Integrating Essential Elements of Person-Centered Transition Planning
Practices Into the Development of the Individualized Education Program
With All Students with Disabilities
Produced by:
Program on Employment and Disability
School of Industrial & Labor Relations
Cornell University
Sponsored by:
The New York State Developmental Disabilities Planning Council
January 2003
Executive Summary
This is the second of two white papers that have been developed to help policy-makers,
educators, human service agencies, students and their families examine the benefits of
applying person-centered planning as a tool to facilitate transition planning and the
development of the transition components in the Individualized Education Program (IEP)
with high school students who have disabilities. These documents represent the work
that was conducted through nine DDPC grant-funded demonstration sites between 1998
and 2001. The project, Transition Technical Assistance and Support Program (T-TASP),
was developed to support school and community agency systems meet the federal and
state mandates to involve students in his or her own educational process.
The first paper, Infusing a Person-Centered Approach into Transition Planning for
Students with Developmental Disabilities (2000), identified the barriers present within
and between systems of support for youth as they transition from school to postsecondary endeavors and explored opportunities to integrate person-centered processes
within these systems. This second paper takes a deeper look at the strategies, methods
and approaches that proved effective in supporting and/or sustaining person-centered
student involvement in the development and implementation of the IEP.
One of the intended outcomes of these papers is to reaffirm the efforts and energy of the
people who committed three years to learn, develop and/or implement high quality
transition services and supports as a component of the IEP that increase the likelihood of
success for youth with disabilities. Members joined the project community through public
high schools, the Board of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES), independent
living centers and community-based organizations. Everyone within the project
community holds a core belief that student-driven, or person-centered transition planning
is a critical factor leading to the post-secondary success of the young adults who
participated in the pilot project as students facing transition from school to community
living, learning and earning. While this paper provides information that supports the
efficacy for using a person-centered approach to developing an IEP based on the
accomplishments within the various project communities, as well as providing strategies
and recommendations for integrating this approach within existing systems, it also serves
as a reflection of how early we are on the journey that leaves no child behind.
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements …………………………………………………………………5
Format for the paper ……………………………………………………………… 6
Introduction ……………………………………………………………………….. 7
SECTION I: An Introduction to the Theory of Social Role Valorization and the
Accomplishments of Person-Centered Work
Social Role Valorization Theory ………………………………………………….. 8
The Five Accomplishments – Person-Centered Work Principles ……………… 9
SECTION II: Transition Planning and Post-School Outcomes: The Road to
Inclusion or Segregation? The Imperative of Strength-Based Planning and
Assessment
What are Post-School Outcomes? …………………………………………………11
Why Do Post-School Outcomes Matter? ………………………………………… 11
Consider Chris …………………………………………………………………….. 12
In the Nick of Time ……………………………………………………………….. 14
Building the Bridge to Inclusion Using Person-Centered Practices …………… 14
SECTION III: Infusing Student-Driven Practices into the Development of the IEP
Hallmarks of Person-Centered Planning ………………………………………… 19
Sequence of Events in the Development of the IEP ………………………………19
SECTION V: Creating A “Seamless” Transition from School to Careers …… 22
Elements of Seamless Transition …………………………………………………. 23
Strategies for Developing Partnerships ………………………………………….. 24
SECTION V: Summary, Recommendations and Conclusion
Collapsed Data from the GRETA Report ……………………………………….. 27
3
Emerging Themes …………………………………………………………………. 28
Accomplishments ………………………………………………………………….. 28
Challenges ………………………………………………………………………….. 29
Recommendations …………………………………………………………………. 30
Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………. 31
References ………………………………………………………………………….. 32
Attachment – Summary Brief – August 2000 White Paper: Infusing a PersonCentered Approach to Transition Planning for Students with Developmental
Disabilities
4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS FROM THE AUTHOR
In 1998 Cornell University’s Program on Employment and Disability began a three-year
initiative to explore strategies and utility and effectiveness of person-centered transition
planning with the sponsorship of the New York State Developmental Disabilities
Planning Council. The purpose of the Transition Technical Assistance and Support
Project (T-TASP) was to provide training and technical assistance to nine demonstration
sites across New York in support of person-centered transition planning processes for
students who have been identified as having a disability. This paper is the second of two
documents that are intended to address strategies and make recommendations based upon
project findings and best practices in the field that promote and lead to the integration of
person-centered planning approaches into current educational and transition planning
policy and procedure for students with disabilities.
We are grateful to the people who contributed to the development of this second
document. Members and associates of the nine demonstration sites, including students
and family members served as a valuable resource for the development of much of the
content of this paper. We appreciate the guidance provided us by the New York State
Developmental Disabilities Planning Council in establishing a framework for the paper
and to the New York State Education Department, Office of Vocational and Educational
Services for Individuals with Disabilities (VESID) for mentoring us through various
interpretations of federal and state regulations surrounding transition policies. Finally,
we would like to call specific attention to those who played a critical role in shaping the
direction of this paper:
David Brewer, School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University, Program on
Employment and Disability
Wayne Borek, New York State Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities
Thomas Golden, School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University, Program on
Employment and Disability
Barbara Levitz, NYS Developmental Disabilities Planning Council Member
Joe Marrone, Institute on Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston & Boston
Children’s Hospital
Charles Miskovsky, Rensselaer County Chapter, NYSARC
Beth Mount, Ph.D., Capacity Works
Nicholas Rose, NYS Developmental Disabilities Planning Council
New York State Office of Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities,
(VESID)
We hope that this is just the beginning of a dialogue on how person-centered planning
approaches can be best utilized to create a more comprehensive and effective individual
education program planning process for all students.
Carol Blessing, CSW
Program on Employment and Disability
School of Industrial and Labor Relations
Cornell University
5
Format used for the Paper
This second and final paper is charged with looking at the strategies, methods and
approaches that have been, can be or must be effectively implemented in order to
promote and sustain student-directed transition planning processes. It will serve to delve
deeper into the connection between the development of the IEP, transition planning and
person-centered practices and to make recommendations for future application. The paper
represents a synthesis of the individual and combined experiences of the nine
demonstration sites over the three-year project period.
The paper is broken into five sections. Section I sets the stage for the paper with a brief
introduction to the theory of social role valorization and the accomplishments of personcentered work. Section II looks at transition planning, the role it plays in the
development of post-school outcomes and the importance of using strength-based personcentered planning in the development of transition goals. Section III links personcentered practices to the coordinated set of activities embedded in the Individualized
Education Program and provides a framework to keep the planning process moving
progressively forward. Section IV discusses the elements of “seamless” transition and
offers suggestions for avoiding common transition pitfalls. Section V summarizes
findings from the T-TASP project community, provides recommendations and concludes
the paper.
For the purposes of continuity, a summary brief of the first paper, Infusing a PersonCentered Approach into Transition Planning for Students with Developmental
Disabilities, (2000) highlighting the main points connecting person-centered planning to
the development and implementation of the individualized education program, (IEP), can
be reviewed as an attachment to this document.
6
Integrating Essential Elements of Person-Centered Transition Planning
Practices into the Development of the Individualized Education Program with
all Students with Disabilities: an Ideology and Practice Whose Time Has
Come
INTRODUCTION
During the period of 1998 - 2000 each of the nine demonstration project sites within the
Transition Technical Assistance and Support Program (T-TASP) community received
training and support in learning and using an array of person-centered planning
approaches to plan for and to provide transition services and supports to students who
have been identified as having a developmental disability and to their families. The
demonstration sites were comprised of public high schools, Boards of Cooperative
Educational Services (BOCES), independent living centers, transition coordination sites
and community rehabilitation agencies.
The intent of the project was to build capacity within the demonstration project sites to
develop and implement transition-planning processes that incorporated person-centered
approaches within them. A secondary focus for the project was to promote systems
change by identifying mechanisms, strategies and opportunities beyond the project period
through which partnerships and collaborations could be formed to insure the continuation
of services and supports that foster meaningful and active transition planning processes
with students as they move toward adulthood.
T-TASP further postulated four key premises as the framework for the design and
delivery of transition services and supports throughout the grant cycle.
1. In reference to federal and state legislation that transition services are designed as
an outcome-oriented process that takes into account the student’s preferences and
interests, (8NYCRR200.1(rr); 34 CFR 3000.18). Toward that end an array of
person-centered planning approaches must be used when assisting the student in
identifying his or her post-school outcomes.
2. In accordance with section 614 of IDEA, the formal planning process must reflect
the student’s (and family) interests, skills, needs, preferences and abilities and
facilitate the involvement and progress of the student in the general curriculum.
3. Varied new and traditional resources and supports must be sought, created and
utilized to ensure the involvement and progress of the student in the general
curriculum, including the use of related services to support and maximize the
student’s opportunity for success and achievement in the general education
classroom.
4. All students, regardless of their level or type of disability have the right to
a. a free appropriate public education
7
b. determine his or her own future
c. live, work and play in the real world
d. hold valued citizen membership roles and be contributing members of
communities
Project Participants
The T-TASP project community was comprised of nine distinct demonstration sites each
of which identified a primary target goal to be addressed within the project. The nine
sites and the primary target goals are:
1. Brooklyn Center for Independent Living, (BCID), Brooklyn, NY ~ target: 25
students
2. Chemung County Chapter, NYSARC, Elmira, NY ~ target: 25 students
3. Eastern Suffolk BOCES, Port Jefferson, NY ~ target: 25 students
4. Footings, Inc., Monroe, NY ~ target: addressing systems issues
5. Independent Living, Inc., Newburgh, NY~ target: 60 students and their families
6. Job Path/Vera Institute, Manhattan, NY~ target: 40 students each year
7. Johnson City Central Schools, Johnson City, NY~ target: systems change
8. Monroe #1 and Monroe #2 BOCES, Rochester, NY~ target: 26 students/families
9. St. Lawrence-Lewis BOCES, Canton, NY~ target: 25 students and system impact
SECTION I: An Introduction to Theory of Social Role Valorization and the
Accomplishments of Person-Centered Work
Social Role Valorization Theory
Throughout history the design and provision of human services for people who live with
disabilities is fraught with attempts to protect, cure and/or overcome the conditions or
symptoms that are defined as “disabling.” So much focus is placed on the condition and
its subsequent cure that is all encompassing for the person who harbors the disability and
for those who are in the business of creating and administering service programs. It quite
literally becomes life defining for people and has lead to the global expectation and
acceptance of an assumption that people who live with disabilities need highly
specialized services and supports so distinct and foreign that they must be administered
out of the mainstream of community life.
Wolf Wolfensberger, (1998), articulated a concept for examining societal perceptions of
people who are considered to be disabled in the context of service constructs that are
developed in an effort to support them. Wolfensberger’s theory depicts the correlation
between the value one holds in the eyes of society as the determining factor for one’s
ultimate treatment by the very same society. Therefore, if a person is deemed “less
valuable” by a culture or society, (due to circumstances such as disability, class or social
status, ethnicity, etc), then it is psychologically acceptable to treat that person in ways
that reflect the perception, i.e. low quality housing options, poor schooling or no
8
education at all, low paying/low status employment, no employment, etc. Consequently,
people can be (and are) perpetually marginalized to the outskirts of society, and beyond.
This, according to Wolfensberger, is rational, acceptable and justifiable behavior from the
perspective of those who are on the “inside” of the society.
If we are to build communities that are genuinely inclusive of all people, then this
marginalizing behavior must stop. One of the ways to stop the practice is to recognize
where our actions either help or hinder the acceptance of people into societies.
Wolfensberger argues that a person who is perceived to have devalued characteristics and
conditions requires that extreme effort must be directed to supporting that person in
acquiring and experiencing socially valued roles. His theory of social role valorization
would serve as the springboard to person-centered planning.
The Five Accomplishments - Person-Centered Work Principles
History has shown that designers and providers of educational and human services have
tremendous influence over the activities that affect the day-to-day experiences and future
prospects of the people, families and communities that rely on them, (O’Brien, 1989).
Their policies and practices influence critical life-defining experiences including:
 Where a person lives, learns, earns and plays
 What activities fill the person’s days
 Who the person gets to know and who gets to know the person
 Where and how the person belongs in the community
The fundamental question that should be on the minds of any person in the position of
designing or delivering services and supports on behalf of people who are requesting
them is “What are we working toward?” Are we invested in perpetuating the myths and
stigmata that are currently assigned to persons who hold the label(s) of various
disabilities or are we committed to achieving outcomes that are designed to enhance the
quality of life of people who are living with disabilities and to enrich our local
communities? To what extent do people who rely upon educational and human services
experience the following:
Community presence: the sharing of the ordinary places that define community life. What community
settings does the person use regularly (daily, weekly, occasionally)?
To which of these places does the person go alone? As part of a group of two or three? As part of a larger
group? Does the person have any significant problem using any of these places? What other community
settings would it be in the person’s best interest to use, or to use more independently? What would it take to
increase the number of community settings the person uses completely? (Consider changes in the person’s
skills, changes in available assistance, negotiating changes in the setting or changes in service patterns).
Choice: the experience of autonomy both in small, everyday matters (e.g., what to eat or what to wear) and
in large, life-defining matters (e.g., with whom to live or what sort of work to do). What decisions are made
regularly by the person? What decisions are made for the person by others? For which of these could
decision making be transferred to the person himself or herself? What are the person’s strongest interests
and preferences that
create their uniqueness? What would it take to increase the number, variety, and importance of the
decisions the person makes? What would it take to increase other’s knowledge of the person’s interests and
preferences?
9
Competence: the opportunity to perform functional and meaningful activities with whatever level or type
of assistance is required. What skills could the person develop that would offer the most opportunity for
increased presence, choice, respect and participation? What strategies for instruction and assistance have
been most effective for the person? Are there more efficient strategies than instruction, such as
environmental modification or provision of additional personal assistance? Are there any
health-related threats to the person’s continuing development? How can these be managed effectively with
minimal disruption of good quality life experiences? What would it take to increase the person’s
competence in more valued activities?
Respect: having a valued place among a network of people and valued roles in community life. What are
the valued community roles the person occupies and what percentage of time is spent in each? What
community roles offer the person the best opportunity to express individual gifts and talents? What would
it take to increase the amount of time the person spends in a valued community role? What images and
ideas about a desirable future are available to the person? Does the person display any characteristics that
reinforce stereotyped perceptions of people with severe disabilities? (Consider the images projected by
activities, schedules, expectations, and the way the person is spoken to and about). What would it take to
decrease the stigma the person experiences?
Community participation: the experience of being part of a growing network of personal relationships
that include close friends. With whom does the person spend the most time on a daily and weekly basis?
How many of these people are other clients/students in the same program? How many of these people are
program staff? How many are people with apparent disabilities? Are there other important people in the
person’s social network with whom the person spends time occasionally? Who are the person’s friends and
allies? Who knows the person intimately? Who will act as an advocate for his or her interests? What
would it take to provide better support for the person’s present network of relationships? What would it
take to develop more friends or allies? What would it take to increase the number of non-disabled people,
including age-peers, who know and spend time with the person as an individual?
Simply put, the underlying values of community-based supports foster opportunities and
experiences that allow people to:
Be Somebody!
Go Places!
Have Respect!
Share in Relationships!
Have Choices!
Otherwise know as The Five Accomplishments, (O’Brien, J. & O’Brien, C. 1989).
SECTION II: Transition Planning and Post-School Outcomes: The Road to Inclusion
or Segregation? The Imperative of Strength-Based Planning and Assessment
In the book The Magic of Thinking Big David Schwarz (1959) writes the following:
Desire, when harnessed, is power. Failure to follow desire, to do what
you want to do most, paves the way to mediocrity. Success requires
heart and soul effort and you can only put your heart and soul into
something you really desire.
10
From Judith Snow, (2001):
“To plan is to believe that the future is not already given…”
What Are Post-School Outcomes?
Post-school outcomes are intended to be a reflection of the student’s stated preferences
and dreams for their future in the realms of community living, employment and
postsecondary education. These written statements are a required component of the New
York State Individualized Education Program (IEP), planning process beginning at age
15. The language embedded in IDEA mandates student involvement in transition
planning. Imagine the potential within those required outcome statements if they were a
true reflection of the heart and soul of the student’s actual desires and that the education
program devised a plan that allowed for the student to explore the ins and outs of those
desires through experiential and academic learning!
The identification of preferences, interests, desires and dreams is the result of
experiencing authentic choice. Webster’s Universal College Dictionary (1997) defines
choice as the act or instance of choosing. Choosing is, by definition, the opportunity to
select from a number of possibilities; to prefer or decide; to want or desire; to be inclined.
Many students with developmental disabilities have not been allowed to participate in
determining the direction of the educational programs and services they receive
(Wehman & Brown-Glover, 1996) and therefore are not being provided the experiences
and opportunities required to make authentic choices, to select from a number of
possibilities. The types of choices presented to students with disabilities pass through a
system of professionally constructed controls that tend to either be extremely constrained
or false (Gothelf & Brown, 1998).
The rationale for the level of control exercised over students with disabilities may come,
in part, from the deeply embedded myths that these students lack the capacity to make
choices. Additionally, large-scale systems emphasize standardized categories in which to
rank and file people according to generalized categories designed to foster equity and
efficiency, (Scotch, 2000). More often than not, when children enter schools, the system
often presents them with purposes unrelated to their own desires and aspirations ~ to
meet the state learning standards, to be ranked high, etc, (Senge, 2000). So that which is
being classified as “choice” is actually a limited range of variations of the same general
theme. For example, allowing a student to select one of two or three worksheets to
complete during a math lesson in the Basic Skills program may be rationalized as an
outcome of choice and therefore meet the letter of the law. It is hard to believe that the
practice of forced choice (an either-or) decision-making process is what was intended
behind the reauthorization of the IDEA, or the intention behind requiring the
development of post-school outcome statements.
Why Do Post-School Outcome Statements Matter?
For all students in New York State the information that is used to determine the student’s
individualized education program is gathered from the individual evaluation, the annual
11
review and the identification of the student’s present levels of performance. The question
of who the student is and what the student wants in life with regard to strengths, needs,
interests, expectations, hopes and desires begins to be answered through the process of
evaluation. Where the student falls in relationship to what he or she is striving toward
also emerges through evaluation and by reviewing the student’s present level of
performance, (PLP). As part of this process, the post-school outcomes identified should
reflect the student’s aspirations for living, learning and working in the community as an
adult. Subsequent planning should result in the development and implementation of
services, supports, and educational experiences that serve to identify and address the
pathway for moving the student from where they are at any given time (PLP), toward
meeting the objectives within the post-school outcome statements. The results of future
evaluations and assessments help to determine the progressive next steps that are
necessary to continue to facilitate moving the student forward. Thus, the student’s
educational program each year is defined by determining the student’s present levels of
performance and the post-school outcome statements for transition planning.
The Goals 2000: Educate America Act initiated during the Clinton Administration and
the current No Child Left Behind agenda of the Bush Administration are efforts to
improve the educational outcomes for all children in the United States. This has led to
widespread educational reform across the country and has resulted in an unintended
consequence of “high stakes testing,” (Wehmeyer, 2002). The emphasis on high stakes
testing and increased graduation requirements may translate into a de-emphasis on work
experience and community-based learning (such as community exploration activities,
community-based assessments, job trials and other modes of applied learning) at the local
level. This threatens to deepen the divide that keeps students with developmental
disabilities from participating in general education course work.
Consider Chris…
Chris was an 18 year-old student in a self-contained classroom when a 1997 psychological assessment
revealed the following information:
Verbal IQ = 51
Communication (Age Equivalent) = 4.9
Performance IQ = 48
Daily Living (Age Equivalent) = 6.0
Full Scale IQ = 45
Motor Skills (Age Equivalent) = 3.8
Classification: Mental Retardation
Overall Adaptive Level:
Low
Additional:
Down’s Syndrome
Prone to Behavioral Outbursts
Requires 1:1 Classroom Support
Moderate-Severe hearing Impairment
Limited Verbal and/or Manual Expressive Skills
Limited Receptive Skills
Recommendations:
Remain in Life Skills contained classroom until June 1999 to further
Develop daily living skills and pre-vocational skills.
Post-school outcome:
Acceptance and attendance in (the local) day habilitation/day treatment
program.
12
The passage of P.L. 105-17 mandated that a statement of the student’s needed transition services
in the areas of instruction, related services, employment, etc., be articulated in the IEP. In Chris’
case, these transition components were related to facilitating a successful transition from his Life
Skills class at age 20 to a human service program designed to support individuals who have
significant cognitive and/or physical disabilities and/or behavioral concerns. Efforts were taken
to link the components of Chris’ IEP to the services the adult service provider could and would
furnish in order to create a “seamless” transition between the school environment and the adult
day program so that none of the effort put forth throughout the years would be lost. Thus, and
without malice or real intention, the perpetual cycle of segregation is complete.
A group of family, friends, school professionals, (including his teacher and speech
therapist), and representatives from the selected adult service agency spent a full day with
Chris sharing information and analyzing data about his interests, preferences, capacities,
skills and support needs in order to strategize the framework for a preliminary
individualized service plan (PISP) to be implemented by the adult service provider. The
meeting was conducted using a person- centered planning process known as Essential
Lifestyle Planning (Smull, 1996) and yielded the following information:
1998
Chris is a person who is very social. He has a great sense of humor and enjoys being around
people who appreciate and contribute to that.
He clearly makes his needs known.
He has many talents and varied interests. He especially likes to keep busy and prefers to do
things that allow him to be physically active.
He prefers to be with people who do not have disabilities.
He enjoys helping others and seeks out opportunities to do this.
He is a hard worker, has a strong work ethic and is quick to learn jobs.
He is sensitive to the feelings and needs of others.
He is joyful and extremely likeable.
He has a deep connection to family, his church and to people he considers to be his
friends.
Recommendations: Support Chris in identifying and sustaining valued roles in the
community through supported employment and associational community life, i.e., memberships
and/or volunteerism.
Post-school outcomes:
 Chris hopes to leave school with a job that reflects and provides opportunities to build
upon and expand his interest in working with people and/or with animals in a job that
includes physical activity.
 Chris plans to leave school with the necessary funding structure and agency support
already in place to sustain his employment.
 Chris hopes to have associational community connection and/or memberships prior to
leaving school in places that reflect and support his interests.
13
In addition to seeing Chris through the lens of capacity and talent, the person-centered
planning process also revealed information about Chris that shed light on the types of
situations, environments, activities, etc., that had a debilitating effect on Chris and which
provoked negative reactions from him. Examples of this information include: Chris hates
being in crowded, noisy places; he hates “downtime,” or having nothing to do; he hates
sedentary tasks; he prefers to be with people who are not disabled, etc. Ironically, most
of the variables that served as triggers to negative behaviors for Chris are naturally
present within the environment to which he was preparing to transition, and for which he
was receiving “individualized” educational support.
In the Nick of Time…
Because section 614 (d)(I)(A)(vii)(II) of P.L.105-17 further clarifies that a “statement of
interagency responsibilities and any needed linkages (i.e. vocational rehabilitation), be included
in the IEP,” Chris and his family began working with the adult service provider identified in the
post-school outcome statement section of Chris’ IEP during his last year of school to insure a
smooth transition from school to adult life. The family selected an adult service provider that, in
addition to experience in providing person-centered supports, was also knowledgeable about the
IEP and transition process for students who have disabilities. Ultimately, Chris, his family and
the rest of the members of his CSE crafted an IEP for his remaining year of school that utilized
functional assessment as a method for recognizing, encouraging and building upon the unique
gifts, capacities, skills, abilities and support needs that Chris brought into and was more than
ready to share with the world.
Building the Bridge to Inclusion Using Person-Centered Practices
As history has shown, the problem with most planning methods, including those currently
being used to develop the IEP, is that the focus for planning is continually based on what
is considered a deficit in the person’s ability to perform in ways that are perceived as
typical or normal. Students are assessed and evaluated against the “standard” of
perceived normalcy and strategies are developed as interventions to fix what is wrong
with the person (Forest, Pearpoint, Falvey & Rosenberg, 1997). This sets the stage for
perpetuating social acceptance of and expectation for communities made up of “us” and
“them” and maintains a structure that supports the devaluation of one group (those in
need of “fixing”) over another (those who seemingly do not)(Wolfensberger, 1998). On
the assumption that the person is not quite “normal” it becomes quite acceptable for
people to exercise varieties of discrimination, through which the stigmatized person’s life
chances become greatly reduced (Goffman, 1963) as the ideology for segregating this
person from the general mass is encouraged. A former student, Mitchell Levitz,
(Kingsley & Levitz, 1994) talks about his high school experience in his book Count Us
In: Growing Up with Down Syndrome:
I don’t know how to say this – but I’d rather think of myself as normal than as a
disability. In school, the guys I hang around with, I earn their respect. I want to
be part of the gang. I want to put my disability on the (in)side and the cool side of
me out…and then I think of myself as normal….(pp. 48-49).
14
The need to feel that one belongs is a basic human need and one that must be met before
a person can achieve a sense of self-worth. Abraham Maslow (1970) argues that
belonging is an essential prerequisite to achieving a sense of self-worth. Belonging is the
backbone of inclusion. In special education the practice is generally one in which
students must acquire certain skills as a prerequisite to inclusion in the general education
curriculum. Perhaps if educators gave up this notion of prerequisite skills, even
temporarily, in favor of providing opportunities for students with disabilities to be “one
of the kids” in the regular classroom, students with special learning needs would be
motivated through the avenue of belonging to learn new and necessary skills (Kunc,
1992), and perhaps those students otherwise classified might be more inclined to make
room for the learning to take place.
The art of facilitating inclusion involves working creatively with a heightened sense of
awareness that directs energy toward problem solving that promotes reconsideration of
boundaries, relationships, structures and benefits (O’Brien & O’Brien, 1995). One such
reconsideration comes from an eminent leader in the disability community, Judith Snow,
who suggests that rather than seeing an individual who has a disability label as a problem
or in need of some sort of rehabilitation or needing to be separate from others, Snow
challenges people to think of all people as “gifted.” She argues that all human beings are
replete with giftedness, though some may be missing ordinary gifts (such as the ability to
use his or her legs for walking). Our charge is to discover along with the person what his
or her gifts are and to find places and be among people where gifts that are both ordinary
and extraordinary can be recognized, appreciated and reciprocated through meaningful
interaction, (Snow, 1998).
Although each demonstration site within the T-TASP project community typically used a
variety of methods to facilitate person-centered transition planning and foster inclusion,
primary approaches unique to the individual site emerged. Project-specific summaries
can be found in the appendix of this document, but the general core of unique focus for
each site can be noted in the following:
Job Path focus: increase community membership roles using Personal Futures Planning process as a
mechanism for identifying and defining interests, skills, preferences and abilities for the development and
implementation of the IEP.
Monroe Boces 1 & 2 focus: increase family/caregiver involvement in the transition process using personcentered planning tools. Develop a person-centered tool to enhance the development of the IEP, incorporate
family involvement and establish teams of support during and beyond the student’s transition from school
to adult life.
BCID focus: outreach to schools further out in the boroughs of NYC in an effort to broaden the spectrum of
transition services and supports to the students and families prior to a student’s leaving school to ensure
that access to appropriate resources was obtained.
Chemung ARC focus: provide up-front service coordination and referral to adult service provider(s) in an
effort to develop sustainable services and supports to appropriate resources prior to the student’s transition
from school.
15
Johnson City School focus: classroom instruction integrated with group community outings in an effort to
initiate awareness about the student’s rights and responsibility in the development and implementation of a
self-determined IEP and the transition process.
Independent Living focus: increase self-determination through the facilitation and development of a
person-centered personal profile that served as a springboard for transition planning activities; initiation of
peer and family educational groups that served as peer support and; increase knowledge of and access to
adult services to build community networks and resources prior to and during the student’s transition from
school.
Eastern Suffolk BOCES focus: increase access to technology for students so that they could access and
utilize information relative to the development and customizing of their IEP through an on-line resource
developed through the school. School personnel were provided training and technical support in personcentered planning and its applicability to the defining of the unique interests, skill, abilities and support
needs of students in transition.
St. Lawrence BOCES focus: develop a cadre of mentor-trainer-facilitators who would become experts in
the development and implementation of person-centered transition planning and would replicate training
throughout nine counties with students, care givers and school personnel. Consequently, a protocol within
the system for person-centered transition planning was developed and distributed throughout all of the
districts.
Footings, Inc. focus: to build collaborative partnerships between and within existing service systems and
natural community resources to ensure access to the appropriate supports and services for the student and
for the family/caregivers prior to the student’s transition from school and to establish proactive responses to
the provision of school and community services to students through the development and implementation
of the student’s IEP/transition process.
Person-centered planning provides a forum through which a person’s giftedness can be
discovered and explored. There are a variety of tools available for person-centered
planning. The selection of which tool to use depends upon the purpose for the planning
effort. Regardless of the tool that is chosen, however, all person-centered planning
processes embed the following practices and/or principles within the framework of the
tool (O’Brien & Lovett, 1992):
Person-Centered Planning Processes:
 Focus on the gifts, talents, capacities, interests and preferences
of the person who is at the focus of the planning effort
 Include people who know, love and who care about the person
 Strive to create positive community roles with persons living
with disabilities
 Requires commitment to shared action
 Requires a willingness to do things differently
 Rely on a facilitated process
16
Authentically administered person-centered practices seek to know and seek to
understand the person in order to be of genuine service to that person. Authenticity in
person-centered approaches carries with it an openness to being guided by the person
and, among other things, to look for the good in people and to help to bring that out
through designing services and supports born of flexibility, creativity and a willingness to
try what might be possible, including innovation, experimentation and unconventional
solutions, (Kendrick, 2000). Given this, person centered planning is a necessary step in
the development of a student’s IEP if schools are going to meet state and federal
mandates to identify the student’s unique interests and preferences. When used in
combination with the transition-planning components of the IEP, the outcomes can be life
altering.
Reconsider Chris…
The school district from which Chris transitioned took the recommendations and postschool outcome statements, (previously long-term adult outcomes), very seriously
following the facilitation of his person- centered plan. Chris spent the remainder of his
school year and part of the next engaged in the following activities:






Chris became a member of the local YMCA where he plays basketball, swims,
lifts weights, etc.
Chris established connections with critical adult service providers, i.e. the New
York State Office of Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with
Disabilities (VESID), the New York State Office of Mental Retardation and
Developmental Disabilities (OMRDD) and the adult service provider agency
selected to coordinate needed services.
Chris experimented in a variety of paid employment positions in order to
determine areas of vocational interest and skill via collaboration between the
school district and the adult service provider agency.
Prior to leaving school, Chris accepted paid employment in two part-time jobs:
he became the assistant sexton in the church he and his family had attended for
years; he became a general staff member at a local Pizza Hut restaurant. Chris
currently works a third job as a host in a neighborhood diner.
Chris began exchanging stable hand services at a local horse stable in lieu of
riding lessons.
Chris opened a bank account and began to learn basic principles of money
management.
Chris “transitioned” to a day service set of activities that were customized to support
these and other activities prior to his leaving school. A snapshot of his day looks like
this: Chris arrives to his day program where he is met by his job coach. He then works
until lunch at any one of his (now) three jobs. He returns to the center where he has
lunch with various staff members. He then spends the afternoon involved in communitybased activities reflective of his interest, such as swimming, horseback riding, weight
lifting, etc. He arrives back at the center in time to get his ride home. He has been out
of school almost two years and he is still employed with his original employers in
addition to accepting yet a third part-time position.
17
Person-centered transition planning enabled Chris to bypass the road leading to
segregation and disempowerment. Today, Chris enjoys varied valued social roles. He is
an employee, a volunteer, co-worker, an athlete, a friend. He holds membership in many
organizations, including his church and the YMCA. Chris is just one example of how
person-centered planning processes and practices, when infused into the development and
implementation of the IEP, fosters the kind of teamwork approach that enables educators
to fulfill the goal of teaching…to facilitate the education of young people toward
assuming the role of responsible and contributing citizens in society.
Person-centered planning provides the framework in which to support the student’s
involvement across the range of variables that increase the likelihood of leading toward
success. The essence of person-centered planning and practice is to find ways to listen
closely to people with disabilities and to those who care deeply about that person so that
we might better understand his or her dreams and despairs in an effort to walk the path
with the person toward their desired future.
Person-centered planning is both a philosophy and a set of tools for practical application
in listening and learning. Person-centered planning processes and practices force us to
re-examine our existing belief systems, commitments and investments not only in the
way we see and work with students and adults who are living with disabilities but in the
way in which we view one another and the world at large.
SECTION III: Infusing Student-Driven Practices into the Development of the IEP
Recent research (Sands, Bassett, Lehmann & Spencer 1998) designed to reveal the
important variables leading to student involvement in transition-related activities yielded
the following information:
The school environment is particularly important in facilitating active student
involvement in transition-related activities provided that 1) students receive their special
education services in general education classrooms and 2) students participate in general
education classes. Additionally, students engage in transition-related activities more
readily when they are involved in their own planning and evaluation processes.
Four variables of significance emerged regarding student-specific impacts: 1) the
perception the teacher held of the student’s job-related competence; 2) the student’s
ability to self-regulate his or her own behaviors; 3) the student’s social skills; and 4) the
student’s engagement in transition-related social, work and educational opportunities.
Finally, the research suggests that the role of the family impacted the level of student
involvement in his or her transition-related activities. Students tend toward active
involvement if the home environment is democratic and non-controlling and when
families hold a positive value for student involvement in the school-based planning
process.
18
What follows is a closer look at the relationship that exists between person-centered
planning and the coordinated set of activities in the development of the Individualized
Education Program, (IEP). Figure 1 depicts the essential components, or hallmarks, of all
person-centered planning processes.
Hallmarks of Person-Centered Planning:
 Activities, services and supports are based on the individual’s dreams, interests,
preferences, strengths and capacities
 People who know and who care about the person are included in the planning
process
 The individual is provided with authentic and meaningful choices with decisions
that are based on experiential learning
 The person uses naturally occurring resources and supports
 Activities, services and supports facilitate opportunities to build and sustain
meaningful personal relationships, inclusion in communities, enhance the person’s
dignity and opportunities to have his or her contributions valued, appreciated,
respected and reciprocated
 There is a commitment to try what might be possible through being creative,
flexible and open
 Planning is a collaborative process and involves an on-going commitment to the
person
 The person is satisfied with his or her relationships, home, school and work life
Figure 1
Figure 2 outlines the sequence of events leading to the development of a student’s IEP.
Each of the events identified articulates the criteria or components that must be present
within the sequence. Each step includes a list of suggested activities that may be used to
gather pertinent information relevant to this component.
Potential Assessment Instruments for use in the Evaluation








Student Questionnaire
Family/Guardian Questionnaire
Transition Planning Inventory
Pre-Meeting Discussion
Vocational Assessment
Interest or Aptitude Testing
Community Experience
Activities of Daily Living Assessment
Present Levels of Performance (PLP)








Learning Standards
SCANS Skills
Student’s Strengths and Abilities
Parent/Guardian Concerns
PLP in each
Special Considerations
realm
Progress in Past Year
Needs, Preferences, Interests, Abilities
Areas in Need of Support
 Academic or educational
achievement
 Physical Development
 Social Development
 Behavior Management
19



General Education Needs
What Has Been Tried: What Has Worked/What Has Not Worked
Transition Service Needs
Post-School Outcomes (PSO, formerly Long-Term Adult Outcomes)






Beginning at age 15
Stated in Student’s Own Words
Dreams/Aspirations for the Future
Across the Three Areas of Transition (living, learning, earning)
Initially General ~ Becoming More Specific Over Time
Outcome–Oriented Process
Living
Learning
Earning
Annual Goals





Address Needs Identified in the PLP and PSO
Quantifiable, Observable
One Year From Now
Focus on Foundation Skills, Behaviors and Strategies (Not Curriculum Content)
Based on Performance Indicators to Meet Learning Standards Areas
Short-Term Objectives/Benchmarks



Identifies Interim Skills or Knowledge Student Needs to Reach Annual Goals
Includes Evaluation Criteria, Procedure and Schedule
Quantifiable, Observable
Programs, Services, Modifications






Identifies Support Services to Facilitate Progress Toward Goals
Related Services are Identified
Articulation of Need for an Extended School Year
Assistive Technology
Supplementary Aides and Services
Testing Accommodations, Including Alternate Assessments
Least Restricted Environment Considerations



Access to General Education
Career and Technical Education or School-to-Work Participation
Extracurricular Activities to Address Social and Self-Advocacy Skills
Placement




Based on Results, Progress, Etc., Determine Placement
Review Progress Toward Meeting Diploma Requirements
Address Transportation Needs
Determine Evaluation Criteria
How/
when/
where?
Why not?
What has
been tried?
The Coordinated Set of Activities is another section of the IEP that includes: instruction,
related services, employment or other post-school outcomes, community experiences, and
when appropriate, functional vocational assessment and activities of daily living (ADL).
Figure 2
20
Figure 3 overlays the distinct components of figures 1 and 2 into one schemata and places
the essential elements of Figure 4 in the center. The external portion of the figure shows
four key statements from the perspective of the student that are intended to drive the
entire process: Who I Am; Where I am Going; What I Need to Know (to get there); and
How I Will Get There. These four statements are key to career and transition planning.
These statements are qualified by the hallmarks of person-centered practices and
processes that are best supported within the context of the statement. The circular
component of the diagram displays the sequence of events articulated in the
establishment and implementation of the IEP process. Finally, the central box in the
diagram indicates the questions that must be asked regularly in order to keep the process
moving forward and incorporating what is being learned into everyday practice.
Evaluations
Placement
Trying what might be possible
Flexible, creative opportunities
Meaningful activities
Valued social & community
roles
Applied learning
What Have We Tried?
Least
Restrictive
Environment
What Have We
Learned?
Present Levels of
Performance
Programs
Services
Modifications
What Do We Need/
Want To Learn?
What Do We Need/
Want to Try?
Benchmarks
Experiential learning
Personal Satisfaction
Competence-Building
Annual Goals
Interests
Skills
Abilities
Needs
People who care
Post-School
Outcomes
Meaningful choices
Desires, dreams
Making friends
Sharing Gifts
Capacity-focus
Figure 3
Figure 4 is a tool called the “learning wheel,” developed by Michael Smull (1989) that
can be used to update the person-centered IEP on a regular basis. It uses a flow chart
methodology to pose four discrete questions (What have we tried? What have we
learned? What do we need/want to learn? What do we need/want to try next?) , to the
student’s team. The answers to the four questions serve as the foundation for planning the
next sequence of evaluation and plan implementation to create a fluid and dynamic
process that is responsive to the unique needs of each student. Central to this process is
the use of listening to the desires and interests of the person as this sets the context for
planning. The development of a plan is the end product of organizing or synthesizing the
information that has been gathered, reviewed and learned. Next, the plan is tried out or
implemented so that the final phase, assessing the plan to see how it is working, can be
conducted. The following is a graphic representation of the learning wheel.
21
Michael Smull’s “Learning Wheel”
Listen
What do we
need/want to
learn?
Understand
(set context)
Assess
(see how it’s working)
What have we
learned?
What do we
need/want to try
next?
Plan
(organize/synthesize)
What have
we tried?
Implement
(try it out)
Figure 4
When student-centered planning is embedded in the IEP process and the “learning wheel”
is used as a tool to review progress, a comprehensive, holistic and authentic assessment
that is genuinely reflective of the unique goals, interests, preferences, capacities and
needs of the person is the likely result. Efforts need to be made in schools to include
strategies such as this when funding evaluation and/or assessment for secondary students
with disabilities.
SECTION IV: Creating “Seamless” Transition from School to Careers
A student can quite literally be out of school for several years without appropriate
services due to a variety of reasons such as long waiting lists for entry into programs and
services, desire to avoid the stigma associated with service delivery systems, lack of
awareness of type of services available, lack of certainty of how to access services, etc.
“Seamless” transition services occur when the gap that typically exists between school
life and the post-school life is eliminated. The gap is eliminated when the appropriate
levels and types of support are identified and obtained prior to the student’s last days of
school. The members of the T-TASP project community recognize the important role
each of the following elements play in creating optimal conditions that support “seamless
transition:”






Plan at the appropriate levels
Recognize that means is not the same as the end (a plan is not an outcome)
Involve all relevant partners
Acknowledge and plan for the trends in the local community
Connect with adult service structures in order to pick up where school leaves off
Use person-centered planning
22
The following represents some of the best practices and recommendations/suggestions
identified during the three year T-TASP pilot demonstration project that incorporate
some or all of these elements.
Elements of Seamless Transition
1. Have clearly defined and attainable person-centered outcome measurements for
the transition program. Examples of potential program outcomes:






Students leave school with paid employment of at least a part-time nature that is
reflective of his or her interest, skills, needs and abilities.
Students are connected to the type and level of support needed to successfully transition
from school to community life prior to leaving school.
There is active and informed parental/family/guardian involvement in transition planning.
The drop out rate is reduced as students stay in school through the transition process.
Partnerships with adult service provider agencies are established and utilized while the
student is still in school.
Students are connected with appropriate post-secondary school education programs
2. Have a formal structure for assessment throughout the transition process. For
example:






Age 12 – A Level I vocational assessment is conducted and the information is utilized as
the initiation for career planning.
8th Grade – Interest inventories are conducted. Orientation to transition program is
conducted. Initial person-centered post-school outcome interview is conducted.
9th Grade – All of the above plus: Student profile is initiated. Preliminary person-centered
career plan is developed and folded into the IEP. School-based projects are conducted
related to authentic tasks and employment activities. Community speakers/business
people are part of the school program.
10th Grade – same as above plus: Job tours, job shadows are conducted. Conduct personcentered functional vocational assessments. Conduct initial environmental assessments.
Continue person-centered profile development. Set up summer employment.
11th Grade – same as above plus: Continue to review & update person-centered plan.
Develop specific community-based work sites. Conduct employee/employer feedback
system. Provide on-site and off-site employment instruction that is coordinated with
general education curriculum. Referrals/applications for adult services.
12th Grade – same as above plus: narrow employment choices. Initiate job
development/job selection process. Access adult service supports as needed. Arrange
transportation/mobility training. Student is on payroll at employment site prior to leaving
school.
3. Create community connection and associations that support the transition
program.




4.
Establish a business advisory council
Establish a speaker’s bureau
Participate in community service activities
Join the Chamber of Commerce and attend community events and
Establish partnerships with local adult service providers.

Negotiate job sharing with local job coaches
23



Incorporate employment services personnel from community agencies into the transition
program
Form business partnerships with local providers to provide services and supports such as:
case management, benefits counseling, job development, job coaching, follow along job
coaching services
Ensure that students leaving school with paid employment take their job coach with them
when they leave or transition to a new job coach prior to school exit
5. Develop a feedback system that allows for follow up with students and families
for a minimum of two years post school.


Establish a tracking system to determine efficacy of transition program in relation to
student satisfaction; family/guardian satisfaction with regard to employment selection,
hours, wages, benefits, career planning and mobility, access to appropriate service and
supports, living situations and the other areas targeted for transition
Utilize the information to make program changes and to report outcomes to school
administration, Boards of Education and the community.
Six out of the nine demonstration sites, having incorporated many of
these best practices into their project activities, have sustained some
level of person-centered transition planning beyond the life of the grant
cycle.
Strategies for Developing Partnerships: The 5 A’s of Community-Building
Good lives for people with disabilities depend on whether they are recognized as members of
social networks and associations that constitute community. People recognized as members
benefit from everyday exchanges of support that create opportunities to play socially valued
roles and chances to form personally significant relationships. People excluded from
membership risk loneliness, isolation and powerlessness.
John O’Brien
Helping people move toward lives that are self-defined and self-determined requires new
and different skill sets for the people who are in the business of supporting people
through life’s transitions. It requires taking off the expert and judge hats and walking on
the path of partnership and in equality. This means that the work must be shared with
traditional and non-traditional players. It requires the formation of teams around specific
agenda and it requires that the teams are comprised of permanent members and
temporary members. The following diagram, adapted from John O’Brien’s Five
Commitments that Build Community, (1991), is a useful tool in determining relevant
team membership at any given time during the planning and implementation stages of
any planning process. Each segment represents one area of commitment.
24
Agendas organize the action
that needs to be taken
to move forward.
Anchors are people who
love the person and will be with
the person over the long haul.
Agendas
Associations are the
social structures
groups of people
create to further
their interests.
Anchors
Associations
Allies
Assistance
Allies are people who
commit their time &
resourc es w/the person
to make jointly meaningful
change. They offer
practical help, assist w/
problem-solving, lend
experience, skills & info.
They make contacts &
bring in other allies.
Assistance comes from the people who provide the
help a person needs to deal with the effects of his or her
disability so that they can contribute their gifts.
These commitments must be explored on a regular basis to make certain that important
players are moving in and out of the dynamic process as necessary to keep the person and
his or her supporters on target and moving forward.
It is critically important to acknowledge that degrees of learning, levels of learning, types
of learning, method for instruction and outcome measurement must be uniquely designed
to accommodate the interests, preferences, skills, abilities, needs, and support
requirements of all students.
This excerpt from a letter written to the author of this paper is a poignant example of
what the result of exclusionary educational practices promises. The author of the letter
requested to remain anonymous.
Received via email Monday, February 25, 2002:
Dear Carol Blessing,
All I want is my rights back for a fair and free education which I was deprived
while I was in school. I just want to be educate(d). I want to go to school to
learn all there is to learn, I want to do it for myself and my kids so I can help
them in everyway that I can while they are in school. I don’t like feeling
helpless, stuck and filled with frustration because I can’t help my oldest one
with her homework. You see, I’m tried (tired) of dream(ing) and praying. I have
to stand up and seek for help to be taught by teachers or tutors to make things
better for me and my kids. I want to go to college and one day get a degree
in Graphic Art or X-Ray Technician or Special Ed Teacher. All
I want is to be educated and fill(ed) with knowledge. Thank you.
Reprinted with permission from the author. Parenthetic additions were made to bring greater clarity to the
content of the message.
25
Imagine what the letter might look like if the person who wrote the above letter had been
involved in an educational process that…
Uses person-centered practices to identify the present levels of performance and
post-school outcome statements from which
annual educational goals are established and
short-term objectives or benchmarks are designed and revised based on “turning
the learning wheel” in person-centered forums comprised of listeners and supporters
so that
adaptations, modifications, supports & services are identified to ensure that
learning and experiences occur in settings and with people that were in alignment
with the stated goals so that the gifts and capacities of this person could be valued,
recognized, appreciated and reciprocated
in the general community of the school and neighborhood
so that educated decisions born of uniquely defined experiences and acquired
knowledge about which of the three occupations identified (graphic artist, x-ray
technician or special education teacher) could be made and
person-centered assessment is applied to school and community-based
performance as a strategy to measure the progress made toward the stated goals and
which also invites the freedom of changing one’s mind, changing one’s direction and
learning and growing as one goes down the path or more simply put…
the essential elements of person-centered practices are integrated into the development
of the Individualized Education Program.
The inherent philosophy behind person-centered planning is that every human being has
gifts and capacities to share with the world and that the world will benefit from the
exchange. It is a philosophy that believes, at its core, that communities can only be
complete when everyone is included, when every person belongs.
Person-centered planning, when placed in the context of transition planning and the
development and implementation of the student’s Individualized Education Program,
provides a rich educational framework in which the fabric of growth and development
can be woven to create a unique and individualized tapestry of skills, experience and
knowledge for each and every student.
Career development and assessment must never be used as an intervention or a strategy
that is applied to a student. It is a process of exploration and discovery. Every bend and
turn in the road offers a new opportunity for learning and growth and development. It is
the potential for opening doors to new and different experiences through which students
might enter the adult world as informed, educated and contributing citizens. It is the
opportunity to enter into the learning process with the student, to join together in the
journey toward community membership.
26
SECTION V: Summary, Recommendations and Conclusion
The overall goal of the Transition Technical Assistance and Support Program, (T-TASP),
sponsored by the New York State Developmental Disabilities Planning Council, was to
design, implement, evaluate and sustain innovative and replicable service designs that
promote person-centered transition planning processes within and between educational
and adult service systems with young adults who have developmental disabilities and
their families. The intent of the project was to provide training and technical assistance
to students, caregivers, service providers, teachers and school professionals in the realm
of incorporating person-centered planning into the development and implementation of
transition planning that is part of a student’s individualized education program. In
addition, best practices and lessons learned throughout the three-year period would be
recorded and shared through the development and dissemination of two policy papers.
Collapsed Data from the GRETA report
A data collection tool was developed for specific use throughout the project to
extrapolate information on a quarterly basis that would reflect the quantitative progress
made within each project site. Data was collected across 20 distinct domains all of which
had subcategories embedded within the primary number. All of the Greta reports have
been submitted to the NYS DDPC office where they are available for review. A synthesis
of a subset of the data has been compiled for the purposes of this report. The information
that was extrapolated for the synthesis represents data collected regarding student
involvement in the development of the IEP with transition components, family/caregiver
involvement in the development of the IEP, training of students, families, school and
community personnel in person-centered planning, development of community
partnerships, impact on service systems and continuation of funding. The specific data
pulled for this report was obtained from questions 1A, 1C, 1D, 1E, 2D, 2E, 5A, 5B, 5G,
5H, 8A, 09, 15B, 16A 17B, 17C, and 19B of the Greta report.
The data can easily be interpreted across a wide range of variables. In this synthesis the
combined average of the data reported by individual project sites is reflected beginning
with the end of the first quarter in 1998 and ending with the final reporting quarter in
2000. Although the average across all programs flattens the statistical significance of any
variable, a progressive trend in favor of utilizing person-centered planning and practices
should be easily recognized. The average is a reflection of the number of students et al
impacted per site for each quarter shown, not the total number of students provided
services.
27
Quantitative measure
1998
At end of 1st ¼
1998
1999
At end of 2nd ¼ At end of 4th ¼
2000
At end of 2nd ¼
1A. number of students served by project
9.3
16.7
19.4
34.5
1C. number of family members
participating in person-centered planning
.3
11.3
15.1
26.6
1D. number of community members
participating in person-centered planning
.5
3.5
5.4
13.9
1E. number of school personnel
participating in person-centered planning
.8
20.3
20.6
27.5
2D. number of family trained to
facilitate/participate in person-centered
planning
.3
7.0
10.5
12.4
2E. number of students trained selfadvocacy/self-determination
1.5
6.2
8.3
10.9
5A. number of students participating
general education -academic
1.3
2.4
2.9
12 .7
5B. number of students participating
in general education- non academic
1.4
3.2
8.6
16.7
5G. number of students participating
in vocational assessment
1.7
8.8
15.3
17.4
5H. number of students participating
in community-based paid employment
1.0
2.6
4.6
13.2
8A. number of schools incorporating
person-centered transition planning IEP
.3
2.9
3.2
17.1
09. number of students with post-school
outcome statements
5.8
14
16.3
24.8
15B. number of students who have
vocational services written into IEP
1.0
5.8
4.4
8 .6
16A. number of students who achieved
employment-specific post-school outcome
0
0
1.9
3.1
17B. number of newly (project)
created program/services
.2
.8
1.5
1.7
17C. number of improved/expanded
services
.1
1.0
1.9
3.4
19B. number of projects who have
sources of money to continue funding
the project beyond DDPC grant cycle
0
0
0
.6
28
Emerging Themes
Participants were also required to submit quarterly narrative reports on the project’s
progress. The quarterly report was a qualitative measure that tracked methods used to
achieve goals and milestones accomplished within the quarter for each project site.
Anecdotal information was requested to strengthen the report and to provide a graphic
description of the impact of the project’s initiatives in the lives of people and/or upon the
systems in which services were provided. Some of the generalized information that
emerged from the quarterly narratives showed the following trends:
Accomplishments
 Increased awareness of and expectations for person-centered planning and
practices across student and family realms, school personnel and other
professional staff and community members
 Person-centered planning, when used to develop the personal profile of a student,
led to the understanding of the student’s preferences, dreams, interests, capacities
and goals which increased access to services, supports, and activities that
represented them
 There was an increase in the number of community networks that were
established and utilized
 When integrated into existing systems, person-centered planning initiated changes
within the organizational system
 More community-based experiences were conducted with students
 Students experienced an increase in valued community membership roles
 There was an increase in family/caregiver involvement
 Students who were provided training in person-centered planning and selfdetermination participated more actively at the IEP meeting
 There was a reallocation of staff roles and program resources for person-centered
work which continued beyond the life of the grant
 Increased creativity and flexibility in use of existing resources
 There was an increase in positive networks established including the development
of: peer support, family support, parent-to-parent, family training, business
advisory councils, school-agency partnerships, circles of support and community
connections
Challenges
 There is a need to continue to build upon what has already been established in the
systems regarding person-centered work in order to sustain and enhance the
progress that was made
 Where the systems did not allocate resources beyond the grant, the work in
person-centered transition planning has ceased
 Different systems represented in the project community are at different levels of
need and interest regarding person-centered transition planning; more specific
efforts need to be identified and addressed
29
 People do not readily know how to identify and access existing resources in order
to incorporate them into the system of services and supports
 The language of person-centered planning is fairly common; authentic response
and action, however, is limited
 Student input continues to be weak, and in some cases, nonexistent in the
development of the IEP
 This work requires people to realign relationships and acquire new skill sets
 Access to general education curriculum is limited or denied
 NYS educational reform has increased the difficulty in finding access to general
education due to increased emphasis on learning standards
 Most schools are ill-equipped to support students and their families around issues
related to service coordination
 School systems are resistant to building resources for person-centered transition
planning into the budget
 School systems and adult service agencies do not often have collaborative
partnerships established and operating during the student’s final years in school
 Teaching staff and other school professionals do not have release time to attend
training in person-centered work
 Teachers are often isolated from administrative decision-making
 Administrators of schools and adult services rarely attend training in personcentered transition planning
 Training is often the only vehicle used to initiate system’s change/response
Recommendations
 Data collection should reflect cumulative data and should include customer
satisfaction ratings regarding the transition process and subsequent outcomes.
 Continue to build stronger student and family knowledge and expertise in personcentered planning, self-determination, self-advocacy, resource planning, access,
and use, and in school-related/disability-related legislation such as the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
 Initiate person-centered transition planning for all students prior to the
development of the annual IEP. Use the New York State Education Department
Tools for Schools (www.vesid.nysed.gov/specialed/transition/tools4schindex.html
programs to provide opportunities for school personnel to become familiar with
person-centered transition planning processes and their implementation.
Specifically target the segment “Effective Models for Transition Planning,”
( 2001) which depicts person (student)-centered strength based planning as a best
practice.
 Students and families/care-givers should have access to a cadre of independent
person-centered planning facilitators to assist in the preparation for IEP meetings
30
and for the development and implementation of person-centered IEP with
transition components.
 A mechanism for funding independent person-centered planning facilitators
should be identified to enable wider access to student-centered transition
planning.
 Access to, implementation and funding of person-centered transition planning
should be a prominent part of all plans for continuous improvement.
 The NY State Education Department/VESID should evaluate the impact of higher
standards on secondary level students with special educational needs having
access to the general education curriculum.
 The NY State Education Department/VESID should further evaluate the degree to
which access to the general education curriculum for students with special
educational needs is individualized to meet the student’s learning goals and style
that lead to the acquisition of useful credits that have been equated with a local
high school diploma while sustaining opportunities for school inclusion.
 Continue to build upon the existing foundation of knowledge in the field: foster
learning networks and communities that sustain the efforts and progress made
thus far; develop new initiatives that build upon and replicate what has proven to
be tried and true in best practices.
 Establish a statewide coalition in person-centered transition planning in order to
stay current and to share opportunities, strategies and ideas.
 Develop projects that place the student and the family in control of the resources.
 Fund the development of non-traditional services and supports.
 Increase the technical capacity of teaching staff and direct care providers to
integrate theory into practice within the existing system
 Prioritize employment outcomes for students in transition.
 Develop staff competency to facilitate benefits planning based upon personcentered planning goals with students.
 Influence current trends in educational reform toward greater emphasis on
universal career education for all students within general education curricula
31
Conclusion
In June 2002, Lawrence Gloeckler, Deputy Commissioner from the Office of Vocational
and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities, New York State Department
of Education stood before the U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
Committee (2002) and addressed the issue of transition. The testimony put forth by the
Deputy Commissioner articulated the connection between quality transition planning and
the increased likelihood of success for students moving toward adult living, learning and
earning. Additionally, his testimony promulgated recommendations to the Senate
Committee that, if acted upon, could significantly and positively impact the ability of
New York schools and community providers to provide excellent transition services to
youth with disabilities. Deputy Commissioner Gloeckler used data that had been
collected through a variety of project activities and studies. As a leader in the NYS
Department of Education, his testimony serves as an example of how critical the work of
demonstration projects is and how great the potential for impact there is!
Without concentrated and sustained effort, it would be very easy to lose the momentum
that has been built around person-centered practices and return to the way things have
always been done. Efforts must be made to continue to build on and replicate what has
been learned and understood about moving beliefs and actions toward person-centered
planning and practices.
Person-centered transition planning, when conducted in combination with all of the key
variables and stakeholders has proven to be a highly effective method for supporting the
successful transition of youth with developmental disabilities as they move from student
to adulthood. When authentically implemented, person-centered planning and practice
provides a way for systems to be reengineered and reformed in response to what makes
sense in the lives of the people whose lives may quite literally rely upon those very
systems. Most importantly, person-centered transition planning and practice impacts
positively the cultural view held of persons who are living with disabilities by fostering
opportunities and experiences through which the unique gifts and capacities of each
human being are cultivated, acknowledged, appreciated and reciprocated in communities
of mutual exchange, respect and humanity.
32
Resources & References
Blessing, C., Dox-Griffith, C., Gold, M., Levitz, B., Ricigliano, J., (2000). Infusing a
Person-Centered Approach Into Transition Planning for Students with Developmental
Disabilities. New York: NYS Developmental Disabilities Planning Council.
Brown-Glover, P., & Wehman, P. (1996). Designing and Implementing Individualized
Transition Plans. In Life Beyond the Classroom. Balimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing
Company.
Falvey, M., Forest, M., Pearpoint, J. & Rosenberg, R. (1997). All My Life’s A Circle.
Using the Tools: Circles, Maps & Paths. Toronto: Inclusion Press.
Gloeckler, L. (2002). Excerpts from testimony on transition and the reauthorization of
IDEA of Lawrence Gloeckler, Deputy Commissioner, Office of Vocational and
Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities, New York State Department of
Education, before the U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee,
June 6, 2002.
Goals 2000: Educate America Act of 1994, PL 103-227, 20 U.S.C.
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma. New Jersey: Prentiss-Hall, Inc.
Gothelf, C. & Brown, F. (1998). Participation in the Education Process: Students with
Severe Disabilities. In Wehman, P., & Sands, D., Making It Happen. Student Involvement
in Education Planning, Decision-Making and Instruction. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes
Publishing Co.
Kendrick, M. (2000). “When People Matter More Than Systems.” Draft paper delivered
as a keynote presentation for the conference “The Promise of Opportunity,” Albany, NY,
March 27-28, 2000. kendrickconsult@hotmail.com
Kingsley, J., & Levitz, M. (1994). Count Us In. Growing Up with Down Syndrome.
Florida: Harcourt, Brace & Company.
Kunc, N. (1992). The Need to Belong: rediscovering Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. In
Villa, R., Thousand, J., Stainback, W., & Stainback, S. Restructuring for Caring and
Effective Education. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Kleinert, H., & Kearns, J. (2001). Alternate Assessment: measuring outcomes and
supports for students with disabilities. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Amendments of 1997, PL 105-17, 20
U.S.C.
Maslow, A. (1970). Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper & Row.
33
New York State Education Department. (2001). Tools for Schools.
www.vesid.nysed.gov/specialed/transition/tools4schindex.html
No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2002, PL 107-110 U.S.C.
O’Brien, J., & Lovett, H. (1992). “Finding Our Way Toward Everyday Lives.”
Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, Office of Mental Retardation.
O’Brien, J., & Lyle O’Brien, C. (1995). “Inclusion as a Force for School Renewal.”
Syracuse: Responsive Systems Associates, Inc.
O’Brien, J., & Lyle O’Brien, C. (1991). Members of Each Other: Building community in
company with people with developmental disabilities. Toronto: Inclusion Press.
O’Brien, J., & Lyle O’Brien, C. (1989). What’s Worth Working For? Leadership for
Better Quality Human Services. Syracuse, NY: Center on Human Policy (Syracuse
University) http://soeweb.syr.edu/thechp/rsapub.htm
Draft Report of the Joint Advisory Council Work Group on Lifelong Transitions. (2001).
Sands, D., Bassett, D., Lehmann, J., & Spencer, K. (1998). Factors Contributing to and
Implications for Student Involvement in Transition-Related Planning, Decision Making,
and Instruction. In Wehman P., & Sands, D. Making It Happen. Student Involvemtent in
Education Planning, Decision Making and Instruction. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes
Publishing Co.
Schwartz, D. (1959). The Magic of Thinking Big. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Scotch, R. (2002). Disability Policy. In Disability Policy: Issues and Implications for the
New Millennium. Virginia: National Rehabilitation Association. www.nationalrehab.org
Senge, P. (2000). Schools That Learn. A Fifth Discipline Fieldbook for Educators,
Parents and Everyone Who Cares About Education. New York: Doubleday.
Smull, M. (1996). An Overview of Essential Lifestyle Planning.
www.allenshea.com/friends.html
Smull, M.(1989). “The Learning Wheel.” www.allenshea.com/friends.html
Snow, J. (2001). “Centering Our Planning on People.” www.selfdetermination.org/publications1251/pcp.html
Snow, J. (1998). What’s Really Worth Doing and How to Do It. Toronto: Inclusion Press.
34
Wehman, P. (2001). Life Beyond the Classroom: Transition Strategies for Young People
with Disabilities. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Wehmeyer, M. (2002). Teaching Students with Mental Retardation: Providing Access to
the General Curriculum. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Wehmeyer, P., Agran, M., & Hughes, C. (1998). Teaching Self-Determination to
Students with Disabilities: Basic skills for successful transition. Baltimore: Paul H.
Brookes Publishing Co.
Wehmeyer, M. & Sands, D. (1998). Making It Happen: Student involvement in education
planning, decision-making and instruction. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Webster’s Universal College Dictionary. (1997). New York: Random House.
Wolfensberger, W. (1998). A Brief Introduction to Social Role Valorization: A highorder concept for addressing the plight of societally devalued people, and for structuring
human services (3rd ed.). Syracuse, NY: Training Institute for Human Service Planning,
Leadership and Change Agentry (Syracuse University).
35
ATTACHMENT
SUMMARY BRIEF-August 2000 White Paper: Infusing a Person-Centered
Approach into Transition Planning for Students with Developmental Disabilities
The first white paper developed by Cornell under this initiative entitled Infusing a
Person-Centered Approach Into Transition Planning for Students with Developmental
Disabilities (August 2000), focused on identifying opportunities for, or obstacles to,
integrating a person-centered approach to transition planning.
The Individual’s with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) states, among other things, that
Transition planning must include a coordinated set of activities that must be
based on individual student’s needs taking into account the student’s preferences
and interests and shall include needed activities in: 1) instruction; 2) related
services; 3) community experiences; 4) the development of employment and other
post-school adult living objectives; and 5) if appropriate, acquisition of daily
living skills and functional vocational evaluation.
PL101-476, 20 U.S.C., 1401 [a][19]
IDEA also mandates student involvement in transition planning and the inclusion of
representatives of a participating agency likely to be responsible for providing transition
services. The federal and state legislation and policies that support transition practices
provide a coherent philosophy and framework that requires schools to provide
educational opportunities to students who have been determined eligible for special
education services and supports that prepare that student to successfully enter adulthood
through community living, learning and earning.
Despite existing legislation and policies to ensure quality transition planning processes
and services, observations made in nine separate demonstration projects participating in
the T-TASP Project indicate that transition practices in New York State schools often fall
short of meeting the minimum standards set forth in state and federal regulation.
Findings published in the draft report of the New York State Education, Office of
Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities (VESID) Joint
Advisory Council Work Group on Lifelong Transition (2001) further reinforces this in
the following statement: many students with disabilities are inadequately prepared and
poorly supported to transition successfully to the opportunities of adulthood (p.9).
Early findings within the T-TASP project identified the lack of student-driven, or personcentered services as a contributor to inadequate transition planning (2000). Reasons for
not utilizing a person-centered planning process included:




lack of family involvement
lack of student/family awareness of their rights, responsibilities & options
inclusion in general education is viewed as an obstacle
planning processes are time-consuming
36




planning is initiated too late
educators are not aware of community options
there is resistance from school professionals
there is no infrastructure within the school system to sustain personcentered practices beyond the life of the project.
Brief Review: Person-Centered Planning and the “Fit” with the development of the
Individual Education Program
Person-centered planning is the generic term that is used for any number of tools that can
be utilized as a method for exploration and understanding an individual’s interests,
preferences, needs and abilities. This information is then used as the springboard for
providing supports that lead individuals who are at the focus of the person-centered
process toward experiences and opportunities that are reflective of these uniquely defined
qualities and characteristics. According to Dr. Beth Mount (2000), an eminent leader in
the field of person-centered work, the framework for any and all person-centered process
includes five elements:
1. Person-centered planning processes and practices that focus on identifying the
individual’s strengths, skills, capacities, interests and preferences as a means for
surfacing the potential for making valuable contributions to communities.
2. Community building is a recognized and intentional action and serves as the
focus of core work.
3. Self-determination is a necessary outcome and brings with it a willingness on
behalf of those supporting an individual to be guided by the person.
4. Flexible use of financial and other resources is managed to meet the needs of
the individual. Existing resources are used creatively and with innovation. New
resources are sought or created.
5. Organizational change in terms of looking at and changing existing systems to
better respond to the desires and requests of the individual is operant.
In New York State the IEP serves as the coordinated set of activities. There is no
separate transition plan. Elements embedded in the development of an IEP include, but
are not limited to:
1. A description of interests, support needs, capacities and skills
2. Includes an outcome statement of student’s preferences or dreams for the
future.
3. Identifies necessary resources needed to insure appropriate learning
experiences and skill building opportunities.
4. Incorporates community resources, (i.e. community agencies), and
related services.
5. Requires supporting student involvement and participation in the least
restrictive environment, including in general education classroom.
37
IEP Planning Process
Person-Centered Planning Process
1. Evaluation of current skills, abilities
2. Present Levels of Performance
3. Post-School Outcomes
4. Annual Goals
5. Short Term Objectives
6. Programs, Services, Modifications
7. Least Restrictive Environment
8. Placement
9. Coordinated Set of Activities
1. Assessing interests, capacities etc.
2. Experiential opportunities that
support interests, skills & abilities
3. Stated vision for the future
4. Plan of Action
5. Milestones/benchmarks
6. Support necessary to participate fully
7. Community presence &
participation
8. Opportunities & experiences of
contribution & personal growth
Person-centered planning is a technique by which to carry out transition planning. The
importance of the connection between person-centered planning and transition planning
that is carried out the way intended by current legislation, is unmistakable.
Simply put, the process of supporting a student through educational and experiential
learning so that s/he is making informed decisions about future directions can be
facilitated through a process of listening and seeking to understand what is important to
the student. Opportunities for learning are subsequently provided that honor and support
the student’s exploration in and toward these stated objectives by: 1. synthesizing the
information in a formal plan, 2. implementing the plan, and 3. assessing the extent to
which the plan is effective in helping the student move closer to the desired outcome.
Teaching students to take an active role in their planning is a critical step toward
developing the necessary skills and acquiring the experience needed to become selfdetermined and to assume responsible roles in adult life.
Infusing person-centered planning into the transition process goes beyond the
development of a better planning vehicle; it requires a commitment to do things
differently both within and beyond the process itself to create the necessary conditions
for positive change. It requires pushing away from independent system structures and
movement toward developing interdependent relationships and combined resources to
maximize opportunities for students and to strengthen the resources of and for the system.
Schools, community agencies and other community resources need to form partnerships
and alliances with one another around a common denominator to define and combine
fiscal, human and other resources in uniquely configured patterns that will lead to the
identification of and movement toward the student’s post-school outcomes.
38