View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Special Education Transition Predictors for Post-School Success: Findings from the Field

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Special Education Transition Predictors for Post-School Success: Findings from the Field
Language: English
Authors: Sprunger, Nikki S., Harvey, Michael W., Quick, Marilynn M.
Source: Preventing School Failure. 2018 62(2):116-128.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 13
Publication Date: 2018
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Secondary Education
Descriptors: Secondary Schools, Secondary School Students, Disabilities, Transitional Programs, Planning, Attitude Measures, Administrators, Special Education Teachers, Knowledge Level, Program Effectiveness, Predictor Variables, Use Studies, Agency Cooperation, Employment Level, Work Study Programs, Readiness, Access to Education, Surveys, Evidence, Likert Scales, Statistical Analysis, Equal Education, Educational Legislation, Federal Legislation
Geographic Terms: Indiana
Laws, Policies and Program Identifiers: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
DOI: 10.1080/1045988X.2017.1393789
ISSN: 1045-988X
Abstract: Legislation has mandated that secondary schools provide services for students with disabilities that prepare them for independent living, employment, and/or post-secondary education (IDEA, 2004). This study examined the perceptions of special education directors, assistant directors/program coordinators, and secondary special education teachers concerning the current knowledge, usage, and effectiveness of evidenced-based transition predictors in Indiana and their impact on post-school outcomes. The results indicate that there is agreement among the respondents of the knowledge, utilization, and effectiveness of the 16 transition predictors. However, programs of study, inter-agency collaboration, paid employment/work experiences, and work study programs were identified as a concern. Recommendations to improve transition practice and additional research are made for future success.
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 30
Entry Date: 2018
Accession Number: EJ1172974
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHy_rf48uAd_VhBayxy8ODYAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDChBoA4lOGzaGX8pcgIBEICBmuTG2gsbMDDqZn_yEF7Xjos5qITQ-HNhQX-l6L6dzQz0yPIShDuB70a0bFxp5Gqf6GAwOPJyqWzedo6P5aHNI_LV8FsqRKv7ih9WnVMlFOw5LVYVNqm4-XGwXgDIXYJ7jfbz6ImYi1fKh2X7ZTAW2hihOVHRMNOnKvudqVTBP2bggjcNJ-SIdve2jIG1adt1J4gQClOOhhXb1gA=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0128422750;psf01apr.18;2018Mar13.12:30;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0128422750-1">Special education transition predictors for post-school success: Findings from the field </title> <p>Legislation has mandated that secondary schools provide services for students with disabilities that prepare them for independent living, employment, and/or post-secondary education (IDEA, 2004). This study examined the perceptions of special education directors, assistant directors/program coordinators, and secondary special education teachers concerning the current knowledge, usage, and effectiveness of evidenced-based transition predictors in Indiana and their impact on post-school outcomes. The results indicate that there is agreement among the respondents of the knowledge, utilization, and effectiveness of the 16 transition predictors. However, programs of study, inter-agency collaboration, paid employment/work experiences, and work study programs were identified as a concern. Recommendations to improve transition practice and additional research are made for future success.</p> <p>Post-school outcomes; secondary transition; special education; survey research; transition predictors</p> <p>Millions of students graduate from high schools in the United States each year in a spirit of joy and celebration. Although high school graduation rates reflect the highest level (80%) in our nation's history, there is a continued 20% lag for students with disabilities (SWD) (Stetser & Stillwell, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref1">28</reflink>] ). The National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability reported limited employment opportunities, career prospects, and continuing high rates of unemployment for SWD (NCWD, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref2">24</reflink>] ). It is a report that is a cause for concern for SWD and their families. The Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) mandated coordinated activities designed with an outcome-oriented process, which would include employment, continuing education, adult services, and independent living as a part of transition so as to support the movement from school to post-school activities (IDEA, 2004). IDEA also mandated that a student's individualized education plan (IEP) include a course of study specific to transition goals and services (Kohler & Field, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref3">16</reflink>] ).</p> <p>Post-school outcome studies continue to report low graduation rates, poor employment rates, and difficulties with independent living for SWD (Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor [BLS], [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref4">5</reflink>] ; National Council on Disability [NCD], [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref5">25</reflink>] ). The findings suggest a need for proven transition practices. Test, Mazzotti, Mustian, Fowler, Kortering, and Kohler ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref6">29</reflink>] ) conducted a systematic review of the secondary transition correlation literature (22 empirical studies) to identify in-school predictors shown to improve secondary transition rates for SWD in the areas of education, employment, and/or independent living. The results yielded sixteen (<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref7">16</reflink>) evidence-based predictors that can improve post-school outcomes for SWD. Test et al. used complex calculations of effect size regarding estimates for the 16 transition predictors. The effect sizes ranged from: (a) Small for career awareness and program of study; (b) Small-Medium for exit exam/high school diploma, interagency collaboration, and active parent involvement; (c) Small-Large for inclusion practice, occupational courses, paid employment/work experiences, self-advocacy/self-determination skills, self-care/independent living skills, strong student support, strong transition program, vocational education, and work study programs; (d) Medium for community awareness/experience; and (e) Medium-Large for social skills (see pp. 171-176). Of the 16 predictors, 11 were significantly linked to post-school education, five were linked to post-school independent living, and all 16 predictors were linked to post-school employment. Four predictors (inclusion in general education, paid employment/work experience, self-care/independent living skills, and student support) were found to improve post-school outcomes in education, employment, and independent living. “These results provide the field with a springboard for creating systems change by providing practitioners information about secondary transition program characteristics that have been empirically linked to improved post-school success for SWD” (Test et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref8">29</reflink>] , p. 179).</p> <p>As federal mandates created a focused definition and concentration on the transition needs of secondary SWD, research (e.g., post-school follow-up studies) has provided useful models and techniques needed to address transition. The problem is twofold: the absence of a curriculum that translates evidence-based predictors into real application in secondary systems and curriculum implementation with fidelity. Current challenges include the need to examine both instructional and service delivery practices and systems to improve transition outcomes for SWD.</p> <p>The Indiana Post-School Follow-Up Survey reports that youth with disabilities are underemployed and underrepresented in postsecondary education. Indiana's follow-up data indicated that only (a) 42% of youth with disabilities were employed at or above minimum wage, (b) 16% were enrolled in some type of postsecondary education (excluding two or four-year college/university placement), and (c) 38% were enrolled in a two- to four-year college/university (Spradlin & Hiller, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref9">27</reflink>] ). Disability employment has increased in recent years but still lags behind overall employment. Furthermore, “the employment-population ratio for persons with a disability declined from 18.6% in 2010 to 17.8% in 2011” (BLS, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref10">5</reflink>] , p. 1).</p> <p>Research conducted by Test et al. ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref11">29</reflink>] ) demonstrated the need to examine the transition predictors currently being utilized in Indiana. It is imperative to examine how well the key stakeholders understand, use, and perceive as effective the 16 evidence-based predictors currently being utilized in Indiana secondary schools if appropriate transition programs are to be created. Research suggests that transition improvement must align with educational initiatives in order to develop the specialized services that are needed to support SWD students (Morningstar, Bassett, Kochhar-Bryant, Cashman, & Wehmeyer, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref12">20</reflink>] ). However, after more than two decades of mandates and legislation, SWD, as a group, continue to have poor post-school outcomes (Morningstar & Kleinhammer-Tramill, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref13">22</reflink>] ). Effective transition programs should begin for SWD early in the secondary setting (Kohler, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref14">15</reflink>] ). Postsecondary outcomes improve for SWD when evidence-based practices are put into place (Test et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref15">29</reflink>] ). However, there has been little research on how the recognized predictors have been perceived by practitioners.</p> <p>The purpose of the current study was to examine the responses of special education directors, assistant directors, and program coordinators, as well as secondary special education teachers in the state of Indiana concerning their current knowledge, usage, and perceived effectiveness of the 16 evidence-based transition predictors at the high school level, regarding the impact the predictors had on post-school outcomes for SWD.</p> <p>The following research questions guided the investigation:</p> <p>What is the level of knowledge of Indiana special education directors, assistant directors/program coordinators, and secondary special education teachers concerning the 16 evidence-based transition predictors?</p> <p>What is the level of agreement that the 16 evidence-based transition predictors are utilized in secondary settings in Indiana?</p> <p>What is the perceived level of effectiveness of the 16 evidence-based transition predictors being implemented in Indiana schools for students with disabilities?</p> <hd id="AN0128422750-2">Method</hd> <hd id="AN0128422750-3">Participants</hd> <p>The researchers from Indiana were interested in transition predictors in school-based application, as noted in the research questions. Study participants included special education directors, assistant directors and program coordinators, and secondary special education teachers working in public school cooperatives/corporations in Indiana. The Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) website and direct contact with schools were used to identify the sample.</p> <p>The sampling process used Krejcie and Morgan ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref16">17</reflink>] ) small sampling selection guidelines to identify a sampling of the special education directors in the state of Indiana. Sampling was systematic and included: (a) Indiana's special education directors were identified as the target population; (b) assistant directors of special education/program coordinators associated with the directors; and (c) secondary special education teachers associated with the school districts served by the special education director (Indiana has single-school districts [LEA Special Education Administration] and multiple-school districts [Special Education Administrative Cooperative Services] as delineated by Indiana Code). School district's superintendents associated with the special education director and their respective high school principals were asked to provide permission for participation. Principals were asked to provide the names and e-mail addresses of their school's special education teachers for this study. Approvals were granted by 43 of 49 included superintendents (88%) and 41 of 45 of their respective high school principals (91%). The last sample and actual respondents included:</p> <p>A random sample selection of 103 of the state's 175 special education directors who were invited to participate in the survey; 42 special education directors returned permission to participate in the study (41%), and 34 of the 42 special education directors actually participated (81%);</p> <p>Fifty-one assistant special education directors/program coordinators associated with the 42 special education directors (who provided permission to participate in the study) were invited to participate, but only 37 of these participated (73%); and</p> <p>175 secondary special education teachers were contacted and invited to participate with 112 actual respondents (64%) included in the study.</p> <p>Table 1 reports respondents' demographics information. The largest group in this study was secondary special education teachers (61%) followed by special education assistant directors/program coordinators (20%) and special education directors (19%) for a total of 183 respondents. The largest overall number of respondents were female (82%) and 59% were between the two age groups of 41-50 and 51-60. Roughly two thirds of the respondents (65%) had earned an MA/MS degree. Almost half (48%) of respondents indicated they had been in the field of education for more than 20 years.</p> <p>Demographics information by position.</p> <ct id="AN0128422750-4"></ct> <p> <ephtml> <table border="1" cellpadding="10"><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="center" colspan="2">Special education directors</td><td align="center" colspan="2">Special education assistant directors/ program coordinators</td><td align="center" colspan="2"> Special education secondary teachers</td><td align="center" colspan="2">Total</td></tr><tr><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center">N</td><td align="center">%</td><td align="center">n</td><td align="center">%</td><td align="center">n</td><td align="center">%</td><td align="center">N</td><td align="center">%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Gender</td><td align="left">Male</td><td align="center">7</td><td align="char">20.6</td><td align="center">6</td><td align="char">16.2</td><td align="center">19</td><td align="char">17.1</td><td align="center">32</td><td align="char">17.6</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">Female</td><td align="center">27</td><td align="char">79.4</td><td align="center">31</td><td align="char">83.8</td><td align="center">92</td><td align="char">82.9</td><td align="center">150</td><td align="center">82.4</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Age</td><td align="left">20-25 years</td><td align="center">0</td><td align="char">0.0</td><td align="center">0</td><td align="char">0.0</td><td align="center">5</td><td align="char">4.5</td><td align="center">5</td><td align="char">2.7</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">26-30 years</td><td align="center">0</td><td align="char">0.0</td><td align="center">1</td><td align="char">2.7</td><td align="center">17</td><td align="char">15.3</td><td align="center">18</td><td align="char">9.9</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">31-40 years</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="char">8.8</td><td align="center">5</td><td align="char">13.5</td><td align="center">28</td><td align="char">25.2</td><td align="center">36</td><td align="char">19.8</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">41-50 years</td><td align="center">12</td><td align="char">35.3</td><td align="center">12</td><td align="char">32.4</td><td align="center">28</td><td align="char">25.2</td><td align="center">52</td><td align="char">28.6</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">51-60 years</td><td align="center">11</td><td align="char">32.4</td><td align="center">15</td><td align="char">40.5</td><td align="center">27</td><td align="char">24.3</td><td align="center">53</td><td align="char">29.1</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">61+ years</td><td align="center">8</td><td align="char">23.5</td><td align="center">4</td><td align="char">10.8</td><td align="center">6</td><td align="char">5.4</td><td align="center">18</td><td align="char">9.9</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Education level</td><td align="left">BA/BA</td><td align="center">0</td><td align="char">0.0</td><td align="center">2</td><td align="char">5.4</td><td align="center">38</td><td align="char">34.2</td><td align="center">40</td><td align="char">22.0</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">MA/MS</td><td align="center">20</td><td align="char">58.8</td><td align="center">27</td><td align="center">73</td><td align="center">72</td><td align="char">64.9</td><td align="center">119</td><td align="char">65.4</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">EdS</td><td align="center">7</td><td align="char">20.6</td><td align="center">8</td><td align="char">21.6</td><td align="center">1</td><td align="char">0.9</td><td align="center">16</td><td align="char">8.8</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">EdD/PhD</td><td align="center">7</td><td align="char">20.6</td><td align="center">0</td><td align="char">0.0</td><td align="center">0</td><td align="char">0.0</td><td align="center">7</td><td align="char">3.8</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Years in current position</td><td align="left">Less than 1 year</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="char">8.8</td><td align="center">5</td><td align="char">13.5</td><td align="center">12</td><td align="char">10.8</td><td align="center">20</td><td align="char">11.0</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">1-2 years</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="char">8.8</td><td align="center">6</td><td align="char">16.2</td><td align="center">13</td><td align="char">11.7</td><td align="center">22</td><td align="char">12.1</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">3-5 years</td><td align="center">11</td><td align="char">32.4</td><td align="center">7</td><td align="char">18.9</td><td align="center">16</td><td align="char">14.4</td><td align="center">34</td><td align="char">18.7</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">6-10 years</td><td align="center">7</td><td align="char">20.6</td><td align="center">7</td><td align="char">18.9</td><td align="center">32</td><td align="char">28.8</td><td align="center">46</td><td align="char">25.3</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">11-15 years</td><td align="center">6</td><td align="char">17.6</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="char">8.1</td><td align="center">9</td><td align="char">8.1</td><td align="center">18</td><td align="char">9.9</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">16-20 years</td><td align="center">1</td><td align="char">2.9</td><td align="center">5</td><td align="char">13.5</td><td align="center">11</td><td align="char">9.9</td><td align="center">17</td><td align="char">9.3</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">more than 20 years</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="char">8.8</td><td align="center">4</td><td align="char">10.8</td><td align="center">18</td><td align="char">16.2</td><td align="center">25</td><td align="char">13.7</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Years in education</td><td align="left">Less than 1 year</td><td align="center">0</td><td align="char">0.0</td><td align="center">0</td><td align="char">0.0</td><td align="center">4</td><td align="char">3.6</td><td align="center">4</td><td align="char">2.2</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">1-5 years</td><td align="center">0</td><td align="char">0.0</td><td align="center">0</td><td align="char">0.0</td><td align="center">14</td><td align="char">12.6</td><td align="center">14</td><td align="char">7.7</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">6-10 years</td><td align="center">0</td><td align="char">0.0</td><td align="center">4</td><td align="char">10.8</td><td align="center">26</td><td align="char">23.4</td><td align="center">30</td><td align="char">16.5</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">11-15 years</td><td align="center">2</td><td align="char">5.9</td><td align="center">4</td><td align="char">10.8</td><td align="center">15</td><td align="char">13.5</td><td align="center">21</td><td align="char">11.5</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">16-20 years</td><td align="center">5</td><td align="char">14.7</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="char">8.1</td><td align="center">18</td><td align="char">16.2</td><td align="center">26</td><td align="char">14.3</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">more than 20 years</td><td align="center">27</td><td align="char">79.4</td><td align="center">26</td><td align="char">70.3</td><td align="center">34</td><td align="char">30.6</td><td align="center">87</td><td align="char">47.8</td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Note. Percentages represent data reported by category.</p> <hd id="AN0128422750-5">Instrumentation</hd> <p>The study was framed using IDEA (2004) and the literature related to evidence-based transition predictors (e.g., Test et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref17">29</reflink>] ). The researchers designed the survey instrument and administered it using Qualtrics survey software. A six-member jury panel of state and national subject matter experts reviewed the survey and the survey was pilot tested with a group of 25 university faculty and graduate students familiar with transition practice. The final instrument included 28 forced-choice questions and 48 Likert-type scale questions. The survey consisted of sections focused on: (a) demographic information, (b) respondents' knowledge of the 16 evidence-based transition predictors; (c) respondents' perceptions of their school setting's usage of the 16 evidence-based transition predictors; and (d) respondents' perceived effectiveness of the 16 evidence-based transition predictors used currently in secondary special education programs.</p> <hd id="AN0128422750-6">Procedures</hd> <p>The survey was disseminated electronically via e-mail using Qualtrics.com. The e-mail had an embedded link to the survey. The survey allowed for data collection related to respondents' demographic information, specified Likert-type scale ratings (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, 4 = strongly agree, 5 = do not know) and forced choice (yes/no/do not know) questions. The study timeline was eight weeks with reminder e-mails sent to nonrespondents every two weeks throughout the study period.</p> <hd id="AN0128422750-7">Data analysis</hd> <p>The analytic plan used IBM Statistical Program for Social Sciences (IBM SPSS 22.0). Cronbach's alpha was used as a measure of reliability for the survey instrument to determine internal consistency. The questions regarding knowledge of the 16 predictors had a Cronbach's alpha of.901 and effectiveness of the 16 predictors had a Cronbach's alpha of.921. Gay, Mills, and Airasian ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref18">7</reflink>] ) reported Cronbach's Alpha levels (≥.80) that indicated a high level of internal consistency and reliability. The study results are reported using descriptive statistics including frequency (n), percentage (%), means (M), and standard deviation (SD). The inferential statistics included one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), post hoc Bonferroni tests (p <.05), and nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis tests reported as a chi-square statistic (χ2). The effect sizes are reported as Cohen's f and w.</p> <hd id="AN0128422750-8">Results</hd> <hd id="AN0128422750-9">Knowledge of transition predictors</hd> <p>Table 2 presents the perceptions of knowledge of the 16 evidence-based transition predictors as shown with the rating scale item with the highest percentage based on the study's five-point Likert-type scale. Respondents agreed that they had comprehensive knowledge of career awareness, community awareness, interagency collaboration, occupational coursework, paid employment/work experiences, programs of study area, self-care/independent living skills, strong student support, vocational education, and work study programs.</p> <p>Knowledge of evidence-based transition predictors by position.</p> <ct id="AN0128422750-10"></ct> <p> <ephtml> <table border="1" cellpadding="13"><tr><td align="left" /><td align="center" colspan="3">Special education directors</td><td align="center" colspan="3">Special education assistant directors/program coordinators</td><td align="center" colspan="3">Secondary special education teachers</td><td align="center" colspan="3">Total</td></tr><tr><td align="left">I have comprehensive knowledge of</td><td align="center">n</td><td align="center">Rating</td><td align="center">n - %</td><td align="center">n</td><td align="center">Rating</td><td align="center">n - %</td><td align="center">n</td><td align="center">Rating</td><td align="center">n - %</td><td align="center">N</td><td align="center">Rating</td><td align="center">n - %</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Career awareness</td><td align="center">34</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="left">24 - 70.6</td><td align="center">37</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="char">23 - 62.2</td><td align="left">112</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="char">70 - 62.5</td><td align="center">183</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="char">117 - 63.9</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Community awareness</td><td align="center">34</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="left">27 - 79.4</td><td align="center">37</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="char">21 - 56.8</td><td align="left">112</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="char">66 - 58.9</td><td align="center">183</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="char">114 - 62.3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Inclusion practice</td><td align="center">34</td><td align="center">Strongly Agree</td><td align="left">26 - 76.5</td><td align="center">37</td><td align="center">Strongly Agree</td><td align="char">27 - 73.0</td><td align="left">110</td><td align="center">Strongly Agree</td><td align="char">73 - 65.2</td><td align="center">181</td><td align="center">Strongly Agree</td><td align="char">126 - 68.9</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Inter-agency collaboration</td><td align="center">34</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="left">17 - 50.0</td><td align="center">37</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="char">18 - 48.6</td><td align="left">111</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="char">62 - 55.9</td><td align="center">182</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="char">97 - 53.3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Occupational courses</td><td align="center">34</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="left">20 - 58.8</td><td align="center">37</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="char">18 - 48.6</td><td align="left">109</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="char">59 - 52.2</td><td align="center">180</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="char">97 - 53.0</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Paid employment/work experiences</td><td align="center">33</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="left">23 - 69.7</td><td align="center">37</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="char">19 - 51.4</td><td align="left">111</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="char">58 - 52.3</td><td align="center">181</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="char">100 - 55.2</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Active parental involvement</td><td align="center">33</td><td align="center">Strongly Agree</td><td align="left">16 - 48.5</td><td align="center">36</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="char">22 - 59.5</td><td align="left">108</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="char">62 - 55.4</td><td align="center">182</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="char">98 - 53.8</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Programs of study</td><td align="center">34</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="left">21 - 61.8</td><td align="center">37</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="char">19 - 51.4</td><td align="left">110</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="char">70 - 62.5</td><td align="center">181</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="char">110 - 60.1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Self-advocacy/self-determination skills</td><td align="center">34</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="left">21 - 61.8</td><td align="center">36</td><td align="center">Strongly Agree</td><td align="char">18 - 48.6</td><td align="left">109</td><td align="center">Strongly Agree</td><td align="char">53 - 47.3</td><td align="center">179</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="char">94 - 51.4</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Self-care/independent living skills</td><td align="center">34</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="left">19 - 55.9</td><td align="center">36</td><td align="center">Strongly Agree</td><td align="char">20 - 55.6</td><td align="left">109</td><td align="center">Strongly Agree</td><td align="char">51 - 46.8</td><td align="center">179</td><td align="center">Strongly Agree</td><td align="char">84 - 46.9</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Social skills</td><td align="center">33</td><td align="center">Strongly Agree</td><td align="left">19 - 57.6</td><td align="center">37</td><td align="center">Strongly Agree</td><td align="char">22 - 59.5</td><td align="left">110</td><td align="center">Strongly Agree</td><td align="char">55 - 50.0</td><td align="center">180</td><td align="center">Strongly Agree</td><td align="char">96 - 53.3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Strong student support</td><td align="center">34</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="left">16 - 47.1</td><td align="center">36</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="char">18 - 48.6</td><td align="left">110</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="char">58 - 51.8</td><td align="center">180</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="char">92 - 50.3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Vocational education</td><td align="center">33</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="left">18 - 52.9</td><td align="center">37</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="char">22 - 59.5</td><td align="left">110</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="char">62 - 55.4</td><td align="center">180</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="char">102 - 55.7</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Strong transition program</td><td align="center">33</td><td align="center">Strongly Agree</td><td align="left">15 - 44.1</td><td align="center">37</td><td align="center">Strongly Agree</td><td align="char">20 - 54.1</td><td align="left">110</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="char">62 - 56.4</td><td align="center">181</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="char">90 - 49.7</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Work study programs</td><td align="center">34</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="left">18 - 52.9</td><td align="center">37</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="char">19 - 51.4</td><td align="left">111</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="char">63 - 56.3</td><td align="center">182</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="char">100 - 54.6</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Exit exam/high school diploma</td><td align="center">34</td><td align="center">Strongly Agree</td><td align="left">16 - 47.1</td><td align="center">36</td><td align="center">Strongly Agree</td><td align="char">21 - 58.3</td><td align="left">109</td><td align="center">Strongly Agree</td><td align="char">55 - 49.1</td><td align="center">182</td><td align="center">Strongly Agree</td><td align="char">92 - 50.5</td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Notes. Percentages represent data reported by category. Data presented are by rating scale with the greatest number (n - %) per respondents by group and total.</p> <p>The predictor active parental involvement was also rated as “agree” but had “strongly agree” as the rating with the highest percentage noted for special education directors. Self- advocacy/self-determination skills were rated as “agree” but had “strongly agree” noted as the rating with the highest percentage indicated by special education assistant directors/program coordinators and secondary special education teachers. In addition, strong transition program was rated as overall “agree” but had “strongly agree” noted as the rating with the highest percentage by special education directors and special education assistant directors/program coordinators.</p> <p>Four of the 16 evidence-based transition predictors were rated as “strongly agree” by study respondents. Inclusion practice, social skills, and exit exam/high school diploma were transition predictors all rated as “strongly agree” by study respondents. Self-care/independent living skills was also rated overall as “strongly agree.” Special education assistant directors/program coordinators and secondary special education teachers rated this item as “strongly agree,” whereas special education directors rated this transition predictor as “agree.”</p> <p>Based on statistical analysis (ANOVA) there were only three transition predictors found to have statistically significant differences (p >.05). Respondents (directors M = 3.03 - SD.72; assistant directors/program coordinators M = 3.14 - SD.071; special education teachers M = 2.74 - SD.67) indicated a significant difference in their comprehensive knowledge of interagency collaboration (F = 5.71, df = 2, p <.01). Special education assistant directors/program coordinators had higher ratings compared to secondary special education teachers (.399). The effect size (.30) was medium. Respondents (directors M = 3.33 - SD.69; assistant directors/program coordinators M = 3.46 - SD.065; special education teachers M = 3.10 - SD.66) reported a significant difference reported in their comprehensive knowledge of a strong transition program (F = 4.64, df = 2, p <.05). Special education assistant directors/program coordinators had higher ratings compared to secondary special education teachers (.358). The effect size (.10) was small. Respondents (directors M = 3.12 - SD.69; assistant directors/program coordinators M = 3.05 - SD.071; special education teachers M = 2.81 - SD.64) revealed a significant difference reported in their comprehensive knowledge of elements of work-study programs (F = 3.68, df = 2, p <.05). None of the post hoc tests were statistically significant. The effect size (.20) was small. There were no significant differences found for any of the other 16 evidence-based transition predictors.</p> <hd id="AN0128422750-11">Usage of transition predictors</hd> <p>Table 3 shows results of the respondents' utilization of each transition predictor as part of their school's secondary programming. Respondents indicated that they were using the 16 evidence-based transition predictors as part of SWD secondary transition programming efforts in the Indiana public schools represented in the current study. A total of 96% of the respondents (+/−2.5% [range between high/low percentages]) indicated they were utilizing vocational education.</p> <p>Utilization of evidence-based transition predictors by position.</p> <ct id="AN0128422750-12"></ct> <p> <ephtml> <table border="1" cellpadding="10"><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="center" colspan="2">Special education directors</td><td align="center" colspan="2">Special education assistant directors/ program coordinators</td><td align="center" colspan="2">Special education secondary teachers</td><td align="center" colspan="2">Total</td></tr><tr><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center">n</td><td align="center">%</td><td align="center">n</td><td align="center">%</td><td align="center">n</td><td align="center">%</td><td align="center">N</td><td align="center">%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Career awareness</td><td align="left">Yes</td><td align="center">29</td><td align="char">85.3</td><td align="center">32</td><td align="char">86.5</td><td align="center">94</td><td align="char">85.5</td><td align="center">155</td><td align="char">85.6</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">No</td><td align="center">2</td><td align="char">5.9</td><td align="center">2</td><td align="char">5.4</td><td align="center">7</td><td align="char">6.4</td><td align="center">11</td><td align="char">6.1</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">Do Not Know</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="char">8.8</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="char">8.1</td><td align="center">9</td><td align="char">8.2</td><td align="center">15</td><td align="char">8.3</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">Total</td><td align="center">34</td><td align="char">18.8</td><td align="center">37</td><td align="char">20.4</td><td align="center">110</td><td align="char">60.8</td><td align="center">181</td><td align="char">100.0</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Community awareness</td><td align="left">Yes</td><td align="center">28</td><td align="char">84.8</td><td align="center">28</td><td align="char">77.8</td><td align="center">80</td><td align="char">74.8</td><td align="center">136</td><td align="char">77.3</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">No</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="char">9.1</td><td align="center">4</td><td align="char">11.1</td><td align="center">14</td><td align="char">13.1</td><td align="center">21</td><td align="char">11.9</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">Do Not Know</td><td align="center">2</td><td align="char">6.1</td><td align="center">4</td><td align="char">11.1</td><td align="center">13</td><td align="char">12.1</td><td align="center">19</td><td align="char">10.8</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">Total</td><td align="center">33</td><td align="char">18.8</td><td align="center">36</td><td align="char">20.5</td><td align="center">107</td><td align="char">60.8</td><td align="center">176</td><td align="char">100.0</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Inclusion practices</td><td align="left">Yes</td><td align="center">26</td><td align="char">78.8</td><td align="center">31</td><td align="char">88.6</td><td align="center">100</td><td align="char">91.7</td><td align="center">157</td><td align="char">88.7</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">No</td><td align="center">4</td><td align="char">12.1</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="char">8.6</td><td align="center">6</td><td align="char">5.5</td><td align="center">13</td><td align="char">7.3</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">Do Not Know</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="char">9.1</td><td align="center">1</td><td align="char">2.9</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="char">2.8</td><td align="center">7</td><td align="char">4.0</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">Total</td><td align="center">33</td><td align="char">18.6</td><td align="center">35</td><td align="char">19.8</td><td align="center">109</td><td align="char">61.6</td><td align="center">177</td><td align="char">100.0</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Inter-agency collaboration</td><td align="left">Yes</td><td align="center">28</td><td align="char">84.8</td><td align="center">30</td><td align="char">83.3</td><td align="center">81</td><td align="char">75.0</td><td align="center">139</td><td align="char">78.5</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">No</td><td align="center">4</td><td align="char">12.1</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="char">8.3</td><td align="center">10</td><td align="char">9.3</td><td align="center">17</td><td align="char">9.6</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">Do Not Know</td><td align="center">1</td><td align="char">3.0</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="char">8.3</td><td align="center">17</td><td align="char">15.7</td><td align="center">21</td><td align="char">11.9</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">Total</td><td align="center">33</td><td align="char">18.6</td><td align="center">36</td><td align="char">20.3</td><td align="center">108</td><td align="char">0.6</td><td align="center">177</td><td align="char">100.0</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Occupational courses</td><td align="left">Yes</td><td align="center">29</td><td align="char">87.9</td><td align="center">26</td><td align="char">72.2</td><td align="center">87</td><td align="char">80.6</td><td align="center">142</td><td align="char">80.2</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">No</td><td align="center">2</td><td align="char">6.1</td><td align="center">5</td><td align="char">13.9</td><td align="center">8</td><td align="char">7.4</td><td align="center">15</td><td align="char">8.5</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">Do Not Know</td><td align="center">2</td><td align="char">6.1</td><td align="center">5</td><td align="char">13.9</td><td align="center">13</td><td align="char">12.0</td><td align="center">20</td><td align="char">11.3</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">Total</td><td align="center">33</td><td align="char">19.0</td><td align="center">36</td><td align="char">20.3</td><td align="center">108</td><td align="char">61.0</td><td align="center">177</td><td align="char">100.0</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Paid Employment/work experiences</td><td align="left">Yes</td><td align="center">24</td><td align="char">75.0</td><td align="center">23</td><td align="char">63.9</td><td align="center">67</td><td align="char">61.5</td><td align="center">114</td><td align="char">64.4</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">No</td><td align="center">8</td><td align="char">25.0</td><td align="center">9</td><td align="char">25.0</td><td align="center">22</td><td align="char">20.2</td><td align="center">39</td><td align="char">22.0</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">Do Not Know</td><td align="center">0</td><td align="char">0.0</td><td align="center">4</td><td align="char">11.1</td><td align="center">20</td><td align="char">18.3</td><td align="center">24</td><td align="char">13.6</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">Total</td><td align="center">32</td><td align="char">18.0</td><td align="center">36</td><td align="char">20.3</td><td align="center">109</td><td align="char">62.0</td><td align="center">177</td><td align="char">100.0</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Active parental involvement</td><td align="left">Yes</td><td align="center">25</td><td align="char">78.1</td><td align="center">28</td><td align="char">77.8</td><td align="center">84</td><td align="char">77.8</td><td align="center">137</td><td align="char">77.8</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">No</td><td align="center">6</td><td align="char">18.8</td><td align="center">4</td><td align="char">11.1</td><td align="center">17</td><td align="char">15.7</td><td align="center">27</td><td align="char">15.3</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">Do Not Know</td><td align="center">1</td><td align="char">3.1</td><td align="center">4</td><td align="char">2.3</td><td align="center">7</td><td align="char">6.5</td><td align="center">12</td><td align="char">6.8</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">Total</td><td align="center">32</td><td align="char">18.1</td><td align="center">36</td><td align="char">20.4</td><td align="center">108</td><td align="char">61.3</td><td align="center">176</td><td align="char">100.0</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Programs of study</td><td align="left">Yes</td><td align="center">19</td><td align="char">59.4</td><td align="center">24</td><td align="char">66.7</td><td align="center">82</td><td align="char">76.6</td><td align="center">125</td><td align="char">71.4</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">No</td><td align="center">7</td><td align="char">21.9</td><td align="center">8</td><td align="char">22.2</td><td align="center">8</td><td align="char">7.5</td><td align="center">23</td><td align="char">13.1</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">Do Not Know</td><td align="center">6</td><td align="char">18.8</td><td align="center">4</td><td align="char">11.1</td><td align="center">17</td><td align="char">15.9</td><td align="center">27</td><td align="char">15.4</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">Total</td><td align="center">32</td><td align="char">18.2</td><td align="center">36</td><td align="char">21.0</td><td align="center">107</td><td align="char">61.1</td><td align="center">175</td><td align="char">100.0</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Self-advocacy/Self-determination Skills</td><td align="left">Yes</td><td align="center">26</td><td align="char">83.9</td><td align="center">33</td><td align="char">91.7</td><td align="center">85</td><td align="char">81.7</td><td align="center">144</td><td align="char">84.2</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">No</td><td align="center">2</td><td align="char">6.5</td><td align="center">2</td><td align="char">5.6</td><td align="center">12</td><td align="char">11.5</td><td align="center">16</td><td align="char">9.40</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">Do Not Know</td><td align="center">2</td><td align="char">6.5</td><td align="center">1</td><td align="char">2.8</td><td align="center">7</td><td align="char">6.7</td><td align="center">10</td><td align="char">5.80</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">Total</td><td align="center">31</td><td align="char">18.1</td><td align="center">36</td><td align="char">21.0</td><td align="center">104</td><td align="char">61.0</td><td align="center">171</td><td align="char">100.0</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Self-care/independent living skills</td><td align="left">Yes</td><td align="center"> 30</td><td align="char"> 96.8</td><td align="center">34</td><td align="char"> 94.4</td><td align="center"> 88</td><td align="char"> 82.2</td><td align="center"> 152</td><td align="char"> 87.4</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">No</td><td align="center"> 0</td><td align="char"> 0.0</td><td align="center">1</td><td align="char"> 2.8</td><td align="center"> 13</td><td align="char"> 12.1</td><td align="center"> 14</td><td align="char"> 8.0</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">Do Not Know</td><td align="center"> 1</td><td align="char"> 3.2</td><td align="center">1</td><td align="char"> 2.8</td><td align="center"> 6</td><td align="char"> 5.6</td><td align="center"> 8</td><td align="char"> 4.6</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">Total</td><td align="center"> 31</td><td align="char"> 18.0</td><td align="center">36</td><td align="char"> 21.0</td><td align="center"> 107</td><td align="char"> 61.4</td><td align="center"> 174</td><td align="char"> 100.0</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Social skills</td><td align="left">Yes</td><td align="center"> 26</td><td align="char"> 83.9</td><td align="center"> 28</td><td align="char"> 80.0</td><td align="center"> 77</td><td align="char"> 72.6</td><td align="center"> 131</td><td align="char"> 76.2</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">No</td><td align="center"> 3</td><td align="char"> 9.7</td><td align="center"> 5</td><td align="char"> 14.3</td><td align="center"> 17</td><td align="char"> 16.0</td><td align="center"> 25</td><td align="char"> 14.5</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">Do Not Know</td><td align="center"> 2</td><td align="char"> 6.5</td><td align="center"> 2</td><td align="char"> 5.7</td><td align="center"> 12</td><td align="char"> 11.3</td><td align="center"> 16</td><td align="char"> 9.3</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">Total</td><td align="center"> 31</td><td align="char"> 18.0</td><td align="center"> 35</td><td align="char"> 20.3</td><td align="center"> 106</td><td align="char"> 62.0</td><td align="center"> 172</td><td align="char"> 100.0</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Strong student support</td><td align="left">Yes</td><td align="center"> 26</td><td align="char"> 83.9</td><td align="center"> 29</td><td align="char"> 82.9</td><td align="center"> 89</td><td align="char"> 85.6</td><td align="center"> 144</td><td align="char"> 84.7</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">No</td><td align="center"> 3</td><td align="char"> 9.7</td><td align="center"> 2</td><td align="char"> 5.7</td><td align="center"> 6</td><td align="char"> 5.8</td><td align="center"> 11</td><td align="char"> 6.5</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">Do Not Know</td><td align="center"> 2</td><td align="char"> 6.5</td><td align="center"> 4</td><td align="char"> 11.4</td><td align="center"> 9</td><td align="char"> 8.7</td><td align="center"> 15</td><td align="char"> 8.8</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">Total</td><td align="center"> 31</td><td align="char"> 18.2</td><td align="center"> 35</td><td align="char"> 21.0</td><td align="center"> 104</td><td align="char"> 61.1</td><td align="center"> 170</td><td align="char"> 100.0</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Vocational education</td><td align="left">Yes</td><td align="center"> 30</td><td align="char"> 96.8</td><td align="center"> 33</td><td align="char"> 94.3</td><td align="center"> 99</td><td align="char"> 96.1</td><td align="center"> 162</td><td align="char"> 95.9</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">No</td><td align="center"> 0</td><td align="char"> 0.0</td><td align="center"> 0</td><td align="char"> 0.0</td><td align="center"> 4</td><td align="char"> 3.9</td><td align="center"> 4</td><td align="char"> 2.4</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">Do Not Know</td><td align="center"> 1</td><td align="char"> 3.2</td><td align="center"> 2</td><td align="char"> 5.7</td><td align="center"> 0</td><td align="char"> 0.0</td><td align="center"> 3</td><td align="char"> 1.8</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">Total</td><td align="center"> 31</td><td align="char"> 18.3</td><td align="center"> 35</td><td align="char"> 21.0</td><td align="center"> 103</td><td align="char"> 61.0</td><td align="center"> 169</td><td align="char"> 100.0</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Strong transition program</td><td align="left">Yes</td><td align="center"> 23</td><td align="char"> 74.2</td><td align="center"> 31</td><td align="char"> 88.6</td><td align="center"> 80</td><td align="char"> 77.7</td><td align="center"> 134</td><td align="char"> 79.3</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">No</td><td align="center"> 6</td><td align="char"> 19.4</td><td align="center"> 3</td><td align="char"> 8.6</td><td align="center"> 11</td><td align="char"> 10.7</td><td align="center"> 20</td><td align="char"> 11.8</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">Do Not Know</td><td align="center"> 2</td><td align="char"> 6.5</td><td align="center"> 1</td><td align="char"> 2.9</td><td align="center"> 12</td><td align="char"> 11.7</td><td align="center"> 15</td><td align="char"> 8.9</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">Total</td><td align="center"> 31</td><td align="char"> 18.3</td><td align="center"> 35</td><td align="char"> 21.0</td><td align="center"> 103</td><td align="char"> 61.0</td><td align="center"> 169</td><td align="char"> 100.0</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Work study programs</td><td align="left">Yes</td><td align="center">22</td><td align="char">71.0</td><td align="center">27</td><td align="char">77.1</td><td align="center">74</td><td align="char">70.5</td><td align="center">123</td><td align="char">71.9</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">No</td><td align="center">5</td><td align="char">16.1</td><td align="center">4</td><td align="char">11.4</td><td align="center">15</td><td align="char">14.3</td><td align="center">24</td><td align="char">14.0</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">Do Not Know</td><td align="center">4</td><td align="char">12.9</td><td align="center">4</td><td align="char">11.4</td><td align="center">16</td><td align="char">15.2</td><td align="center">24</td><td align="char">14.0</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">Total</td><td align="center">31</td><td align="char">18.1</td><td align="center">35</td><td align="char">20.4</td><td align="center">105</td><td align="char">61.4</td><td align="center">171</td><td align="char">100.0</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Exit exam/high school diploma</td><td align="left">Yes</td><td align="center">27</td><td align="char">87.1</td><td align="center">31</td><td align="char">88.6</td><td align="center">91</td><td align="char">88.3</td><td align="center">149</td><td align="char">88.2</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">No</td><td align="center">4</td><td align="char">12.9</td><td align="center">4</td><td align="char">11.4</td><td align="center">5</td><td align="char">4.90</td><td align="center">13</td><td align="char">7.7</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">Do Not Know</td><td align="center">0</td><td align="char">0.0</td><td align="center">0</td><td align="char">0.0</td><td align="center">7</td><td align="char">6.80</td><td align="center">7</td><td align="char">4.1</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">Total</td><td align="center">31</td><td align="char">18.3</td><td align="center">35</td><td align="char">21.0</td><td align="center">103</td><td align="char">61.0</td><td align="center">169</td><td align="char">100.0</td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Note. Percentages represent data reported by category.</p> <p>Approximately 89% of the respondents (+/−12.9%) indicated they were utilizing inclusion practices in their high school setting. Another 88% of the respondents (+/−1.5%) indicated they were using exit exam/high school diploma. Eighty-seven percent of the respondents (+/−14.6%) indicated they were using self- care/independent living skills in their secondary transition programming. The findings indicated that respondents were implementing the predictors associated with vocational education, inclusionary practices, exit exams/high school diploma, and self-care/independent living skills more often in secondary transition programs as compared to the other predictors. The evidence-based transition predictors that were less likely to be used included paid employment/work experiences, programs of study, and work-study programs. Approximately 65% of the respondents (+/−13.5%) indicated that their school utilized paid employment/work experiences in secondary transition. Approximately 14% answered “do not know” if paid employment/work experiences were used in their transition programming. With regard to programs of study related to an academic content area or vocational field, 71% of respondents (+/−17.2%) indicated they were utilizing the two practices in their respective high school setting.</p> <p>Approximately 15% of the respondents answered “do not know” to the utilization of programs of study related to an academic content area or vocational field. Seventy-two percent of respondents (+/−6.6%) indicated that work-study programs were utilized in their individual high school setting. There were 14.0% who answered “do not know” concerning the use of work study programs in their particular secondary transition programs. The findings indicated that the majority of respondents (although at a much lower level) were implementing paid employment/work experiences, programs of study related to academic content areas or vocational field, and work-study programs as part of SWD transition programs.</p> <hd id="AN0128422750-13">Effectiveness of transition predictors</hd> <p>Table 4 presents the perceptions of program effectiveness of the 16 evidence-based transition predictors according to the rating scale item with the highest percentage on the study's five-point Likert-type scale. Respondents agreed that their secondary transition programs were effective for SWD in the areas of career awareness, community awareness, interagency collaboration, occupational coursework, paid employment/work experiences, programs of study area, self-care/independent living skills, social skills, strong student support, vocational education, strong transition program, work-study programs, and exit exam/high school diploma. The predictor self-advocacy/self-determination skills was also rated as “agree” but had “strongly agree” as the rating with the highest percentage noted by special education directors.</p> <p>Perceptions of effectiveness of evidence-based transition predictors by position.</p> <ct id="AN0128422750-14"></ct> <p> <ephtml> <table border="1" cellpadding="13"><tr><td align="center" /><td align="center" colspan="3">Special education directors</td><td align="center" colspan="3">Special education assistant directors/program coordinators</td><td align="center" colspan="3">Secondary special education teachers</td><td align="center" colspan="3">Total</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Secondary transition programs … in my school/cooperative effectively implement.</td><td align="center">n</td><td align="center">Rating</td><td align="center">n - %</td><td align="center">n</td><td align="center">Rating</td><td align="center">n - %</td><td align="center">n</td><td align="center">Rating</td><td align="center">n - %</td><td align="center">N</td><td align="center">Rating</td><td align="center">n - %</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Career awareness</td><td align="center">29</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="center">18 - 62.1</td><td align="center">31</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="center">18 -58.1</td><td align="center">93</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="center">45 - 48.4</td><td align="center">153</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="center">81 - 52.9</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Community awareness</td><td align="center">27</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="center">16 - 59.3</td><td align="center">28</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="center">18 - 64.3</td><td align="center">79</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="center">49 - 62.0</td><td align="center">134</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="center">83 - 61.9</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Inclusion practice</td><td align="center">26</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="center">13 - 50.0</td><td align="center">31</td><td align="center">Strongly Agree</td><td align="center">17 - 54.8</td><td align="center">100</td><td align="center">Strongly Agree</td><td align="center">49 - 49.0</td><td align="center">157</td><td align="center">Strongly Agree</td><td align="center">78 - 49.7</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Inter-agency collaboration</td><td align="center">28</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="center">18 - 64.3</td><td align="center">30</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="center">21 - 70.0</td><td align="center">81</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="center">56 - 69.1</td><td align="center">139</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="center">95 - 68.3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Occupational courses</td><td align="center">28</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="center">17 - 60.7</td><td align="center">26</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="center">16 - 61.5</td><td align="center">87</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="center">56 - 64.4</td><td align="center">141</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="center">89 - 63.1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Paid employment/work experiences</td><td align="center">24</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="center">18 - 75.0</td><td align="center">23</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="center">12 - 52.2</td><td align="center">67</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="center">36 - 53.7</td><td align="center">114</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="center">66 - 57.9</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Active parental involvement</td><td align="center">25</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="center">16 - 64.0</td><td align="center">28</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="center">16 - 57.1</td><td align="center">84</td><td align="center">Strongly Agree</td><td align="center">39 - 46.4</td><td align="center">137</td><td align="center">Strongly Agree</td><td align="center">71 - 51.8</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Programs of study</td><td align="center">19</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="center">12 - 63.2</td><td align="center">23</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="center">11 - 47.8</td><td align="center">79</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="center">51 - 64.6</td><td align="center">121</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="center">74 -61.2</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Self-advocacy/self-determination skills</td><td align="center">25</td><td align="center">Strongly Agree</td><td align="center">15 - 60.0</td><td align="center">33</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="center">18 - 54.5</td><td align="center">85</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="center">46 - 54.1</td><td align="center">143</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="center">79 - 55.2</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Self-care/independent living skills</td><td align="center">30</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="center">14 - 46.7</td><td align="center">33</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="center">18 - 54.5</td><td align="center">86</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="center">46 - 53.5</td><td align="center">149</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="center">78 - 52.3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Social skills</td><td align="center">26</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="center">21 - 80.8</td><td align="center">28</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="center">14 - 50.0</td><td align="center">76</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="center">43 - 56.6</td><td align="center">130</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="center">78 - 60.0</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Strong student support</td><td align="center">26</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="center">18 - 69.2</td><td align="center">28</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="center">17 - 60.7</td><td align="center">88</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="center">55 - 62.5</td><td align="center">142</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="center">90 - 63.4</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Vocational education</td><td align="center">23</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="center">14 - 60.9</td><td align="center">31</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="center">24 - 77.4</td><td align="center">80</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="center">51 - 63.8</td><td align="center">134</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="center">89 - 66.4</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Strong transition program</td><td align="center">29</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="center">13 - 44.8</td><td align="center">32</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="center">21 - 65.9</td><td align="center">97</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="center">49 - 50.5</td><td align="center">158</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="center">83 - 52.5</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Work study programs</td><td align="center">22</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="center">12 - 54.5</td><td align="center">27</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="center">18 - 66.7</td><td align="center">73</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="center">46 - 63.0</td><td align="center">122</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="center">76 - 62.3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Exit exam/high school diploma</td><td align="center">27</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="center">18 - 66.7</td><td align="center">31</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="center">15 - 48.4</td><td align="center">90</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="center">49 - 54.4</td><td align="center">148</td><td align="center">Agree</td><td align="center">81 - 54.7</td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Notes. Percentages represent data reported by category. Data presented are by rating scale with the greatest number (n - %) per respondents by group and total who were implementing these program components.</p> <p>Two of the 16 evidence-based transition predictors were rated as “strongly agree” by study respondents. Inclusion practice was rated as “strongly agree” by special education assistant directors/program coordinators and secondary special education teachers. Special education directors rated this predictor as “agree.” In addition, active parental involvement was also rated as “strongly agree.” It is important to note that secondary special education teachers rated this as “strongly agree,” whereas special education directors and special education assistant directors/program coordinators only rated this predictor as “agree.” Based on statistical analysis (Kruskal-Wallis) respondents (directors M = 2.85-3.65; assistant directors/program coordinators M = 3.07-3.55; special education teachers M = 3.02-3.43) reported no significant differences reported for any transition predictors (p >.05) concerning program effectiveness.</p> <hd id="AN0128422750-15">Discussion</hd> <p>The current exploratory study captured the perceptions of secondary special education administrators and teachers in the state of Indiana concerning 16 evidence-based transition predictors and the impact of those predictors on SWD post-school outcomes. Respondents agreed that active parent involvement and self-care/independent living skills were highly effective. The study's findings support the literature (Kellems & Morningstar, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref19">13</reflink>] ) emphasizing the importance of parental involvement in transition planning. Research has indicated that achieving academic skills is not sufficient for improving SWD post-school outcomes (Benz, Lindstrom, & Yovanoff, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref20">2</reflink>] ). Current study findings support the importance of independent living skills and self-care. Although the current education agenda has shifted away from life skill instruction (Alwell & Cobb, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref21">1</reflink>] ; Benz, Lindstrom, & Yovanoff, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref22">2</reflink>] ), such instruction is especially important for SWD since there is a link between life skills acquisition and quality of life (Alwell & Cobb, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref23">1</reflink>] ). Many respondents indicated that they were effectively implementing strong inclusion practices for SWD in their schools. There are several benefits of inclusive schools and effective inclusionary practice that collaboratively support student success both academically and socially (Worrell, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref24">30</reflink>] ).</p> <p>In general, secondary special education teachers had less knowledge of (a) strong transition programs, (b) interagency collaboration, and (c) work-study programs. In addition, it was evident that many respondents did not know if interagency collaboration or work-study programs were being utilized in their school settings as part of secondary transition programming. It is not surprising that the three specific transition predictors identified above achieved lower levels on effectiveness ratings among all 16 transition predictors.</p> <p>Strong transition programs support SWD moving toward independence and demonstrating competence in community living (Morningstar & Benitez, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref25">21</reflink>] ). Results from the present study indicated that some respondents may not have knowledge of or have not used elements of strong transition programs for SWD in their school settings. The lack of knowledge or experience the study revealed points to the need for effective training in transition practices with ongoing technical assistance for Indiana secondary schools (Morningstar & Benitez, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref26">21</reflink>] ).</p> <p>The literature identifies the benefits of interagency collaboration. It is important for schools to build partnerships with both state and local agencies and to work toward transition service coordination. The collaborative partnerships thus created the need to utilize student- and family-centered strategies to promote participation (Bullis & Davis, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref27">4</reflink>] ; Kellems & Morningstar, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref28">13</reflink>] ; Kohler, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref29">15</reflink>] ). Study findings suggest interagency collaboration may not be fully utilized. Some special education directors, for example, did not know if schools were engaged in interagency collaboration, validating the previous research conducted by Li, Bassett, and Hutchinson ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref30">18</reflink>] ). Public agencies are invaluable in the transition process (Johnson, Stodden, Emanuel, Luecking, & Mack, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref31">12</reflink>] ; Li, Bassett, and Hutchinson, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref32">18</reflink>] ) and need to be fully utilized.</p> <p>Although there was agreement on the effectiveness of work-study programs for SWD, the lack of work-study programs as part of transition services in Indiana was disconcerting. For example, several secondary special educators reported that they either do not use or know if their school had work-study programs. Instructional practices with strong work-study programs have a measurable impact on learning for SWD (Johnson, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref33">11</reflink>] ; Shandra & Hogan, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref34">26</reflink>] ). Clearly, work-study programs help SWD develop skills that enable entrance into the competitive job market. Related factors that also caused current study researchers concern included respondents' indication of limited usage of several other predictors, such as a program of study focused on academic content areas or vocational education occupational courses or paid employment/work experience to support secondary-level transition programming collectively recognized as important transition planning options.</p> <p>Current study findings indicated that secondary special education teachers did not use specific programs of study related to an academic/vocational content area (i.e., curriculum focused on college/career pathway) to support SWD secondary transition programs. Enrollment in academic programs has been found to have a positive effect on postsecondary education.</p> <p>Transition programs that incorporate academic and work proficiency hold promise for positive post-school outcomes (Shandra & Hogan, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref35">26</reflink>] ). It is important that at the annual IEP conference, transition planning discussions include identifying the necessary academic and vocational coursework. Occupation-specific instruction (career and technical education [CTE]) contributes to better SWD transition outcomes (Benz, Lindstrom, & Yovanoff, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref36">2</reflink>] ). According to research, students who participate in occupational courses develop occupational skills needed for targeted employment. There are various ways to embed occupational courses and related skills into a curriculum so as to include technology, employability skills, community-based activities, and universal design for learning principles (Benz, Lindstrom, & Yovanoff, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref37">2</reflink>] ). Students with disabilities who successfully complete instructional programs in occupational courses have a higher likelihood of participation in postsecondary education and employment (Harvey, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref38">9</reflink>] ). The present study supports the literature; occupational courses should be considered in developing the SWD transition IEP.</p> <p>Many secondary special education teachers participating in the current study did not use paid employment/work experiences in their current transition programs, while others simply did not know about the practice. Both the lack of knowledge about and the corresponding failure to make use of paid employment/work experience are serious concerns given the importance of paid employment/work experience on positive post-school outcomes. Participation in a paid work experience in high school leads to successful employment after high school (Benz, Lindstrom, & Yovanoff, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref39">2</reflink>] ). Research indicates SWD who participate in paid employment/work experiences have greater success in finding employment during transition from school to adulthood (Shandra & Hogan, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref40">26</reflink>] ). Work experience is identified as one of the most important transition predictors (Benz, Lindstrom, & Yovanoff, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref41">2</reflink>] ).</p> <p>Findings from the present study support the literature that vocational education is a strong predictor of SWD postsecondary success (Harvey, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref42">9</reflink>] ). Students who complete a highly structured secondary school vocational program (occupation-specific coursework) had more favorable post-school outcomes (Fabian, Lent, & Willis, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref43">6</reflink>] ). According to the Indiana respondents, participation in the vocational education programs predictor had the highest rating of all the 16 evidence-based transition predictors. Vocational education opportunities were perceived by respondents to be effectively implemented in their school settings.</p> <hd id="AN0128422750-16">Limitations</hd> <p>The sampling pattern included only those directors of special education who approved the study, their respective assistant directors and program coordinators, and those secondary special education teachers from school districts where approvals were given by school superintendents and high school principals. The sampling structure used to select participants imposed its own limitations. Further, the sampling pattern limited the number of secondary school special educators who could have been included in the study. In addition, using an online survey tool (e.g., Qualtrics) may have been a limitation. Survey links do not always work, many schools have security measures to limit e-mails (e.g., spam block, junk mail, Clutter), and the cumulative effect on the use of an online survey may have limited study participation. Last, because the number of respondents was limited, largely due to the sampling design, the study results should be considered exploratory with limited generalizability.</p> <hd id="AN0128422750-17">Implications for practitioners</hd> <p>Although IDEA does not “address behaviors that may affect a student's transition to postsecondary life” (Mueller, Bassett, & Brewer, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref44">23</reflink>] , p. 38), it is essential that school practitioners improve transition services for SWD. The implication is for practitioners to: (a) create and participate in transition programming professional development training, (b) develop a team approach to transition planning, and (c) develop transition planning and programming approaches that link the student's IEP academic goals with student-appropriate nonacademic skills.</p> <p>Because our survey indicated that strong transition programs were only the ninth most utilized of the 16 evidence-based secondary transition predictors in this study, the first step necessary to improve transition services for SWD is to create professional development/training programs that are intended to promote and facilitate appropriate implementation of the 16 evidence-based transition predictors as school best-practice components based on school and student needs. Morningstar, Bassett, Kochhar-Bryant, Cashman, & Wehmeyer, ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref45">20</reflink>] ) provided specific recommendations to assist future practice. Initially, a team of school/community practitioners should develop policy and advocacy practices that are aligned with current secondary education reform efforts as demonstrated through a student's program of study and his/her IEP. The present study found that in Indiana several evidence-based transition predictors were not being fully utilized to support SWD (see Table 3). The implication is that secondary special educators may be overlooking important opportunities to improve SWD post-school outcomes. Secondary schools need to objectively examine their current transition programs and services, which include curriculum needs. The Life-Centered Career Education (LCCE) approach contains a 200-item knowledge battery. It contains both pre- and post-assessments in addition to a performance battery. This battery focuses on practical life skills and the unique individual strengths of the student (Brolin, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref46">3</reflink>] ). By identifying the specific predictors that either are or are not being utilized, schools can determine areas where professional development is needed. Furthermore, schools can focus on ensuring that all of the 16 evidence- based transition predictors are being utilized to the maximum extent possible, thus building stronger transition practices and better outcomes for students with disabilities.</p> <p>Second, throughout the process a team approach is necessary. Interagency collaboration was only the 10th highest utilized of the 16 evidence-based secondary transition predictors in this study and nearly 22% of the respondents answered “no” or “did not know” regarding this predictor. Early in a student's high school career, a team should be developed that would include the student, parents/family, teachers, a designated coordinator, counselors, administrators, and appropriate community agencies (Kleinert, Jones, Heppard-Jones, Harp, & Harrison, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref47">14</reflink>] ; Mellard & Lancaster, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref48">19</reflink>] ; & Mueller, Bassett, & Brewer, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref49">23</reflink>] ). Many post-school agencies and services are available to assist SWD when they become adults. Some of the different agencies and services include adult education (to finish a GED), centers for independent living, community-based agencies, vocational rehabilitation, postsecondary education, and the Social Security Administration. Mellard and Lancaster ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref50">19</reflink>] ) advocated that SWD must know about the available resources and the team should assist with providing student access. Community agency support is important.</p> <p>A third implication is to link nonacademic goals to the academic goals in the student's IEP. The qualitative results from our study indicated that linking nonacademic goals to the academic goals has been viewed as a barrier due to the strong academic rigor mandated by the legislature. Other barriers expressed in this study included the need for facilities to teach the nonacademic skills and a lack of time in the master schedule. Researchers (Gothberg, Peterson, Peak, & Sedaghat, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref51">8</reflink>] ; Mueller, Bassett, & Brewer, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref52">23</reflink>] ) strongly advocated that nonacademic skills are most needed to prepare SWD for adult life. Often the behavioral, social, communicative, and functional skills are underemphasized. Gothberg, Peterson, Peak, and Sedaghat ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref53">8</reflink>] ) recommended that a student first identify his/her postsecondary occupational goals. Then the industry standards for those goals can be identified and compared to the student's current performance level. The subsequent gap analysis can show where the discrepancies exist, and identified nonacademic skills can then be linked to appropriate academic skills in the IEP to help the student's nonacademic skills achieve an acceptable and functional performance level.</p> <p>Two critical nonacademic skills have been noted by researchers (Gothberg, Peterson, Peak, & Sedaghat, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref54">8</reflink>] ; Mueller, Bassett, & Brewer, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref55">23</reflink>] ) as important components to include in students' postsecondary transition plan: self-determination and self-monitoring. Current study findings support self-determination and self-advocacy skills. In high school, practitioners can promote self-advocacy skills while helping their students learn to express their strengths, needs, and interests, ask for appropriate support, and identify/monitor when current behaviors may conflict with future goals.</p> <hd id="AN0128422750-18">Recommendations</hd> <p>The current study points to specific ways to support SWD transition programs and services.</p> <p>There is a need to know and use interagencies at the local level to support SWD and their families in the transition-to-adult-life process. The focus of interagency collaboration needs to be concentrated on SWD post-school outcomes. Because Indiana, like other states, has many rural areas, it is important for special educators to fully engage with interagency service providers.</p> <p>The literature supports vocational education and employment opportunities through either paid or unpaid work experiences (Benz, Lindstrom, & Yovanoff, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref56">2</reflink>] ; Bullis & Davis, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref57">4</reflink>] ; Harvey, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref58">9</reflink>] ). In this research study respondents concurred and valued vocational education, since vocational education was the predictor most utilized among respondents in all positions. However, in this study, the lowest utilization of a predictor was paid employment/work experiences. Unfortunately, the vocational education in which students are enrolled does not appear to include or be transitioning into a paid work experience. Schools need to prepare students for the world of work in the environment for which they will be employed. Vocational education programs, supported by work-study programs and paid employment/work experiences in the environment where they are likely to be employed, are viable options to be considered. During transition planning, parents, students, and school personnel should explore vocational and employment-related evidence-based transition program options.</p> <p>The key to post-school SWD success is the development of a strong program of study in high school that includes the transition IEP's expected goals and addresses both exit exams and the potential route to earning a high school diploma. The narrative comments from the respondents of this study provided insight into the barriers they perceive. The schools' foci on academic rigor and budget restraints are affecting the utilization of self-care/independent living courses, self-determination/self-advocacy implementation, and inclusion. The need to focus on postsecondary outcomes for students with disabilities should challenge educators to develop secondary curriculum that prepares students for life after high school. Researchers have discovered that students with disabilities who are included in the general education curriculum experience better postsecondary outcomes (Landmark, Ju, & Zhang, 2010). Parents need to be actively involved and students need to exercise self-determination and self-advocacy skills throughout the planning process. School districts need to provide opportunities for parental involvement in transition IEP planning.</p> <p>Secondary special educators and special education administrators need to be aware of emergent evidence-based practices supporting transition. Targeted professional development can provide educators with successful strategies for implementing such evidence-based transition practices. The content of training needs to be focused on evidence-based practices.</p> <hd id="AN0128422750-19">Conclusion</hd> <p>The present study recommends that practitioners advocate for real, meaningful, and effective transition programs and services. More research is needed concerning professionals' knowledge of, usage of, and effectiveness of the 16 evidence-based transition predictors. Findings from other states will provide ways to enhance and improve transition opportunities for SWD.</p> <ref id="AN0128422750-20"> <title>References</title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref21" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext>Alwell, M., & Cobb, B. ( 2006 ). A systematic review of the effects of curricular interventions on the acquisition of functional life skills by youth with disabilities (What Works Transition Research Synthesis). Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.nsttac.org/sites/default/files/assests/pdf/pdf/life%5fskills.pdf">http://www.nsttac.org/sites/default/files/assests/pdf/pdf/life%5fskills.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref20" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext>Benz, M. R., Lindstrom, L., & Yovanoff, P. ( 2000 ). Improving graduation and employment outcomes for students with disabilities: Predictive factors and student perspectives. Exceptional Children, 66, 509 - 523. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://galenetgroup.com.proxy.bsu.edu/servlet/HWRC/hits?docN">http://galenetgroup.com.proxy.bsu.edu/servlet/HWRC/hits?docN</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref46" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext>Brolin, D. ( 1992 ). Life centered career education. ( 5th ed.). Arlington, VA : Council for Exceptional Children. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref27" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext>Bullis, M., & Davis, C. ( 1995 ). Transition achievement among young adults with deafness: What variables relate to success. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 39, 130 - 150. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.eric.ed.gov/?id-EJ525638">http://www.eric.ed.gov/?id-EJ525638</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref4" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext>Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. ( 2012 ). Persons with a disability: Labor force characteristics—2011 (U.S. Department of Labor). Washington, DC : Author. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref43" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext>Fabian, E. S., Lent, R. W., & Willis, S. P. ( 1998 ). Predicting work transition outcomes for students with disabilities: Implications for counselors. Journal of Counseling and Development, 76, 311 - 316. doi: 10.1002/j.1556-6676.1998.tb02547.x </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref18" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext>Gay, L. R., & Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. W. ( 2012 ). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application. Upper Saddle, NJ : Pearson. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref51" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext>Gothberg, J., Peterson, L., Peak, M., & Sedaghat, J. ( 2015 ). Successful transition of students with disabilities to 21st-century college and careers: Using triangulation and gap analysis to address nonacademic skills. Teaching Exceptional Children, 47 ( 6 ), 344 - 351. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref38" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext>Harvey, M. W. ( 2002 ). Comparison of postsecondary transitional outcomes between students with and without disabilities by secondary vocational education participation: Findings from the National Education Longitudinal Study. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 25, 99 - 122. doi: 10.1177/088572880202500202 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib10" type="bt">10</bibl> <bibtext>IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (Version 22.0). Armonk, NY : IBM. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004). </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib11" idref="ref33" type="bt">11</bibl> <bibtext>Johnson, D. R. ( 2004 ). Supported employment trends: Implications for transition-age youth. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 29, 243 - 247. doi: 10.2511/rpsd.29.4 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib12" idref="ref31" type="bt">12</bibl> <bibtext>Johnson, D. R., Stodden, R. A., Emanuel, E. J., Luecking, R., & Mack, M. ( 2002 ). Current challenges facing secondary education and transition services: What research tells us. Exceptional Children, 68, 519 - 531. doi: 10.1177/001440290206800407 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib13" idref="ref19" type="bt">13</bibl> <bibtext>Kellems, R. O., & Morningstar, M. E. ( 2010 ). Tips for transition. Teaching Exceptional Children, 43, 60 - 68. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.cec.sped.org/AM?Template.cfm?Section=Publications1">http://www.cec.sped.org/AM?Template.cfm?Section=Publications1</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib14" idref="ref47" type="bt">14</bibl> <bibtext>Kleinert, H., Jones, M., Heppard-Jones, K., Harp, B., & Harrison, E. ( 2012 ). Students with intellectual disabilities going to college? Absolutely! Teaching Exceptional Children, 44 ( 5 ), 26 - 35. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib15" idref="ref14" type="bt">15</bibl> <bibtext>Kohler, P. ( 1996 ). Taxonomy for transition programming [Brochure]. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://homepages.wmich.edu/∼kohlerp/…Taxonomy">http://homepages.wmich.edu/∼kohlerp/…Taxonomy</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib16" idref="ref3" type="bt">16</bibl> <bibtext>Kohler, P. D., & Field, S. ( 2003 ). Transition-focused education: Foundation for the future. The Journal of Special Education, 37, 174 - 183. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://search.proquest.com.proxy.bsu.edu/docview/194702655?accountid=8483">http://search.proquest.com.proxy.bsu.edu/docview/194702655?accountid=8483</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib17" idref="ref16" type="bt">17</bibl> <bibtext>Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. ( 1970 ). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607 - 610. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib18" idref="ref30" type="bt">18</bibl> <bibtext>Li, J., Bassett, D. S., & Hutchinson, S. R. ( 2009 ). Secondary special educators' transition involvement. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 34, 163 - 172. doi: 10.1080/13668250902849113 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib19" idref="ref48" type="bt">19</bibl> <bibtext>Mellard, D., & Lancaster, P. ( 2003 ). Incorporating adult community services in students' transition planning. Remedial and Special Education, 24 ( 6 ), 359 - 368. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib20" idref="ref12" type="bt">20</bibl> <bibtext>Morningstar, M. E., Bassett, D. S., Kochhar-Bryant, C., Cashman, J., & Wehmeyer, M. ( 2012 ). Aligning transition services with secondary education reform: A position statement of the Division on Career Development and Transition. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 35, 132 - 142. doi: 10.177/2165143412454915 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib21" idref="ref25" type="bt">21</bibl> <bibtext>Morningstar, M. E., & Benitez, D. T. ( 2013 ). Teacher training matters: The results of a multistate survey of secondary special educators regarding transition from school to adulthood. Teacher Education and Special Education, 36, 51 - 64. doi: 10.1177/0888406412474022 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib22" idref="ref13" type="bt">22</bibl> <bibtext>Morningstar, M. E., & Kleinhammer-Tramill, J. ( 2005 ). Professional development for transition personnel: Current issues and strategies for success. Information Brief: Addressing Trends and Developments in Secondary Education and Transition, 4, 1 - 6. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.ncset.org/publications/printsource.asp?id=2440">http://www.ncset.org/publications/printsource.asp?id=2440</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib23" idref="ref44" type="bt">23</bibl> <bibtext>Mueller, T., Bassett, D., & Brewer, R. ( 2012 ). Planning for the future: A model for using the principles of transition to guide the development of behavior intervention plans. Intervention in School and Clinic, 48 ( 1 ), 38 - 46. doi: 10.1177/1053451212443130 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib24" idref="ref2" type="bt">24</bibl> <bibtext>National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability. ( 2009 ). Guideposts for success. Washington, DC : Institute for Educational Leadership. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib25" idref="ref5" type="bt">25</bibl> <bibtext>National Council on Disability ( 2011, October ). National disability policy: A progress report (National Council on Disability). Washington, DC : National Council on Disability. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://ncd.gov/publications/2011/">http://ncd.gov/publications/2011/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib26" idref="ref34" type="bt">26</bibl> <bibtext>Shandra, C. L., & Hogan, D. P. ( 2008 ). School-to-work program participation and the post-high school employment of young adults with disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 29, 117 - 130. Retrieved from http://www.ccrscenter/org/NULL </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib27" idref="ref9" type="bt">27</bibl> <bibtext>Spradlin, T., & Hiller, S. ( 2012, August 31 ). Results of the 2012 post-high school follow-up survey (Center for Evaluation and Education Policy). Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.doe.in.gov/sites/default…/idoe-post-grad-reportfinal.pdf">http://www.doe.in.gov/sites/default…/idoe-post-grad-reportfinal.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib28" idref="ref1" type="bt">28</bibl> <bibtext>Stetser, M. C., & Stillwell, R. ( 2014 ). Public high school four-year on-time graduation rates and event dropout rates: School years 2010-11 and 2011-12 (NCES 2014- 391). Washington, DC : U.S. Department of Education. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib29" idref="ref6" type="bt">29</bibl> <bibtext>Test, D. W., Mazzotti, V. L., Mustian, A. L., Fowler, C. H., Kortering, L., & Kohler, P. ( 2009 ). Evidence-based secondary transition predictors for improving post-school outcomes for students with disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32, 160 - 181. doi: 10.1177/0885728809346960 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib30" idref="ref24" type="bt">30</bibl> <bibtext>Worrell, J. L. ( 2008 ). How secondary schools can avoid the seven deadly “sins” of inclusion. American Secondary Education, 36 ( 2 ), 43 - 56. </bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Nikki S. Sprunger; Michael W. Harvey and Marilynn M. Quick</p> <p></p> <p>Notes on contributorsNikki S. Sprunger has over 30 years experience in education. She currently serves as the special education director in a large urban school district in the Midwest. Her research interests include secondary transition and multicultural education.</p> <p>Michael W. Harvey is a professor of education in the Workforce Education and Development Program at Penn State. His research interests include school leadership with a focus on career and technical education, secondary transition, and post school outcomes.</p> <p>Marilynn Marks Quick is an Associate Professor and Assistant Chairperson, Department of Educational Leadership, at Ball State University. Her research interests are teacher evaluation, school improvement, and leadership development.</p> </aug>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1172974
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Special Education Transition Predictors for Post-School Success: Findings from the Field
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Sprunger%2C+Nikki+S%2E%22">Sprunger, Nikki S.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Harvey%2C+Michael+W%2E%22">Harvey, Michael W.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Quick%2C+Marilynn+M%2E%22">Quick, Marilynn M.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Preventing+School+Failure%22"><i>Preventing School Failure</i></searchLink>. 2018 62(2):116-128.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 13
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2018
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Secondary+Education%22">Secondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Secondary+Schools%22">Secondary Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Secondary+School+Students%22">Secondary School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Disabilities%22">Disabilities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Transitional+Programs%22">Transitional Programs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Planning%22">Planning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Attitude+Measures%22">Attitude Measures</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Administrators%22">Administrators</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Special+Education+Teachers%22">Special Education Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Knowledge+Level%22">Knowledge Level</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Effectiveness%22">Program Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Predictor+Variables%22">Predictor Variables</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Use+Studies%22">Use Studies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Agency+Cooperation%22">Agency Cooperation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Employment+Level%22">Employment Level</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Work+Study+Programs%22">Work Study Programs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Readiness%22">Readiness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Access+to+Education%22">Access to Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Surveys%22">Surveys</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evidence%22">Evidence</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Likert+Scales%22">Likert Scales</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Statistical+Analysis%22">Statistical Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Equal+Education%22">Equal Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Legislation%22">Educational Legislation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Federal+Legislation%22">Federal Legislation</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Indiana%22">Indiana</searchLink>
– Name: SubjectThesaurus
  Label: Laws, Policies and Program Identifiers
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22Individuals+with+Disabilities+Education+Act%22">Individuals with Disabilities Education Act</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/1045988X.2017.1393789
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1045-988X
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Legislation has mandated that secondary schools provide services for students with disabilities that prepare them for independent living, employment, and/or post-secondary education (IDEA, 2004). This study examined the perceptions of special education directors, assistant directors/program coordinators, and secondary special education teachers concerning the current knowledge, usage, and effectiveness of evidenced-based transition predictors in Indiana and their impact on post-school outcomes. The results indicate that there is agreement among the respondents of the knowledge, utilization, and effectiveness of the 16 transition predictors. However, programs of study, inter-agency collaboration, paid employment/work experiences, and work study programs were identified as a concern. Recommendations to improve transition practice and additional research are made for future success.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 30
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2018
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1172974
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1172974
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/1045988X.2017.1393789
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 13
        StartPage: 116
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Secondary Schools
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Secondary School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Disabilities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Transitional Programs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Planning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Attitude Measures
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Administrators
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Special Education Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Knowledge Level
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Predictor Variables
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Use Studies
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Agency Cooperation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Employment Level
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Work Study Programs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Readiness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Access to Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Surveys
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Evidence
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Likert Scales
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Statistical Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Equal Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Legislation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Federal Legislation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Indiana
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Special Education Transition Predictors for Post-School Success: Findings from the Field
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Sprunger, Nikki S.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Harvey, Michael W.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Quick, Marilynn M.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2018
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1045-988X
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 62
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Preventing School Failure
              Type: main
ResultId 1