No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
Although increased attention in special education has been given to individual transition planning, little research has been done to assess student opinions and knowledge on this process. The majority of research has focused on “best practice” to ensure quality transition planning for students. This study surveyed 103 students receiving special education services at a large high school in Texas to assess student knowledge and perceptions on the current transition planning process. Students surveyed represent those with mild to moderate disabling conditions (intellectual disability, learning disability, emotional disturbance, autism, speech, and other health impairment) and were educated in a spectrum of general education and special education classrooms. Results are discussed in terms of how the students in special education have been educated on the transition process, how the special education staff used student goals and desires in writing transition plans, and overall student perceptions of the process. History of Transition Planning Education planning for individuals with disabilities has undergone radical changes since the creation of PL 94-142, the Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA) in 1975, which first mandated a free and appropriate public education for children with disabilities. This law was significantly updated in 1990 when PL 101-476, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was enacted. Some of the changes included the provision of medical services, specialized transportation, related services, and the mandate for transition services. Even more recently, the Amendments to IDEA, both in 1997 and 2004, require a transition plan by age 16. This individualized transition plan requires participation from the student and the establishment of linkages to adult service providers in order to facilitate the transition process and help assure against a gap in services upon exiting high school. Congress provided clear guidance to the delivery of transition services in the reauthorization of IDEA in 2004: The term ‘transition services’ means a coordinated set of activities for a child with a disabil ity that— (A) is designed to be a resultsoriented 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 post-secondary education, vocational education, integrated employment (including supported employment), continuing and adult education, adult services, independent living, or community participation; (B) is based on the individual child’s needs, taking into account the child’s strengths, preferences, and interests . . . “ (Section 1401) More recently, with the passing of Indicator 14 of the State Performance Plan on Effective Transition, school districts are now being held accountable for the post-secondary success of students served through special education (Post-School Outcome Center, 2005). The transition plan is critical in outlining and preparing for this success. In general, past research has shown that students with disabilities achieve post-school outcomes at a much lower rate than do their non-disabled peers (Mithaug, Horiuchi, & Fanning, 1985; Sittlington, & Frank, 1990). This spans across the four main categories of post-secondary outcomes, which include employment, post-secondary education, independent living, and community integration (National Transition Network, 1997; Wagner et al., 1991). Another study found fewer than half of students with disabilities were employed full time two years following their high school graduation (Wagner, et al, 1991). In addition, Blackorby and Wagner (1996) found that African-American and Hispanic students with disabilities earned less in wages and had even more difficulty finding employment when compared to Anglo students with disabilities. Less favorable outcomes occurred in studies of post-secondary education and students with disabilities. Students with learning disabilities often make inappropriate career decisions because they do not realize how 14 Volume 29, Number 3, Spring 2007 their own personal interests and characteristics fit into the career decision profile (Jagger, Neukrug, & McAuliffe, 1992). The original National Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS) concluded that only 22.5% of students with disabilities access post-secondary education compared with 56% of the general population (Wagner et al., 1991). However, more recent research shows improvements in that 31% of students with disabilities access post-secondary education within two years of leaving high school (Newman, 2005). As part of transition-focused research in the past decade, different strategies were considered to determine how to maximize benefits to students with disabilities. These specific strategies are now critical in ensuring optimal results for transition planning. One of the most promising is the use of self-determination and maximizing student-centered planning. Student-Centered Planning through Self-Determination For best practice in transition planning, the focus must remain on the student, keeping the personal goals of the student in mind, as indicated in IDEA 2004. Including the student in all decision-making required in transition planning enables his or her plan to be more meaningful (Wehmeyer, 1998). In fact Thoma (1997) found that a student who implemented his or her own transition plan achieved a higher employment rate after high school and experienced a more independent living setting away from parental homes. Self-determination is defined as being the primary agent who makes decisions and causes things to happen in one’s life (Wehmeyer, 1997). In terms of self-determination, Wehmeyer and Schwartz (1997) concluded that adults who expressed higher self-determination achieved higher post-secondary outcomes than individuals with lower skills in self-determination. In recent years, self-advocacy and self-determination have been used to help foster students’ participation in studentcentered planning. Past research clearly shows that students who have been shown self-determination skills speak up more during transition planning meetings than students who have not been taught selfdetermination strategies (Wehmeyer, 1997). However, learning the aspects of self-determined behavior takes time. These skills must be taught gradually, starting at a young age. As the student matures, greater responsibility and expectations may be placed on the student (Morningstar, Kleinhammer-Tramill, & Lattin, 1999). For instance, the student can attend the first transition planning meeting and offer input regarding transition goals. However, students should be leading the meeting and guiding all decisions by his or her senior year in high school. Several curricula have been developed based on research to teach students with disabilities selfdetermination and self-advocacy skills. Examples of these models are Steps to Self-Determination (Hoffman & Field, 2005), Next S.T.E.P.S. (Halpern, Herr, & Doren, 2000), and Choicemaker (Martin et al, 1996). For student-centered planning to reach its full potential for developing student dreams and goals, students must learn to fully participate in transition planning process. Student involvement in education planning through Individualized Education Plans (IEP) is critical to develop decision-making and other self-determination skills (Martin, Huber Marshall, & DePry, 2001). Johnson et al. (2002) spoke to the importance of improving student attendance at meetings in order to facilitate participation. It is important to note that student participation can occur through different forms. Participation may range from active, which includes leading one’s own meeting, to limited, such as actively speaking during the meeting, to absent, which involves being present in the room but providing no information. One way to maximize active participation is to limit the number of participants in the meeting based on the student’s desires. Finally, use careful consideration in inviting members to a meeting who are not strong supports for the student (Whitney-Thomas, Shaw, Honey, & Butterworth, 1998). The field currently knows of the benefits to students to providing opportunities to increase self-determined behavior (Wehmeyer, Agran, & Hughes, 1998) and in allowing students’ active participation within their IEP meetings. In addition, research indicates that students are often unclear as to the purpose of educational planning meetings (Martin, Huber Marshall, & Sale, 2004). However, educators need to learn as much as possible in terms of what students know about transition planning so changes can be made within school programs. The purpose of this research is to determine what knowledge students have in terms of transition planning and how students perceive the role of school personnel in their transition planning.
Loading…
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 23 citations exist upstream.
Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.