, and other means. Federal policy, research and demonstration, land and local initiatives, and other developments since 1975 have focused considerable endeavor on improving school and postschool results for youth with disabilities. This results-based policy ideology will no doubt proceed as a major influence on both special educational activity and general education throughout the current decade.

All of these influences have brought many challenges to state and local pedagogy and customs service agencies nationwide. Several of these major challenges are identified and briefly discussed below, along with recommendation for educators, policymakers, and families.

Challenge 1: Promote Students' Self-Determination and Cocky-Advocacy

Self-determination is a concept reflecting the belief that all individuals take the right to direct their own lives. Students who take cocky-determination skills are more likely to be successful in making the transition to adulthood, including employment and customs independence (Wehmeyer & Schwartz, 1997). Starting with the 1990 IDEA legislation, transition services must exist based on students' needs and accept into account students' interests and preferences. To accomplish this, students must be prepared to participate in planning for their hereafter.

Several recommendations in relation to this challenge include:

Provide opportunities for controlling starting in early on childhood, and encourage children to limited their preferences and make informed choices throughout life.
Begin cocky-determination education early in the elementary grades.
Intensify didactics of specific cocky- decision skills in high school.
Support students' evolution and use of self-advocacy skills, and teach students to develop an internal locus of control.
Brand work-based learning, cocky-directed learning, and career exploration opportunities bachelor to all students.
Incorporate self-determination and career evolution skills in the general education curriculum.
Promote and support student-centered and pupil-run Individualized Education Program (IEP) meetings.

Challenge 2: Ensure Access to the General Education Curriculum

To prosper and proceeds the knowledge and skills needed for success in a variety of settings, students with disabilities must have more than mere access to school buildings and placement in the least restrictive environment; they must accept access to educational curricula and educational activity designed to prepare them for life in the 21st century. This assumption was the basis, in part, for the requirements in Idea '97 stipulating that states must provide students with disabilities access to the general education curriculum, including the identification of performance goals and indicators for these students, definition of how access to the full general curriculum is provided, participation in general or alternate assessments, and public reporting of assessment results. Providing meaningful access to the full general curriculum requires a multifaceted approach. Advisable instructional accommodations constitute one piece of this picture (Elliott & Thurlow, 2000). Other elements include the specification of curriculum domains, time allotment, and decisions well-nigh what to include or exclude (Nolet & McLaughlin, 2000).

Strategies and recommendations related to this include:

Utilise universal design to make classrooms, curricula, and assessments usable by the largest number of students possible, minimizing the demand for additional accommodations or modifications.
Provide appropriate instructional accommodations for students.
Provide instructional modifications just when necessary.
Clearly specify the subject thing domain (facts, concepts, principles, and procedures) and telescopic of the curriculum.
Ready priorities for outcomes, and allocate instructional time based on these priorities.
Utilise instructional approaches shown to promote positive outcomes for students with disabilities.

Challenge 3: Increase the School Completion Rates of Students with Disabilities

Schoolhouse completion is ane of the most pregnant issues facing special education programs nationally. The National Longitudinal Transition Written report (NLTS) establish that approximately 36% of students with disabilities exited schoolhouse by dropping out (Wagner et al., 1991). The NLTS data besides revealed that risk factors such as ethnicity and family unit income are related to dropout rates, and that some groups of special education students are more than apt to driblet out than others. Of youth with disabilities who do non complete school, the highest proportions are students with learning disabilities (32%), and students with emotional/behavioral disabilities (50%) (Wagner, et al., 1991).

Several strategies to accost this claiming are:

Develop methods and procedures to identify, certificate, and widely disseminate research-based information on best practices in dropout prevention and intervention.
Make up one's mind the incentives and methods needed to fully implement evidence-based models, practices, and strategies inside state and local school district programs.
Conduct inquiry to demonstrate and validate new dropout prevention and intervention strategies that piece of work with loftier-gamble groups of students, such equally students with emotional/behavioral disabilities, minority students, and students living in poverty.
Investigate and share information about the bear on of new accountability forces (east.thou., high-stakes testing, more stringent graduation requirements, and varied diploma options) on the exit condition and school completion of youth with disabilities.

Claiming 4: Base Graduation Decisions on Meaningful Indicators, and Analyze Diploma Options

Requirements that states set for graduation can include completing Carnegie Unit requirements (a certain number of form credits earned in specific areas), successfully passing a competency exam, passing high school exit exams, and/or passing a series of benchmark exams (Guy, Shin, Lee, & Thurlow, 1999; Johnson & Thurlow, 2003; Thurlow, Ysseldyke, & Anderson, 1995). Twenty-7 states have opted to crave that students pass land and/or local go out exams to receive a standard high school diploma (Johnson & Thurlow, 2003). This practise has been increasing since the mid-1990s (Guy, et al., 1999; Thurlow, et al., 1995). States may likewise crave whatever combination of these. Diversity in graduation requirements is complicated further by an increasingly diverse set of possible diploma options. In addition to the standard high school diploma, options now include special education diplomas, certificates of completion, occupational diplomas, and others.

The implications of state graduation requirements must be thoroughly understood, because the potential negative outcomes students experience when they fail to encounter land standards for graduation. The availability of culling diploma options tin have a considerable impact on graduation rates. Still, the ramifications of receiving different types of diplomas need to be considered. Students who receive non-standard diplomas may notice their access to postsecondary education or jobs is express. However, information technology is important for parents and educators to know that if a student graduates from high school with a standard high schoolhouse diploma, the educatee is no longer entitled to special education services unless a state or district has a policy virtually continued services under such circumstances. Nigh states exercise not have such policies.

The following recommendations use in relation to this major challenge:

Promote the use of alternate assessments, including accurate or performance-based assessments, portfolios, and other documentation to support graduation decisions.
Clarify the implications of state graduation requirements and the appropriate utilize of alternative diploma options for students with disabilities. Consider the potential impact of alternative diplomas on a student'due south time to come access to postsecondary teaching and employment opportunities. State and local pedagogy agencies should thoroughly discuss the meaning of these culling diplomas with postsecondary education plan representatives and employers.
Clarify the implications of unlike diploma options for continued special education services.

Challenge 5: Ensure Access to and Total Participation in Postsecondary Education and Employment

Young adults with disabilities continue to face up pregnant difficulties in securing jobs, accessing postsecondary instruction, living independently, fully participating in their communities, and accessing necessary community services such as healthcare and transportation. As a result of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and other federal legislation awareness has grown regarding accessibility issues faced by youth with disabilities seeking postsecondary pedagogy, life-long learning, and employment (Benz, Doren & Yovanoff, 1998; Stodden, 1998; Johnson, Stodden, Emanuel, Luecking, & Mack, 2002). The number of youth in postsecondary schools reporting a inability has increased dramatically, climbing from 2.half-dozen% in 1978, to 9.2% in 1994, to well-nigh xix% in 1996 (Blackorby & Wagner, 1996; Gajar, 1992, 1998; Wagner & Blackorby, 1996). While this increase is encouraging, and while many colleges have increased their efforts to serve students with disabilities (Pierangelo & Crane, 1997), enrollment of people with disabilities in postsecondary teaching programs is yet 50% lower than it is for the full general population.

Gaps seen in postsecondary enrollment persist into adult employment (Benz et al., 1998; Blackorby & Wagner, 1996; Gilson, 1996), and are greater when comparing those with less educational attainment. But fifteen.6% of persons with disabilities who accept less than a high school diploma participate in today's labor strength; the charge per unit doubles to 30.2% for those who accept completed high school, triples to 45.ane% for those with some postsecondary education, and climbs to 50.iii% for persons with disabilities who have at least iv years of higher (Yelin & Katz, 1994).

Recommendations to accost this challenge include:

Ensure that prior to each student's graduation from high schoolhouse, the student's IEP squad identifies and engages the responsible agencies, resources, and accommodations required for the student to successfully accomplish positive postschool outcomes.
Promote the value of grooming for and participation in postsecondary education. All agencies must recognize the value of postsecondary didactics and lifelong learning in securing, maintaining, and advancing in employment.
Identify the specific types and levels of accommodations and supports a student will need to participate in postschool environments.
Promote collaborative employer engagement.

Claiming vi: Increase Informed Parent Participation in Planning and Decision-making

Research has shown that parent participation and leadership in transition planning play an important office in assuring successful transitions for youth with disabilities (DeStefano, Heck, Hasazi, & Furney, 1999; Furney, Hasazi, & DeStefano, 1997; Hasazi, Furney, & DeStefano, 1999; Kohler, 1993; Taymans, Corbey, & Dodge, 1995). Much of the give-and-take in the research literature centers on the role of parents every bit participants in the evolution of their child's IEP. IDEA '97 requires that state and local education agencies notify parents and encourage participation when the purpose of a planned meeting is the consideration of transition services. Across the IEP procedure, family unit training and involvement in program pattern, planning, and implementation are significant factors leading to positive youth outcomes (Catalano, Berglund, Ryan, Lonczak, & Hawkins, 1998).

Recommendations for increasing parent participation include:

Provide comprehensive parent/family training, including grooming to aid parents and families understand the changing nature of their role and what they can do to foster cocky-determination and promote informed pick.
Work to reduce the confusion and frustration experienced by parents and families by coordinating services and streamlining access to information and programs.
Work with community organizations serving culturally and racially various populations to assure that programs and services meet the needs of all parents and families.

Challenge 7: Amend Collaboration and Systems Linkages at All Levels

Constructive transition planning and service depend upon functional linkages among schools, rehabilitation services, and other human service and community agencies. Withal, a number of factors accept stood every bit barriers to effective collaboration, including (a) lack of shared knowledge and vision past students, parents, and school and agency staff around students' postschool goals and the transition resources necessary to support students' needs and interests; (b) lack of shared information across schoolhouse and community agencies, and coordinated assessment and planning processes, to support integrated transition planning; (c) lack of meaningful roles for students and parents in the transition controlling process; and (d) lack of meaningful information on anticipated postschool services needed by students and follow-up data on the actual postschool outcomes and continuing back up needs of students that can be used to guide improvement in systems collaboration and linkages. Recommendations to overcome these barriers include:

Use cross-training and other methods to promote collaboration between general education and special pedagogy in student assessment, IEP and transition planning, and pedagogy.
Promote collaboration between schools and vocational rehabilitation through the establishment of jointly funded positions.
Promote access to a wider assortment of community services by mapping community assets and developing interagency agreements that promote and support the sharing of data and engagement in joint planning. Marshal organizational missions, policies, actions, and day-to-day direction and then that immature people and families have fix access to the services they need.
Establish cantankerous-bureau evaluation and accountability systems to appraise school and postschool employment, contained living, and related outcomes of old special teaching students.
Develop innovative interagency financing strategies. Place means to promote cost-sharing and resources-pooling to make available needed transition services.
Promote collaborative staff evolution programs. Effective approaches include cross-training; train-the-trainer; team-building; and others involving collaborative relationships between state and local agencies, institutions of higher pedagogy, parent centers, and consumer and advocacy organizations.

Conclusion

Addressing the many challenges associated with transition will require that we engage a much larger audition in our discussions on how best to continue. This process should include young people with disabilities; parents; full general education teachers and administrators; community agency staff, including those who serve youth and adults without disabilities; postsecondary didactics programs; and employers. Achievement of needed improvements in secondary education and transition services will crave a broad-based commitment to educating all stakeholders, and to promoting meaningful collaboration at all levels.

Note: This article is based on the publication entitled Current Challenges Facing the Time to come of Secondary Education and Transition Services for Youth with Disabilities, National Center on Secondary Education and Transition, Institute on Community Integration, University of Minnesota (revised 2003), available at world wide web.ncset.org/publications/discussionpaper/.

References

Benz, M., Doren, B., & Yovanoff, P. (1998). Crossing the neat divide: Predicting productive engagement for immature women with disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 62(1), 3-16.

Blackorby, J., & Wagner, M. (1996). Longitudinal postschool outcomes of youth with disabilities: Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Report. Infrequent Children, 62, 399-413.

Catalano, R. F., Berglund, Grand. L., Ryan, J. A. K., Lonczak, H. S., & Hawkins, J. D. (1998). Positive youth development In the U.s.a.: Research findings on evaluations of positive youth development programs. Retrieved September xv, 2003, from http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/PositiveYouthDev99/.

DeStefano, Fifty., Heck, D., Hasazi, S. & Furney, K. (1999). Enhancing the implementation of the transition requirements of Idea: A report on the policy forum on transition. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 22(1), 65-100.

Elliott, J. L., & Thurlow, M. L. (2000). Improving test performance of students with disabilities in commune and state assessments. M Oaks, CA: Corwin Printing.

Elmore, R. F., & Rothman, R. (1999). Testing, teaching and learning: A guide for states and school districts. Washington, DC: National University Press.

Furney, 1000. South., Hasazi, S. B., & DeStefano, L. (1997). Transition policies, practices, and promises: Lessons from three states. Exceptional Children, 63, 343-355.

Gajar, A. (1992). University-based models for students with learning disabilities: The Pennsylvania State University model. In F. R. Rusch, L. DeStefano, J. G. Chadsey-Rusch, L. A. Phelps, & E. Szymanski (Eds.), Transition from school to developed life: Models, linkages, and policy. Sycamore, IL: Sycamore.

Gajar, A. (1998). Postsecondary education. In F. R. Rusch & J. G. Chadsey-Rusch (Eds.), Beyond high school: Transition from school to work. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Gilson, S. F. (1996). Students with disabilities: An increasing vocalism and presence on college campuses. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, half-dozen, 263-272.

Guy, B., Shin, H., Lee, S.-Y., & Thurlow, M. L. (1999). Land graduation requirements for students with and without disabilities. Retrieved September fifteen, 2003, from http://education.umn.edu/nceo/OnlinePubs/Technical24.html

Hasazi, S. B., Furney, K. South., & DeStefano, Fifty. (1999). Implementing the IDEA transition mandates. Exceptional Children, 65(4), 555-566.

Johnson, D. R., Stodden, R., Emanuel, East., Luecking, R. & Mack, Thou. (2002). Current challenges facing secondary educational activity and transition services: What research tells us. Infrequent Children, 68(4), 519-531.

Johnson, D. R., & Thurlow, M. L. (2003). National study on country graduation requirements and diploma options. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration, National Center on Secondary Education and Transition and National Center on Educational Outcomes.

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

McDonnell, L. M., McLaughlin, M. J., & Morison, P. (Eds.). (1997). Educating 1 and all: Students with disabilities and standards-based reform. Washington DC: National Academy Press.

Nolet, V., & McLaughlin, M. J. (2000). Accessing the general curriculum: Including students with disabilities in standards-based reform. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Pierangelo, R., & Crane, R. (1997). Complete guide to special teaching transition services. West Nyack, NY: Center for Applied Research in Pedagogy.

Secretary'due south Committee on Achieving Necessary Skills. (1991). What work requires of schools: A SCANS report for America 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor.

Stodden, R. A. (1998). School-to-work transition: Overview of disability legislation. In F. Rusch & J. Chadsey (Eds.), Beyond high school: Transition from school to piece of work. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Taymans, J. M., Corbey, S., & Dodge, L. (1995). A national perspective of country level implementation of transition policy. Journal for Vocational Special Needs Education, 17(iii), 98-102.

Thurlow, M., Ysseldyke, J., & Anderson, A. (1995). High school graduation requirements: What's happening for students with disabilities? Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Wagner, Thousand., & Blackorby, J. (1996). Transition from high school to piece of work or college: How special teaching students fare. The Future of Children: Special Education for Students with Disabilities, 6(1), 103-120.

Wagner, M., Newman, L., D'Amico, R., Jay, Eastward. D., Butler-Nalin, P., Marder, C., & Cox, R. (1991). Youth with disabilities: How are they doing? The first comprehensive report from the national longitudinal transition report of special education students. SRI International (Contract 300-87-0054). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Function of Special Education Programs.

Wehmeyer, G., & Schwartz, M. (1997). Self-conclusion and positive adult outcomes: A follow-upwards study of youth with mental retardation or learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 63, 245-256.

Yelin, East., & Katz, P. (1994). Labor strength trends of persons with and without disabilities. Monthly Labor Review, 117, 36-42.

David R. Johnson is Director of the Found on Community Integration, and of the National Center on Secondary Educational activity and Transition, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. He may be reached at 612/ 624-1062 or johns006@umn.edu.

Peak

Previous Commodity / Next Article

__________

Commendation: Gaylord, V., Johnson, D.R., Lehr, C.A., Bremer, C.D. & Hasazi, Due south. (Eds.). (2004). Impact: Feature Issue on Achieving Secondary Education and Transition Results for Students with Disabilities, 16(iii). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Establish on Customs Integration. Available from http://ici.umn.edu/products/impact/163.

__________

The print design version (PDF, 671 K, 36 pp.) of this effect of Impact is likewise available for free, consummate with the color layout and photographs. This version looks the most like the newsletter as it was printed.

The University of Minnesota is an equal opportunity employer and educator.