RUEPI Transition for Urban Youth

7/29/2019 RUEPI Transition for Urban Youth

1/16

Transition for Urban Youth with Disabilities

Leaving Secondary Education

By Lisa S. Cushing and Michelle Parker-Katz

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Urban youth with disabilities face

complex uncertainties as they

move from high school to life

beyond, whether that ispostsecondary education, joining

the workforce, and/or determining

living arrangements. Given such

problems, federal and state

policies have increasingly focused

on developing and strengthening

the transition services available to

students; that is, services aimed at

improving the academic and

functional achievement of

children with disabilities to facilite

their movement from school topost-school, including

postsecondary education,

employment, and independent

living. However, transition services

are often poorly and inconsistently

implemented in practice,

particularly because these services

are not grounded in a coordinated,

transparent, and coherent system

that spans across federal, state,

and local levels. As such,

individuals with disabilities and

their families often cannot acquire

the information to successfully

navigate the labyrinth of possibleprograms and services and then

piece them together for a cohesive,

individualized transition that

builds toward maximum

independence in adulthood. To

best meet the needs of youth with

disabilities and their families,

current policies should be

modified to faciliate the (1)

formation of a coordinated

interagency system, (2) formation

of new partnerships amongfederal, state, and local

institutions and agencies, (3)

extension of services further

beyond high school, and (4)

development of cross-entity

personnel training programs.

education.uic.edu/ruep

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Lisa S. Cushing is anAssociate Professor inthe Special Educationdepartment in theCollege of Educationat the University ofIllinois at Chicago.

Michelle Parker-Katz

is a Clinical Professor

who teaches masters

and doctoralstudents, coordinates

masters programs in

Special Education at

UIC, and publishes

research related to

teacher education

and learning.

policyBRIEFUIC Research on Urban Education Policy Initiative

January 2013

Vol. 1, Book 3


2/16

UIC Research on Urban Education Policy Initiative

INTRODUCTION

Urban youth with disabilities face

complex uncertainties as they move

from high school to life beyond,whether that is postsecondary

education, joining the workforce,

and/or determining living

arrangements. They are often ill

prepared to plan for and make

choices amongst existing

postsecondary possibilities.1 The

situation is particularly bleak for

youth with disabilities who are also

youth of color or poverty. They are

the most likely group to drop out of

high school, and many find

themselves incarcerated,

underemployed, or becoming

young parents.2When they are in

school, the range and quality of

resources, such as specially trained

personnel to assist with transition,

specialized curricular offerings, and

technology, vary greatly and are

inequitably distributed.3When

youth with disabilities leave school,

they also leave behind access toschool-based mandated services.

With the loss of those services,

students and their families must

locate services and supports with

little, if any, guidance.4

Given such problems, federal and

state policies have increasingly

recognized this significant period of

life as transition, and focused ondeveloping and strengthening

transition services available to

youth and young adults; that is,

services aimed at improving

academic and functional

achievement to facilitate

movement from high school to

post-school, especially

postsecondary education,

employment, and independent

living. Federal legislation, such as

the Individuals with DisabilitiesEducation Act (IDEA), No Child Left

Behind (NCLB), and Social Security

Act have increasingly focused on

enhancing transition services, and

states have interpreted and

responded to such legislation in a

range of ways. The emphasis on

transition services represents an

important step in the right

direction. As research

demonstrates, high quality

transition services are critical for

ensuring that youth with

disabilities finish high school and

succeed in whatever they choose to

do as adults. However, transition

services are often poorly and

inconsistently implemented,

particularly because they are not

grounded in a coordinated,

evidence-based, and transparentsystem that spans across federal,

state, and local levels. Individuals

with disabilities and their families

accordingly find it difficult to

acquire the information needed for

successfully navigating the

labyrinth of possible programs and

services and then piecing them

together for a cohesive

individualized transition that builds

toward maximum independence in

adulthood.

This brief examines the policy

landscape governing transition

services in the U.S., with specific

attention to the major challenges

associated with the incoherence

and incongruence of transition

policy. In particular, this brief

reviews the state of the transition

policy landscape, major problems

of policies governing transition,

and research on transition, andconcludes by offering

recommendations for improving

transition policies.

policyBRIEF

1 Mary E. Morningstar, Kyeong-Hwa Kim, and Gary M. Clark, Evaluating a Transition Personnel Preparation Program: Identifying TransitionCompetencies of Practitioners, Teacher Education and Special Education31, no. 1 (2008): 47. doi: 10.1177/08884064080310010.

2 Lynn Newman, Mary Wagner, Renee Cameto, and Anne-Marie Knokey, The Post-High School Outcomes of Youth with Disabilities up to 4 Years AfterHigh School. A Report of Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) (NCSER 2009-3017) (Menlo Park, CA: SRIInternational, 2009); Mary Magee Quinn, et al., Youth with Disabilities in Juvenile Corrections: A National Survey, Exceptional Children, 71 no. 3(2005): 339 345; Melissa Sickmund,Juvenile Offenders and Victims: National Report Series Bulletin(Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,2004); Mary Wagner, Characteristics of Out-of-School Youth with Disabilities, inAfter High School: A First Look at the Postschool Experiences ofYouth with Disabilities. A Report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2, eds. Mary Wagner, et al., (Menlo Park, CA: SRI International,2005); Mary Wagner and Maryann Davis, How Are We Preparing Students with Emotional Behavior Disturbances for the Transition to YoungAdulthood? Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2,Journal of Emotional Behavioral Disorders14, no. 2, (2006): 86-98.

3 Susan Aud, et al., The Condition of Education 2011 (NCES 2011-033), (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2011); Sheryl BurgstahlerDO-IT: Helping students with disabilities transition to college and careers, Research to Practice Brief: Improving Secondary Education andTransition Services through Research, 2, no. 3, 2003, Retrieved October 18, 2010 from www.ncset.org/publications/viewdesc.asp?id=1168; WilliamErickson, Camille G. Lee, and Sarah von Schrader, 2008 Disability Status Report: the United States, (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University RehabilitationResearch and Training Center on Disability Demographics and Statistics, 2009); U.S. Office of Special Education Programs, Facts from OSEPsNational Longitudinal Studies: Minorities among Children and Youth with Disabilities, (Menlo Park, CA: SRI International, August 2002), Retrievedon October 16, 2010 from www.nlts2.org/fact_sheets/nlts2_fact_sheet_2002_08.pdf; Audrey A. Trainor, et al., Marginalized to MaximizedOpportunities for Diverse Youths With Disabilities: A Position Paper of the Division on Career Development and Transition, Career Developmentfor Exceptional Individuals, 31, n. 1 (2008): 56- 64, doi:10.1177/0885728807313777.

4 Burgstahler , DO-IT: Helping students with disabilities transition to college and careers.


3/16

THE TRANSITION POLICY

LANDSCAPE

Attention to transitions for youth

with disabilities has grown in

research and policy since the 1980s.

In 1984, U.S. Assistant Secretary of

Education for Special Education and

Rehabilitation, Madeleine Will, issued

a report highlighting the high

unemployment rates for adults with

disabilities, the lack of community

services and supports for these

individuals, and the segregation of

supports for those who were

receiving services. In this report, Willdefined transition as a bridge

between the security and structure

offered by the school and the risks of

life.5 In 1985, educational researcher

Andrew Halpern proposed a broader

definition of transition by drawing

attention to successful living in a

community as the major goal of

transition.6While maintaining an

emphasis on employment and

services that Will had proposed,

Halpern reasoned that successful

transition was affected by additional

elements. Halpern underscored the

importance of community

integration of persons with

disabilities and proposed a dynamic

model in which three components

interacted and contributed to

successful transition: residential

environment, social and

interpersonal networks, and

employment.

With the 1990 reauthorization of the

IDEA, transition emerged as an

important concept in federal

legislation.7 The 1990 and

subsequent reauthorizations of

IDEA in 1997 and 2004 mandatedtransition services and stated that

transition:

[is a process targeted at

improvement of] the academic and

functional achievement of the child

with a disability to facilitate the

childs movement from school to

post-school activities, including

post-secondary education,

vocational education, integrated

employment (including supportedemployment); continuing and adult

education, adult services,

independent living, or community

participation; (b) is based on the

individual childs needs, taking into

account the childs strengths,

preferences, and interests; and (c)

includes instruction, related

services, community experiences,

the development of employment

and other post-school adult living

objectives, and, if appropriate,

acquisition of daily living skills and

functional vocational evaluation.8

In the 2004 reauthorization of the

IDEA, Congress mandated that

Individualized Education Plans

(IEPs), written documents required

for all students with disabilities to

guide the services they receive,

include measureable postsecondary

goals in education and training,employment, and independent

living skills when appropriate.9

Furthermore, the 2004 IDEA

5 Madeline Will , OSERS Programming for the Transition of Youth with Disabilities: Bridges fromSchool to Working Life(Washington, DC: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services,1984): 1.

6 Andrew S. Halpern, Transition: A Look at the Foundations, Exceptional Children51, no. 6(1985): 479.

7 The IDEA was originally passed as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EACHA) in1975. The 1990 reauthorization of the EACHA renamed the law as the IDEA.

8 34 CFR 300.43 (a); 20 U.S.C. 1401(34).9 34 CFR 300.320(b) and (c); 20 U.S.C. 1414 (d)(1)(A)(i)(VIII).


policyBRIEF

As research

demonstrates, high

quality transition

services are critical

for ensuring that

youth with

disabilities finish

high school and

succeed in

whatever they

choose to do as

adults.


4/16

reauthorization required IEPs to

identify particular transition services

that are needed for students, which

potentially include acquiring thehelp of a representative from an

outside agency to assist with the

transition of services from the

school setting to the out-of-school

setting upon graduation.

Within the last two decades, federal

funding has also supported post-

school transition services under

programs administered by various

federal agencies. These agencies

include the U.S. Department ofEducation, U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services (HHS),

U.S. Department of Labor, and

Social Security Administration (SSA).

For example, the Office of Special

Education Programs (OSEP) in the

U.S. Department of Education has

supported technical centers like the

National Center on Secondary

Education and Transition and the

National Secondary Transition

Technical Assistance Center(NSTTAC) that provide transition

related resources and up-to-date

research and data. OSEP currently

supports the funding of fifteen

personnel preparation grants for

training teachers in transition at a

total of $21 million.10 Moreover, the

U.S. Department of Education under

the Obama administration has

added $2 billion to Trade

Adjustment Assistant Grants that

assist career readiness11 and, in April

2012, released A Blueprint for

Transforming Career and Technical

Education, a proposal forreauthorizing the Carl D. Perkins

Career and Technical Education Act

of 2006.12According to this

blueprint, the Obama

administration proposed to add

significant investments to the

Community College Career Fund

and subsidize high school students

to participate in career academies.

Several federal funding sources also

support research about transition,

including the National Center forSpecial Education Research and the

Institute for Education Sciences, the

research arm of the U.S. Department

of Education. Outside the field of

education, the National Institute on

Disability and Rehabilitation

Research (NIDRR) provides

significant funding for centers such

as the VR Rehabilitation Research

and Training Center.

Despite the significant attention andresources devoted to developing and

implementing transition services for

youth with disabilities, we continue

to see a disturbing picture for youth

with disabilities in transition. The

following section examines the

problems raised by policies aimed at

developing and enhancing

transition services, and the

challenges that youth with

disabilities continue to confront.

10 Office of Special Education & Rehabilitation Services, Office of Special Education Programs,Application for New Grants under the IDEA Act: Personnel Preparation in Special Education,Early Intervention and Related Services (CFDA 84.325K)(Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofEducation, 2011).

11 Office of Vocational and Adult Education, Summary of Investing in Americas Future: A Blueprintfor Transforming Career and Technical Education, (Washington D.C: U.S. Department ofEducation, 2012).

12 Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Improvement Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-597; Office of Vocational and Adult Education, Investing in Americas Future: A Blueprint forTransforming Career and Technical Education, (Washington D.C.: U.S. Department ofEducation, 2012).

policyBRIEF


Despite the

significant attention

and resources

devoted to

developing and

implementing

transition services

for youth with

disabilities, we

continue to see a

disturbing picture

for youth with

disabilities in

transition.


5/16


policyBRIEFDILEMMAS OF SUCCESSFUL

TRANSITION

The policies aimed at developing

and enhacing transition services

entail several interrelated problems

that ultimately result in significant

challenges faced by youth and young

adults with disabilities as they move

from high school to postsecondary

life. The lack of a cohesive federal

framework to support transition age

youth is the most fundamental of

these problems. The current system

remains highly fragmented because

transition-related programs areadministered by many different

agencies. Due in part to the

problems of such fragmentation, the

Government Accountability Office

(GAO) acknowledged the need for

systemic change at the federal level

as early as 1997.13 Moreover,

highlighting the inefficiency,

ineffectiveness, and economic waste

in disability programs that stem

from such problems, the federal

government has placed disabilityprograms on a high risk list that it

publishes annually.14

The fragmented federal framework

is marred by redundant and

incompatible practices that

obfuscate the processes that youth

with disabilities must navigate to

effectively take advantage of

transition services. For example,

both the SSA and Vocational

Rehabilitation Administration (VRA)under the U.S. Department of Labor

fund programs directed at

employment and training for

individuals with disabilities. Those

programs, however, have different

eligibility requirements, applicationprocesses, and types of services.

Ironically, the requirements

established by VRA, aimed at helping

people with disabilities obtain

employment, often make individuals

ineligible for programs offered

through SSAindividuals may

become ineligible for additional

monetary support from the SSA if

they demonstrate their ability to

work.15 Moreover, the lack of

coordination and clarity on roles

and responsibilities for providing

services to people with disabilities

can result in confusion as to which

agency is responsible for funding

specific services.

Making the transition policy

landscape even more complex, each

agency is governed by its own

statutory requirements set forth by

several pieces of legislation.

Examples of legislation with

transition components include:

Assistive Technology Act 1994,

Developmental Disabilities

Assistance and Bill of Rights Act 2000,

Higher Education Act of 1965; IDEA;

Rehabilitation Act 1973; Social

Security Act; and, the Workforce

Investment Act of 1998. Yet, this

collection of legislation has left

several significant gaps in the policy

structures governing transition.Nowhere is that more evident than in

the breakdown between protections

The lack of a

cohesive federal

framework to

support transition

age youth is the

most fundamental

of these problems.

13 Government Accountability Office [GAO], People with Disabilities: Federal Programs Could WorkTogether More Efficiently to Promote Employment(Washington, DC: Government Printing Office,1997).

14 Government Accountability Office [GAO], Students with Disabilities: Better Coordination CouldLessen Challenges in the Transition from High School(Washington, DC: Government PrintingOffice, 2012).

15 Valerie Brooke and Jennifer T. McDonough, The Facts Maam, Just the Facts: Social SecurityDisability Benefit Programs and Work Incentives, TEACHING Exceptional Children, 41, no. 1,(2008): 58-65; GAO, Students with Disabilities: Better Coordination Could Lessen Challenges inthe Transition from High School.


6/16

for students with disabilities under

the IDEA when they are in school and

protections under the range of

federal laws that apply to youngadults with disabilities when they exit

school.16 If a student is found to have

a disability when in school, an IEP

must identify all areas of need,

provide supports and services to

meet those needs, and support the

students school progress. Depending

on when a student becomes eligible

for support under the IDEA, that

student may receive up to 13 years of

documented specialized education

supports and services. The onus ofdelivering those services falls to the

school, and the school essentially

becomes a one-stop-shop for

managing the students specialized

needs.

However, when youth with

disabilities leave school, they enter a

world in which a range of services

are offered by several different

providers that operate under

different governance structures andutilize different processes for serving

individuals. The various federal

agencies that serve adults with

disabilities generally rely on state

and local community entities (each

with their own set of guidelines for

interpreting federal law) to impart

funding and implement supports

and services. Thus, the lack of a clear

and coherent federal framework

directly impacts the ability of stateand local service providers to

communicate and coordinate with

each other, ultimately impairing

effectiveness and efficiency.17

Mirroring what occurs at the federal

level, state and local agencies

responsible for implementing

transition services often find

themselves at odds about agency

roles and expectations as well as

funding. Responsibilities for servicesfor postsecondary education and

training, employment and

independent living are often

provided inconsistently with respect

to the quality, intensity and duration

of services. What accounts for such

variance? In some cases, adult

agencies turn individuals with

disabilities who are 22 or younger

away because these youth can still

receive IDEA funding.18 In other

instances, when providers determinethat youth with disabilities are

eligible to receive services, some

services previously afforded may

cease, leaving the person with the

disability to do without or to pay out

of pocket for what they may find

necessary to succeed.19 For example,


policyBRIEF

Nowhere is that

more evident than in

the breakdown

between protections

for students with

disabilities under

the IDEA when they

are in school and

protections underthe range of federal

laws that apply to

young adults with

disabilities when

they exit school.16 Kimberly Moherek Sopko, Preparation for Postsecondary Life for Students with Disabilities, In

Forum, June 2010, www.projectforum.org/docs/PreparationforPostsecondaryLifeforStudentswithDisabilities.pdf; Office for Civil Rights, Students with Disabilities Preparing for

Postsecondary Education: Know Your Rights and Responsibilities(Washington D.C: U.S.Department of Education, 2004).17 Kelli Crane, Meredith Gramlich, and Kris Peterson, Putting Interagency Agreements into

Action, Issue Brief: Examining Current Challenges in Secondary Education and Transition, 3, no2. 2004, Retrieved December 10, 2010 from www.ncset.org/publications/viewdesc.asp?id=1689.

18 Autism Speaks, Transition Information: Michigan, available at: www.autismspeaks.org/docs/family_services _docs/transition/MI.pdf; GAO, Students with Disabilities: Better CoordinationCould Lessen Challenges in the Transition from High School, 2012.

19 Debra Hart, Karen Zimbrich, and Teresa Whelley, Challenges in Coordinating and ManagingServices and Supports in Secondary and Postsecondary Options, Issue Brief 1, no. 6, 2002,Retrieved December 10, 2010 from www.ncset.org/publications/viewdesc.asp?id=1689; Sopko,Preparation for Postsecondary Life for Students with Disabilities; Office for Civil Rights,Students with Disabilities Preparing for Postsecondary Education: Know Your Rights andResponsibilities; Robert A Stodden, People with Disabilities and Postsecondary Education-Position paper, September 15, 2003. Retrieved October 18, 2010 fromwww.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/education.html.


7/16

many students with Autism

Spectrum Disorders require social

and behavioral supports to

accommodate social andcommunication deficits. Such

supports are rarely offered in

postsecondary institutions, leaving

those students socially isolated. Who,

where, and when such support

services are offered remain unclear.

These ambiguous expectations and

roles among agencies effectively keep

students with disabilities in high

school longer rather than helping

them transition beyond high school

because it is the only way forstudents to receive needed services.

Providers of transition services also

face challenges in working with

transition age youth with disabilities.

While proposals to more strongly link

K-12 education to postsecondary

education and employment at the

provider level are underfoot, such

efforts have been slow to emerge.20

The lack of longitudinal evidence of

what works obscures serviceproviders effectiveness, causing

providers to operate with little

guidance with respect to the quality,

length and intensity of services. For

example, under the IDEA, outside

adult agencies identified on the

students IEP are required to be

invited to participate in a students

IEP/transition planning meeting.

However, those outside agencies are

not required to attend the meetings,

and more often than not, outside

personnel do not participate.21 The

lack of coordination, clarity of roles,

and fragmentation of work and

funding, function as strong barriers

to collaborative work. Within such

uncharted territory, informationdissemination breaks down. What is

left is a set of proposed practices

through legislation with structures

that are ill conceived, disparate, and

disconnected.

When youth exit high school, the

obligation thus falls to them as

adults to negotiate myriad funding

agencies, determine which services

are available, and determine if they

meet the criteria for eligibility. Issuesassociated with access to

information and resources, legal

requirements, and services provided

when moving from protections

under different laws and regulations

add up to a significant change to

meet the needs of postsecondary

education, employment, and/or

independent living. This is a major

adjustment for youth with

disabilities because they suddenly

must assume responsibility for

managing all aspects of their

disabilityfrom navigating and

applying to all appropriate funding

agencies, notifying an institution or

employer of their disability, and

advocating for specific supports and

services they will require.22

These problems have resulted in

poor postsecondary education,

employment and independent living

outcomes for many of the 2.2 million

transition-age youth and young

adults with disabilities.23 Nationally,

policyBRIEF


The lack of a clear

and coherent

federal framework

directly impacts the

ability of state and

local service

providers to

communicate and

coordinate with

each other,

ultimately impairing

effectiveness and

efficiency.

20 Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Policy and Planning, TransitionActivities in the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, 2011 (Washington, D.C.:U. S. Department of Education, 2011).

21 Crane, Gramlich, and Peterson, Putting Interagency Agreements into Action; Office of SpecialEducation and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Policy and Planning, Transition Activities in theOffice of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, 2011.

22 Sopko, Preparation for Postsecondary Life for Students with Disabilities.23 GAO, Students with Disabilities: Better Coordination Could Lessen Challenges in the Transition

from High School.


8/16

only 72 percent of youth with

disabilities (ranging from 56 percent

of youth with emotional behavioral

disorders to 95 percent youth withvisual impairments) complete high

school.24A mere 27 percent of youth

with disabilities attend any kind of

school after high school.25Although

still considered to be an under-

represented population in

postsecondary education, the

percent of students with disabilities

attending higher education has

tripled in the past 30 years from 3

percent to 10 percent.26 However, a

paltry 50 percent of youth withdisabilities graduate with a degree.27

In addition to postsecondary

education, employment rates of

individuals with disabilities remain

abysmal. In August 2012,

employment rates were three times

higher for people without disabilities

than with disabilities.28 Echoing

national statistics, employment rates

among working age individuals with

disabilities in Illinois are less than

half of that for people without

disabilities.29While researchers

continue to tout the importance of

integration of individuals in ones

community30

, Illinois pays anaverage per capita cost of $142,533 a

year to state institutions for

individuals with developmental

disabilities to support over 2,000

people.31 In contrast, the state pays

an average $53,291 per-person to

approximately 200 community-

based organizations that service

nearly four times the number of

people with disabilities.32 So,

reforming the ways in which

transition services are provided iscritical for the 2.2 million youth with

disabilities in the U.S., Illinois, and

the nation more broadly.

RESEARCH

Research on youth and adults with

disabilities points to several ways in

which transition policies can be

productively restructured to support

the movement from high school to

adult life. First, building from Will


policyBRIEF

A mere 27 percent

of youth with

disabilities attend

any kind of school

after high school.

24 Institute of Education Sciences, Facts from NLTS2: High School Completion by Youth withDisabilities, last modified November 2005,www.nlts2.org/fact_sheets/nlts2_fact_sheet_2005_11.pdf; Newman, Wagner, Cameto, and Knokey, The Post-High School Outcomes of Youth withDisabilities up to 4 Years After High School. A Report of Findings from the National LongitudinalTransition Study.

25 Institute of Education Sciences, Facts from NLTS2;Newman, Wagner, Cameto, and Knokey, ThePost-High School Outcomes of Youth with Disabilities up to 4 Years After High School. A Report ofFindings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2).

26 Stodden, People with Disabilities and Postsecondary Education-Position Paper.27 Stodden, People with Disabilities and Postsecondary Education-Position Paper.28 Office of Disability Employment Policy, August 2012 Employment Statistics, last modified

September 2012, www.dol.gov/odep.29 Chicago Community Trust (CCT),A Quest for Equality: Breaking the Barriers for People withDisabilities. A Call to Action for Illinois Leaders, (Chicago, IL: Chicago Community Trust, 2010).

30 Leena Jo Landmark, Song Ju, and Dalun Zhang, Substantiated Best practices in Transition:Fifteen Plus Years Later, Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 33, no.3, (2010): 165176, doi: 10.1177/0885728810376410; Frank R. Rusch and David Braddock, Adult Day Programsversus Supported Employment (19882002): Spending and Service Practices of MentalRetardation and Developmental Disabilities State Agencies, Research and Practice for Personswith Severe Disabilities, 29, (2005): 237242; David W. Test, et al., Evidence-Based SecondaryTransition Predictors for Improving Postschool Outcomes for Students with Disabilities, CareerDevelopment for Exceptional Individuals, 32, no. 3, (2009): 160-181, doi:10.1177/0885728809346960.

31 Chicago Community Trust (CCT),A Quest for Equality: Breaking the Barriers for People withDisabilities. A Call to Action for Illinois Leaders.

32 Chicago Community Trust (CCT),A Quest for Equality: Breaking the Barriers for People withDisabilities. A Call to Action for Illinois Leaders.


9/16


10/16

predictive of success in employment

and postsecondary education.39 The

remaining five were linked with

improved outcomes inemployment.40 Research findings

over the last decade show how a

focus on future employment,

education and independent living in

high-school and beyond can help

youth with disabilities to succeed.

Thus, policies should infuse such

findings into comprehensive

frameworks and associated

practices.

STRUCTURE TRANSITION

AS A DYNAMIC AND

INDIVIDUALIZED PROCESS

The research also indicates that

transition should be considered a

dynamic and individualized process

that changes over time. As the

student ages, goals, services, and

supports accordingly should change.

For example, the types of supports

(e.g., employment such as jobshadowing versus job coaching, post

secondary education such as help

choosing training programs), the

timing of services, and the intensity

of supports should vary in direct

relation to the needs of individualpersons going through the

transition.41 Given this view of

effective transition, some

researchers have suggested that the

public high schools should contract

with postsecondary agencies while

particular students move through

high school.42 Thus, as students age,

increasingly more postsecondary

agencies would provide services

alongside school-based supports.

Ultimately, by age 22, high schoolsupports would be replaced by

supports and services in the adult

arena, allowing for a seamless

transition. A related suggestion is to

change policies at the federal level to

make them mimic services

individuals with disabilities receive

under IDEA.43 This move would

create a continuous system of

supports that does not cease once a

person turns 22 years old and/orleaves school. It would also better

reflect the diverse needs of people

0 UIC Research on Urban Education Policy Initiative

policyBRIEF

Research findings

over the last decade

show how a focus

on future

employment,

education and

independent living

in high-school andbeyond can help

youth with

disabilities to

succeed.

39 Test et al., Evidence-Based Secondary Transition Predictors for Improving PostschoolOutcomes for Students with Disabilities, 160.

40 Test et al., Evidence-Based Secondary Transition Predictors for Improving PostschoolOutcomes for Students with Disabilities, 160.

41 Erik W. Carter et al., Availability of and Access to Career Development Activities for Transition-Age Youth with Disabilities, Career Development for Exceptional Individuals33, no. 3. (2010):13, doi:10.1177/0885728809344332; Erik W. Carter, et al., Exploring School-BusinessPartnerships to Expand Career Development and Early Work Experiences for Youth withDisabilities, Career Development for Exceptional Individuals32, no. 3 (2009): 145,doi:10.1177/0885728809344590; Ellen S. Fabian, Urban Youth with Disabilities: FactorsAffecting Transition Employment, Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 50 no. 3 (2010): 130, doi:1-.1177/0343552070500030101; Audrey A. Trainor et al., Perspectives of Adolescents withDisabilities on Summer Employment and Community Experiences,Journal of SpecialEducation45 no. 3 (2011): 157, doi: 10.1177/022466909359424.

42 Nicholas J. Certo et al., Seamless Transition and Long-Term Support for Individuals with SevereIntellectual Disabilities, Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 33, no. 3(2008): 85.

43 Nicholas J. Certo et al., Seamless transition and long-term support for individuals with severeintellectual disabilities, 85; Nicholas J. Certo et al., Review and Discussion of a Model ofSeamless Transition to Adulthood, Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 38,no. 1 (2003): 3; Carolyn Hughes, Postsecondary Outcomes in the 21st centuryA Change IsGonna Come? Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 33, no. 3 (2008): 100;Frank R. Rusch and Pamela Wolfe, When Will Our Values Finally Result in the Creation of NewPathways for ChangeChange that We Can Believe In? Research & Practice for Persons withSevere Disabilities, 33, no. 3 (2008): 96; James R. Thompson et al., Integrating supports inassessment and planning, Mental Retardation, 40, no. 5, (2002): 390-405.


11/16

policyBRIEF


44 Nicholas J. Certo et al., Seamless transition and long-term support for individuals with severeintellectual disabilities, 85; Hughes, Postsecondary Outcomes in the 21st CenturyA ChangeIs Gonna Come?,100; Thompson et al., Integrating Supports in Assessment and Planning, 390.

45 Mary E. Morningstar and Gary M. Clark, The Status of Personnel Preparation for TransitionEducation and Services: What is the Critical Content? How Can it be Offered, CareerDevelopment for Exceptional Individuals, 26, no. 2 (2003): 227. doi:10.1177/088572880302600208.

46 David R. Johnson et al., Current Challenges Facing Secondary Education and Transition: WhatResearch Tells Us, Exceptional Children, 58 no. 4 (2002): 519.

with disabilities by providing long

terms supports to those who require

it.44 Thus, policies could be

reconfigured to reflect the individualdifferences in the duration and

intensity of transition services.

TRAIN PERSONNEL TO

IMPLEMENT EVIDENCE-

BASED PRACTICES

Putting into action research-based

frameworks and specific practices

falls to personnel who work in

schools, adult service agencies and

government organizations that serve

youth, and adults with disabilities.

Given the incoherence in the

transition policy landscape, the roles

and work responsibilities for persons

in each location vary. In a school, for

instance, a range of people provides

counseling, teaches, provides

therapeutic services, and oversees

the overall coordination and

management of transition supports

and services. In adult services,personnel expectations vary in

relation to the agency focus. Some

personnel may work in college or

university or trade schools, and they

may assume roles as counselors,

disability analysts, administrators, or

teachers. Others adult service

providers may be charged with

employment supports that could

include recruiting businesses to

offer jobs, setting up job coaching,

or evaluating job success. Still, other

adult service personnel may be

focused on determining youth

interests or independent living

arrangements.

To address such problems,

researchers have identified core

competencies required for all

secondary educators to implement

best practices for transition.45 The

competencies include knowledge of

(1) specific curriculum and

instruction, (2) student focused

planning and assessment, (3) family

involvement, (4) accountability and

post-school outcomes, and (5)

interagency collaboration. In each

area, educators can gain informationabout best supports and services for

all students, specialized supports

and services for diverse students,

and supports and specific transition

services. A similar training profile

exists for adult service personnel.46

Such training would remedy the

current focus on teaching discreet

skills to a service provider to do a

particular job, rather than

identifying the comprehensive goals

of each individual and directingpersonnel to connect and

coordinate services with other

agencies and organizations.

RECOMMENDATIONS

There are several possible ways that

are grounded in research to improve

transition policies. The most

important step for improving

transition policies is implementing a

systems approach in which

governmental departments,

community agencies, schools, and

As the student

ages, goals,

services, and

supports

accordingly should

change.


12/16


personnel work cohesively and

collaboratively to improve transition

for youth with disabilities and

families. As the GeneralAccountability Office recently

recommended, the U.S.

Departments of Education, HHS,

Labor and SSA could form an

interagency coalition to focus on (1)

operating toward common outcome

goals for transitioning youth; (2)

increasing awareness of available

transition services; and (3) assessing

the effectiveness of their

coordination efforts. All four

agencies agreed with therecommendation.47 This federal

initiative could open venues for

additional joint work toward the

alignment of requirements that have

traditionally differed under various

federal jurisdictions. An excellent

example of such alignment is how

NCLB and the 2004 reauthorization

of IDEA coalesced. With the 2004

reauthorization of the IDEA,

statutory text and regulations of

both laws began to borrow from and

reference the other.

Legislative and regulatory alignment

is particularly needed between IDEA

policies that guide transition in

schools and policies that govern

adult services under the VRA. Adult

service policies such as the

Developmental Disabilities

Assistance and the Bill of Rights Act

for People with Disabilities should

mimic entitlement services

delineated in the IDEA.48 This move

would allow individuals with

intellectual disabilities access to

supported employment services and

long term supports. Similarly, IDEA

and adult disability policies shouldbe connected in ways that offer

seamless support to youth with

disabilities as they exit school. Adult

disability policies could use

language and definitions consistent

in the IDEA.49 This consistency

would help to ensure that all youth

receiving services under IDEA would

continue to be supported. By

simplifying the transition process,

this reform would also ease the

burden on youth with disabilitiesand families as they enter the adult

service sector. Rather than merely

aligning such policies, the entire

constellation of transition policies

should be systematically revamped

so as to provide consistency in type,

duration, and intensity of transition

services.

Such reconfiguring of policies would

require the creation of new

partnerships across federal, state,and local institutions and

organizations. These partnerships

should focus primarily on improving

information and access to resources

for transition services to students,

families, and service-providers. The

elimination of redundancies in

services would result in greater

coordination and articulation of

expectations, responsibilities and

outcomes, and allow funding to be

stretched across greater numbers of

youth with disabilities. Partnerships

should also focus on enabling

policyBRIEF

The most important

step for improvingtransition policies is

implementing a

systems approach

in which

governmental

departments,

community

agencies, schools,

and personnel work

cohesively and

collaboratively.

47 GAO, Students with Disabilities: Better Coordination Could Lessen Challenges in the Transitionfrom High School; Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, OSERS TransitionData Fact Sheet, last modified May 2012, from www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/products/transition/transition-datasheet-2011.pdf.

48 Nicholas J. Certo et al., Seamless transition and long-term support for individuals with severeintellectual disabilities, 85.

49 Nicholas J. Certo et al., Seamless transition and long-term support for individuals with severeintellectual disabilities, 85; Rusch and Wolfe, When Will Our Values Finally Result in theCreation of New Pathways for ChangeChange that We Can Believe In?, 96.


13/16


transition service providers to

discover, plan, implement and

assess transition particular to

individuals interests and capacities.Drawing on research-based

frameworks and practices to

structure these partnerships should

strengthen outcomes as well.

In addition to creating formal

partnerships, transition policies

should be modified to facilitate the

implementation of promising

programs and services that provide

supports to individuals with

disabilities over time and well intoadulthood. One excellent example is

the one-stop career centers in

which a wide array of clients can be

served. The 1998 Workforce

Investment Act (WIA) mandated

One-Stop Career Centers in order to

bring together federally funded

employment and training programs

with those seeking jobs.50 Currently

there are 1760 comprehensive one-

stop centers and close to 1000

affiliated centers in the U.S., which

can be found via a zip code to locate

local services.51 The state of

Michigan provides another example

of how policies can be modified to

provide support over time. The state

requires schools to educate students

in some disability categories to age

26, instead of to age 22 as required

by federal law.52

Partnerships between service

providers and higher education

should also play a critical role in

enhancing the coordination of

transition services between federal,state, and local organizations and

institutions. For example, the

Institute on Disability/UCED,

housed at the University of New

Hampshire, is aimed at providing a

coherent university-based focus for

the improvement of knowledge,

policies, and practices related to the

lives of persons with disabilities and

their families.53 The Institute on

Disability recently initiated a three-

year funded project through the U.S.

Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention to examine health

disparities for persons with

disabilities in New Hampshire. Such

work is further echoed in 27 U.S.

TPSID grants worth over $10.9

million that were awarded in 2010 to

two- and four-year institutions of

higher education to fund programs

for helping persons with intellectual

disabilities transition to post-secondary education programs.54 In

addition to federal, state and local

affiliations, the program requires the

integration of other key players,

such as businesses and higher

education institutions, in ways that

enable a mixing of community

resources to set joint aims and

challenges and create beneficial

processes for implementing the

work.

policyBRIEF

Partnerships

between service

providers and

higher education

should also play a

critical role in

enhancing the

coordination of

transition services

between federal,

state, and local

organizations and

institutions.

50 U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training, Administration 20 CFR Part 652 andParts 660 through 671, Federal Register65, no. 156 (August 11, 2000).

51 Career One Stop, Americas Service Locator, last modified 2012, www.servicelocator.org/onestopcenters.asp.

52 Autism Speaks, Transition Information: Michigan, available at: www.autismspeaks.org/docs/family_services_docs/transition/MI.pdf.

53 Institute on Disability, About the Institute on Disability, last modified 2011, www.iod.unh.edu.54 Office of Postsecondary Education, The Model Comprehensive Transition and Postsecondary

Programs for Students with Intellectual Disabilities (TPSID). Grant Announcement. 84.407A,last modified July 8, 2011 www2.ed.gov/programs/tpsid/index.html.


14/16


Lastly, higher education institutions

should become a key partner of

federal, state, and local institutions

and organizations for improving thetraining of transition personnel.

University faculty should engage in

an ongoing process of conducting

research and sharing research

findings with transition personnel.

From the data, researchers should

present analyses and help lead

conversations amongst federal,

state, and local partners to create

training program curricula.

Moreover, policy should support

higher education in designing andimplementing evaluation and

research to assess the outcomes of

such partnerships.

CONCLUSION

Taken together, transition services

for youth and adults with disabilities

are slowly beginning to change in

aims, structures, processes, and

outcomes. Forming a coordinated

interagency system, inviting new

partners to the coalition who

traditionally have not been part ofconversations, extending services by

beginning earlier and lasting longer

depending on who shows a need,

and developing cross-entity

personnel training programs should

comprise key elements of a

framework that connects disparate

agencies and organizations and

ultimately supports the 2.2 million

transition age youth with disabilities

and their families. Finally,

supporting strong research toconduct evaluation of such work,

processes, and effects should

facilitate a final important

component to transition reform:

integrating ideas for change from

not only all providers, but also the

direct recipients of servicesthe

youth and adults with disabilities

and their families.

policyBRIEF

Such reconfiguring

of policies would

require the creation

of new partnerships

across federal,

state, and localinstitutions and

organizations.

The contents of this policy brief were developed in part from funds under a grant fromthe US Department of Education, #H325K110509. However, those contents do notnecessarily represent the policy of the US Department of Education, and you should notassume endorsement by the Federal Government. Project Officer, Corinne Weidenthal.


15/16

ABOUT US

The Research on Urban Education Policy Initiative (RUEPI) is an education policy research project based in

the University of Illinois at Chicago College of Education. RUEPI was created in response to one of the most

significant problems facing urban education policy: dialogue about urban education policy consistently fails

to reflect what we know and what we do not about the problems education policies are aimed at remedying.

Instead of being polemic and grounded primarily in ideology, public conversations about education should

be constructive and informed by the best available evidence.

OUR MISSION

RUEPIs work is aimed at fostering more informed dialogue and decision-making about education policy in

Chicago and other urban areas. To achieve this, we engage in research and analysis on major policy issues

facing these areas, including early childhood education, inclusion, testing, STEM education, and teacher

workforce policy. We offer timely analysis and recommendations that are grounded in the best available

evidence.

OUR APPROACH

Given RUEPIs mission, the projects work is rooted in three guiding principles. While these principles are not

grounded in any particular political ideology and do not specify any particular course of action, they lay a

foundation for ensuring that debates about urban education policy are framed by an understanding of how

education policies have fared in the past. The principles are as follows:

Education policies should be coherent and strategic

Education policies should directly engage with what happens in schools and classrooms

Education policies should account for local context

RUEPI policy briefs are rooted in these principles, written by faculty in the University of Illinois at Chicago

College of Education and other affiliated parties, and go through a rigorous peer-review process.

Learn more at www.education.uic.edu/ruepi

policyBRIEF



16/16

CONTACT US

[email protected]

education.uic.edu/ruepi

facebook.com/ruepi

FOLLOW US

policyBRIEFUIC Research on Urban Education Policy Initiative

1040 West Harrison StreetChicago, Illinois 60607

Date post:	04-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	uic-college-of-education
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

RUEPI Transition for Urban Youth

Documents