This is a reprint of the Journal on Postsecondary Education and Disability, volume 9, #1
& 2, Winter/Spring 1991, published by the Association on Higher Education And
Disability.
A Follow-up Study of Vocational
Outcomes of Young Adults with
Learning Disabilities
Jane E Merzog & Beth Falk
New York University
Abstract
This article presents results of a vocational follow-up study of 113 young adults with
learning disabilities who graduated between 1969-1987 from a 2 -year paraprofessional
training program in human service careers. The study gathered extensive descriptive
information pertaining to vocational outcomes and financial independence of the
graduates. Results included: (a) 76% of the graduates are currently employed, the
majority as paraprofessionals in educational settings, (b) 60% earn salaries of $10, 000
or less; and (c) despite low salaries, most graduates report a high degree of job
satisfaction. Implications are discussed in terms of the strong employment record and job
satisfaction of the sample, and also the constricted economic mobility of this group.
Interest in the long-term adjustment of individuals with learning disabilities has surged as
professionals have become increasingly concerned with the issues and problems faced by
young adults with learning disabilities long after they leave high school. The focus of
special education services for students with learning disabilities has traditionally been
academic remediation of deficit areas such as language, reading or mathematics.
Recently, however, the social and vocational problems of individuals with learning
disabilities have been noted, along with an awareness that vocational and psychological
services have been lacking for young adults with learning disabilities who have "agedout" of school programs.
Several authors (Hasazi, Johnson, Hasazi, Gordon & Hull, 1989; Roessler, Brolin, &
Johnson, 1990) have emphasized that for graduates of high school special education
programs, the period following graduation is particularly difficult, and is characterized by
unemployment or frequent job changes and economic hardship. Recent postsecondary
follow-up studies of youths with disabilities (including those with learning disabilities)
suggest that these individuals have higher unemployment rates, lower wages, and fewer
benefits than their nondisabled peers (Hasazi et al., 1989).
This paper presents results of a follow-up study of young adults with learning disabilities
that was conducted at the Para-Educator Center for Young Adults (PEC) of New York
University. The PEC, founded in 1966, is a 2-year, postsecondary certificate program for
relatively low functioning students with learning disabilities (aged approximately 18-30)
that prepares students for human services careers. Students are trained to work as
paraprofessionals with infants and young children in daycare centers and preschools, and
are given coursework and field experience toward that end. A recent addition to the
curriculum is a program for students interested in working in geriatric settings. The PEC
program also includes an emphasis on social behaviors and independent living skills that
are transferable to a wide range of living and work situations.
Many PEC students fall below the "average intelligence" criterion of learning disabilities,
and must therefore be considered a subgroup. Whereas researchers continue to debate the
inclusion and exclusion requirements for the learning disabilities diagnosis (McGuire,
Norlander, & Shaw, 1990), there remains a clear subgroup of students who have been
diagnosed as learning disabled since elementary school, and who, at the postsecondary
level, remain in need of services. Even with the support services available to them, not all
of these students function at a level enabling them to manage a college or university
program. However, these students are certainly not appropriate for the job training
programs typically offered to mildly retarded young adults. For this group, alternative
programming is needed, which offers them the stimulation and independence of college
without the failure that would likely follow.
The population at PEC consists of students who have been primarily diagnosed as
learning disabled, and who have completed high school with special education services.
The majority are functioning in the low average or borderline range of intelligence, and
generally show significant discrepancies between expected and actual achievement. This
can be demonstrated through the use of achievement tests, individual intelligence tests,
and clinical observation. Generally, their learning problems are manifested in the areas of
listening, thinking, reading, writing, and mathematics; however, many of these students
also display organizational problems and difficulty with abstract thinking. Although
many of the PEC students have additional disabilities, in no case is the learning disability
the result of these other conditions. Therefore, for the students at PEC, there remains an
"integrity of the condition" as specified by Federal and clinical definitions of learning
disabilities (Wallace & McLoughlin,1988). The PEC curriculum is based on a reciprocal
learning model in which the students' learning is enabled through the process of helping
others to learn and develop. For example, in helping preschool children deal with
separation, PEC students learn how to help a child understand that he will be safe when
his mother leaves him at school, and that he will be cared for during that period. For PEC
students, this parallels their own experience of separation. In entering the PEC program,
many of these students with learning disabilities leave home for the first time and must
cope with the same feelings of separation anxiety as do the children they work with.
Although anecdotal records have been maintained over PEC's 22 years of operation, this
study is the first effort to assess formally the graduates' vocational and independent living
status. The researchers gathered arrange of demographic, vocational and social
adjustment data on over 100 PEC graduates. Due to the retrospective nature of the study,
it was not possible to employ a control group. Therefore, the study is descriptive in
nature, focusing on various vocational outcomes of the group, in particular rate of
employment, salary levels, and financial independence.
Relatively few follow-up studies have been conducted analyzing postsecondary programs
and vocational services for young adults with learning disabilities (LD). There are,
however, a number of studies that have investigated vocational outcomes of persons with
LD, though not in the context of postsecondary services.
Okolo and Sitlington (1986) have written a comprehensive overview of vocational
adjustment studies. In summarizing results from the studies reviewed, the authors
reported that young adults with learning disabilities tend to find employment at
approximately the same rate as their non-learning disabled age peers, but that it is often
part-time work and tends to be minimum wage at best.
A number of more recent investigations report less favorable employment outcomes for
young adults with learning disabilities (Edgar, 1988; Hasazi et al., 1989; Roessler et
al.,1990; U.S. Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services, 1989; Valdes,
Williamson, & Wagner, 1990). Whereas employment rates vary widely in these reports,
they are consistently below those reported for non-college bound young adults without
disabilities. These studies also report substantially lower employment rates for females
than males.
The problem of low salary and financial dependence has been described by a number of
authors. A report issued by the ACLD Scientific Studies Commission (1982) surveyed
562 adults with learning disabilities, and found that 61% of those employed earned less
than $10,000 per year. Edgar's (1987) follow-up study of young adults with learning
disabilities also found low salary levels for the group, with only 18% of those working
earning more than minimum wage. Similarly, Valdes et al. (1990) reported that only 23%
of young adults with learning disabilities earned hourly wages of more than $5.00; that
number diminished to only 14% for young women with learning disabilities. Finally, The
Eleventh Annual Report to Congress on the Education of the Handicapped Act (1989)
stated the average hourly pay for young adults with learning disabilities is $4.63.
These relatively low salaries create a major obstacle for young adults with learning
disabilities who strive to live independently. Hoffman et al. (1987), who conducted a
needs assessment of 381 LD young adults, reported that of those surveyed, 68% relied
upon their parents as the primary source of financial support. The Eleventh Annual
Report to Congress on the Education of the Handicapped Act (1989) found that only 22%
of young adults with learning disabilities live independently, although others (Affleck,
Edgar, Levine, & Kortering, 1989) reported a somewhat higher percentage able to sustain
an independent living situation.
Several vocational outcome studies have found a relatively high rate of job dissatisfaction
among individuals with learning disabilities. The ACLD Scientific Studies Commission
survey (1982), found that of those working adults, half reported feeling dissatisfied with
their jobs. White, Schumaker, Warner, Alley, and Deshler (1980) compared LD and non-
LD adults 1 to 7 years after high school, and found that the group with learning
disabilities felt less satisfied with their employment situations. Alley, Deshler, Clark,
Schumaker, and Warner (1983) reported that adults classified as LD in secondary school
were less satisfied with their occupations than their non-LD peers. In contrast, Vetter
(1983), who conducted a follow-up study of 63 young adults with learning disabilities,
noted that over half the sample held jobs of significantly lower social status than their age
peers, and yet there was no difference in the proportion of learning disabled individuals
who expressed dissatisfaction with their jobs.
Unemployment, underemployment, and the ensuing limitations on independent living and
life satisfaction all serve to underscore the urgent need for a clearer understanding of
what types of vocational training programs are most effective in enhancing the
employment futures of non-college bound young adults with learning disabilities.
Method
A questionnaire was piloted with 35 PEC graduates in order to ascertain whether they
could complete the survey independently. Care was taken to word questions in simple
concrete language and to keep each page visually uncluttered. The questionnaire asked
for basic demographic information; employment history and job satisfaction; educational
attainment; aspects of independent living, such as financial resources and living situation
as well as for opinions regarding the PEC program itself. The pilot survey led to a
number of changes in wording and order of questions; however, the content and format
remained basically unchanged.
The revised questionnaire was sent to 220 PEC graduates. This number represented all
graduates since 1969, except for a small number whose whereabouts were unknown. A
stamped, addressed envelope was included to encourage the return of questionnaires, and
individuals who did not respond within 3 weeks of the initial mailing were telephoned. A
second questionnaire was sent out when necessary. One hundred thirteen responses were
collected, resulting in a response rate of 51%. In order to test whether sampling bias
existed, 10 nonrespondents were randomly selected and interviewed by telephone. In
comparing responses of respondents and nonrespondents, it was found that the
nonrespondents did not differ significantly (p <.95) from respondents in the significant
areas of inquiry. Thus, while the 51% response rate poses a limitation as far as
generalizability, it was concluded that the sample was acceptable in terms of fairly
representing PEC graduates.
Seventeen items from the questionnaire-related to past and present employment, salary,
financial independence, and job satisfaction-were devised as dependent variables
measuring vocational outcomes. Frequencies, means and standard deviations were
determined for each variable.
Results
Descriptive Information
The sample obtained (N=113) was 87% female, reflecting the PEC focus on
paraprofessional training in early childhood education, a field traditionally dominated by
women. It should be noted that because of this sampling bias, generalizations cannot be
drawn to other groups of individuals with learning disabilities.
Table 1 presents other descriptive statistics for the group.
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics on PEC Graduates
Variable
Age
n
M SD Mid Max
113 27.4 4.7 20.0 43.0
Date of PEC 113
Graduation
1969 1987
Full-Scale IQ 109 81.9 8.5 66.0 102.0
According to Table 1, the date of graduation of subjects spanned nearly 20 years,
however, the majority of respondents were recent graduates, with 62% having graduated
between 1982 and 1987. In terms of intellectual functioning, 82% of the subjects were
functioning at a low average level or borderline level as measured by Wechsler Adult
Intelligence Scale-Revised (Wechsler, 1981) Full-Scale IQ scores, which indicates that
on the whole this is a relatively impaired learning disabled group. Information on high
school placements for this group varied considerably, with 20% having been in regular
high school classes; 19% in partially mainstreamed classes; 28% in public school selfcontained special classes; and 33% in private or boarding special schools for students
with learning disabilities.
Employment
Over 76% of the subjects are currently employed. Among those not working, a number
are either homemakers (4%), or volunteers (4%), leaving 16% who are neither working
inside or outside of the home. The vast majority of employed subjects (70%) are
currently working as classroom paraprofessionals with 87% reporting having worked at
some point since graduation from the PEC in this capacity, indicating that the program
successfully prepares students to work in educational settings. A sizable number (48%)
report having worked in a job other than as an educational paraprofessional at sometime
following graduation. The reasons given for this varied, with no single explanation
predominating. Of those reporting having worked in jobs other than as a
paraprofessional; 29% said they were unable to get a job as a paraprofessional; 29% cited
better salaries in other jobs; 24% were more interested in other types of work; and 18%
did not give a specific reason. A variety of jobs held outside of educational settings were
reported, including: clerical worker, nurse's aide, security guard, mail clerk, and retail
salesperson.
Salary and Job Satisfaction
Current salary was reported by 74% of the sample (a number of subjects stated they did
not wish to give this information). While the high rate of employment is an extremely
favorable outcome, the salaries reported by those working are low, with more than half of
the PEC graduates earning annual salaries of $10,000 and below. Of those working, a
little over half (54%) receive some health benefits from their employer. Current salary
levels are presented in
Table 2.
Current Salary of PEC Graduates
Salary
% of Graduates
Under $5,000
31.3
$5,000 - $10,000
30.1
$10,000 - $15,000
22.9
Over $15,000
15.7
n=83
It should be noted that states individually establish standards for paraprofessional
certification, differentiating between teacher aides and teacher assistants. Graduates of
PEC have been eligible for higher paying jobs only in those states that recognize them as
teacher assistants. Although PEC graduates receive six university credits for the 2-year
program, these six credits tend to be the minimum requirement for employment as a
teaching assistant in many areas.
It is significant that despite low salaries, the vast majority of subjects working as
paraprofessionals report having very positive feelings about their work. Seventy-nine
percent expressed extremely positive feelings about their job; only 5% do not like their
work, with the remaining 16% relatively neutral. It may thus be inferred that this group of
subjects derives intrinsic benefits from their work since the financial rewards are small.
The high rate of job satisfaction may also reflect sampling bias in that those graduates
who returned the questionnaire might be likely to have more positive feelings about their
lives than those who did not respond, however, this hypothesis was not substantiated by
the results of the phone interviews conducted with nonrespondents.
Financial Independence
Many of the subjects continue to be financially dependent upon others, primarily their
parents, which may in part be explained by their low salaries. Table 3 presents results in
this area.
Table 3
Percent of PEC Graduates Receiving Financial Support*
Primary Source of Support
% of Graduates
Parents
57
Spouse
16
Supplemental Security Income or Welfare
13
Other
10
Total
96
n=61
* Note: Financial support is defined as receiving over $500 per year.
Despite their need for financial support, the majority of subjects make some contribution
toward their expenses. For example, over 60% of subjects report making a contribution to
their housing, travel, clothing, and food costs.
Discussion
The present study yielded a number of important results pertaining to the vocational
status of a relatively impaired learning disabled group subsequent to a 2-year
postsecondary job training program.
The high rate of employment, strongly positive attitude of most subjects toward their
work, and ability of subjects to contribute to their living expenses all suggest that in some
vital respects this group has been able to achieve a degree of autonomy and productivity.
These positive outcomes are tempered by the fact that the majority of subjects are earning
salaries too low to render them economically independent, and furthermore, that they
have not experienced much upward mobility.
The employment rate found in this study is consistent with outcomes summarized in the
vocational adjustment studies cited by Okolo and Sitlington (1986), and exceeds those
reported by others (Roessler et al., 1990; U.S. Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitation Services, 1989; Valdes et al., 1990). Of particular importance is the fact
that the employment rate of this largely female sample far surpassed that of other female
groups previously studied (Hasazi et al., 1989; Valdes et al., 1990). One possible
explanation for this outcome is the flexibility and rewarding nature of human service
careers, as opposed to other types of vocations, such as food services, manual labor or
trade work, which are jobs more typically held by young adults with learning disabilities
(Valdes et al., 1990).
The salaries reported by PEC graduates were similar to other employed young adults with
learning disabilities (Hasazi et al., 1989; U.S. Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitation Services, 1989; Valdes et al., 1990). The constricted economic mobility of
this group was a consequential finding, and may indicate the limited ability of most
subjects to move into higher level jobs over time. It also reflects the low salaries offered
in most educational settings. The high level of job satisfaction reported by the majority
(79%) of subjects has not been found in other previous studies. Again, the difference may
be related to the fad that PEC students are trained in human service careers, with many
working in jobs that are demanding, but personally rewarding. Whereas preparation for
careers outside human services remains a viable option for many young adults with
learning disabilities, the apparent success of the PEC curriculum allows for growth not
generally provided through other types of career training programs. PEC students often
learn concepts and skills for the first time through the process of learning how to teach
these skills or concepts to young children or to elderly persons. Students develop mastery
without being insulted by the level of instruction or embarrassed at not having established
previous mastery. The curriculum is presented in the context of "This is what you need to
know in order to teach others."
Additionally, the PEC program is comprehensive, emphasizing not only vocational
training per se, but also working with students to develop a range of job-related and
independent living functions, including money management and travel skills. Offering
this in a university setting completes the requirements for most students and their families
who want the normal college life that others may take for granted. Thus, the relatively
high job satisfaction may also be related to the depth of the training involved in preparing
PEC students to enter the world of work.
In conclusion, a number of weaknesses of the study should be noted. First, the sample
consisted of those PEC graduates who mailed back the questionnaire, representing
slightly more than half of all graduates. Although telephone interviews with a randomly
selected sample of nonrespondents did not reveal differences between respondents and
nonrespondents in significant areas, the possibility of sampling bias poses a limitation in
terms of the generalizability of the study. Second, the lack of a control group permits no
comparison between outcomes of this group and, for example, a group of young adults
with learning disabilities that did not receive postsecondary vocational training. Future
research that studies differences in vocational outcomes between young adults with
learning disabilities who receive intensive vocational training and those who do not
would be extremely valuable.
The field is just beginning to recognize that there are substantial numbers of "aging out"
individuals with learning disabilities who are relatively more impaired than the typical
young adult with learning disabilities, and who want the life experience of college and
need postsecondary training in order to develop necessary job and independent living
skills. Given the importance of providing services that can effectively help such
individuals achieve satisfying and productive lives, there is a clear need for further
research that will illuminate the effectiveness of innovative interventions such as the PEC
program.
Preparation of this article was supported in part through a grant to Jane E. Herzog from
the Spencer Foundation, through their Awards to Young Scholars Program.
The authors gratefully acknowledge Jay Gottlieb and Daniel Herman for their assistance
in the preparation of this article. Requests for reprints should be sent to Dr. Jane E.
Herzog, The Para-Educator Center for Young Adults, New York University, One
Washington Place, New York, NY 10003.
References
Affleck, J., Edgar, E., Levine, P., & Kortering, L. (1989). Postschool status of students
classified as mildly mentally retarded, learning disabled, or nonhandicapped: Does it get
better with time? Seattle: University of Washington.
Alley, G. R., Deshler, D. D., Clark, F. L., Schumaker, J. B., & Warner, M. M. (1983).
Learning disabilities in adolescent and adult populations: Research implications (part II).
Focus on Exceptional Children, 15, 1-14.
ACLD Scientific Studies Committee. (1982). ACLD Newsbrief (Research update l-X).
Author.
Edgar, E. (1987). Secondary programs in special education: Are many of them
justifiable? Exceptional Children, 53, 555-561.
Hasazi, S. B., Johnson, R. E., Hasazi, J. E., Gordon, L. R., & Hull, M. (1989).
Employment of youth with and without handicaps following high school: Outcomes and
correlates. The Journal of Special Education, 23, 243-254.
Hoffman, F. J., Sheldon, K. L., Minskoff, E. H., Sautter, S. W., Steidle, E. F., Baker, D.
P., Bailey, M. B., & Echols, L. D. (1987). Needs of learning disabled adults. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 20, 43-52.
McGuire, J. M., Norlander, K. A., & Shaw, S. (1990). Postsecondary education for
students with learning disabilities: Forecasting challenges for the future. Learning
Disabilities Focus, 5(2),69-74.
Okolo, C. M., & Sitlington, P. L. (1986). The role of special education in LD adolescents'
transition from school to work. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 9, 141-155.
Rogan, L. L., & Hartman, L. D. (1976). A follow-up study of learning disabled children
as adults (Final Report). Evanston, IL: Cove School Research Office. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 163 728).
Roessler, R. T., Brolin, D. E. & Johnson, J. M. (1990). Factors affecting employment
success and quality of life: A one year follow-up of students in special education. Career
Development for Exceptional Individuals, 13, 95-107.
Schalock, R. L., Wolzen, B., Ross, I., Werbel, G., & Peterson, K. (1986). Postsecondary
community placement of handicapped students: A five-year follow-up. Learning
Disabilities Quarterly, 9, 295-303.
Spreen, O. (1983). Learning disabled children growing up: A follow-up into adulthood
(Grant MA-6972 and 81/2). Toronto: University of Victoria.
U.S. Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services, Division of Innovation &
Development (1989). Eleventh annual report to Congress on the implementation of the
Education of the Handicapped Act. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Valdes, K. A., Williamson, C. L., & Wagner, M. M. (1990). The national longitudinal
transition study of special education students: Statistical almanac, Vol. 2: Youth
categorized as learning disabled. (Contract No. 300-87-0054). Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs.
Vetter, A. A (1983). A comparison of the characteristics of learning disabled and
nonlearning (sic) disabled young adults. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Kansas, Lawrence.
Wallace, G., & McLoughlin, J. A. (1988). Learning disabilities: Concepts and
characteristics (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill Publishing Co.
Wechsler D. (1981). Wechsler Adult intelligence Scale-Revised. New York:
Psychological Corporation.
White, W. J.,Schumaker, J. B.,Warner, M. M.,Alley, G. R.,& Deshler, D. D. (1980). The
current status of young adults identified as learning disabled during their school career.
Lawrence: University of Kansas Institute for Research in Learning Disabilities.