ebook img

ERIC EJ854356: An Evaluation of IEP Transition Components and Post-School Outcomes in Two States PDF

2005·0.3 MB·English
by  ERIC
Save to my drive
Quick download
Download
Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.

Preview ERIC EJ854356: An Evaluation of IEP Transition Components and Post-School Outcomes in Two States

4 Volume 27, Number 2, Winter 2005 An Evaluation of IEP Transition Components and Post-School Outcomes in Two States By Robert B. Steele, Moira Konrad, and David W. Test, The University of North Carolina at Charlotte Abstract The “ultimate test” of any effec- tion in postsecondary education This study examined the quality tive high school transition pro- for individuals with disabilities. of transition components of the gram is the progress and suc- One predictor they identified IEPs of 28 high school graduates cess achieved by its graduates was student participation in with disabilities, their projected (McAfee & Greenawalt, 2001). transition planning. postsecondary outcomes and levels Recent studies document that The intent of the Individu- of satisfaction with these outcomes, post-school outcomes for stu- als with Disabilities Education and the correspondence between dents with disabilities are im- Act (IDEA) has been to ensure projected and actual outcomes. proving (Blackorby & Wagner, that all students with disabili- Results indicated that, although 1996); however, outcomes for ties receive meaningful transi- the quality of the transition com- students with disabilities con- tion services. The transition ponents was not exemplary, some tinue to lag behind those of component of the individualized of the outcomes for the students graduates without disabilities. education program (IEP) has were quite positive. Examination For example, employment rates been identified as the “corner- of correspondence between the and levels of educational attain- stone” of the transition planning projected and actual outcomes ment among school exiters with process (Grigal, Test, Beattie, & showed that the greatest number disabilities remain lower than Wood, 1997; Halpern et al., of matches was in the area of youth in the general population 1995; McAfee & Greenawalt, employment. Results suggest that (Blackorby & Wagner, 1996). 2001) and has been included in a comprehensive transition pro- Therefore, most researchers special education legislation gram is a critical ingredient for and educators still consider the since the passage of IDEA in fostering post-school success. current outcomes of special 1990. As such, well developed education graduates as unac- transition components should ceptable (Baer et al., 2003; translate into positive post- Colley & Jamison, 1998). school outcomes for students In an effort to improve post- exiting special education pro- school outcomes, the field has grams. Without comprehensive, been working to identify factors high-quality transition compo- that are associated with im- nents, students with disabili- proved post-school outcomes for ties may be less likely to enjoy high-school exiters with dis- access to and full participation abilities. There predictors in- in postsecondary options, in- clude employment during high cluding education, employment, school (Benz, Lindstrom, & community (recreation/leisure) Yovanoff, 2000; Colley & participation, and independent Jamison, 1998; Rabren, Dunn, living options. & Chambers, 2002; Sample, The appropriateness of the 1998), and participation in vo- IEP and the transition compo- cational education or a work- nent may be the most important study program (Baer et al., aspect addressed under the law. 2003). Baer et al. also identified Incomplete plans are consid- participation in regular aca- ered inappropriate and out of demics as a predictor of partici- compliance with IDEA (McAfee pation in postsecondary educa- & Greenawalt, 2001). In addi- tion. Participants who com- tion, researchers have exam- pleted academic classes in gen- ined the quality of transition com- eral education settings were ponents in an effort to determine more likely to report those if they are in compliance with classes as helpful in preparing IDEA’s mandates and if they re- them for college-level flect current best practices in the coursework. Halpern, Yovanoff, field (deFur, Getzel, & Kregal., Doren, and Benz (1995) also ex- 1994; Everson, Zhang, & Guillory, amined predictors of participa- 2001; Grigal et al., 1997; Lawson The Journal for Vocational Special Needs Education 5 & Everson, 1994; Shearin, are the exited students satisfied Instrumentation and Data Roessler, & Schriner, 1999). with these outcomes? and (c) Collection For example, Grigal et al. How well do the post-school goals Transition components. (1997) examined the transition stated in the transition compo- Transition components of the components of 94 high school nents match the post-school IEPs were evaluated using a pro- students. Findings indicated outcomes of the students in the tocol developed by Lawson and that the quality of transition areas of employment, indepen- Everson (1994) and later modi- components was consistent dent living, education, and com- fied by Grigal et al. (1997) to across disability groups, and the munity participation? evaluate the quality of written components were in compliance Method transition goals and to examine with IDEA. However, the tran- how transition personnel and sition components did not in- Participants timelines were designated. For clude clear statements about Participants were 28 students the present study, we modified post-school outcomes, designa- (16 males and 12 females) who the Grigal et al. version of the tion of personnel responsible for graduated or exited with a for- protocol as follows: implementing transition activi- mal school completion docu- 1.We excluded items that asked ties, specific timelines, or best ment in the spring of 2002 from about information not avail- practices. one of two high schools in two able in the IEPs we received Although the quality of the different states. Participants did from the sites. Some of the transition components of IEPs not include students who had information excluded was how has been studied, and post- dropped out of school. The two long the IEP had been in effect, school outcomes for students sites were identified as model standardized test scores, and with disabilities have been in- transition sites because they disability category. vestigated, correspondence be- had been recognized by their 2.We changed how post-school tween post-school-outcome states as exemplary programs outcome goals were scored (3 goals identified in transition and were nominated by univer- = strong [very clear and spe- components and actual post- sity faculty members who spe- cific, i.e., names specific job, school outcomes has not been cialize in transition. In addi- environment, etc.]; 2 = aver- clearly documented. Therefore, tion, both sites were interested age [somewhat clear and spe- the purpose of this study was to in participating in order to re- cific]; 1 = weak [unclear and investigate the quality and ceive technical assistance to not specific]; 0 = non-existent quantity of information found in improve the quality of their [no goal present]). the transition components of transition services. Table 1 3.We added items to evaluate the IEPs of high school gradu- shows how the programs and presence and quality of IEP ates (exiters) with mild to mod- services provided by each school goals to support postsecondary erate disabilities, their pro- align with Kohler’s (1996) Tax- outcome goals (2 = direct sup- jected postsecondary outcomes onomy for Transition Program- port; 1 = indirect support; 0 = and levels of satisfaction with ming. All 28 students were no support). these outcomes, and the corre- identified with mild or moder- 4.In the area of leisure/recre- spondence between projected ate disabilities (i.e., learning ation, we added “community and actual outcomes. Three re- disabilities, behavioral/emo- participation,” given that this search questions were ad- tional disabilities, or mild or area was not included in the dressed: (a) What information is moderate mental retardation) protocol used to evaluate the included in the transition com- and had IEPs at the time of their transition components, but ponent of participating students’ exit from high school. Their was included in the compo- IEPs, and how clearly and spe- ages at the time of exit ranged nents themselves. cifically written were the stu- from 17 to 20 with a mean of The revised instrument con- dents’ transition goals and ob- 18.4. Fifty-two exiters were sisted of 20 questions organized jectives in the areas of employ- telephoned to participate in the into the same four sections in- ment, independent living, edu- follow-along survey. Twenty- cluded in the Grigal et al. ver- cation, and community partici- eight individuals completed the sion: demographics, format, pation? (b) What are the post- telephone survey for a response compliance with IDEA’s man- school outcomes in the areas of rate of 54%. dates, and reflection of best employment, independent liv- practices. ing, education, and community Post-school surveys. Each of participation for the same group the two sites used a different of students, and to what extent survey to collect post-school out- 6 Volume 27, Number 2, Winter 2005 Table 1 Components of Participating Programs Areas of Kohler’s (1996) Taxonomy Site 1 Site 2 Student Focused Planning IEP Development/Content Students formally choose their Student’s vision statements are course of study; IEPs incorporate incorporated into first page of community outcome goals IEP Student Participation in Students encouraged to initiate Students initiate own goals for IEP Process own goals, objectives, and ser- post-school living vice plans Planning Strategies ChoiceMaker Instructional Series Students complete a vision plan- (Marshall, Martin, Maxson, & ning survey and transition Jerman, 1997; Martin, Marshall, needs survey in 9th grade. Stu- Maxson, & Jerman, 1997) dents lead group-planning pro- cess Student Development Life Skills Instruction Statewide occupational diploma Community and classroom in- includes daily living skills and struction incorporate indepen- functional academics dent living and self-advocacy skills Employment Skills Instruc- Statewide functional curriculum Job coaches support students in tion/ Structured Work includes work skill-training be- community-based instruction Experience ginning in 7th grade, off-campus (CBI) sites; paid job training job shadowing, and training in and vocational career training community businesses also available Career and Vocational School-based work experiences Teachers use Next S.T.E.P. (Halpern Curricula emphasize work habits, work et al., 1997) and Whose Future is personality, and job related it Anyway? (Wehmeyer & skills; a service-learning pro- Kelchner, 1995); courses tilted gram promotes volunteerism, “Life Choices” and “On Your and citizenship Own” are available as electives Assessment Uses standardized tests, portfolio Uses student/parent surveys, CBI and situational assessments, experiences, work skills check- and vocational evaluations; lists, student profiles, in-school ChoiceMaker Instructional Series work sites, community-based (Marshall et al., 1997; Martin et vocational tryouts, and portfolios; al., 1997) is used to guide stu- formal evaluations are available dents to design individualized through a cooperative Voc. Ed./ goals Sped. program Self-determination* Self-advocacy and self-determina- Next S.T.E.P. (Halpern et al., 1997) tion are suppoprted through an and Whose Future is it Anyway? advocacy group of students who (Wehmeyer & Kelchner, 1995) train other students to lead their are incorporated into the cur- own IEP meetings riculum Support Services Functional curriculum has been Students with significant dis- developed for drivers’ education; a abilities can participate in a vehicle has been modified for stu- supported job training program dents with disabilities for 18-21 year olds. The Journal for Vocational Special Needs Education 7 Table 1 Components of Participating Programs (cont.) Areas of Kohler’s (1996) Taxonomy Site 1 Site 2 Interagency Collaboration Collaborative Framework There are community-, school-, and Community-level partnerships individual-level teams comprised of with local businesses, VR and members representing govern- MR/DD agency representation, ment funded community agencies supported employment services and private, non-profit service pro- vider agencies Collaborative Service VR and LEA’s provide joint funding of State VR funding provides job Delivery job coaches to help students gain coaches; schools and VR provide paid employment job placement services Program Structure Program Philosophy The school system believes all stu- Related services are fully com- and Policy dents can succeed in life, work, and mitted to providing community- community; “Visions of Success” based services theme drives transition program- ming Program Evaluation Follow-up data are collected one year Follow-up data are collected one after exit year after exit Strategic Planning/Quality Post-school outcome data are provided Post-school outcomes are used Improvement to transition and special education for on-going feedback program staff Resource Allocation The system and staff are committed Job coaches and community- to ensuring each student receives based work-study coordinators appropriate transition services are provided by the school sys- tem Human Resource State and local trainings are offered State and local trainings are of- Development fered by staff in conjunction with state parent training group Family Involvement Family Training on Tran- Annual training is provided by the Training is provided by the school, sition-Related Topics system and through the annual VR, and MH/DD; a state coali- state transition conference tion for the education of chil- dren with disabilities also pro- vides training Family Involvement A transition information meet- Parent input is obtained through Throughout Transition ing is held each Fall to inform transition questionnaires and parents and to discuss transi- open houses tion issues Family Empowerment At the beginning of each school A state coalition for the educa- year, special education staff tion of children with disabili- provide training to parents of ties provides statewide train- 8th graders on choosing a ing course of study *Self-determination is not an area specifically designated in Kohler’s Taxonomy. 8 Volume 27, Number 2, Winter 2005 come data. Site 1 used a state- and examined the scoring of participation, and residential developed survey with 20 items another randomly selected IEP/ status). The IEP did not have to to collect data in three areas: (a) transition component from each explicitly outline a post-school consumer satisfaction with site. Discrepancies and dis- outcome in the transition com- high-school experiences, (b) agreements were discussed and ponent in order to have an IEP post-school outcomes, and (c) modifications were made to the goal that supported that out- consumer satisfaction with scoring procedures. Then, each come area. For example, the post-school experiences. Site 2 scorer rescored each of the transition component may not used a locally developed survey IEPs/transition components. In have listed a specific post-school that had 12 items, which in- order to ensure reliability of outcome for postsecondary edu- cluded questions about (a) par- data collected, 6 of the 28 tran- cation, but there could have ticipation in high school activi- sition components (21%), 3 from been an IEP goal that supported ties, (b) post-school outcomes, each state, were randomly se- the student attending and (c) consumer satisfaction lected and scored/coded by the postsecondary education. We with post-school experiences. first and second authors. A calculated frequencies and per- Although both surveys con- point-by-point analysis was con- centages for each of the four tained satisfaction items, the ducted. To determine reliabil- outcome areas. scoring categories differed ity, the number of agreements Post-school outcomes. We slightly. Therefore, we needed was divided by the number of compared the two surveys to to make adjustments to com- agreements plus disagree- determine which items were pare results from both sites. For ments and multiplied by 100. common to both and only ana- example, we determined that Reliability ranged from 91% to lyzed those data. As a result, we the “much” satisfaction category 98%, with a mean of 95%. did not use all survey items for on one survey was equivalent to analysis. We calculated fre- Data Analysis the “very satisfied” category on quencies and percentages for (a) the other survey. In addition, Transition components. For whether the participant had a the wording of the questions compliance with IDEA’s man- job at graduation; (b) how much varied between the two surveys, dates, we determined percent- and in what type of job the par- so we identified those that were ages of transition components ticipant was currently working; similar enough to be compa- that included the 15 outcome (c) what type of postsecondary rable. For example, “How satis- areas reflecting best practices. training the individual was par- fied are you with your friends?” In addition, we determined who ticipating in; (d) with whom the was determined to be compa- was present at IEP meetings and participant was living; (e) the rable to “How satisfied are you who was designated responsible participant’s satisfaction with with your current contact with for action steps by calculating his/her job, living arrange- friends?” frequencies and percentages. ments, and social situation; and Both sites collected post- After we evaluated the post- (f) the number of leisure/recre- school outcome data via tele- school outcome goals using the ation activities, not including phone interviews 12-15 months 0-3 scale, we calculated how watching television or listening after students exited. Parapro- many and what percentage of to music, the participant en- fessional job coaches conducted transition components fell into gaged in (e.g., sports, hobbies, the interviews for Site 1, and a each evaluation criterion (i.e., attending church). student assistant was hired to none present, weak, average, or Correspondence between conduct the interviews for Site strong) in the four post-school postsecondary outcome goals 2. Three telephone attempts outcome areas. Finally, we ex- and actual outcomes. Each were made with each student. amined the goals in the partici- individual’s post-secondary out- Interrater reliability. The pants’ IEPs to determine come goals and actual first and second author jointly whether or not there were IEP postsecondary outcomes were scored one randomly selected goals written to support post- directly compared to determine IEP and its transition compo- school outcomes. For this analy- the correspondence between the nent from each site in order to sis, we evaluated whether post-school goals stated in the establish common scoring pro- there were goals that provided transition component of the IEP cedures for using the scoring direct support, indirect support, and the actual post-school out- protocol. Then, each scorer in- or no support for each of the four comes of students in the areas dependently scored IEPs/transi- broad outcome areas (i.e., em- of employment, education/ tion components from one state. ployment, education/training, training, leisure/recreation/ After this, the scorers met again leisure/recreation/community community participation, and The Journal for Vocational Special Needs Education 9 projected in the transition com- Table 2 ponent of the IEP. We used the Outcome Areas activity that most closely matched the activity projected in the transition component to Outcomes Areas Reflected in do the evaluation. We also cal- Transition Components n % culated the number of activities each student was involved in. Independent living 26 93 Results Integrated employment 25 89 Findings are presented in three Community participation 18 64 parts. First, we provide the re- sults of the evaluation of the Vocational training 12 42 transition components. Second, we describe the results of the Postsecondary education 9 32 post-school surveys. Finally, we present the correspondence be- Transportation 7 25 tween the projected and actual Financial 5 18 outcomes. Transition Components’ Advocacy/legal 4 14 Content and Quality Adult services 3 11 All 28 IEPs included transition Living arragements 3 11 components; however, the con- tent and quality varied across the Relationships 2 7 IEPs. Table 2 presents the out- come areas addressed in the Leisure/recreation 1 4 transition components. Of these Medical 1 4 areas, independent living (93%) and integrated employment (89%) Continuing adult education 0 0 were present most often, whereas homemaking needs and Homemaking needs 0 0 continuing adult education were present least often (0%). Table 3 shows who was residential status. In some would work in food service; the present at the students’ IEP/ cases, the individual’s actual outcome was the individual was transition planning meetings, post-school outcome (in employ- working but in a different area) as well as who was designated ment or education/training) or (b) there was an uncertain responsible for carrying out ac- was listed as “other.” In these match (e.g., outcome projection tions outlined in the IEP. Spe- cases, the “other” indicated that was too vague to know for cer- cial education teachers (96.4%) the job or training outcome was tain that there was an exact and school administrators not listed on the survey. In fact, match). Finally, a “2” was as- (92.9%) were present most of- “other” was one of the items on signed if there was an exact ten. The next most likely people the survey. We assigned a score match between the projected to attend the IEP meetings were in each of these areas based on and actual outcome. parents/guardians (75.0%) and how well projected outcomes For recreation/leisure/com- general education teachers matched actual outcomes. Spe- munity participation, scores (71.4%). Students attended cifically, a score of “0” indicated were assigned differently be- 57.1% of the meetings. A ma- that either (a) there was no cause the surveys asked indi- jority of the transition compo- match or (b) there was not a viduals to indicate how many nents (67.9%) designated the post-school outcome projection activities they were involved in, student responsible for carrying in that area. A “1” indicated ei- as well as what those activities out part of the IEP. Other team ther (a) there was a partial were. We evaluated correspon- members who were likely to be match (e.g., employment projec- dence by looking to see if any of designated responsible included tion was that the individual the activities listed by the stu- special education teachers dent matched what had been (60.7%), general education 10 Volume 27, Number 2, Winter 2005 Table 3 Members of IEP Teams and Persons Designated Responsible for Action Steps Team Member Present at Meeting Designated Responsible n (%) n (%) Special education teacher 27 (96.4) 17 (60.7) School administrator/LEA Rep 26 (92.9) 1 (3.6) Parent/Guardian 21 (75.0) 6 (21.4) Regular education teacher 20 (71.4) 12 (42.9) Student 16 (57.1) 19 (67.9) Guidance counselor 7 (25.0) 4 (14.3) Transition specialist or commu- 5 (17.9) 8 (28.5) nity-based instructor Vocational educator 4 (14.3) 7 (25.0) Speech/language pathologist 3 (10.7) 3 (10.7) Occupational therapist 0 (0.0) 1 (3.6) Advocate 0 (0.0) 1 (3.6) Aide 0 (0.0) 1 (3.6) Table 4 Evaluations of Post-School Outcome Goals Outcome Area Strong Average Weak None n % n % n % n % Employment (n=28) 4 14.3 17 60.7 4 14.3 3 10.7 Residential (n=28) 2 7.1 18 64.3 5 17.9 3 10.7 Recreation/Leisure 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 3.6 27 14.3 (n=28) Postsecondary educa- 0 0.0 4 14.3 2 7.1 22 75.0 tion/training (n=28) teachers (42.9%), transition spe- or not there was a statement quality of the post-school out- cialists/community based in- that reflected the long-term vi- come goals in four specific ar- structors (28.5%), vocational sion/dreams of the family and/ eas: employment, residential, educators (25.0%), and parents/ or student. A slight majority recreational/community par- guardians (21.4%). (53.6%) of the transition compo- ticipation, and postsecondary In addition, we examined nents included such a state- education. These ratings are each IEP to determine whether ment. We also evaluated the presented in Table 4. In general, The Journal for Vocational Special Needs Education 11 Table 5 Presence of IEP Goals to Support Student Post-School Outcomes Outcome Area No Support Indirect Support Direct Support n % n % n % Employment (n=28) 6 21.4 4 14.3 18 64.3 Residential (n=28) 15 53.6 11 39.3 2 7.1 Recreation/Leisure (n=28) 27 96.4 1 3.6 0 0.0 Postsecondary education/training 21 75.0 4 14.3 3 10.7 (n=28) outcome goals were “average” were IEP goals written to sup- postsecondary education or (i.e., somewhat clear and spe- port post-school outcomes (see training. The most common type cific), if they were present at all. Table 5). The post-school out- of postsecondary education the Employment (89.3%) and resi- come area of employment was participants were engaged in dential (89.3%) outcomes were most likely to have supporting was 2-year college, with 8 of the most likely to be present. In IEP goals, with 64.3% of the IEPs participants (28.6% of the en- terms of quality, 60.7% of the having direct support and 14.3% tire sample and 53.3% of those transition components had em- having indirect support. In the attending postsecondary educa- ployment outcomes that were other outcome areas, the IEPs tion/training) attending 2-year rated average, and 14.3% had did not fare as well, with fewer colleges. Satisfaction data on employment outcomes rated as than half including IEP goals to the postsecondary school expe- strong. For residential out- support (either directly or indi- rience were not collected at both comes, 64.3% of the transition rectly) residential outcomes sites; therefore, satisfaction components had outcomes rated (46.4%), recreation/leisure out- data are not reported. as average, and only 7.1% of the comes (3.6%), or postsecondary All participants were en- transition components had education outcomes (25%). gaged in some leisure activities. strongly written outcomes. For Post-School Outcomes The number of activities ranged the other two areas (i.e., recre- from 2 to 9 with a mean of 5. Table 6 shows the participants’ ation/leisure and postsecond- Although 82.1% of the partici- post-school outcomes in employ- ary education/training), the pants indicated they watched ment, postsecondary educa- vast majority of the transition television as a leisure activity, tion/training, leisure/recre- components did not include we did not include this or listen- ation/community participation, post-school outcome goals. For ing to music in our frequency and residential living. Twenty- the area of recreation/leisure, counts, as these are passive three (82.1%) of the 28 partici- 96.4% of the transition compo- activities rather than active pants had a job at the time of nents did not include a post- ones. In terms of satisfaction their graduation from high school outcome, and for the one with their social situations, the school. At the time of the post- transition component that did vast majority (92.9%) were sat- school interviews, 12 to 15 include an outcome goal in this isfied with 64.3% indicating a months after exiting school, 24 area, it was rated as weak. Find- high level of satisfaction. (85.7%) of the students were ings were only slightly higher for Twenty-one (75.0%) of the employed either part-time postsecondary education out- participants indicated that they (35.7%) or full-time (50.0%). All come goals. Seventy-five per- lived with their parents or other participants who were working cent of the transition compo- family members. Three (10.7%) reported that they were satisfied nents did not list an outcome in lived with a spouse. Two (7.1%) with their jobs, with 57.1% indi- this area. lived with friends, and two cating a high level of satisfaction. In addition to examining the (7.1%) lived alone. Twenty- The majority (53.6%) of the presence and quality of post- seven (96.4%) of the partici- participants indicated that they school outcome goals, we also pants reported that they were were attending some type of identified whether or not there 12 Volume 27, Number 2, Winter 2005 satisfied with their current liv- Jamison, 1998). In addition, just included information in the ar- ing arrangements, with 60.7% in- over half the participants were eas of employment, independent dicating a high level of satisfaction. attending some type of living, and community partici- postsecondary education or Correspondence between pation. However, fewer than training, and all were engaged Projected and Actual Post- half the IEPs included state- in leisure activities. Most of the ments about postsecondary edu- School Outcomes participants were living with cation, vocational training, or Table 6 shows the correspon- their parents or other family leisure/recreation. These find- dence between the projected members 12 to 15 months after ings are consistent with those outcomes and the actual out- exiting school. Unfortunately, of Grigal et al. (1997), Everson comes and provides the ratings, these outcomes, whether exem- et al. (2001), and Shearin et al. which evaluate the extent to plary or not, were not reflected (1999). Next, our results indi- which a match existed. In the in the transition components of cated that the outcome areas of area of postsecondary employ- the IEPs as 75% of the IEPs had leisure/recreation and ment, 23 (82.1%) had some level no match for postsecondary educa- postsecondary education/train- of match. Specifically, 6 (21.4%) tion outcomes, and 64% of the IEPs ing continue to be inadequately of the participants had exact had no match for leisure/recre- addressed in student IEPs matches between their pro- ation and residential outcomes. (Grigal et al.). Finally, while 57% jected employment outcomes Given that the IEP has been of students attended their IEP and their actual employment considered instrumental in pro- meetings, 68% of the IEPs des- outcomes, whereas, 17 (60.7%) viding educational programs ignated the student as the per- had partial matches. Five and services, it would seem that son to carry out part of the IEP. (17.9%) had no matches. well-developed IEPs would pre- It seems odd to designate re- In the area of education and dict positive post-school out- sponsibility to a person not in training, 3 (10.7%) of the par- comes. However, most students attendance at the meeting. ticipants had exact matches in our sample had post-school The present study extends between their projected education/ outcomes in employment and the existing literature by in- training outcomes and their actual postsecondary education that cluding an examination of cor- education/training outcomes. Four were much better than those respondence between the pro- (14.3%) had partial matches, and reported in other outcome stud- jected and actual outcomes. 21 (75.0%) had no matches. ies (Johnson, Stodden, Our findings showed that the In the area of leisure/rec- Emanuel, Lueking, & Mack, greatest number of matches was reation, which included commu- 2002; Blackorby & Wagner, in the area of employment. In nity participation, none of the 1996). This finding begs the the other three areas, the ma- participants had exact matches question, “Is it the IEP or the jority of projected outcomes did between their projected leisure/ program that makes the differ- not match actual outcomes. recreation/community partici- ence?” Our sample of students These findings may indicate that pation outcomes and their ac- was selected from sites that transition teams have gotten bet- tual leisure/recreation/com- were identified as model tran- ter at addressing postsecondary munity participation outcomes. sition programs. Test (2000) employment issues but still have Ten (35.7%) had partial matches, identified transition best prac- much work to do in addressing and 18 (64.3%) had no matches. tices as a coordinated program outcomes in others areas. Finally, in the area of resi- that enables students to prac- Our findings indicated that dential living, 9 (32.1%) of the tice and exercise as much self- although the quality of the tran- participants had exact matches determination as possible as sition components of the IEPs between their projected resi- well as provide a mechanism we examined was not exem- dential outcomes and their ac- for evaluating post-school out- plary, some of the outcomes for tual residential outcomes. One comes. Both schools participat- the students were quite positive (3.6%) had a partial match, and ing in the study met Test’s cri- in comparison to other studies. 18 (64.3%) had no matches. teria by (a) providing a compre- For example, the vast majority hensive and coordinated tran- Discussion (85.7%) of the participants had sition program that emphasized a job 12 to 15 months after exit- Our findings indicate that al- self-determination and aligned ing school. This is a greater though all 28 IEPs included tran- with Kohler’s (1996) Taxonomy employment rate than reported sition components, the content (see Table 1), and (b) evaluating in previous studies (e.g., Baer and quality varied. More than their transition services and et al., 2003; Blackorby & half the transition components post-school outcomes. Another Wagner, 1996; Colley & The Journal for Vocational Special Needs Education 13

See more

The list of books you might like

Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.