post school

8/10/2019 Post School

1/18

AMERICANSECONDARYEDUCATION39(2) SPRING2011

POSTSCHOOLGOALSAND

TRANSITIONSERVICESFORSTUDENTSWITHLEARNINGDISABILITIES

AUTHORS

ALFRED

W. DAVISO

, PH

.D., is an Assistant Professor with the Departmentof Curricular Instructional Studies at Akron University in Akron, Ohio.

STEPHENC. DENNEY, PH.D.,is an Assistant Professor with the Department

of Inclusive Services and Exceptional Learners at Ashland University in Ash-

land, Ohio.

ROBERTM. BAER, PH. D.,is Outreach Director for the Center for Innovation

and Transition and Employment at Kent State University in Kent, Ohio.

ROBERTFLEXER, PH.D.,is a Distinguished Professor with the Department of

Lifespan Development and Educational Sciences at Kent State University in

Kent, Ohio.

ABSTRACT

This article describes the initial findings for students with learning disabilitiesfrom the first year of The Ohio Longitudinal Transition Study (OLTS). Thestudy included 416 participants with learning disabilities who were exitinghigh school. Data from an in-school survey were analyzed by sample demo-graphics (e.g. school setting, school type, gender, and ethnicity) and by vari-ous postschool goals (e.g. employment, postsecondary education). Findingsindicated that the students courses of study were tied to their postschoolgoals. Ratings provided by students indicated that students with learning dis-abilities were discerning consumers of transition planning and services. Rec-


2/18


POSTSCHOOLGOALSANDTRANSITIONSERVICES DAVISO, DENNEY, BAER, FLEXER

The identification of transition services that promote positive postschool

outcomes is critical. In spite of almost twenty years of mandated transi-

tion services, students with learning disabilities (LD) continue to experience

postschool outcomes that are less desirable than individuals without dis-

abilities (Mellard & Lancaster, 2003; SRI, 2005). In most studies that follow-

up on postsecondary outcomes, students with LD continue to lag behind

their peers in employment outcomes (Fourqurean et al., 1991; Haring et al.,

1990; Janiga & Costenbader, 2002; Rojewski, 1999; Scuccimarra & Speece,

1990). Their postsecondary education outcomes are also substantially less

favorable than those of individuals without disabilities (Fourqurean et al.,

1991; Haring et al., 1990; Janiga & Costenbader, 2002; Rojewski, 1999;

Scuccimarra & Speece, 1990). Additionally, students with LD who partici-

pate in postsecondary education often have to take remedial classes and

smaller course loads, which lengthen the time required to complete their

degree requirements (Fourqurean et al., 1991; Vogel & Adelman, 2001).

Students with LD have generally perceived their secondary education

as a way to get a better job and a better overall quality of life, as well as a

way to gain college entrance (Kortering & Braziel, 2002); however, the post-

school outcomes they anticipate often differ from the postschool results theyexperience. Thompson et al. (2000) found that, although 86% of students

with LD anticipated participating in postsecondary education, many of them

had not even taken entrance exams. Additionally, transition planning and

services provided for students with LD have varied greatly across schools

(Goldberg et al., 2003; Hitchings et al., 2001), suggesting that there is little

consensus regarding which transition practices are truly effective. Studies

have also found that students with LD were dissatisfied with the information

provided to them at the secondary level regarding college services and theprocess for documenting the need for specific accommodations (Janiga &

Costenbader, 2002; Vogel & Adelman, 2001).

Follow-up studies on employment outcomes for students with LD have

indicated that they were generally satisfied with their current employment,

but few had ever received a raise or a promotion (Haring et al., 1990; Ro-

jewski, 1996, 1999; Scuccimarra & Speece, 1990). Some transition services

were positively correlated with career advancement: vocational training,

opportunities for career exploration, and on the job training (Lindstrom& Benz, 2002), but studies on employment outcomes showed little evi-


3/18


DAVISO, DENNEY, BAER, FLEXER POSTSCHOOLGOALSANDTRANSITIONSERVICES

goals and whether those services were satisfactory from the students point

of view. Of primary importance was the congruence between the students

secondary programs, their expected postschool goals, and their satisfaction.

Specifically, the research questions that guided this study were:

1. What were the employment and postsecondary education goals of

individuals with LD exiting secondary education in Ohio?

2. How well did the students secondary program and transition ser-

vices predict their postschool goals after controlling for students

characteristics?

3. What did students perceive as the most helpful in meeting their tran-

sition goals at the time of high school exit?

METHOD

PARTICIPANTS

The population studied was a large sub-sample of students surveyed as part

of the Ohio Longitudinal Transition Study (OLTS). In this study, 250 local

education agencies (LEA) were asked to voluntarily participate and collect

data to represent a cross-section of urban, suburban, and rural areas. Ateach of the 48 LEAs that agreed to participate, all students with an IEP who

graduated or aged out of special education in 2004 were surveyed.

Students with LD made up 57.9% of the total sample. Table 1 shows

how the LD subsample compared to the overall OLTS sample and to stu-

dents with LD statewide. As shown in this table, the subsample generally

matched the profile of students who had exited in 2004 except for a minor

underrepresentation of minorities.


4/18



Table 1. Comparison of Participants in Study to OLTS

Demographics Study Sample OLTS Sample Ohio Diplomates

2000Total n (416) % n (741) % n (9,709) %

Gender

Male 253 60.1 432 58.5 * *

Female 162 38.8 307 41.4 * *

Ethnicity

White 348 83.7 592 81.1 8,257 85.0

African-American 43 10.3 101 13.6 1,283 13.2

Other Ethnicity 25 6.0 37 5.3 169 1.8

School Setting

Urban 118 28.5 230 31.3 * *

Suburban 219 52.2 385 52.4 * *

Rural 75 18.2 120 16.3 * *

Note. *Not available from the 24th Annual Report to Congress (Baer et al., 2005).

INSTRUMENT

The survey used in this study consisted of two partsa student record re-

view and a student/family interview. It was derived from a follow-up sur-

vey developed by Ohios systems change project for transition (Baer, et al.,

2003), and from follow-up surveys developed for the National Longitudinal

Study for Transition (Blackorby & Wagner, 1996). The surveys face validity

was tested over four years at ten LEAs (Baer et al., 2003).

During piloting, the teachers administering the surveys evaluated the

survey process and each question in the survey for clarity, content, and

reliability. Survey questions were discarded or revised if the teachers found

they were hard for students to understand, lacked consistent interpretation,

or elicited unreliable information based on what the teachers administering

the surveys knew about their students. Student responses to some questions

were cross-checked against student records to determine whether they were

congruent with information known about the student. Items with less than

95% agreement were discarded. After the survey questions were refined

and edited the questionnaire was put into a bubble format for easier cod


5/18



PROCEDURE

Participants were surveyed in the spring of their final year in school. Sur-

veys were conducted by the students special education teachers in person,

generally as part of the students exit IEP. In most cases, students provided

all of the information on their own, but for approximately 4% of students

with LD this information was provided by parents or significant others. Prior

to the interview, teachers conducted a record review to obtain information

about student disability designations and the secondary education programs

in which they were involved. Teachers were trained to administer the sur-

veys and code student responses during two half-day sessions. They were al-

lowed to paraphrase questions in order to make them more understandable.A sample copy of the survey can be found at www.olts.org.

ANALYSIS

Descriptive statistics and frequency counts were performed on the data to

indicate the distribution of employment and post-secondary employment

goals of students with LD, courses of study, service participation, and sat-

isfaction. Means and frequencies were analyzed for differences based on

gender, school setting, ethnicity, and type of school. The analysis of descrip-tive statistics was used to answer the first research question and to identify

variables that may significantly impact transition services.

A chi-square analysis was used to identify variables that significantly in-

fluenced students transition services (gender and vocational participation).

It is a goodness of fit test suggested by Huck (2000) to compare two or more

samples on a dichotomous variable. One-way ANOVAs were employed to

assess statistical significance when three or more sub-groups were com-

pared (i.e., ethnicity, school setting, and school type). T-tests and ANOVAsare appropriate statistical measures of mean differences or scores between

sub-groups (Huck). The type of analysis for each comparison depended on

the nature of the dependent variable.

The chi-square analysis and a review of the literature were used to

identify variables for a logistic regression analysis to see whether students

transition services predicted their postschool goals after controlling for other

variables. The use of logistic regression allows odds ratios to be calculated

for prediction. This process was completed twice in order to identify predic-tors for employment and for postsecondary education goals, with or without


6/18



FINDINGS

POSTSCHOOLGOALSANDCOURSESOFSTUDY

The categories of students employment and postsecondary education goalsare listed in Table 2. Students identified as many goals as appropriate. For

example, a student could choose both work and postsecondary education,

or they could indicate multiple postsecondary education options. The post-

school goal responses indicated that over 80% of the students anticipated

some type of employment, and almost 70% of the sample anticipated partici-

pating in some type of postsecondary education. (This was a non-duplicated

count; some students chose more than one postsecondary education option).

Table 2. Expected Postschool Goals for all Students with Learning Disabilities

Postschool goals % of sample ( n= 416)

Work full-time 53.1

Work part-time 30.3

Attend a 2-year college 32.5

Attend a 4-year college 29.8

Attend a technical school 17.5

Enlist in military 6.0

Receive vocational rehabilitative training services 5.3

Receive other training services 5.0

Any postsecondary education 69.6

Other 3.4

The courses of study and transition service categories included edu-cational activities in which students participated while in secondary edu-

cation. Table 3 shows the respondents participation in various courses of

study and transition services.


7/18



Table 3. Course of Study Participation Percentages

Educational activity % ( n= 416)

Some mainstream academics 90.6 (344)

Vocational classes 59.4 (247)

Mainstream academics for specials & electives only 22.8 (95)

Self-contained classes .2 (1)

Work study 30.3 (126)

Career and technical education 57.9 (241)

Option 4/job training services 4.1 (17)

A chi-square analysis of gender indicated that males were significantly

more likely to choose full-time employment (X2= 5.01,p< .016) whereas

females were significantly more likely to expect part-time employment after

graduation (X2= 10.34,p< .001). In regard to postsecondary education, fe-

males were significantly more likely to choose a 2-year college (X2= 4.239,

p< .026) and 4-year college participation (X2= 4.34,p< .025), whereas

males were significantly more likely to choose technical school (X2= 10.46,

p< .001). Males were more likely to expect enlistment in the military (X2=

10.15,p< .001), whereas females were more likely to expect enrollment in

any postsecondary education (X2= 3.93,p< .030).

A chi-square analysis of school settings and students goals revealed

statistically significant differences in school setting for students with goals of

4-year college (X2= 6.54,p< .038) and technical school participation (X2=

11.68,p< .003). Students from rural settings were less likely to anticipate

enrollment in a 4-year college than students from suburban settings (X2=

6.30, p < .012). Expectations of enrolling in technical school enrollment

was significantly less likely for students from suburban settings than for stu-

dents from urban settings (X2= 9.87,p< .002) or students from rural settings

(X2= 5.78,p< .016).

A chi-square analysis indicated a significant difference in vocational

class participation (X2= 5.72,p< .017), with males taking more vocational

classes than females. Males also participated in career and technical educa-

tion at significantly higher rates than females (X2

= 5.34,p< .021). A chisquare analysis also showed that African American students participated in

k t d t i ifi tl hi h t th Whit Hi i


8/18



PREDICTIONOFPOSTSCHOOLGOALS

The second research question focused on the relationship between the stu-

dents demographic characteristics, school characteristics, transition ser-

vices and their postschool goals. A logistic regression analysis was used to

identify predictors for samples of students who chose employment only (See

Table 4) and for those who chose postsecondary education only (See Table

5). The Exp (B) is an index which estimates the likelihood or probability of

an outcome or event occurring (Huck, 2000). For example, after controlling

for demographic covariates, students who participated in vocational educa-

tion were almost four times more likely to choose employment only as a

postschool goal (Exp B= 3.941).

Table 4. Summary of Logistic Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting

Student Employment Only Goals (N = 416)

Variables B SE B df Sig. Exp(B)

Some mainstream academics -.494 .425 1 .245 .610

Mainstream for only specials or electives .813 .287 1 .005* 2.255

Was student in work study? .572 .252 1 .023* 1.771

Was student in vocational education? 1.371 .635 1 .031* 3.941

Was student in Option 4? -1.086 .604 1 .072 .337

Type of school setting -.349 .184 1 .058 .706

Type of school 1.258 .323 1 .000* 3.520

Gender -.409 .222 1 .065 .664

Ethnicity .377 .205 1 .101 1.401

Note. * indicates a significant predictor variable

The employment model correctly identified 73.4% of the students who

chose only employment and 58.2% of the students who did not choose

employment only. The overall employment model correctly classified 67%

of the sample. The postsecondary model identified 56.3% of students who

indicated only postsecondary education and 62.6% of the students who did

not choose postsecondary education as a postschool outcome. The overall

postsecondary model was able to correctly identify 59.4% of the sample.


9/18



Table 5. Summary of Logistic Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting

Postsecondary Education Only Goals (N = 416)

Variables B SE B df Sig. Exp(B)Proficiency testing passage .561 .211 1 .008* 1.753

Was student in vocational education? .073 .252 1 .771 1.076

Type of school setting -.081 .246 1 .743 .922

Type of school (high school) .900 .279 1 .001* 2.461

Gender -.040 .212 1 .850 .961

Ethnicity (White, non-Hispanic) -.074 .282 1 .793 .929

Note. *indicates a significant predictor variable

RATINGSOFEDUCATIONALSERVICES

The third research question in this study focused on students perceptions

of the services they received during their secondary education (See Table

6). Students rated the usefulness of these services using a 4-point scale.

The highest rated activities were paid work on own (3.24) and career

and technical education (3.24). Two other activities received ratings above

three: job shadowing (3.15) and extracurricular activities (3.11).

Table 6. Ratings of School Services and Transitional Activities for all Students

With Learning Disabilities

Services and activities_

X n SD

Proficiency testing 1.89 359 .984

IEP and transition meetings 2.84 391 .932

School supervised work 2.82 146 1.02

School supervised volunteer 2.64 181 .993

Job shadowing 3.15 197 .915

In-school job 2.78 121 .970

Paid work on own 3.24 329 .874

Classes at a community college 2.70 57 1.06

Career and technical education 3.24 253 .764

Extracurricular activities 3.11 259 1.01

P ti f ll t 2 83 161 915


10/18



There were minimal statistical differences in ratings across ethnicity.

Only extracurricular activities showed a statistically significant difference

F(1,243) = 4.154,p< .045, with African American students rating it high-

er than non-Hispanic White students did. No other services or activities

had significant differences across ethnicity. An analysis of school setting

and activities found that school supervised volunteer work varied signifi-

cantly with school setting F(2,178) = 5.424,p< .005. Students from urban

schools rated such volunteer work significantly higher than students from

rural schools did, F(2,181) = 4.88,p< .009 and higher than students from

suburban schools did, F(2,181) = 5.30,p< .006.

TRANSITIONPLANNINGRATINGS

Students were asked to indicate their satisfaction with their transition plan-

ning related to their postschool goals and if school prepared them to meet

their goals. Those goals included: employment, postsecondary education,

independent living, and community participation. Students responded by

indicating their satisfaction or dissatisfaction for each transition goal speci-

fied on their IEP.

Students in the sample indicated that they were satisfied with their em-ployment goals 82% of the time (n=341). This was the strongest area of

student satisfaction across the four postschool goal areas. Satisfaction with

postsecondary education planning and services was indicated by 65.4% of

the students (n= 272). Satisfaction with independent living goals was report-

ed by 56.7% of the students (n=236). The lowest level of approval was in the

area of community participation with only 46.6% of the students indicating

their satisfaction with transition planning (n=194). When students were

asked if school prepared them to meet their postschool goals, however, over98% responded positively.

A chi-square analysis indicated that females in the sample rated post-

secondary education transition planning significantly higher than males (X2

= 13.45,p< .000). No other statistically significant differences were present

across gender. Students from regular high schools rated their postsecondary

education transition plans significantly higher than students that attended

vocational schools (X2 = 28.49,p< .000). Transition planning that focused

on independent living was rated significantly higher by students from urbansettings than by students from suburban settings (X2 = 14.95,p< .000) and


11/18



DISCUSSION

The first question of this study was to identify the anticipated employment

and post-secondary education goals of students with LD as they exited sec-

ondary education and their respective secondary programs. The percentage

of students with employment goals in this sample was slightly lower than

found in the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) (SRI, 2005)

which indicated 94% of students with LD expected employment. Employ-

ment expectations in this sample were similar to those in the Thompson et

al. (2000) investigation in which employment expectations were calculated

at 86%. A high number of students with LD anticipated both employment

and postsecondary education after graduation. These findings suggest thatstudents with LD will need to work harder to balance work and school or

they will take more time to complete postsecondary education. It also points

to the importance of employment to pay for postsecondary education.

Postsecondary education expectations, which included entrance into

technical schools as well as two-year and four-year colleges, were reported

by almost 70% of the students in this study. This was a higher rate than the

NLTS2 findings (SRI, 2005) of 54% for students with LD. Even though stu-

dents responding to the NLTS2 ranged from 15 to 19 years in age comparedto the average of 18.3 years in this study, this large difference suggests an

increasing trend in postsecondary education goals. The dramatic increase

in postsecondary education expectations suggests that the traditional transi-

tion models focused on employment (Halpern, 1985; Will, as cited in Flexer

& Baer, 2008) may need to be re-examined for this population. Some more

recent transition models that incorporate a wider range of postschool out-

comes are Kohlers Transition Education Model (1998), Siegels Career Path-

ways Model (1998) and Greenes Career Pathways Model (2003).Over 90% of students with LD in this study participated in some type

of mainstream academics. Colley and Jamison (1998) and Baer et al. (2003)

found that graduates had higher rates of competitive employment when

educated in integrated settings. The rates of general education academic

participation for students in this study were higher than those found in the

NLTS2 (SRI, 2005), which found students with LD participating in general

education language arts at a rate of 62% and mathematics at 66%. Also, in

this study, 60% of the students with LD participated in career and technicaleducation. This rate is significantly higher than the NLTS2 data (SRI, 2005)


12/18



education and work study participation rates for students with LD may be

a result of the difference in student ages between the two samples. In the

NLTS2, older students were more likely to have work-study jobs (Cameto

et al., 2003) because participation in both of these educational activities

primarily takes place during the last two years of secondary education. The

difference between this study and the NLTS2 (SRI, 2005) may possibly be

the result of Ohios relatively strong secondary career and technical educa-

tion programming and the common practice of applying work study cred-

it toward graduation. Along with postschool goal expectations, students

courses of study also varied across gender. Many male students with LD

continued to be directed into traditional career paths emphasizing employ-

ment after graduation while females were directed more toward postsec-

ondary education.

In summary, a considerable percentage (83%) of students with LD ex-

pected to participate in employment after high school, and almost 70%

expected to enroll in a postsecondary institution. This seems to suggest that

students with LD needed employment training and academic preparation

for postschool success. The courses of study rates for this sample included

some general education academics classes (90%), career and technical edu-cation (57.9%), and work study participation (30%). Compared to previ-

ous studies, the students postschool expectations and courses of study in

this sample reflected the multiple postschool goals across employment and

postsecondary education. Students experiences may be reflecting a new

reality that both employment and college will be required for all students to

achieve their desired lifestyles.

The second goal of this study was to find out how well students sec-

ondary programs and transition services predicted their postschool goalsafter controlling for student characteristics. After controlling for other vari-

ables, the following were significant predictors of students having the goal

of employment only after leaving high school: (a) mainstream academics for

specials and electives only, (b) work study participation, (c) vocational edu-

cation, and (d) attendance at a vocational school. This correlational finding

aligns with previous research in which work study participation and voca-

tional education were found to be significant factors in the preventing stu-

dents from dropping out (Karpinski et al., 1992). As in previous studies, thenumber of hours students engaged in vocational education programming


13/18



level had higher rates of employment after graduation. Providing employ-

ment experiences during the last two years of secondary education were

shown to positively influence postschool employment outcomes (Baer et

al., 2003; Benz et al., 1997; Doren & Benz, 1998; Fourqurean et al., 1991;

Karpinski et al., 1992; Rabren et al., 2002).

The predictive model for expectations of participating in postsecond-

ary education indicated that students who attended regular high schools and

passed all areas of their proficiency tests were more likely to identify postsec-

ondary education as a postschool goal. This finding confirmed the study by

Vogel and Adelman (2001) who found that completion of regular high school

English courses predicted postsecondary educational success. A study by Har-

vey (2002) showed that a regular high school diploma was the best predictor

of a students postsecondary education participation and performance.

The variables of gender and ethnicity were not significant predictors

of postsecondary education participation, which may suggest that students

educational and career decisions were primarily based on other factors.

This is interesting because females in regular education have been attending

postsecondary education at higher levels than their male counterparts (SRI,

2005). A study by Coutinho, Oswald, and Best (2006) also found higherpostsecondary education expectations for females with disabilities.

The findings in this study suggest that, for students with LD, postsecond-

ary education goals were highly correlated with participation in mainstream

academics. Skinner and Lindstrom (2003) have suggested that if students

with LD are to have any hope of postsecondary education, schools must

offer rigorous academics. They found that participation in more challeng-

ing academic programming was related to passing high school graduation

tests, which, in turn, was a strong predictor for postsecondary education forstudents with LD (Skinner & Lindstrom).

Students satisfaction ratings identified activities that were highly val-

ued by students with LD: career and technical education, paid work on their

own, extracurricular activities, college classes, and job shadowing. These

activities have been correlated with positive postschool outcomes (Doren &

Benz, 1998; Eisenman, 2003; Evers, 1996; Kohler, 1994; Lindstrom & Benz,

2002; Rabren et al., 2002) and should be encouraged for students with LD.

Students with LD may also be less likely to be absent or leave school early ifthey are engaged in activities that they view as relevant to their future goals.


14/18



to incorporate independent living skills and community participation activi-

ties into the curriculum for students with LD.

LIMITATIONS

The first limitation of this study is that it is a correlational study and cannot

determine causality. A second limitation was the self-selection of schools

involved in this study. The findings of this study are currently limited to the

state of Ohio, and the results may not generalize to other states. As the sam-

ple size increases in coming years, this data will be compared to other state

and national student outcome data to explore validity of findings across de-

mographic sub-groups. This study was also limited in the analysis of schoolsettings. Increases in sample sizes for students from rural and urban settings

need to occur before strong statistical comparisons can be drawn. In addi-

tion, students who attend vocational schools need to be surveyed at a higher

rate in order to make valid comparisons across school type.

Although teachers were used as interviewers to elicit better responses

and understanding by the students, they may have introduced some bias. In

addition, the survey methodology did not verify the student-reported ser-

vices, so misrepresentation may have taken place. As a result of survey-ing only graduating or exiting students with IEPs, this investigation did not

include students who dropped out of high school or those who were not

served under an IEP. This would exclude an estimated 27% of students with

LD who exit secondary education early (Dunn, Chambers, & Rabren, 2004).

These students will need to be included in order to formulate comparisons

to students without disabilities, to gain a better understanding of promising

practices for educating students with LD, and to better prevent students with

LD from exiting school early.

CONCLUSION

It has been almost two decades since IDEA mandated transition services for

all students with disabilities. Today, the question of how well educators are

providing transition services to students with LD continues to be a critical

concern, especially because students postschool goals are rapidly chang-

ing. This study examined the in-school services and postschool expecta-

tions of students with LD. Although limited conclusions can be drawn fromthis investigation, it appears, after controlling for other variables, that the


15/18



The Ohio Longitudinal Transition Study and other investigations of post-

school outcomes have identified predictive factors for students postschool

success. Outcome studies indicate that students with LD experience bet-

ter employment outcomes when they are involved in: career and technical

education, work study opportunities, and paid employment prior to leaving

secondary education. Students with LD frequently have minimal contact

with social and vocational rehabilitative agencies after graduation, so pro-

viding these transition activities at the secondary level is critical.

An increasing number of students with LD are expecting to attend post-

secondary education. In order to meet this expectation, schools should give

students with LD not only the knowledge and skills needed to pass state-

wide graduation assessments, but also an academic curriculum that pre-

pares them for postsecondary enrollment.

Finally, although documenting the postschool outcomes experienced

by students with LD remains important, documenting student expectations

prior to graduation is essential. Achieving continuous improvement of indi-

vidualized education programs requires assessing both students expected

and actual postschool outcomes. Future research should continue to identi-

fy school programming and demographic variables that are associated withpostschool goal attainment. This information can then be used by profes-

sionals who serve students with LD to design programs and services that

better facilitate the transitions from secondary education to employment

and postsecondary education.

REFERENCESBaer, R. M., Flexer, R., Beck, S., Amstutz., N., Hoffman, L., Brothers, J., Steltzer, D., &

Zechman, D. (2003). A collaborative follow-up study on transition service utiliza-

tion and post-school outcomes. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals,26, 7-25.

Benz, M. R., Yovanoff, P., & Doren, B. (1997). School-to-work components that predictpostschool success for students with and without disabilities. Exceptional Children,63, 151-165.

Blackorby, J., & Wagner, M. (1996). Longitudinal postschool outcomes for youth withdisabilities: Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study. ExceptionalChildren, 62, 399-413.

Cameto, R., Marder, C., Wagner, M., & Cardoso, D. (2003). NLTS2 data brief: Youth

employment.Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.Colley, D. A., & Jamison, D. (1998). Post school results of youth with disabilities: Key

i di t d li i li ti C D l t f E ti l I di id l


16/18



Doren, B., & Benz, M. R. (1998). Employment inequality revisited: Predictors of betteremployment outcomes for young women with disabilities in transition. The Journalof Special Education, 31, 425-442.

Dunn, C., Chambers, D., & Rabren, K. (2004). Variables affecting students decisions todrop out of school. Remedial and Special Education, 25(5), 314-323.

Eisenman, L. T. (2003). Theories in practice: School-to-work transition for youth withmild disabilities. Exceptionality, 11, 89-112.

Evers, R. B. (1996). The positive force of vocational education: Transition outcomes foryouth with learning disabilities.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 69-78.

Flexer, R.W., & Baer, R.M. (2008). Transition legislation and models. In R.W. Flexer,T.J.Simmons, P.Luft, & R.M. Baer (Eds.), Transition planning for secondary studentswith disabilities(3rd ed.) pp.29-53. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Fourqurean, J. M., Meisgeier, C., Swank, P. R., & Williams, R. E. (1991). Correlates ofpostsecondary employment outcomes for young adults with learning disabilities.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 400-405.

Goldberg, R. J., Higgins, E. L., Raskind, M. H., & Herman, K. L. (2003). Predictors ofsuccess in individuals with learning disabilities: A qualitative analysis of a 20- yearlongitudinal study. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 222- 236.

Greene, G., & Kochhar-Bryant, C. A. (2003). Pathways to successful transition for youthwith disabilities.Columbus, OH: Merrill Prentice Hall.

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

479-502.Haring, K. A., Lovett, D. L., & Smith, D. D. (1990). A follow-up study of recent special

education graduates of learning disabilities programs.Journal of Learning Disabili-ties, 23, 108-113.

Harvey, M. H. (2002). Comparison of postsecondary transitional outcomes betweenstudents with and without disabilities by secondary vocational education participa-tion: Findings from the National Education Longitudinal Study. Career Developmentfor Exceptional Individuals, 25, 99-121.

Hitchings, W. E., Luzzo, D. A., Ristow, R., Horvath, M., Retish, P., & Tanners, A. (2001).The career development needs of college students with learning disabilities: In their

own words. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 16, 8-17.

Huck, S. W. (2000). Reading statistics and research.New York, NY: Addison WesleyLongman.

Janiga, S. J., & Costenbader, V. (2002). The transition from high school to postsecondaryeducation for students with learning disabilities: A survey of college service coordi-nators.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 462-468.

Karpinski, M. J., Neubert, D. A., & Graham, S. (1992). A follow-along study of postsec-ondary outcomes for graduates and dropouts with mild disabilities in a rural setting.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 376-385.

Kohler, P. D. (1994). Best practices in transition: Substantiated or implied? Career Devel-opment for Exceptional Individuals, 16, 107-119.


17/18



services. In F.R. Rusch, & J. Chadsey (Eds.). High School and beyond: Transitionfrom school to work(pp. 179-205). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Kortering, L., & Braziel, P. (2002). A look at high school programs as perceived by youth

with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 25, 177-188.Lindstrom, L. E., & Benz, M. R. (2002). Phases of career development: Case studies of

young women with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69, 67-83.

Mellard, D. F., & Lancaster, P. E. (2003). Incorporating adult community services in stu-dents transition planning. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 359-368.

Ohio Department of Education Similar Districts Raw Data. Retrieved from http://we-bapp2.ode.state.oh.us/similar_districts/raw_data.asp

Rabren, K., Dunn, C., & Chambers, D. (2002). Predictors of post-high school employ-ment among young adults with disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional

Individuals, 25, 25-40.Rojewski, J. W. (1996). Educational and occupational aspirations of high school seniors

with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 62, 463-476.

Rojewski, J. W. (1999). Occupational and educational aspirations and attainmentof young adults with and without learning disabilities 2 years after high schoolcompletion.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 533-552.

Schalock, R. L., Holl, C., Elliot, B., & Ross, I. (1992). A longitudinal follow-up of gradu-ates from a rural special education program. Learning Disability Quarterly, 15,29-38.

Scuccimarra, D. J., & Speece, D. L. (1990). Employment outcomes and social integra-tion of students with mild handicaps: The quality of life two years after high school.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 213-219.

Siegel, S. (1998). Foundation for a school-to-work system that serves all students. In F.R.Rusch & J.G. Chadsey (Eds.). Beyond high school: Transition from school to work(pp.146-176). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Skinner, M. E., & Lindstrom, B. D. (2003). Bridging the gap between high school andcollege: Strategies for the successful transition of students with learning disabilities.Preventing School Failure, 47, 132-137.

SRI International (2005). National Longitudinal Transition Study-2.Retrieved from http://www.nlts2.org/gindex.html

Thompson, J. T., Fulk, B. M., & Piercy, S. W. (2000). Do individualized transition plansmatch the postschool projections of the students with learning disabilities and theirparents? Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 23, 3-25.

U. S. Department of Education. (2002). 24th annual report to Congress on the implemen-tation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/2002/index.html

Vogel, S. A., & Adelman, P. B. (2001). The success of college students with learning dis-abilities: Factors related to educational attainment.Journal of Learning Disabilities,

25, 430-441.


18/18

Copyright of American Secondary Education is the property of American Secondary Education and its content

may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express

written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

post school

Documents