SECONDARY MILD/MODERATE EDUCATIONAL SPECIALIST INVOLVEMENT
IN TRANSITION PLANNING FOR STUDENTS WITH INDIVIDUAL EDUCATION
PLANS
A Thesis
Presented to the faculty of Graduate and Professional Studies in Education
California State University, Sacramento
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
Education
(Higher Education Leadership)
by
Ashley Rebekah Latimer
SPRING
2013
© 2013
Ashley Rebekah Latimer
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ii
SECONDARY MILD/MODERATE EDUCATIONAL SPECIALIST INVOLVEMENT
IN TRANSITION PLANNING FOR STUDENTS WITH INDIVIDUAL EDUCATION
PLANS
A Thesis
by
Ashley Rebekah Latimer
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Virginia L. Dixon, Ed.D.
__________________________________, Second Reader
Hazel Mahone, Ed.D.
Date
iii
Student: Ashley Rebekah Latimer
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University
format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to
be awarded for the thesis.
, Graduate Coordinator
Geni Cowan, Ph.D.
Date
Graduate and Professional Studies in Education
iv
Abstract
of
SECONDARY MILD/MODERATE EDUCATIONAL SPECIALIST INVOLVEMENT
IN TRANSITION PLANNING FOR STUDENTS WITH INDIVIDUAL EDUCATION
PLANS
by
Ashley Rebekah Latimer
Brief Literature Review
IDEA 2004 mandates a transition plan be part of students with disabilities’
Individual Education Plan (IEP) from the age of 14 through the time they leave their
secondary education [IDEA 2004, §300.320 (b)]. Despite the letter of the law and
transition plans being implemented, the post secondary outcomes for students with mild
to moderate disabilities continue to be dismal in comparison to their general education
peers (National Center for Educational Statistics [NCES], 2003).
Statement of the Problem
Many special education teachers at the secondary level have little to no training in
the complex and critical process of planning and implementing the transition piece of the
IEP (Test, 2009). The purpose of this study was to determine the level of training and
involvement of secondary special education teachers in the Elk Grove Unified School
District in five identified components of the Transition planning process for students with
v
mild to moderate disabilities with an Individual Education Plan. The secondary purpose
of the study was to determine what effect, if any, these teachers’ pre-service and inservice training had on their level of involvement in each category.
Methodology
A 35-item questionnaire regarding Transition Involvement and Competency was
distributed to all members of the target sample. The questionnaire rated secondary
special educators’ levels of involvement in five identified components of a transition plan
and asked respondents questions about their pre-service and in-service training regarding
the five components.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The results of the survey suggested secondary special education teachers are most
involved in the transition planning components in which they have received the most
training and least involved in those who had received little to no training. District Special
Education Administrators should consider creating in-service opportunities for their
secondary special educators based upon the identified components in which pre and/or inservice training was lacking. The in-service should include a handbook/guide in
conjunction with the areas where competency is lacking to be used as a resource and
vi
reference. Future research should be conducted to see if the trends and correlations
shown in this study have further implications with a broader sample population of
secondary special educators and determine if this study’s findings can be generalized.
, Committee Chair
Virginia L. Dixon, Ed.D.
Date
vii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
It is with immense gratitude that I acknowledge the support and help of my
committee chair, Dr. Virginia Dixon, who has advised me both in matters of thesis and
career path. Without her guidance and push toward scholarly excellence, completing this
thesis might have proved impossible.
I would also like to thank my committee member, Dr. Hazel Mahone, who also
acted as my thesis advisor for the first half of my work. Her faith in me as a writer,
educational leader, and person gave me the motivation I needed to press on in the face of
challenges along the way.
In addition, thank you to the Graduate Coordinator, Dr. Geni Cowan, who first
taught me how to approach my topic with the mind of a true researcher in her Research
Methodology course. Her enthusiasm for and work ethic in matters of research were
nothing short of inspiring to me.
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgments............................................................................................................ viii
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... xi
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................1
Background ..............................................................................................................1
Statement of the Problem .........................................................................................2
Definition of Terms..............................................................................................................3
Significance of the Study .........................................................................................4
Organization of the Remainder of the Study ...........................................................5
2. REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE ............................................................6
Introduction ..............................................................................................................9
Post-secondary Outcomes for Students with Disabilities ........................................9
Evidence-based Components of Transition Planning ............................................13
Special Educators’ Perceived Competencies and Involvement in Transition .......19
The Role of Leadership and Administration in Transition Planning .....................22
Rationale for the Study ..........................................................................................26
Summary ................................................................................................................26
3. METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................28
Population and Sample ..........................................................................................28
ix
Design of the Study................................................................................................28
4. DATA ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................32
5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS...............................46
Appendix. Questionnaire .................................................................................................. 49
References ..........................................................................................................................53
x
LIST OF TABLES
Tables
Page
1.
Secondary Mild/Moderate Educational Specialist Involvement............................33
2.
Secondary Mild/Moderate Educational Specialist Pre-Service Training ..............37
3.
Secondary Mild/Moderate Educational Specialist In-Service Training ................41
4.
Secondary Mild/Moderate Educational Specialist Combined Pre- and
In-Service Training ................................................................................................44
xi
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Background
Transition is a required part of an Individual Education Plan for students aged 16
and older, per the reauthorization of IDEA in 2004. The policy was set forth to increase
secondary graduation rates and successful post-school outcomes in the areas of education,
employment, independent living, and participation in the community for students with
mild to moderate disabilities. Although best practices in transition, addressing both
academic and functional achievement, have been researched and promoted over the last
10 years, the percentage of students with disabilities not graduating secondary is still
disproportionate to that of their non-disabled peers (National Center for Educational
Statistics [NCES], 2003). Additionally, these students are still experiencing difficult
transitions into their post-school lives. Multiple factors contribute to the substantial
number of unsuccessful transition outcomes from school to adult life for students with
disabilities (Test, Fowler, White, Richter, & Walker, 2009). Consequently, much
research has been conducted to examine the related areas of policy, outcomes, and
evidence-based practices in transition to improve these outcomes.
A critical component to consider in improving post-secondary outcomes is special
educators’ training background and involvement in the transition process. In addition to
teaching academics, secondary special educators bear increasing responsibilities as the
2
implementers of transition planning, assessment, and coordination with a variety of
agencies and persons (Test et al., 2009). The type and amount of in-service and preservice training individual special educators receive regarding transition vary greatly.
What effect this variance in training/competency has on teacher involvement in the
various components of transition needed to be examined, particularly as these teachers
are increasingly the main agent of the process.
Statement of the Problem
The purpose of this study was to determine the level of involvement of secondary
special education teachers in a Unified School District in five identified components of
the transition planning process for students with specific learning disabilities (SLD) with
an Individual Education Plan: 1) Assessment and data gathering, 2) Collaboration on goal
setting, 3) Incorporating transition-related curriculum, 4) Coordination and collaboration
with outside agencies, and 5) Job training and supervision for students. The secondary
purpose of the study was to determine what correlation, if any, these teachers’ pre-service
and in-service training had with their level of involvement in each category. To frame
the research and analysis, three questions were considered:
1. What are teachers’ perceived roles and responsibilities in the transition
process for students on their caseload? Which parts of the transition process
are they most involved in?
3
2. Does pre-service training affect how involved teachers are in transition-related
competencies? If so, which components?
3. Does in-service training affect how involved teachers are in transition-related
competencies? If so, which components?
Definition of Terms
Individual Education Plan
For the purposes of this study, the term “Individual Education Plan” (IEP) refers
to the legally mandated plan for educational and other support services in grades
K-12 for a student qualifying with one or more disabilities.
Secondary Special Educator
For the purposes of this study, the term “Secondary Special Educator” refers to a
Secondary (middle or high school) teacher with a Mild/Moderate Educational
Specialist Credential. These teachers are responsible for the planning,
monitoring, and implementation of one or more students’ Individual Education
Plans.
Students with Disabilities
For the purposes of this study, the term “Students with Disabilities” refers to
secondary students who have received Special Education Services through an
Individual Education Plan, which is legally mandated to include a Transition Plan
component. More specifically, these students have one or more Specific Learning
4
Disabilities. According to IDEA (2004), Specific Learning Disability involves a
“disorder in 1 or more of the basic psychological processes involved in
understanding or in using language, spoken or written, which disorder may
manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or
do mathematical calculations” (§300.8(c)(10))
This population may include students with cognitive delays, visual, auditory, or
sensory-motor processing deficits.
Transition Plan
For the purposes of this study, the term “Transition Plan” refers to the part of a
Student’s Individual Education Plan addressing the set of coordinated activities
that lead to successful secondary completion and achievement of goals in the
areas of continuing education, employment, and community living.
Significance of the Study
This study was selected to determine which areas of the transition planning
process special education teachers at the secondary level in a Unified School District are
least involved in and, secondly, whether this correlates with their amount of training in
those areas. This study created new knowledge to be used by this Unified School District
and could also possibly be generalized to other secondary schools in California, and even
nationally. This study reveals which components of transition planning secondary special
educators feel less competent and/or involved in. From that information, educational
5
leaders in the district can design in-service training to potentially increase competency in
areas of transition that currently lack high levels of special educator involvement.
Ideally, the increased competency would lead to increased levels of participation in those
areas of the transition process. Ultimately, the goal of this study was to gather data to
help design effective transition services for students with learning disabilities so they
might reach their highest potential after graduating secondary school.
Organization of the Remainder of the Study
This study is organized into five chapters. Following this section, Chapter 2 is a
review of related literature discussing post-secondary outcomes for students with
disabilities as well as evidence-based components of, special educators’ perceived
competencies and involvement in, and the role of leadership and administration in
Transition Planning. Chapter 3 explains the research methodology, data collection, and
analysis processes. The results of the survey are highlighted in Chapter 4, and Chapter 5
provides a summary of the study along with conclusions, recommendations, and
implications for future research.
6
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE
Introduction
Since the federal definition of learning disabilities was introduced in 1975, it has
represented the largest population of students served with special education services.
According to the U.S. Department of Education (DOE), Office of Special Education
Programs, Data Analysis System (2011), the number of students classified and served
under the category of Specific Learning Disability in the United States between the ages
of 14 and 21 is 1,106,296. Additionally, during the 2002-2003 school year in California,
of the 609,182 students with disabilities served under IDEA, 340,579 of those students
were identified with an SLD. Overall, SLD now constitutes the largest group of students
identified with a disability in public schools (DOE, 2000). This population of students
will, after many years of support services, be expected to graduate secondary and move
into adult life. As students with SLDs prepare for their transition to post-secondary life,
anxiety and feelings of uncertainty about the future arise.
Anxiety happens when such students are not adequately informed about and
prepared for post-secondary education, employment, and independent living (Furney,
Hasazi, & Destefano, 1997). It was formerly believed by educators and legislators that
students with learning disabilities would be able to become successful, productive
members of society without the transitional support provided for students with more
7
severe disabilities (Bassett & Smith, 1996). Fortunately, transition plans for learningdisabled students are now legally required as part of their Individual Education Plan.
Ideally, a well-designed and executed transition plan will prepare students for completion
and graduation from secondary school to enter into a productive post-secondary life.
In 1990, the United States Congress amended Public Law 94-142 to what is now
known as the Individuals with Disabilities Act or IDEA (Public Law 101-476). In June
of 1997, IDEA was reauthorized (Public Law 105-17). One of the major components of
the reauthorization of IDEA was to include transitional services in the Individualized
Education Plan (IEP) for disabled students by the age of 16 or as early as age 14 when
deemed necessary (National Information Center for Children and Youth with Disabilities
[NICHCY], 1993). Transitional services are defined as
those coordinated activities for students with disabilities that are designed within
an outcome-oriented process that promotes movement from school to post-school
activities, including postsecondary education, vocational training, integrated
employment (including supported employment); continuing and adult education;
adult services; independent living; or community participation. Transitional
services must be based on the individual student’s needs and take into account the
student’s preferences and interests. They must include instruction; related
services; community experiences; the development of employment and other
postschool adult living objectives; and, when appropriate, the acquisition of daily
8
living skills and functional vocational evaluation. (Katsiyannis & Zhang, 2001, p.
40)
The National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities (NJCLD; 1994) stated:
“Comprehensive transition planning needs to address several domains including
education, employment, personal responsibility, relationships, home and family leisure
pursuits, community involvement, and physical and emotional health” (p. 71). The
purpose of including transitional services was to directly address the troubling postsecondary outcomes for students with disabilities. By 1997, 44 states had received
federal special education transition grants and discretionary funding to improve the
availability of, access to, and quality of school-to-work transition services (Katsiyannis &
Zhang, 2001).
The levels of successful transition are difficult to quantify because each student
has different needs, disabilities, and abilities. However, despite these differences, a
successful transition plan will help each student with disabilities toward achieving the
highest potential level of post-secondary life success. Special education teachers must
have knowledge of and participate in the wide array of components involved in a
transition plan. This is so because they are increasingly responsible for the planning,
initiating, and monitoring of these legally mandated plans that will lead their students
with learning disabilities to the aforementioned post-secondary success (Li, Bassett, &
Hutchinson, 2009). This literature review surrounding the topic of the Transition
Planning process for students with Learning Disabilities discusses four subtopics: the
9
current status of post-secondary outcomes for students with mild to moderate disabilities
(emphasis on Specific Learning Disabilities), the evidence-based components of a
successful transition plan for these students, secondary special educators’ perceived
competencies and involvement in the transition planning process, and finally the role of
the administration and leadership in supporting the transition process and secondary
special educators.
Post-secondary Outcomes for Students with Disabilities
The purpose and goal of a Transition Plan is to help students with disabilities
achieve success in finding and keeping good jobs, living independently in their own
homes, obtaining further education, and leading ultimately satisfying post-secondary
lives (Beard, 1991). Unfortunately, the outcomes for many students with disabilities do
not reflect these goals despite their having average to above-average intelligence levels
(National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 [NLTS2], 2003). In light of the discrepancy in
the post-secondary outcomes between students with learning disabilities and their nondisabled peers, it is critical that the Transition Plan within the IEP be thorough and
effective.
Graduating from secondary school and pursuing adult life beyond it is a
significant milestone in an individual’s life. Unfortunately, students with disabilities
have a much lower success rate at this transition than do their non-disabled peers (Test et
al., 2009). Data from a representative national sample indicate the dropout rate for all
10
students was between 4% and 10.3% (NCES, 2003, 2004), while the National
Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (2005) reported students with disabilities did not
complete school at a rate of 28%. Research indicates students who do not graduate have
higher rates of unemployment or underemployment and experience higher rates of
unexpected parenthood drug use (Swaim, Beauvis, Chavez, & Oetting, 1996).
Beyond secondary graduation, Individual Transition Plans set forth a path for
pursuing higher educational goals based on student preferences and interests (Thoma,
Baker, & Saddler, 2002). However, according to the NCES (2004), students with
disabilities are not pursuing or obtaining post-secondary education at the same rate as
their non-disabled peers. Research findings suggest that, despite their average or aboveaverage intelligence, fewer students with learning disabilities attend either two- or fouryear colleges (NJCLD, 1994). The NJCLD stated, “Many learning-disabled students are
not encouraged, assisted, or prepared for post-secondary education” (p. 69). Of those
students with mild to moderate disabilities that do go on to college, studies suggest many
experience difficulty persisting through postsecondary programs to completion. In a
study titled “The Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study,” a
representative sample of students, with and without disabilities was followed as they
began college during the 1989-1990 school year. Six years later, it was found that the
overall percentage of students who persisted through to attain their degree or who were
still enrolled was approximately 43% for students with disabilities but approximately
11
64% for their nondisabled peers (DOE, 2000). Students with disabilities who go on to
pursue post-secondary education face unique challenges.
Although they have the capacity to succeed, there are many challenges for
students with disabilities who enroll in college after high school in addition to their
learning deficits (Cummings, Maddux, & Casey, 2000). First, students sometimes
discover their post-secondary educational program does not meet the career goals
considered in their IEP Transition plan (Field, 1996; Levinson, 1998). A second obstacle
is that these students often deny problems with learning and/or do not seek the
accommodations they need to be successful in college (Field, 1996). Students with
learning disabilities may do this in order to distance themselves from the Special
Education label they carried throughout their school years, or because they are illequipped with self-advocacy skills to ask for the necessary accommodations. The latter
point is particularly correlated with larger class sizes and the instructor-to-student ratio
and contact level drastically differing from the secondary school support these students
may have been accustomed to (Lerner, 1997).
Further, the differences between secondary and post-secondary learning
experiences contribute to the lower rate of persistence for students with Learning
Disabilities (Lerner, 1997). While in high school, students are typically given short-term
assignments with frequent grading and feedback. In contrast, college classes and
professors often assign long-term projects and do not give frequent progress evaluation
(Lerner, 1997). Many colleges and institutions provide support services for students with
12
learning disabilities. Services such as tutors, readers, note-takers, class registration
assistance and adaptive equipment and technology are available; however the
identification of students needing these accommodations is largely left up to parent- or
self-referrals prior to admission (DOE, 2000; Gajar, 1992). The combination of lack of
self-advocacy skills needed to ask for appropriate accommodations, infrequent and
limited contact with professors, and the drastic differences in structure between
secondary and post-secondary education contribute to many students with disabilities
dropping out of their post-secondary education experience (Cummings et al., 2000).
In addition to lower high school graduation rates and enrollment and persistence
in college, research findings regarding the post-secondary employment of students with
learning disabilities indicate further discrepancy when compared to their non-learningdisabled counterparts. Research indicates while most of these students hold jobs as adults
at near the same rate as non-learning-disabled peers, most work on a part-time basis, at an
entry-level position, and for minimum wage (Sitlington, Frank, & Carson, 1993). Studies
have also indicated people with specific learning disabilities are less satisfied socially, are
earning at a lower income bracket, and are more dependent on family members
(Rojewski, 1994). Given their less than successful rates of completion for secondary
school and their difficulties in transition to productive, satisfying adult life, there has
been much research conducted to determine the elements of design, implementation, and
monitoring of an effective Transition Plan for students with mild to moderate learning
disabilities.
13
Evidence-based Components of Transition Planning
Although the IDEA requirements for a Transition Plan aim to facilitate movement
from school to post-school activities and education, simply developing a Transition Plan
does not necessarily translate into students gaining long-term employment or pursuing
post-secondary education (Wehman, 1992). The Transition Plan must be structured upon
evidence-based practices in order to be effective. According to research, the potentially
complex Transition Plan can be broken down into several areas of focus. Each of these
components must be addressed to create a comprehensive and effective Transition Plan
for a student with mild to moderate learning disabilities. The National Secondary
Transition Technical Assistance Center (NSTTAC) identified evidence-based transition
practices according to research and experimental studies (Kohler, 1996). From their
research, NSTTAC organized the transition practices into taxonomy with five broad
areas: student-focused planning, student development, interagency collaboration, family
involvement, and program structure. Each of these five categories was broken down
further into subcategories of specific activities as well as descriptions of particular
transition practices that could be utilized by educators working with students with
disabilities. The purpose in identifying these practices and categories was to then create
an online database to collect, document, and share transition practices aligned with these
evidence-based categories as well as provide ideas and tips to other special educators and
service personnel (Kohler, 1996). Each of these five broad areas requires much
involvement from the Special Educator/IEP case manager.
14
The first area in the taxonomy of evidence-based transition practices, studentfocused planning, involves the subcomponent of collaborating with the student on goal
setting (Kohler, 1996). As mentioned in the outcomes portion of this review of related
literature, lack of skills in self-advocacy is one of the primary reasons for students with
learning disabilities’ failure to persist through post-secondary education. However,
research has shown when students are involved in the planning of their own transitions
and are engaged in self-advocacy activities early on in secondary school, they take more
active responsibility for their post-secondary school lives (Levine, Marder, & Wagner,
2004). Primary examples of the skills and knowledge students stand to gain from being
participants in developing their Transition Plan and goals are, “1) The ability to assess
themselves, including their skills and abilities, and needs associated with their disability;
2) Awareness of the accommodations they need; 3) Knowledge of their legal rights to
these accommodations; and 4) Self-advocacy skills necessary to express their needs in
educational, work, and community settings” (Martin, Huber Marshall, & Depry, 2001;
Wandry & Repetto, 1993). Student involvement in his or her own Transition Planning
and goal setting is a legal component to an IEP, and also critical to the plan’s
effectiveness.
Another component of student-focused planning is using and incorporating
assessment data as part of the Transition Plan process. The regulations of IDEA state that
when a student chooses not to attend the IEP meeting, the school must “take other steps
to ensure that the student’s preferences and interests are considered” in regard to their
15
long-range goals for education, involvement in their community, employment, and other
post school opportunities [34 CFR 300.344 (c)(2)] (IDEA, 2004). The responsibility to
provide evidence that a student’s preferences and interests were considered in the
planning process could be fulfilled with a standardized transition assessment procedure
(Clark, 1996). According to Clark (1996), transition goals and objectives for a student
“should come directly from transition-referenced assessment” and not just the typical
academic-based assessments given in preparation for an IEP meeting (p. 82). Clark also
posited transition-related assessments are unique in that they call student and parent
attention to real-life issues and ideas that an academic assessment cannot.
Students and parents who tend to approach life without any hope of changing
what is happening to them (now or in the future) will see the school and the
educational process in a very different way when they are included in the
assessment, planning, and implementation of an IEP based on a transition/
outcomes approach. (Clark, 1996, p. 84)
Knowledge of a student’s needs, preferences, and interests for their future should
come out of an assessment and assessment process that focuses on aspects of a student’s
post-secondary life required by IDEA (Clark, 1996). Transition-related assessments can
include paper or online surveys and checklists regarding student interests used by the
classroom teacher or Special Educator. These data could then be incorporated into the
IEP and transition goals. Clark (1996) also claimed if the assessment process of an IEP
does not include elements of transition going beyond school progress and academic
16
achievement, a student will be less likely to internalize the plan. In addition, the
transition assessment data gathered serve to document two legal components of an IEP:
student participation in the process, and present levels of performance (Clark, 1996).
Using assessment to drive the Transition Plan and IEP is critical to maintaining a studentfocused and effective plan.
Related to student-focused planning is the second component of an evidencebased Transition Plan, student development. IDEA emphasizes student involvement and
progress in the general education curriculum (IDEA, 2004). This emphasis necessitates
aligning academic curriculum with individual post-secondary school goals in the
Transition Plan. Student development requires the special educator to embed transitionrelated curriculum into his or her own lessons, or to collaborate with the general
education teacher to do the same (Kohler, 1996). The curriculum content should ideally
work in conjunction with the student’s transition goals (Kohler, 1996). Bassett and
Kochhar-Bryan (2002) identified the necessary components of a blended program of
transition-focused yet standards-based curriculum: “continuous, systematic planning,
coordination, and decision making to define and achieve postsecondary goals; curriculum
options or pathways; academic, career-technical, and community-based learning; multiple
outcome domains and measures; and appropriate aids and supports (opportunities)”
(§300.320(b)). As of 2002, 28 states were using academic as well as career and
vocational standards to assist students in generalizing the skills they learn in school to the
real world they will encounter beyond it (Williams, 2002). Incorporating vocational
17
curriculum into the core content and thus making connections between school and the
world beyond it promotes students’ chances at a successful transition from secondary to
post-secondary life.
The next broad area of effective transition practice is interagency collaboration.
This area requires the Special Educator to work with professionals from outside agencies
and other district service providers to set transition goals and give students job experience
moving them toward those goals (Kohler, 1996). IDEA 1997 stated an IEP must include,
“a statement of needed transition services for the child, including, when appropriate, a
statement of the interagency responsibilities or any needed linkages” (Katsiyannis &
Zhang, 2001, p. 39). Although the 2004 reauthorization does not include this statement,
interagency collaboration on student transition goals is still an expectation: as stated in
IDEA 2004, the IEP will include the “projected date for the beginning of services and
modifications, the anticipated frequency, location and duration of those services”
[(D)(1)(A)(VII). “If a participating agency fails to provide the transition services
described in the IEP, the local educational agency shall reconvene the IEP team to
identify strategies to meet the transition objectives for the child set out in the IEP”
(IDEA, 2004, §300.324 (c)(1))
The Special Education teacher and case manager is the primary liaison between these
outside agencies, such as higher education programs, job placements, and the student’s
transition goals (Bassett & Kochhar-Bryant, 2006).
18
At times, the special educator also acts as liaison between a student’s parent(s)
and outside agencies or other service providers. Together with other forms of parental
involvement, this is the fourth component critical to an evidence-based, effective
Transition Plan (Kohler, 1996). IDEA states parents will receive notification when
transition planning will be part of an IEP meeting (IDEA, 2004). However, ideally the
student and parent will be involved in transition services and planning in a more
collaborative manner. The parents, guardians,
and advocates are needed to provide their perspective on the student’s needs,
preferences, and interests. It may also be important to know the parents’,
guardians’, or advocates’ own views of what they prefer for the student,
especially when there is a discrepancy between their views and the student’s or
school’s views. (Clark, 1996, p. 87)
Lastly, the overall IEP program structure and transition planning greatly hinders
or enhances the success of the plan (Kohler, 1996). NJCLD (1990) included in its list of
troubles related to preparing students with learning disabilities for future endeavors the
following statement: “Coordinated planning is lacking for students with learning
disabilities as they make transitions from home to school to work, across levels of
schooling, and among educational settings” (p. 100). The NJCLD (1990) also proposes
the establishment of “a system-wide plan for helping students with learning disabilities to
make transitions from home to school to work and life in the community” (p. 100). The
NJCLD's position makes clear that providing thoroughly designed, systematic Transition
19
Plans and services is critical in aiding students with mild to moderate disabilities to
prepare for post-secondary life. It is necessary for the Special Educator acting as
transition planner to maintain a comprehensible system to manage the Transition Plan:
from goal setting on the IEP in collaboration with the student, parent and outside
agencies, to implementing transition curriculum into a student’s educational experience,
to monitoring the success and/or need for revision of the plan.
Special Educators’ Perceived Competencies and Involvement in Transition
According to the research of Blackorby and Wagner (1996), even with support
systems such as a Transition Plan, students with disabilities tend to realize fewer positive
post-secondary outcomes: they experience high dropout rates (Blackorby & Wagner,
1996), have lower participation in postsecondary education, lower employment rates,
lower earning power, and lower satisfaction with their adult lives than students in the
general population (Blackorby & Wagner, 1996). Benz, Lindstrom, and Yovanoff (2000)
found career-related work experience and the completion of student-identified transition
goals were highly associated with improved graduation and employment outcomes.
Secondary special educators currently have the additional responsibility of creating,
implementing, and monitoring the Transition Plan mandated by IDEA 2004, which may
improve the post-secondary outcomes of their students with learning disabilities. With
these new responsibilities come the questions of what type of competencies do secondary
special educators require to meet the new responsibilities of becoming transition
20
planners, as well as how teacher preparation programs and those in charge of ongoing
professional development have responded to these mandates.
To implement each component of an effective and comprehensive Transition Plan
for a student, special educators must receive training before or during their tenure. A
study by Conderman and Katsiyannis (2002) revealed secondary special education
teachers are largely responsible for providing a wide variety of transition services,
including vocational instruction, transition-related activities in the classroom,
coordination of work experiences, and maintenance of community contacts with other
who support transition outcomes. The unique responsibilities required of secondary
special educators as related to transition planning would require unique pre-service and
ongoing in-service training in order to meet these additional job demands (Conderman &
Katsiyannis, 2002). However, in a nationwide study of special education teacher
preparation programs, McKenzie (1995) found little more than 20% of the programs
required separate training for secondary special educators versus elementary special
educators. Research by Wasburn-Moses (2006) regarding high school special education
teachers’ assessment of their involvement in transition planning and effectiveness of their
teacher preparation programs resulted in similar findings. Of teachers surveyed in this
research, nearly half reported they were working on improving services in transition
planning and needed more training for themselves and their staff, as well as more time
(Wasburn-Moses, 2006).
21
With the myriad additional roles and responsibilities they hold as transition
planner and servicer, teachers should expect to receive training in their teacher education
programs or through targeted in-service trainings. However, special educators often fail
to participate in many aspects of transition because they have not received adequate
education in delivering transition services in their teacher training programs. Findings
from a national survey of 573 special education teacher preparation programs showed
less than half these programs addressed transition standards (Anderson et al., 2003).
Additionally, only 45% of these programs offered a course devoted solely to transition.
The instructors of the programs reported transition competencies were embedded within
other content, but research has shown embedded content does not allow for adequate
focus or coverage of the content (Anderson et al., 2003). Teachers’ perceived lack of
competency in some areas of transition negatively correlates with their involvement in
those areas of the Transition Plan process. Research shows special education teachers
consider the competencies they have received the most training in the most important, yet
teachers do not always receive adequate training in all components of an effective
Transition Plan (Blanchett, 2001). In conclusion, if teachers are not adequately prepared
and do not perceive themselves as knowledgeable in a particular area of service delivery,
they are less likely to be involved.
22
The Role of Leadership and Administration in Transition Planning
Administrators are influential in ensuring achievement for all students, including
those with disabilities. Their instructional leadership, support, and guidance help general
and special education teachers and staff ensure all students meet established outcomes
(Katsiyannis & Zhang, 2001). The Individual Education Plan, which includes the
Transition Plan from age 16, is an integral part of meeting the needs of students with
disabilities and a process school administrators must be aware of and take part in (Wright
& Wright, 1999). The IEP is the topic of communication between the special education
teacher, general education teacher, parent, student, and school administrator regarding
how a school plans to meet the legal requirements of IDEA 2004 for a particular student.
Principals or the representative designee signing the IEP must know what the plan
contains to ensure it is both legally sound and implemented with integrity in order to
promote success for this population of students on their campus (Armenta & Beckers,
2006).
The intersection between leadership and the Transition Plan component of a
student’s IEP is critical. School principals and district special education administrators
are a very important part of the IEP team, and ultimately responsible for ensuring
students are receiving an Individualized Education Program that is meaningful and
effective (Yell, Katsiyannis, & Bradley, 2003). The members of an IEP team must
include the parent/s (biological, guardians, or surrogate), the student’s special education
teacher, the student’s regular education teacher, the student, and a representative of the
23
Local Educational Agency (LEP) (Yell et al., 2003). IDEA 2004 requires the
Representative of the LEP be qualified to provide or supervise the provision of special
education services and to ensure that the services put forth in the IEP are provided
appropriately (IDEA, 2004). This individual must also be able to commit school
resources (Yell et al., 2003). The principal of a school is often the staff member onsite
who qualifies to serve in this role. It stands to reason that the oversight of a principal
knowledgeable in Individual Education Plans could enhance the efficacy of the
Transition Plan component by providing support and financial backing, as well as
ensuring all components of an effective plan are included in the planning process.
School administrators can promote many of the critical components of a
Transition Plan through their leadership: transition planning, student active participation,
family involvement, and interagency collaboration. Katsiyannis and Zhang (2001) list
five critical recommendations for administrators to encourage an IEP team to do in order
to promote successful transition planning for students with disabilities: design transition
services according to student needs and interests and ensure that their family input is
incorporated, utilize individualized transition assessment to identify student strengths and
weaknesses and plan according to the strengths, identify and document specific transition
outcomes that reflect the student’s strengths and preferences, determine the supports
needed for the student to reach the identified goals, and lastly, never discount student and
parent input as unrealistic; the student will lose interest if the plan is not based around
their needs and interests (Katsiyannis & Zhang, 2001).
24
Not only is it required by law, but a student’s active participation and input
toward a Transition Plan is paramount to success, and they should therefore be at the
center of the transition process (Armenta & Beckers, 2006). To promote student
participation in the process, a school administrator should first of all enforce the
requirement for student attendance at the IEP meeting (Katsiyannis & Zhang, 2001).
Teachers should be prompted by their principal to prepare the student in advance
particularly in regard to the Transition Plan component and to take a leadership role at
their own meeting (Katsiyannis & Zhang, 2001). A principal can also promote a
student’s family involvement by encouraging the IEP team to invite participation and
listen to them and their unique concerns, expectations and desires for their child at the
IEP meeting (Katsiyannis & Zhang, 2001). Parent or guardian involvement is one of the
best predictors of postsecondary success for young adults with mild to moderate
disabilities (Clark, 1996); therefore, administrators should encourage the IEP team to
make them integral participants.
Effective Transition Plans require strong interagency collaboration, which
eliminates gaps in service and offers more seamless and holistic planning and service
delivery (Kohler 1996). A school leader can promote better interagency collaboration by
providing time for special education teachers to meet with the district’s transition
specialist to allow for time to discuss available resources and to identify the
representatives who will be needed for a particular student’s Transition Plan and IEP
meeting (Katsiyannis & Zhang, 2001). Special education teachers must clearly
25
understand the different roles and responsibilities of agencies with whom they may work
in collaboration as part of a student’s Transition Plan to determine whom to contact and
invite to the IEP meeting (Basset & Kochhar-Bryant, 2006). The administrator of a
school should encourage more seamless collaboration with other agencies by providing
time to meet with the district’s expert in transition who can assist secondary special
educators with identifying the critical outside agencies and representatives (Katsiyannis
& Zhang, 2001).
Not only can they provide necessary oversight and support for the IEP team, but
additionally an administrator knowledgeable in special education laws and involved in
the implementation and monitoring of IEPs can save their school district from costly
litigation (Yell et al., 2003). IDEA mandates the special education process include
referral, evaluation, qualification, development of the IEP, and annual review of the IEP.
Through each part of the process, if strict adherence to procedural requirements is not
upheld, errors may be made that render the plan ruled inappropriate in due process
hearing (Bateman & Linden, 1998). Research shows most hearings school districts lose
are the result of such procedural mistakes in the IEP process (Yell, 1998). In conclusion,
by becoming involved in the IEP process, a school leader can not only ensure the team
develops legally sound and educationally appropriate IEPs to promote success in
secondary school and beyond, but also save the school district from expensive due
process hearings (Yell, 1998). Administrators play a vital role in ensuring all students,
including those with disabilities, succeed (Katsiyannis & Zhang, 2001).
26
Rationale for the Study
Students with learning disabilities continue to have less than successful postsecondary outcomes (high school graduation, college, employment, etc…) as compared
to their general education peers (Test et al., 2009). These students need guidance
throughout their middle and high school years to put them on a trajectory toward
increased chance of success. The secondary special education teachers who guide these
youth through school and into their futures must have adequate training in the
components that research has shown to be essential for a successful, effective and legally
sound Transition Plan. To coordinate and provide tailored in-service trainings to
compensate for any gaps in teachers’ pre-service training experience, School Leaders
must first know which components show the least Secondary Special Educator
preparedness and participation.
Summary
Students with disabilities do not graduate from secondary, attain post-secondary
education, or earn salaries at the same rate/level as their non-disabled peers, despite their
average to above-average intelligence (Sitlington et al., 1993). For a student with a
specific learning disability to experience optimal success in their future, an effective
Transition Plan must be designed, implemented, and monitored, more often than not, by
the special educator who manages their case. According to IDEA (Public Law 101-476),
this Transition Plan is a legally mandated part of an Individualized Education Plan for a
27
student with a disability. For a Transition plan to be effective, it must have the following
five components: assessment and data gathering, collaboration on goal setting,
incorporating transition related curriculum, coordination, and collaboration with outside
agencies, and job training and supervision for students. The effectiveness of a Transition
Plan is further increased by perceived teacher competency and preparation in each of the
five components. The competency and preparedness leads to greater participation in the
transition planning process.
The implication of this literature review on the study is four-fold. First, there is a
need to bridge the graduation and post-secondary achievement gap between students with
specific learning disabilities and their non-disabled peers. Second, an effectively
designed and implemented Transition Plan can lead to optimal achievement. Third,
special education teachers must be adequately prepared in each of the components of the
transition planning process if they are to be expected to be effective agents in enacting
and seeing the plans through. Finally, school administrators can promote better postsecondary outcomes for their students with Learning Disabilities by being knowledgeable
and active IEP team participants and overseers of the special education process. This will
help ensure the student with Learning Disabilities receives appropriate services and the
Transition Plan developed by the team is legally sound and effectively implemented.
28
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
Population and Sample
Participants of this study were chosen by cluster sampling to be representative of
secondary special education teachers in an unnamed Unified School District. There were
nine middle schools and nine high schools in this population. Survey questionnaires were
distributed only to secondary special education teachers within this population,
specifically from one middle school. At this school site, five special educators have
students on their caseload designated with mild to moderate disabilities, an Individual
Education Plan, and thus an Individual Transition Plan.
Design of the Study
Data Collection
Data collection was begun by sending the Transition Involvement and
Competency Questionnaire to all members of the target sample, secondary special
education teachers at a particular middle school (see Appendix). Five teachers in total
were given the questionnaires; all were returned. The questionnaires were sent to the
teachers through the district email server along with a note providing the respondents
with a brief explanation of the purpose of the study and an assurance their participation
was voluntary and the results would be confidential and available for their review if
29
requested. Email addresses were obtained by searching the database for each name on
the list of five teachers who provide services to students with Specific Learning
Disabilities. A hard copy of the survey was also placed in their mailboxes at the school
site. Participants were informed the survey would take approximately 15-20 minutes to
complete. The researcher reviewed all questionnaires submitted via email or hard copy.
Four were returned in hard copy format and one electronically. The submitted
questionnaires were kept anonymous.
Instrumentation
The questionnaire contained 35 total items. The first part asked secondary special
educators to rate their levels of involvement in five identified components of a Transition
Plan: assessment and data gathering, collaboration on goal setting, incorporating
transition-related curriculum, coordination and collaboration with outside agencies, and
job training and supervision for students. Each component had two to three correlating
questions. The frequency continuum was Never, Hardly Ever, Occasionally, With Some
Frequency, With Very High Frequency. These were given values of 0-5, respectively, for
purposes of analyzing the data collected.
The second portion of the questionnaire asked secondary special educators
questions about their pre-service and in-service training regarding transition. There were
two to three questions correlating to teacher competency in each of the five identified
components of a Transition Plan. The quantitative continuum was None, Very Little,
30
Some, Adequate, A Lot. These were given values of 0-5, respectively, for purposes of
analyzing the data collected.
Data Analysis Procedures
All five questionnaires were returned from teachers, giving a 100% return rate.
Frequencies and descriptive statistics were taken based on the data collected from the
questionnaires. Statistically relevant correlations regarding involvement in the five
identified components of transition and the amount of pre-service/in-service training
teachers received were considered. Trends were identified based on the data regarding
secondary special educators’ level of preparedness and involvement in the five
components of transition.
Limitation of Study
The research had some limitations. First, the research study focused on secondary
special education teachers currently working at one middle school in a particular school
district. The results of this study may not be reflective of the training, involvement and
preparedness in Transition Planning of all secondary special education teachers in the
district or those working in other districts.
Second, the secondary special educators surveyed did not include high school
level teachers. High school level teachers may receive more in-service training regarding
Transition Planning as the vast majority of their caseload students are at or above the age
at which a Transition Plan is legally required as part of the I.E.P. (16). Had high school
31
special education teachers of students with learning disabilities been surveyed, the inservice training portion of the questionnaire may have yielded different results.
Lastly, distributing the questionnaire to a sample population from the school site
at which the researcher also works and has daily contact with may have led to selfreporting bias. Self-reporting bias occurs because the “research participants want to
respond in a way that makes them look as good as possible. Thus they tend to underreport behaviors deemed inappropriate by researchers or other observers, and they tend to
over-report behaviors viewed as appropriate” (Donaldson & Grant-Vallone, 2002, p.246).
Although the participants were assured that the results would be kept confidential, the
thought that the researcher may review could have led to this bias. Distributing the
questionnaire to a sample from another school site may have lessened the possibility for it
to occur.
32
Chapter 4
DATA ANALYSIS
The first portion of the Involvement and Training in Transition questionnaire
contained questions 1-11, aimed at determining the frequency with which secondary
mild/moderate educational specialists participated in the five identified components of an
effective Transition Plan: assessment and data gathering, collaboration on goal setting,
incorporating transition-related curriculum, coordination and collaboration with outside
agencies, and job training and supervision for students. The frequency continuum was
Never, Hardly Ever, Occasionally, With Some Frequency, With Very High Frequency.
These descriptors were given values of 0-5, respectively. For data analysis purposes, two
to three questions from this section were grouped together under the umbrella for each of
the five categories of an effective Transition Plan. This data analysis is shown in Table
A, which indicates responses to the questions with regards to frequency of involvement.
Questions 1 and 2 were categorized together in the data analysis (see Table 1) as a
subsection to mild/moderate educational specialist involvement in transition planning
titled “Frequency of Gathering Assessment Data.” Question 1 asked: How often do you
collect data which add to one of your student’s Transition Plans? Question 2 asked: How
often do you use assessment tools to gather data toward a student’s Transition Plan? As
shown in Table 1, 30% of responses indicated respondents never being involved in
gathering assessment data and or using assessment tools, 20% indicated hardly ever or
33
occasionally, 10% occasionally, 30% responded with some frequency and 10% reported
with very high frequency. These data reveal a divide among respondents; several of the
educators surveyed (40% of responses) are frequently involved in gathering assessment
data to add to a Transition Plan, while half the responses indicated rare involvement in
using assessment tools to gather data for a Transition Plan. Forty percent reported some
to high frequency, which indicates “assessment data” is one of the two greatest areas of
teacher involvement of the five categories of transition planning.
Table 1
Secondary Mild/Moderate Educational Specialist Involvement
Questions 3-5 were categorized together in the data analysis shown in Table 1 as
teacher “frequency of collaborating on goal setting.” Question 3 asked: How often do
34
you collaborate with parents in goal setting for individual Transition Plans? Question 4
asked: How often do you collaborate with students in goal setting for individual
Transition Plans? Question 4 asked: How often do you collaborate with other service
providers or agencies in goal setting for individual Transition Plans? As shown in Table
1, over 50% of the responses indicated never or hardly ever with regards to collaborating
on goal setting. Thirteen and three-tenths percent of the responses indicated occasional
collaborating on goal setting. Twenty percent of responses indicated with some
frequency and 13% with very high frequency for involvement in gathering assessment
data and/or using assessment tools. Over 50% of responses indicate occasional to high
frequency involvement in goal setting; however the other half of the responses indicated
lack of involvement. These data reveal the respondents’ frequency of involvement in
collaborating with parents, students, and outside service providers and agencies in goal
setting ranges across the spectrum from never to very frequently.
Questions 6 and 7 were grouped together in the data analysis shown in Table 1 as
teacher “frequency of incorporating transition curriculum” as part of the Transition
Planning and implementation process. Question 6 asked: How often do you incorporate
transition-related curriculum into your classroom instruction? Question 7 asked: How
often do you select curriculum content in conjunction with post-secondary goals (i.e.
higher education, employment, etc.)? The data in Table 1 show 30% of responses never
being involved in this component, 10% hardly ever, 30% occasionally, none with some
frequency, and 30% with very high frequency. In summary, 60% of responses indicate
35
occasional to high frequency of involvement in this component, which is the greatest
involvement rate of all surveyed categories. At the same time, at 30%, this category also
has the highest percentage of responses indicating respondents never involved in the
component.
Questions 8 and 9 were grouped together in the data analysis shown in Table 1 as
teacher “frequency of working with outside agencies” as part of the transition planning
and implementation process. Question 8 asked: How often do you work with
professionals from outside agencies? Question 9 asked: How often do you serve as a
liaison between parents and other agencies? Twenty percent of responses indicated this
was never done in the respondent’s practice, 30% hardly ever, 30% occasionally, 20%
with some frequency, and 0% with very high frequency. Responses regarding
involvement in working with outside agencies in the transition planning process are
spread on a spectrum of never to with some frequency.
Questions 10 and 11 were grouped together in the data analysis shown in Table 1
as teacher “frequency of employment training” as part of the transition planning and
implementation process. Question 10 asked: How often do you supervise students on the
job? Question 11 asked: How often do you incorporate curriculum or content related to
post-secondary employment? Sixty percent, the greatest single descriptor response,
responded never with regard to involvement in employment training. Zero percent
reported hardly ever, occasionally, or with some frequency. Forty percent of responses
indicated involvement at high frequency, indicating that “employment training” is one of
36
the two greatest areas of teacher involvement in transition planning, while simultaneously
being the category with the most responses indicating never being involved. The data
indicate a sharp divide between educators involved and uninvolved in employment
training.
Based on the data and combined responses for the never and hardly ever
descriptors, the five identified components of an effective Transition Plan can be ranked
in order from least to most Mild/Moderate Educational Specialist involvement as follows:
1) job training and supervision for students (60% of responses indicated never to hardly
ever involved), 2) collaboration on goal setting (53.4% of responses indicated never to
hardly ever involved), both 3) assessment and data gathering and 4) collaboration with
outside agencies (50% of responses indicated never to hardly ever involved), and 5)
incorporating transition-related curriculum (40% of responses indicated never to hardly
ever involved).
The second portion of the Involvement and Training in Transition questionnaire
contained questions 12-23, aimed at determining the amount of pre-service training
secondary mild/moderate educational specialists received in the five identified
components of an effective Transition Plan. Two to three questions correlating to
teacher-perceived competency and preparedness in each of the five identified components
were categorized together for data analysis (see Table 2). The quantitative continuum
was None, Very Little, Some, Adequate, A lot. These were given values of 0-5,
respectively, for purposes of analyzing the data collected. This data analysis is shown in
37
Table 2, which indicates responses to the questions regarding amount of pre-service
training.
Table 2
Secondary Mild/Moderate Educational Specialist Pre-Service Training
Questions 12 and 13 were grouped together in the data analysis shown in Table 2
as “amount of pre-service training: assessment,” which has to do with teachers’
preparedness to utilize assessments and resulting data in transition planning. Question 12
asked: How much pre-service training were you provided in identifying assessments that
could be used in transition planning? Question 13 asked: How much pre-service training
were you provided in incorporating assessment data into Transition Plans? Responses
were 40% none, 40% very little, 20% some, and 0% adequate or a lot. These responses
38
indicate many teachers had little to no pre-service training in utilizing assessments and
assessment data as part of the transition planning process.
Questions 14-17 were categorized together in the data analysis shown in Table 2
as “amount of pre-service training: planning,” which includes collaborating with students
and their parents and outside agencies as part of transition planning. Question 14 asked:
How much pre-service training were you provided in the transition planning process?
Question 15 asked: How much pre-service training were you provided in collaborating
with students as part of the transition planning process? Question 16 asked: How much
pre-service training were you provided in collaborating with parents as part of the
transition planning process? Question 17 asked: How much pre-service training were
you provided in collaborating with outside agencies as part of the transition planning
process? Sixty percent of responses indicated the amount of pre-service training received
on collaborating in transition planning was none, 15% very little, 25% some, and 0%
adequate or a lot. With 75% of responses at very little to none in regards to involvement,
it seems the majority of educators surveyed did not receive adequate training in
collaborative transition planning.
Questions 18 and 19 were grouped together in the data analysis shown in Table 2
as “amount of pre-service training: curriculum” and centered on teacher training in
delivering transition-related curriculum content as part of the transition process.
Question 18 asked: How much pre-service training were you provided in curriculum
content in conjunction with post-secondary goals (i.e., higher education, employment,
39
etc.)? Question 19 asked: How much pre-service training were you provided in
delivering transition related curriculum? The majority of responses (60%) indicated no
pre-service training in this category, 30% very little, 10% some, and 0% adequate to a
lot. With 90% of responses showing very little to no pre-service training, this category is
one of the two that teachers were least prepared in prior to entering the field as special
educators.
Questions 20 and 21 were grouped together in the data analysis shown in Table 2
as “amount of pre-service training: outside agency” and centered on teacher training in
collaborating with outside agencies as part of transition planning and implementation.
Question 20 asked: How much pre-service training were you provided in working with
professionals from outside agencies to add to a student’s Transition Plan? Question 21
asked: How much pre-service training were you provided in being a collaborative liaison
between parents of your students and outside agencies as part of transition? Similar to
the latter categories of assessment and planning, 50% of responses indicated none with
regards to pre-service training in collaborating with outside agencies in transition
planning, 20% very little, 40% some, and 0% adequate to a lot. This category had the
greatest amount of response indicating some pre-service training.
The final two questions of the second portion of the questionnaire, 22 and 23,
were categorized together under the data analysis category of “amount of pre-service
training: employment training” as listed in Table 2. Question 22 asked: How much preservice training were you provided in developing jobs and job training for students’
40
Transition Plans? Question 23 asked: How much pre-service training were you provided
in supervising students on the job? This category had the highest amount of responses
indicating very little to no pre-service training at 70% none and 20% very little. Only
10% of the responses indicated some pre-service training, and 0% adequate to a lot. No
responses indicated adequate to a lot of pre-service training for any of the five identified
categories comprising an effective Transition Plan.
The third and final portion of the Involvement and Training in Transition
questionnaire contained questions 24-35 aimed at determining the amount of in-service
training secondary mild/moderate educational specialists received in the five identified
components of an effective Transition Plan since entering the field. Two to three
questions correlating to teachers’ in-service training in each of the five identified
components were categorized together for data analysis (see Table 3). The quantitative
continuum was None, Very Little, Some, Adequate, A lot. These were given values of 05, respectively, for purposes of analyzing the data collected. This data analysis is shown
in Table 3, which indicates responses to the questions with regards to amount of inservice training respondents had received.
Questions 24 and 25 were grouped together in the data analysis shown in Table 3
as “amount of in-service training: assessment.” Question 24 asked: How much in-service
training were you provided in identifying assessments that could be used in transition
planning? Question 25 asked: How much in-service training were you provided in
incorporating assessment data into Transition Plans? Thirty percent of responses
41
indicated none in regards to in-service training on utilizing assessment, 0% very little or
some, 50% adequate and 20% a lot. The respondents had the most in-service training in
regard to assessment as compared with the other four categories.
Table 3
Secondary Mild/Moderate Educational Specialist In-Service Training
Questions 26-29 were categorized together in the data analysis shown in Table 3
as “amount of in-service training: planning.” Question 26 asked: How much in-service
training were you provided in the transition planning process? Question 27 asked: How
much in-service training were you provided in collaborating with students as part of the
transition planning process? Question 28 asked: How much in-service training were you
provided in collaborating with parents as part of the transition planning process?
Question 29 asked: How much in-service training were you provided in collaborating
42
with outside agencies as part of the transition planning process? Forty percent of
responses indicated none in regards to in-service training on collaborating transition
planning, 0% very little, 10% some, 25% adequate as well as a lot. This category yielded
the second most responses of adequate to a lot of in-service training, at 50% total. At the
same time, 40% of responses indicated no training in parts of collaborative planning. The
data suggest some of the surveyed educators received in-service training in this area,
while others did not.
Questions 30 and 31 were grouped together in the data analysis shown in Table 3
as “amount of in-service training: curriculum.” Question 30 asked: How much in-service
training were you provided in curriculum content in conjunction with post-secondary
goals (i.e., higher education, employment, etc.)? Question 31 asked: How much inservice training were you provided in delivering transition-related curriculum?
Responses were spread through the continuum: 20% none, 20% very little, 40% some,
0% adequate and 20% a lot of training. This category yielded the most responses of
some training. Data suggest educators have varied experiences with in-service training in
regards to transition-related curriculum design and implementation.
Questions 32 and 33 were grouped together in the data analysis shown in Table 3
as “amount of in-service training: outside agency.” Question 32 asked: How much inservice training were you provided in working with professionals from outside agencies
to add to a student’s Transition Plan? Question 33 asked: How much in-service training
were you provided in being a collaborative liaison between parents of your students and
43
outside agencies as part of transition? Seventy percent of the responses indicated no
training in this component. Thirty percent indicated very little. There were zero
responses for some, adequate, or a lot of in-service training. Data strongly suggest
educational specialists surveyed have not received in-service training in collaborating
with outside agencies as a part of transition planning and implementation.
The final two questions of the third portion of the questionnaire, 34 and 35, were
categorized together under the data analysis category of “amount of in-service training:
employment training” as listed in Table 3. Question 34 asked: How much in-service
training were you provided in developing jobs and job training for students’ Transition
Plans? Question 35 asked: How much in-service training were you provided in
supervising students on the job? Along with the outside agency collaboration
component, employment training had 100% of responses indicating very little to no preservice training at 70% none and 30% very little. There were no responses indicating
some, adequate, or a lot of pre-service training for employment training. The data
suggest the Mild/Moderate Educational Specialists surveyed have not received adequate
in-service training in this category since entering the field.
When analyzing the combined responses for in-service and pre-service training of
Secondary Mild/Moderate Educational Specialists for each of the five identified
transition components, as shown in Table 4, they can be ranked in order of least to most
overall teacher training and preparedness as follows: 1) job training and supervision for
students (95% of responses indicated none to very little overall training), 2) coordination
44
and collaboration with outside agencies (85% of responses indicated none to very little
overall training), 3) incorporating transition-related curriculum (65% of responses
indicated none to very little overall training), 4) collaboration on goal setting and
planning (57.5% of responses indicated none to very little overall training), and 5)
assessment and data gathering (55% of responses indicated none to very little overall
training).
Table 4
Secondary Mild/Moderate Educational Specialist Combined Pre- and In-Service Training
The low amount of overall teacher training in the job training and supervision for
students component negatively correlates with the low involvement level of teachers in
that category (95% none to very little training: 60% never to hardly ever involved).
Eighty-five percent of responses indicated teachers did not receive pre- or in-service
45
training in coordination and collaboration with outside agencies, and 50% of the
responses from teachers regarding their involvement in this component indicated never to
hardly ever involved; another negative correlation. On the other hand, a positive
correlation is shown in the greatest overall teacher training component of assessment and
data gathering (35% of responses indicate adequate to a lot of overall training, the highest
response rate for these descriptors) and the involvement rate in that component. Forty
percent of responses indicate involvement with some to high frequency in assessment and
data gathering, a tie for the most involvement with job training and supervision
involvement. These data suggest the more training mild/moderate educational specialists
receive in a component of transition planning and implementation, the more involvement
they will have in that component, as in the case of gathering and utilizing assessment
data. Conversely, the data suggest that in other components the less training received, the
less involvement a teacher will have in that component of transition, as in the case of job
training and supervision for students and interaction with outside agencies.
46
Chapter 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS
In summary, the results of this survey suggest secondary special education
teachers are most involved in the transition planning components in which they have
received the most training. Conversely, these teachers are least involved in the
components in which they have received little to no training. Overall, over half of all
responses given for combined pre- and in-service training on each of the five components
showed very little to no training. The transition planning components this sample
reported least overall training in were competencies involving collaboration with outside
agencies, employment training, and supervision of students on the job. This correlates
with the categories respondents reported least frequent involvement in. Teachers
reported receiving the most overall training in the gathering and use of transition
assessment data as part of the plan, which is also one of the two components showing
most frequent involvement. Special Education teachers at the middle school appear to be
most involved in the components of transition in which they have had the most training.
Interestingly, in one of the categories in which survey responses showed most
involvement (incorporating transition curriculum), over half the responses indicated very
little to no training in the component. This could possibly be explained by teachers
incorporating transition curriculum into their lessons on their own accord or it being
already embedded in the curriculum utilized at the site for English Language Arts or
Math (i.e., real world application). Depending upon the individual respondent’s
47
interpretation of “transition-related curriculum,” this may be an already embedded
portion of their course. This component, therefore, may not necessitate as much direct
teacher training as the other components.
The implications of this research are that Special Education teachers must be
provided with in-service training in the areas of transition planning they did not receive in
pre-service training. If not given adequate training in the five components necessary for
an effective transition planning process, these teachers will not likely be frequently
involved in it. Ultimately, this may negatively affect the high school and post-secondary
outcomes for the students on their caseload. Teachers must receive adequate training in
all areas of a student’s Transition Plan in order for an effective plan to be developed,
implemented, and monitored.
This study is only a preliminary assessment of teacher preparation and
involvement in the necessary components of an effective Transition Plan. Future
research should be conducted to see if the trends and correlations shown in this study
have further implications with a broader sample population of secondary special
educators. This study is limited in that the teachers surveyed were from a middle school.
It is possible high school special educators receive greater amounts of in-service training
in transition planning. Further research should be conducted with a larger sample
population to determine whether the components in which teachers lacked adequate
training found in this study can be generalized. Another limitation of this study is that
the negative correlations between teacher training and involvement in particular
48
Transition Plan components may be influenced by lack of or lower opportunities for
involvement, and not completely due to lack of training. This may be the case
particularly for the job training and supervision of students, as they are not legally able to
have a job until the age of 15 with a work permit. That being said, the data showing
teachers received little to no training in this component in their teacher
preparation/credential programs are certainly cause for concern, and it can be assumed
these educators would need further in-service training in this component.
Finally, teachers may not be aware of their lack of training, which this study
suggests leads to lack of involvement and therefore potentially worsened outcomes for
their students. Because of this, it is paramount that school and district administrators
become aware of the areas of Transition Plan training deficiency and develop in-service
trainings to equip secondary special education teachers to implement a plan promoting
success beyond high school for students with mild to moderate disabilities. It is
recommended school administrators and program coordinators for special education take
the results from this and future surveys of teacher preparedness in transition and provide
resources to improve teacher knowledge and competency in these areas. It is
recommended administrators create in-service training for special educators in the areas
of training deficiency. The in-service training could be done at a school site, region, or
district level as the data show need. The results of this study give direction to
administrators involved in the process of improving mild/moderate special educator
efficacy in transition planning.
49
APPENDIX
Questionnaire
Purpose of gathering information:
The purpose of this questionnaire is to determine how much pre-service and in-service training Secondary
Mild/Moderate Educational Specialists have had in the area of transition, and their level of involvement in
the various elements of the process.
Secondary Mild/Moderate Educational Specialist Involvement Questionnaire
Never(0)
Hardly Ever(1)
Occasionally(2)
With Some Frequency(3) With Very High Frequency(4)
1.
How often do you collect data, which adds to one of your student’s transition plans?
Never
Hardly Ever
Occasionally
With Some Frequency
With Very High Frequency
2.
How often do you use assessment tools to gather data toward a students’ transition plan?
Never
Hardly Ever
Occasionally
With Some Frequency
With Very High Frequency
3.
How often do you collaborate with parents in goal setting for individual transition plans?
Never
Hardly Ever
Occasionally
With Some Frequency
With Very High Frequency
4.
How often do you collaborate with students in goal setting for individual transition plans?
Never
Hardly Ever
Occasionally
With Some Frequency
With Very High Frequency
5.
How often do you collaborate with other service providers or agencies in goal setting for
individual transition plans?
Never
Hardly Ever
Occasionally
With Some Frequency
With Very High Frequency
6.
How often do you incorporate transition related curriculum into your classroom instruction?
Never
Hardly Ever
Occasionally
With Some Frequency
With Very High Frequency
7.
How often do you select curriculum content in conjunction with post-secondary goals
(i.e higher education, employment, etc)?
Never
8.
Hardly Ever
Occasionally
With Some Frequency
With Very High Frequency
How often do you work with professionals from outside agencies?
Never
Hardly Ever
Occasionally
With Some Frequency
With Very High Frequency
50
9.
How often do you serve as a liaison between parents and other agencies?
Never
Hardly Ever
Occasionally
With Some Frequency
With Very High Frequency
10.
How often do you supervise students on the job?
Never
Hardly Ever
Occasionally
With Some Frequency
11.
With Very High Frequency
How often do you incorporate curriculum or content related to post-secondary employment?
Never
Hardly Ever
Occasionally
With Some Frequency
With Very High Frequency
Secondary Mild/Moderate Educational Specialist Training
None (0)
Very Little(1)
Some(2)
Adequate(3)
A lot(4)
Pre-Service (before working as a secondary special educator):
12. How much pre-service training were you provided in identifying assessments that could be used in
transition planning?
None
Very Little
Some
Adequate
A lot
13. How much pre-service training were you provided in incorporating assessment data into transition
plans?
None
Very Little
Some
Adequate
A lot
14.
15.
How much pre-service training were you provided in the transition planning process?
None
Very Little
Some
Adequate
How much pre-service training were you provided in collaborating with students as part of
the transition planning process?
None
16.
A lot
Very Little
Some
Adequate
A lot
How much pre-service training were you provided in collaborating with parents as part of
the transition planning process?
None
Very Little
Some
Adequate
A lot
17.
How much pre-service training were you provided in collaborating with outside agencies as part
of the transition planning process?
None
Very Little
Some
Adequate
A lot
18.
How much pre-service training were you provided in curriculum content in conjunction with
post-secondary goals (i.e higher education, employment, etc)?
None
Very Little
Some
Adequate
A lot
51
19.
How much pre-service training were you provided in delivering transition related curriculum?
None
Very Little
Some
Adequate
A lot
20.
How much pre-service training were you provided in working with professionals from
outside agencies to add to a student’s transition plan?
None
Very Little
Some
Adequate
A lot
21.
How much pre-service training were you provided in being a collaborative liaison between
parents of your students and outside agencies as part of transition?
None
Very Little
Some
Adequate
A lot
22.
How much pre-service training were you provided in developing jobs and job training for
students’ transition plans?
None
23.
Very Little
Some
Adequate
A lot
How much pre-service training were you provided in supervising students on the job?
None
Very Little
Some
Adequate
A lot
In-service (during your time working as a secondary special educator):
24. How much in-service training were you provided in identifying assessments that could be used in
transition planning?
None
Very Little
Some
Adequate
A lot
25. How much in-service training were you provided in incorporating assessment data into transition
plans?
None
Very Little
Some
Adequate
A lot
26.
27.
How much in-service training were you provided in the transition planning process?
None
Very Little
Some
Adequate
How much in-service training were you provided in collaborating with students as part of
the transition planning process?
None
28.
Very Little
Some
Adequate
A lot
How much in-service training were you provided in collaborating with parents as part of the
transition planning process?
None
29.
A lot
Very Little
Some
Adequate
A lot
How much in-service training were you provided in collaborating with outside agencies as part
of the transition planning process?
None
Very Little
Some
Adequate
A lot
52
30.
How much in-service training were you provided in curriculum content in conjunction with
post-secondary goals (i.e higher education, employment, etc)?
None
Very Little
Some
Adequate
A lot
31.
How much in-service training were you provided in delivering transition related curriculum?
None
Very Little
Some
Adequate
A lot
32.
How much in-service training were you provided in working with professionals from
outside agencies to add to a student’s transition plan?
None
Very Little
Some
Adequate
A lot
33.
How much in-service training were you provided in being a collaborative liaison between
parents of your students and outside agencies as part of transition?
None
Very Little
Some
Adequate
A lot
34.
How much in-service training were you provided in developing jobs and job training for
students’ transition plans?
None
35.
Very Little
Some
Adequate
A lot
How much in-service training were you provided in supervising students on the job?
None
Very Little
Some
Adequate
A lot
53
REFERENCES
Anderson, D., Kleinhammer-Tramill, P. J., Morningstar, M. E. Lehmann J., Bassett, D.,
& Kohler, P., Blalock, G., & Wehmeyer, M. (2003). What’s happening in
personnel preparation in transition? A national survey. Career Development for
Exceptional Individuals, 26, 145-160.
Armenta, T., & Beckers, G. (2006). The IEP: how to meet its demands and avoid its
pitfalls. Principal Leadership: Middle Level Education, 6(9), 22.
Bassett, D., & Smith, T. (1996). Transition in an era of reform. Learning Disabilities
Quarterly, 29(2), 161-166.
Bassett, D. S., & Kochhar-Bryant, C. A. (2006). Strategies for aligning standards-based
education and transition. A Focus on Exceptional Children, 39(2), 1-19.
Bateman, B., & Linden, M. (1998). Better IEPs (3rd ed.). Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
Beard, J. (1991). Proceedings from state directors of special education transition
programs: State definitions, and real and ideal teacher competencies. Nashville,
TN: EDRS.
Benz, M. R., Lindstrom, L., & Yovanoff, P. (2000). Improving graduation and
employment outcomes of students with disabilities: Predictive factors and student
perspectives. Exceptional Children, 66, 509-529.
Blackorby, J., & Wagner, M. (1996). Longitudinal post school outcomes of youth with
disabilities: Findings from the national longitudinal transition study. Exceptional
Children, 62, 399-414.
54
Blanchett, W. J. (2001). Importance of teacher transition competencies as rated by special
educators. Teacher Education and Special Education, 24(1), 3-12.
Clark, G. M. (1996). Transition planning assessment for secondary-level students with
learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 79-92.
Colyey, R. J. (1995). Dreams deferred: Secondary dropouts in the United States.
Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service Policy Information Center.
Conderman, G., & Katsiyannis, A. (2002). Instructional issues and practices in secondary
special education. Remedial and Special Education, 23(3), 169-179.
Cummings, R., Maddux, C., & Casey, J. (2000). Individualized transition planning for
students with learning disabilities. The Career Development Quarterly, 49, 60-72.
Donaldson, S., & Grant-Vallone, E. (2002). Understanding self-report bias in
organizational behavior research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17(2),
245-260.
Field, S. (1996). Self-determination instructional strategies for youth with learning
disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 40-52.
Furney, K., Hasazi, S., & Destefano, L. (1997). Transition policies, practices, and
promises: lessons from three states. Exceptional Children, 63, 343-345.
Gajar, A. H. (1992). University-based models for students with learning disabilities: The
Pennsylvania state university model. In F. R. Rusch, L. Destefano, J. ChadseyRusch, L. A. Phelps, & E. Szymanski (Eds.), Transition from school to adult life:
Models, linkages, and policy (pp. 51-70). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
55
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997, P.L. 105-17, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et
seq.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, P.L. 108-446, 20
U.S.C. 1400 et seq.
Katsiyannis, A., & Zhang, D. (2001). Transition services: Plans for the future. Principal
Leadership (High School Ed.), 1(7), 38-43.
Kochhar-Bryant, C, & Bassett, D. (2002). Aligning transition and standards-based
education. Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Kohler, P. D. (1996). Taxonomy for transition programming. Journal of Special
Education, 45, 227-241.
Lerner, J. (1997). Learning disabilities: Theories, diagnosis, and teaching strategies (7th
ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Levine, P., Marder, C, & Wagner, M. (2004). Services and supports for secondary school
students with disabilities. A special topic report of findings from the National
Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
Levinson, E. M. (1998). Transition: Facilitating the postschool adjustment of students
with disabilities. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Li, J., Bassett, D. S., & Hutchinson, S. R. (2009). Secondary special educators’ transition
involvement. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 34, 163-172.
56
Martin, J. E., Huber Marshall, L., & Depry, R. L. (2001). Participatory decision-making.
In R. Flexer, T. Simmons, P. Luft, & R. Baer (Eds.), Transition planning for
secondary students with disabilities. Columbus, OH: Merrill Prentice-Hall.
McKenzie, R. G. (1995). Special educators as secondary content teachers: How
justifiable? Teacher Education and Special Education, 18, 275-280.
National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). (2003). Dropout rates in the United
States: 2002 and 2003. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/dropout/tables/table_1A.asp
National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). (2004). Student effort and educational
progress: Table. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2006/section3/table.asp?tableID-482
National Information Center for Children and Youth with Disabilities (NICHCY). (1993).
Transition services in the IEP. NICHCY Transition Summary, 3(1).
http://nichcy.org/pubs/transum/tx8txt.htm
National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities (NJCLD). (1990). Providing
appropriate education for students with learning disabilities in regular education
classrooms: A position paper by the National Joint Committee on Learning
Disabilities. In National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities (Ed.),
Collective perspectives on issues affecting learning disabilities: Position papers
and statements (pp. 67-73). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
57
National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities (NJCLD). (1994). Secondary to
postsecondary education transition planning for students with disabilities: A
position paper of the National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. In
National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities (Ed.), Collective perspectives
on issues affecting learning disabilities: Position papers and statements (pp. 97104). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). (2003). Youth with disabilities: A
changing population. Retrieved from http://www.nlts2.org/reports/2003_041/index.html.EVIDENCE-BASED SECONDARY TRANSITION PRACTICES
National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). (2005). Facts from NLTS2:
Secondary completion by youth with disabilities (November 2005). Menlo Park,
CA: SRI International. Retrieved from www.nlts2.org/fact_
sheets/nlts2_fact_sheet_2005_11.pdf
Rojewski, J. (1994). Applying theories of career behaviors to special population:
Implications for secondary vocational transitional programming. Issues in Special
Education and Rehabilitation, 9(1), 7-26.
Sitlington, P., Frank, A., & Carson, R. (1993). Adult adjustment among secondary
graduates with mild disabilities. Exceptional Children, 59(3), 221-233.
Swaim, R. C., Beauvis, F., Chavez, E. L., & Oeting, E. R. (1997). The effect of dropout
rates on estimates of adolescent substance abuse among three racial/ethnic groups.
American Journal of Public Health, 87, 51-55.
58
Test, D.W., Fowler, C.H., White J., Richter, S., & Walker, A. (2009). Evidence-based
secondary transition practices for enhancing school completion. Exceptionality,
17(1), 16-29.
Thoma, C. A., Baker, S. R., & Saddler, S. J. (2002). Self-determination in teacher
education. Remedial and Special Education, 23(2), 82-89.
U.S. Department of Education (DOE). (2000). Postsecondary students with disabilities:
Enrollment, services, and persistence (NCES Publication No. 2000-092). Jessup,
MD: Education Publications Center.
U.S. Department of Education (DOE). (2011). Office of Special Education Programs,
Data Analysis System (DANS), OMB #1820-0043: Children with disabilities
receiving special education under part B of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act 2011. Retrieved from
https://www.ideadata.org/TABLES35TH/B1-7.pdf
Wandry, D., & Repetto, J. (1993, March). Transition services in the IEP. NICHCY
Transition Summary, 3(1), 1-28.
Wasburn-Moses, L. (2006). Obstacles to program effectiveness in secondary special
education. Preventing School Failure, 50(3), 21-30.
Wehman, P. (1992). Life beyond the classroom. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
59
Williams, J. M. (2002). Using school-to-career strategies, workplace competencies, and
industry skill standards to enhance the transition process in standards-based
education. In C. A. Kochhar-Bryant & D. S. Bassett (Eds.), Aligning transition
and standards-based education (pp. 77-90). Arlington, VA: Council for
Exceptional Children.
Wright, P. W. D., & Wright, P. D. (1999). Wrightslaw: Special education law. Hartfield,
VA: Harbor House Law Press.
Yell, M. L. (1998). The law and special education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall/Merrill.
Yell, M.L., Katsiyannis, A., & Bradley, R. (2003). A special role. Principal Leadership:
Middle Level Edition, 4(2), 22-28.