Using the Student-Directed Transition
Planning Lessons to Build the StudentDirected Summary of Performance
Jim Martin, Ph.D.
University of Oklahoma
Zarrow Center
405-325-8951
Email: jemartin@ou.edu
Web: http://education.ou.edu/zarrow/
Agenda

Purpose of Special Education
 Student-Directed Summary of Performance
to Frame Transition Assessment and IEP
Transition Page Construction
 Building the SD-SOP using the StudentDirected Transition Planning Lessons
Seven Transition Steps
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Students become involved in IEP Planning Process
Students complete a three-part transition
assessment process.
Students write present level of academic
achievement and functional performance
Students develop course of study
Students develop postschool linkages
Students work on attaining IEP and personal goals
Students build their Summary of Performance
Student Participation In
Transition Discussions
Spirit behind IDEA encourages students
to become actively involved in
discussions IEP transition discussions.
 We need to teach students how to
become involved in these discussions.
 Need to provide opportunities for
students to become involved in these
discussions.

Percent of Intervals Discussed Transition
Students
10%
Support Staff
20%
Special Ed
50%
Family
8%
Admin
8% General Ed
4%
Martin, J. E., Van Dycke, J. L., Greene, B. A., Gardner, J. E., Christensen, W. R., Woods, L. L., & Lovett, D. L. (2006). Direct observation
of teacher-directed IEP meetings: Establishing the need for student IEP meeting instruction. Exceptional Children, 72, 187-200.
IDEA 2004 Requires the
Summary of Performance

Schools will provide students a
summary of academic achievement and
functional performance
– includes recommendation on how to assist
the child in meeting postsecondary goals

Must be done when students exit
school.
SOP

Teacher-Directed SOP
– Designed for educators and agency
– Prepared by educators for use by students
• Nationally created SOP
• www.ldaamerica.org/aboutld/adults/docs/SOP_Template.doc

Student-Directed SOP
– Designed for students, family, and agency
– Prepared by students for use by students and family
– OSDE Form 15 (Go to www.state.ok.us, then special
education services, OSDE Forms, then to Form 15)
The Sections of the SD-SOP
As Adopted by Oklahoma
My Summary of Performance
My Postschool Goals for One Year After
High School
 My Perceptions of My Disability
 The School’s Perspective on My
Disability
 School Produced Summary of My
Academic and Functional Performance

Summary of Performance

Section 1
– Students describe their postsecondary
goals to attain within one year of leaving
high school, and the school’s
recommendations to achieve each goal,
and suggested accommodations and
supports to assist in achieving the goals.
Summary of Performance

Section 2
– Students describe their disabilities, how
their disability affects their performance,
and useful high school supports and
accommodations.
Summary of Performance

Section 3 (Area of Functioning)
– Completed in the junior year of high school.
– School staff describe how the young adults’
disabilities affect their performance and
useful accommodations and supports.
Summary of Performance

Section 4
– School staff will complete and review
annually with the IEP team to determine
goals, and if additional assessments will be
needed to facilitate attainment of transition
goals.
SD-SOP Examples
Albuquerque Public School
 Irving I.S.D. (near Dallas, TX)
 What is YOUR school doing?

Teaching Students To Develop
Their Own SD-SOP
Student-Directed Transition Planning
Lessons and Materials
Student-Directed Transition
Planning

Purpose: To increase student involvement in
transition planning discussions
 U.S. Department of Education grant to
develop lessons and research their
effectiveness
 Infuse best practices for reaching the largest
number of students including those who are
culturally and linguistically diverse
Self-Determination Concepts
http://education.ou.edu/zarrow/
Further Education Strengths



Pat and his teacher
combined information
from the three sections
into a summary
statement.
Pat again looked for
similarities, and
shortened some phrases.
He wrote his strengths
into a summary
statement.
Student
Input
Family
Input
Pat is creative, and
I work on and plan
prepares lessons
my Sunday school
well ahead
Summary
lessons each
of time so
night after
that he is
doing my
My family, teachers
successful
homeAnd
I
agree
that
I
teaching
work. The
Will start out at our
at Sunday
kids like
Community college.
school.
my lessons.
I’m learning what
accommodations work
best for me.
Teacher
Input Pat works
very hard to do well in
math. Pat is taking a more active role
In his IEP, and is learning what
accommodations work best for him.
We’ll arrange a visit to the
community college.
How Will This
Work at Your School?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Who needs to be involved to develop and
implement a transition education process?
What needs to occur for students to have
opportunities to engage in the process?
What needs to happen to allow time for educators
to facilitate the process?
What needs to happen for families to be involved in
the process?
When will these happen in your school?
The Purpose of SPED
. . . a free appropriate public
education that emphasizes
special education and related
services designed to meet
students’ unique needs and to
prepare them for further
education, employment, and
independent living.
SDTP Research
• Phase 1
– Does SD-TP increase student knowledge?
– Does SD-TP increase student and family selfefficacy in the transition planning process?
• Phase 2
– Does combining the SD-TP and the Self-Directed
IEP increase student and family participation in
transition planning discussions at IEP meetings
compared to either intervention alone?
Phase 1 Study - Method
 Setting & Participants
• 3 secondary schools
• 35 students
• 5 teachers
 Random assignment into control & intervention
groups
 True/False & Multiple Choice Pre and Post-Tests
 Student and Family Pre and Post Self-Efficacy
Measures
Disabilities - Phase 1 Study
25
20
15
10
5
0
E BD
LD
MR
M ultiple
O HI
T BI
V is ion
Student Ethnicity - Phase 1 Study
62%
23%
9%
3%
3%
C auc as ian
A meric an I ndian
A fric an A meric an
H is panic /Latino
M ultic ultural
Phase 1 Study - Results
ANCOVA was conducted to evaluate if there was a knowledge
gain as a result of the lessons.
The scores on the Pre-Test were significantly related to the scores
on the Post-Test, F(1, 32) = 18.36, p < .01.
There was a significant difference between intervention and
control groups on the Post-Test after controlling for the effect of
the Pre-Test, F(1, 32) = 4.58, p =.04.
Effect Size Partial Eta Squared = .125 ( approaching large
effect using .01= small, .06 = medium, .10 to .14 = large)
Pre/Post Test Mean Scores
Me a n Score
While the
difference in
the scores on
the pre-test was
not statistically
significant, this
gap may
indicate a
difference in
the groups
despite the
random
assignment.
44
42
40
38
36
Condit ion
34
There was a
noticeable
statistically
significant effect
on the Post-Test,
with a
corresponding
moderate to
large effect size.
In terv en tio n
32
Co n tro l
1
Pre- Tes t
2
Po s t- Tes t
Student Self-Efficacy
• Post-test comparison shows significant
increase for students in the intervention group
with moderate effect size
• Significant increases for students in the
intervention group on 7 of 10 self-efficacy
statements
• Student Intervention group mean scores
increased on all statements
• Mean scores for students in the Control group
stayed about the same pre to post
Intervention Group Self-Efficacy Results
St at ement
P air
Mean
SD
t
df
Sig.
(1 tailed)
1. At my next IEP meet ing I knowI can
t alk about my disability.
P re
P ost
2.00
2.26
.745
.562
-2.041 18
.028*
2. I knowt he employment, further
educat ion, andadult living goals t hat
I will t alk about at my next IEP
meet ing.
P re
P ost
1.79
2.11
.713
.737
-1.242 18
.115
3. I knowt he meaning of IEP t ransit ion P re
words like Summary of P erformance, P ost
P lan of St udy, and P resent Level of
Educat ional P erf
ormance.
1.26
1.89
.733
.809
-3.314 18
.002**
4. I knowI can t ell my IEP t eam about
t he jobI want after graduat ion.
P re
P ost
1.79
2.32
.855
.582
-2.379 18
.014*
5. I knowI can t ell my IEP t eam about
get t ing more educat ion when I
graduat e fromhigh school.
P re
P ost
1.74
2.26
.733
.562
-2.970 18
Total Self-Efficacy
.004**
6. I knowI can t ell my IEP t eam about
where and how I want t o live aft er
graduat ion.
P re
P ost
1.68
2.16
1.003 -2.141 18
.765
.023*
7. I knowI can t ell my IEP t eam about
t he courseof study t hat will help me
reach my transit iongoals.
P re
P ost
1.79
2.05
.855
.780
-1.157 18
.131
8. I knowI can t ell my IEP t eam about
t he adult support s and se
rvices I
might need aft er graduating from
high school.
P re
P ost
1.35
2.41
.806
.496
-5.840 16
.000**
9. I knowwhat my family t hinksI
should do aft erI graduate from high
school.
P re
P ost
2.06
1.94
.966
.827
10. I knowhow t o use the Summary of
P erformance t o help me discuss
t ransit ion issues at m
y next IEP
meet ing.
P re
P ost
1.24
1.88
.664
.857
* p < .05
** p < .01
.489
16
-2.524 16
.316
.012*
Group
Pair
Mean
SD
Intervention
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
16.79
20.63
17.69
17.63
4.379
5.559
5.225
3.739
Control
t
df
-3.157 18
Sig.
(2 tailed)
.005**
Effect
Size d
.63
.070
15
.945
Phase 2-Research Question
• Will participation in both the Student-Directed
Transition Planning (SDTP) lessons and the
Self-Directed IEP lessons help students,
families, and the IEP team learn how to
actively participate in the transition planning
process, compared to those who participate
in either the Self-Directed IEP or the SDTP
lessons alone?
Collaborative Effort
References
Field, S., Martin, J., Miller, R., Ward, M., & Wehmeyer, M. (1998). Selfdetermination for persons with disabilities: A position statement of the
division on career development and transition. Career Development for
Exceptional Individuals, 21(2), 113-128.
Martin, J. E., van Dycke, J. L., Christensen, W. R., Greene, B. A., Gardner, J.
E., & Lovett, D. L. (2006). Increasing student participation in IEP
meetings: Establishing the Self-Directed IEP as an evidenced-based
practice. Exceptional Children, 72, 299-316.
Martin, J. E., & Marshall, L. H. (1995). ChoiceMaker: A comprehensive selfdetermination transition program. Intervention in School and Clinic,
30(3), 147-156.
Martin, J. E., Marshall, L. H., Maxson, L., & Jerman, P. (1997). Self-Directed
IEP. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
Martin, J. E., Van Dycke, J., D’Ottavio, M., & Nickerson, K. (2007). The
student-directed summary of performance: Increasing student and family
involvement in the transition planning process. Career Development for
Exceptional Individuals, 30(1), 13-26.
Van Dycke, J. L. (2005). Determining the impact of Self-Directed IEP
instruction on secondary IEP documents. Unpublished Dissertation.
For More Information Contact:
Jim Martin
University of Oklahoma
Zarrow Center for Learning Enrichment
Carpenter Hall Room 111
Norman, OK 73019
Phone: 405-325-8951
E-mail: jemartin@ou.edu
Web: http://education.ou.edu/zarrow/