 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Post-Secondary Results for Students with Disabilities and Effective Transition Services | Funding and Coordinated Federal Program Services | Advisory Committee to Study the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 | Transition Services | Competitive Employment and Post-Secondary Education | Students with Disabilities Who Do Not Receive Special Education Services | The Role of Parental Involvement | Conclusion
Post-Secondary Results for Students with Disabilities and Effective Transition Services
The Commission finds students with disabilities are unemployed and under-employed upon leaving school compared to their peers who do not have disabilities.39 Too many students with disabilities leave school without successfully earning any type of diploma,40 and they attend post-secondary programs at rates lower than their nondisabled peers.41 Adults with disabilities are much less likely to be employed than adults without disabilities. Unemployment rates for working-age adults with disabilities have hovered at the 70 percent level for at least the past 12 years, which the Commission finds to be wholly unacceptable. Even when employed, too many adults with disabilities earn markedly less income than their nondisabled peers.42 These statistics reflect failures in the present systems’ structures.
Recommendation—Simplify Federal Transition Requirements in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. These provisions should provide clear steps for integrating school and non-school transition services, and closely link transition services to the goals in each student’s IEP.
Recommendation—Mandate Federal Interagency Coordination of Resources. Multiple federal policies and programs must be required to work together to improve competitive employment outcomes and increase access to higher education for students with disabilities. An Executive Order mandating agency coordination and pooling of existing funds will improve transition services. Further, the bridge between federal special education policy and rehabilitation policy must be strengthened.
Recommendation—Create A Rehabilitation Act Reauthorization Advisory Committee. The Secretary of Education should create an advisory committee to examine the reauthorization of the Rehabilitation Act.
Recommendation—Support Higher Education Faculty, Administrators and Auxiliary Service Providers to More Effectively Provide and Help Students With Disabilities to Complete a High Quality Post-Secondary Education: Support and hold accountable all post-secondary institutions receiving federal funding for using evidence-based programs and practices. Fund programs to educate post-secondary education personnel about modifications and accommodations for students with disabilities that have been proven to increase graduation rates and entry into the workforce.
To improve the future for many children with disabilities, the Commission proposes fundamental changes to IDEA and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. To optimize results for children, youth and adults with disabilities, the Commission recommends that both of these federal statutes should use similar terminology to allow effective integration of their services and requirements. The Commission finds that IDEA’s transition regulation requirements should be revised because these requirements are too convoluted to implement in practical ways. We find that the overriding barrier preventing a smooth transition from high school to adult living for individuals with disabilities is the fundamental failure of federal policies and programs to facilitate smooth movement for students from secondary school to competitive employment and higher education.43
Funding and Coordinated Federal Program Services
The Commission finds that several federal programs fail to direct the necessary resources to increase the successful transition of students with disabilities.44 For instance, IDEA and the Rehabilitation Act’s vocational rehabilitation program have no links based on student results. While each mandates some level of cooperation, the lack of post-school data-tracking under IDEA and the lack of a Rehabilitation Act obligation for active involvement of vocational rehabilitation counselors in each student’s transition planning contribute to poor student outcomes. In addition to IDEA and the Rehabilitation Act, programs authorized under the Higher Education Act do not sufficiently provide transition services to meet the needs of students with disabilities. GEAR UP and TRIO’s Upward Bound and Talent Search programs should place a greater emphasis on serving students with disabilities. These federal programs must be amended to provide funding that is targeted to direct services for students with disabilities.
The Social Security Act’s Ticket to Work Program must also focus on helping students with disabilities find employment when they finish school.45 Although this new program should help lead to successful competitive employment for people with disabilities, employment networks under this program should become closely involved with helping eligible individuals with disabilities obtain employment after they finish school.
“Americans with disabilities should have every freedom to pursue careers, integrate into the workforce and participate as full members in the economic marketplace.”
—President George W. Bush, announcing the New Freedom Initiative.
The Commission finds that if existing federal policies and law were more effectively implemented, the low rates of individuals with disabilities currently obtaining competitive employment or accessing higher education would dramatically improve. An example of inadequate federal agency coordination that adversely affects improved outcomes for students with disabilities is the ongoing lack of coordination between the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs, which is responsible for administration of IDEA, and its Office of Vocational and Adult Education (OVAE), which is responsible for administration of the adult education sections of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA).
Students with disabilities who dropped out of regular high school between the ages of 16 and 21 are prevented from receiving both adult education services funded under WIA and simultaneous special education support services under IDEA.46 This is a significant problem for students with disabilities who, for whatever reason, leave high school before earning a standard high school diploma but return to adult education programs to earn a general education diploma (GED).
WIA limits adult education to individuals who are not enrolled or required to be enrolled in a secondary school.47 Yet, some WIA programs are themselves secondary, not post-secondary, e.g., GED and pre-college vocational training programs. Thus, a student cannot be enrolled in a secondary school and also be enrolled in adult education under WIA, even if the child's IEP team determined it appropriate. Many students with disabilities who left high school before earning a regular high school diploma but who are still entitled to a free appropriate public education under IDEA are barred from receiving the services they need. This conflict makes no practical sense and demonstrates a barrier in existing federal programs that can easily be corrected to better serve students with disabilities.48
The Commission recommends the President issue an Executive Order mandating federal interagency collaboration and direct the use of existing federal program funds to focus on transition services within the limits of those statutes. Federal programs must be required to better coordinate their services to focus on reaching people with disabilities early. The funding for more focused transition services now exists. Unfortunately, these funds are spread across multiple agencies and the programs do not target transition services or foster coordination with other federal programs. We find these programs do not provide states the flexibility needed to develop comprehensive programs using federal funds already available. States must be allowed to coordinate federal funds from various agencies into specific transition services that best serve each state’s students with disabilities. To the extent that statutes bar such use of funds, agencies should be obligated to report on the administrative, regulatory or statutory barriers that prevent coordination.
The Commission recommends all federal agencies collaborate to resolve obvious administrative barriers. Further, a portion of federal funds from each of the federal grant programs that directly impact improvement in transition should be committed and tied to performance outcomes and results, i.e., data related to post-secondary education and competitive employment obtained by students with disabilities who are transitioning from school to adult activities. This linkage is consistent with recommendations in the Finance and Accountability sections of this report. As with these performance changes to IDEA, other federal programs can be strengthened and tied together to target funds to create clear, measurable post-school results.
“Post-school success is the ultimate indicator of school reform.”
—Commissioner Douglas H. Gill, Ph.D.
The Accountability section of this report calls for states to measure, report and hold local education agencies accountable for students’ post-secondary results under IDEA. In addition, other federal legislation related to transition services should similarly require agencies to measure, report and be held accountable for the success of students with disabilities in competitive employment and post-secondary education.
The Commission finds that increased enforcement by OSERS of interagency agreements, which are now required between state educational agencies (SEAs) and state vocational rehabilitation agencies under IDEA and the Rehabilitation Act, will improve coordination and collaboration between these agencies.49 In both laws Congress called for schools to work in collaboration with other agencies to assist students with disabilities in the transition from school to employment and independent living. The 1998 Rehabilitation Act amendments, at a minimum, required “consultative and technical assistance services to assist educational agencies in planning for the transition of students with disabilities from school to post-school activities, including employment.” The goal of these provisions is to ensure seamless service delivery. This practice is not occurring with the frequency Congress intended.
Advisory Committee to Study the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
The testimony of the many experts, parents and individuals with disabilities who appeared before the Commission compels us to suggest the creation of an advisory committee to examine the current status of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.50 We propose that the U.S. Secretary of Education create an advisory committee to conduct a review of the issues surrounding that Act. Such a committee can serve two important functions. First, a review of the information and a close examination of the issues related to the Rehabilitation Act will provide an opportunity for federal and state agencies to consider how they can help increase the numbers of individuals with disabilities who are competitively employed. Second, the committee would build on the useful suggestions for improving the delivery of transition services by Rehabilitation Act funded agencies outlined by this Commission, particularly federally funded state vocational rehabilitation agencies. Not enough interagency activity occurs between our schools and vocational rehabilitation agencies. The benefit will be improved services to students with disabilities who are transitioning from school to employment or post-secondary education.
The Commission finds that transition services are not being implemented to the fullest extent possible and that meaningful results do not happen. IDEA’s federal requirements are too complex for educators, students, parents and others (such as vocational rehabilitation program counselors) to understand what the law requires and when it is required.
To illustrate how confusing the statute, regulations and other requirements are, an individualized education program needs a “statement of transition service needs” for all students with disabilities at age 14, while at age 16, a “statement of needed transition services” is required.
“School personnel must be provided clear and concise rules and regulations outlining how to provide effective and relevant transition services to students with disabilities seeking to enter the workforce immediately following high school as well as for students planning to attend college. The IDEA’s current requirements are too complex and do not adequately meet this need.”
—Commissioner Douglas Huntt, Ph.D.
However, neither a reasonably clear explanation is provided explaining the differences between these two statements, nor is there any research-based evidence supporting the delineation for having one requirement at age 14 and another at age 16. Students about whom these statements are written are required to be invited to the IEP meeting if a purpose of the meeting will be the consideration of the student's transition service needs, needed transition services or both. At other times, the student is included on the IEP team, if appropriate. However, the Commission finds that it is always appropriate for students with disabilities to be invited and present at IEP meetings.
In addition, the statute, regulations and OSEP policy guidance require a statement of the interagency responsibilities, “if appropriate.” These interagency agreements are supposed to link students to useful services beyond those provided by the school. However, no explanation is provided about how school personnel should go about uniting these services with those provided by the school or how to integrate transition services provided by outside agencies with the IEP. This confusion helps ensure a disconnect between services and outcomes.51
In testimony before the Commission, one expert provided a striking example of the lack of implementation that is too common in the delivery of transition services. Susan Brody Hasazi, Ed.D., stated that in reviewing a transition plan of a junior high student who had a moderate hearing impairment, there were no goals, objectives or activities related to the student’s career aspirations listed elsewhere in his IEP. Instead, the goals that were listed focused on improving his articulation and offered little in terms of helping the student achieve his career goals of becoming a merchant marine.52
Hasazi reported that this lack of complete transition planning and linkage of transition services to meet the needs of individual students was not unusual. Her testimony exemplifies many similar problems brought before this Commission and reveals that school personnel generally do not know how to interpret and meaningfully apply the current complex transition requirements. We are also concerned that more effective educator training to empower their students with essential self-advocacy skills needs to be done.
The Commission finds that IDEA must be changed to clearly link students’ long-range transition goals to the development of the annual IEP goals, objectives and activities. While some may argue this requirement is now in place, our own reading of the transition language in the regulations leaves us confused about what is required, when it is required, who must be involved, etc. Students and teachers should not need to waste time interpreting “policy wonk” terms and concepts. They should be working together to determine how they can best serve young people with disabilities and their long-term goals.
“I am concerned that we also provide transition services within the context of each student’s culture. It is important for us to recognize the values of those students and parents we serve, especially when we collaborate in providing transition services.”
—Commissioner Katie H. Wright, Ed.D.
These changes should redefine transition services as a results-oriented process focusing on post-school and in-school results, including academic and non-academic alternatives. The arbitrary age 14/16 distinctions in IDEA should be replaced with a uniform standard at an appropriate age or school point readily understandable by teachers and students. Current requirements mandating interagency agreements must be revised to clearly describe cooperative and collaborative networking mechanisms between schools, state vocational rehabilitation agencies and other community organizations charged with providing services to individuals with disabilities.
While the Commission wholeheartedly supports strong academic achievement for all students, it recognizes that academic achievement alone will not lead to successful results for students with disabilities. Students with disabilities need educational supports and services to promote the acquisition of skills throughout their school lives. However, these supports and services may need to intensify during the transition years. Such skills include self-determination, self-advocacy, social skills, organizational skills, community and peer connection, communication, conflict-resolution, career skill building and career development and computer/technological competency.
Competitive Employment and Post-Secondary Education
The Commission finds that students with disabilities who choose non-academic alternatives after completing high school are not provided adequate preparation and support to successfully reach their goals. Only 34 percent of adults with disabilities ages 21 through 64 reported being employed.53 Even more alarming, working-age adults with disabilities earn significantly less than adults without disabilities.54
Research suggests that efforts must begin in the early school years to foster successful transitions to meaningful employment. Opportunities for career development, including social interactions, must be provided to all students with disabilities, including minority students with disabilities, throughout their K-12 educational experiences. Such preparation will improve their employability.
In addition, the Commission finds that students with disabilities who elect to continue their education at the post-secondary level rather than immediately enter the workplace also face significant barriers to achieving their goals. According to testimony before the Commission, students with disabilities are less likely than students without disabilities to complete courses in high school that prepare them to succeed in college. OSEP’s National Longitudinal Transition Study reported that students with disabilities who remained in high school for four grades accumulated an average of 12 credits in academic subjects, compared with 15 academic credits earned by students without disabilities.55
Moreover, students with disabilities are less likely than their peers to earn a college degree. Adjustments to college life for students with disabilities pose challenges. Many college students (with and without disabilities) are faced with new physical and social environments. These adjustments are compounded for students with disabilities because they are faced with architectural barriers and attitudinal misperceptions about their skills and abilities by faculty, staff and their nondisabled peers.56
The Commission finds that students with disabilities entering college are often ill prepared to negotiate the complexities of college life. Schools and associated agencies can bridge this gap by providing work experiences, career and academic counseling, job coaching and mentoring opportunities while encouraging students to enroll in the kinds of academic courses that will prepare them to succeed in work and college. The Commission also finds that the Department of Education should support research to determine factors that help students with disabilities make the transition into college, as well as model programs based on this scientifically based research.
“Parents of children receiving special education must be provided every opportunity to contribute to the type and extent of transition services provided to their children and this should be reflected in the IDEA’s regulations.”
—Commissioner William Berdine, Ed.D.
Students with Disabilities Who Do Not Receive Special Education Services
Not every student with a disability in elementary, middle or high school receives special education services because his or her disability does not impair their ability to learn to such a degree that special education services are necessary. A common example of such a student would be one who uses a wheelchair for mobility but has no other physical or mental disability. For students with such disabilities, basic modifications to the physical accessibility of the school generally provide the ability to perform well in the regular education classroom. In these circumstances, students with disabilities have specific civil rights under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act that require what are known as “504 Plans.” These plans usually outline the modifications and accommodations a student will receive to participate in regular classrooms and generally have basic transition requirements similar to IDEA IEPs.
However, even three decades after the passage of the Rehabilitation Act section 504, little data and research exist about the effectiveness of 504 Plans and the number of 504 Plan children with disabilities gaining employment or moving on to higher education. We strongly recommend that the Rehabilitation Services Administration immediately begin to work collaboratively with the Office of Special Education Programs and other agencies to collect such data and develop research priorities to inform federal policy on how to improve services for these students.57
The Role of Parental Involvement
Throughout the course of the Commission’s review of the issues related to federal, state and local special education programs, numerous parents provided insight into their perceptions of transition services for their children with disabilities. This input captured the attention of the Commission and has left a lasting impact upon each Commissioner. Therefore, the Commission deems it particularly important to devote the final portion of our report to the issue of parental involvement in the development and delivery of transition services.
In testimony before the Commission, parents reported a lack of information regarding the purpose and processes associated with transition services, including information related to community agencies and resources. In addition, parents reported that effective strategies for increasing parental participation were not routinely implemented. Parents desire relatively simple measures such as receiving information about the IEP and community resources, creating an atmosphere of open communication, frequently communicating about school services and activities and formally recognizing the valuable role that parents and students play in the transition process. Parents of children with disabilities also wanted revised, clear requirements ensuring their full inclusion at all stages of the process—from inception to implementation of all transition services.
The Commission recognizes that parents and their children are the most qualified individuals to provide information about the needs, wants and goals of the children as they transition from school to post-school activities. Therefore, the Commission recommends that IDEA include provisions providing for the full participation of students and their parents in the determination of the type and delivery of transition services provided. Parents also need support in navigating the transition from the entitlement model under IDEA to the eligibility model used by other programs providing post-school services to people with disabilities.
The Commission is convinced that dramatic revisions of IDEA’s transition provisions must occur. Once IDEA is reauthorized, the subsequent federal regulations must provide greater clarity. The regulations must include steps explaining in plain, uncomplicated language what is required. We also stress the need for continued data collection and related research to develop the finest transition-related practices and to develop policy closely linking the goals of any child’s IEP directly with transition goals. All students with disabilities must be provided support services in their education that prepares them to succeed in competitive employment and post-secondary education settings, and their parents must be full participants throughout this process. The Commission believes the formation of an advisory committee to assist the Secretary of Education in establishing recommendations for improving the Rehabilitation Act will complement these recommendations to create a smooth transition from secondary school to adult life and excellence in transition planning and service delivery.