Transition Services for Students with Disabilities in Public Education
Focus on Students with Autism Spectrum Disorder
I.
Students’ Rights to Transition Services under the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Improvement Act (IDEA) in a Nutshell
Transition Services were first introduced “legally” in the Congressional amendments to IDEA in
1997 with the mandate that IEPs for students 16 years and older include a plan for a coordinated
set of services designed to help them successfully transition from school to post-school settings.
The obligation of school districts to consider transition services was strengthened in the 2004
amendments because—in part—high school age special education students are at greater risk of
dropping out of school or graduating from school unprepared for adult life and responsibilities.
Some aspects of the 1997 requirements also changed.
Under IDEA, IEP teams must consider and develop post-school goals and determine what
services are needed to help the student achieve those goals. In essence, transition services are
intended to give students the skills they need to transition into the adult world BEFORE they
leave k-12. As with all of special education, the model is a multi-disciplinary process—i.e.,
transition services are developed and delivered by some or all of the following: students, parents,
school-age service providers, post-school service providers and local community agencies/people.
II.
Statutory and Regulatory Language under Individuals with Disabilities Education
Improvement Act (IDEA)
A.
Purpose of IDEA is
[T] to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free and appropriate
public education that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their
unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment and independent living. 20
U.S.C. 1400(d)(1)(A)-(C) (bolded phrase added in 2004)
Transition services are intended to help students prepare for this further education, employment
and independent living.
B.
Definition—refined in 2004
The term “transition services” means a coordinated set of activities for a child with a disability
that:
(a) is designed to be within a results-oriented process that is focused on improving the
academic and functional achievement of the child with a disability to facilitate the child’s
movement from school to post-school activities, including postsecondary education,
vocational education, integrated employment (including supported employment),
continuing and adult education, adult services, independent living, and community
participation;
(b) is based on the individual child’s needs, taking into account the child’s strengths,
preferences, and interests; and
(c) includes instruction, related services, community experiences, the development of
employment and other post-school adult living objectives, and, if appropriate, acquisition
of daily living skills and functional vocational evaluation. See 20 U.S.C. 1401(34) and
34 CFR §300.43(a).
Transition services may be special education, if provided as specially designed instruction, or a
related service, if required to assist a child with a disability to benefit from special education. See
34 CFR §300.43(b).
Student eligibility for transition services lasts as long as they are in special education—until exit
either because of age or receipt of diploma.
C.
Post-secondary Transition Services
Beginning not later than the first IEP to be in effect when the child turns 16, or younger if
determined appropriate by the IEP Team, and updated annually thereafter, the IEP must include
(1) Appropriate measurable post-secondary goals based upon age appropriate transition
assessments related to training, education, employment, and, where appropriate,
independent living skills; and
(2) The transition services (including courses of study) needed to assist the child in reaching
their post-secondary goals. 34 CFR §300.321(b)(1),(2).
NOTE: No “legal” definition of “courses of study” but generally considered to include those that
focus on improving the academic and functional achievement of the child to facilitate movement
from school to life after secondary school. Those listed in IEP should align with post-secondary
goals—if is to enter higher education, for example, IEP should ensure that necessary courses are
taken to allow entrance and success.
D.
Definition of Measurable Post-Secondary Goal1
1. Articulates what goals student would like to achieve after secondary school.
2. Based on the student’s strengths, preferences and interests.
3. Based on Age Appropriate Transition Assessments
These assessments should be documented in the IEP; they should align with the articulated goals
and provide information on student’s needs as well as strengths. NOTE: transition assessments
do not mean vocational assessments.
CEC (Division on Career Development and Transition) has defined Transition Assessment as:
[A]n ongoing process of collecting data on the individual’s needs, preferences, and
interests as they relate to the demands of current and future working, educational, living,
and personal and social environments. Assessment data serve as the common thread in
the transition process and form the basis for defining goals and services to be included in
the IEP.2
1
This section taken from Kriha, Darcy. The Building Principal and Special Education. Presentation given
at the 26th Annual Pacific Northwest Institute on Special Education and the Law. October 5, 2009.
2
http://www.nsttac.org/products_and_resources/tag.aspx The National Secondary Transition Technical
Assistance Center has developed a Transition Assessment Guide available at this URL.
2
4. Includes goals in three areas:
a. Education and/or vocational training—broad definition of this
b. Employment—paid and volunteer, integrated or supported
employment.
c. Independent Living (if appropriate)—e.g., independent living skills
NOTE: There is a great deal of interest/support federally for increasing access to post-secondary
institutions for students with intellectual disabilities.
5. Coordinated Set of Activities
To ensure that post-secondary goals are met, the specific activities needed to achieve the goal
should be coordinated—e.g., instruction, related services, community activities, etc should all
“work towards the same end.”
E.
Responsibility for Services
If the purpose of a child’s IEP Team meeting will be the consideration of postsecondary goals for
the child and the transition services needed to assist the child in reaching those goals, the LEA, to
the extent appropriate, and with consent, must invite a representative of any participating agency
that is likely to be responsible for providing or paying for transition services to attend the child’s
IEP Team meeting. However, if the participating agency does not attend the meeting, the LEA is
no longer required to take other steps to obtain participation of an agency in the planning of any
transition services. 34 CFR §300.321(b)(1),(3)
Participating agencies might include state department of Vocational Rehabilitation, mental health
or other social services, and the Social Security Administration.
NOTE: there are cases and an OSEP letter which state that the school district is expected to take
responsibility to contact agencies that are appropriate and to as liaison between parents and the
agencies while the child is in school. However, these predate the 2004 regulations which
removed a section of the law that required LEAs to in essence “pursue” other agencies.
F.
Student is a Member of IEP Team
1. School districts MUST invite the student to his/her IEP meeting to consider
post-secondary goals and transition services. If the student does not attend,
district must take steps to ensure that student’s preferences are considered.
34 CFR §300.321(b)
2. Transfer of Rights (Notice): Beginning not later than one year before the
child reaches the age of majority under state law, the IEP must include a
statement that the child has been informed notice of his/her rights under the
IDEA that will transfer to the child upon age of majority. After this point, all
required notices are to be provided to both the student and parents. NOTE:
unless parents have obtained legal guardianship over the adult-child.
I.
Implementation of Transition Services
3
Letter to Bereuter, 20 IDELR 536 (OSEP 1993) states that districts are not relieved of their
obligation to provide transition services even if the impossible to develop relationships with
potential employers or to otherwise find cooperating entities for other adult life objectives.
J.
Failure to Meet Transition Objectives
If a participating agency, other than the school district, fails to provide the transition services
described in the IEP, the school district must reconvene the IEP team to identify alternative
strategies to meet the transition objectives for the child set out in the IEP. 34 CFR §300.324(c)
K.
Summary of Performance
When student’s eligibility for special education services is terminated, IDEA 2004 requires that a
“Summary of Performance” be provided by the LEA. This is a summary of the child’s academic
achievement and functional performance, which shall include recommendations on how to assist
the child in meeting the child’s post-secondary goals.
20 USC §1414(c)(5)(B)ii; 34 CFR §300.305(e).
III.
Selected Court Decisions of Interest
Expected continued increase in cases involving students with ASD regarding everything
including transition services—whether transition to post-secondary world or within the k-12
environment.
Polk County School Board, 108 LRP 32010 (SEA Fla. 2008). The student graduated and
received a regular diploma from the district, but no “credible” evidence that the student made any
meaningful progress toward meeting various non-academic, behavioral IEP goals. Because the
district failed to identify appropriate transition services in the relevant IEPSs, the district had to
pay compensatory education in form of private placement up to 5 years at a cost of up to
$144,000 per year.
Bd. Of Education of Township High School District No. 211 v. Ross, 486 F.3d 267 (7th Cir. 2007).
A district’s failure to include a specific transition plan on IEP did not result in denial of FAPE
because no loss of educational opportunity. Court also stated that it was acceptable to defer a
plan when the student was not in position to benefit from an “elaborate plan.”
Virginia v. Dept. of Education, Hawaii, 2007 WL 80814 (D. Hawaii 2007) (not designated for
publication). The Court concluded that even though the transition plan listed on the IEP was not
individualized (did not take into account the child’s needs, strengths, preferences, and interest),
this was harmless error since the student would still receive adequate educational benefits from
the general plan. This plan included post-secondary higher education goals and services related
to those.
Sinan v. School Dist of Philadelphia, 2007 WL 1933021 (E.D. Pa. 2007) (not designated for
publication). Court found that the transition plan only included generic goals that did not change
from year to year, were overly vague and did not take student’s interests, etc into account.
IV.
Looking to the Future
A. Definition of Autism—apparently clear in IDEA but does it match the DSM IV
and potential changes for DSM V?
4
Autism does not apply if a child's educational performance is adversely affected primarily
because the child has an emotional disturbance, as defined in paragraph (c)(4) of this section.
Section 300.8(c) (1) i.
Autism means a developmental disability significantly affecting verbal and nonverbal
communication and social interaction, generally evident before age three, that adversely affects a
child's educational performance. Other characteristics often associated with autism are
engagement in repetitive activities and stereotyped movements, resistance to environmental
change or change in daily routines, and unusual responses to sensory experiences. Section
300.8(c) (1) ii.
B. Rumors that with the next reauthorization of IDEA, Congress will be
encouraged to change the Rowley standard for determining “educational
benefit” (substantive and procedural standards of FAPE).
J.L. v. Mercer Island School District, 52 IDELR 241 (9th Cir. 2009). District Court determined
that Congress superseded the Rowley decision in the 1997 IDEA Amendments; this Circuit Court
reversed this holding. 9th Circuit stated unequivocally that Congress could have changed if it had
so wanted and clearly did not do so—no change was made to the statutory definition of FAPE. In
addition, Congress did not indicate in its definition of “transition services” or elsewhere, that a
student could not receive FAPE absent the attainment of transition goals.
Prepared by Sherrie Brown for Haring Center Staff
15 December 2009
5