SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS

Luanna H. Meyer
Syracuse University

Abstract

1. Social relationships are critical to a student's quality of life and are a major determinant whether the student will be a valued participant in his or her community. When schools deliberately help students with and without disabilities have social relationships, they engage in a powerful strategy for overcoming the negative effects of disability.
   
   
2. Research evidence on short-term benefits of social relationships abounds; longitudinal research has not been done. The documented benefits for students with disabilities relate to social competence, employment, school achievement, family adjustment, and friendship networks. There also are significant benefits for students who do not have disabilities.
   
   
3. The most promising practices are (a) education in the least restrictive environment of the inclusive school and (b) participation in the community.
   
   
4. The most significant barriers are (a) segregation in education and (b) categorical grouping of students.
   
   
5. To advance social relationships, Congress should (a) clarify the "continuum" provisions of IDEA and (b) require state and local education agencies to adopt promising practices used in general education to promote social relationships between students with and without disabilities.
   
   
6. Similarly, OSERS should (a) fund longitudinal research on the effects of social relationships between students with and without disabilities and ensure that the research documents the effects of those relationships on both of those groups of students, (b) require institutions of higher education to assure that their personnel preparation programs teach skills for all teachers to function in the least restrictive environments of inclusive schools, and (c) fund research and model programs that help students develop social competence and meaningful social relationships, that extend their skills and training beyond the acquisition of discrete social skills, and that support biculturalism and school inclusion.
   
   
7. State and local education agencies should (a) undertake activities parallel to those of Congress and OSERS and (b) use extended school year programs to ensure integration between students with and without disabilities, thereby building on and preventing regression of the social skills that the students have acquired during the regular school year.

1. What outcomes signify successful implementation of the topical issue?

Social relationships are critical to one's quality of life and are a major determinant of whether an individual will be a valued participant in his or her community across the lifespan. Family and neighborhood play a major role in shaping one's social relationships, but school is perhaps the most important context for children's social opportunities with peers and with adults other than family members. There is a rich and extensive developmental literature documenting the role of interpersonal relationships in supporting one's self-esteem, learning, and social competence (Damon, 1984; Tharpe & Gallimore, 1989). While family and school teach children many of the skills and behaviors they will need to be successful as adults in their families, careers, and communities, one's relationships with peers and acquaintances of all ages are widely acknowledged as the context for mastery of the social rules governing how we use our skills and behaviors in any situation or environment (Vygotsky, 1978).

Furthermore, research in developmental disabilities has consistently revealed the significant role of social relationships in building the individual's social competence and the natural support networks needed by anyone throughout life (Edgerton, 1989; Haring, 1991). For example, one's perceived social competence is known to be as critical to getting and keeping a job as one's actual performance on the job, and a lack of social competence is the most frequently cited reason for employment difficulties (Wehman & Kregel, 1989). Friends, mentors, and benefactors are among the terms used to describe personal relationships that create interdependency and that promote participation in a variety of valued roles in one's community (Bryant, 1989). Natural support networks involving friends and community members who are comfortable with persons with disabilities are particularly important for those persons with significant disabilities who may not acquire as many complex skills or behaviors as their peers.

If a child has the opportunity for developing positive social relationships, primary outcomes as an adult should include close personal friendships, positive relationships with family, appropriate and diverse patterns of social interactions with the variety of acquaintances, co-workers, neighbors, service providers, and the many others with whom one might interact on a typical day, and personal satisfaction with the range and quality of those social relationships. Secondary outcomes should include cooperation and getting along with teachers, staff, classmates, and friends at school; getting and keeping a job; collaborating with and developing mutually satisfying working relationships that enhance job performance; living in a stable situation either alone or with family members or roommates based on choice; and successfully negotiating participation in the community activities that are part of daily life.

Finally, outcomes for nondisabled persons involved in social relationships and interactions with persons with disabilities have ranged from improved self-esteem; the acquisition of positive social behaviors such as kindness and gentleness; increased interpersonal skills (e.g., collaboration, cooperation) and social competence; new valued social relationships such as a friendship with a person with disabilities; decreased social intolerance of various forms of discrimination (e.g., racism) based upon stereotyped individual and group characteristics; and the development of a higher order social consciousness around ideals of fairness or social good (Evans, Salisbury, Palombaro, & Goldberg, 1994; Helmstetter, Peck, & Giangreco, 1994; Kishi & Meyer, 1994).

2. To what extent have these outcomes been achieved in the last five years?

The data base on the social relationships and social competence of persons with disabilities has grown geometrically since 1975, as evidenced by reviews on this topic across time (Meyer & Putnam, 1988; Haring, 1991; Meyer, 1994). In particular, researchers have demonstrated a significantly positive relationship between school and community inclusion and a range of related outcomes such as social competence, employment, school achievement, family adjustment, and meaningful social relationships in persons with disabilities (Meyer, 1994; Turnbull et al., 1993). Similarly, there is a growing data base documenting the positive relationship between social interactions with persons with disabilities and the development of positive social-emotional and academic outcomes for nondisabled persons (Evans et al., 1994; Hunt, Staub, Alwell, & Goetz, 1994; Putnam, 1993). There are multiple demonstrations of these positive relationships in studies of short-term behavioral change as a function of different intervention strategies that have an impact upon social relationships (Haring, 1991). Unfortunately, long-term outcomes are largely unknown because there has been no longitudinal study across time and across the lifespan of persons with and without disabilities, though what little evidence does exist is primarily positive (Kishi & Meyer, 1994).

3. What educational models/procedures are most effective for achieving these outcomes?

Social context has become an overriding framework for the attainment of both social and academic competence for children. Few if any skills are performed without reference to their social context, and just as the business world has increasingly emphasized interpersonal aspects of successful performance on the job, children's mastery of critical life skills is integrally connected to their relationships and interactions with others. This mastery occurs best in inclusive schools.

In general, quality inclusive schooling for students with disabilities is consistent with and mutually supportive of many current most promising practices in general education, such as reciprocal/peer teaching; authentic/portfolio assessment; interdisciplinary and thematic instruction; team teaching; learning centers; learning style; multiple intelligences; and the use of computers and other technologies in instruction.

Inclusion in the life of the school and community across the developmental period also relates to positive outcomes for children with and without disabilities. Specific aspects of school inclusion that have been judged effective in promoting positive interpersonal outcomes include the following:

• Quality inclusive schooling in which the child with disabilities receives an appropriate education focusing upon his or her individualized needs within the context of the ongoing activities in the general education classroom with special education services and supports.
  
  
• Peer support within the general education structure and as part of a quality inclusive schooling effort that incorporates promising practices such as cooperative learning, reciprocal teaching, scaffolding, and peer tutoring.
  
  
• Circles of friends and collaborative problem-solving in which the children themselves are empowered and supported to generate age-appropriate and practical approaches and solutions to issues that arise in school and community.
  
  
• Integrated therapy approaches that entail goal selection and providing therapy services and supports in the context of naturally occurring routines and environments characteristic of the child's family, neighborhood, peer reference group, and community.
  
  
• Cooperative and collaborative goals and activities that reflect children's multiple intelligences, their diversity of learning styles, strengths, and needs, and assisted performance and learning constructs reflecting current learning theory.
  
  
• Authentic assessment emphasizing performance measures referenced to real- world, task-related, and interpersonal demands and contexts at different ages and in diverse social situations and environments. These assessments are also measured against universal standards within the various levels and subject areas--particularly higher order skills such as critical thinking and problem- solving across the curricula.

4. What educational models/procedures most inhibit these outcomes?

Segregation and isolation remove critical social context, peer modeling, and friendship opportunities from the lives of students with disabilities. The extensive attention given to the need to teach skill generalization may have been partly the result of teaching skills out of context in the first place. Any time that a skill is taught in an isolated and/or artificial situation--and where performance involves only paid teachers and other caregivers rather than interactions with persons who would be part of the natural situation in the real world--that skill needs to be virtually "retaught" in context or is apparently quickly forgotten. Furthermore, segregation from nondisabled peers removes potential peer models and critical natural supports from the lives of children with disabilities. If a child is grouped educationally only with other children with disabilities, that child is effectively deprived of the opportunity to model age-appropriate behaviors from peers who do not have disabilities.

If other nondisabled children do not have the opportunity to interact with peers with disabilities, they themselves will be restricted in their socio-communication skills and level of comfort in knowing how to interact with persons with disabilities. Children who attend school together starting at an early age do not need sensitivity training, discussions with puppets (rather than classmates with disabilities in natural context), or consciousness raising through books and movies. There is little or no evidence that these pre-inclusion programs have a lasting impact, in contrast to social contact experiences extending across time in natural contexts such as school and community recreation activities. While the pre-inclusion strategies for promoting positive attitudes and behavior were somewhat beneficial and a reasonable beginning at a time when children were educated in separate settings, they were associated primarily with short-term attitude changes, and there is no evidence that these changes endure over time or even that they generate changed behavior toward persons with disabilities. Logically, they seem a poor substitute for learning the actual behaviors and experiencing real and positive friendships and other interpersonal relationships that are possible through social contact between children who have diverse abilities. And, of course, the real world is diverse, that kind of social contact is clearly the criterion of ultimate functioning for children with and without disabilities preparing for the adult world.

Similarly, categorical programs that restrict social contact to other persons with the same disability or level of functioning also restrict opportunities for social learning from peers. Whenever children are grouped homogeneously, social models for different behaviors and skills will be restricted or eliminated. Further, whenever children share similar needs and their skills and needs are not complementary, their performance will depend upon adult intervention rather than peer support and coordination of strengths and needs. Even in instances where disability is associated with a positive peer culture that can offer lifelong support (e.g., the deaf community), opportunities to interact with both members of that culture and others who do not have the disability will enhance the individual's ability to be bicultural (e.g., interact not only with others who are deaf, but also with those who are not, who might include such critical significant others as one's parents/family members as well as expanded friendship networks).

5. Provide two or three specific recommendations for improving IDEA's implementation by state and local education agencies.

Under the current language of the "continuum of services," the continuum is viewed as a continuum of increasingly restrictive places, such that as intensity of need increases, segregation also increases. The language describing the continuum of services should be clarified to enable intensity of services to vary according to needs regardless of placement location. This would allow for greater levels of services and supports to be provided to students with disabilities in inclusive schools and classrooms, rather than entailing movement to segregated placements in order to access those levels.

References to "most promising practices" in special education and related services should be expanded to reference most promising practices in general education to facilitate coordination of resources and services in inclusive schools and classrooms for the benefit of all children.

Plans for a Comprehensive System of Personnel Development should reference mutual articulation between general and special education personnel to build the capacity of the state and local education agency to make quality inclusive schooling options available to students.

6. Provide two or three specific recommendations for improving IDEA's implementation through federally funded activities, including but not limited to monitoring, technical assistance, personnel preparation, demonstration, and research to be carried out over the next five years.

Identify funding priorities for longitudinal research on outcomes related to variables that affect opportunities for social relationships and social contact between persons with and without disabilities. Such priorities should also encourage multi-method, participatory, and multiple outcome measurement research approaches.

Emphasize personnel preparation at both preservice and in-service levels that promotes quality inclusive schooling and the delivery of appropriate special education services and supports in settings that do not segregate children and thereby compromise their social relationship opportunities.

Identify research and development funding priorities that support broad social competence and social relationship constructs such as biculturalism and school-community inclusion rather than the teaching of discrete social skills.

References

Bryant, B. K. (1989). The need for support in relation to the need for autonomy. In D. Belle (Ed.), Children's social networks and social support (pp. 332-351). New York: Wiley.

Damon, W. (1984). Peer education: The untapped potential. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 5, 331-343.

Edgerton, R. B. (1989). Aging in the community--A matter of choice. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 92, 331-335.

Evans, I. M., Salisbury, C., Palombaro, M., & Goldberg, J. S. (1994). Children's perceptions of fairness in classroom and interpersonal situations involving peers with severe disabilities. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19, 326-332.

Haring, T. G. (1991). Social relationships. In L. H. Meyer, C. A Peck, & L. Brown (Eds.), Critical issues in the lives of people with severe disabilities (pp. 195-217). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Helmstetter, E., Peck, C. A., & Giangreco, M. F. (1994). Outcomes of interactions with peers with moderate or severe disabilities: A statewide survey of high school students. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19, 263-276.

Hunt, P., Staub, D., Alwell, M., & Goetz, L. (1994). Achievement by all students within the context of cooperative learning groups. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19, 290-301.

Kishi, G. S., & Meyer, L. H. (1994). What children report and remember: A six-year follow-up of the effects of social contact between peers with and without severe disabilities. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19, 277-289.

Meyer, L. H. (1994). Editor's introduction: Understanding the impact of inclusion. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19, 251-252.

Meyer, L. H., & Putnam, J. (1988). Social integration. In V. B. Van Hasselt, P. S. Strain, & M. Hersen (Eds.), Handbook of developmental and physical disabilities (pp. 107-133). New York: Pergamon.

Putnam, J. W. (Ed.). (1993). Cooperative learning and strategies for inclusion: Celebrating diversity in the classroom. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Tharpe, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1989). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling in social context. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Turnbull, A. P., Patterson, J. M., Behr, S. K., Murphy, D. L., Marquis, J. G., & Blue-Banning, M. J. (1993). Cognitive coping, families, and disability. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Eds. M. Cole, R. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wehman, P., & Kregel, J. (Eds.). (1989). Supported employment for persons with disabilities. New York: Plenum.

Annotated Literature Abstract

Citation

Haring, T. G. (1991). Social relationships. In L. H. Meyer, C. A. Peck, & L. Brown (Eds.), Critical issues in the lives of people with severe disabilities (pp. 195-217). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Abstract

This authoritative chapter is part of a state-of-the-practice compendium of research and development on most promising practices in services and supports for persons with severe disabilities. Topical chapters were solicited for Critical Issues in each of the areas that have been addressed by policy statements and resolutions of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps (TASH), the major professional and advocacy association focused upon the needs of those who have been the most excluded from educational and other normalized opportunities for development and participation in schools and communities. Haring's chapter provides an up-to-date review of research on social interactions and social relationships between persons with and without disabilities, with emphasis upon peer interaction strategies that can be related to meaningful outcomes. The theoretical bases for various approaches are included in the review, and findings for specific interventions and approaches are summarized with respect to dependent variables such as attitude change, positive social interactive behaviors, and friendships.

Annotated Literature Abstract

Citation

Kishi, G. S., & Meyer, L. H. (1994). What children report and remember: A six- year follow-up of the effects of social contact between peers with and without severe disabilities. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19, 277-289.

Abstract

This is an investigation of what nondisabled teenagers report and remember as a function of elementary school experiences involving different levels of social contact with peers with severe disabilities. Two self-report interpersonal measures were administered to nearly 200 students comprising social contact, exposure, and control groups. A sub-sample of 93 teenagers was interviewed about experiences and attitudes toward persons with disabilities and their memories from earlier school experiences. Analysis of the attitudinal data revealed significantly more positive attitudes, higher levels of current reported social contact, and more support for full community participation by persons with disabilities as a function of earlier social contact--although all children were relatively positive. The interview data with children in the high social contact group offer particular caveats for future inclusion efforts to avoid potential negative effects upon children's personal relationships and social attitudes. Suggestions are made for future research to investigate the impact of inclusion on children's socio-personal development and social relationships. To date, this is the most extensive and long-term data base available involving impact on children and reporting their own perspectives on their social relationships with peers with significant disabilities.

Model Profile

With more than a thousand schools attended by over one million students, educational programs in New York City respond to many constituencies and multiple needs. During the past four years, the New York Partnership for Statewide Systems Change has collaborated with city school districts to provide quality inclusive schooling to children with significant disabilities as full participants in the academic and social life of the school.

The Surfside School, P.S. 329 in Coney Island, Brooklyn, was one of the first schools to begin these efforts. Inclusion at Surfside began with two children fully included and has now expanded to support 14 children with severe disabilities enrolled in eight classrooms across grades K-4. Special education methods and resource teachers team with grade-level general education teachers to create optimal learning environments to benefit all children at Surfside--those with and without disabilities.

What is particularly remarkable about this school is that inclusion not only has worked for the benefit of students with the most severe disabilities but also has benefited their nondisabled classmates. In a school where virtually 100 percent of the students qualify for free lunch and children have many education and social needs, the time period since inclusion was implemented has also been associated with significant gains in math and reading scores by children in general education. The children with disabilities in turn rapidly outstripped their original IEP goals and have demonstrated unexpected academic and social skills beyond those envisioned when their inclusive programs began.

In addition to special education services, students with multiple disabilities receive a range of individually appropriate therapy and support services through integrated therapy approaches. Planning time is scheduled weekly between all relevant instructional and support personnel to ensure that the team delivers appropriate programming to each student. State-of-the-art models for curricular and instructional modifications to enable the attainment of students' IEP goals within the context of ongoing age/grade-level instructional activities. Paraprofessional support staff assist the general education teacher as they work with the child with disabilities and nondisabled classmates applying the modifications and adaptations needed by each child under the supervision of the teacher and/or therapist. The students with severe disabilities function in all activities that are part of school life, including extracurricular opportunities such as cheerleading. In addition, the inclusion team meets on a regular basis to plan and problem-solve to ensure that students receive the social support they need and to build positive social relationships and friendships between students. These activities are not designed to stigmatize the students with severe disabilities but instead reference all children and are directed toward concepts and practices that, in the words of the principal, support "the making of good human beings."

For further information, contact:

Dr. Luanna Meyer
Syracuse University
Special Projects
150 Huntington Hall
Syracuse, New York 13244-2280
Phone: 315-443-1881
FAX: 315-443-3289

SELF-DETERMINATION

Michael Wehmeyer
The Arc National Headquarters

Abstract

1. Self-determination refers to the attitudes and abilities students need to make choices and decisions about their lives and to assume greater control of and responsibility for their quality of life.
   
   
2. The outcomes are that students with disabilities are actively involved in all phases of their educational program from placement to graduation and learn skills they need to assume greater responsibility for all aspects of their adult lives. The educational system has only recently begun to focus attention on the topic of self-determination for students with disabilities, based mainly on research findings that report less than desirable adult outcomes for youth with disabilities.
   
   
3. A self-determination curriculum focuses on choice-making, decision-making, problem-solving, goal setting and attainment, self-observation, self-evaluation and self-reinforcement skills, internal locus of control, positive attributions of efficacy, self-awareness, and self-knowledge. Noncurricular strategies include increasing student involvement in educational planning and decision making, mentoring, work and community experiences, modifications in school environments, and use of assistive technology.
   
   
4. The most significant barriers to self-determination involve (a) overly controlling school procedures that place students on the outside of the educational process, (b) overreliance on testing, and (c) stereotyped, debilitating attitudes about and expectations for people with disabilities, reflected in the negative language used by most educators to refer to students.
   
   
5. Congress should help students achieve self-determination by (a) including in IDEA the findings from the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992 regarding the view of disability and national goals, (b) strengthening student involvement in educational planning and decision making, and (c) conducting oversight hearings related to transition.
   
   
6. OSERS should improve student outcomes in self-determination by (a) funding research and demonstration projects that identify barriers to self-determination and evaluate models and procedures to promote this outcome, (b) funding preservice and in-service training to teachers and administrators on models, procedures, and attitudes that support self-determination, and (c) establishing a national research and training center on self-determination.
   
   
7. State and local education agencies should support self-determination by (a) removing administrative regulations that unnecessarily restrict opportunities for student choice and control, (b) providing adequate support and training to teachers, and (c) ensuring that forms and formats for planning meetings do not exclude students from participation.

1. What outcomes signify successful implementation of the topical issue?

Section 101 (29 U.S.C. 701) of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992 stated that "disability is a natural part of the human experience and in no way diminishes the right of individuals to--(a) live independently; (b) enjoy self-determination; (c) make choices; (d) contribute to society; (e) pursue meaningful careers; and (f) enjoy full inclusion and integration in the economic, political, social, cultural and educational mainstream of American society" (29 U.S.C. Sec. 2(a)(3)(A-F)). This Act further stated that "the goals of the Nation properly include the goal of providing individuals with disabilities the tools necessary to--(a) make informed choices and decisions; and (b) achieve equality of opportunity, full inclusion and integration in society, employment, independent living, and economic and social self-sufficiency for such individuals" (29 U.S.C. Sec. 2(a)(6)(A-B)). Unfortunately, the current reality for most Americans with disabilities is that these outcomes are not achieved.

Napoleon Bonaparte said, "Ability is of little account without opportunity." IDEA and ADA have provided opportunities for people with disabilities to achieve their desired outcomes. But, because opportunity is of little account without ability, schools should provide students with the skills they need to succeed as adults, including academic, social, and vocational skills. These skills alone are insufficient to ensure adult success (Hasazi, Gordon, & Roe, 1985; Mithaug, Horiuchi, & Fanning, 1985). Students also need skills to become self-determined.

Self-determination is "a life filled with rising expectations, dignity, responsibility and opportunity" (Williams, 1989, p. 16) and is an outcome prized by virtually every American. Citizens value making choices based on personal preferences and interests and having responsibility for decisions that impact their lives. More than just being a valued aspect of society, however, Americans essentially define adulthood by the performance of such behaviors. When individuals with disabilities lack the opportunities to become self-determined, they have limited potential to achieve adulthood and assume adult roles. This is reflected by the fact that Americans with disabilities experience chronic unemployment and social isolation and remain dependent on overburdened service systems.

Federally funded research and model demonstration programs have been the critical first step to ensuring that students receive educational services that promote self-determination by teaching problem-solving, decision-making, and goal-setting skills. These projects have employed innovative instructional methods such as self-regulated learning, adult and peer mentoring, and community-based learning experiences and have emphasized student involvement in and control over educational program planning, decision making, and implementation. The projects, therefore, implement IDEA's requirements that transition services be based on student needs and take into account student interests and abilities. The projects also increase attention to student participation in and responsibility for educational planning and decision making.

The outcomes of these efforts are multiple. Students with disabilities are actively involved in all phases of their educational program, from placement to graduation, and learn the skills they need to assume greater responsibility for all aspects of their adult lives. Educational programs emphasize student choice and involvement in planning and implementing learning activities and structure learning environments to achieve student self-determination.

2. To what extent have these outcomes been achieved in the last five years?

While progress has been made in the last five years, generally these outcomes have not been achieved. Federally funded demonstration projects have spawned a growing body of literature on self-determination and the education of students with disabilities (Abery, 1993; Martin, Marshall, & Maxson, 1993; Wehmeyer, 1992a, 1992b). As these and related projects are completed, there will be a strong foundation for further research, instructional and assessment materials, and innovative methods to promote this outcome.

This is providential because the current state of affairs is not encouraging. Students with disabilities are much less autonomous than peers without disabilities (Lewis & Taymans, 1992; Murtaugh & Zettin, 1990), believe that others or circumstances control their destiny, and hold perceptions of themselves and their environments that are not conducive to becoming self-determined (Wehmeyer, 1994). Not surprisingly, students with disabilities too frequently become adults who do not take control of and responsibility for their lives. One only has to examine current outcomes for adults with disabilities to see that this is true. For example, Wehmeyer and Metzler (in press) found that only 6.3 percent of adults with developmental disabilities indicated they had a choice in where they currently lived, 9.4 percent said they had selected their roommates, and 11.3 percent indicated they had selected where they worked or their daytime activities. Kishi, Teelucksingh, Zollers, Park-Lee, and Meyers (1988) found that adults with disabilities had fewer opportunities to make choices regarding daily activities, such as what to watch on television or eat for dinner, than did nondisabled peers. At the present time, very few students leave school with the attitudes and abilities that enable them to take control of and responsibility for their lives.

Are students involved in their education program as planners and decision makers? Although IDEA provides that students should be involved in IEP meetings when appropriate, Gillespie and Turnbull (1983) have pointed out that little effort was expended to operationalize "when appropriate" and most students were either uninvolved in the process or involved only peripherally. Van Reusen and Bos (1990) summarized the situation seven years later, stating that "student involvement [in educational planning], even at the secondary level, is for the most part either nonexistent or passive" (p. 30). Essentially, students with disabilities are not involved in all aspects of their educational program.

Finally, it is important to look at the educational environment in which students with disabilities learn and practices employed by schools. Special education environments are usually highly structured and controlling, thereby limiting opportunities to develop self-determination. For example, Houghton, Bronicki, and Guess (1987) found that classroom personnel responded at very low rates to student-initiated expressions of preference or choice in special education classrooms. Special education procedures, from assessment to placement, essentially treat the student as a passive recipient of services. Wehmeyer, Martin, and Marshall (1994) asked, "If students floated in life jackets for 12 years, would they be expected to swim if the jackets are jerked suddenly off?" The obvious answer is no. The same is true in the area of self-determination. It is too often the case that school environments and practices limit self-determination rather than promote this outcome.

3. What educational models/procedures are most effective for achieving these outcomes?

To achieve student self-determination requires overlapping curricular and noncurricular efforts. The development of self-determination begins before children enter school and relies on partnerships among home, school, and the community throughout a students educational career.

Curricular Considerations for Promoting Self-Determination

Self-determination emerges as students develop attitudes and abilities in the following categories: (a) choice-making; (b) decision making; (c) problem-solving; (d) goal setting and attainment; (e) self-observation skills; (f) self-evaluation skills; (g) self-reinforcement skills; (h) internal locus of control; (i) positive attributions of efficacy and outcome expectancy; (j) self-awareness; and (k) self-knowledge. Each categorical area has a unique developmental course and instructional emphasis will vary according to that progression. For example, choice-making skills emerge early in life as children identify their own preferences and make selections based on these preferences. Choice-making skills, in turn, are a key component in the decision-making process and must be in place for decision-making skills to develop.

Curricular models have (a) emphasized promoting self-determination within a career education framework (Wehmeyer & Metzler, in press), (b) used the arts as a means to promote self-determination, self-confidence, and self-esteem (Harris & McKinney, 1993), and (c) worked within culturally diverse populations (Hispanic, Native American) to promote self-determination (Carter-Ludi & Martin, in press). These models share the common theme that self-determination is an outcome that will be fully realized only when instruction (a) occurs in inclusive settings (Field & Hoffman, 1992), (b) emphasizes collaboration and partnerships with the home, and (c) incorporates innovative practices like peer mentoring, experiential and cooperative learning, and modeling. Several models have organized extracurricular activities to promote outcomes related to self-determination, like self-advocacy.

Noncurricular Considerations for Promoting Self-Determination

Student involvement in educational planning and decision-making

Among the most visible efforts to promote self-determination are those that involve students in the planning and decision-making process. For students with less severe disabilities, models exist that employ self-regulated learning activities to enable students to learn key skills necessary for them to lead or contribute to the education planning process (Martin, Marshall, & Maxson, 1993; Wehmeyer & Kelchner, 1994). These activities promote student self-awareness and self-knowledge, decision-making skills, educational goal setting, effective communication, and leadership skills. They differ from straight curricular efforts because instructional activities are student directed, integrated into actual planning and decision-making activities, and focus on achieving student participation in educational planning meetings as an equal partner. For students with more severe disabilities, Turnbull and Turnbull (1994) developed a model in which students, family members, professionals, and others work through a process to identify goals, resources, and obstacles to achieve desired outcomes. Based on this information, the student, supported by the group, formulates action plans across all areas of his or her life.

Mentoring

A number of models have used mentoring to promote self-determination. They typically match students with an adult who has a similar disability to serve as a role model. These adult mentors work directly with students to provide a model of success in the community. Establishing links between schools and local Independent Living Centers to identify mentors has been effective and has the benefit of encouraging collaboration between schools and adult agencies.

Work and community experiences

A frequent component of model programs is work and/or community experiences. Students with disabilities are provided opportunities to explore options they have identified as possible outcomes from the transition process, including post-secondary education, employment, housing, transportation, and recreation and leisure options, through frequent community-based learning experiences. The experiential component is coupled with training and educational activities on the school campus and in the community.

Other noncurricular strategies

Other strategies have been employed and should be part of a comprehensive strategy to promote self-determination. Powers (1993) emphasized supporting independence and self-determination by stressing team building, networking skills, negotiation, and self-advocacy. Modifications to school environments and teacher models that promote student-directed learning are essential to success. It is also important not to overlook the importance of assistive technology to enable students to take more control of day-to-day activities, thus promoting independence and self-determination.

4. What educational models/procedures most inhibit these outcomes?

Perhaps the most significant barriers to self-determination involve (a) procedures employed in the educational process and (b) the attitudes of educators, family members, and the general public. As mentioned earlier, most school environments are not structured to promote self-determination and in reality promote dependence, limit choice, and limit decision making (Wehmeyer, 1992a). Ianacone and Stodden (1987) described students as "dependent on the parameters, goals and restrictions established by the teacher" and concluded that "we are establishing a dependent classroom and adult interactive atmosphere at a time when structuring independent behaviors and decision-making is most critical" (p. 5).

Additionally, the educational system has been characterized by procedures that place students on the "outside" of the process, increasing dependency and student perceptions of helplessness. A case in point is the IEP process from which students are absent. Other examples exist. A frequent experience for students with disabilities is to be tested, yet there are few circumstances that place one in such a dependent position. Students receiving special education services are "subjects" for standardized tests to evaluate their placement options, achievement tests to determine progress, language tests to determine their need for speech services, and so forth. In almost all of these situations, students sit passively, do what they are told, are not informed as to what the possible outcomes of the assessment could be, and leave still naive to the intent and significance of the activity. This information is then used to make decisions about them and their school experiences. It might be difficult to find two more "dependency creating" procedures than the placement and decision-making process used in most schools today.

As debilitating as these procedures and environments can be to the development of self-determination, they are compounded by the attitudes of many professionals in the field. Disability has been viewed predominantly within two interpretive models--a medical, or disease, model and an educational, or deficits, model. A medical model of disability takes as its basic tenet the assumption that disability must be treated as a disease, and intervention focuses on curative aspects. An educational model of disability focuses not on curing a disease, but fixing its symptoms. The educational model could, however, be portrayed as a remediative or skills development model instead of a deficits model. Many of the accomplishments of the last few decades can be attributed to the assumption, introduced and supported by the educational model, that all individuals can learn. Unfortunately, because the educational system has adopted a paradigm of diagnosing deficits through testing and then focusing intervention on these problem areas, it has too frequently accentuated student deficits rather than abilities. While at times this is a necessary course of action, it is applied far too long and with debilitating consequences. If universities operated like the special education system, incoming freshman would choose the area or skill they were worst at and spend four years trying to become, instead, barely competent in that area!

A model of disability that emphasizes deficits promotes expectations of incompetence. Nowhere is this more evident than in the language educators continue to use to refer to students with disabilities: trainable, educable, nonverbal, emotionally disturbed. After all, one hardly expects "a trainable" to hold a well-paying job at the bank down the street. Yet, in fact, adults with moderate mental retardation can hold those jobs when provided adequate support. A model that views disability as a "normal part of the human experience," as the Rehabilitation Act does, focuses on normalizing experiences and creates expectations of community integration and social inclusion. We must move from the old views to the new.

A third barrier to self-determination is the methods used to teach students with disabilities. Educators adopt models of teaching based on their philosophy of learning, professional training, preferences, and skills. Almost all such models include practices that can either support or hinder self-determination. For example, a dominant orientation in special education is applied behavior analysis. Several models of teaching have emerged from this orientation. The contingency-management model, which relies on highly structured activities and external reinforcement, has been criticized as inhibiting self-determination (Deci & Ryan, 1985). On the other hand, a self-control model, also based on behavioral principles, has been an effective model for increasing student self-regulation and self-determination. Models of teaching that are overly controlling, teacher-oriented, and limiting of student participation in the learning process impede self-determination, independent of philosophical orientation. Models that rely too heavily on "traditional" means of delivering information to students (e.g., lectures, worksheets) also limit self-determination.

5. Provide two or three specific recommendations for action by Congress.

Congress should ensure that students achieve self-determination by (a) including in IDEA the findings from the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992 regarding the view of disability and national goals, (b) strengthening student involvement in educational planning and decision making, and (c) conducting oversight hearings to ensure that transition requirements currently in IDEA and additional rules and regulations regarding student involvement in educational planning and decision making are adequately implemented.

A Constructive View of Disability and the Goals of the Nation

Congress should amend IDEA's statement of findings and purpose to be consistent with other federal laws. The findings in the Rehabilitation Act provide a view of disability and the national goals that clearly articulate the importance of self-determination, choice, decision making, independence, and inclusion. This language, already replicated in the Findings and Purpose section for the 1993 reauthorization of the Developmental Disabilities Act, should be replicated in the reauthorization of IDEA. The language used and the view of disability forwarded in these laws respect the competence, value, and dignity of Americans with disabilities and provide a foundation for replacing older, debilitating, and stereotyped views of disabilities. By contrast, IDEA's Statement of Findings and Purpose is dated and reflects the needs of the 1970s, not the 1990s. The inclusion of new language (without repeal of the existing language) has the additional value of providing a consistent message and vision in federal disability policy.

The importance of establishing such a vision cannot be underestimated. Father Theodore Hesburgh, former president of Notre Dame University, stated that to achieve change, "You have to have a vision. Its got to be a vision you articulate clearly and forcefully on every occasion. You cannot blow an uncertain trumpet" (Belasco, 1990, p. 11). The language in the Rehabilitation Act provides such a vision. Only when such a vision is sounded as a "certain trumpet" can systems, including the education system, empower and enable individuals to be self-determined, independent, and integrated into the fabric of American communities.

Strengthening Student Involvement in Educational Planning and Decision Making

Congress should strengthen IDEA's transition provisions. The present transition requirements are important first steps in ensuring student involvement in the educational decision-making process, requiring that transition services be based upon student needs and take into account student interests and preferences. The 1995 reauthorization should take the next step to ensure that students with disabilities are equal partners in the educational planning and decision-making process by amending the IEP provisions. Currently, a student may participate in developing an IEP when appropriate. The student should attend an IEP meeting "whenever the parent decides that it is appropriate for the child to do so"; "the agency and parents should discuss the appropriateness of the child's participation before a decision is made" and should encourage older children to participate. (Federal Register, Vol. 57, No. 208, October 27, 1992, p. 48699). The Congress should make student involvement the norm and not the exception. Current policy, in essence, places the burden on the child to prove he or she can or should participate. The language should reverse this policy, placing the emphasis on providing evidence as to why a student cannot participate in the meeting.

The IEP meeting is a process that should include all stakeholders, including students with disabilities, as equal partners. While there are extenuating circumstances that might preclude student involvement, model programs described earlier show that students with disabilities, including students with severe disabilities, can be partners in the planning process. This should be the intent of the law.

Conduct Oversight Hearings to Ensure Implementation of Transition and Student-Involvement Procedures

Although there is limited evidence to evaluate the current situation, it appears that IDEA's transition requirements are being implemented slowly and with much lurching and stopping. Nonetheless, states and districts seem to be making headway on developing formats for Individualized Transition Plans, making sure that goals related to transition are included in IEPs, and establishing interdisciplinary involvement from educators and adult service providers. There is less reason to believe that the student-involvement component of the transition requirements is being interpreted broadly to support student participation in all aspects of planning. Instead, the requirements seem more likely to be interpreted narrowly, as requiring only some assessment of student interests or by asking for student satisfaction with plans and decisions made by others. Unfortunately, students have been conditioned to acquiesce many times, and indicators of "satisfaction with services" are notoriously unreliable indicators of student involvement, motivation, or, for that matter, satisfaction.

It is likely that any strengthening of student-involvement language would be treated similarly. By establishing oversight hearings, Congress can provide the impetus needed to make sure that students are not simply included as tokens to meet administrative requirements. The hearings should emphasize the importance of the transition requirements generally and the student involvement in the educational process specifically.

6. Provide two or three recommendations for improving IDEAs implementation through federally funded activities, including but not limited to monitoring, technical assistance, personnel preparation, demonstration, and research, to be carried out over the next five years.

OSERS should improve student outcomes in self-determination by (a) funding research and demonstration projects that identify barriers to self-determination and evaluate models and procedures to promote this outcome, (b) funding personnel preparation projects to provide preservice and in-service training to teachers and administrators on models, procedures, and attitudes that support self-determination, and (c) establishing a national research and training center on self-determination.

Research and Demonstration Projects on Self-Determination

OSERS has taken the lead in promoting self-determination by funding a series of demonstration projects through the Secondary Education and Transition Services Branch. These projects have resulted in increased attention to self-determination at the secondary level and have provided a catalyst for research in self-determination. However, because all of these funds were targeted for projects working with students in the secondary education years, self-determination has inaccurately been perceived as a transition issue only. There are very few efforts to address a lifelong perspective on self-determination, either with younger children or, at the other end of the spectrum, with adults. There is a need to examine the development of self-determination and create interventions to support this development for young children, adults, and students with more severe disabilities. OSERS should solicit proposals to conduct such research and development through its Early Education Program for Children with Disabilities, Post-Secondary Education Programs for Individuals with Disabilities, and Program for Children with Severe Disabilities competitions.

OSERS also can promote student self-determination by funding research and demonstration projects that clearly articulate how they will achieve outcomes identified in IDEA, including self-determination. In 1989, OSERS sponsored the National Conference on Self-Determination. This event, described in detail in one of the Annotated Literature Abstracts, brought together Americans with disabilities, advocates, educators, researchers, and policy makers to recommend directions the agency should take to promote self-determination. This group made 29 recommendations that should be implemented to achieve this outcome. One such recommendation was that grant proposals be rated according to how well they include and support self-determination. In the opinion of these participants, self-determination was an overarching outcome for individuals with disabilities and worth emphasizing in research and demonstration projects.

Personnel Preparation to Promote Self-Determination

Many educators mistakenly assume that efforts to promote self-determination are primarily student focused. This is based on the belief that what is limiting self-determination for people with disabilities is their lack of skills. In fact, it is almost certainly true that the most effective means of promoting self-determination for youth with disabilities are to change school environments and procedures and to change educators' attitudes and expectations for students. This begins with education--teacher and administrator education. OSERS should use resources through Subchapter IV of IDEA (Training Personnel) to develop materials and procedures providing preservice and in-service education. These efforts will need to give teachers currently in the field and in training the opportunities they need to change their attitudes related to disability and the skills they need to utilize methods and procedures that support self-determination.

Additionally, OSERS should fund projects and use existing resources, like Parent Training and Information Centers, to enable family members, people with disabilities, and disability advocates to serve as trainers. In many cases, the most effective training is to provide educators and administrators the opportunity to listen to people with disabilities and their families talk about their lives, their experiences, and their dreams. Existing vehicles for information dissemination, like the National Information Center for Children and Youth with Disabilities, should continue to emphasize self-determination and tell the stories of people with disabilities.

Create a National Research and Training Center on Self-Determination

This recommendation comes directly from the participants of the OSERS-sponsored national conference on self-determination. According to the proceedings from that conference, "planners felt such a center was a must. All the issues raised (in the conference) could be focused at the center...a clearinghouse for best self-determination practices...a repository for oral histories. It was also agreed that a research training center that did not include people with disabilities as advisors, staff and interns would be a cruel joke" (Perske, 1989, p. 11).

The importance of such a center has increased in the five years since this recommendation was made. Federally funded projects have developed instructional and assessment materials to promote self-determination, and a research literature base is emerging. However, there is no central point to gather and disseminate these findings and materials. As a result, promising practices come and go and have limited impact, and practitioners remain unaware of existing resources. Such a center would need to go beyond traditional technical support roles to actively include people with disabilities in leadership roles. The center would need the input and support of all stakeholders in the educational process, including family members and educators.

7. Provide two or three specific recommendations for improving IDEAs implementation by state and local education agencies.

State and local education agencies should support self-determination by (a) removing administrative regulations that unnecessarily restrict opportunities for student choice and control, (b) providing adequate support and training to teachers, and (c) ensuring that forms and formats for planning meetings do not exclude students from participation.

Remove Administrative Regulations Restricting Self-Determination and Provide Training For self-determination to become an outcome of the educational process for all students, with and without disabilities, it must become part of the larger school reform movement. In his important book. The Predictable Failure of Educational Reform, Dr. Seymour Sarason, emeritus professor of psychology at Yale University, described the typical image of the classroom as "containing an adult who is 'in charge' and pupils who conform to the teachers rules, regulations and standards. If students think and act in conformity to the teachers wishes, they will learn what they are supposed to learn" (Sarason, 1990, p. 79). Sarason attributes this situation to "long-standing educational structures, coupled with the need of various groups to defend their self-interest and preserve their power" and predicts that if these issues are not addressed, educational reform will not succeed. These power relationships currently flow hierarchically, from administrators at the top to teachers and finally to students. The control orientation of many teachers reflects an administrator's similarly autocratic orientation. Teachers without control and choice become teachers who, in turn, limit students control and choice.

A frequent component of school restructuring and reform involves site-based management, where local administrators, usually principals, have greater control over school direction and resource allocation and shoulder more responsibility for student outcomes. It is only when this reform is implemented in conjunction with greater teacher autonomy and choice and, subsequently, increased student involvement and choice, that Sarason believes school reform will be effective. Campus, district, and state administrators should encourage self-determination for students by eliminating unnecessary requirements and empowering teachers and students to become involved in planning and decision making campus- and district-wide.

Structure Planning Meetings to Include Students

It is an unfortunate reality that formats and forms tend to drive practice as much as the policy. It is important that the spirit of self-determination and student involvement not get lost in the day-to-day practice. When creating procedures and forms for use in the educational planning meeting, states and districts should make sure that there is an assumption that students are involved. This may be as simple as making sure that there is a signature line for the student on the Individualized Education Plan form. It may involve making reasonable accommodations for the student to participate in such meetings. Students with cognitive disabilities may need support to understand the purpose of meetings and to contribute in a meaningful manner. Students with communication disorders may require alternative or augmentative communication devices to participate. Procedural guidelines for conducting meetings should emphasize how to include students in a meaningful manner. Other meeting participants should receive the training and support they need to involve students.

These actions will not assure self-determination and student involvement any more than simply putting students in regular classrooms ensures the development of friendships. However, like the latter, proximity is the first step in this process, and if students are not present at meetings, they cannot be involved in their educational planning.

References

Abery, B. (1993). A conceptual framework for enhancing self-determination. In M. Hayden and B. Abery (Eds.), Challenges for a service system in transition: Ensuring quality community experiences for persons with developmental disabilities (pp. 345-380). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Belasco, J. A. (1990). Teaching the elephant to dance: Empowering change in your organization. New York: Crown Publishers.

Carter-Ludi, D., & Martin, L. (in press). Self-determination: The road to personal freedom. Intervention in School and Clinic.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.

Field, S., & Hoffman, A. (1992). Steps to self-determination. Detroit, MI: Developmental Disabilities Institute/College of Education, Wayne State University.

Gillespie, E. B., & Turnbull, A. P. (1983). It's my IEP! Involving students in the planning process. Teaching Exceptional Children, Fall, 27-29.

Harris, C. D., & McKinney, D. D. (1993). Project PARTnership: A model program for encouraging self-determination through access to the arts. Washington, DC: VSA Educational Services.

Hasazi, S. B., Gordon, L. R., & Roe, C. A. (1985). Factors associated with employment status of handicapped youth exiting high school from 1979-1983. Exceptional Children, 51, 455-469.

Houghton, J., Bronicki, G. J. B., & Guess, D. (1987). Opportunities to express preferences and make choices among students with severe disabilities in classroom settings. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 12, 18-27.

Ianacone, R. N., & Stodden, R. A. (1987). Transition issues and directions for individuals who are mentally retarded. In R. N. Ianacone & R. A. Stodden (Eds.), Transition issues and directions (pp. 1-7). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

Kishi, G., Teelucksingh, B., Zollers, N., Park-Lee, S., & Meyer, L. (1988). Daily decision-making in community residences: A social comparison of adults with and without mental retardation. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 92, 430-435.

Lewis, K., & Taymans, J. M. (1992). An examination of autonomous functioning skills of adolescents with learning disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 15, 37-48.

Martin, J. E., Marshall, L. H., & Maxson, L. L. (1993). Transition policy: Infusing self-determination and self-advocacy into transition programs. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 16, 53-61.

Martin, J. E., Marshall, L. H., Maxon, L., & Jerman, P. (1993). Self-directed IEP. Colorado Springs, CO: Center for Educational Research, University of Colorado at Colorado Springs.

Mithaug, D. A., Horiuchi, C. N., & Fanning, P. N. (1985). A report on the Colorado statewide follow-up survey of special education students. Exceptional Children, 51, 397-404.

Murtaugh, M., & Zettin, A. G. (1990). The development of autonomy among learning handicapped and nonhandicapped adolescents: A longitudinal perspective. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 19, 245-255.

Perske, R. (1989). Proceedings from the National Conference on Self-Determination. Minneapolis, MN: Institute on Community Integration, University of Minnesota.

Powers, L. E. (1993). Promoting adolescent independence and self-determination. Family Centered Care Network, 10(4), 1.

Sarason, S. B. (1990). The predictable failure of educational reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.

Turnbull, A., & Turnbull, R. (1994). Self-determination through Group Action Planning Project. Unpublished grant proposal.

Van Reusen, A. K., & Bos, C. S. (1990). I Plan: Helping students communicate in planning conferences. Teaching Exceptional Children, 22(4), 30-32.

Wehmeyer, M. L. (1992a). Self-determination and the education of students with mental retardation. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 27, 302-314.

Wehmeyer, M. L. (1992b). Self-determination: Critical skills for outcome-oriented transition services. The Journal for Vocational Special Needs Education, 39, 153-163.

Wehmeyer, M. L. (1994). Perceptions of self-determination and psychological empowerment of adolescents with mental retardation. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disability, 29, 9-21.

Wehmeyer, M. L., & Metzler, C. A. (in press). How self-determined are people with mental retardation? The National Consumer Survey. Mental Retardation.

Wehmeyer, M. L., & Kelchner, K. (1994). Whose future is it anyway? A student- directed transition planning process. Boston: Womens Educational Equity Act Publishing Center.

Wehmeyer, M. L., Martin, J. E., & Marshall, L. (1994). Whose future is it anyway? Getting students involved in the transition planning process. A manuscript submitted for publication.

Williams, R. R. (1989). Creating a new world of opportunity: Expanding choice and self-determination in lives of Americans with severe disability by 1992 and beyond. In R. Perske (Ed.), Proceedings from the National Conference on Self-Determination (pp. 16-17). Minneapolis, MN: Institute on Community Integration.

Annotated Literature Abstract

Citation

Perske, R. (1990). Proceedings from the National Conference on Self-Determination. Minneapolis, MN: Institute on Community Integration, University of Minnesota.

This document reports the outcome of a conference, sponsored by the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services, held to recommend directions OSERS should take in the coming years. Sixty participants, representing people with disabilities, educators, family members, researchers, and policy makers were invited to contribute their unique viewpoints and perspectives. The conference resulted in 29 recommendations for action from the conference participants. The conference provided the impetus for most of the movement in this area over the last five years and, because of its scope, remains an important point of reference for policy and decision making. The proceedings document, available from the University of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration, contains the 29 recommendations and the text of four keynote addresses.

Key Points

1. People with disabilities have been denied the opportunity to achieve self-determination.

"I became a self-advocate ten years ago. Being a self-advocate is very important to me because my self-advocacy skills taught me how to see myself as a person with confidence and determination. I did not see myself as a person because of all the labels placed on me." (Nancy Ward, p. 14)

"I do not have to tell you what self-determination is all about. You and I both know what self-determination is all about. We learned it the hard way. We live it every day and we are not about to forget what it meant to each of us here today. Nor, what it could mean to our brothers and sisters who are still shunted away on the back wards of institutions, nursing homes, and other human storage bins all across the land.

"Because in the final analysis we are all people first. Isn't this what the Declaration of Independence tells us: that we are all people first and foremost? And, that as such we are endowed with certain inalienable rights and that among these are the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

"But, without being afforded the right and opportunity to make choices in our lives, we will never obtain full, first class American citizenship. This is why we are here today: to reassert these fundamental rights and lay claim to them as ours.

"So, we do not have to be told what self-determination means. We already know what it means. We already know that it is just a ten dollar word for choice. That it is another word for freedom. We already know that self-determination is just another word for describing a life filled with rising expectations, dignity, responsibility, and opportunity. That it is just another word for having the chance to live the American Dream." (Robert Williams, p. 16)

2. It will take the combined efforts of people with disabilities, parents and family members, professionals, and policy makers to achieve true self-determination for Americans with disabilities.

"To achieve such a basic change in attitude will take...the effective, long-range influencing of public policy on all levels of government, legislative, executive, and judicial and the action has to come from the persons with disabilities themselves." (Gunnar Dybwad, p. 25)

"We as people with disabilities need to recognize that some of those common interests are shared by professionals, parents and others who do not have disabilities. We need to work with them, not against them." (Frank Bowe, p. 23)

Annotated Literature Abstract

Citation

Abery, B., Dahl, L. A., & Chelberg, G. (1993). IMPACT: Feature Issue on Self-Determination, 6(4), Winter 1993/1994. Minneapolis, MN: Institute on Community Integration, University of Minnesota.

This newsletter provides a comprehensive treatment of self-determination, with people with disabilities, family members, educators, and adult service providers contributing articles and perspectives. The issue "explores the relevance of self-determination for people with developmental disabilities across the lifespan." The issue's stated purpose is to "raise awareness about the need and capacity for self-determination by persons with developmental disabilities, and ways in which others either support or hinder it." The document provides a comprehensive look at a complex issue in straightforward language.

Key Points and Quotes

1. Self-determination is a lifelong outcome.

"Striving to attain self-determination doesn't begin (or end) during adolescence or early adulthood. Rather, it is initiated shortly after birth and continues until we have breathed our last breath." (Brian Abery, p. 2)

"Early intervention professionals have the opportunity to play an important role in facilitating the self-determination of children with disabilities. By supporting families efforts to encourage children to assume a developmentally appropriate degree of personal control, professionals provide a foundation upon which future skills for independent living and community involvement will be based." (Ann Eggebeen and Annetta Leigh, p. 4)

"Although many skill areas related to self-determination are more applicable to older students or students with mild disabilities, self-determination is not the sole domain of secondary education or students with mild disabilities. Making choices, indicating preferences and developing self-awareness and confidence involve lifelong experiences and instruction, independent of level of disability." (Michael Wehmeyer, p. 7)

2. Self-determination for students with disabilities is achieved by a comprehensive plan of action.

"Ensuring that students with and without disabilities are self-determined will be as complex and difficult a process as comparable efforts to ensure that students with disabilities attain gainful employment or community involvement. It has become increasingly obvious that an educational program that adequately promotes self-determination will not consist of unilateral efforts to only change curriculum, create peer mentor programs or structure environments. Instead, an effective education emphasis will encompass a host of alterations and adaptations as well as parallel emphasis in the students home and community." (Michael Wehmeyer, p. 6)

"As youth with disabilities prepare for the transition from educational to adult services, they and their family members and advocates will require information regarding the right to access VR services and to participate fully in planning and choosing their vocational direction, VR-sponsored services and supports, and service providers. Training in self-advocacy will be essential for putting that information into action." (Michael West, p. 13)

Model Profile

One outcome of a focus on self-determination is that students are actively involved in all aspects of their educational planning and decision-making process. An example of a best practice leading to this outcome is in place in several school districts in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Teachers in the Academy, Harrison, Lewis-Palmer, and Fountain-Fort Carson School Districts are implementing a self-determination instructional program, called the Self-Directed IEP, that enables students to chair their own IEP meeting.

The Self-Directed IEP (Martin, Marshall, Maxson, & Jerman, 1993) was developed through a demonstration project funded by OSERS Secondary Education and Transition Services Branch to promote self-determination. These materials include teacher- and student-based procedures that work with adolescents with disabilities to learn the skills they need to chair their IEP meeting.

Students use an 11-step process of skills development, focusing on the following objectives: (1) begin meeting by stating the purpose; (2) introduce everyone; (3) review past goals and performance; (4) ask for others feedback; (5) state your school and transition goals; (6) ask questions if you don't understand; (7) deal with differences of opinions; (8) state the support you will need; (9) summarize your goals; (10) close meeting by thanking everyone; and (11) work on IEP goals all year.

By working with their teacher, students learn these skills and become effective participants in their own planning meeting. Students have responded to the program, stating, "Its better if I make my own goals, then I understand them," "It's a way for me to share my opinions and thoughts in my meeting," and "Its good to learn to express our own ideas." Teachers have responded equally positively, stating that the process "showed how student directed IEPs can and should be" and calling the process "the greatest confidence builder we can do in class...a fun process too."

The Self-Determination IEP materials were developed specifically for students with mild to moderate learning and behavior problems and have been shown to be effective with students who, in the past, have had considerable difficulty with authority figures and school rules and regulations. This demonstration illustrates that by increasing student choice and self-determination we are not encouraging anarchy but providing a tool for educational success.

For further information, contact:

Dr. James E. Martin
Chair, Special Education Program
School of Education
University of Colorado at Colorado Springs
1861 Austin Bluffs Parkway
P.O. Box 7150
Colorado Springs, Colorado 80933-7150
Phone: 719-593-3627
FAX: 719-593-3554

Toria McGill
Gayle Lizelman
Liberty High School
The Academy School District
Phone: 719-282-1000

Gary Dean
Harrison High School
Harrison School District
Phone: 719-576-8522

Mary Carew
Lewis-Palmer High School
Lewis-Palmer School District
Phone: 719-488-4720

Wanda Hughes
Fountain High School
Fountain-Fort Collins School District
Phone: 719-382-5653

TRANSITION

Frank R. Rusch
The University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana

Abstract

1. The outcomes to be achieved by transition services are competitive employment in the public or private business sector (i.e., integrated), residential satisfaction, and the formation of desirable social and interpersonal networks.
   
   
2. The outcomes of integrated, competitive employment, residential independence, and the formation of social and interpersonal networks have improved marginally over the past ten years.
   
   
3. Five categories of transition practices appear to warrant the label "most effective." These practices include (a) student-focused systematic transition planning, (b) family involvement, (c) interagency and interdisciplinary teaming, (d) program structures and attributes (inclusive education and integration), and (e) student development (empowerment).
   
   
4. The issues that appear to inhibit practices the most include (a) parent or family resistance, (b) personnel development, and (c) lack of collaboration.
   
   
5. The following changes should be enacted by Congress: (a) lowering the age for addressing transition-related services to 14, (b) continuing eligibility for transition services beyond formal graduation, and (c) emphasizing the importance of collaboration and coordination of transition services.
   
   
6. (a) OSERS should fund research on solving problems that require multiple disciplines to work together. (b) Further, OSERS should promote the emergence of new personnel who understand the problems faced by adolescents who are not college bound.
   
   
7. State and local education agencies should (a) change teacher certification requirements, (b) support new personnel preparation programs to advance necessary changes in the competencies these teachers utilize in nontraditional settings, and (c) establish university-school linkages that result in the necessary research and demonstration activities that support transition outcomes.

1. What outcomes signify successful implementation of the topical issue?

Concerned for the uncertain future that youths with disabilities faced, Congress in 1986 passed the Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments (P.L. 98-199) to strengthen and coordinate education, training, and related services to assist youths with disabilities make the "transition" from school to employment, independent living, and post-secondary education. It was not until 1990, however, that Congress mandated provisions for transition services for youths with disabilities in special education (P.L. 101-476). IDEA requires that a statement of transition services be contained in each student's Individualized Education Plan by age 16, and where appropriate, by age 14.

Transition services are defined as "...a coordinated set of activities for a student, designed within an outcome-oriented process, which promotes movement from school to post-school activities, including post-secondary education, vocational training, integrated employment (including supported employment), continuing and adult education, adult services, independent living, and/or community participation" (20 U.S.C. 1401 (a) (19)).

The outcomes to be achieved by transition services are competitive employment in the public or private business sector (i.e., integrated), residential satisfaction, and the formation of desirable social and interpersonal networks.

Although there is now greater understanding of the post-high school outcomes of youths with disability and legislation has been introduced to "strengthen and coordinate" education and training to assist these students, little progress has been made in improving their prospects for molding careers of personal choice. Ten years ago, Will (1985) and Halpern (1985) introduced new, nontraditional outcomes with which to evaluate education. In essence, they proposed that schools should be responsible for providing transition services that result in employment, residential adjustment, and the establishment of desirable social and interpersonal networks.

2. To what extent have these outcomes been achieved in the last five years?

The outcomes of integrated, competitive employment, residential independence, and the formation of social and interpersonal networks have improved marginally over the past ten years. Wagner et al. (1992) reported that less than half of all youths with disabilities (46 percent) were competitively employed two years after leaving high school and that almost 70 percent of all youths with disabilities were living at home with their parents within this same time period. Acknowledging that a youth's high school experience is one of the cornerstones to assuring his or her success throughout life, the failure to provide an effective high school experience (i.e., transition services) results in personal shortcomings, including one's failure to attain additional education and training to help mold a career of personal choice. Today, the majority of America's youths with disabilities are not employed, are not living on their own, do not take advantage of their communities, and are not satisfied with their lives (Lichtenstein, 1993; Sitlington, Frank, & Carson, 1992).

Employment figures for youths with disabilities lag behind their peers without disabilities, without exception. Fifty-seven percent (57 percent) of youths with disabilities are employed at some point three to five years after they leave high school, compared to 70 percent of the general population. Not surprisingly, the majority of those youths with disabilities who become employed are young people with learning disabilities (70.8 percent) and speech impairments (65.4 percent). Employment among youths who are deaf, hard of hearing, or blind actually decreases. There also are major gender differences; males account for 64 percent of those employed, while females account for 40 percent. Also not surprisingly, youths who graduate from high school are employed at higher levels than those who drop out (47.1 percent) or who age out (37.1 percent). Incredibly, 20 percent of this entire population is never employed, another 20 percent is unemployed and looking for a job, 6 percent enters sheltered employment, and 14 percent is employed part-time. Forty-three percent is employed full time, with the majority earning less than $6 per hour (60 percent).

Not surprisingly, only one in 10 youths with disabilities lives independently two years after exiting high school; this figure increases to almost four in 10 three to five years after leaving school (37.4 percent). In relation to the residential independence of out-of-school youths with disabilities, approximately 60 percent of general population youths live independently three years after leaving school (60.4 percent).

After departing high school, all youths establish patterns of community involvement that result in their assuming different levels of responsibility, including finding a mate and parenting. Females with (30.4 percent) and without (37.7 percent) disabilities are married at higher percentages than men with (14.8 percent) and without (21.7 percent) disabilities. Wagner, et al. (1992) has indicated that a much higher percentage of females with disabilities are becoming parents within five years of leaving high school (40.6 percent) versus young women without disabilities (27.8 percent).

Unfortunately, the arrest rate among youths with disabilities increases as this population gets older. Wagner, et al. (1992) reported that almost 30 percent of all youths with disabilities are arrested three to five years out of school, with over 50 percent of youths with emotional disturbances accounting for these arrest statistics (57.6 percent).

3. What educational models/procedures are most effective for achieving these outcomes?

In a series of investigations, the Transition Research Institute at Illinois has identified studies for which evidence is available to support the claim that the practices they describe are effective (Chadsey-Rusch & Rusch, in press; Kohler, in preparation, 1993; Kohler, DeStefano, Wermuth, Grayson, & McGinty, in press; Rusch, Kohler, & Hughes, 1992). Based on an analysis of more than 60 studies contributed by researchers in career, vocational, special, and rehabilitation education and the Institute's own research (Kohler, in preparation), five categories of transition practices appear to warrant the label "most effective." These practices include student-focused systematic transition planning, family involvement, interagency and interdisciplinary teaming and collaboration, program structure and attributes (inclusive education and integration), and student development (empowerment).

Student-Focused Systematic Transition Planning

Post-school outcomes will vary by students, but typical areas addressed in the transition plan include employment, residential, and social and interpersonal relations. In addition, medical, recreation and leisure, mobility, community access, and overall well-being are being addressed. Planning should determine the outcomes desired by the student (with family input), and a plan should be formulated to achieve those outcomes. Students must be provided an opportunity to assert and advocate for themselves, make their needs known, self-evaluate progress toward meeting their goals, and solve problems. Family Involvement in Planning, Education, and Service Delivery

Families need help in identifying programs that will meet the needs and interests of their sons and daughters. Specifically, they need information about and access to the adult-service system as well as other post-school options. They also need to be empowered to make decisions that enable them to facilitate their children's attainment of self-selected and valued outcomes after high school.

Interagency and Interdisciplinary Teaming, Collaboration, and Service Delivery

Since so many different people and agencies are often involved in facilitating the transition process, teaming and collaboration among the participants are critical. This includes interagency cooperation among state and local agencies. When personnel from different professions, advocacy groups, and agencies are collaborating in using a student- and family-centered approach, the result should be reduction of duplicative services, elimination of turf issues, and delivery of services that ensure desired outcomes. In addition to the student and family and educational personnel, the team also should include individuals associated with vocational and rehabilitation, educators, employers, post-secondary representatives, friends, peers, and advocates.

Program Structure and Attributes (Inclusive Education and Integration)

Practices that should be considered under this category include providing services within inclusive and integrated settings. Further, high schools should collect student follow-up data on which to base restructuring of existing practices to promote valued outcomes for all students.

Student Development (Empowerment)

A critical component of the transition process involves teaching students skills and strategies that will enable them to reach their goals. Research conducted by Kohler (in preparation) identified six student development categories, including (1) assessment, (2) accommodation and support, (3) career and vocational curricula, (4) work experience, (5) employment skills training, and (6) life skills training.

4. What educational models/procedures most inhibit these outcomes?

Interestingly, practices that appear to inhibit student outcomes have centered around the various people involved (primarily professionals), with the exception of the students themselves. This finding is particularly important since results of recent research suggest that employment failure is attributed to student ability (Heal, Copher, DeStefano, & Rusch, 1989). The issues that appear to inhibit practices the most include (a) parent or family resistance, (b) personnel development, and (c) lack of collaboration. In terms of personnel preparation, individuals involved with transition appear to have very different conceptions about providing transition services, which interact negatively with overall interagency collaboration.

Parent or Family Resistance

Adolescent transition is a period marked by several events, including the need for adolescents to begin to separate from their parents as they prepare for young adulthood. The period that defines "adolescent transition" often is debated, but it almost always starts by age 14 and concludes no later than 22. Parents and family always influence this transition, and their influence will affect how successfully their son or daughter makes the transition from adolescent to young adult. Young people make very important decisions during this period in their lives, including whether to remain in school. The importance of providing a relevant program of study for adolescents in an effort to delay their separating from schools prematurely cannot be overstated.

Personnel Development

The expertise of personnel in relation to the unique needs of youths with disabilities is crucial to the success experienced by these youths. However, there exists no single training approach or discipline that can provide the needed personnel. Educators typically graduate with disciplinary emphases that are fairly narrow in focus (e.g., math, English, and science) and even narrower in application (i.e., to college-bound students). The diverse needs of adolescents with disabilities require personnel who can establish important and useful interdisciplinary teams that design multifaceted educational programs.

Interagency Collaboration/Cooperation

IDEA requires interagency collaboration in planning transition services in conjunction with individualized education program development. No single agency or discipline can provide all services needed by youths with disabilities. However, the provision of these services is a critical need for effective programs. For example, high schools are not structured to provide services before 9:00 a.m. or after 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, although a great number of work experiences require students to work outside the typical school day. Consequently, schools need to work with agencies that provide for these experiences (collaboration) and with a team of service providers who are well equipped to meet nontraditional outcomes (cooperation).

5. Provide two or three specific recommendations for action by Congress.

Briefly, Congress should (a) lower the age for addressing transition-related services to 14, (b) continue eligibility for transition services beyond formal graduation, and (c) emphasize the importance of collaboration and coordination of transition services.

The current mandatory age of 16 for addressing transition needs of individuals with disabilities allows too many students with disabilities under the age of 16 to drop out of school before appropriate services are provided. Accordingly, Congress should amend IDEA to require transition services at age 14 and to permit them to be provided at an earlier age if appropriate.

Many students with disabilities are graduating from high school prior to the upper age limit (typically 21) without receiving critical transition experiences and services necessary for success in adult life. Once students graduate, many school districts no longer are compelled to provide transition services, regardless of students' identified transition needs.

Accordingly, Congress should amend IDEA to permit students with disabilities to continue to be eligible for a free appropriate public education if they are within the age range for services within the state, regardless of whether they have received a high school diploma.

Explicit language that strengthens collaborative and coordinated efforts between state agencies (e.g., educational and vocational rehabilitation agencies) in the provision of appropriate transition services is lacking in the current IDEA. Accordingly, Congress should amend IDEA to require collaboration and coordination of transition services and to require state and local educational agencies to describe the responsibilities that agencies have listed in 34 C.F.R. Section 300.152 in providing or paying for services, including transitioning students required under Section 300.346 and including a schedule for payment of those services under Section 300.346.

6. Provide two or three recommendations for improving IDEA's implementation through federally funded activities, including but not limited to monitoring, technical assistance, personnel preparation, demonstration, and research, to be carried out over the next five years.

OSERS should continue to fund existing and emerging priorities, but interdisciplinary activities should be required across each of the major divisions of the Office of Special Education Programs, the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, and the Rehabilitation Services Administration. OSERS should fund research on solving problems that require multiple disciplines to work together. Further, OSERS should promote the emergence of new personnel who understand the problems faced by adolescents who are not college bound. Finally, OSERS should reorganize all of its activities to promote in a consolidated manner the education of children, youth, and young adults and should eliminate the current fragmented transition programs they obtain through current discretionary programs.

Require Interdisciplinary Research and Demonstration

OSERS should make demonstration awards based upon interdisciplinary solutions that include family involvement, interagency collaboration and teaming, inclusive education, service provision in integrated settings, and student development (empowerment). Additionally, OSERS should regionalize its technical assistance and dissemination efforts and require each region to assist in the establishment of interdisciplinary technical assistance and dissemination centers that combine the efforts of vocational and rehabilitation education, special education, labor and business, and related and needed disciplinary affiliations.

Investigate School-to-Work Model

Affleck, Edgar, Levine, and Kortering (1990) have demonstrated the need for a curriculum that teaches critical life skills, including finding a job, staying employed, taking care of one's personal needs, and getting along with others. Mithaug, Martin, and Agran (1987) also have stressed the importance of teaching students to be adaptive and flexible. Acquisition of these skills, however, does not necessarily have to occur in the classroom. Hamilton (1986) proposed that secondary education in the United States consider restructuring schooling experiences to resemble those utilized in West Germany. If the West German educational system were adopted for students in secondary special education, the principal learning environment would be the workplace and larger community; however, the school setting would not be abandoned altogether. Students would work within an apprenticeship-type system, attending high school classes on a limited, yet complementary basis. More traditional academic subjects (e.g., mathematics) as well as other subjects (e.g., social skills) would be introduced in relation to assigned apprenticeships in high schools. Educational experiences of this type would provide a clearer connection between what the students are learning in the classroom and their real worlds.

With emerging interest in "school-to-work" experiences, including apprenticeships, infusion of academic curricula in the classroom, and related practices, a need exists to better understand variations of these models as they are applied to youths with and without disabilities. Future research should consider large-scale investigations of these practices applied to a national sample of youths attending high schools.

Require Interdisciplinary Training

Restructuring high school experiences will require the roles of regular and secondary special education teachers to change. Although educators might teach some traditional academic subjects in high school, these academic subjects need to relate to students' apprenticeships and everyday community life. Teachers also would need to be knowledgeable about new subject areas, including economics, the business sector, and adult-service agencies, to forge transition linkages for their students. It also is likely that teachers would require effective consultation skills so they could advise businesses and agencies about effective transition strategies and potential curricular modifications that might be needed in work and community environments to enhance successful transitions.

7. Provide two or three specific recommendations for improving IDEA's implementation by state and local education agencies.

State and local education agencies should change teacher certification requirements, support new personnel preparation programs to advance necessary changes in the competencies these teachers utilize in nontraditional settings, and establish university-school research and demonstration activities that support competitive employment in the public or private business sector (i.e., integrated), residential satisfaction, and the formation of desirable social and interpersonal networks.

Change Teacher Certification Requirements

State certification requirements and associated personnel preparation programs must focus on competencies necessary to promote (a) increased collaboration among special education, regular education, bilingual education, migrant education, vocational education, and public and private agencies and institutions; (b) improved coordination of services among health and social services agencies and within communities regarding services for youths with disabilities and their families; (c) increased systematic family involvement in the education of their children with disabilities; and (d) inclusion of youths with disabilities in all aspects of education and society.

Support New Personnel Preparation Programs

State education agencies must begin to work with colleges of education to identify emerging areas into which faculty should be recruited. Annually, colleges of education fill openings with faculty at all levels (assistant to full professors) to teach courses and conduct research that will benefit education, including special education. Funding for faculty positions should be linked to the emerging needs of state and local/regional education, rehabilitation, and related agencies.

Establish University-School Research and Demonstration Linkages

The relationships between colleges of education and state, regional, and local educational communities should be collaborative. Future grant awards should be based on the research community's willingness to establish a link between an identified educational constituency and the research, dissemination, and utilization functions. Universities should be funded to engage in research that directly benefits students. Too often, social science knowledge is based on findings that emanate from contrived situations that bear little or no resemblance to everyday circumstances in the classroom. Educators' abilities to transmit useful knowledge to students with disabilities depend on researchers' abilities to conduct useful research and to explore new and better ways to capture the interest of teachers.

References

Affleck, J. Q., Edgar, E., Levine, P., & Kortering, L. (1990). Post-school status of students classified as mildly mentally retarded, learning disabled, or nonhandicapped: Does it get better with time? Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 25, 315-324.

Chadsey-Rusch, J., & Rusch, F. R. (in press). Transition from school to adulthood for youths with disabilities. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Halpern, A. S. (1985). Transition: A look at the foundations. Exceptional Children, 51, 479-486.

Hamilton, S. E. (1986). Excellence and the transition from school to work. Phi Delta Kappan, 68, 239-242.

Heal, L. W., Copher, J. I., DeStefano, L., & Rusch, F. (1989). A comparison of successful and unsuccessful placements of secondary students with mental handicaps into competitive employment. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 12, 167-177.

Kohler, P. D. (in preparation). A conceptual model of effective transition practices. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois, Transition Research Institute.

Kohler, P. D. (1993). Best practices in transition: Substantiated or implied? Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 16, 107-121.

Kohler, P. D., DeStefano, L., Wermuth, T., Grayson., T., & McGinty, S. (in press). An analysis of exemplary transition programs: How and why are they selected? Career Development for Exceptional Individuals.

Lichtenstein, S. (1993). Transition from school to adulthood: Case studies of adults with learning disabilities who dropped out of school. Exceptional Children, 59, 336-347.

Mithaug, D. E., Martin, J. E., & Agran, M. (1987). Adaptability instruction: The goal of transitional programming. Exceptional Children, 53, 500-505.

Rusch, F. R., Kohler, P. D., & Hughes, C. (1992). An analysis of OSERS-sponsored secondary special education and transitional services research. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 15, 121-143.

Sitlington, P. L., Frank, A. R., & Carson, R. (1992). Adult adjustment among high school graduates with mild disabilities. Exceptional Children, 59, 221-233.

Wagner, M., et al. (1992). What happens next? Trends in post-school outcomes of youth with disabilities. The second comprehensive report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study of Special Education Students. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

Will, M. (1985). Bridges from school to working life: OSERS programming for the transition of youth with disabilities. Rehabilitation World, 9, 4-7.

Annotated Literature Abstract

Citation

Fulton, S. A., & Sabornie, E. J. (1994). Evidence of employment inequality among females with disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 28(2), 149-165.

Abstract

Women consistently earn less than men. This holds true for individuals with and without disabilities. Women with disabilities, however, have more negative employment experiences than do men with disabilities. This article explores the less than desirable conditions that women with disabilities face in employment. The authors suggest that women with disabilities are dually disadvantaged in employment when gender interacts with disability.

Key Points and Quotes

1. There are significant factors affecting employment outcomes between men with disabilities and women with disabilities.

"Perhaps the greatest contribution of Wagner's (1992) work is her examination of why gender equality exists in employment of youth with disabilities. Tentative reasons for the less-than-favorable status of women with disabilities in employment can be found in male versus female differences in (a) functioning level, (b) secondary school experiences and training, and (c) marriage and parenting....[W]omen were significantly more likely to originate from minority backgrounds in comparison to men with disabilities, and this demographic characteristic is also related to lower employment rates....Whereas men and women were reasonably similar in terms of time spent in general education classes (53 percent vs. 50 percent of the school day, respectively), young women were less likely than men to receive 'occupationally-specific vocational training'....Except for those identified as multiply disabled, women of all other disability types were more likely to be married than male cohorts with the same disability....Parenthood was also more common among women than men with disabilities (41 percent vs. 16 percent, respectively)." (p. 162)

2. Both gender and disability are important factors in evaluating employment outcomes for women with disabilities.

"Further inquiry should be made concerning differences and similarities of employment outcomes for women with and without disabilities. Asch and Fine (1988) have suggested that because women with disabilities are just as likely to be affected by gender as by disability, they should focus on their commonalties with all women to end discrimination and enjoy comparable worth. Women with disabilities could learn much from their nondisabled, high-achieving, same gender peers, as well as from other women with disabilities who are now successful adults (Gerber, Ginsberg, & Reiff, 1992). Perhaps career development and vocational rehabilitation for women with disabilities should be supplemented by interaction with women in high-status jobs who could serve as role models, as well as assertiveness training courses to prepare women with disabilities for issues they will face in later life. Potential employers of women with disabilities should also be sensitized against further perpetuation of the gender earnings gap and other discriminatory practices." (p. 163)

Annotated Literature Abstract

Citation

Benz, M. R. & Halpern, A. S. (1993). Vocational and transition services needed and received by students with disabilities during their last year of high school. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 16(2), 197-211.

Abstract

This paper describes the vocational programs and transition planning services needed and received by students with disabilities during their last year of high school. It provides data on the basic vocational skills that are achieved by students at the time of leaving school, thus provoking a context for interpreting the findings on services needed and received.

Key Points and Quotes

1. Important transition needs in the areas of remedial academics, social skills, vocational training, post-secondary education, and independent living skills are not uniformly and/or adequately addressed during the transition planning process.

"Simply identifying a transition need does not automatically result in addressing that need during the transition planning process. Between 25 percent and 50 percent of all identified needs were, in fact, not addressed at all during the transition planning process. Across all students, the two planning areas in which about half of students' needs remained unmet were the remedial academics and social skills areas. About a third of all identified needs remained unmet in three more areas: vocational training, post-secondary education, and independent living skills." (p. 205)

2. Some disability groups are at a more serious disadvantage than others upon leaving school because of discrepancies that occur during the transition process while they are in school.

"...the disadvantaged situations that certain subgroups of young adults with disabilities find themselves in after leaving school may have their roots in the discrepancies that occur in high school between the vocational and transition services they reportedly need and actually receive. Those most disadvantaged appear to be females in general, and students with so-called 'mild' disabilities (learning disabilities, emotional disabilities, and mild mental retardation). Since these groups comprise between 80 percent and 90 percent of all high school students with disabilities, it is particularly troublesome to realize that this vast majority is most disadvantaged." (p. 209)

Model Profile

The overarching mission of the Career Ladder Program (CLP), a school-to-work transition program, is that services be shaped by the needs of the youths who are served.

CLP first was implemented in San Francisco (1985-1990) as an OSERS model demonstration project. During the initial funding period, CLP was successful in developing and implementing a model that included the following components: pretransitional, career education in-service for teaching staff; a community vocational training and placement component; a social skills training component; a career counseling component; a follow-along monitoring service; and an interagency component. The ultimate evidence of its success was the continuation of the model in San Francisco with the new name Transition Opportunity Program, a school/rehabilitation partnership funded at about $600,000 annually.

In its final report (1990), CLP program staff stated:

"Principles which underlie the success of the CLP became more evident over time, and the model can now be simplified and successfully replicated with varying degrees of fidelity to the model. In other words, we believe the success can be achieved in other communities without precisely replicating the model, so long as the underlying principles are embedded in the replicated model."

In 1991, fulfilling this prophecy, CLP staff won additional OSERS funding through the Multi-District Outreach priority to outreach "proven models" or components of models to other districts and states. The success of the CLP has been demonstrated once again in the three years of outreach and replication activities.

The goals and objectives of outreach of CLP were to:

• provide training in the CLP model to employers, families, school and rehabilitation-based personnel;
  
  
• facilitate agreements that put locally owned versions of the CLP model into operation;
  
  
• adapt the CLP model to the various local situations in the hosting entity; and
  
  
• provide ongoing consultation as replications are put into place.

In school districts in Delaware, North Carolina, Virginia, and Kansas and in 18 school districts in California and Washington, employers, educators, and adult-service providers are turning to the CLP model as a means to improve the effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness of their school-to-work transition programs. The CLP has made successful replications of the first two of its three components in over 17 school districts in the almost three years of activities, and the initiation of such efforts in at least seven more. This is no small feat as a replication requires that a school district reassign personnel to work in the community with special education students and also to adopt its curriculum. CLP training always requires a team: vocational and special education, administration and teachers, parents, adult-service agencies, and employers. By insisting on having the consumers put such a team together, the probability of moving from training to action is increased.

Since every school district has its own culture and approach to change, CLP trainers have worked hard to refine the two-day training that has become the CLP centerpiece and to convey the principles of the program, so that districts in replication can adapt it to their special circumstances and have full ownership of the results. For example, in the Seattle School District, CLP is embedded in the Belief Academy, a program for inner-city youths with learning and emotional disabilities. In Renton, Washington, it is folded into their existing Food Services Program. In Berkeley, California, the Employment Skills Workshop has been blended with an ethnic studies program, and it and the San Francisco program have experimented with service to younger students. In Delaware, CLP will be involved in a plan to set up a series of regional transition centers around the state, whose purpose will be to deliver CLP-style adult services. One of the greatest achievements is that in at least four of six districts replicating the model in Washington, the program is a vocational education program that serves special-needs students, as opposed to the more segregated approach of it being a special education "owned and operated" program.

The most challenging aspect of the CLP model is the ongoing availability of transition services, connecting activities that help students succeed and avoid "falling into the cracks" as they exit high school. Although these connecting activities are mandated by the School to Work Opportunities Act, few examples exist of how they might work. The original CLP in San Francisco demonstrated how this could be done, and subsequent research showed a 92 percent success rate (working, in college, or some combination of the two) for 127 youths served by that program.

CLP staff believe that they can best teach this aspect of the model by example, and so a subcontract with Eastside Employment Services has given CLP an opportunity to make that demonstration in six Washington school districts. This effort will be supplemented if a new proposal recently made to the state is funded. Through this effort, CLP hopes to set in motion a demonstration effort of how school-to-work transition services can successfully span the school and adult (post-high school graduation) environments. By increasing the current subcontract with Eastside Employment Services, students from four school districts in Washington (Bellevue, Lake Washington, Renton, and Highline) will be served and the groundwork laid for a reform of how professionals "usher" students from school into a productive adult life. If successful in attracting more funding, Seattle and Northshore School Districts also will be included. This final activity of the outreach grant may, in fact, be the most important one.

For more information, contact:

Shep Siegel, Ph.D.
Director, Career Ladder Program
King County Vocational Special Education Cooperative
Puget Sound ESD
400 SW 152nd Street
Seattle, Washington 98166-2209
Phone: 206-439-3636

SUPPORTED EMPLOYMENT

Paul Wehman and W. Grant Revell, Jr.
Virginia Commonwealth University

Abstract

1. Supported employment involves competitive work in integrated work settings for individuals with the most significant disabilities and makes available ongoing support services, at and/or away from the work site, needed for the supported employee to successfully maintain employment.
   
   
2. Substantial national growth in supported employment participation began in 1988-1989, following the establishment of a national supported employment formula grant program through the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1986 and the funding of numerous state systems development federal grants. Supported employment outcomes in recent years reflect continued growth in participation. However, for a variety of reasons many individuals with significant disabilities, including young adults who recently completed their secondary level program, have yet to enter supported employment and remain unemployed or underemployed in nonintegrated work or activity centers.
   
   
3. The educational procedures that most assist students to achieve employment outcomes emphasize (a) functional skills and experiences directly related to the competitive labor market and (b) frequent interaction with nondisabled peers, coworkers, supervisors, and others. Examples of these educational procedures include (a) functional curricula, (b) integrated school environments, and (c) community-based work instruction and work experience.
   
   
4. Educational practices that inhibit employment outcomes are those that involve (a) limited access to paid work experiences in competitive job settings, (b) isolation from people and events in the community, limited information about community resources, and (c) ineffective service and support systems.
   
   
5. Congress should assure better employment outcomes by (a) establishing a formula grant category within the legislation specific to services and supports that achieve work outcomes for secondary level students, (b) formalizing the transition plan process, (c) emphasizing with greater specificity in legislative language the importance of community-based work experience before the student exits school, and (d) providing students with disabilities in special education more credible diploma options.
   
   
6. OSERS should (a) fund research and demonstration to expand both the body of knowledge and national awareness regarding the critical importance of work experience while in school and of employment-focused transition efforts, (b) fund preservice and in-service training and technical assistance focused on increasing the understanding and competency of educators in effectively integrating practices built on the "presumption of ability" around employment in the community into the education of students, and (c) strengthen its monitoring responsibilities regarding the clearly stated goals and content of IDEA.
   
   
7. State and local education agencies should (a) encourage the demonstration and implementation of educational programming that generate employment outcomes and (b) use preservice, in-service, and technical assistance resources to build awareness and skills.

1. What outcomes signify successful implementation of the topical issue?

Participating in paid employment is a primary opportunity desired for working age individuals in the United States. The potential of work to contribute substantially to quality of life is the same for individuals with a disability as it is for those who do not have disabilities. The consistent theme of IDEA, ADA, and the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992 is that people with disabilities should have access to the services and supports needed for them to achieve the same outcomes expected by individuals without disabilities. However, numerous post-age 21 outcome studies have shown repeatedly that many young adults with disabilities are not obtaining good quality employment with decent pay and benefits (Peraino, 1992). By most accounts, over 50 percent of young adults with disabilities are unemployed when they leave school, with the unemployment rate being much higher for those with severe disabilities (Wehman, 1992b).

Are these high unemployment levels reflective of limited work potential for persons with disabilities, or do they reflect the all too frequent ineffectiveness of secondary level education services, transition programs, and adult services in assisting young adults with disabilities to consistently become employed? The answer is clearly the latter. There are ample demonstrations of the ability of persons with disabilities, including those with significant disabilities, to work productively when provided with appropriate services and supports (Wehman & Kregel, 1994b). Supported employment offers supports to the individual with a disability, and also employers and coworkers, the community, and workplace critical to employment success (Wehman & Kregel, 1994b).

Supported employment as defined in the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992:

• involves competitive work in integrated work settings for individuals with the most significant disabilities,
  
  
• targets individuals for whom competitive employment has not traditionally occurred or has been interrupted or intermittent because of significant disability, and
  
  
• makes available ongoing support services at and/or away from the work site as needed for the supported employee to successfully maintain employment.

Successful implementation of supported employment requires attention to a number of factors. It begins with a clear focus on employment in community integrated settings and the specific skills and work behaviors needed to be successful in a particular job. It is not readiness training in classrooms or work centers where training is intended to develop generalized skills for use in a job sometime in the future. Supported employment focuses on wages, working conditions, job security, and job mobility. It values full participation of persons with significant disabilities in the community and assumes that each individual has the capacity to work if appropriate and individualized ongoing supports are made available. It utilizes rehabilitation technology, the resources of the employer, family and community networks, and the experience of a job coach as some of the many ways to provide supports (Parent, Gibson, Unger, & Clements, 1994). Supported employment creates opportunities for social integration and redirects the image of an individual with a disability away from a focus on dependency. The supported employee and persons without disabilities learn about each other as coworkers who work and possibly recreate together.

Supported employment is closely related to IDEA because it is an outcome specified under the transition provisions and because it offers an option to fulfill the promise of an IDEA-supported education whose benefits help prepare youth with disabilities to live and work in the community. The philosophy and strategies of supported employment are consistent with the redirection of special education practices to use of functional curricula, community-based work experiences, and full integration of students with disabilities in integrated learning settings. Supported employment offers a real opportunity for the education of young people with disabilities to lead to employment outcomes in the adult community.

2. To what extent have these outcomes been achieved in the last five years?

Over the past decade, the use of supported employment nationally grew steadily as increasing numbers of persons with significant disabilities obtained work in the competitive labor market for the first time. The formal national supported employment initiative began with passage of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1986, which established a formula grant program to all states for supported employment services through the vocational rehabilitation system. Since in the mid-1980s, the federal Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) has provided discretionary grant funds to states to develop supported employment systems through a series of three- and five-year grants. Substantial national growth in supported employment participation began in 1988-1989 (Wehman, 1992a).

The national supported employment initiative continues to achieve notable positive outcomes, but it also faces critical challenges. In terms of achievements, the report on a survey of a random sample of adult day programs estimated that 300,000 people with disabilities were participating in some type of integrated employment (McGaughey, Kiernan, McNally, Gilmore, & Keith, 1994). The results of a 50-state survey of vocational rehabilitation agencies describe the outcomes of the national supported employment initiative through Fiscal Year (FY) 1991 (Revell, Wehman, Kregel, West, & Rayfield, 1994). A total of 42 state systems participated in the survey and reported a total 74,960 supported employment participants in FY 1991, a 21.06 percent growth rate for these states from their FY 1990 participant level. The estimated total number of supported employment participants nationally for FY 1991 was approximately 90,000, calculated by applying this 21 percent growth to the 50-state FY 1990 total. Persons with the primary disability classification of mental retardation accounted for 62.8 percent of all supported employment participants; 30.4 percent of these individuals had moderate mental retardation and 8.7 percent had severe or profound mental retardation. Persons with a primary disability classification of mental illness accounted for 22.2 percent of the supported employment participants. The supported employees earned a weighted mean hourly wage of $4.45 and a mean weekly wage of $111.14. Vocational rehabilitation agencies expended a reported $74.8 million on supported employment; $160.1 million in non-VR funds were expended also for these services. Despite severe economic recession in many parts of the United States at the time, the FY 1991 supported employment outcomes reflect continued growth as compared to reports for previous years (West, Revell, & Wehman, 1992).

Despite its achievements, supported employment faces important challenges (Wehman & Kregel, 1994a). Many individuals with the most significant disabilities have yet to enter the program and remain unemployed or underemployed. Even with recent advances in support technologies such as natural supports and assistive technology, some supported employment participants are concerned about low wages and lack of career choices (West & Parent, 1992) and employment retention (Shafer, Banks, & Kregel, 1991). Also, relatively few resources previously spent to support sheltered workshops have been reallocated to supported employment programs. Fewer than 10 percent of all adult day programs actually have reduced the size of their segregated programs and reallocated those resources toward integrated, supported employment options (McGaughey, Kiernan, McNally, & Gillmore, 1993; Revell et al., 1994).

Even with these challenges, ample demonstrations and examples exist of individuals with the most significant disabilities working productively in the competitive United States labor market as valued employees with the assistance of needed supports provided through supported employment. Supported employment continues to offer a support philosophy and service technology critical to the success of persons with the most significant disabilities in achieving employment outcomes.

3. What educational models/procedures are most effective for achieving these outcomes?

The purpose of IDEA, in part, is to provide equal educational opportunity for all students to achieve high educational and occupational skill standards and to succeed in the world of employment and civic participation. Accordingly, the educational models/procedures used to assist these students must emphasize (a) functional skills and experiences directly related to the competitive labor market and (b) interaction with nondisabled individuals as peers, coworkers, supervisors, and recipients of the goods or services produced by individuals with disabilities. Participation in education programs utilizing functional curricula, integrated school environments, and community-based experiences best position many of these students to benefit from a supported employment approach in securing a job.

Functional curricula: A major purpose of the School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994 is to offer opportunities for all students to participate in performance-based education and training programs that, in part, will enable students to earn usable credentials and prepare the students for their first jobs (National Transition Network, 1994). The Act emphasizes school-based learning that combines academic and occupational instruction. A functional curriculum approach fosters instruction in developing needed skills and experiences and is based on objectives drawn from career exploration and individual assessment. It emphasizes the most important activities that the student will need to perform independently, or with supports, in vocational, residential, and community environments. Selecting the most necessary skills in which an individual student needs instruction involves the student, teacher, and others who either know the student well or know well the environments in which the student most likely will participate after leaving school. Continued use of an individualized functional curriculum approach provides the opportunity for the student to make incremental improvements in job-related skill areas, mobility in the community, and the ability to interact appropriately in a variety of circumstances with the nondisabled public and with nondisabled coworkers.

Integrated school environments: The degree of routine interaction with nondisabled individuals experienced by students with a disability directly affects their long-range outcomes in living and working in the community. Long-term experience in integrated schools shows these students how to be more competent in the community environment and how to manage effectively a variety of interactions with nondisabled individuals. Use of integrated school environments involves experiences both within the school building itself and also within the community. As much as possible, classroom and related training must take place in integrated situations, as compared to segregated or set-apart classrooms or buildings, for the full range of students with a disability. Effective vocational preparation also includes regular exposure to natural work settings through training and working in real jobs in the community. Increasing evidence from researchers and educators suggests students who exit from integrated school experiences are more likely to succeed in jobs and perform competently in the community.

Community-based work experiences: The School-to-Work Opportunities Act also emphasizes work-based learning: the value of the job site and work experience are key resources in the educational process. Participation in community-based instruction helps the student with a disability to build work and work-related skills and to explore a variety of work settings as a tool in career awareness and exploration. Community-based work experiences can involve unpaid activities in a variety of job areas. This type of training can take the form of vocational exploration, vocational assessment, or vocational training, consistent with the Fair Labor Standards Act and guidelines published by the U.S. Departments of Labor and Education (Dymond, 1994). It also can include a variety of paid activities, including work experience and on-the-job training (National Transition Network, 1994). The Bridges Model, developed by the Marriott Corporation and the Virginia Commonwealth University Rehabilitation Research and Training Center, is an excellent example of a formal community-based work experience program where students are placed in four-to six-month paid internships in positions matched to their interests and skills (Inge, 1991). The range of community-based options available serves the common purpose of providing the student with a disability exposure to real work settings and experience in interacting with a variety of people and situations.

These three education procedures effectively assist students with disabilities prepare for employment in the community, where necessary with the use of supports and services drawn from a supported employment approach. These procedures are consistent with the principles and content of IDEA, such as functional assessment of a student's needs and interests leading to instruction directed to individualized employment and other post-school adult living objectives. The reauthorized IDEA must continue emphasizing both full inclusion of students with disabilities in integrated school and community environments and outcome-oriented functional education experiences.

4. What educational models/procedures most inhibit these outcomes?

The employment-related educational outcome being sought for all students with a disability is the opportunity to live and work in the community as adults in a manner defined by their abilities and interests, not their disabilities. The models that encourage this outcome emphasize functional instruction and community experiences characterized by interaction with people who do not have disabilities.

In comparison, the educational procedures and models that inhibit these outcomes involve limited access to paid work experiences in competitive job settings, isolation from people and events in the community, limited information about community resources, and ineffective service and support systems. These are practices that defy common sense. As a teacher of a young student with multiple and significant disabilities noted, "The children Jake goes to school with will be the adults he lives with in the community, and they better get to know one another now" (Jorgensen, 1992). In the employment framework, the most damaging educational models and procedures are those that inhibit the opportunity for students "to get to know" themselves, their peers, and their community.

Limited experience in integrated educational programming, both within the school itself and also through use of the community, directly and adversely impacts a student's ability to learn a variety of key life-skill competencies. Clearly, the lack of paid work experiences while in school has negative impact on successful employment for individuals with disabilities after they leave school. Peraino (1992) describes a variety of studies on predictors of employment outcomes for students with disabilities. Students with mental retardation who had work-study experiences while in school had a significantly higher level of vocational adjustment than students who took regular academic programs not involving work experience (Brolin, Durand, Kromer, & Muller, 1989). Similarly, students with mental retardation who had paid work experiences while in school had better employment outcomes than those who did not have paid experiences (Hasazi et al., 1985). For students with learning disabilities, a significant relationship exists between having a summer job while in secondary school and obtaining post-secondary employment: Approximately 85 percent of the students who held summer jobs in high school were employed as compared to 55 percent who did not have summer jobs (Scuccimarra & Speece, 1990). There is a growing body of research evidence that positively relates the absence of work experience while in school with higher levels of unemployment as a young adult for certain individuals with a disability.

For secondary level students with significant and frequently multiple disabling conditions, educational programming promoting integrated experiences serves as the gateway to life in the community. Consider Bobby, a 21-year-old assessed to have severe mental retardation with a secondary diagnosis of autism (Inge & Wehman, 1993). He had a long history of challenging behaviors, including running away from teachers and physical aggression with self-stimulation, and he rarely interacted with others appropriately. He lived at home in a struggling family situation and, due to his many behavior problems, the local respite care program he used on weekends had recently discontinued services. Bobby received his education in a segregated school program for individuals with significant disabilities, and he was referred for community-based instruction through the Vocational Options Project, a federal grant-funded program operated by the Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Supported Employment at Virginia Commonwealth University. His first community placement was at a hotel folding laundry and cleaning a small vending machine area for two hours a day, four days a week. After five days, he was on-task only 5 percent of his training session, and he had shown a number of problem behaviors not acceptable to a job site.

From this starting point, a series of adjustments were made to his program, mixing use of the familiar school environment with his increasingly greater participation in a variety of community-based activities involving work, shopping, going to fast-food restaurants, and using the post office. At the end of a six-week period, Bobby was able to remain with the trainer in a community setting for up to 30-45 minutes, participate in a variety of activities, and not engage in challenging behaviors. Some of these activities included waiting in a grocery line and paying for items purchased, crossing a street safely, posting a letter, and sitting quietly in a fast-food restaurant. After about five months of community-based instruction at a variety of job sites, Bobby was able to successfully complete a two-hour work period with remarkably reduced off-task behaviors in a competitive, integrated work setting doing tasks such as emptying boxes of clothes, putting clothes on hangers, and removing plastic bags from clothes. Over a five-month period, community-based instruction assisted Bobby in making significant improvements in his ability to benefit from and participate in the community. He is now positioned to make continued improvements in his community adjustment.

The reauthorized IDEA will fail to meet its core responsibility if it allows students like Bobby to receive within the school and within the community, educational services that segregate them from people who are not disabled. IDEA must assure that students like Bobby routinely receive instruction and support on how to live and work in the community and are given proactive access to information and services that help foster positive community-oriented outcomes.

5. Provide two or three specific recommendations for action by Congress.

To strengthen IDEA as it relates to work-related secondary and transition activities, Congress should (a) establish a formula grant category specific to services and supports that achieve work outcomes for secondary students, (b) formalize the transition plan process, (c) emphasize with greater specificity the importance of community-based work experience before the student exits school, and (d) provide students more credible diploma options.

Research now shows, in a compelling fashion, that paid employment experiences during school are a critically important predictor of employment success once students leave school. Paid work experiences will also help make school more relevant to many youth with disabilities and help reduce dropout rates. Current legislative language appears to emphasize process as opposed to a definable outcome (i.e., paid work experience). IDEA needs to emphasize outcome-specific plans, not just processes.

Accordingly, Congress should establish a formula grant program that provides the opportunity for all state educational agencies to obtain funds specific to the provision of community-based work experience and job obtainment for secondary level students. An appropriation is needed in the range of $50 million to $75 million for this formula grant program. Use of these funds should be limited to the provision of services, with a maximum allowance of 5 percent for administrative use. This recommendation is based on the success of a similar legislative initiative to expand participation in supported employment in the adult services system. The 1986 Rehabilitation Act Amendments established within Title VI, Part C, which is a formula grant program for supported employment services. The original annual appropriation for the Part C formula grant program was in the area of $25 million within a piece of legislation that totaled over $1 billion dollars. In FY 1986, national participation in supported employment totaled 9,882 individuals with supported employment expenditures by vocational rehabilitation agencies totaling $9.8 million (Wehman, 1991). In comparison, approximately 90,000 individuals participated in supported employment in FY 1991 with VR agency expenditures for supported employment services of more than $74.8 million and with non-VR agency expenditures of $160.2 million (Revell et al., 1994). The Title VI, Part C formula grant program established the basis for a national supported employment services initiative and has leveraged funds into supported employment at a level more than seven times the amount of the Part C appropriation. The federal set-aside, formula-grant approach has demonstrated effectiveness in converting supported employment from research and demonstration to systematic use nationally.

Second, Congress should provide that Individual Transition Service Plans be closely coordinated with the student's Individual Education Plan and include (a) steps to completion of an employment goal, (b) person(s) responsible for implementing the goal, (c) deadline for completion of the plan, and (d) parent and career preference, if appropriate. Third, Congress should provide that the ITSP strongly reflect experience in paid community-based employment to the fullest extent possible, with special emphasis on community work experience for students before leaving school.

Finally, Congress should address diploma-discrimination. Nationally, completion of a secondary level special education program that does not conform to a formal academic or vocational training curriculum frequently results in the student receiving certificates of attendance or certificates noting completion of an IEP. Frequently, the IEP-completion "special diploma" does not emphasize mastery or competency; instead it reflects participation in an education generally consistent with an IEP based on process, not outcome. The certificates or special diplomas awarded to many special education students are not recognized or credible with employers; the certificates do not indicate the general competencies gained through graduation from secondary education. Accordingly, Congress should establish a non-academic track diploma category for special education students who accomplish the employment-related, community-oriented outcomes specified in their IEPs. These outcomes could include successful completion of a prescribed number of hours of paid work experience.

6. Provide two or three specific recommendations for improving IDEA's implementation through federally funded activities, including but not limited to monitoring, technical assistance, personnel preparation, demonstration, and research, to be carried out over the next five years.

OSERS should concentrate on activities that help make secondary-level special and general education useful and functional for students to gain employment and make successful transitions into adulthood. To accomplish this, OSERS should (a) fund research and demonstrations to expand both the body of knowledge and national awareness regarding the critical importance of work experience while in school and employment-focused transition efforts, (b) fund preservice and in-service training and technical assistance focused on increasing the understanding and competency of educators in effectively integrating practices built on the "presumption of ability" around employment in the community into the education of students, and (c) strengthen its monitoring responsibilities regarding the clearly stated goals and content of IDEA.

Fund Research and Demonstration Efforts Emphasizing Work Experience and Employment with Supports

Research and demonstration are needed specific to those education practices that have the major impact on (a) preparing students with a disability for employment, (b) supporting them in obtaining employment during their transition process from school to the adult community, and (c) obstacles, such as disincentives in the disability benefit system, that inhibit successful employment.

• NIDRR could fund projects through a rehabilitation research and training center (RRTC) or other grantees directed at students with significant disabilities and targeting, for example, strategies for meaningful employment experiences while in school, expanding knowledge of employment opportunities and critical employment skills and behaviors through community-based activities, and enhancing job referral/placement/ongoing support. Funding priorities could include (a) projects which study the (positive) relationship between school inclusion practices and competitive employment outcomes, (b) projects which emphasize the importance of family-friend-community networks in obtaining and sustaining employment, and (c) projects which study the negative effects of disincentives to employment in the Supplemental Security Income/Social Security Disability Insurance program and in the health care system.
  
  
• OSERS, through the Rehabilitation Services Administration and the community demonstration projects funded through Title III of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992, could establish priorities for demonstrating supported employment services in transition of students with significant disabilities. RSA could also use its discretionary grant options to fund projects that intermingle VR and other adult system funds with resources from the education system to generate employment outcomes for transitioning students.

Fund Preservice and In-Service Training and Technical Assistance Focused on Increasing the Understanding and Competency of Educators

As the number of students with the full range and degree of disabilities increases in general education classrooms, general educators take on new roles of fostering both employment skill development and full community participation for these students. To be effective, both general and special educators must be able to see beyond students' disability-related challenges and focus on nurturing their abilities, interests, and opportunities. Being an effective educator involves being aware of disability, recognizing the importance of outcome-oriented education focused on the community, and having skill and support to use the rapidly expanding education and training technology designed to achieve employment outcomes.

OSEP could set priorities of assisting educators to work effectively with

employment-oriented education and transition programming for students with a disability. The Federal Government funds a number of short-term and long-term training initiatives for professional preparation and ongoing skill-development of educators. Employment-focused priorities within these grant initiatives would have national impact on improving the awareness and skills of current educators and the next generation of educators.

National technical assistance initiatives have demonstrated their effectiveness in assisting state systems respond effectively to the service needs of individuals with a disability (Mank, Buckley, Green, VanCovern, & Revell, 1992). OSEP and NIDRR, through use of RRTCs or through a special funding initiative, could support a national technical assistance capacity around employment-oriented educational programming. The federal program could also support state-managed technical assistance with this same focus. Technical assistance that is longitudinal in nature and drawn from a multi-participant systems development plan can have sustained impact on state and local efforts.

Strengthen OSERS Monitoring Responsibilities Regarding the Clearly Stated Goals and Content of IDEA

OSERS monitoring should emphasize outcomes achieved by students with disabilities. Specific to achieving employment outcomes for transitioning youth and young adults with a disability, monitoring of the effectiveness of IEPs and ITSPs should focus on the following components of an employment-oriented secondary level education program: (a) clearly stated employment goals on the IEP/ITSP, (b) functional, community-referenced secondary educational curriculum, (c) community-based service delivery, (d) interagency planning and service delivery efforts, (e) availability of an array of post-secondary options, (f) availability of ongoing community-based support services, and (f) student, parent, and family involvement and satisfaction throughout the education and transition process.

7. Provide two or three specific recommendations for improving IDEA's implementation by state or local education agencies.

Research and best practice demonstrate the ability of transitioning students with significant disabilities to work productively in competitive environments and live successfully in the community. Considering the high levels of unemployment among young adults with disabilities, why then does it appear that employment and community-oriented educational and transition practices are frequently the exception and not the norm? It is because at the state and local level, there continues to be a lack of general awareness about the interests and potential abilities of students with disabilities. For all the language around choice and consumer empowerment within disability-related legislation, professional dominance continues to be the norm in the selection of goals and services. Students' plans of services all too frequently conform with existing staffing patterns and allotments of resources, as they do not draw on staff and resources with flexibility for use best suited to individual outcomes. This is exemplified by maintenance of a secondary-level classroom approach with a limited allotment of resources to provide instruction in the community and support at a job site. Knowledge about effective employment-oriented education programming and hands-on technical assistance on use of such knowledge are not widespread.

State and local initiatives to expand the community and employment orientation of education and transition programs flow directly from the recommendations contained in the response to Question 6.

• Encourage the demonstration and implementation of educational programming generating employment outcomes: State education agencies have access to a variety of tools to provide direction and encouragement to local education agencies on educational programming. These include policies, high-visibility initiatives, special project/incentive grant funding, staffing grants, best practice guides, and topical state and regional conferences. Local education agencies have many similar ways to influence programming. Demonstrations of effective programming, coupled with changes in perceptions and expectations about students, are a proven means to influence programming. State education agencies and local education agencies must use the options available to each to expand the capacity of educators and educational programming regarding achieving employment outcomes.
  
  
• Use preservice, in-service, and technical assistance resources to build awareness and skills: Disability awareness and competency are no longer issues to be addressed only in teacher preparation for special educators. Preservice teacher preparation for general educators must also address these topics. State education agencies can influence the direction and content of teacher preparation programs through funding, policy and planning initiatives, etc. Ability-oriented content and exposure are needed in preservice training for general educators, and outcome, community-oriented emphasis is needed in the preparation of special educators. The same is true of in-service activities. Hands-on assistance is a primary means for improving and maintaining effective educational programming. This assistance can occur through mentoring and using regional and local resource specialists made available through state education agencies and/or local education agency-sponsored technical assistance networks.

References

Bowe, F. (1993). Statistics, politics, and employment of people with disabilities: Commentary. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 4(2), 83-91.

Brolin, D., Durand, R., Kromer, K., & Muller, P. (1989). Post-school adjustment of educable retarded students. Education and Training for the Mentally Retarded, 24, 144-148.

Dymond, S. (1994). Community-based vocational training and the labor laws. Four Runner, 12(2). Richmond, VA: Virginia Commonwealth University Severe Disabilities Technical Assistance Center.

Hasazi, S., Gordon, L., Roe, C., Finck, K., Holl, M., & Salembier, G. (1985). A statewide follow-up on post high school employment and residential status of students labeled "mentally retarded." Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 20, 222-234.

Inge, K. (1991). Bridges...from school to work: Mariott Foundation for People with Disabilities. Richmond, VA: Virginia Commonwealth University Rehabilitation Research and Training Center.

Inge, K., & Wehman, P. (Eds.) (1993). Designing community-based vocational programs for students with severe disabilities. Richmond, VA: Virginia Commonwealth University Rehabilitation Research and Training Center.

Jorgensen, C. (1992). Natural supports in inclusive schools: Curricular and teaching strategies. In Nisbet, J. (Ed.). Natural supports in school, at work and in the community for people with severe disabilities (pp. 179-218). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Mank, D., Buckley, J., Green, J., VanCovern, D., & Revell, G. (1992). Technical assistance on a national scale: Efforts to improve and expand supported employment. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 2(4), 35-44.

McGaughey, M., Kiernan, W., McNally, L., Gilmore, D., & Keith, G. (1994). Beyond the workshop: National perspectives on integrated employment. Boston: Institute for Community Inclusion.

McGaughey, M., Kiernan, W., McNally, L., & Gilmore, D. (1993). National perspectives on integrated employment: State MR/DD agency trends. Boston: Training and Research Institute on Developmental Disabilities.

National Transition Network (1994). Policy update: Youth with disabilities and the School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Institute on Community Integration.

Parent, W., Gibson, K., Unger, D., & Clements, C. (1994). The role of the job coach: Orchestrating community and workplace supports. In P. Wehman, & J. Kregel. (Eds.), New direction in supported employment (pp. 33-47). Richmond, VA: Virginia Commonwealth University.

Peraino, J. (1992). Post-21 follow-up studies: How do special education graduates fare? In P. Wehman (Ed.), Life beyond the classroom (pp. 21-70). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Revell, G., Wehman, P., Kregel, J., West, M., & Rayfield, R. (1994). Supported employment for persons with severe disabilities: Positive trends in wages, models, and funding. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 29, 256-264.

Scuccimarra, D., & Speece, D. (1990). Employment outcomes and social integration of students with mild handicaps: The quality of life two years after high school. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23(4), 212-219.

Shafer, M., Banks, D., & Kregel, J. (1991). Employment retention and career movement among individuals with mental retardation working in supported employment. Mental Retardation, 29(2), 103-110.

Wehman, P. (1991). A national analysis of supported employment growth and implementation: Fiscal years 1986-1989. Richmond, VA: Virginia Commonwealth University Rehabilitation Research and Training Center.

Wehman, P. (1992a). Achievements and challenges: A five-year report on the status of the national supported employment initiative FY 1986-1990. Richmond, VA: Virginia Commonwealth University.

Wehman, P. (1992b). Life beyond the classroom. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Wehman, P.& Kregel J. (1994a). At the crossroads: Supported employment ten years later. In P. Wehman, & J. Kregel (Eds.), New direction in supported employment. Richmond, VA: Virginia Commonwealth University Rehabilitation Research and Training Center.

Wehman, P., & Kregel, J. (1994b). Toward a national agenda for supported employment. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 4(4), 231-242.

West, M., & Parent, W. (1992). Consumer choice and empowerment in supported employment services: Issues and strategies. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 17(1), 47-52.

West, M., Revell, G., & Wehman, P. (1992). Achievements and challenges I: A five-year report on consumer and system outcomes from the supported employment initiative. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 17(4), 227-235.

Annotated Literature Abstract

Citation

Wehman, P., & Kregel, J. (1994). Toward a national agenda for supported employment. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 4(4) 231-242.

Abstract

The use of community-based employment with supports, as an alternative to traditional facility-based day programs, has changed the nature of vocational services for adults with mental retardation. Numerous demonstrations have unequivocally documented the employment potential of people with mental retardation and other significant disabilities. Despite these accomplishments, problems persist that may threaten the ultimate effectiveness of the program. In the paper, the authors delineate a national agenda for supported employment through a set of national goals that focus on expanding the number of individuals in supported employment, promoting consumer choice, implementing the ADA, converting segregated day programs, and expanding the number of qualified personnel.

Key Points and Quotes

1. Supported employment has emerged in the past decade as a desirable alternative to traditional segregated day programs because it leads to community integrated employment for individuals with significant disabilities.

"Have we been successful in assisting the people who wish to work in competitive employment to enter the labor force and maintain meaningful employment? In our field we are now at a point where our ability to successfully place and support people in competitive employment is greater than it has ever been. Philosophical advances, technological innovations, and legislative and policy initiatives have combined to create a climate of high expectations and seemingly unlimited potential. Yet, it is important to keep in mind that as recently as 15 years ago, most professionals believed that individuals with moderate or severe mental retardation, Down syndrome, autism, or other severe cognitive disabilities could not possibly work in competitive employment." (p. 231)

2. Many people with disabilities have not yet become employed in the community. If we are to fulfill the initial promise of supported employment, we must implement a set of national supported employment goals immediately.

"Despite these accomplishments, there remains a very troubling incongruity between what we know can be achieved and what is occurring (Bowe, 1993; Wehman & Kregel, 1994; Mank, 1994). We must carefully examine whether the opportunity to pursue a meaningful career will become a reality for consumers with developmental disabilities or whether attitudinal, fiscal, and programmatic barriers are combining to halt the progress we know is possible. To prevent this missed opportunity, there needs to be a much clearer focus by consumers, advocates, and professionals involved in supported employment on what the national goals should be for this program." (p. 233)

3. For growth in community-based employment options to continue, persons with disabilities must exercise their legal rights to select the individualized employment services best suited to the individual workers' interests and needs.

"We believe supported employment will continue to expand, propelled by the self-determination and choice provisions of the ADA and the 1992 Rehabilitation Act amendments. Growth will be limited, however, without increased advocacy and a renewed sense of commitment to the program. The true power to change a human service system lies within the consumers who receive the services. Continuing the expansion of community-based employment alternatives, changing adult activity centers to integrated employment, revising ineffective policy and funding mechanisms, and developing a core of highly skilled professionals dedicated to meeting consumer needs while respecting their desires and decisions are major challenges. However, it is clear that consumers and their families will be the change agents. Professionals must work together with consumers to empower them to meet these goals." (p. 240)

Annotated Literature Abstract

Citation

Parent, W., Unger, D., Gibson, K., & Clements, C. (in press). The role of the job coach: Orchestrating community and workplace supports. American Rehabilitation.

Abstract

Supported employment has assisted thousands of individuals with severe disabilities to become successfully employed at competitive jobs in the community. New and innovative support technologies offer consumers of supported employment greater opportunities for directing their careers and choosing the type and amount of assistance they would like to receive. This article describes a model of supported employment service delivery that enhances the role of the job coach in maximizing the use of employer, coworker, community, and family supports to enable an individual to obtain, learn, and maintain a job of his or her own choosing. A systematic process for utilizing community and workplace supports in supported employment includes the following components: (1) determine individual needs and preferences, (2) brainstorm potential options, (3) assess job and community supports, (4) identify individual choices, (5) develop strategies for accessing supports, (6) evaluate support effectiveness, and (7) arrange provisions for on-going monitoring.

Key Points and Quotes

1. Utilizing community and workplace supports in the provision of supported employment services expands the opportunities available to individuals with severe disabilities to work at the competitive jobs of their choice.

"Recent efforts have focused upon developing additional support technologies aimed at enhancing service delivery practices to better meet the needs of all individuals interested in community-based employment. Identifying new and effective approaches for better supporting workers with severe disabilities and assisting greater numbers of persons who would like to enter the work force is a critical element in the continued growth and expansion of supported employment services (Kregel & Wehman, 1989). Innovations, such as assistive technology, rehabilitation engineering, compensatory strategies, natural supports, job modifications, job carving, and personal assistant services, have opened the door to employment for many persons previously considered too severely disabled to work (Hagner & Dileo, 1993; Mank, in press; Nisbet, 1992; Wehman, Sale, & Parent, 1992). As a result, job coaches now have a much more extensive array of tools, in addition to behavioral training techniques, with which to support workers with severe disabilities in competitive jobs in the community." (p. 5)

2. Developing community and workplace support options can be accomplished through personal contacts with agencies, organizations, associations, and businesses to identify the type of assistance that is potentially available.

"The first step in utilizing an array of support options is finding out what type of assistance is potentially available in the community and different employment settings. This can only be accomplished by becoming familiar with the local community and the many support resources available to and used by individuals with and without a disability....Ideas of organizations or agencies to investigate can be identified from a variety of sources. Those found to be the most productive include personal connections through friends, acquaintances, or experiences; the telephone book; the consumer and his or her friends; the newspaper; and other colleagues. Five general types of support option categories have been identified. These include: 1) employer supports, 2) transportation supports, 3) community supports, 4) personal and independent living supports, and 5) recreation and social integration supports." (p. 8)

3. Achieving community-integrated employment outcomes for individuals with severe disabilities requires a reliance on a combination of community, supervisor, coworker, family, and human service supports.

"Consumers need to choose who will help them, how assistance will be provided, and change their mind if they would like, while maintaining a circle of support from their job coach who is available to assist with orchestrating or providing whatever supports are desired. The job coaches' role becomes much more refined in that they must be: 1) knowledgeable of a variety of different types of supports, 2) able to share information with consumers so they can make informed choices, 3) skilled at helping to access any assistance the consumer would like, 4) willing to provide support themselves when other options are not available or the consumer prefers their help, and 5) responsible for monitoring the on-going use of a support and arranging alternative assistance should the need arise." (p. 21)

Model Profile

The Vocational Options Project is a best-practice model for designing community- based vocational programs for students with severe disabilities. This project operated from July 1990 to July 1993 and was sponsored by a three-year federally funded grant awarded by the U.S. Department of Education to the Virginia Commonwealth University Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Supported Employment. The purpose of this project was to demonstrate the effectiveness of community-based vocational training and supported employment for adolescents with severe disabilities.

In this project, 23 youth ranging in ages from 16 to 22 participated in two to four community-based nonpaid vocational training experiences. Of these, 10 were placed in various paid supported employment options. All students participating in the project met the federal definition of severely disabled youth and were enrolled in public school programs. The Vocational Options Project specifically targeted those adolescents who had not participated in community-based instruction and supported employment because of the challenge presented by the type and degree of their disabling conditions. Students who participated included individuals who had challenging behaviors, autism, cerebral palsy, severe sensory impairments, and/or severe and profound mental retardation.

The project targeted (a) the development of appropriate social and vocational skills in community-based training sites that reflected potential jobs in the community and (b) the development of work histories for the project participants. Two local school districts participated in project activities and referred students. Although both of these districts had community-based experiences for students with mild and/or moderate disabilities, neither had provided intensive one-to-one programming in the community for students with more severe disabilities.

To establish community-based training sites, the project used the following five-step process: (1) conduct a community job market analysis, (2) identify businesses with the targeted jobs and contact the personnel director or employer, (3) select and analyze appropriate jobs for community-based training, (4) schedule community-based training, and (5) design individual systematic instruction programs. All businesses that served as training sites signed agreements regarding compliance with federal and state labor regulations regarding nonpaid work experience. Students who participated received an average of three different vocational experiences, with each vocational experience lasting approximately one month and involving no more than 120 hours of on-site instruction per job experience.

Instruction at the jobsite was provided by an employment specialist who worked also with the students, their families, and the school staff to develop work resumes for these youth and to help them identify job preferences for future employment based on the community-based training experiences. During the third year of the project, the 10 students who were placed into paid work experiences earned approximately $28,000. These were students with severe disabilities who, prior to the Vocational Options experience, were not regarded as candidates for successful participation in community- based employment. Students were placed in dispersed locations within a business and received continued support and supervision from the project staff employment specialist. This approach was selected due to intensive behavioral needs of the students who participated in paid work experiences.

The Vocational Options Project demonstrated that students with the most severe disabilities, including individuals with severe and profound mental retardation and significant behavioral challenges, can successfully participate in community-based training and supported employment as a component of their school program. Their success resulted from (a) intensive systematic instruction and on-the-job support and training, (b) attention to job development and job modification issues, (c) emphasis on family involvement, and (d) appropriate curriculum development within the school system. Highly competent, specifically trained teachers and employment specialists who worked with the students and their families also assisted employers, coworkers, and the general public to learn the value of workers with severe disabilities in community job sites. To meet the challenge of finding and keeping appropriate jobs, staff selected job sites with a supportive and interactive atmosphere in which modifications and informal job sharing were possibilities. The overriding importance of positive family support to the success of the work experiences was demonstrated repeatedly. The Vocational Options Project clearly demonstrated the importance of functional curricula, integrated school experiences with nondisabled youth, and community-based instruction and work experience. Example of a Community-Based Training Report: Completing community-based training helps to determine the training needs and job preferences of students and helps in placing them into supported employment. The following summary of one participant's work experiences provides examples of the type of information that can be used by the student and others to help identify abilities and employment preferences. The student worked at each job site daily for two hours, four days a week, over a six-week period. Each site involved different job duties and work environments.

Training Site #1: At Hechinger's hardware store, she had several workstations, was required to orient to large areas in the store, and had frequent contact with customers. By the end of the training session, she was able to match stock in boxes to the correct location on the shelves, lift stock weighing up to 20 pounds, maneuver a loader sock cart throughout the store, and respond to customer questions by saying, "Please ask at the service desk."

Training Site #2: At Howard Johnson's restaurant, her job was to clean identified sections of the restroom and vacuum the motel lobby. This position involved moving between two different workstations in the front of the motel. She learned only 30 percent of the vacuuming task and did not seem to like this job duty. She did reach skill acquisition on the bathroom job in four weeks of training; however, she could not work to production standards. During the last two weeks of training she worked on learning how to move quickly with the assistance of a reinforcement program.

Training Site 3#: Her position at Shoney's restaurant focused on busing tables and rolling silverware. Rolling silverware was a seated job duty that occurred in a secluded section of the dining room, while busing tables required orienting to the entire restaurant, continuous standing, and interactions with customers and coworkers. She learned both tasks by the end of six weeks. Because she was very meticulous and took great care in performing her work, she had less ability to achieve the production speed of her coworkers.

Summary of Training Experience: She worked well in a variety of work settings and around unfamiliar people during the community-based training experiences. Her work site of choice was Shoney's. She demonstrated a positive attitude and acted appropriately with coworkers and customers. The trainers learned the type of instruction techniques most effective with her, her vocational strengths, and areas where accommodations might be needed.

For more information, contact:

Katherine J. Inge
VCU Rehabilitation Research and Training Center
Box 2011
Richmond, Virginia 23284-2011
Phone: 804 828-1851
FAX: 804 828-2193

MINORITY ISSUES

Vivian Correa
with
Maria E. Blanes-Reyes and Mary Jane K. Rapport
The University of Florida

Abstract

1. Current practices in special education have generated a system of identification, assessment, and segregation that is fraught with both overrepresentation and underrepresentation of minority students. The outcomes for all students in special education, including those from diverse backgrounds, are to achieve post-school success in employment, independent living, and/or community participation. These outcomes will be achieved when the following are practiced: (a) nonbiased assessment, (b) legitimate classification, (c) accurate placement, and (d) appropriate instructional practices and services.
   
   
2. If the educational outcomes of a free appropriate public education are to achieve post-school success in employment, independent living, and/or community participation, the outcomes for minority students with disabilities are not being realized.
   
   
3. Effective approaches include but are not limited to (a) alternative educational assessment, (b) culturally responsive instructional methodology and materials, and (c) active parental involvement.
   
   
4. Practices that most inhibit outcomes for children from diverse backgrounds are (a) inappropriate assessment and classification, (b) teachers' lack of cultural competence, (c) traditional teacher-directed, deficit-based methodology, and (d) limited parental involvement.
   
   
5. Congress can ensure that children with disabilities from diverse backgrounds will be appropriately evaluated and served through implementation of the following actions: (a) direct OSERS to develop and implement regulations for appropriate or alternative assessment procedures, (b) investigate issues surrounding classification and placement of minority students in special education programs, (c) enact measures that encourage the use of appropriate curriculum and materials, and (d) require preservice teacher training programs to include course work and field experience that will prepare future educators to work with children from various ethnic, racial, and linguistically diverse backgrounds.
   
   
6. OSERS can (a) monitor and investigate the problems associated with misrepresentation of minority students in special education programs and (b) fund research, training, and technical assistance to develop, implement, and monitor best practices associated with culturally responsive assessment, instruction, curriculum, and materials for minority students with disabilities.
   
   
7. State and local education agencies can (a) improve school practices for minority students with disabilities and (b) support and strengthen culturally responsive teacher education programs.

1. What outcomes signify successful implementation of the topical issue?

The 1990 amendments to IDEA left no doubt about Congress' concerns related to minority students in special education. In a word, Congress was concerned about the denial of equal educational opportunities for minority students and the overuse of special education for them.

In commenting on IDEA's discretionary programs, Congress acknowledged that "the Federal Government must be responsive to the growing needs of an increasingly more diverse society," that "America's racial profile is rapidly changing," that recruitment of minority professionals is essential to meet the students' needs, that the limited English proficient population is the fastest growing in the nation, that "greater efforts are needed to prevent the intensification of problems connected with mislabeling and high dropout rates among minority children with disabilities," that "more minority students continue to be served in special education than would be expected from the percentage of minority students in the general school population," that it is necessary to overcome discrimination against minorities in training and education programs, and that it is essential for minority individuals to receive training to participate effectively in special education programs (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1409).

These concerns were hardly new in 1990. Indeed, from the outset (in 1975), IDEA provided for nondiscriminatory evaluation, in recognition of the fact that then-current evaluation procedures and criteria resulted in overrepresentation of minority students in special education (20 U.S.C. Sec. 5(C); Lary P. v. Riles, 1972). Testing and evaluation materials and procedures that are selected and administered so as not to be racially or culturally discriminatory, and that are administered in the student's native language or mode of communication, presumptively would have corrected to some degree or another the problems of overrepresentation. It is fair to say that it was expected that fair evaluation would create a situation where minority groups would be represented in special education and at all points along the continuum of services in accordance to their natural proportions within the general population.

In turn, discriminatory evaluation would have ensured that minority students, having been classified properly, would be provided with a beneficial education, whether in general or special education programs. An appropriate education would have resulted in post-school outcomes for minority students with disabilities that are at least comparable to the post-school outcomes that nonminority students with disabilities can expect.

2. To what extent have these outcomes been achieved in the last five years?

Given that Congress' concerns in 1990 were especially targeted on mitigating the mislabeling of minority students and reducing their dropout rates, and given further that the nondiscriminatory evaluation provisions have sought for nearly 20 years to prevent misclassification and ensure appropriate education, one must conclude that IDEA's goals have not been met.

Although adjustments in evaluation and assessment practices and procedures have been made in several states, often in response to court orders, the use of appropriate evaluation and assessment practices and procedures continues to be a concern. Indeed, current practices have generated a system of identification, classification, and segregation that is fraught with both overrepresentation and underrepresentation of minority students (U.S. Department of Education, 1993).

• Asian-Pacific students are generally underrepresented in disability categories and overrepresented in gifted and talented programs;
  
  
• African-American students still tend to be overrepresented in classrooms for students with mild mental retardation; and
  
  
• Latinos are overrepresented in programs for students with learning disabilities and speech language impairments (Finn, 1982 and Harry, a, as cited in Artiles & Trent, 1994).
  
  
• Native Americans are in classes for students with learning disabilities in disproportionately high numbers; whereas their representation in classes for students who are gifted is consistently low (Chinn & Hughes, 1987).
  
  
• Twenty-six percent of Black and 18 percent of Hispanic children are labeled mentally retarded, while only 11 percent of White children have this label (U.S. Department of Education, 1990, as cited in Shapiro, Loeb, & Bowermaster, 1993).

Furthermore, minority students are dropping out of schools at a much higher rate than students who are White. At the beginning of this decade, the dropout rate for Hispanics was 49 percent, 47 percent for African Americans, and 33 percent for Whites (De La Rosa & Maw, 1990). It is also estimated that one-third of Native American students will eventually drop out of school (Napier, 1992). Compounding this problem is the fact that "about 1 in 4 special education students drop out of high school; 43 percent of those who graduate remain unemployed three to five years after high school, and nearly one third--primarily those with learning and emotional disabilities--are arrested at least once after leaving high school" (Shapiro, Loeb, & Bowermaster, 1993, p. 56). Both the distinguishing characteristics of minority background and disability are placing minority students with disabilities in double jeopardy for dropping out and not attaining the post-school successes intended by IDEA.

Several factors contribute to the problems faced by minority students with disabilities, including inappropriate assessment, incorrect classification, inaccurate placements, and inappropriate instructional practices and services. Only in isolated programs across the United States have positive outcomes for minority students in special education been achieved, and most of these have been programs for Limited English Proficient (LEP) students (U.S. Department of Education, 1993). Problems associated with educating minority students with disabilities remain a hot topic for dissemination in journals today and attest to the fact that positive outcomes for this population are still being sought (Gersten & Woodward, 1994).

3. What educational models/procedures are most effective for achieving these outcomes?

Effective approaches include alternative educational assessment, culturally responsive instructional methodology and materials, and active parental involvement.

Alternative Educational Assessment

Using alternative, nonstandardized methods of educational assessment with multiple criteria seems to be an appropriate and effective assessment process for an ethnolinguistically diverse population. Alternative assessment includes an integrated approach using a variety of measures and data collection methods (e.g., observations, self-reports, checklists, portfolios, inventories, and curriculum-based assessment). This approach provides teachers with relevant and useful information regarding student performance and is valuable in making appropriate instructional decisions (Fradd & McGee, 1994; Hamayan & Damico, 1991). Furthermore, this approach allows for the exploration of the numerous factors and confounding variables (e.g., environmental deprivation, poverty, health problems, language and cultural differences) that affect the performance of minority students and could result in a misdiagnosis.

Culturally Responsive Instructional Methodology and Materials

Culturally responsive instructional practices enhance students' opportunities to reach their fullest potential. The need for a culturally responsive pedagogy is even more critical when referring to minority students with disabilities (Moll, 1992). A culturally responsive pedagogy is characterized by the following:

1. Context Embedded Instruction. Context embedded instruction facilitates the development of responsive classroom environments for all children by providing meaningful content that is culturally responsive and uses students' experiences as tools for building further knowledge (Baca & Cervantes, 1989; Bennett, 1990; Cummins, 1989; Scarcella, 1990).

2. Content Rich Curriculum. Researchers have shown that students who receive instruction within a content rich curriculum develop a positive attitude about learning, a heightened self-concept, and pride in their culture (Durán, 1988; Scarcella, 1990). In addition, a positive vision of minority students by the classroom teacher is essential for an appropriate education (Moll, 1992). Teachers who were convinced that these children from minority backgrounds were competent and capable of learning in an innovative and intellectually challenging curriculum reported higher levels of student achievement.

3. Equitable Pedagogy. An equitable pedagogy, one which varies according to students' needs and the teachers' styles, focuses on providing an appropriate educational experience for all children regardless of their disability or ethnolinguistic background. Instructional practices that facilitate and promote academic success among students within a pluralistic and democratic setting allow students to develop a positive ethnic and national identification (Villegas, 1988).

4. Interactive and Experiential Teaching. Interactive and experiential teaching approaches have been reported by researchers to promote feelings of responsibility, self-pride, and belonging in diverse learners (Obiakor, Algozzine, & Ford, 1993; Voltz & Damiano-Lantz, 1993). This hands-on approach empowers learners as they share the responsibility for the learning process while teachers provide guidance in the construction of knowledge.

5. Classroom Materials and School Environment. Classroom materials and school environment should reflect students' diverse backgrounds (Freeman & Freeman, 1993). Materials that are selected based on their relevance to the content and their significance to the student generate a more meaningful and student-centered learning experience.

Active Parental Involvement

Parental involvement in the educational process is important for students' success in school. Reynolds (1992) reports on the positive influence of parental involvement on children's academic achievement and school adjustment. He discusses a strong correlation between parental involvement in school and the at-risk child's development of self-confidence, motivation, and sense of cohesiveness. Furthermore, families of students who did not drop out and succeeded in school participated in their children's school decisions, demonstrated a motivating and nonpunitive action concerning grades, and were involved to different degrees within the school environment (Rumberger, Ghatak, Poulos, Ritter, & Dornbush, 1990).

4. What educational models/procedures most inhibit these outcomes?

Practices that most inhibit outcomes for children from diverse backgrounds are inappropriate assessment and classification, teachers' lack of cultural competence, traditional teacher-directed, deficit-based methodology, and limited parental involvement.

Inappropriate Assessment and Classification

Traditional assessment for diagnosis, classification, and placement of students has been characterized by standardized psychometric measures developed in the English language. This methodology strongly relies on sophisticated linguistic skills, a context- reduced format, and distinct cognitive skills used to define the intelligence construct. The dearth of assessment instruments in the student's native language and the lack of experienced personnel competent and responsive to cultural and linguistic differences promote a limited vision of the complex nature of the minority student.

Furthermore, the definition of "native language" provided in IDEA regulations can be easily misinterpreted (Figueroa, Fradd, & Correa, 1989). The regulations state that "the term 'native language,' when used with reference to an individual of limited English proficiency, means the language normally used by that individual, or in the case of a child, the language normally used by the parents of the child" (34 CFR Sec. 300.12). Moreover, the regulations note, "In using this term, the Act does not prevent the following means of communication: (1) In all direct contact with a child (including evaluation of the child), communication would be in the language normally used by the child and not that of the parents, if there is a difference between the two" (34 CFR Sec. 300.12, Note). This definition can be confusing and allows for inaccurate assessment procedures. For example, Hispanic children who have acquired some conversational English at school would not necessarily be tested in Spanish, the language of the parents. In fact, only 25 percent of the LEP students' folders reviewed by Ortiz (1986) contained evidence of current language testing, and only a few indicated that children were tested in their native language (as IDEA requires). Such a limited scope of assessment in the native language can result in a biased assessment, misdiagnosis, misplacement, and inappropriate instructional practices and services that reduce minority students' opportunities for success.

Lack of Cultural Competence

The limited number of teachers from minority backgrounds represents a challenge for the increasingly diverse student population. In addition, teacher attitudes and perceptions affect patterns of interaction with the learner and the school curriculum (Porter & Brophy, 1988). Teachers' lack of awareness of their own ethnocentric views and their limited cultural competence regarding minority and diverse students inhibit effective practices with students from diverse backgrounds (Harry, a; Harry, 1992b; Yates & Ortiz, 1991).

Teacher preparation programs are not successfully recruiting and retaining minority students (Hill, Carjuzaa, Aramburo, & Baca, 1993), are providing little curriculum related to culturally responsive pedagogy (Harry, a), and are providing preservice teachers with little or no field experience with students from diverse backgrounds (Burstein & Carbello, 1989; Fender & Fiedler, 1990). It will be difficult for teachers to have a positive impact on minority student outcomes until preservice and in-service programs address these issues.

Teacher-Directed, Traditional Deficit-Based Methodology

Traditional special education practices are disability focused and do not consider the impact culture and language have on cognitive functioning and learning (Franklin, 1992). Teacher-centered approaches limit the student potential and take learning outside the natural context (Poplin, 1988). Drill and practice of concepts and skills in isolation need to be reconsidered as teachers embrace the context embedded approach (Bennett, 1990).

Limited Parental Involvement

Minority families face particular problems that inhibit home-school collaboration. Among those problems are poverty, unemployment, inadequate housing, nontraditional family structures, limited language proficiency, and low educational attainment (Williams, 1992). The daily struggle for survival takes precedence over school concerns and has the potential to affect the child's opportunity to succeed in school. Furthermore, minority families may feel overwhelmed by unfamiliar bureaucratic educational systems. For example, it has been only recently that Native American parents have been involved in local school decision-making (25 U.S.C. Secs. 2601-2651). Nevertheless, overall family input into educational programs remains extremely limited.

5. Provide two or three specific recommendations for action by Congress.

Congress should ensure that children with disabilities from diverse backgrounds will be appropriately evaluated and served through implementation of the following actions: (a) direct OSERS to develop and implement regulations for appropriate or alternative assessment procedures; (b) investigate issues surrounding classification and placement of minority students in special education programs; (c) enact measures that encourage the use of appropriate curriculum and materials; (d) require preservice teacher training programs to include course work and field experience that will prepare future educators to work with children from various ethnic, racial, and linguistically diverse backgrounds. The direct impact of these actions will be evidence that students have achieved in school, decreased drop-out rates, and improved post-school outcomes.

Appropriate or Alternative Assessment Procedures

Congress should make it clear in its Committee Report that OSERS should closely monitor 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1412(5)(C) for implementation of nondiscriminatory selection and administration of evaluation tools and procedures. The directive to OSERS should state Congress' belief that administration in the student's native language is not only desirable but also necessaryand that in the regulations (34 CFR Sec. 300.532 (a)(1); Authority: 20 USC 1412 (5)(C)) the definition for "native language" should be specifically tied to the language used in the home. In addition, the Congressional Report should make clear Congress' belief that compliance with the use of multiple criterion measures during the assessment process is essential to appropriate evaluation and placement. Furthermore, Congress should consider the recommendation by Figueroa (1991) that "...the case law may actually be inadequate to protect bilingual children from misdiagnosis and that the most prudent position may well be to exclude psychometric tests from any aspect of decision making with bilingual populations" (p. 83).

Classification and Placement of Minority Students in Special Education Programs

Congress should conduct an oversight hearing to determine what OSERS, other related federal agencies, and state educational agencies are doing to ensure that minority students are not overrepresented or underrepresented in special education classifications and programs. The misrepresentation of students from minority backgrounds is apparent in most, if not all, categorical areas.

Appropriate Curriculum and Materials

Congress should appropriate additional funds for research and demonstration projects directly related to the development and implementation of appropriate curriculum and materials for minority students with disabilities. In addition, Congress should direct OSERS to award extra credit in the peer-review process to federally funded research and demonstration projects that include a multicultural perspective.

Preservice Teacher Education Programs

Congress should appropriate additional funds for recognized minority institutions to prepare students from minority populations for special education and related service careers as stated in 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1409 (j)(2)(B)(ii). Additionally, Congress should direct OSEP to continue to award extra credit in the peer-review process to federally funded personnel preparation projects that include minority students.

6. Provide two or three specific recommendations for improving IDEA's implementation through federally funded activities, including but not limited to monitoring, technical assistance, personnel preparation, demonstration, and research, to be carried out over the next five years.

OSERS should (a) monitor and investigate the problems associated with misrepresentation of minority students in special education programs and (b) fund research, training, and technical assistance to develop, implement, and monitor best practices associated with culturally responsive assessment, instruction, curriculum, and materials for minority students with disabilities.

Monitor and Investigate the Problems Associated with Misrepresentation

An investigation and monitoring process is needed to understand and correct the underlying causes of misrepresentation of minority students in special education programs. OSERS should establish an agenda on misrepresentation:

• OSERS could fund a research and training institute on misrepresentation of minority students in special education programs.
  
  
• OSERS should revisit the effectiveness of the reevaluation process (34 CFR Sec. 300.534).

Fund Culturally Responsive Practices

Funding is needed to better understand the needs of minority students with disabilities and their families. OSERS should establish a research and training agenda on best practices:

• OSEP could require Parent Training and Information Centers to provide training and technical assistance to their constituents on best practices associated with culturally responsive assessment, instruction, curriculum, and materials for minority students with disabilities.
  
  
• OSEP could establish a priority in funding personnel preparation projects that address the needs of minority students with disabilities and their families.
  
  
• OSERS should fund the dissemination of culturally responsive assessment tools, classroom materials, and curriculum and encourage existing clearinghouses to participate in this endeavor.

7. Provide two or three specific recommendations for improving IDEA's implementation by states and local education agencies.

State and local education agencies should (a) improve school practices for minority students with disabilities and (b) support and strengthen culturally responsive teacher education programs.

Improve School Practices

State and local education agencies should:

• require school districts to improve testing procedures for students with disabilities from diverse backgrounds by incorporating multiple assessment procedures and eliminating standardized measures;
  
  
• reassess current programs and classification procedures for existing misrepresentation of minority students in special education and implement necessary remedies;
  
  
• expand post-secondary education opportunities for minority students with disabilities by supporting effective vocational education, current job training, and school-to-work transition programs; and
  
  
• build partnerships that involve families in their children's learning and in efforts to improve their schools, giving special attention to minority families.

Support and Strengthen Teacher Education

State and local education agencies should:

• develop competencies and certification programs that lead to certification in bilingual/special education;
  
  
• support ongoing substantive and pedagogical retraining for school personnel in areas related to the needs of culturally and linguistically diverse students and their families; and
  
  
• encourage all teacher education programs to include course work and field experience in diversity.

References

Artiles, A. J., & Trent, S. C. (1994). Overrepresentation of minority students in special education: A continuing debate. Journal of Special Education, 27, 418-437.

Baca, L. M., & Cervantes, H. T. (Eds.). (1989). The bilingual special education interface (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Bennett, C. I. (1990). Comprehensive multicultural education: Theory and practice. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Burstein, N. D., & Carbello, B. (1989). Preparing teachers to work with culturally diverse students: A teacher education model. Journal of Teacher Education, 40(5), 9-16.

Chinn, P. C., & Hughes, S. (1987). Representation of minority students in special education classes. Remedial and Special Education, 8, 41-46.

Cummins, J. (1989). A theoretical framework for bilingual special education. Exceptional Children, 56, 102-103.

De La Rosa, D., & Maw, C. (1990). Hispanic education: A statistical portrait 1990. Washington, DC: National Council of La Raza. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. 325 562).

Durán, E. (1988). Functional language instruction for the handicapped or linguistically different students. Journal of Reading Improvement, 25(4), 265-268.

Fender, M. J., & Fiedler, C. (1990). Preservice preparation of regular educators: A national survey of curricular content in introductory exceptional children and youth courses. Teacher Education and Special Education, 13, 203-209.

Figueroa, R. A. (1991) Bilingualism and psychometrics. Diagnostique, 17, 70-85.

Figueroa, R. A., Fradd, S. H., & Correa, V. I. (1989). Bilingual special education and this special issue. Exceptional Children, 56, 174-178.

Fradd, S. H., & McGee, P. L. (1994). Instructional assessment: An integrative approach to evaluating student performance. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Franklin, M. E. (1992). Culturally sensitive instructional practices for African-American learners with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 59, 115-122.

Freeman, D. E., & Freeman, Y. S. (1993). Strategies for promoting the primary language of all students. The Reading Teacher, 46, 552-558.

Gersten, R., & Woodward, J. (1994). The language-minority student in special education: Issues, trends, and paradoxes. Exceptional Children, 60, 310-322.

Hamayan, E. V., & Damico, J. S. (1991). Limiting bias in the assessment of bilingual students. Austin, TX: ProEd.

Harry, B. (1992a). Cultural diversity, families, and the special education system: Communication and empowerment. New York: Teachers College Press.

Harry, B. (1992b). Restructuring the participation of African-American parents in special education. Exceptional Children, 59, 123-131.

Hill, R., Carjuzaa, J., Aramburo, D., & Baca, L. (1993). Culturally and linguistically diverse teachers in special education: Repairing or redesigning the leaky pipeline. Teacher Education and Special Education, 16, 258-269.

Moll, L. C. (1992). Bilingual classroom studies and community analysis: Some recent trends. Educational Researcher, 21(2), 20-24.

Napier, L. A. (1992, November). The Denver, Colorado Public School's American Indian focus schools pilot project. Paper presented at the convention of the University Council for Educational Administration, Minneapolis, MN.

Obiakor, F. E., Algozzine, B., & Ford, B. A. (1993). Urban education, the General Education Initiative, and service delivery to African-American students. Urban Education, 28, 313-327.

Ortiz, A. (1986). Characteristics of limited English proficient Hispanic students served in programs of the learning disabled: Implications for policy and practice. Bilingual Special Education Newsletter, 4, 3-5. Austin, TX: University of Texas.

Poplin, M. F. (1988). Holistic flash constructivist principles of the teaching flash learning process: Implications for the field of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 401-416.

Porter, A. C., & Brophy, J. (1988). Synthesis of research on good teaching: Insights from the work of the Institute for research on teaching. Educational Leadership, 45(8), 74-85.

Reynolds, A. J. (1992). Comparing measures of parental involvement and their effects on academic achievement. Research Quarterly, 7, 441-462.

Rumberger, R. W., Ghatak, R., Polous, G., Ritter, P. L., & Dornbush, S. M. (1990). Family influences on dropout behavior in one California high school. Sociology of Education, 63, 283-299.

Scarcella, R. (1990). Teaching language minority students in the multicultural classroom. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Shapiro, J. P., Loeb, P., & Bowermaster, D. (1993, December 13). Separate and unequal: How special education programs are cheating our children and costing taxpayers billions of dollars. US News and World Report, 46-60.

U.S. Department of Education. (1993). Fifteenth annual report to Congress. Washington, DC: Government Document Service.

Villegas, A. M. (1988). School failure and cultural mismatch: Another view. Urban Review, 20(4), 253-265.

Voltz, D. L., & Damiano-Lantz, M. (1993). Developing ownership in learning. Teaching Exceptional Children, 25, 18-28.

Williams, B. F. (1992). Changing demographics. Intervention in School and Clinic, 27(3), 157-163.

Yates, J. R., & Ortiz, A. A. (1991). Professional development needs of teachers who serve exceptional language minorities in today's schools. Teacher Education and Special Education, 14, 11-18.

Annotated Literature Abstract

Citation

Artiles, A., & Trent, S. (1994) Overrepresentation of minority students in special education: A continuing debate. Journal of Special Education, 27, 410-437.

Abstract

The authors provide a historical and current perspective on the issues of overrepresentation of minority students in special education. In their analysis of the problems in the 1990s, they describe multiple variables affecting overrepresentation, including court cases, debate about systemic issues, demographic and socioeconomic changes, the construction of minority students' school failure, and the fallacy of the cultural diversity-disability analogy. Lastly, the authors propose some solutions for the overrepresentation problem.

Key Points and Quotes

1. The special education system needs to accommodate the needs of minority students with disabilities by including functional assessment, culturally sensitive instruction, and a redefinition of home-school-community relations.

"A functional assessment approach is congruent with the preventive model. In this model, the role of context is considered critical to explaining a student's academic success or failure...The most important components of the functional assessment model are prereferral intervention, direct observation, and curriculum-based measurement." (p. 529)

"...we contend that educators must be trained to use a variety of instructional models that have improved the academic performance of at-risk groups." (p. 529)

"The community of educational researchers ought to lead the efforts to redefine the link between schools, homes, and communities through the implementation of a community-multidisciplinary approach. Different service providers (e.g., schools, mental health, public health, social service agencies) could coordinate efforts with families and communities to render specialized services in an equitable manner. All parties involved in this effort, however, must first assess their level of cross-cultural competency (both at the organizational and individual levels) to offer meaningful assistance to minority families." (pp. 529-530)

2. There is a need for preparing personnel for multicultural education within teacher education programs.

"...greater emphasis should be placed on the recruitment of minority individuals to pursue careers in teaching and educational research (Grant, 1992; Trent, 1992). It is expected that the inclusion of a multicultural component and of more minority educators will benefit the educational system in at least three ways: (a) It will increase the number of minority role models for all pupils and professionals in education, (b) it will expose all pupils to a curriculum that offers diverse perspectives (i.e., it will broaden pupils' world views), and (c) it will allow minority educators to offer their unique input to practitioners, educational reformers, and policymakers." (p. 431)

3. Access to and dissemination of knowledge are fundamental means to advocate and develop policy on behalf of minority students.

"Sophisticated record-keeping systems and regional and national data bases need to be established to document continuously the overrepresentation problem. Likewise, a systematic model to assess and to interpret the overrepresentation data has to be devised. The creation of these systems and data bases will help clarify seemingly conflicting figures or reports by taking into consideration factors such as geographical region, type of disabling conditions, age levels, service options, and so forth. Similarly, efforts to implement reform (e.g., detracking endeavors) ought to be monitored systematically to allow policymakers and educational planners to make informed decisions." (p. 431)

Annotated Literature Abstract

Citation

Gersten, R., & Woodward, J. (1994). The language-minority student in special education: Issues, trends, and paradoxes. Exceptional Children, 60, 310-322.

Abstract

The authors examine the problems associated with referral and instruction of language-minority students in special education. Solutions to the problems of overrepresentation and underrepresentation of language-minority students in special education include understanding bilingual education models and improving effective instructional practices in special education. The authors conclude that collaboration among special education, bilingual education, and general education is needed.

Key Points and Quotes

1. Researchers believe that different models of bilingual instruction can be effective with language-minority students. However, the quality of instruction may play a more important role in teaching language-minority students.

"In a large recent study, Ramirez (1992) also found no significant differences in achievement or levels of academic engagement among students taught with three different bilingual approaches: structured immersion, a native-language-emphasis bilingual approach, and an 'early-exit' bilingual approach (where students had only 2 years of native-language instruction)." (p. 315)

"Overall, it appears that the type of bilingual model selected is less important than the quality of instruction provided (Gersten, 1991; Reyes, 1992; Tikunoff, 1985)." (p. 316)

2. Special educators serving language-minority students should include multiple methods of instruction.

". . .Figueroa et al. (1989) concluded that one of the major flaws in current special education services to students from language-minority groups is the lack of integration between the remedial programs provided by special educators and the students' instructional program in the regular classroom." (p. 317)

"A major concern among bilingual educators is that the task-analytic, skill-building approach used in many special education programs is both functionally and philosophically incompatible with the natural-language (often called 'whole language') approach increasingly used in mainstream classrooms serving students from language-minority groups (Au & Scheu, 1989; Cummins, 1989)." (p. 317)

3. Three areas of instructional practices that are effective for language-minority students in special education include interesting reading materials, comprehensible input, and expressing ideas in new language.

"When students were given an abundance of high-interest story books in English, their progress in reading and listening comprehension increased at almost twice the normal rate." (p. 318)

"Ensuring that students understand the concepts that the teacher attempts to convey involves intentional use of redundancy, more frequent checks for student comprehension, and the use of physical gestures and visual cues. Teachers should try to explain ideas or concepts several times using slight variations in terminology and examples." (p. 318)

"...students from language-minority groups must be pushed to move from learning and producing limited work translations and fragmented concepts, to using longer sentences and expressing more complex ideas and feelings (Barrera, 1984; Gersten, 1993)." (p. 319)

Model Profile

Several models of serving minority students with disabilities have been described in the literature (Friedenberg & Izzo, 1993; Hainsworth, 1993; Ortiz, 1991a). One model that addresses the issues of prereferral, assessment, and intervention of language-minority students was developed at the University of Texas (Ortiz, 1991a, 1991b; Ortiz & Wilkerson, 1991). The Assessment and Intervention Model for the Bilingual Exceptional Student (AIM for the BESt) model is a comprehensive service delivery model that was pilot-tested in four elementary schools in central Texas. Two of the schools served as intervention sites and two served as comparison or control sites.

Steps and Features of AIM for the BESt

Step 1: The regular classroom teacher uses instructional strategies known to be effective for language-minority students. The project staff trained general, bilingual, and special education teachers on using a reciprocal interaction approach to oral and written communication that emphasized higher-order thinking and problem solving. In particular, the teachers were introduced to the Shared Literature and Graves Writing approaches.

Step 2: When a student experiences difficulty, the teacher attempts to resolve the difficulty and validates the problem. The project staff trained the teachers in diagnostic/prescriptive approaches that included sequencing instruction by observing and analyzing student performance to design instructional programs; implementing the program; monitoring the progress; and redesigning instruction as necessary.

Step 3: If the problem is not resolved, the teacher requests assistance from a school-based problem-solving team. The project staff, teachers, and support personnel formed cooperative teams to assist teachers with student-related problems by developing interventions and follow-up plans to resolve the difficulties.

Step 4: If the problem is not resolved by the school-based problem-solving team, a special education referral is initiated. The team's records describing the intervention plans from Step 3 accompanied the referral for special education services. The records were beneficial in assisting the referral team in designing appropriate evaluations and making recommendations.

Step 5: Assessment personnel incorporate informal assessment procedures into the comprehensive individual assessment. Project staff trained personnel in using alternative assessment instruments and strategies to support standardized testing. In particular, curriculum-based assessments in both the native language and English were used with the students.

Step 6: If the child had a disability, special educators used instructional strategies known to be effective for language-minority students. Project staff trained special education teachers in using the reciprocal interactive strategies for instruction. The holistic strategies described in Step 1 also included encouraging expression of students' experiences, language background, and interests to foster success and pride, and peer collaboration and peer approval.

Effectiveness of AIM for the BESt

Overall, the project was a success in producing positive teacher and student outcomes. After training in using the model, the intervention teachers were operating at a higher stage of concern (as measured by the Stages of Concern Questionnaire) on the Share Literature and Graves Writing approaches than when they started the project. The teachers in the comparison group who did not receive the workshops were operating at the lower stages of concern throughout the project. An interesting obstacle to the reciprocal interactive approaches emerged. Intervention teachers were reluctant to replace the standard language and curriculum with the new strategies because the State of Texas had a mandated curriculum and achievement tests were based on the state's skill-specific curriculum.

Teachers expressed positive feelings about the project, reporting that they felt "more energized, enthused, and involved in literature activities" (p. 50). Furthermore, intervention teachers perceived their students to be better writers than did teachers in the comparison schools.

On student outcomes, Ortiz (1991a) noted that intervention students achieved higher scores on English vocabulary (as measured by the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test) and writing samples than did the students in the comparison group.

Lastly, and perhaps more importantly, the AIM for the BESt model successfully reduced the referral of language-minority students to special education. "Of the 100 requests for assistance which occurred over the two-year period, 73 percent were resolved by the regular classroom teacher and/or by using alternatives such as participation in support groups or referral to external agencies for counseling. In contrast, 70-90 percent of the referrals to special education committees result in special education placements (Reynolds, 1984)" (p. 52). The authors concluded that the AIM for the BESt model was more cost-effective than placing a student in special education and gave language-minority students a greater chance at achieving their full potential in the least restrictive environment without the stigma associated with a disability label.

References

Friedenberg, J., & Izzo, M. (1993). A proposed intervention model for serving at-risk limited-English-proficient youth with disabilities. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 30, 81-99.

Hainsworth, P. (1993). Beacon Outreach Program: Final Report 1990-1993. Dedham, MA: Early Recognition Intervention Network (ERIC Document No. 368 119).

Ortiz, A. (1991a). AIM for the BESt: Assessment and intervention model for the bilingual exceptional student. A technical report for the Innovative Approaches Research Project. Austin, TX: University of Texas (ERIC Document No. 341 194).

Ortiz, A. (1991b). AIM for the BESt: Assessment and intervention model for the bilingual exceptional student. A handbook for teachers and planners from the Innovative Approaches Research Project. Austin, TX: University of Texas (ERIC Document No. 341 195).

Ortiz, A., & Wilkerson, C. (1991). Assessment and intervention model for the bilingual exceptional student (AIM for the BESt). Teacher Education and Special Education, 14, 35-42.

Reynolds, M. C. (1984). Classification of students with handicaps. In E.W. Gordon (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. II) (pp. 63-92). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

COLLABORATION

Jacqueline Thousand
The University of Vermont
with
Richard A. Villa
Bayridge Educational Consortium
and
Ann Nevin
Arizona State University

Abstract

1. Collaboration among parents and school personnel enables people with diverse expertise to generate superior solutions to meeting the needs of students. Embedded within the education mandate of IDEA is the acknowledgment that school personnel must collaborate with one another and families to meet students' unique needs.
   
   
2. Students can be effectively served when teachers collaborate to generate instructional strategies. Collaborators can expect improvements at three levels (changes in systems, changes in the skills, attitudes, and behaviors of adult collaborators, and changes in students' academic and social skills).
   
   
3. Promising practices are (a) higher education teacher preparation programs and local in-service training agenda that impart a common conceptual framework, language, and set of technical skills; (b) school restructuring initiatives that promote shared decision making among staff, community members, and students; and (c) school restructuring efforts where leadership advances collaboration and perseveres through the conflict, resistance, and turmoil.
   
   
4. The four most common explanations for the failure of schools to successfully respond to the increasing diversity of the student population and prepare students to function as full members of society are; (a) inadequate teacher preparation; (b) inappropriate organizational structures, policies, and procedures; (c) lack of attention to the cultural aspects of schooling and (d) poor leadership.
   
   
5. Congress should (a) amend students' rights under Part B and Part H to include collaboration of students in their own Individual Education Plans (IEPs), (b) regularly conduct oversight hearings to determine causes and remedies for over-and underrepresentation of culturally and linguistically diverse students in special education, and (c) prioritize funding for personnel preparation and clearinghouses focusing on collaboration training.
   
   
6. OSEP should (a) fund research to investigate outcomes of collaborative teaming processes and (b) fund teacher preparation programs and technical assistance projects with collaboration as a keystone.
   
   
7. State and local education agencies should (a) support school restructuring activities specifically designed to increase collaboration among parents and educators, (b) provide incentives for school districts that implement creative means for structuring time for collaborative activities, (c) in the Comprehensive System for Personnel Development provide certification credit and explicit training strands that focus upon collaboration, and (d) include collaboration competencies in certification, endorsement, and licensure processes.

1. What outcomes signify successful implementation of the topical issue?

Collaboration is an interactive process among parents and school personnel that enables people with diverse expertise to generate creative solutions to mutually defined problems, namely, meeting students' needs. Collaboration is characterized by the following basic elements (Idol, Nevin, & Paolucci-Whitcomb, 1994; Nevin, Thousand, Paolucci-Whitcomb, & Villa, 1990):

• group members agree to view all members, including students, as possessing unique and needed expertise;
  
  
• group members engage in frequent face-to-face interaction;
  
  
• group members distribute leadership responsibilities and hold each other accountable for agreed upon commitments;
  
  
• group members understand the importance of reciprocity;
  
  
• group members emphasize both task completion and relationship building; and
  
  
• group members agree to consciously practice and increase their social interaction and task achievement skills.

Embedded within IDEA is an acknowledgment that educational personnel must collaborate with one another and families if they are to meet students' unique needs and students' rights to free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment.

From the emerging evidence on school-based collaboration, at least three conclusions can be formed with respect to the achievement of this and associated outcomes. First, students can be effectively served when teachers collaborate to generate and merge instructional strategies and accommodation ideas. Second, school personnel can acquire the disposition, knowledge, and skills to collaborate with each other; and the solutions they collaboratively generate to solve educational challenges are enhanced from the original solutions that they produce independently. Third, collaborators can expect positive changes at three levels--(a) changes in schooling systems (e.g., more team teaching among general and special educators); (b) changes in the skills, attitudes, and behaviors of adult collaborators; and (c) changes in students' academic and social skills.

2. To what extent have these outcomes been achieved in the last five years?

Collaboration has been applied to student service configurations such as multidisciplinary or child study teams, service delivery options such as teaching teams, and school-based management practices such as staff development and curriculum planning teams. Although collaboration is not yet the norm in many schools, when it has been applied, it has resulted in improved functioning of school-based teams such as teacher assistance, instructional support, and teaching teams (e.g., Chalfant & Pysh, 1989; Thousand & Villa, 1990; Vermont State Department of Education, 1993, 1994). Recently collaboration has been studied at the preschool level (Peck, Killen, & Baumgart, 1989), elementary school level (Givens-Ogle, Christ, & Idol, 1991; Saver & Downes, 1991; Sumner Elementary School Staff, 1991), secondary school level (Florida Department of Education, 1989, 1990; Kohler, 1993), adult level (Cross & Villa, 1992; Lutkemeier, 1991; Thousand, Villa, Meyers, & Nevin, 1994), and district or statewide systems level (Chapple, 1994; Vermont State Department of Education, 1993, 1994).

Preschool and School-Aged Outcomes

At the preschool level, Peck et al. (1989) found improved student outcomes and increased teacher confidence and willingness to implement Individual Education Plans. At the elementary level, Saver & Downes (1991) studied the outcomes of a Peer Intervention Team that collaboratively generated solutions for teacher-identified instructional problems in a K-6 elementary school. Action plans generated by the team were found to result in fewer, more appropriate referrals for special education placement. When staff members of the Sumner Elementary School in Portland, Oregon, were reorganized into teaching teams and provided with time to meet and plan weekly in their collaborative teams, all students were effectively mainstreamed (Sumner Elementary School, 1991). Givens-Ogle et al. (1991) reported the outcomes resulting from the collaboration of 13 resource specialists in a California school district. Their collaboration resulted in specialized reading and behavior instruction being provided to students in resource rooms and in general education classrooms grades K-6. As a result, 29 students were mainstreamed back into general education reading classes, seven students became ready to be returned, and nine students were dismissed from the special education program and reinstated as general education students. Few studies have been conducted at the secondary level, but those conducted by the Florida Department of Education (1989, 1990) indicated that collaboration improved communication among general and special educators and enabled special education students who were placed in general education to maintain their performance. Finally, a review of 49 studies regarding the transition of youth with disabilities from school to adult life found collaboration with parents and among agencies to be the only factor other than employment training associated with positive post-school student outcomes (Kohler, 1993).

Outcomes for Professionals

For professionals, participation in collaborative processes results in increased competence and a willingness to collaborate with others. For example, Cross and Villa (1992) reported that 43 percent of the general and special education staff of a K-12 Vermont school district attributed their increased competence to teach special education students (including students with severe disabilities) in regular classes to the collaborative processes used to develop, implement, and monitor students' programs. Lutkemeier (1991) reported that 70 to 85 percent of the general education staff surveyed from an Arizona elementary school district supported district-wide implementation of a collaborative model to assist them in meeting the needs of special education students. In a study of the attitudes of over 600 general and special educators and administrators from six states (Arizona, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, New York, and Vermont) and one Canadian province (Ontario), Thousand et al. (1994) found that the education of children with disabilities in general education classrooms demands and/or results in role release through a collaborative planning, teaching, and evaluation process. The vast majority of regular and special educators surveyed believed that special education students can have their academic and social goals met in general education classrooms, that they have a shared responsibility for meeting the needs of all students, and that through collaborative processes they acquire new instructional skills.

System-Wide and Statewide Change Outcomes

Collaborative processes can facilitate system-wide and statewide change. Chapple (1994) reported on the outcomes of implementing pilot district-wide programs to serve Ohio special education students in more inclusive settings. Students made significant increases in the attainment of academic as well as social IEP objectives, with the greatest gains being made by students with multiple disabilities. Students also made significant gains in the areas of reading and math. Moreover, there were positive responses from teachers, parents, and administrators. Parents emphasized that their children had learned more, felt better about themselves, and were able to make and keep new friends. Teachers identified staff development as critical to success of inclusion and they said that the areas most critical to the success of inclusion involved collaborative processes (i.e., collaborative teaming, team teaching, problem-solving, decision making, and cooperative learning).

Polsgrove, Skiba, and Jackman (1994) reported on system-wide changes for a city and county (Indianapolis Schools and Marion County) which required collaboration between schools and other agencies in order to improve the delivery of educational and social services to students with serious emotional disturbance and their families. In addition to cost effectiveness, case studies of individual students showed improvements in academic and social skills. Other changes included increased involvement of families in the day-to-day school activities, curriculum and staff development reforms, and installation of teacher support teams.

An example of statewide impact of collaboration comes from Vermont, the state that leads the nation in the inclusion of children with disabilities in general education, with 83 percent of those children being educated in general classrooms as opposed to just 36 percent nationwide. In l990, Vermont Act 230 declared as state policy that each local school district collaborate with parents to create a local comprehensive system of education services to ensure, to the maximum extent possible, that all students succeed in general education classrooms. To implement this policy, 1 percent of the total state special education budget was dedicated to training teachers and administrators in strategies for effectively collaborating to support students within general education and community settings. Each school was required to establish a collaborative team of educators (i.e., an Instructional Support Team) to help colleagues avoid special education referrals through the team's provision of advice and additional classroom support. The documented cumulative effects of Act 230 (Vermont Department of Education, 1993, 1994) include the following:

• In contrast to the situation in other states, in Vermont the number of students identified for special education decreased by over 17 percent from 1990 to 1994.
  
  
• Student performance, behavior, and social engagement has not diminished.
  
  
• All schools in Vermont have some variation of an Instructional Support Team that overall has been judged effective in supporting teachers to avoid special education referrals through the development of the collaborative problem-solving skills of staff.
  
  
• Many schools have restructured to integrate special education and other remedial services into the general classroom. This effort has increased educators' flexibility to collaborate so as to use team teaching, cooperative learning, and integrated curriculum approaches.
  
  
• Every school has used state funds to expand professional development for all staff in areas such as collaboration, technology, integrated curriculum, discipline systems that teach responsibility, and crisis-prevention management.

3. What educational models/procedures are most effective for achieving these outcomes?

Educational models and procedures likely to be effective for achieving IDEA outcomes (appropriate education in the least restrictive environment) through collaboration are (a) institutions of higher education teacher preparation programs and local in-service training agenda that impart to all of the people who work for and with schools a common conceptual framework, language, and set of technical skills with regard to collaboration; (b) school restructuring initiatives that promote shared decision making among staff, community members, and students as the collaborative ethic and skills are imparted to and practiced by all members of the school community; and (c) school restructuring efforts whose leadership recognizes the resistance to a change from a culture of isolation to a culture of collaboration in a school and is willing and able to persevere through the conflict, resistance, and turmoil.

Teacher Preparation Imparting a Common Conceptual Framework, Language, and Technical Skills

School personnel need to acquire and share a common conceptual framework, language, and a set of technical skills that enable them to more ably respond to an increasingly diverse student body (Villa, 1989). With a common language or shared meaning, special and general educators and related service personnel then are able to discourse about students and strategies, something they are unable to do without common background and training experiences. Although few teacher education programs have collaborated across disciplines or restructured to create a unified educational training program, more and more this is being demanded by school leadership, so that entering professionals have shared meanings and can communicate and collaborate to implement practices that research, theory, and exemplary practice indicate will enable them to respond effectively to student differences.

Some schools have attempted to remediate the deficits of their faculty's preservice preparation (e.g., Cross & Villa, 1992; Villa, 1989). Staff development personnel facilitate comprehensive in-service training events that extend across several years, so that educators progress from acquisition to mastery of the most current collaborative, assessment, curricular, instructional, and disciplinary skills for effectively educating all of the children of their community.

School Restructuring for Shared Decision Making

Many schools have ineffective organizational policies, practices, and procedures that isolate and separate educational professionals (e.g., no or few professional days for staff to attend continuing education events, no time built into the school day or calendar for teachers to collaborate to determine and refine instruction, curriculum, and accommodations to ensure full participation of all students with and without disabilities; 43-minute class periods with teachers instructing in isolation of one another). This separation interferes with teacher effectiveness and students' attainment of desired academic and social outcomes (Villa & Thousand, 1992).

The most effective remedies to these organizational challenges create as part of the school culture, schedule, and mission both time and opportunities for formerly separated general, special, and other educational and community-based support staff to unite and collaborate in planning and teaching. These opportunities to practice collaboration enable the professionals to increase their problem-solving and instructional capacity and to model for their students the importance and methods of effectively collaborating. This is of critical importance; the world for which children must be prepared is a highly complex, information-rich society that will require them to value and collaborate with diverse people--an international community of diverse cultures, values, languages, skills, knowledge, and perceived abilities. Villa and Thousand (1992) suggest that teachers must demonstrate collaboration ethics and practices for students and extend collaboration opportunities to them by inviting students to join in and share (a) decision-making and self-advocacy responsibilities (e.g., join the school board, curriculum committee, discipline policy committee) and (b) instructional/learning responsibilities (e.g., students with and without disabilities learn along with the teachers the "language" and methods of instruction and serve as tutors, cooperative group learning team members, and co-teachers with adults in the classroom and community). Villa and Thousand describe how student-student and student-adult collaborative roles facilitate the attainment of student academic and social goals and empower them to practice the inquiry, advocacy, and collaborative skills for 21st century life--a major goal of IDEA.

Changing School Culture to a Collaborative Culture

To better implement IDEA's mandate, the culture of a school must be transformed to support collaborative problem-solving, planning, and teaching. To facilitate cultural change, school leadership must:

• develop and celebrate new "heroes," rituals, traditions, and symbols that value collaboration
  
  
• make available meaningful incentives to encourage staff to collaborate (e.g., scheduled time to meet and plan, training in collaboration, opportunities to observe experienced collaborators working together, and collaboration as a stated expectation in job descriptions, mission and policy statements)
  
  
• establish collaboration as a norm through job descriptions and job performance expectations so the message is clear that collaboration is an ongoing responsibility, not a voluntary act
  
  
• acknowledge that learning to collaborate is a developmental process that requires regular practice, ongoing training, and feedback opportunities built into the school calendar and day.

School personnel--leadership personnel in particular--must (a) become knowledgeable of the change process (Villa & Thousand, 1992); (b) develop conceptual, technical, and interpersonal skills necessary to facilitate and support people through the change process; and (c) have the courage to deal with the resistance they will encounter as a result of emotional turmoil and cognitive dissonance people typically experience when they go through any change.

4. What educational models/procedures most inhibit these outcomes?

Many school personnel committed to collaborating find the task complex and difficult. The four most common explanations for the failure of schools to respond to the increasing diversity of the student population and prepare students to function as full members of society are (a) inadequate teacher preparation; (b) inappropriate organizational structures, policies, and procedures; (c) lack of attention to the cultural aspects of schooling; and (d) poor leadership (see Villa & Thousand, 1992, for a synthesis of the literature).

Inadequate Teacher Preparation

A first barrier to effective collaboration in schools is the categorical approach to teacher preparation in higher education and the lack of curriculum focus on collaborative skills and ethics. In a national survey of teacher preparedness, Lyon, Vaassen, and Toomey (1989) found that 80 percent of teacher respondents indicated they were inadequately prepared to meet differing student needs. Clearly, colleges and universities share a major responsibility for inadequate preparation of teachers to both expect diversity in the classroom (e.g., the inclusion of children with disabilities in general education) and have the skills to respond to differing student learning styles, rates, and needs. Yet, colleges and universities continue to sort their teacher preparation candidates into categorical programs (e.g., special education, general education, gifted and talented, English as a Second Language) and prepare them to work with only certain types of learners. Collaborative decision-making practices rarely are explicitly taught at the university level.

Inappropriate Organizational Structures, Policies, and Procedures

Inappropriate organizational structures, policies, and procedures often are cited as a second set of reasons for the intractability of schools (Deal, 1987) and the consequent difficulty schools have implementing IDEA. Schools are compartmentalized organizations that thwart rather than promote collaboration and the coordination of resources, ideas, and actions.

Loss of Culture

A third reason often attributed to the failure of collaborative efforts is resistance to the loss of the familiar traditional "I work alone; my business is none of your business" culture of many schools, particularly secondary schools (Deal & Peterson, 1990). "When attachments to people or objects are broken...people experience a deep sense of loss and grief" (Deal, 1987, p.7). As a result, when change threatens the old culture, people (in this case, teachers, administrators, and students, alike) tend to dig in their heels and resist. A shift from an independent to an interdependent school culture requires energy, time, and education on the part of change agents.

Leaders Who Are Naive or Who Leave Prematurely

A final reason for school intractability with regard to collaborative practice and ethic as well as other innovations is that many change agents are naive and/or cowardly (Sarason, 1990). They are naive in that they fail to realize or acknowledge just how complex system change is or how long the process will take. At a minimum, it takes five to seven years for a change to filter through and become the norm in an organization. Leaders also are naive when they fail to link various change initiatives together (e.g., collaborative efforts such as collaborative teaming, interagency cooperation, transition planning) or communicate to others how these initiatives support the overall goals of the district (goals such as economic and social self-sufficiency, independent living, full inclusion and integration into society of all students of the community). Change agents are cowardly when they refuse to deal with the emotional turmoil and conflict that accompanies change initiatives or leave their positions of leadership before the change they have championed has taken hold (e.g., the average tenure of a principal or superintendent in the United States is just over three years).

5. Provide two or three specific recommendations for action by Congress.

Congress can ensure better implementation of free appropriate public education by (a) amending students' rights under Part B and Part H to include meaningful participation (collaboration) of students in their own IEPs; (b) regularly conducting oversight hearings to determine what OSEP and other federal agencies are doing to ensure the meaningful participation and collaboration of parents and professionals from culturally and linguistically diverse populations; and (c) amending IDEA Subchapter IV: Training Personnel to include grants in effective collaboration training for implementing IDEA for personnel training, state educational agencies, and clearinghouses. These actions will have an effect on federally funded activities.

Ensure and Increase the Meaningful Participation (Collaboration) of Students with Disabilities

Including students with disabilities in the decision-making process regarding their educational career is consistent with the empowerment philosophy of IDEA and extends parental rights to the children for whom the law is designed.

• Federal legislation should promote, even mandate, students' roles in the development and evaluation of their own Individual Education Programs and transition planning meetings.

Ensure and Increase the Meaningful Participation (Collaboration) of People from Ethnically and Linguistically Diverse Populations

Currently, there is both underrepresentation and overrepresentation of ethnically and linguistically diverse students in special education services. To avoid either, Congress must assure more meaningful participation and collaboration for people from ethnically and linguistically diverse populations (e.g., Harris & Nevin, 1993). Such collaboration should empower those with differing views about the definitions and methods of treating disabilities as suggested by Morsink, Thomas, and Correa (1991).

• Congress should conduct oversight hearings across the nation to determine (a) why there is overrepresentation and underrepresentation and the impact of this phenomenon on students and their families; (b) what members of ethnically and linguistically diverse groups perceive as "appropriate supports and services" for their cultural and economic circumstances; and (c) how OSEP and other federal agencies can provide special educational services to eligible children and families in ways which respect and support their ethnic and linguistic differences while enabling students to achieve educational outcomes of priority to the child, family, and community.

Ensure Explicit Preparation of All Professionals in Collaborative Processes to Implement IDEA

Although there are several model undergraduate and graduate programs that ensure that public school personnel practice effective collaboration, federal legislation is needed to ensure timely and appropriate development of thoughtful responsive personnel preparation programs for collaboration.

• Congress should earmark federal teacher preparation grant funds to support the infusion of a collaborative ethic and skill development into the curriculum of teacher and other related services professional preparation programs. Congress should direct OSEP to fund preservice and in-service training initiatives that place collaboration at the heart of the curriculum.

6. Provide two or three specific recommendations concerning collaboration for improving IDEA's implementation through federally funded activities, including but not limited to monitoring, technical assistance, personnel preparation, demonstration, and research, to be carried out over the next five years.

There is a lack of agreement related to theoretical constructs, definitions, and measurement systems for preparing all educational professionals (i.e., general and special educators, administrators, counselors, speech professionals, and other related services personnel) to practice collaboration. There also is a compelling need for further approaches for determining collaborators' acquisition and application of relevant underlying knowledge bases, interpersonal communicative, interactive, and problem-solving skills, and intrapersonal attitudes. OSEP should fund research to investigate the application and outcomes of school-based collaboration and fund teacher preparation programs and technical assistance projects that have collaboration as a keystone.

Fund Research to Investigate the Integrity and Outcomes of Applying Collaborative Teaming Process

Research is needed to (a) define and refine best practice indicators of quality collaborative teaming processes for supporting students with disabilities in the LRE of public school; (b) examine the integrity of actual practice of collaboration principles in schools; and (c) identify and measure both student and professional growth outcome yields from the application of collaborative processes.

• OSEP should establish a research agenda on school-based collaboration for the inclusion of students with disabilities in inclusive educational settings. Research should include but not be limited to an examination of the exemplary characteristics and impact of various forms of collaboration (e.g., collaborative planning of individual students' programs; collaborative teaching among general and special educators and other related support services personnel, including students and community members in instruction, program evaluation, and planning) and the integrity of the actual practice of collaboration principles in schools attempting to provide an appropriate education in general education classrooms.
  
  
• OSEP should give priority to research proposals that are initiated by educational agencies and employ a Constituency-Oriented Research and Dissemination (CORD) process whereby school personnel, community members (including students), and researchers jointly identify the collaboration issues and collaborate throughout the entire research, dissemination, and implementation cycle.

Fund Teacher Preparation Programs and Technical Assistance Projects with Collaboration as the Centerpiece

Historically, programs preparing general and special education teachers and programs preparing related services personnel (e.g., speech and language pathologists, physical therapists, nurses) have been separated from one another at the undergraduate and graduate levels. They have not provided trainees with intensive training and experience to develop the necessary skills and dispositions to be effective collaborators in planning, teaching, and evaluating instruction that includes students with special education needs.

• OSEP should fund teacher preparation programs and programs preparing related services personnel that place strong emphasis on theory, practice, and experience in collaborative planning, teaching, and problem-solving processes. Special priority should be given to noncategorical preparation programs that merge professional training programs so that general, special, and related services personnel share common course work and practicum experiences.
  
  
• OSEP should establish a priority for in-service training that focuses upon in-place local school personnel, community members, and students acquiring and practicing collaborative planning, teaching, and evaluation skills for the purpose of achieving the objectives of IDEA.

7. Provide two or three specific recommendations for improving IDEA's implementation by state and local education agencies.

State and local education agencies can (a) support school restructuring and reform activities that are specifically designed to increase collaborative planning, decision making, and problem-solving amongst parents of students with disabilities and educational personnel; (b) provide incentives for school districts that implement creative means for structuring time for collaborative activities; (c) require the Comprehensive System for Personnel Development to provide certification credit and explicit training strands that focus upon collaboration; and (d) include collaboration competencies in the certification, endorsement, and licensure processes and requirements for all educational and related services professionals.

Support School Restructuring/Reform to Increase Collaborative Planning, Decision Making

To address the deep conceptual shifts necessary to make the changes from a bureaucratic to a collaborative ethic, educators must have the opportunity to co-create or construct their beliefs and practices regarding collaboration (Ferguson & Ryan-Vincek, 1992; Harris, Nevin, & Peck, 1992). Schools that legitimate the process of engaging in collaborative teams notice that more inventions occur (Villa, Thousand, Paolucci-Whitcomb, & Nevin, 1990) when administrators make room for teachers to construct their "model" for collaboration and allow there to be multiple approaches to collaboration. Through this process, new questions (and answers) about how to actualize a collaborative ethic emerge: What are the purposes of collaboration? Who benefits? Who is trained? Who gets to participate and be empowered? What are organizational and staff development assumptions and needs? What is needed for accountability? What research methodologies and questions are needed to document effectiveness of collaboration?

• State education agencies should fund and arrange technical support for local school restructuring efforts that target increased collaborative planning, teaching, and evaluation among general and special education, all to ensure an appropriate education in general education and community settings. State education agencies should encourage schools to employ Constituency-Oriented Research and Dissemination (CORD) to bring school personnel, community members (including students), and researchers together to jointly construct their conceptualization of collaboration, identify the collaboration questions, and collaborate throughout to answer those questions.
  
  
• State education agencies should work with Parent Training and Information Centers to assure that knowledge of and training in collaborative processes also are available to family members so they may more effectively participate as equal team members in determining the educational programs of their children.
  
  
• State education agencies should promote organizational restructuring reform through the promotion of legislation and regulation reform as was done through Vermont's Act 230 (see Question #2 for details and outcomes).

Provide Incentives for School Districts That Structure Time for Collaborative Activities

At the local level, decision makers who generate creative means to arrange released time for participating in collaborative activities, as well as ensuring the presence of additional staff, find that better programs for students with disabilities are provided.

• Local education agencies should identify teacher incentives for collaborative planning (e.g., regular full or half-day opportunities to collaborate; collaboration time built into the daily schedule).

Provide Certification Credit for Explicit Training for Collaboration to Implement IDEA in the Comprehensive System for Personnel Development

Indeed, the most compelling training is the actual participation and experiential learning that occurs when people with diverse expertise and opinions actually proceed through the collaborative problem-solving and decision-making processes. At the state and local levels, there is a need to create incentives and coordinate and streamline the myriad staff development activities so that general and special educators can participate together in collaboration training.

• State education agencies can require the Comprehensive System for Personnel Development (CSPD) to include explicit training for collaboration for all professionals who work in and for schools. The CSPD can schedule training so as to allow participants themselves to be collaboratively prepared rather than prepared separately in "discipline exclusive" groupings (e.g., special vs. general vs. compensatory; parent vs. school personnel; administrators vs. teachers; community vs. school staff).
  
  
• Local education agencies can include incentives such as recertification credits for school personnel who participate in collaboration training events and activities and host their own in-service agenda that highlights collaborative processes.

Reform Certification, Endorsement, and Licensure Systems to Include Collaboration Competencies

School personnel need to acquire a common conceptual framework, language, and set of technical skills. The competencies that empower school professionals to collaborate and communicate so as to implement practices that support an increasingly diverse student body are known (e.g., Villa, 1989); and Communication and Collaborative Partnerships was identified by the Council for Exceptional Children Professional Standards and Practice Standing Committee as one of eight common core knowledge and skill areas essential for special education practitioners (Swan & Sirvis, 1992). Although teacher preparation programs have a responsibility to reorganize and require their teacher educators to model effective practices and standards, very few institutions of higher education actually provide comprehensive training in the collaboration competencies and skills required of 21st century educators. Significantly, the curricula of teacher preparation programs are guided by the requirements of state certification boards.

• State education certification boards and agencies should include a comprehensive set of collaboration competencies in the certification, endorsement, and licensure requirements and processes for all educational and related services professionals.

References

Chalfant, J., & Pysh, M. (1989). Teacher assistance teams: Five descriptive studies. Remedial and Special Education, 10(6), 49-58.

Chapple, J. (1994, Oct.). Data demonstrates inclusion works in Ohio. Paper presented at the Fourth International Conference on Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, Arlington Heights, IL.

Cross, G., & Villa, R. (1992). The Winooski School district. In R. Villa, J. Thousand, W. Stainback, & S. Stainback (Eds.), Restructuring for caring and effective education: An administrative guide to creating heterogeneous schools (pp. 219-237). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Deal, T. (1987). The culture of schools. In L. Shieve & M. Schoenheit (Eds.), Leadership: Examining the elusive (pp. 3-15). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Staff Development.

Deal, T., & Peterson, K. (1990). The principal's role in shaping school culture. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Ferguson, D., & Ryan-Vincek, S. (1992, April). Problems with teaming in special education: From technical solutions to reflective practice. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

Florida Department of Education. (1989). Evaluating effectiveness, usefulness, practicality of cooperative consultation--1987-1988 pilot study in Florida secondary schools. Research Report 10. Tallahassee, FL: Author.

Florida Department of Education (1990, Nov.). Cooperative consultation regional training 1989-1990. Research Report 12. Tallahassee, FL: Author.

Givens-Ogle, L., Christ, B., & Idol, L. (1991). Collaborative consultation: The San Juan Unified School District Project. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 2(3), 267-284.

Harris, K. C., & Nevin, A. (1993). Exploring collaboration between bilingual and special educators. The Consulting Edge: Publication of the Association for Educational and Psychological Consultants, 5(1), 1, 3, 5.

Harris, K., Nevin, A., & Peck, C. (1992). A constructivist approach to collaborative consultation: An emerging paradigm. Working Paper #1, Arizona State University West, College of Education, P.O. Box 37100, Phoenix, AZ 85069-7100.

Idol, L., Nevin, A., & Paolucci-Whitcomb, P. (1994). Collaborative consultation (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Kohler, P. D. (1993). Best practices in transition: Substantiated or implied. In P. Kohler et al. Transition from school to adult life: Foundations, best practices, and research directions. Champaign-Urbana, IL: University of Illinois. (ERIC Doc. ED358607)

Lutkemeier, D. (1991). Attitudes and practices regarding the implementation of collaborative educational services. The Consulting Edge: A Publication of the Association for Educational and Psychological Consultants, 3(2), 1-3.

Lyon, G. R., Vaassen, M., & Toomey, F. (1989). Teachers' perception of their undergraduate and graduate preparation. Teacher Education and Special Education, 12, 164-169.

Morsink, C., Thomas, C., & Correa, V. (1991). Interactive teaming: Consultation and collaboration in special programs. New York: Macmillan.

Nevin, A., Thousand, J., Paolucci-Whitcomb, P., & Villa, R. (1990). Collaborative consultation: Empowering public school personnel to provide heterogeneous schooling for all--or, Who rang that bell? Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 1(1), 41-67.

Peck, C., Killen, C., & Baumgart, D. (1989). Increasing implementation of special education instruction in mainstream preschools: Direct and generalized effects of nondirective consultation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 22(2), 197-210.

Polsgrove, L., Skiba, R., & Jackman, C. (1994, Nov.). Case study examples of the impact of interagency collaboration to improve the delivery of services for students with serious emotional disturbance. Paper presented at the 18th Annual Conference for Children with Behavior Disorders, Tempe, AZ.

Sarason, S. (l990). The predictable failure of school reform: Can we change course before it is too late? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Saver, K., & Downes, B. (1991). PIT crew: A model for teacher collaboration in an elementary school. Intervention in School and Clinic, 27(2), 116-122.

Sumner Elementary School Staff. (1991). Collaborative teaming: Building success for all. The Consulting Edge, 3(1), 1-4.

Swan, W. W., & Sirvis, B. (1992, Fall). The CEC common core of knowledge and skills essential for all beginning special education teachers. Teaching Exceptional Children, 16-20.

Thousand, J., & Villa, R. (1990). Sharing expertise and responsibilities through teaching teams. In W. Stainback & S. Stainback (Eds.), Support networks for inclusive schooling: Interdependent integrated education (pp. 151-166). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Thousand, J., Villa, R., Meyers, H., & Nevin, A. (1994, April). The heterogeneous education teacher survey: A retrospective analysis of heterogeneous (full inclusion) education. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Education Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Vermont Department of Education. (1993). Vermont's Act 230 three years later: A report on the impact of Act 230. Montpelier, VT: Author.

Vermont Department of Education. (1994). Act 230 evaluation: 1993-1994 preliminary results. Montpelier, VT: Author.

Villa, R. A. (1989). Model public school in-service programs: Do they exist? Teacher Education and Special Education, 12, 173-276.

Villa, R. A., & Thousand, J. S. (1992). Student collaboration: An essential for curriculum delivery in the 21st century. In S. Stainback & W. Stainback (Eds.). Curriculum considerations in inclusive classrooms: Facilitating learning for all students (pp. 117-142). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Villa, R., Thousand, J., Paolucci-Whitcomb, P., & Nevin, A. (1990). In search of new paradigms. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 1(4), 279-292.

Annotated Literature Abstract

Citation

Thousand, J., & Villa, R. (1992). Collaborative teams: A powerful tool in school restructuring. In R. Villa, J. Thousand, W. Stainback, & S. Stainback (Eds.), Restructuring for caring and effective education: An administrative guide to creating heterogeneous schools (pp. 73-108). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Abstract

Human motivation theory and teacher empowerment and school restructuring research suggest that bringing together people with diverse expertise (i.e., classroom teachers, specialists, parents, administrators, students themselves) through a structured collaboration process is central to successfully educating children with and without disabilities together in general education settings. The chapter describes concrete strategies for promoting the five critical elements of an effective collaborative process, a teacher-generated format for conducting meetings, and a checklist for collaborators to use to assess the integrity of their collaboration.

Key Points and Quotes

1. Collaboration is critical to school reorganization and essential for meeting the needs of children with and without disabilities.

"Within the school restructuring movement, collaborative teams and teaming processes have come to be viewed as vehicles for inventing the solutions that traditional bureaucratic school structures have failed to conceptualize....Team structures bring together people of diverse backgrounds and interests so they may share knowledge and skills to generate new and novel methods for individualizing learning without the need for the current dual systems of general and special education....Collaborative teams enhance teachers' potential for survival and power in educating a diverse student body by creating opportunities for: 1) the regular exchange of needed resources, expertise, and technical assistance; and 2) professional growth through reciprocal peer coaching." (pp. 74-75)

2. There are demonstrated strategies to promote effective adult collaboration within schools.

"For both adults and children, groups perform best when the five elements that define the collaborative teaming process are in place...:

1. Face-to-face interaction among team members on a frequent basis

2. A mutual "we are all in this together" feeling of positive interdependence

3. A focus on the development of small group interpersonal skills...

4. Regular assessment and discussion of the team's functioning and setting of goals for improving relationships and more effectively accomplishing tasks

5. Individual accountability on each member's part for agreed-upon responsibilities and commitments during and outside of team meetings...

In observing and working with school-based teams across North America, the authors have discovered...a variety of strategies for ensuring that teams experience or practice each of the five elements." (pp. 76-77)

Annotated Literature Abstract

Citation

Givens-Ogle, L., Christ, B., & Idol, L. (1991). Collaborative consultation: The San Juan Unified School District Project. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 2(3), 267-284.

Abstract

In this field-based evaluation report of outcomes of the actual implementation of school consultation as a method of delivering special education services, the authors describe (a) the procedures necessary to bring about implementation of a collaborative consultation approach to providing resource services, (b) the 75-hour training program for the resource specialists in this California district that prepared them for the new collaborative roles, and (c) preliminary evaluation data on the progress of individual students and groups of elementary students who received specially designed reading instruction, and individual students who received specially designed interventions to increase appropriate social behaviors as a result of the collaboration between the resource specialists and general educators. Significantly, 29 special education students were included in their general education reading classes, seven students made enough progress to be deemed nearly ready to be returned to their general education reading classes, and nine students were totally dismissed from the special education programs and reinstated as general education students.

Key Points and Quotes

1. There is a need for re-training of special educators and general educators.

"Special education resource teachers were taught methods for (a) rapidly increasing the academic and social abilities of students, (b) collaboratively working with classroom teachers to help students transfer what they learned in resource rooms to general education settings, and (c) preventing resource room placement by collaboratively working with regular classroom teachers to instruct at-risk students in their usual classrooms. The model makes extensive use of curriculum-based assessment to place students in instructional materials. Instructionally, emphasis is placed on use of the principles of applied behavior analysis and data-based decision making." (p. 268). (See, for example, Idol, Nevin, & Paolucci-Whitcomb, 1994, for more details).

2. Collaboration can occur spontaneously as a result of shared training events.

"An unexpected and positive phenomenon occurred that increased the overall training time--the resource [teachers] evolved into a self-directed collaborative group. After basic training in curriculum-based assessment, data-based instruction and applied behavior analysis, they spent a portion of each weekly meeting sharing data collected on their students' performance, discussing interventions, and problem solving as a group." (p. 273) ⁽¹⁾

⁽¹⁾ Idol, L., Nevin, A., & Paolucci-Whitcomb, P. (1994). Collaborative consultation (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Model Profile

A best-practice model of collaboration is being implemented at Swanton (Vermont) Elementary School (SES) in the Franklin Northwest Supervisory Union (FNWSU), which is a collection of five independent school districts in rural northwestern Vermont. SES is a school of 630 children, 45 percent of whom are eligible for free, reduced lunch; 20 percent of whom are of Native American Abnaki descent; and 9 percent of whom have been assessed and found eligible for special education. The school community (located in two adjacent buildings) is divided into four subgroups or "houses." Each house serves approximately 155 students in multi-aged combinations (i.e., K-2nd grade; 2nd-4th grade, 4th-6th grade, 5th and 6th grade). Classrooms in houses are interconnected and share a large common area onto which all classrooms open. This is a deliberate physical plant design feature, allowing teachers and students to access an additional space that could replace a separate resource room outside of the classroom area. Each house is staffed by six to seven teachers, one special educator who supports teachers through team teaching and consultation, and up to three or four paraprofessionals. Each building has a community room that promotes home-school-community collaboration; the room is used at all hours of the day and evening for adult basic education classes, play groups, health clinics, and parent or community meetings.

The house model of collaboration was introduced in 1992 because of the school's strong inclusive educational philosophy, as reflected in the school's mission statement that characterizes its children and adults as "a caring, responsible, respectful community of learners." The school's special education coordinator said that this mission deliberately avoids the use of language such as "collaboration" and "all learners" because both are understood "givens" that are implicit in all that teachers and students do (Quinn Malgeri, 1994). A major benefit of the collaborative house model is it allows for a high adult/student ratio. House members have common lunch and team preparation times and are joined weekly by support services personnel; this arrangement affords team members multiple opportunities to meet and jointly plan lessons and develop accommodations for any student, whether or not the student is eligible for special services. One unique collaborative practice of the school is that each teacher has one or two self-selected professional "peer buddies" with whom they plan, problem-solve, and provide social and emotional support; a second is that the performance evaluation for general educators and the job description of support personnel assess and require collaboration as a primary profession responsibility.

In SES, children with IEPs whose needs demand complex planning are supported by a "core" collaborative team that meets regularly. A core team typically consists of the classroom teacher, special educator, sometimes a paraprofessional, and the parent (or parent surrogate) of the student. Other team members (i.e., outside consultants such as occupational therapists, physical therapists, physicians) are accessed as needed. Because all children are included in general education classrooms, not only do support personnel (specialists and so on) become collaborative learning/teaching partners, but so do students. Opportunities are provided for language and social skill development that cannot occur in segregated educational settings. In addition, higher expectations set by peers and adults create the norm for social skill and language development, which in turn sets the stage for future growth, thus increasing the likelihood that students with disabilities will become "contributing adults."

Furney and Hasazi (1994) observed classes and interviewed support services specialists, teachers, paraprofessionals, administrators, students, and community service providers. They found that the school climate at SES was "clearly reflective of a school that valued each of its learners, believed in team work, ... [where] students of all abilities, shapes, and sizes worked and played together regularly in classrooms and on the playground" (p. 10). For example, Josie (a pseudonym) is a student with autism who is in third grade with other learners. Josie's core collaborators include his third grade teacher, a paraprofessional, a support services specialist, an administrator, and his parents. Occasionally other people are included as needed (e.g., the facilitated communication consultant who helped Josie's classmates learn how to provide facilitated communication). Josie's team set up an interagency agreement to provide respite services and therapeutic case management, with a representative from the Community Mental Health System in the oversight role for Josie's after-school needs. Josie and his classmates talk with each other by successfully and appropriately using the computer. Norms for Josie's behavior have been developed by the collaborative team and include the agreement to not intervene too soon and to hold Josie accountable to the same rules as his classmates.

The faculty and staff of SES have had multiple opportunities for professional development and readily solicit collaboration from outside community and university resources. As reported by Furney and Hasazi (1994, p. 18), one teacher remarked, "Training has always been given to us no matter when we've needed it. Especially if a problem comes up, even before the problem comes up, she'll (the principal) say, 'Well, let's get this agency in here. Let's access this, and let's access that.'" The staff's capacity to provide appropriate, individualized instruction has been built through university course work being offered on the SES campus, action research participation with the Northeast Regional Laboratory for Educational Research, state and federal demonstration grants, intensive topical workshops such as Crisis Prevention Management, and the linkage of teachers' professional development plans with school task force activities (which this year focused on issues of literacy, student responsibility, middle school education, and technology).

Since 1983, SES, central office administration, and the school board have joined forces to transform the formerly segregated provision of special education to a comprehensive school and community-wide inclusion-oriented model (for a brief history, see Schattman, 1992). Parents of children with and without disabilities have been schooled in the importance of all children enjoying meaningful educational opportunities within their home communities. To illustrate, one parent of a child with disabilities remarked, "He's at a place where everybody is bonded and they are all working for him. If something comes up and there is a question he always has somebody there that is going to pull for him. It's not just me, it's not me alone...I have all these other people....That's the biggest thing is the kids' needs are first." A teacher echoed this sentiment, saying, "The biggest thing that didn't hit me until last year is we don't wave goodbye to part of our population in the mornings anymore...We used to have children who were shipped to (another town) for special education...we don't do that anymore"(Furney and Hasazi, 1994, p. 5).

In summary, collaboration seems to be the cornerstone to the success of these efforts. Teachers, paraprofessionals, administrators, and parents alike name teaming and collaboration as a key element in the success of their work with children who are challenging to educate. For example, a surrogate parent remarked, "What I see is a team here. When we have our IEP meetings, the principal has been here, a person from Chapter I, the reading specialist, the math specialist, and her teacher are always here. Her parents have been invited and welcomed....So we can really work together." A paraprofessional stated, "Over the...years my role has evolved so that I've gotten more into the classroom and [am] collaborating with teachers....We've gone from pull-out to collaboration" (Furney & Hasazi, 1994, p. 6).

For more information, contact:

Mary Lynn Riggs, Principal
Cathy Quinn Malgeri, Special Education Coordinator
Swanton Elementary School
Franklin Northwest Supervisory Union
Swanton, Vermont 05488
FAX: (802) 868-4265
Phone: (802) 868-5346

References

Furney, K., & Hasazi, S. (1994). Swanton Elementary School: Themes emerging from a study of the implementation of Vermont's Act 230. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Department of Education, Waterman Building.

Quinn Malgeri, C. (1994, Nov.). Leadership for inclusive schooling. Paper presented at the LRP Inclusion Conference, Tampa, FL.

Schattman, R. (1992). The Franklin Northwest Supervisory Union: A case study of an inclusive school system. In R. A. Villa, J. S. Thousand, W. Stainback, & S. Stainback (Eds.), Restructuring for caring and effective education: An administrative guide to creating heterogeneous schools (pp. 143-159). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.