The transition planning process for students with disabilities starts when a child enters high school or turns 16, this is a process to help the students learn functional skills or take classes that will better help prepare them for life outside of the school settings.
Transition planning is very important for students with disabilities, especially when they prepare to enter high school. The transition section can be opened in the IEP as early as middle school, usually in the 7thgrade year. It is also important that the transition section be written in a way that will benefit the students and prepare them to enter into the real world upon graduating from high school. The transition plan must be written and take effect for students with an IEP and who are receiving special education services by the age of 16 or younger, and it has to be reviewed and updated each year until the student graduates from high school or no longer receives services (Gibb, & Dyches, p. 107, 2016). The transition section needs to include three main components: Post-secondary goals and assessments that are both appropriate and measurable that pertain to education, required job training, employment, and independent living skills, what transition services or courses will be provided to help students meet their goals, and a statement that the students have been informed of their adult rights to be transferred when they reach the age of majority (Gibb, & Dyches, p. 107, 2016). The post-secondary goals that are written in the transition section of the IEP needs to come from some sort of transition assessment given to the students based on their interests and strengths. When deciding upon the types of transition services to provide to students with disabilities, they can include instruction such as taking class to improve academic skills, community experiences such as hands-on job experiences, or assistance with independent living skills like how to prepare and manage a household budget (Gibb, & Dyches, p. 108, 2016).
source 2.pdf
TEACHING ExcEptional childrEn | January/FEbruary 2015 147
T E A
C H
IN G
E xc
ep ti
on a l C h il d re
n ,
V o l. 4
7, N
o .
3, p
p .
14 7 –
15 2.
C o p yr
ig h t
20 15
T h e
A u th
o r(
s) . D
O I:
1 0.
11 77
/0 04
00 59
91 45
59 78
0
Lakeview High School is a medium- sized high school in a rural farming community. The staff at Lakeview meets at the beginning of each school year to discuss building-level professional development plans. This year, Lakeview’s special education team has requested to focus its professional development time on improving special education services for students with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The team is seeing an increasing number of students with ASD who are highly skilled academically yet have complex needs around social behavior, self- management, and independent living—skills necessary for success in postsecondary environments. The team recognizes that this type of instruction does not seem to fit easily in the existing high school schedule, and the goals that the teachers write to increase student self-management skills and develop social awareness are difficult to implement. Yet, given the importance of these social, emotional, and communication skills, the team plans to work together to develop better programming for its students with ASD.
The Challenge of Transition Planning and IEPs for Students With ASD
Adolescence can be a stressful time for many students. During the high school years, young people work to develop new identities and make decisions about the future, including where they will live, what they will do (postsecondary education or career), and who will be their friends (Test, Smith, & Carter, 2014). For any student, these changes are difficult. For adolescents with ASD, the difficulty is greater because of their unique challenges. Specifically, students with ASD display both (a) persistent deficits in social communication and (b) restricted, repetitive patterns of behavior and interests that are significant enough to impair social, occupational, or other functions (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). That is, students with ASD experience greater social communication difficulties than what would be expected for other students their age. Adolescents with ASD also have higher levels of repetitive
behavior and restrictive interest than their peers with other disabilities, making transitions and coping with change more difficult (Smith, Barker, Seltzer, Abbeduto, & Greenberg, 2012). Anxiety may pose challenges when students engage in exploring, planning, and preparing for the future (White, Oswald, Ollendick, & Scahill, 2009). Similarly, limitations in social communication, a core feature of ASD, may make it particularly difficult for students with ASD to understand social situations and to express interests, needs, and goals about the future (Wehmeyer, Shogren, Zager, Smith, & Simpson, 2010).
For teachers, writing IEPs for students with ASD who are transitioning out of high school can pose unique challenges, as the specific needs of each student need to be taken into consideration. Students may demonstrate significant variation in their academic, language, social, and behavioral skills. For example, some students with ASD may read fluently but struggle to comprehend text. Other students may excel at standardized science assessments but have difficulty
559780TCXXXX10.1177/0040059914559780
Five Steps for Developing Effective Transition Plans for High School Students With Autism Spectrum Disorder Katherine Szidon, Andrea Ruppar, and Leann Smith
Original Article
148 council For ExcEptional childrEn
Although academic skills may be strong for some students with ASD, these same students often demonstrate significant challenges in their social and adaptive skills that can affect their independence. By planning for teaching and supporting these important skill areas, the team can develop a well- rounded plan for success in postsecondary settings.
completing lab assignments due to the social demands of working with other students in their class. A student with ASD might have a significant strength in music, but lack of hygiene may be a barrier to being accepted by peers in the school orchestra. The aspirations and interests of students with ASD can be extremely varied. Some students might want to plan for college, others for careers; some students will look toward increasing community engagement and exploring independent living options, and still others, a combination of these options (Shogren & Plotner, 2012). Further, students with ASD often have very intense and, at times, limited interests that can make it difficult to find an appropriate postsecondary goal that is a good fit. For educators to effectively plan for the range of outcomes expected from students with ASD, individualized and carefully tailored programming is required for students to make maximum gains.
Guidelines for Writing Transition Plans
The Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA; 2006) requires schools to develop transition plans for students with disabilities, beginning at age 16, if not before. The regulations define transition planning as a “coordinated set of activities” that help
students move from school into postschool activities (20 U.S.C. §1401[34]). For students with ASD, the transition planning process includes unique considerations.
Step 1: Identify Transition Goals
In designing a transition IEP, the team should begin by considering the student’s needs in the areas of postsecondary education, employment, and independent living. Formal transition assessments can provide essential guidance for the team. Numerous assessments are available to measure adaptive and social skills in high school students and can provide school teams with a current level of functioning. For example, the National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center (NSTTAC) provides several resources for teams searching for appropriate transition assessments in a variety of domains (see Walker, Kortering, Fowler, Rowe, & Bethune, 2013). In addition, Virginia Commonwealth University’s Autism Center for Excellence (2014) lists a number of language tests that provide information about communication and social engagement in order to help teams design interventions for students with ASD.
Using the data from a transition assessment, the IEP team can identify postsecondary goals. An important part of this process is determining future environments the student will access, considering the skills necessary to be successful in those environments, and assessing the student performance on skills in those areas. One common error in transition assessment and goal writing for students with ASD is the failure to consider and assess student challenges in core areas that are associated with autism (Ruble, McGrew, Dalrymple, & Jung, 2010). Although academic skills may be strong for some students with ASD, these same students often demonstrate significant challenges in their social and adaptive skills that can affect their independence. By planning for teaching and supporting these important skill areas, the team can develop a well-rounded plan for success in postsecondary settings.
After conducting assessments, the IEP team should use the information gathered to create appropriate, measureable postsecondary goals and develop transition services (including courses of study) necessary for the student to meet the goals. Specifically, federal regulations stipulate that measurable postsecondary goals must be developed in the areas of training, education, and employment. If appropriate, the team may also develop goals for independent living (20 U.S.C. § 1414 [d][1][A][i][VIII]).
Step 2: Link Postsecondary Goals With IEP Goals
Once the team develops measurable postsecondary goals in education, employment, and independent living areas, annual IEP goals can be written. At least one IEP goal should align with and support each of the student’s postsecondary goals. There should be a clear connection between postsecondary goals (to be achieved after graduation) and IEP goals (to be achieved in an academic year). A common error in transition IEP writing is to have measurable postsecondary goals and measurable IEP goals with no link between the two. This is especially problematic for students with ASD, for whom generalization of skills is particularly difficult. Team members, students with ASD, and their families all need to see a clear link between the goals learned in high school and postschool aspirations. High school teams should research the skills needed for the desired career and identify areas where students with ASD might struggle. In this way, the IEP document helps train students in the skills necessary for postschool success. For examples of aligned IEP and postsecondary goals, see Table 1.
Step 3: Troubleshoot and Adjust Transition and IEP Goals
A high-quality transition IEP is built on measurable goals. To be useful after graduation, skills should be generalizable to postsecondary employment, education, or independent
TEACHING ExcEptional childrEn | January/FEbruary 2015 149
living. IEP goals need four key components: (a) the student’s name, (b) an observable skill that the student will improve, (c) the conditions under which the skill should be performed, and (d) a criterion for reaching the goal. However, depending on the goal, a teacher might have difficulty with any of the last three components. To assist IEP teams with troubleshooting transition and IEP goals, we present three potential pitfalls in writing transition IEP goals: (a) goals that amount to only passive participation, (b) goals that are too specific to a particular curriculum, and (c) goals that measure only episodic events.
Passive participation. Identifying supports that will help students succeed in school is an important priority when planning a transition IEP. Equally important is to distinguish between the goal and the supports needed to reach a goal. Consider the following example:
Chris’s special education teacher has noticed that Chris struggles with organization. As a result, Chris fails to bring his homework back to school. She knows that Chris aspires to attend a community college to study computer-aided drawing and will need to build good organizational skills to stay on top of his college courses. She includes the following goal in his IEP: Chris will continue to take a study hall to allow for time during the school day to complete work and to maintain his study and organizational skills (revisiting what he currently uses and
make improvements where necessary), every quarter as his schedule allows.
Team members, students with ASD, and their families all need to see a clear link between the goals learned in high school and postschool aspirations.
If Chris does nothing, the goal will automatically be met. Instead, taking study hall should be part of the support he receives to meet the goal of completing work and improving his organizational skills. Chris’s teacher should reword the goal to ensure that the specific skills she wants him to improve—checking his assignment notebook, completing assigned work, and crossing out completed assignments—are targeted for instruction. A revised goal could read, In study hall, Chris will improve his organizational skills by (a) checking his assignment notebook at the beginning of each study hall and (b) crossing out completed assignments in his assignment notebook with 90% accuracy across three consecutive weeks of data collection. This goal identifies study hall as the context in which he will address the goal of organization. By specifying the context, Chris’s team will ensure that Chris continues to participate in study hall, where he will work on a goal that will enhance his participation in postsecondary education.
Too specific to curriculum. Many teachers rely on a specific, published curriculum to support their instruction. Similarly, some schools may have adopted schoolwide behavior programs to support student behavior. When writing IEP goals, it can be helpful to consider the outcome of participating in a curriculum or program to ensure that a targeted transition skill will be generalized beyond the teaching setting.
For example, Tonya, a senior, aspires to work in the animal care field after she graduates from high school. She reports that she has difficulty following verbal directions. Consequently, she becomes frustrated and verbally lashes out at teachers and paraprofessionals. As part of her behavior intervention plan, Tonya participates in a point system for using appropriate language, displaying good listening behaviors, and staying in class (rather than leaving partway through). Her case manager has written the following goal: Tonya will earn an average of 7 positive points each day.
Although these behaviors are important for her future employment goals, the point system is implemented only at school. This goal is too specific to a curriculum and not generalizable to postschool outcomes. A revised goal could read as follows: When Tonya does not understand what to do in class, she will use a self-monitoring checklist consisting of the following options: (a) reread directions on the
Table 1. Aligned Annual IEP and Postsecondary Goals
Postsecondary goal Annual IEP goal
Upon completion of high school, Chris will enroll in a community college to study computer-aided drawing.
Given instruction in word-processing and keyboarding skills, Chris will accurately type 15 words per minute in four out of five opportunities across one semester of data (in order to prepare him to study computer-aided drawing after graduating high school).
After graduation from high school, Tonya will independently use community transportation, including public buses, taxis, and the ride-share system.
Given instruction in bus riding, Tonya will complete the steps necessary for her to arrive at five identified community destinations with 100% accuracy across five consecutive opportunities (in order to prepare her to independently ride community transportation after she graduates high school).
Note. IEP = individualized education program.
150 council For ExcEptional childrEn
board, (b) check with a neighbor, or (c) raise her hand to request assistance, and select an appropriate strategy to obtain help, with no more than one teacher prompt per class period across 6 weeks of instruction.
By using a self-monitoring checklist that includes these strategies, Tonya will develop problem-solving skills. Moreover, a self-monitoring checklist could be used in a workplace as an appropriate support to maintain employment.
Episodic events. When identifying postschool goals, it is important to determine skills that (a) will enable the student to fully participate in adult life and (b) can be measured over time. Some activities might help students reach goals but happen only once.
For example, Caleb’s teacher thinks engaging in a career exploration activity will help Caleb identify his personal goals and enhance his self-determination. She writes the following goal: Caleb will participate in a career exploration assessment to identify possible career goals.
A week after the IEP meeting, Caleb’s teacher administers the assessment. Caleb identifies three different office jobs he would like to try. The goal has been met; it is episodic and cannot be measured over time. Had the assessment occurred prior to the IEP meeting, Caleb’s
teacher could have written a goal that would promote his attainment of career goals. The following is an example of a goal that would measure Caleb’s ability to complete writing tasks in an office setting as well as in his academic classes: During writing tasks using a laptop computer, Caleb will increase his typing fluency from six to 30 words per minute across three consecutive trials by April 2015. This goal includes conditions (“during writing tasks using a laptop computer”) and a criterion (“30 words per minute . . . by April 2015”), and it can be measured over time.
Step 4: Provide Opportunities to Teach Skills
Once critical skills have been identified, however, high school staff members might experience difficulty identifying where to incorporate the specially designed instruction into a student’s school day. This can be especially tricky for students with ASD, as their unique profile of strengths and learning needs makes it difficult to plan a course of study without having gaps in instruction. For students with a full load of academic instruction, finding time to offer adaptive skill development or social curriculum may require creative
planning and difficult decision making on the part of the IEP team.
In the absence of a clearly scheduled time and plan for direct teaching, students may receive inadequate amounts of instruction and practice time needed to acquire the new skill, with a low likelihood of generalization. Ongoing evaluation of student needs and high school offerings is one way to help support a flexible curriculum that can adapt to the unique and varied needs of students with ASD. Once an IEP goal has been developed, careful consideration should be given to where the skill can best be taught within the student’s school day. For instance, it may be necessary to add a communications class as an option for students who need individualized instruction in social skills. Schools might also institute an organizational check in class at the beginning or the end of a school day in order to support students who need help with executive function activities like homework planning and organization of their work and school schedules. Electives that teach skills such as meal preparation, personal finance, and career readiness, can be highly beneficial for students with ASD, particularly those for whom other classes in functional skills may be inappropriate. As teams consider adding these courses for students with ASD, it is useful to remember that students might benefit from having academic course work spread out longer than the traditional 4-year high school experience, consistent with IDEA, to access additional courses to prepare them for all of their postsecondary goals. Changing course offerings can be difficult and may be outside the control of IEP teams in some districts. In the absence of targeted courses, teams will need to creatively work together to determine how to integrate generalization of social and other skills within current class parameters while advocating for other options for the future.
Step 5: Evaluate Progress
A well-crafted transition IEP should provide the team with valuable
TEACHING ExcEptional childrEn | January/FEbruary 2015 151
information about student progress toward realizing postsecondary goals. If the IEP goal has been written in a manner that is observable, and the performance conditions and criteria are well articulated, data should be easy to collect. Unfortunately, high school teachers of students with ASD might not always have effective and precise data collection systems that can inform students’ ongoing progress toward goals. For example, standardized academic scores may not be collected frequently enough to inform instructional changes, or they may not capture social and adaptive skill development. Further, a teacher might decide to measure progress based upon general impressions of student performance or global observations rather than targeted data collected over time. Imprecise data collection systems may make it difficult to detect error patterns and accurately measure skills. Without a careful analysis of the pattern of social and adaptive skill acquisition, teachers risk over- or underestimating their students’ skill levels, leading to future problems engaging in desired postsecondary goals. The following example demonstrates the importance of appropriate data collection to inform instructional support:
Jake’s special education teacher learns that he is forgetting to turn in homework in his mathematics and English classes. To gain more information about what might be happening, she sends out an e-mail to all of his teachers asking them to provide information on his behavior and the frequency with which they gave him reminders. (See Figure 1 for
an example of her data collection survey instrument.)
Once data were collected across the school day, including the level of teacher prompting, the special education teacher found that in all classes, except math and English, Jake’s teachers were reminding him daily and assisting him to turn in his work. His special education teacher realized that Jake was having significant problems with organization, and he required instruction and support in completing and turning in assigned work. With more comprehensive data, the IEP teacher and team designed a measurable goal to increase Jake’s independence in work completion. The team knew this skill would become increasingly important as he transitioned to postsecondary education.
Conclusion
Planning for the incorporation of successful transition supports for high school students with ASD requires IEP teams to consider the unique needs of these students. The five steps outlined in this article can provide IEP teams guidance when identifying appropriate postsecondary goals, developing transition activities to support the goals, and aligning those goals with the annual IEP. With a solid plan in place, teams can work toward developing instructional opportunities to foster skill development and effectively evaluating progress for their students with ASD. Teams that follow these steps ensure increased support for students with ASD as they move toward their postsecondary goals.
Following the step-by-step process, Lakeview High School’s special education team first realized that its transition assessment options did not accurately measure the core skill areas associated with ASD. The team used the resources at NSTTAC as a guide to add more information in its assessment process. The staff members selected the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (Vineland II; Sparrow, Cicchetti, & Balla, 2005) and the Autism Social Skills Profile (ASSP; Bellini, 2006) to help them survey adaptive and social skills. They also discovered that the counseling office had a license for a software program that gave students and teachers access to career-planning resources. The software package included assessments of interests, allowed students to self- report their abilities, and matched this information to careers based on an occupational database that was specific to their state. The team now had a much better sense of students’ unique interests and abilities.
Armed with better information, the team was able to connect assessment data to postsecondary goals. The team realized that many of the students lacked the adaptive skills required to succeed in postsecondary environments. In response, special education staff wrote some new measurable annual goals, aligned to the students’ postsecondary goals that targeted the independent living skills, organization, and social communication necessary to navigate college and the community successfully. The team explored creative ways to offer these skills through three new courses taught by the special education staff: one that targets self-management and independence, one that addressed social communication, and one that offered practice navigating community settings. Through regular progress monitoring, the team was able to track student data on adaptive and social skills, and make appropriate adaptations to instruction in order to better prepare students with ASD for postsecondary success.
References
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of
Figure 1. Missing Homework Data Collection Survey
Please indicate:
A) ____________ missing assignments over the past 4 weeks.
B) ____________ late assignments over the past 4 weeks.
C) How frequently do you provide individual reminders to Jake to turn in assigned work?
____ Never _____ Daily _____ Weekly _____ During Progress Reports
D) Describe any individual support you are providing to help Jake locate and turn in assigned work. _______________________________________.
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
152 council For ExcEptional childrEn
mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: Author.
Bellini, S. (2006). Building social relationships: A systematic approach to teaching social interaction skills to children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorders and other social difficulties. Shawnee Mission, KS: AAPC.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq. (2006 & Supp. V. 2011).
Ruble, L. A., McGrew, J., Dalrymple, N., & Jung, L. A. (2010). Examining the quality of IEPS for young children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 40, 1459–1470.
Shogren, K. A., & Plotner, A. J. (2012). Transition planning for students with intellectual disability, autism, or other disabilities: Data from the National Longitudinal Transition Study–2. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 50, 16–30.
Smith, L. E., Barker, E. T., Seltzer, M. M., Abbeduto, L., & Greenberg, J. S. (2012). Behavioral phenotype of fragile X syndrome in adolescence and adulthood. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 117(1), 1–17.
Sparrow, S. S., Cicchetti, D. V., & Balla, D. A. (2005). Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (2nd ed.). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Test, D.W., Smith, L.E., & Carter, E. W. (2014). Equipping youth with autism spectrum disorders for adulthood: Promoting rigor, relevance, and relationships. Remedial and Special Education, 35, 80–90.
Walker, A. R., Kortering, L. J., Fowler, C. H., Rowe, D., & Bethune, L. (2013). Age appropriate transition assessment toolkit (3rd ed.). Retrieved from http://nsttac .org/content/age-appropriate-transition- assessment-toolkit-3rd-edition
Wehmeyer, M. L., Shogren, K. A., Zager, D., Smith, T. E. C., & Simpson, R. (2010). Research-based principles and practices for educating students with autism: Self-determination and social interactions. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 45, 475–486.
White, S. W., Oswald, D., Ollendick, T., & Scahill, L. (2009). Anxiety in children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorders. Clinical Psychology Review, 29, 216–229.
Virginia Commonwealth University Autism Center for Excellence. (2014). Formal assessments. Retrieved from http://www.vcuautismcenter.org/ta/ communication/formal.cfm
Katherine Szidon, Professional Development Specialist, Waisman Center;
Andrea Ruppar, Assistant Professor, Department of Rehabilitation Psychology and Special Education; and Leann Smith, Associate Scientist, Waisman Center, University of Wisconsin–Madison.
Address correspondence concerning this article to Katherine Szidon, Waisman Center, University of Wisconsin–Madison, 1500 Highland Ave., Madison, WI 53705 (e-mail: [email protected]).
Preparation for this article was supported by a grant from the U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, to support the work of the Center on Secondary Education for Students With Autism Spectrum Disorders (R324C12006; Odom, PI). This research also was supported by grants from the National Institute on Child Health and Human Development (P30 HD03352, M. R. Mailick, PI) and Autism Speaks (7523, L. Smith, PI).
TEACHING Exceptional Children, Vol. 47, No. 3, pp. 147–152.
Copyright 2015 The Author(s).
http://www.vcuautismcenter.org/ta/communication/formal.cfm
http://nsttac.org/content/age-appropriate-transitionassessment-toolkit-3rd-edition
Copyright of Teaching Exceptional Children is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
source 3.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796921992518
Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities 2021, Vol. 46(1) 35 –52 © The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/1540796921992518
rpsd.sagepub.com
Research Article
Effects of a Collaborative Planning and Consultation Framework to Increase Participation of Students with Severe Disabilities in General Education Classes
Emily M. Kuntz1 and Erik W. Carter2
Abstract Although many students with severe disabilities are enrolled in general education classrooms, general educators rarely receive strong training and guidance on supporting the academic and social participation of these students. A multiple probe across participants design was used to evaluate the effectiveness of a collaborative planning and consultation framework on the academic engagement of four middle school students with severe disabilities and the instructional behaviors they receive from their general educators. The intervention package increased each focus student’s academic engagement with classwide instruction and changed the types of instructional behaviors some general educators directed toward these students. Recommendations are offered for research and practice aimed at engaging general educators in the design and delivery of inclusive interventions.
Keywords collaborative planning, severe disabilities, inclusion, middle school
Long-standing legislation supports the rights of students with severe disabilities to access strong instruction within general education classrooms (Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 2004). Moreover, the benefits of well-supported inclusive experiences have been studied extensively (e.g., Agran et al., 2020; Copeland & Cosbey, 2008). Although many students with significant cognitive impairments spend at least some portion of their school day in general education classrooms (Kleinert et al., 2015), the quality of instruction and support they receive can be a concern. Observational studies in general education classrooms often report that secondary students with severe disabilities have few interactions with either general educators or peers and experience low levels of academic engagement (e.g., Carter et al., 2008; Chung et al., 2012, 2019). Therefore, it is important to strengthen the instruction and supports these students receive in general education classrooms.
Within general education classrooms, general educators are important leaders and provide the majority of instruction to enrolled students (Goldhaber, 2016). General educators have the primary responsibility for the instruction of all students attending their classes, including those who have severe disabilities. They serve as a linchpin for services—bridging the individual needs of a student with severe disabilities to the
1The University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA 2Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA
Corresponding Author: Emily Kuntz, Department of Educational Psychology, The University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019, USA. Email: [email protected]
992518RPSXXX10.1177/1540796921992518Research and Practice for Persons with Severe DisabilitiesKuntz and Carter research-article2021
https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/journals-permissions
https://rpsd.sagepub.com
mailto:[email protected]
36 Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities 46(1)
general curriculum. As general educators are usually the only certified teachers in their classrooms and often lack sufficient preparation in this area (Zagona et al., 2017), research-based practices are needed to help them take a more active role in teaching students with severe disabilities.
A recent systematic review of 40 studies indicates that general educators typically have very limited or peripheral roles in the implementation of interventions designed to support the inclusion of students with disabilities (Kuntz et al., in press). General educator involvement was often very modest, such as when they helped plan an intervention, provided feedback on the intervention, or suggested ways in which peers might be involved (e.g., Brock & Carter, 2016; Chung & Carter, 2013). However, a smaller number of studies illustrate how general educators can be more involved in delivering instruction to students with severe dis- abilities. For example, McDonnell and colleagues (2001) examined general educators’ use of a classwide peer tutoring intervention and its impact on students with moderate and severe disabilities. This research underscores the potential impact general educators could have on the instruction of students with severe disabilities.
Furthermore, increasing the involvement of general educators in the instruction of students with severe disabilities would better reflect recommended practice in inclusive education (Jorgensen et al., 2010; Kurth & Gross, 2015). Ryndak and colleagues (2014) recommended that general educators partici- pate in the design, implementation, and evaluation of instruction for students with disabilities. One means of increasing involvement is through collaborative planning. General educators can work with special educators and other service providers (e.g., paraprofessionals) to develop strategies individualized to students with severe disabilities enrolled in their classes. Previous studies have explored collaborative planning and reported positive outcomes for both the general educators and students. For example, Hunt and colleagues (2003) investigated the effectiveness of collaborative planning between a general educa- tor and a special educator on the social and academic participation of elementary school students with severe disabilities. Results indicated a decrease in unengaged time for all six focus students and an increase in their interactions with teachers and peers. Likewise, Biggs and colleagues (2017) evaluated the efficacy of collaborative planning and peer support arrangements to increase peer interactions and augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) use with middle school students with complex com- munication needs. The intervention produced increases in student and peer communication and peer support behaviors. In both of these studies, members of the student teams viewed the collaborative plan- ning process as beneficial and important.
Collaborative planning often requires educators to apply and generalize support behaviors across a range of instructional situations that may not have been explicitly addressed in the initial plan. A collaborative planning intervention may benefit from an added element of support for the implementer. Ongoing consul- tation could assist educators who implement support plans to apply and generalize important student sup- ports within their weekly lessons. This consultation could come from a special educator or a district instructional or inclusion coach. Previous research on collaboration has not often included ongoing consul- tation after the initial planning meetings (e.g., Biggs et al., 2017; Brock et al., 2016). In contrast, Hunt and colleagues (2003) held monthly meetings to create and then assess a Unified Plan of Support for elementary students with severe disabilities in general education classrooms. Although implementation of the plan was measured through self-report each month, teams reported that 42 of the 52 student supports were moder- ately or fully implemented across focus students at the first follow-up meeting and 67 of the 69 supports by the final meeting. Additional research is needed to further explore how such ongoing consultation could be folded into other intervention approaches.
Despite federal mandates requiring the involvement of general educators on Individualized Education Program (IEP) teams and research supporting collaborative planning, no study has evaluated the effects of collaborative planning focused on guiding general educators to implement instruction for students with severe disabilities in their classes with ongoing consultation. In addition, no studies have focused on secondary (i.e., middle or high) school educators who often work as part of larger school teams and teach multiple classes of students. It is unclear what impact this type of educator support could have on the academic engagement of students with severe disabilities in general education classes. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of collaborative planning with ongoing consultation for general
Kuntz and Carter 37
educators serving students with severe disabilities in general education classes. Three questions were addressed:
1. Does the academic engagement and interactions of students with severe disabilities increase when their general educators deliver lessons using the collaborative planning with consultation (CPC) process?
2. Does the introduction of the CPC process lead to changes in the percent and types of interactions general educators have with students with severe disabilities?
3. How do general educators view the social validity of the CPC process?
Method
Participants
After receiving institutional review board approval, we recruited participants. Each general educator (a) had at least one student with severe disabilities enrolled in at least one class, (b) taught at the middle or high school level, and (c) taught their class using traditional instructional approaches (e.g., direct instruction, guided practice, and independent practice) that could accommodate a planning framework aligned to these approaches. Focus students had to (a) attend a public middle or high school; (b) have a severe disability, as evidenced by participation in the state’s alternate assessment for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities; (c) attend at least one general education class; and (d) have a current IEP with at least one aca- demic goal. Four teacher–student pairs met the inclusion criteria, provided consent or assent, and partici- pated. In addition, the two special educators who also served the focus students consented to participate in an initial planning meeting. Table 1 includes participant descriptions. Carolina attended Ms. Carpenter’s class, Austin attended Ms. Adams’s class, Bridget attended Ms. Brown’s class, and Daria attended Ms. Davenport’s class. All names are pseudonyms.
General educators. Table 1 displays information on the teacher–student pairs (i.e., dyads). Ms. Carpenter was an African American female who taught sixth-grade English language arts (ELA). She had 8 years of teaching experience—three of which included students with severe disabilities. Ms. Adams was a White female who taught seventh-grade social studies. She had one previous year of experience and no experience teaching students with severe disabilities. Ms. Brown was a White female who taught sixth-grade science. She had 18 years of experience—three of which included students with severe disabilities. Ms. Davenport was an African American female who taught fifth-grade ELA. She had 5 years of experience—two of which included students with severe disabilities.
Student participants. Carolina was a 12-year-old female who attended Ms. Carpenter’s class. She was diag- nosed with autism and a seizure disorder. Austin was a 13-year-old male who attended Ms. Adams’s class. He was diagnosed with autism, intellectual disability, and a visual impairment. Bridget was a 13-year-old female who attended Ms. Brown’s class. She was diagnosed with an intellectual disability, language impair- ment, and Down syndrome. Daria was a 10-year-old female who attended Ms. Davenport’s class. She was diagnosed with an intellectual disability and an unspecified chromosomal disorder.
Special educators. Ms. Williams was Austin’s and Bridget’s special educator. She was an African American female who served students primarily with severe disabilities. Ms. Johnson was Carolina’s and Daria’s special educator. She was an African American female who also served students primarily with severe dis- abilities. Special educators participated in one planning meeting but did not participate in ongoing consulta- tions due to limited availability and scheduling conflicts.
Intervention coach. The first author, a White female, who had a master’s degree in special education and was a doctoral student in special education at the time of the study, served as the intervention coach. She was a
38
T ab
le 1
. D
em o gr
ap hi
c In
fo rm
at io
n fo
r G
en er
al E
du ca
to rs
a nd
S tu
de nt
s w
it h
D is
ab ili
ti es
.
In fo
rm at
io n
D ya
d 1
D ya
d 2
D ya
d 3
D ya
d 4
C la
ss s
ub je
ct Si
xt h-
gr ad
e En
gl is
h la
ng ua
ge a
rt s
Se ve
nt h-
gr ad
e so
ci al
s tu
di es
Si xt
h- gr
ad e
sc ie
nc e
Fi ft
h- gr
ad e
En gl
is h
la ng
ua ge
a rt
s T
o ta
l s tu
de nt
s 25
27 24
20 G
en er
al e
du ca
to r
M s.
C ar
pe nt
er M
s. A
da m
s M
s. B
ro w
n M
s. D
av en
po rt
R
ac e/
et hn
ic it
y A
fr ic
an A
m er
ic an
W hi
te W
hi te
A fr
ic an
A m
er ic
an
Se x
Fe m
al e
Fe m
al e
Fe m
al e
Fe m
al e
D
eg re
e M
as te
r’ s
in e
du ca
ti o na
l le
ad er
sh ip
B ac
he lo
r’ s
in A
m er
ic an
po
lit ic
s M
as te
r’ s
in c
ur ri
cu lu
m
an d
in st
ru ct
io n
M as
te r’
s in
li te
ra cy
Li
ce ns
ur e
El em
en ta
ry e
d. M
id dl
e so
ci al
s tu
di es
El em
en ta
ry e
d. El
em en
ta ry
e d.
T
ea ch
in g
ex pe
ri en
ce 8
ye ar
s 1
ye ar
18 y
ea rs
5 ye
ar s
In
cl us
io n
ex pe
ri en
ce a
3 ye
ar s
0 ye
ar s
3 ye
ar s
2 ye
ar s
St ud
en t
C ar
o lin
a A
us ti
n B
ri dg
et D
ar ia
A
ge 12
13 13
10
Se x
Fe m
al e
M al
e Fe
m al
e Fe
m al
e
R ac
e/ et
hn ic
it y
H is
pa ni
c W
hi te
A si
an H
is pa
ni c
D
is ab
ili ty
A ut
is m
, s ei
zu re
d is
o rd
er A
ut is
m , i
nt el
le ct
ua l d
is ab
ili ty
, vi
su al
im pa
ir m
en t
In te
lle ct
ua l d
is ab
ili ty
, la
ng ua
ge im
pa ir
m en
t In
te lle
ct ua
l d is
ab ili
ty ,
ch ro
m o so
m al
d is
o rd
er
IQ 59
b 57
c —
53 d
C
o m
m un
ic at
io n
Si ng
le w
o rd
s, s
ho rt
ph
ra se
s, E
L Fu
ll se
nt en
ce s
G es
tu re
s,
V o ca
liz at
io ns
, si
ng le
w o rd
ap
pr o xi
m at
io ns
, E L
B ri
ef , s
im pl
e se
nt en
ce s,
EL
C
ha lle
ng in
g be
ha vi
o rs
O cc
as io
na l n
o nc
o m
pl ia
nc e
(n o t
o bs
er ve
d) N
o ne
in di
ca te
d N
o ne
in di
ca te
d N
o ne
in di
ca te
d
O
th er
g en
er al
e du
ca ti
o n
cl as
se s
A rt
Sc ie
nc e,
r el
at ed
a rt
s So
ci al
s tu
di es
, r el
at ed
ar
ts M
at h,
r el
at ed
a rt
s
N ot
e. E
L =
E ng
lis h
le ar
ne r.
a I nc
lu si
o n
ex pe
ri en
ce w
as d
ef in
ed a
s te
ac hi
ng a
c la
ss w
it h
o ne
o r
m o re
s tu
de nt
s w
it h
se ve
re d
is ab
ili ti
es . b
C o m
pr eh
en si
ve T
es t
o f N
o nv
er ba
l I nt
el lig
en ce
–S ec
o nd
E di
ti o n.
c W
ec hs
le r
In te
lli ge
nc e
Sc al
e fo
r C
hi ld
re n–
Fi ft
h Ed
it io
n. d
St an
fo rd
–B in
et I nt
el lig
en ce
S ca
le s–
Fi ft
h Ed
it io
n.
Kuntz and Carter 39
licensed teacher, a board certified behavior analyst (BCBA), and had previously served as an instructional and behavior coach in a public school district.
Setting
The study took place in two middle schools in a large, metropolitan school district in the southeastern United States. Both public schools served students in Grades 5 through 8. Austin and Bridget attended the same middle school, which enrolled over 600 students—one third of whom were classified as economically disadvantaged and about 4% were English learners. The school served students of varied ethnic and cultural backgrounds (approximately 50% White, 33% African American, 10% Hispanic, and 5% Asian) and had included students with severe disabilities in general education science, social studies, and related arts classes for more than 7 years. Carolina and Daria attended a different middle school, which enrolled nearly 700 students—over 40% of whom were classified as economically disadvantaged and about 20% were English learners. The school also had a diverse student body (approximately 44% Hispanic, 35% White, 19% African American, and 3% Asian) and started to include students with severe disabilities in core content classes within the previous 3 years.
Experimental Design and Procedures
We used a multiple probe across participants design (Gast & Ledford, 2014) to evaluate the effectiveness of the CPC process. We graphed data to examine any changes in each primary dependent variable (i.e., aca- demic engagement, teacher interactions with the focus student) and used visual analysis (i.e., level, trend, overlap, and variability) to determine a functional relation. We also measured student interactions and types of instructional behaviors to assess any changes upon implementation of the intervention, but did not ana- lyze these variables to determine a functional relation. General educators were aware of the focus of the observations during both baseline and intervention conditions.
Baseline. During the baseline conditions, all general educators provided instruction in the same manner as prior to the study. General educators received copies of the focus students’ IEP from the special educator at the beginning of the school year but did not collaborate regularly with the special educator outside of school-wide faculty meetings. All four focus students received paraprofessional support. Paraprofessionals typically sat at the same table or desk as the focus student and either directed the student to attend to class- wide instruction or repeated the general educator’s instruction. Focus students sat at tables similar to, but separate from, peers without disabilities. We did not provide directions or restrictions about how general educators were to plan or deliver instruction or how they were to utilize the paraprofessional. General edu- cators often provided whole-group instruction and independent work activities in their classes, had copies of the students’ IEPs prior to the study, but did not plan anything supplemental in relation to the student with severe disabilities.
CPC intervention. This intervention had two distinct elements: (a) one Student Support Plan meeting to gather important information about the focus student and develop general instructional and support strate- gies for the classroom routines, and (b) regular Quick Plan meetings to specify the strategies for daily les- sons. The intervention coach used a Planning Guide with detailed steps and scripted questions to complete each element in the same manner across teachers. The Planning Guide and planning forms are available from the first author by request.
Student support plan meeting. After baseline data were collected, the intervention coach facilitated an initial planning meeting with the general and special educator of each focus student. The initial planning meeting, which consisted of 17 components, lasted 60 min and took place in an empty classroom after school. During the meeting, the team created a Student Support Plan using a one-page form adapted from Jorgensen (2018) and Kurth and Gross (2015). The form addressed five areas—(a) focus student’s strengths
40 Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities 46(1)
and interests, (b) focus student’s present levels of performance in core academic skills, (c) helpful strategies for the general educator to support the focus student, (d) an academic goal for the general education class, and (e) participation in classroom routines.
In Step 1 of the Planning Guide, the intervention coach presented the goals of the CPC intervention, the steps involved, and the role of each team member (i.e., general educator, special educator, and intervention coach). In Step 2, the special educator shared information pertaining to the focus student’s strengths, inter- ests, present levels of academic performance, and other helpful strategies for working with the student (e.g., seating and lighting arrangements to reduce the impact of the student’s visual impairment). In Step 3, the general educator identified the expectations for seven types of routines in her class—(a) the beginning/end of class, (b) whole class instruction, (c) whole class discussion, (d) small group work, (e) independent work, (f) class presentations, and (g) tests/quizzes—with input from the special educator about the supports the focus student would need to engage in the routines as described, if any. The purpose of this information was to broadly address how the focus student could participate in class activities and what supports would be needed to promote independence.
Quick plan meetings. Approximately, each week, the general educator and the intervention coach met for 30 min to use the Student Support Plan to create a Quick Plan specific to the focus student. The one-page written plan was adapted from Jorgensen (2018). This Quick Plan was based on the upcoming lessons that general educators already had planned for their class and consisted of 20 components. General planning for the class did not occur during the Quick Plan meetings. As the Quick Plans were based on the general educator’s existing plans, the level of detail for the Quick Plans was directly related to the extent to which the general educator had planned for the upcoming classes. If plans for the week were not finalized by the Quick Plan meeting, the teacher emailed the additional materials and plans to the intervention coach when ready. This only occurred for Ms. Adams and Ms. Davenport who regularly used templates for daily notes and warm-up activities. Focus students’ supports were the same across these materials (e.g., changing short essay responses to fill-in-the-blank statements) and applied by the intervention coach as the new content was emailed.
Step 4 of the Planning Guide addressed the Quick Plan meetings. It consisted of questions aimed at incorporating the supports indicated on the Student Support Plan into each lesson. This included directions for paraprofessionals and adaptations to lesson materials (e.g., enlarging the text on teacher worksheets, ensuring the availability of screen reading technology, and shortening assignments to focus on key ideas). For each lesson, the Quick Plan identified four main elements of each class period: (a) the details of the day’s lesson, including which class routines would be used; (b) how the focus student would participate in each activity and any needed adaptations, if participation differed from the rest of the class; (c) the materials that the focus student would use, including any adapted materials; and (d) supports the focus student would need (e.g., assistive technology, peers, and paraprofessional). Although paraprofessionals did not partake in any planning meeting, they were discussed as a potential support for the focus student during some activi- ties. Ms. Carpenter and Ms. Adams participated in six Quick Plan meetings each. Ms. Brown participated in five meetings, and Ms. Davenport participated in three.
Dependent Variables
We used interval recording to record the dependent measures concurrently (i.e., observers recorded data on each variable at the same time). All measures and definitions were drawn from prior studies addressing the inclusion of students with severe disabilities (e.g., Biggs et al., 2017; Carter et al., 2016). Observers used a pencil-and-paper data collection sheet to capture all measures live. Data were collected during scheduled class times 2 to 4 times per week for approximately 11 weeks.
Student measures. Dependent variables for the focus student included (a) academic engagement, and (b) student interactions. Academic engagement and student interactions are widely used as important indicators
Kuntz and Carter 41
of learning, particularly when more direct measures of knowledge and skill acquisition are difficult to obtain consistently over the course of an entire semester.
Academic engagement. Observers recorded the academic engagement of the student, displayed at the end of each interval, using a 1-min momentary time sampling recording system. Academic engagement was defined as actively attending to, looking at, or following along with instructional activities that were assigned by the teacher or a paraprofessional. Indicators of academic engagement included looking at mate- rials (e.g., textbook, worksheet, and whiteboards) related to assigned activities, looking at the teacher as he or she provides instruction, writing related to the assigned activity, following teacher instructions/direc- tions, raising one’s hand, or asking questions of the teacher about instructional activities. Three codes were possible: aligned engagement, unaligned engagement, and not engaged (Carter et al., 2016, 2017). Aligned engagement was coded when the focus student was academically engaged in instructional activi- ties that were consistent or aligned with the content provided to the majority of the class (i.e., identical or appropriately modified from the class curriculum). Examples we observed included working with peers on an assignment, watching the teacher present a lecture, and writing responses on adapted worksheets. Unaligned engagement was coded when the focus student was academically engaged in instructional activi- ties that were not consistent or aligned with the content provided to the majority of the class (i.e., not identi- cal or appropriately modified from the class). Examples we observed included unrelated coloring activities and reading unrelated books assigned by the teacher or paraprofessional. Not engaged was coded when the focus student was overtly not attending to, looking at, or following along with any instructional activities or when the focus student was engaged in activities that were not assigned by a teacher or paraprofessional. Examples we observed included doodling in a notebook and folding origami.
Student interactions. Interactions were defined as verbal or nonverbal behaviors from or to the focus student regarding instruction, behavior, or other topics and appeared to have communicative acknowledg- ment (e.g., gaining the partner’s attention, looking at the partner, and responding to a partner; Biggs et al., 2017; Carter et al., 2016). We coded student interactions with four different categories of partners—general educators, paraprofessionals, peers, or other partners. Interactions were recorded using a 1-min partial- interval recording system. For each interval, if the focus student interacted with one or more peers, “peer” was indicated for the corresponding interval on the data sheet. If the focus student also interacted with a paraprofessional, “peer” and “paraprofessional” were indicated for the interval. If the focus student did not interact with anyone during an interval, “no interaction” was indicated for the interval.
General educator measures. Dependent variables for the general educators included (a) teacher interactions with the focus student, and (b) types of instructional behaviors.
Teacher interactions with focus student. Observers recorded the occurrence of an interaction between the general educator and the focus student. An interaction was defined as verbal or nonverbal behaviors directed to the focus student regarding instruction, behavior, or another topic (Chung et al., 2012). Exam- ples included asking the focus student a question or giving the student a smile and thumbs-up. A teacher interaction directed toward all members of a small group (i.e., eight or fewer students) that included the focus student was recorded as an occurrence of a general educator interaction. General educator’s interac- tions directed to the whole class (including the focus student) or other students in the classroom were not coded. Teacher interactions with the focus student were recorded using a 1-min partial-interval recording system, indicating the presence or absence of one or more general educator interactions.
Types of instructional behaviors. For each interval with the occurrence of a teacher interaction with the focus student, observers categorized the type of instructional behavior directed to the focus student. Types of instructional behaviors included the (a) presentation of a work task to the student, (b) reinforcement/ praise of the student, (c) error correction of the student, (d) seating arrangement or grouping of the student,
42 Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities 46(1)
(e) peer arrangement for the student, (f) behavioral plan for the student, and (g) other noninstructional behaviors. Behaviors were coded using a 1-min partial-interval recording system, and more than one type of instructional behavior could be coded in an interval.
The presentation of a work task could be coded as same, adapted, or alternate as it related to the content presented to the general class. To be coded as same, the presented task, direction, or comment was the same as the instruction of the entire class in content, materials, product, and other attributes. For the presentation of the work task to be coded as adapted, the presented task, direction, or comment was adapted from the instruction of the entire class in content, materials, product, or another attribute by supplementing or sim- plifying the task of the general class (Janney & Snell, 2006). For the presentation of the work task to be coded as alternate, the presented task, direction, or comment was different from the instruction of the entire class in content, materials, product, or another attribute by changing the content or type of skill completely (e.g., daily living skill vs. academic skill; Janney & Snell, 2006).
Reinforcement/praise was a comment or exclamation of approval from the general educator directed toward the focus student and was coded as academic or nonacademic. The comment or exclamation could be verbal or nonverbal and could include gestures (e.g., thumbs-up) or vocalizations (e.g., “woo hoo!”; Brock & Carter, 2016; Brock et al., 2016). Error correction was a comment or signal from the general edu- cator directed toward the focus student with the intent to change the student’s work or behavior and was coded as academic or nonacademic (Brock & Carter, 2016; Brock et al., 2016).
For seating/grouping to be coded, the general educator explicitly assigned the focus student to a desk/ table in the classroom or to a group of students related to an assignment or activity. For peer arrangement to be coded, the general educator assigned a peer to support the focus student either academically or socially in the context of a work task or transition outside of classwide group work. For behavioral support to be coded, the general educator utilized a behavior support strategy with the focus student as outlined in the student’s individualized behavior plan or the teacher’s classwide management plan. For other behavior to be coded, the general educator engaged in a noninstructional interaction not otherwise specified in the pre- vious categories. Seating/grouping, peer arrangement, and behavior support behaviors were only coded when the teacher discussed the arrangement with the focus student and were not coded in any subsequent intervals in which the arrangements continued.
Observer Training and Interobserver Agreement (IOA)
For each participating teacher–student pair, direct observations during the selected class period took place approximately 2 to 4 times per week during the baseline and intervention conditions. The length of the observations corresponded with the length of time the focus student was present in the class (M = 40 min, range = 7–63 min). During observations, observers sat quietly in the classroom where the focus student could be seen and heard but where they were not obtrusive (e.g., sitting to the side or back of the class) or a distraction (e.g., they did not talk with individuals in the class) to other students.
Observer training. Prior to the start of the study, we trained three observers on the observational measure- ment system. Two observers were graduate students pursuing doctoral degrees in special education; one was pursuing a master’s degree in special education. All observers participated in two instructional trainings (averaging 2 hr each) to become familiar with the observational data collection manual, including opera- tional definitions, examples, and non-examples for each variable. At the end of the second training, the knowledge of the coding manual, definitions, and rules was assessed on a written assessment. Before cod- ing during live observations, all observers scored above 90% on the written assessment and exceeded 90% agreement with the primary coder on a novel practice video (approximately 10 min).
IOA. IOA data were collected across all study conditions for each focus student. A second observer observed with the primary observer in 37.5% of all observations and each observer recorded data independently. IOA observations were conducted randomly and balanced across students and study conditions—with the excep- tion of the first tier’s baseline condition. This was due to observer training and student absences. Overall,
Kuntz and Carter 43
IOA was calculated shortly after each IOA observation to have a discrepancy discussion and conduct retraining specific to the variable. IOA was calculated using overall point-by-point agreement by dividing the number of intervals in which the primary and secondary observer codes matched by the total number of intervals and multiplying by 100. Regarding teacher interactions, IOA was 98.7% for work tasks, 99.6% for reinforcement/praise, 98.8% for error correction, 99.8% for seating/grouping, 100.0% for peer arrange- ments, and 97.2% for other behaviors. In addition, IOA was 88.1% for student interactions and 82.6% for academic engagement. Although overall agreement was within acceptable levels (i.e., above 80%; for example, Gast & Ledford, 2014), academic engagement was occasionally lower when there were slight dif- ferences in observers’ visibility. For example, one observer may have observed the focus student writing on an assigned worksheet (i.e., aligned engagement), whereas the second observer saw that the student was actually doodling on that worksheet rather than completing her work (i.e., not engaged).
Procedural Fidelity
Procedural fidelity was assessed at two levels of implementation of the collaborative planning framework— the development of the Student Support Plans and the consultation regarding weekly lesson plans through the Quick Plans. We used a set of pencil-paper checklists and written notes to assess procedural fidelity. We provided no support, advice, or suggestions to any general educator regarding classroom instruction or sup- ports to the focus student during the baseline condition. At the introduction of the intervention, we used a checklist for the Student Support Plan meetings that consisted of 17 items mirroring the components on the document. Fidelity during Student Support Plan meetings was calculated by dividing the number of com- pleted items by the number of possible items and multiplying by 100. Each item was addressed across all four students’ meetings, and fidelity was 100%. During the intervention condition for each student, we used a checklist for the Quick Plan meetings that consisted of 20 possible items. This checklist was completed based on the applicable components of the plan each week. Applicable components were based on the les- son preparations of the general educator (i.e., the days the teacher had plans prepared) and fidelity consisted of the provision of support for each prepared lesson. Class periods in which the general educator did not provide plans to the researcher were not factored into procedural fidelity. Across participants, Quick Plan fidelity averaged 92.1%, and applicable components averaged approximately 17 out of 20 items. By partici- pant, average Quick Plan fidelity was as follows: Carolina (94.8%), Austin (91.0%), Bridget (90.7%), and Daria (91.4%).
We did not collect data on how closely the teacher implemented her initial plans as originally written. First, we recognized there would be day-to-day variability in these classrooms based on ordinary (e.g., unfinished instructional activities spilling over to subsequent days, students grasping instructional content sooner or slower than expected) and unanticipated (e.g., fire drills, student or teacher absences) factors. Second, we did not have the resources to observe each teacher every day for the entire class period through- out the semester. Third, our interest was in assessing the effects of the CPC process on our defined variables specifically and did not assess such factors as lesson planning or lesson delivery.
Social Validity
We assessed social validity by examining general educators’ perspectives on the acceptability, feasibility, and impact of the intervention 5 weeks after data collection ended. Each general educator also participated in an interview and completed a 17-item survey (see Table 2). Response options were as follows: strongly disagree = 1, disagree = 2, neutral = 3, agree = 4, and strongly agree = 5. A different doctoral student who had no previous interactions with the general educators conducted the interviews. Interviews consisted of several open-ended questions addressing the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention, how they felt the intervention helped them meet the focus student’s needs, how the intervention impacted their exist- ing lesson planning and delivery, how their behaviors changed as a result of the intervention, and the sup- ports/resources needed to continue the intervention (interview protocol available by request). Interviews took place in general educators’ classrooms, lasted between 10 and 25 min, and were audio recorded and then transcribed.
44 Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities 46(1)
Table 2. Social Validity Ratings From General Educators.
Social validity item Ms. Carpenter Ms. Adams Ms. Brown Ms. Davenport
The amount of time required for the CPC process was reasonable.
SA A A SA
I feel I was effective in my responsibilities.
SA A A A
I would need ongoing consultation to continue the CPC process.
N A N D
Developing the Student Support Plan as a team was important to the success of creating the Quick Plan lessons.
SA A SA N
Consultation was important to the success of developing the Quick Plan lessons.
SA A A N
I could use what I learned to incorporate other students with severe disabilities into my lessons.
SA SA SA SA
I could use what I learned to teach other educators how to incorporate students with severe disabilities into lessons.
SA A A A
I am motivated to continue using the CPC process to incorporate students with severe disabilities into my lessons.
SA A A SA
I am not interested in using the CPC process again.
SD D N SD
The CPC process was a good way to address the instruction of students with severe disabilities in inclusive classes.
SA SA A SA
The CPC process gave me clarity on how to support the student with severe disabilities in my class.
SA SA A SA
The CPC process aligns with the goals of the school in supporting students with disabilities.
SA N A A
I would know what to do again if I was asked to plan instruction for a student with severe disabilities in inclusive classes.
SA A A SA
The student with severe disabilities benefited socially from the CPC process.
SA A A A
The student with severe disabilities benefited academically from the CPC process.
SA SA A SA
The CPC process negatively impacted other students in the class.
SD D D D
Overall, I enjoyed participating in this project.
SA SA A A
Note. CPC = collaborative planning with consultation; SD = strongly disagree; D = disagree; N = neutral; A = agree; SA = strongly agree.
Kuntz and Carter 45
Results
Table 3 has descriptive information for all variables across participants and conditions.
Academic Engagement
Figure 1 displays the percentage of intervals with academic engagement aligned with the instruction of the class for each observation. As may be expected in a classroom with ever-changing content and activities, academic engagement varied across focus students and conditions. All students increased their levels of academic engagement as a result of the CPC process. With the exception of the third day when the class watched a video, Carolina’s academic engagement was low and stable in baseline (M = 9.7%) and had a large increase in the CPC condition (M = 51.0%). Austin’s academic engagement was low and variable in the baseline condition (M = 15.8%) but increased immediately above baseline levels in the CPC condition (M = 69.2%). Bridget’s academic engagement was very low in the baseline condition (M = 2.7%) and had large increases in the CPC condition (M = 36.4%). Daria’s academic engagement varied greatly in the baseline condition (M = 36.1%) and was most elevated when Ms. Davenport assigned silent reading for the
Table 3. Descriptive Summary by Teacher–Student Pair and Study Condition.
Variable
Ms. Carpenter and Carolina
Ms. Adams and Austin
Ms. Brown and Bridget
Ms. Davenport and Daria
Baseline CPC Baseline CPC Baseline CPC Baseline CPC
Teacher interactions 7.1 31.8 7.6 11.4 2.3 3.8 15.2 15.9 Work task Same 0.0 2.7 3.2 0.8 0.2 0.8 0.2 3.1 Adapted 0.0 9.0 0.0 5.7 0.0 1.3 1.4 5.1 Alternate 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.7 0.0 Reinforcement/praise Academic 0.0 11.3 0.3 2.0 0.0 0.2 1.4 2.9 Nonacademic 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.2 1.4 0.0 Error correction Academic 0.0 4.7 1.2 1.8 0.0 0.4 1.3 4.9 Nonacademic 0.0 2.6 1.3 1.1 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.3 Seating/grouping 3.8 1.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.4 Peer arrangement 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 Behavior plan 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other 4.2 15.2 2.5 4.1 2.1 1.1 7.8 3.6 Academic engagement Aligned engagement 9.7 51.0 15.8 69.2 2.7 36.4 36.1 78.9 Unaligned engagement 0.0 9.8 4.8 0.0 4.5 6.0 9.9 0.0 Not engaged 90.4 39.2 79.4 30.8 92.8 57.7 53.9 21.1 Student interactions Paraprofessional 46.5 68.1 20.5 36.9 27.3 35.4 41.7 14.3 Peer 3.0 10.0 7.1 1.2 15.3 10.3 28.0 22.2 Other 0.9 0.4 1.6 0.6 3.7 0.2 6.3 5.7 Instructional format Whole class 36.0 27.0 39.8 52.4 8.5 14.1 28.9 53.6 Small group 0.0 4.0 20.9 28.8 1.2 19.8 12.7 6.5 Individual 0.0 45.5 12.6 7.5 10.3 17.5 16.3 24.0 No instruction 64.0 23.2 26.7 10.8 80.1 48.6 41.6 15.9
Note. CPC = collaborative planning with consultation.
46 Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities 46(1)
morning work (i.e., School Days 9 and 30). However, her percentage of academic engagement increased immediately and remained stable in the CPC condition (M = 78.9%).
Teacher Interactions with Focus Student
Figure 1 displays the percentage of intervals with at least one teacher interaction directed toward the focus student. We observed inconsistent changes in overall levels of teacher interactions with the focus student as a result of the CPC process. Ms. Carpenter had large increases in her percentage of interactions with Carolina (from 7.1% to 31.8%). Increases were smaller for Ms. Adams (7.6%–11.4%) and Ms. Brown (2.3%–3.8%). No changes were found for Ms. Davenport (15.2%–15.9%). In the baseline condition, most interactions addressed noninstructional topics. In the CPC condition, however, all four general educators used a greater variety of types of instructional behaviors with the focus students (e.g., assigning work tasks, providing praise, and delivering prompts), reflecting a shift from noninstructional to instructional interactions.
Student Interactions
Although focus students’ interactions with others were not a primary focus of this study, we were interested in their social involvement across conditions. Table 3 displays the percentage of student interactions by interaction partner. Carolina had few interactions with peers (3.0%) in the baseline condition but more than
Figure 1. Teacher interactions and student academic engagement across intervention conditions and focus students. Note. Teacher interactions are represented by closed circles. Student academic engagement is represented by closed triangles. Open icons indicate sessions in which the paraprofessional was absent from the class. ELA = English language arts.
Kuntz and Carter 47
tripled her peer interaction (10.0%) in the CPC condition. Interactions with the paraprofessional also increased from 46.5% to 68.1%. Interactions with peers decreased for Austin—from 7.1% in the baseline condition to 1.2% in the CPC condition. His interactions with the paraprofessional increased from 20.5% in baseline to 36.9% in the CPC condition. Bridget also had more interactions with peers in the CPC condition (15.3%) as compared with the baseline condition (10.3%). Bridget’s interactions with the paraprofessional slightly increased from 27.3% to 35.4%. Like Austin and Bridget, Daria’s interactions with peers decreased from the baseline condition (28.0%) to the CPC condition (22.2%). Daria’s interactions with the paraprofes- sional also decreased from the baseline condition (41.7%) to the CPC condition (14.3%).
Social Validity
Table 2 displays general educators’ ratings of social validity survey items. All general educators agreed or strongly agreed with 11 of the 15 positive statements regarding the intervention. We reviewed postinterven- tion interview transcripts for general perspectives and attitudes toward the intervention. Ms. Carpenter stated,
When I tell you it really made a difference, it really did. I don’t think that I would have gotten as close to Carolina if we didn’t have that because I really didn’t know how to . . . I just didn’t know.
Ms. Adams detailed,
For me it was powerful too to realize how little gen ed students had expected of my inclusion students up until that point. And how that changed so dramatically when my special education students had materials that were the same information just reflected in a different way.
Ms. Davenport acknowledged,
Of course, I have attended her IEP meeting. I feel like a lot of times those are very general and not really specific. But [the intervention] allowed me to know specifically what she needed and how what I was doing could match up with what she needed.
The general educators reported that (a) the CPC process provided them clarity on how to include the focus student into lessons, (b) the focus students benefited from the intervention, and that (c) they learned ways to include students with severe disabilities in lessons.
Discussion
Creating general education environments where teachers have the tools to be active instructors for students with severe disabilities—and where those students receive equitable instruction to be actively engaged participants—requires careful planning. We evaluated the effectiveness of a collaborative planning frame- work with ongoing consultation to increase the academic engagement of students with severe disabilities and teacher interactions with these students. We also examined the views of participating general educators on this intervention package. Our findings indicate a functional relation between the CPC intervention and academic engagement but yield mixed findings for teacher interactions with the focus students. These results extend the literature by providing new insights into the implementation and impact of a collaborative planning intervention.
Prevailing practices—as depicted in our baseline or “business as usual” conditions—may not be suffi- cient for ensuring a quality education for students with severe disabilities in general education classes. With the exception of Bridget, the focus students had attended their class for nearly 2 months prior to the study. Despite having access to each student’s IEP and periodic communication with special educators, general educators seldom interacted with the focus students prior to introducing the intervention. When interactions did occur during baseline, they were often noninstructional in focus (i.e., social-related). Moreover, all four
48 Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities 46(1)
students were rarely engaged academically. This finding is consistent with both descriptive studies (e.g., Carter et al., 2008; Chung et al., 2019)and the baseline patterns of prior intervention studies carried out in general education secondary classrooms (e.g., Brock & Carter, 2016).
This study shows some beneficial impacts of a collaborative planning intervention with ongoing con- sultation. Drawing upon similar support strategies found to be effective with younger students (e.g., Hunt et al., 2003), we introduced an intervention package to middle school general educators focused on increasing their interactions with their focus student, while also measuring the academic engagement of focus students and their interactions with their teachers and classmates. As in the study by Hunt et al. (2003), we found that academic engagement increased across all students. The CPC process offers another model for educators to collaborate efficiently and effectively.
We also found that teacher interactions with the focus students encompassed a broader range of instruc- tional behaviors across all teachers. Few prior studies have equipped general educators to function as pri- mary instructors of students with severe disabilities in general education classes. For example, Biggs et al. (2017) established collaborative planning as a method to increase peer supports for middle school students with disabilities who used AAC devices. However, they did not involve the general educator beyond the initial planning meeting. We found that general educators can take an active role in planning and delivering supports to students with severe disabilities to promote academic engagement and to alter the focus of their interactions.
The intervention package was not without challenges. Although this study suggests that collaborative planning with ongoing consultation can have some impact on students’ academic engagement and teacher interactions with these students, several elements require closer consideration. Each class included a para- professional assigned to support the focus student. When the paraprofessional was absent, teacher interac- tions with the focus student were often much higher than sessions in which the paraprofessional was present. This finding aligns with previous research suggesting that paraprofessionals assigned to support a student with severe disabilities specifically can inhibit general educator interactions (e.g., Giangreco et al., 2001). Clarifying roles and responsibilities in collaborative planning could alleviate this effect by empowering general educators as the primary instructor for students with disabilities and reinforcing paraprofessionals as a supplemental and secondary support. We also found that student academic engagement seemed to depend on the extent to which general educators engaged in lesson planning for any of the students in their class. When the general educator did not provide instruction to the class, it was not possible for students with severe disabilities to be engaged.
Feedback from participating general educators affirmed the acceptability and social validity of this inter- vention within middle school general education classes. General educators said the time required to collabo- rate was reasonable, the collaboration allowed them to be effective in their responsibilities, the collaboration process was a good way to address instruction for students with severe disabilities, and that students bene- fited academically and socially from educator participation in the collaboration. All four general educators reported that their planning and instruction benefited from the intervention. These findings suggest that general educators may be motivated stakeholders in developing more inclusive education.
Limitations and Future Research
Several limitations of this study are important to consider. First, the lead author served as the intervention- ist by providing collaboration and ongoing consultation to the general educators. Although special educa- tors who attended the Student Support Plan meetings contributed important information about the needs of the focus student during the initial planning process, they were not involved in the subsequent meetings with the general educators. A growing number of districts now employ “instructional coaches” or “inclu- sion coaches” who might readily serve in the same role as the researcher. Indeed, the lead author had previ- ously served in such a role prior to her doctoral studies and designed the planning process with this application in mind. Because we were piloting a brand new approach to collaboration and consultation, we wanted to first examine its impact when implemented with a high degree of fidelity. With the promise of this intervention now demonstrated, future studies should next focus on the ways special educators or
Kuntz and Carter 49
district inclusion coaches could be trained and supported to undertake these responsibilities. Second, gen- eralization and maintenance data were not collected formally. We noticed that general educators used adapted materials and engaged with other students with severe disabilities in the class, but we did not measure generalization specifically. However, during observations on days not discussed in Quick Plan meetings, general educators continued to provide supports to and adapted materials for the focus students. In future research, generalization and maintenance data should be measured formally to assess the extent to which general educators continue the use of the plan. Third, we did not collect normative data on teacher interactions with other students in the class or on the academic engagement of classmates. This makes it more difficult to situate our findings in relation to the experiences of students without severe disabilities enrolled in the same class. Fourth, we did not measure the skill acquisition in the focus students. Future research should assess acquisition of content-based skills to make certain that students are progressing in the general curriculum as fully integrated members of the class. Fifth, the content area of each of the classes varied. Some classes are more social or interactive than others, which could have implications for the interactions and academic engagement of participant students. Sixth, none of the focus students exhib- ited significant problem behaviors and all communicated using verbal speech. Future research should examine how the CPC intervention might be applied with students who exhibit challenging behaviors, who use AAC, and/or who have more extensive support needs. Additional consideration of these issues may need to be incorporated into the planning process. Seventh, we only collected social validity data from general educators. Future studies should ask focus students and their classmates for input that could inform future refinements to this intervention. Finally, general educators planned with varying levels of detail. This variance may account for differences in teacher interactions with focus students and student academic engagement.
Implications for Research
The results of this study have important implications for researchers in the field of inclusive education. First, there is a need for better measures of procedural fidelity for highly individualized interventions like the one used in this study. Fidelity measures should accommodate the variable conditions (e.g., schedule changes, varying day-to-day activities) when conducting applied research in general education classes. We noticed that educators planned their lessons with widely varying degrees of detail. In future research, fidel- ity measures that accommodate individualized interventions could help to identify specific factors that led to any positive changes through collaboration. Second, despite most of the teachers’ prior experience of having students with severe disabilities in their classes, we noticed that little, if any, collaboration or com- munication was occurring with their special educators. General educators knew very little about the focus students’ abilities and needs and often left instruction entirely to the paraprofessional. Future research should focus on viable avenues for increasing the ongoing collaboration among special and general educa- tors. Third, it is important for the generalizability and sustainability of the intervention to include the exist- ing special educators in providing consultation to the general educators. To carry out this pilot evaluation of a collaborative planning framework in secondary-level general education classes, researchers provided con- sultation to general educators in the role of the special educator. Future research should include the current special educator in the ongoing consultation to generalize across more students and sustain positive outcomes.
Implications for Practice
Findings from this study have several implications for practice. First, collaborating teachers could benefit from the low-cost and low-effort strategies used to adapt lessons for students with severe disabilities. As mentioned previously, frequent adaptations used in the Quick Plan meetings included enlarged or bold font, visual supports for the content, and simplifying the type of responses. In addition to training on adaptations and differentiated instruction, teachers need specific support on applying these concepts to their own lessons.
50 Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities 46(1)
Second, the lesson planning of general educators can have an impact on the opportunities for teachers to interact with students and for students to engage and interact within the class. In classes where instruction was planned no more than 2 days in advance and seemed sporadic, we observed fewer teacher–student interactions and less time the focus student was academically engaged (less instructional time in general). Well-planned, classwide instruction of the general education curriculum (often called Tier 1 instruction) is foundational to supporting the instruction of students with severe disabilities who are a part of the class.
Third, general educators are not the sole support for students with severe disabilities in general education classes. Across all four general educators, teacher interactions with the focus students were periodic as they attended to all students in the class. To support students who may need more than occasional assistance in a general education class, general educators can tap into supplemental supports such as paraprofessionals and/or peer support arrangements (e.g., peers providing academic and/or social support guided by a para- professional or special educators). Results of this study indicate positive changes in dependent variables when only targeting the general educator. Future practice may see greater change by combining collabora- tion with the general educators with previously identified interventions such as paraprofessional training (e.g., Brock & Carter, 2013) and peer support arrangements (e.g., Brock & Huber, 2017).
Fourth, district administrators should support collaboration among general and special educators by providing overlapping planning time dedicated to co-planning. With external support, general educators were able to apply Student Support plans to their ongoing lesson plans and increase student engagement in their classes. However, this collaboration did not occur with the current special educator as none of the general educator–special educator pairs had a common planning time. In practice, administrators need to provide educators with support for conducting collaborative planning meetings (e.g., resources, inclusion coach) and the time to collaboratively plan (e.g., ongoing and scheduled, so both teachers are able to attend).
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Partial support for this research was provided by a doctoral leadership grant from the U.S. Department of Education, through Grant H325D140077 to Vanderbilt University.
ORCID iDs
Emily M. Kuntz https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1379-7664
Erik W. Carter https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7153-2782
References
Agran, M., Jackson, L., Kurth, J. A., Ryndak, D., Burnette, K., Jameson, M., Zagona, A., Fitzpatrick, H., & Wehmeyer, M. (2020). Why aren’t students with severe disabilities being placed in general education classrooms: Examining the relations among classroom placement, learner outcomes, and other factors. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 45(1), 4–13. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1540796919878134
Biggs, E. E., Carter, E. W., & Gustafson, J. (2017). Efficacy of peer support arrangements to increase peer interac- tion and AAC use. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 122(1), 25–48. https://doi. org/10.1352/1944-7558-122.1.25
Brock, M. E., Biggs, E. E., Carter, E. W., Cattey, G. N., & Raley, K. S. (2016). Implementation and generalization of peer support arrangements for students with severe disabilities in inclusive classrooms. The Journal of Special Education, 49(4), 221–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466915594368
Brock, M. E., & Carter, E. W. (2013). A systematic review of paraprofessional-delivered educational practices to improve outcomes for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 38(4), 211–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/154079691303800401
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1379-7664
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7153-2782
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1540796919878134
https://doi.org/10.1352/1944-7558-122.1.25
https://doi.org/10.1352/1944-7558-122.1.25
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466915594368
https://doi.org/10.1177/154079691303800401
Kuntz and Carter 51
Brock, M. E., & Carter, E. W. (2016). Efficacy of teachers training paraprofessionals to implement peer support arrangements. Exceptional Children, 82(3), 354–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402915585564
Brock, M. E., & Huber, H. B. (2017). Are peer support arrangements an evidence-based practice? A systematic review. The Journal of Special Education, 51(3), 150–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466917708184
Carter, E. W., Asmus, J., Moss, C. K., Amirault, K. A., Biggs, E. E., Bolt, D., Born, T. L., Brock, M. E., Cattey, G., Chen, R., Cooney, M., Fesperman, E., Hochman, J. T., Huber, H. B., Lequia, J., Lyons, G., Riesch, L., Shalev, R., Vincent, L. B., & Wier, K. (2016). Randomized evaluation of peer supports arrangements to support the inclusion of high school students with severe disabilities. Exceptional Children, 82(2), 209–233. https://doi. org/10.1177/0014402915598780
Carter, E. W., Gustafson, J. R., Sreckovic, M. A., Steinbrenner, J. R. D., Pierce, N. P., Bord, A., Stabel, A., Rogers, S., Czerw, A., & Mullins, T. (2017). Efficacy of peer support interventions in general education classrooms for high school students with autism spectrum disorder. Remedial and Special Education, 38(4), 207–221. https://doi. org/10.1177/0741932516672067
Carter, E. W., Sisco, L. G., Brown, L., Brickham, D., & Al-Khabbaz, Z. A. (2008). Peer interactions and academic engagement of youth with developmental disabilities in inclusive middle and high school classrooms. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 113(6), 479–494. https://doi.org/10.1352/2008.113:479-494
Chung, Y.-C., & Carter, E. W. (2013). Promoting peer interactions in inclusive classrooms for students who use speech-generating devices. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 38(2), 94–109. https://doi. org/10.2511/027494813807714492
Chung, Y.-C., Carter, E. W., & Sisco, L. G. (2012). Social interaction of students with severe disabilities who use augmentative and alternative communication in inclusive classrooms. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 117(5), 349–367. https://doi.org/10.1352/1944-7558-117.5.349
Chung, Y.-C., Douglas, K. H., Walker, V. L., & Wells, R. L. (2019). Interactions of high school students with intel- lectual and developmental disabilities in inclusive classrooms. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 57(4), 307–322. https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-57.4.307
Copeland, S. R., & Cosbey, J. (2008). Making progress in the general curriculum: Rethinking effective instructional practices. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 34(1), 214–227. https://doi.org/10.2511/ rpsd.33.4.214
Gast, D. L., & Ledford, J. R. (Eds.). (2014). Single case research methodology: Applications in special education and behavioral sciences. Routledge.
Giangreco, M. F., Edelman, S. W., Broer, S. M., & Doyle, M. B. (2001). Paraprofessional support of students with disabilities: Literature from the past decade. Exceptional Children, 68(1), 45–63. https://doi.org/10.1177 /001440290106800103
Goldhaber, D. (2016). In schools, teacher quality matters most. Education Next, 16(2), 56–62. Hunt, P., Soto, G., Maier, J., & Doering, K. (2003). Collaborative teaming to support students at risk and students
with severe disabilities in general education classrooms. Exceptional Children, 69(3), 315–332. https://doi.org /10.1177/001440290306900304
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004). Janney, R. E., & Snell, M. E. (2006). Modifying schoolwork in inclusive classrooms. Theory into Practice, 45(3),
215–223. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4503_3 Jorgensen, C. M. (2018). It’s more than “just being in”: Creating authentic inclusion for students with complex support
needs. Brookes. Jorgensen, C. M., McSheehan, M., & Sonnenmeier, R. M. (2010). The beyond access model: Promoting membership,
participation, and learning for students with disabilities in the general education classroom. Brookes. Kleinert, H., Towles-Reeves, E., Quenemoen, R., Thurlow, M., Fluegge, L., Weseman, L., & Kerbel, A. (2015). Where
students with the most significant cognitive disabilities are taught: Implications for general curriculum access. Exceptional Children, 81(3), 312–328. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402914563697
Kuntz, E. M., & Carter, E. W. (in press). General educators’ involvement in interventions for students with intellectual disability. Inclusion.
Kurth, J. A., & Gross, M. (2015). The inclusion toolbox: Strategies and techniques for all teachers. Corwin. McDonnell, J., Mathot-Buckner, C., Thorson, N., & Fister, S. (2001). Supporting the inclusion of students with moder-
ate and severe disabilities in junior high school general education classes: The effects of classwide peer tutoring, multi-element curriculum, and accommodations. Education and Treatment of Children, 24(2), 141–160. https:// www.jstor.org/stable/42899651
Ryndak, D. L., Taub, D., Jorgensen, C. M., Gonsier-Gerdin, J., Arndt, K., Sauer, J., Ruppar, A. L., Morningstar, M. E., & Allcock, H. (2014). Policy and the impact on placement, involvement, and progress in general education: Critical
https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402915585564
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466917708184
https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402915598780
https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402915598780
https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932516672067
https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932516672067
https://doi.org/10.1352/2008.113:479-494
https://doi.org/10.2511/027494813807714492
https://doi.org/10.2511/027494813807714492
https://doi.org/10.1352/1944-7558-117.5.349
https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-57.4.307
https://doi.org/10.2511/rpsd.33.4.214
https://doi.org/10.2511/rpsd.33.4.214
https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290106800103
https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290106800103
https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290306900304
https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290306900304
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4503_3
https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402914563697
https://www.jstor.org/stable/42899651
https://www.jstor.org/stable/42899651
52 Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities 46(1)
issues that require rectification. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 39(1), 65–74. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1540796914533942
Zagona, A. L., Kurth, J. A., & MacFarland, S. Z. C. (2017). Teachers’ views of their preparation for inclusive edu- cation and collaboration. Teacher Education and Special Education, 40(3), 163–178. https://doi.org/10.1177 /0888406417692969
Author Biographies
Emily M. Kuntz is an assistant professor of special education at the University of Oklahoma. Her research addresses instructional and inclusive practices for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
Erik W. Carter is Cornelius Vanderbilt professor of Special Education at Vanderbilt University. His research and writ- ing focus on promoting inclusion and valued roles in school, work, community, and congregational settings for children and adults with intellectual disability, autism, and multiple disabilities.
Date Received: January 9, 2020 Date of Final Acceptance: October 11, 2020 Editor-in-Charge: Susan R. Copeland
https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796914533942
https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796914533942
https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406417692969
https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406417692969
Copyright of Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
source1.pdf
Examining the Quality of Secondary Transition Plans Against Research-based Criteria in Preparing Students with Disabilities for
Postsecondary Success
Vickie Miller-Warren As required by law a transition plan is supposed to be designed to clearly define a student’s postsecondary goals by addressing the strengths, needs, and interests of the student in order to develop an appropriate curricular plan and community- based instruction necessary to meet the student’s outlined postsecondary goals (Collet-Klingenberg & Kolb, 2011; IDEA, 2004). This study examined the secondary transition plans of students with disabilities, who graduated in 2011 from a small rural school district, for quality based on a set of research-based criteria in preparing the students’ to meet their desired postsecondary goals. Although the majority of the transition plans were found to be inadequate in quality according to the set research-based criteria taken from a combination of sources including the National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center (NSTTAC, 2008) Indicator 13 checklist, the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA, 2004) regulations, and Johnson’s (2003) Parent and Family Guide to Transition Education and Planning, implications for practice were discussed. Keywords: outside agencies, postsecondary outcomes, secondary transition plans, special education, students with disabilities.
The transition planning process is supposed to be created based on students’ needs, preferences, and interests along with collaboration from students, school staff, parents, and outside agency representatives (IDEA, 2004; Collet-Klingenberg & Kolb, 2011; Angell, Stoner, & Fulk, 2010). The IDEA (2004) requirement under Indicator 13 states that students 16 years old and above must have an active transition plan that includes appropriate measurable postsecondary goals that will reasonably enable the students to meet the
postsecondary goals; however, the quality of the secondary transition plans from a sample of graduates with disabilities’ from the class of 2011 did not meet the proposed criteria for a sound plan.
Students with disabilities often face challenges such as lagging behind their nondisabled peers in employment and educational opportunities (Clark & Unruh, 2010; Collet-Klingenberg & Kolb, 2011; Lane, Carter, & Sisco, 2012). Of the students with disabilities who ultimately graduate from college, it often takes them double the time
Vol. 4, No. 1 June, 2015
THE JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPRENTICESHIP, 4(1) 2
to complete their degrees in comparison to their nondisabled peers (Barber, 2012; Clark & Unruh, 2010; National Council on Disability, 2011). Students with disabilities are less likely to obtain employment, education, or income on the same level as their nondisabled counterparts (Clark & Unruh, 2010; Lane, Carter, & Sisco, 2012). Although some research reveals that more students with disabilities have more access to services that help with securing postsecondary education and employment placement, many students are not aware of the services or properly prepared to access the services (Lane, Carter, & Sisco, 2012). Many of the postsecondary challenges that students with disabilities face are linked to poor preparation for postsecondary success as a result of poor secondary transition planning (Angell et al., 2010; Barber, 2012; Herbert, Lorenz, & Trusty, 2010).
According to federal law, transition services must be provided to high school students with disabilities to help them achieve postsecondary outcomes in academia or employment (IDEA, 2004). Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), transition services should be results-oriented and focus on improving the academic and functional achievement of students with disabilities to facilitate their movement from secondary activities to postsecondary activities (IDEA, 2004). Research by Herbert et al. (2010) showed that successful transition planning must involve the students, their families, and an effective transition team in order to achieve long-term ongoing success for students with disabilities. Many transition plans written at the secondary level are merely pro forma and are written more for compliance rather than intention. According to Collet-Klingenberg and Kolb (2011), just writing down transition goals does not mean that actual implementation of the goals will
take place. Under the IDEA (2004), transition plans should build upon a student’s strengths, preferences, interests, and needs in order to maximize postsecondary success.
A transition plan should specify student goals for successful transition from secondary to postsecondary life. Unfortunately, sometimes it is just a document that leads to outcomes that students could have achieved without a written plan. A plan alone does not prepare students for the postsecondary challenges that they may face, such as few employment and educational opportunities and low self- determination (Morgan & Openshaw, 2011). However, one’s contribution to society is often examined by his or her ability to obtain employment and/or obtain a postsecondary education, but this is often a challenge for students with disabilities (Clark & Unruh, 2010). With more and more students being diagnosed with disabilities, successful postsecondary transition planning is a priority and more data is needed on how well secondary educators prepare students with disabilities for postsecondary challenges so that they can lead more meaningful lives (Angell et al., 2010; Herbert et al., 2010; Morgan & Openshaw (2011).
The National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 revealed that students with disabilities are less likely to have checking accounts, credit cards, and long-term employment, and are less likely to enroll in postsecondary education programs after high school (Wagner, Newman, Cameto, & Levine, 2005). The results of this study highlight the need for the implementation of more effective transition plans (Kellems & Morningstar, 2010). Transition planning is important in allowing students with disabilities and their families to prepare for life after high school (Mazzotti et al., 2009). “The primary purpose of transition planning is to clearly define the student’s
THE JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPRENTICESHIP, 4(1) 3
postsecondary goals by addressing and defining student strengths, needs, and desires in order to develop an appropriate curricular plan, including academic and functional coursework and community- based instruction necessary to meet postsecondary goals” (Mazzotti et al., 2009, p. 45).
According to Dragoo (2006), the National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities (NICHCY) indicated that transition is a change from adolescence to adulthood that requires the areas of postsecondary education, vocational training, employment, independent living, and community participation to be considered in planning for students’ transitions from high school to adulthood under the IDEA (2004). Federal laws for students with disabilities such as IDEA (2004) have been revised many times since the original passage of the Education of All Children Handicapped Act in 1975, but the most significant revision in regards to the transition process occurred in 1990 with the new provisions to provide students with disabilities with transition services such as assessments, parent participation, and student participation (Barber, 2012; Herbert et al., 2010). Under federal law, transition services include the following: coordinating activities for students with disabilities to promote movement from secondary education to postsecondary education, assessing the needs of students with disabilities and providing services to address those needs, curriculum and instruction, related services, community experiences, employment, and adult living (IDEA, 2004; Kellems & Morningstar, 2010; Lane et al., 2012).
Research reveals that although transition goals are written down, the actual implementation of the goals rarely take place (Collet-Klingenberg & Kolb, 2011).
Price, Gerber, and Mulligan (2003) summed it up best with the question, “Do school-age transition programs… have a legitimate curriculum, or are they delivering instruction based on professional hunches rather than the realities of the workplace” (p. 357). Gaps in the literature still exist in determining the impact that students’ secondary transition plans have on postsecondary outcomes when properly executed. Purpose
The purpose of this study was to examine the quality of secondary transition plans in preparing students receiving special education to successfully meet their postsecondary goals. The quality of the transition plans were assessed according to a set of previously listed external best practices criteria taken from a combination of the National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center (NSTTAC, 2008) Indicator 13 checklist, the IDEA (2004) regulations, and Johnson’s (2003) Parent and Family Guide to Transition Education and Planning.
Federal and state laws require that students with disabilities leave high school prepared for competitive employment, higher education, and independent living; however, many students with disabilities are underserved from a legal and moral perspective in that they are not always as well prepared for postsecondary life as their nondisabled peers (IDEA, 2004; Leandro v. State, 1997). Many transition plans only serve as written documents to comply with the laws and are not serving their intended purpose of leveling the playing field for students with disabilities so that they can access the same postsecondary successes as their nondisabled peers. Until transition planning is approached in a more competent and helpful manner students with disabilities will continue to be placed at a disadvantage after completing high school.
THE JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPRENTICESHIP, 4(1) 4
This mixed-methods study examined the impact of the quality of individual education program (IEP) secondary transition plans on the postsecondary outcomes of graduates with disabilities. Little research exists in comparing the implementation of secondary transition plans to the postsecondary outcomes of students with disabilities regarding how the quality and effectiveness of secondary transition plans influence the postsecondary success of students. The rationale for conducting this study was to increase understanding of the connection between secondary transition plans and postsecondary outcomes of students with disabilities. This mixed-methods study sought to answer the following research question through utilizing qualitative and quantitative data in assessing the secondary transition plans of students with disabilities.
How does the quality of the secondary transition plans of students who graduated from a special education program in 2011 meet the research-based proposed criteria of a sound transition plan in preparing the students for postsecondary success? Participants Participants were chosen from a purposeful sample of students from the graduating class of 2011 who had IEP secondary transition plans in place at the time of graduation. The participants consisted of 39 students with disabilities from a small rural high school in a southern state including Caucasian males ranging from ages 18 to 20 (n=20), Caucasian females ages 18 to 19 (n=8), African American males ages 19 and 21(n=2), African American females from ages 18 to 19 (n=5), Hispanic males ages 19 to 21 (n=3), and a Hispanic female age 22 (n=1). The students came from various socioeconomic
backgrounds ranging from lower working class to upper middle class families. Procedure
Thirty-nine secondary transition plans of students who graduated in 2011 with an IEP in place at the time of graduation were evaluated through the use of content analysis using an external set of criteria that establish the makings of a sound transition plan. Criteria from external sources of best practices to assess the quality of the transition plans by using keywords and phrases that describe what a solid transition plan should look like were used to conduct the study. Keywords and phrases were derived from research-based characteristics of quality plans such as age appropriate and measurable postsecondary goals; curriculum and instruction services that prepare students to achieve postsecondary goals; student participation; consideration of students’ strengths, needs, interests, and preferences; outside agency and parent input along with collaboration; and identification of needed services by the students in achieving their postsecondary goals (Clark & Unruh, 2010; IDEA, 2004; Johnson, 2003; NSTTAC, 2008). The keywords and phrases were then used to rate the quality of the secondary transition plans.
Instrumentation. The rating scale utilized to assess the quality of the transition plans was based on construct validity derived from the literature and the National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center (NSTTAC) Indicator 13 checklist (IDEA, 2004; Johnson, 2003; NSTTAC, 2008). The Indicator 13 checklist is used nationwide by several school districts and it was designed to check if IEPs meet the requirements of Indicator 13 which mandates that students 16 years old and above have an active transition plan that includes appropriate measurable
THE JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPRENTICESHIP, 4(1) 5
postsecondary goals based upon the students’ transition service needs, age appropriate transition assessments, transition services, and curriculum and instruction that will enable the students to meet postsecondary goals (Alverson et al., 2011; IDEA, 2004; NSTTAC, 2008). The NSTTAC established a set of criteria that details the components of Indicator 13 into a checklist and the same criteria taken from NSTTAC along with other criteria taken from the literature was used to assess the quality of the transition plans in this study (Alverson et al., 2011; IDEA, 2004; Johnson, 2003; NSTTAC, 2008). Based on the Indicator 13 checklist and construct validity derived from the literature regarding the legal requirements of the IDEA, a rating scale ranging from 5-25 was developed to assess the transition plans based on the amount of keywords and phrases found in the plan that best fit within each of the following five external criteria of a quality transition plan for the purpose of this study (Alverson et al., 2011; IDEA, 2004; Johnson, 2003; NSTTAC, 2008):
1. The plan included age appropriate and measurable postsecondary goals.
2. The plan included curriculum and instruction services that prepared the student to achieve their postsecondary goals such as higher education, independent living, competitive employment, self- determination, and community experiences.
3. The plan included student participation and addressed the strengths, needs, interests, and preferences of the students.
4. The plan included outside agencies such as vocational rehabilitation agencies, mental health agencies, and other servicing agencies along with teacher and parent input and collaboration.
5. The plan identified services that the student needed from outside agencies to achieve their postsecondary goals. The rating scale was broken down by
assigning 1 point for two or fewer keywords and phrases, 2 points for three to five, 3 points for six to eight, 4 points for nine to eleven, and 5 points for twelve or more keywords and phrases. Once all of the keywords and phrases were tallied, the total rating for each plan consisted of 5-9 as poor, 10-14 as moderate, 15-19 as adequate, 20- 24 as good, and the top score of 25 as exemplary. The established ratings were used to determine the quality of the transition plans and to answer the research question regarding the quality, effectiveness, and alignment of the plans with the secondary curriculum in successfully meeting the postsecondary goals of the students.
THE JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPRENTICESHIP, 4(1) 6
Table 1 Keywords and Phrases Found in Transition Plans
Criteria Keywords/Phrases
1. age appropriate and measurable postsecondary goals
employment, education, and training, independent living, technical college, higher education, college, university, community college, competitive employment, military, apprenticeship budget, financial management , after high school he/she will
2. curriculum and instruction services that prepared the student to achieve their postsecondary goals such as higher education, independent living, competitive employment
school staff, administrator, teacher input, self-determination, self- advocacy, curriculum of study, career and technical
3. self-determination, and community experiences
courses ,community experience, training, transition activities, postsecondary services, technical college, higher education, college, university, community college, competitive employment, military, apprenticeship, student will pursue goal of
4. outside agency involvement, parent and teacher input and collaboration
vocational rehabilitation, mental health agencies, disability services parent, teacher/staff, guardian, family input, parent, guardian, or family members stated
5. identifiable services needed by the student from outside agencies to achieve his or her postsecondary goals
student, parent, teacher/staff input, agency representative input, vocational rehabilitation, mental health agencies, disability services, postsecondary services, postsecondary mentors, student support
Once all of the keywords and phrases were tallied, the total rating for each plan
was assigned the established rating of poor, moderate, adequate, good, or exemplary.
THE JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPRENTICESHIP, 4(1) 7
The ratings were then used to determine the quality of the transition plans in meeting the postsecondary goals of the students. Results The purpose of the research question was to utilize research-based criteria to assess the quality of the secondary transition plans in preparing students with disabilities for postsecondary success. The results of this study revealed that the transition plans failed in helping to prepare the students for postsecondary success. Laws such as the IDEA (2004), the Perkins Act (2006), and the Leandro v. State (1997) ruling mandate that students receive secondary instruction that enables them to successfully engage in postsecondary education and employment. However, the majority of the students were
not properly armed with a secondary transition plan aimed at helping them to meet postsecondary challenges and their intended postsecondary goals. The following table reflects the results of the quality of the secondary transition plans based on the established rating scale of poor, moderate, adequate, good, and exemplary.
Table 2 Transition Plans Ratings
Plan Criterion 1 keywords/ phrases
Criterion 2 keywords/ phrases
Criterion 3 keywords/p hrases
Criterion 4 keywords/ phrases
Criterion 5 keywords/ phrases
Total Rating
1 2 3 2 1 2 10=Moderate 2 1 3 1 1 1 7=Poor 3 1 1 1 1 2 6=Poor 4 1 2 1 1 2 7=Poor 5 2 3 2 1 2 10=Moderate 6 2 1 1 1 1 6=Poor 7 2 2 2 2 2 10=Moderate 8 2 2 2 1 2 9=Poor 9 2 2 2 1 2 9=Poor 10 3 2 1 1 2 9=Poor 11 2 2 2 1 1 8=Poor 12 1 2 1 1 2 7=Poor 13 2 2 2 1 1 8=Poor 14 2 2 3 1 2 10=Moderate 15 1 3 2 1 2 9=Poor 16 2 3 2 1 1 9=Poor 17 2 3 2 1 1 9=Poor 18 2 3 2 1 3 11=Moderate 19 2 3 2 2 3 12=Moderate 20 2 1 3 1 1 8=Poor 21 2 2 2 1 2 9=Poor
THE JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPRENTICESHIP, 4(1) 8
22 2 2 2 1 1 8=Poor 23 2 3 2 1 1 9=Poor 24 1 2 1 2 2 8=Poor 25 2 3 2 1 1 9=Poor 26 2 3 2 1 2 10=Moderate 27 2 3 2 1 1 9=Poor 28 2 4 2 1 2 11=Moderate 29 2 3 2 2 2 11=Moderate 30 2 2 1 1 1 7=Poor 31 1 2 2 1 1 7=Poor 32 2 3 2 1 1 9=Poor 33 2 3 2 1 1 9=Poor 34 2 2 2 1 1 8=Poor 35 2 3 2 1 1 9=Poor 36 2 3 2 2 2 11=Moderate 37 2 3 2 1 2 10=Moderate 38 2 2 2 2 2 10=Moderate 39 2 3 2 1 1 9=Poor Mean 1.85 2.46 1.85 1.15 1.59 8.89
The range of scores for the quality of
the plans was 7-12 and none of the secondary transition plans met the criteria under the adequate, good, or exemplary range. Twelve out of 39 of the secondary transition plans were found to be moderate meaning that the rating fell between 10-14 based on the established rating scale used to rate the plans. The remaining 27 plans were found to be poor falling between the ratings of 5-9 based on the established rating scale. The average quality score of the plans was 8.89 and none of them rose above the upper level of poor which was 9. Even in eliminating the outlier scores (7 and 12), the transition plans still yielded an average quality score of 8.86, indicating that on average the quality of the 39 transition plans failed to meet even the lowest standard of being considered moderately successful. The mean of each criterion fell below the three
point rating meaning that none of the secondary transition plans contained more than five keywords or phrases recommended by the literature to form a sound plan.
Many of the plans consisted of filling in the blanks on the prescribed secondary transition plan template with many of the blanks left unfilled. The template included blank sections for the student’s needs, strengths, preferences, and interests’ information, transition assessments, course of study, education, employment, and independent living postsecondary goals, along with transition services such as instruction, related services, community experiences, employment, adult living skills, daily living skills, and functional vocational evaluations. Table 3 below demonstrates the information provided on transition plan templates.
Table 3 Transition Plan Template
IDEA transition plan template required information
Percentage of plans that provided this information
Percentage of plans that failed to include this information
Percentage of plans that provided clear and original assessments of the information
Students’ needs, strengths, preferences, and interests
100% 0% 46.2%
Transition assessments
84.6%
15.4%
51.3%
Course of study
84.6%
15.4%
43.6%
Education postsecondary goals
92.3%
7.7%
25.6%
Employment postsecondary goals
89.7%
10.3%
71.8%
Independent living postsecondary goals
69.2%
30.8%
51.2%
Instructional transition services
100%
0%
30.8%
Related services
94.9%
5.1%
28.2%
Community experiences transition services
94.9%
5.1%
48.7%
Employment transition services
100% 0% 58.8%
Adult living transition services 82.1% 17.9% 61.5% Daily living transition services 89.7% 10.3% 10.3% Functional vocational evaluation transition services
92.3%
7.7%
7.7%
Although 100% of the transition plans contained the required information regarding the needs, strengths, preferences, and interests of the students, less than half (46.2%) of the plans provided clear assessments of the information in regards to the particular students. Eighty-four point six percent of the plans included transition assessments and 15.4% did not. Of the 84.6% of the plans that contained a course of study for the students, less than half of them (43.6%) provided clear and original assessments of the information. The majority of the plans (92.3%) contained postsecondary goals in which 25.6% of them were not derived from clear and original assessments. Many of the plans (89.7%) included postsecondary goals that provided clear and original assessments at a rate of 71.8%. However, only 69.2% of the transition plans included independent living goals with 51.2% providing clear assessments, but 30.8% of the plans did not include any independent living goals at all which defies the mandate of Indicator 13 in helping students prepare for postsecondary success.
All of the transition plans (100%) included instructional transition services; however, only 30.8% of them provided clear and original assessments of this information. Most of the plans contained transition services of related services and community experiences at a rate of 94.9% for both of the transition services, and 28.2% of the plans provided clear assessments of the related services while 48.7% of the plans provided clear assessments of the students’ community experiences. All of the plans (100%) included employment transition services and over half of them (58.8%) provided clear and original assessments of this information. Eighty-two point one percent of the plans contained some form of adult living transition services and 17.9% did
not. Although many of the plans (89.7%) included daily living transition services, only 10.3% of the plans provided clear assessments of this information for the particular students. Also, a large amount of the plans (92.3%) contained functional evaluation information in the blank, but only 7.7% of the information provided clear and original assessments of the information. Approximately, 25% of the transition plans were incomplete with one or more sections left blank. Although many of the plans provided some form of information in the required blanks, a lot of the information provided was basically for pro forma purposes and did not pertain to the intended outcomes of the students. All 39 of the plans contained the words “not applicable” in at least one or more blanks, which is unacceptable because all of the information requested on the transition plan template is applicable as required under the IDEA (2004). According to Herbert et al.(2010), the postsecondary outcomes of students with disabilities will be limited if teachers do not view the transition planning process as more than just words on paper utilized to meet the requirements of the law. The evidences in Tables 2 and 3 suggest that the transition planning of the class of 2011 graduates with disabilities failed to meet even the most basic legal requirements, not to mention the failure to meet the particular and specialized needs of the students. Therefore, the answer to the question is that the secondary transition plans were poor in meeting the quality of the proposed criteria for a sound plan and in preparing the students for postsecondary success. The results indicated that many transition plans were identical and typically completed to provide documentation to fulfill federal and state requirements with little follow-up and feedback to inform improvement.
THE JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPRENTICESHIP, 4(1) 11
Discussions The transition process from high
school to adulthood is challenging enough for most graduates but students with disabilities face even more challenges with the transition process (Robick, 2010). Many students with disabilities face discrimination due to their disabilities when looking for jobs and the current state of the economy does not ease matters for them. Although secondary transition plans are designed to support and prepare students for postsecondary challenges, few deliver the actual transition services such as curriculum and instruction, related services, community experiences, employment, and adult living to address students’ needs (Kellems & Morningstar, 2010). Collet-Klingenberg and Kolb (2011) indicated that merely writing a transition plan is not enough and that actual implementation such as exposing students to real-life experiences and delivering adequate curriculum and instruction is the best way to prepare students for successful postsecondary outcomes.
The assessment of the transition plans indicated that the plans were not well written and the total mean rating of the plans was an 8.89 of a possible 25 and the total mean of the criteria was 1.78 of a possible 5. All of the transition plans fell within the scoring range of 7-12 which made them poor or moderate based on the transition assessment scale used for the study, meaning that they were not sound plans based on the literary criteria and that systematic assessments of the quality of the plans did not occur at the secondary level. Even if the lowest score and highest score were taken out of the total mean rating, the mean score for the transition plans would be 8.86, which still equates to a rating of poor on the transition rating scale. This is very unnerving because federal and state mandates require that students with
disabilities engage in secondary transition planning activities that facilitate their movement into postsecondary success and all students are entitled to sufficient skills to successfully engage in postsecondary education and employment (IDEA, 2004; Leandro v. State, 1997; Perkins Act, 2006). Therefore, most of the secondary transition plans proved to be merely written as pro forma and were not properly designed to meet the needs of the students in preparing them for postsecondary success.
Implications for Practice
Based on the findings, the implications for practice consist of the need to improve and possibly overhaul the secondary transition planning process through the establishment of a system for monitoring and accountability of the regulations of federal guidelines regarding transition plans by the administrators of the teachers in charge of developing and implementing the plans. High school teachers need to establish a systematic assessment of transition plans for quality in preparing students for postsecondary success. The results of the question surrounding the quality of the secondary transition plans support the need for improving the secondary transition planning process for students with disabilities. Federal laws such as the IDEA (2004), the Education of All Children Handicapped Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act were all aimed at providing people with disabilities with equal opportunities to education and employment (Kellems & Morningstar, 2010). Despite such laws, graduates with disabilities continue to face significant challenges when it comes to postsecondary success in the areas of employment, education, and independent living (Barber, 2012). Unfortunately, it seems that no serious attention was taken
THE JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPRENTICESHIP, 4(1) 12
by the high school staff in developing the secondary transition plans to ensure the possible success of the school’s most vulnerable citizens. Limitations
This study was confined to a small rural school district in the south and cannot be generalized to other school districts. Also, several of the teachers in the study who wrote the transition plans were responsible for writing more than one of the secondary transition plans which led to many students having identical transition plans. All of the transition plans were written using a required computer program format that was used by the school district, in which the teachers had to fill in the required blanks. However, the format included all of the federal requirements under the IDEA (2004) of what a secondary transition plan should consist of to guide the teachers in writing the transition plans. Also, some of the secondary transition plans were incomplete, leaving out the intended postsecondary goals of the students and the curriculum alignment which may have contributed to the lack of the graduates’ postsecondary success. In order for secondary transition planning to fulfill its intended purpose and work the way that the laws intended, teachers will need to stop viewing the transition planning process as limited and unnecessary and adhere more to federal regulations so that more graduates will find postsecondary success within the reasonable intended outcomes of their transition plans.
Conclusion
According to the IDEA (2004), schools must include successful individual transition plans in students’ IEPs that are monitored by
state and local school districts while students are in high school and after graduation. However, the results of this study indicated that the majority of the graduates’ transition plans were “cookie cutter” plans often written by the same few teachers with very little individuality for the diverse needs of the students. Unlike their regular education peers, students with disabilities are limited in their postsecondary options and writing their future off as just a compliance requirement with little effort and passion is an outrage. Until transition plans and the entire transition process are approached in a more competent and helpful manner by teachers, parents, students, administrators, and outside agency representatives, students with disabilities will continue to be placed at a disadvantage after graduation.
References Alverson, C. Y., Unruh, D., Rowe, D. A., &
Kellems, R. (2011). Post-school data collection question bank. Retrieved July 2, 2012, from University of Oregon, National Post-School Outcomes Center website: http://www.psocenter.org/
Angell, M. E., Stoner, J. B., & Fulk, B. M. (2010). Advice from adults with physical disabilities on fostering self- determination during the school years. Teaching Exceptional Children, 42(3), 64-75.
Barber, P. (2012). College students with disabilities: What factors influence successful degree completion? A case study. Disability and Work Research Report. Retrieved December 3, 2012, from Rutgers University, John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development website: http://www.heldrich.rutgers.edu/re
THE JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPRENTICESHIP, 4(1) 13
search/disability-employment Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical
Education Improvement Act, 20 U.S.C. §2301 et seq. (2006).
Clark, H., & Unruh, D. (2010). Transition practices for adjudicated youth with E/BDS and related disabilities. Behavioral Disorders, 36(1), 43-51.
Collet-Klingenberg, L. L., & Kolb, S. M. (2011). Secondary and transition programming for 18-21 year old students in rural Wisconsin. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 30(2), 19-27.
Dragoo, K. (2006). Transition 101. National Dissemination for Children with Disabilities. Retrieved July 14, 2011, from http://www.nichy.org/resources/tra nsition101.asp
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq. (1990).
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §1416 et seq. (2004).
Herbert, J. T., Lorenz, D. M., & Trusty, J. (2010). Career assessment practices for high school students with disabilities and perceived value reported by transition personnel. Journal of Rehabilitation, 76(4), 18- 26.
Johnson, J. (2003). Parent and family guide to transition education and planning: What parents and families need to know about transition education and planning for youth with disabilities. Retrieved March 15, 2012, from San Diego State University, Department of Special Education website: http://wwwrohan.sdsu.edu/~jrjohns o/SFTEP1/SFTEP1.htm
Kellems, R., & Morningstar, M. (2010). Tips for transition. Council for Exceptional Children, 43(2), 60-68.
Lane, K. L., Carter, E. W., & Sisco, L. (2012). Paraprofessional involvement in self-determination instruction for students with high-incidence disabilities. Council for Exceptional Children, 78(2), 237-251.
Leandro v. State, 346 NC. 336, 488 S.E.2d 249 (1997).
Mazzotti, V., Rowe, D., Kelley, K., Test, D., Fowler, C., Kohler, P., . . . Kortering, L. (2009). Linking transition assessment and postsecondary goals: Key elements in the secondary transition planning process. Council for Exceptional Children, 42(2), 44-51.
Morgan, R. L., & Openshaw, K. P. (2011). Targeted transition assessment leading to job placement for young adults with disabilities in rural areas. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 30(2), 29-31.
National Council on Disability. (2011). Technology’s impact on employment and opportunities for people with disabilities. Washington, DC: Author.
National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center. (2008). Personnel development #1: Using NSTTAC indicator 13 resources. Charlotte, NC: Author.
Price, L., Gerber, P. J., & Mulligan, R. (2003). The Americans with Disabilities Act and adults with learning disabilities as employees: The realities of the workplace. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 350-358.
Robick, C. (2010). A phenomenological study: Parent/guardian and special education student perceptions of transition beyond high school. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Dissertations & Theses Proquest database. (UMI NO. 3413577).
THE JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPRENTICESHIP, 4(1) 14
Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., & Levine, P. (2005). Changes over time in the early postschool outcomes of youth with disabilities. A report of findings from the national longitudinal transition study (NLTS) and the national longitudinal transition study-2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
Author Note
Contact: Vickie Miller-Warren, [email protected]
PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH ONLINE NURSING PAPERS TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT