Best Practices: A Study to Understand and Support
Student Participation in Transition Planning
Final Report 

PART I: Executive Brief *

PART II: Overview of Project *

APPENDIX A *

Research Results *

APPENDIX B *

Evaluation Report *

Four programs concerned with the implementation of quality transition services joined together for this research project. These programs included faculty from Colorado State University, the University of Northern Colorado, and the University of Colorado. This project involved research on the personal, environmental, and school variables that support or impede student participation in the transition planning process and evaluation the effectiveness of curricular and instructional interventions designed to increase student participation in the transition planning process.

This three and one-half year project researched student involvement in the transition planning process and supported the development of interventions and strategies to increase student involvement in participating high schools. The project objectives of this research project were:

1. Disseminate project findings to state, regional, and federal information networks, school districts, advocacy organizations, parent and professional organizations, and other community organizations.

Our research was conceptualized from years of work in the areas of learning, transition services, and self-determination. We knew that if we were going to fully understand student involvement in transition services that we would have to look inward to the student as well as to examine the influences of their home and school environments. Our studies were guided by this over-arching question: What are the relative contributions of personal, environmental, and systemic variables that relate to high student participation in transition-related actions?

Two types of studies, quantitative and qualitative, were conducted to identify variables important to student involvement in transition-related actions. We incorporated both types of studies because quantitative and qualitative research methodologies stem from different philosophical orientations about the nature and conduct of research. Quantitative research is based on the notion that phenomena should be studied and measured numerically. It is used often to determine relationships between two or more variables. In contrast, qualitative research is based on the idea that the most valuable information is obtained from a relatively small group of persons or individuals who are significantly involved in the topic or issue in which you are interested. This information provides an understanding of the phenomenon being studied. Because the development of self-determined behaviors is so complex, we wanted to incorporate both types of research to capture a broad understanding of what variables might be important to active student participation in transition-related actions. Once the two main studies were completed, we conducted a series of follow-up analyses and studies to explain further the variables that emerged initially. In this section we provide you with an overview of the research methods, procedures, and analyses for each type of study. A more comprehensive discussion of this research can be found in Spencer and Sands (1996), Sands, Spencer, Gliner, and Swaim (in press) and Lehmann, Sands & Bassett (in press).

Quantitative Study

For the quantitative portion of our study, we collected data on 237 students with disabilities, their families, and teachers. Students were between 14-21 years of age and attended middle school or high school in one of three participating school districts. The districts represented urban, rural, and suburban settings. A total of nine disability categories characterized the students with a majority of them classified as having specific learning disabilities (60.8%). The second most common type of disability was serious emotional disturbance (8.8%) followed by mental retardation (7.9%), speech and language impairment (7.5%), health impairment (3.3%). multiple handicaps (2.1%), vision and hearing impairments (.8%) and traumatic brain injury (.4%).

The students and their families were from diverse ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds. Though about 40% of our families chose not to identify their ethnic heritage, information received revealed that a majority of students were Caucasian (39.2%) followed by students who were Hispanic (24.2%), Native American (4.6%), and African American (2.1%).

Data for the quantitative study was collected using ten instruments. The student variables represented information about students’ locus of control, autonomy, self-regulation, psychological empowerment, self-realization, job competence, social competence, and scholastic competence. Many of these measures included both student perceptions as well as teacher perceptions. The cluster of family variables included information about parental expectations for student performance, family climate and adults’ perceptions of their parenting competence. School variables consisted of data on school climate, the nature of students’ educational programs, and transition-related opportunities. Data were analyzed using multiple regression and structural equation modeling techniques. Details of these analyses can be reviewed in Spencer and Sands (1996) and Sands, Spencer, Gliner, and Swaim (1997).

Qualitative Study

This component part of the study enabled us to understand the perceptions of mothers, students, and teachers regarding students’ involvement in the transition process. Special education teachers from three sites assisted in the selection of students and families to participate in the study. Teachers were asked to select students and their respective families who represented a variety of ages, ethnic backgrounds, and social economic statuses who also had upcoming transition meetings scheduled. Twelve students, four from each district, were the focus of data collection. We conducted over 300 hours of observations in students’ classes and during their IEP meetings. Information from the observations was used initially to develop the interview questions and later to substantiate the data obtained from the interviews. A total of 31 persons (teachers, students and mothers) participated in participant observation and interviews.

The three questions guiding the inquiry were:

1. What transition-related activities are occurring?
2. How are students, mothers and teachers involved in this process?
3. What are the perceptions of mothers and teachers regarding the barriers to student involvement?

The interview questions for each group were similar, modified to more adequately reflect the role of the group questioned. For example, the first statement posed of students was "Tell me about school." Teachers were directed to "Tell me about your work." Finally, parents were asked to describe their families. The basis of the question remained the same, the context changed according the type of respondent.

Once the observations and interviews were completed, the information from each set of research activities was coded and analyzed. Observation data was captured through a set of detailed field notes written on site or directly after the observation period. Interviews were audio-taped and transcribed. To analyze the qualitative data we immersed ourselves in the written documentation to look for patterns, redundancies, and explanations tied to our guiding questions. Broadly, we were looking for information that could illuminate participants’ beliefs about transition services, roles and responsibilities, and student involvement.

Summary and Implications of the Research Results

Individually and collectively, our studies revealed that school, personal, and family variables are all important predictors of student involvement in transition–related services. A summary of our results is illustrated in a figure in Appendix A. A brief explanation of these variables is provided below.

School variables. We found that the school environment is particularly important to facilitating active student involvement in transition-related actions. The first of our quantitative analyses revealed two strong school environment conditions that related highly to active student involvement: (1) students receiving their special education services in general education classrooms and (2) students participating in higher numbers of general education classrooms. Thus, when students received their special education services in general education classes and participated in higher numbers of general education classes, they were more actively involved in their own transition planning services. Secondary analyses revealed a third critical school variable - Students are ultimately more involved in transition-related actions when they are provided with overt, ongoing opportunities to plan, express, and actively pursue their own goals as well as to evaluate their progress and adjust their actions accordingly. Through our qualitative study, we learned from teachers and mothers the importance of holding a positive value for student involvement in transition-related actions. Both groups discussed the need for solid communication among the IEP/ITP members and administrative support for focused transition planning meetings at the building level.

Student variables. Four variables emerged from the quantitative studies as significant predictors of active student participation in transition actions: (1) a student’s job-related competence as perceived by the teacher, (2) a student’s ability to self-regulate his or her own behaviors; (3) the student’s social skills; and, (4) student engagement in transition-related social, work, and education opportunities. The first variable suggests that there is a relationship between teachers’ positive beliefs about students’ job competencies and students’ involvement in transition related services. We are not in a position to definitively speculate about the nature of this relationship, but suspect that it might be related to variables entailing teacher expectations and student performance. The second student variable, that of self-regulation, suggests that students who are able to activate and maintain thinking and behavior directed towards goals are more likely to demonstrate self-determined participation in their transition process. The third variable, students’ social skills, remains somewhat of an enigma for us. Our formal analyses indicated that social skills were important to active student involvement. However, these analyses could not authoritatively indicate which aspect of the social domain may be important. As you may know, the social domain is complex and includes components such as social cognition, motivation, social skills, self-efficacy, and social control. From our research, we could not conclude which component or combination of components is most crucial to student involvement. Until we can complete further studies, we can only suggest that students’ social competence plays an important part in active transition-related actions. The fourth variable, opportunities for students, mirrors, and thus confirms further, a school variable that emerged from the qualitative study and was discussed earlier: that is, it is important to students to have available and to engage in ongoing, overt opportunities to participate in transition-related planning, implementation, and evaluation activities across multiple contexts.

Family variables. A student’s home environment emerged as an important variable in our research. It appears that families that are not overly rule-bound [and directive] have children who are more likely demonstrate active participation in transition actions. This is consistent with our previously reported finding that higher levels of involvement occur among students who are able to self-regulate (i.e., they operate from an internal v. external set of "rules" or principles). Second, we found that when families hold a positive value for involvement for student participation, that participation is realized more successfully through school-based planning processes.

Non-significant variables. Often, it is only the positive or significant relationships discovered through research to which we attend. However, in our studies we found that in addition to the variables that were positively linked to active student involvement, there were those that did not predict or relate highly to student involvement. For example, we collected data on student academic achievement in areas such as reading and math. Scholastic competence was not a predictor of active student involvement. This is important because it suggests that we should not solely direct our support for active involvement towards those students whom we perceive as more academically capable. All students have the right to supports and services that are targeted for developing their abilities to act in self-determined ways.

Students were also rated for their overall level of self-determination. Intuitively, it would seem that people who are more self-determined would be more likely to be involved actively in transition-related activities. In fact, our analyses revealed that there was not a strong relationship between a measure of self-determination and our measure for active student involvement. Thus, the constructs of self-determination and active involvement may not be synonymous. Self-determined students may choose not to engage in transition-related activities and students who are considered active participants, in fact, not appear fully self-determined. These nuances are important to keep in mind as we strive for more active participation by students (within the context of transition services) as well as building upon their attitudes, skills, and dispositions towards more self-determined behaviors.

The findings of our studies are significant because they reveal that if we want truly to achieve active student involvement in transition services, we must take a multi-pronged approached to realizing that outcome. We just cannot assume that by teaching students the skills associated to self-determined behavior that they will become active participants in the transition process. In fact, our research suggests that students’ actual skills are not as important as the opportunities they receive, the expectations of others, and the environmental conditions that are directly linked to and support their ultimate ability to actively participate in transition related services. The next section will provide details of how four school sites responded to the results of our research by designing and implementing interventions targeted to key variables.

As noted in the previous sections, the results of our studies led us in many directions. On the one hand, it is important to regard the importance of placing students with special needs into general education classrooms as a critical variable to enhance student involvement. It is also clear that teachers perceptions of students’ job competence is related to self-determined behavior, as are family systems that rely on a strong and consistent set of parenting principles. Students play a part in their journey towards active involvement through their use of self-regulation strategies. It is clear that there is much to consider in planning for successful self-determination practices in schools.

It is also evident that these variables can not be artificially separated from each other, but rather work in an intricate and complicated assemblage of interactions that ultimately compose a system in which students live, study, work, and develop relationships. For example, the need for positive values for student involvement emerged in both the school and family variables. Overt opportunities were identified as important school and student variables. It is necessary, therefore, to actively attend to variables across all three contexts.

A second phase of the Best Practices grant project was to translate these findings into practice. To meet this objective, four school districts in two different states agreed to participate over a two-year period to design, implement, and evaluate interventions that were targeted to the critical research variables. Our four sites provided great contrasts in location, student population, socioeconomic status (SES), and community values and culture. Further, there was a wide variance in the developmental nature of transition services across the school systems. For example, while one site had a fairly sophisticated transition services program in place, another site was struggling with basic issues such as student schedules and finding a common planning time for the transition services team to meet. A brief demographic description of the four project sites follows (we have used pseudonyms to name our four sites).

Washington High School. Washington High School is located in a densely populated urban environment in a city of two million people. About 70% of its 1700 students are Hispanic and many are from lower socio-economic backgrounds. The school is one of the oldest in the city and in need of major repair. The dropout rate is very high – over 60% of the student population drops out between entering the 9^th grade and graduation. Teachers at Washington High School are overwhelmed by the transience of the students, lack of support from central administration, and their difficulties in attempting to connect the school to the community at-large. They have had difficulties with such things as finding a common meeting time for members of the special education department and providing special education services in general education classrooms. Prior to the Best Practices project, formal transition services for students at Washington High School were limited.

Lincoln High School. Situated in a valley between three communities, Lincoln High School draws rural students from a radius of about 25 miles. Most of the 500 students come from families involved in agriculture. Almost 30% of the total school population are Hispanic; many are new to the region from Mexico and are monolingual Spanish. Teachers at Lincoln feel compelled to provide the few educational opportunities the region has to offer. Family support for the educational community is mixed, from strong support by multigenerational families raised in the area to those families new and unfamiliar with the culture. Most teachers feel extremely close to their students. To them, seeking active student involvement in transition services seemed valuable but hard to achieve in the face of so many other demands.

Roosevelt High School. Roosevelt High School is located in an isolated, coastal community of approximately 6500 people. The community is under heavy social and economic stress caused in part by the recent closure of a commercial fishing season, the decline of the lumber industry, and loss of jobs in construction. The present unemployment rate is 16.8% and the number of social services applicants has increased by 50% over the previous year. Roosevelt High School has a drop-out rate of 10%, 20% of the student population is Hispanic. The school district experiences severe difficulties serving their increasing ESL student population, meeting the rising demand for alternative programs, and restructuring current programs to serve the middle 60% of the at-risk student population. The special education teachers experience great difficulties in finding appropriate general education placements for students with disabilities. Both over-crowded classrooms in an insufficient and limited physical plant and lack of sufficient resources to direct personal support in general education classrooms contribute to their dilemma. In addition, little of their efforts have been directed towards systematic transition services.

Jefferson School District. Our last site is based centrally in a district as opposed to a high school site. The Jefferson School District is located in a rapidly growing suburban community of approximately 60,000 people. The vast majority of its residents are Caucasian. This district has been designated by the Colorado Department of Education as a model for transition and school-to-work practices. The district has a transition team that works with each of the four high schools. Unlike the other sites, this team is responsible for making district level decisions about the delivery of transition services and programs. The district transition coordinators believe strongly in the concept of active student involvement but were also tied to the determinants of district policy and decision-making procedures.

To initiate the intervention phase of our project, each site constituted a project team. These teams were responsible for reflecting upon the results of the research and designing a set of interventions targeted toward one or more of the critical student, school and/or family variables. Given what we learned from our results, paired with the overt differences in school cultures, it was clear that each school site should design its own set of interventions. This strategy for individualizing interventions also fit with the project research teams’ philosophical beliefs for site-based empowerment. Thus, each site team, with the support of the research team, identified interventions best suited for their own needs and goals. The Best Practices project provided an equal funding source to each site to support implementation of their action plans. The action plans of each school site are summarized below.

Washington High School. Washington High School special educators entered into the Best Practices project with trepidation. Once funded, the school administration adopted a stance of "out of sight, out of mind" towards the project. The Best Practices core team at Washington consisted of the special education staff only. The staff felt strongly that they needed to concentrate on their own skills and needs before they could work successfully with other school community members such as their general education colleagues. Accordingly, the Washington team targeted their first intervention efforts towards the school variable that addressed strong communication among team members. This team felt it was imperative to provide the opportunity for self-reflection, to articulate strengths and problems, and to develop a framework for successful implementation of transition procedures. Two, 2-day workshops were held away from the school campus where a professional facilitator led the team through team-building exercises. The concept of transition services was used as the context for moving the team’s work forward in that regard. Goals were established for the core team and included objectives for school-staff collaboration, developing a mission and vision statement to drive its work, and formulating a framework for providing transition services to students in grades 9-12. Issues such as finding a common consistent meeting time, managing paperwork, maintaining adequate contact with students, and working more closely with families were also discussed. The two retreats provide both the time and a safe environment in which to work on personal and professional problems; these were considered to be the breakthrough the teachers needed to solidify their team and move ahead on specific goals.

Once the core team was better able to define its goals, it looked to strengthen contacts with families in the system as a second intervention goal. An advisory group of parents was solicited to help develop a parent and student handbook on transition services. The handbook included individualized planning guides for each student along with information on school and community resources, including names and phone numbers. The handbooks were initially distributed to every family of incoming ninth grade students with disabilities during an onsite registration process. Washington High School special educators were amazed at the success of the handbook. Family members called to thank them for preparing the information. Teachers even received queries from families at other schools requesting the book. Development of the handbook has proven a valuable first step in reclaiming communication between teachers and students and their families.

In addition to the parent handbook, the Parent Advisory Committee assisted the core team in modifying a traditional family-focused school activity. At Washington High School, family members must come to school to pick up their student’s report cards. Previously, the special education faculty had supplemented this evening with activities directed to providing parents with transition-related information. For example, speakers from community-based agencies such as rehabilitation services, developmental disabilities service providers, and potential employers had provided information booths and materials during the evening. Parental attendance however, was traditionally not high. Through the Parent Advisory Committee, several changes were made to the scheduled events. First, dinner was offered. Second, members of the advisory committee made phone contact with the parents of every student served by the special education services unit and personally invited them to come to the Report Card Pick-up evening. As a result of these two changes, parental attendance increased over 50%.

As a third intervention strategy, the core team at Washington High School felt it was necessary to develop a transition curriculum designed for the unique needs of their grade 9-12 students. This effort was directed towards several of the research variables including the provision of opportunities for students to be involved and to target students’ skill development. The intent of the curriculum was to increase students’ skills and knowledge in disability awareness, IEP and transition planning participation, goal setting, and self-advocacy. The project team hoped that use of the curriculum would support students to successfully graduate from Washington High School. In addition to curriculum development and implementation, the team decided that each student would develop and possess a transition portfolio. The portfolio would contain a student’s current IEP/ITP, summation of personal learning style, individualized listing of accommodations for school or job situations, list of appropriate agencies and phone numbers, letters of recommendations, description of students’ legal rights, and self-designed plan of personal long-term goals.

A fourth overall intervention strategy implemented by the Washington’s core team was targeted towards giving students more opportunities to express choices and have a voice in their educational planning. A Student Advisory Committee was formed with representatives across all grade levels. The students agreed to meet during the lunch hour on a monthly basis. The core project team also decided to provide a small financial compensation to students during the duration of the project as an extra incentive for them to volunteer time. Through the Student Advisory Committee several activities have taken place. First, a volunteer from the Colorado Department of Education and the Project Director guided the entire student body in the special education department through a series of planning sessions. The purpose of these sessions was to allow students who received special education services to provide direction and feedback to the department. Through these sessions, students ranked two activities for the Student Advisory Committee to pursue: (1) changing the name of the department from ‘Special Education’ and (2) sponsoring a series of education learning experiences off campus. While those motions are in progress during the writing of this chapter, the advisory committee took action on these goals and utilized a student survey to guide the direction of their activities. A recommended name change has been requested by students through a formal letter to the district’s secondary education curriculum department. Two field-based learning experiences have been scheduled and a third is in progress.

The morale changes and professional growth of the Washington’s core team over the course of our project have been significant. Their strong efforts at self-reflection and planful action have resulted in a more cohesive team that shares positive goals for their students and themselves. Although support from the administration has not been strong, they have coalesced their energies to provide themselves with strong leadership and a renewed sense of purpose.

Lincoln High School. Lincoln High School participants in planning for active student involvement in transition-related services included special education teachers, general education teachers, students with moderate disabilities, and parents. This core "Best Practices" team decided that they would work on activities related to family, school, and student variables. The team divided itself into subgroups to address each area. Each subgroup worked regularly with its members and then met together at least once a month or more often for training or other team-building activities. Lincoln High School team activities were facilitated by one or more of the grant research coordinators; other project activities were implemented with assistance by project-supported graduate students.

Because the grant findings recognized the importance of family values for and support for active student participation, family goals centered around attempts to engage more families in school-based activities around the transition process. This has proven more difficult to achieve than previously thought. Although a large library of resources was purchased for family use, several scheduled meetings were unattended. A welcoming dinner at a local restaurant was held with good attendance but poor follow-up of attendees. Best Practices team members realized that to target only families of high-school aged students was limited. They therefore have targeted involved families from the middle grades as well. Attendance has been much better. A number of family members were funded to attend the national conference on inclusive school practices as well as a regional training for families on transition and self-determination issues.

School variables related to a variety of different goals. All team members were interested in improving the inclusive practices in the school, from scheduled collaborative planning meetings to team teaching to the use of curricula across content areas. Training was provided at the school using the curriculum Learning with PURPOSE (Serna & Lau-Smith, 1995) over a two-year period. Teachers devised a matrix showing where different components of the curriculum would be taught across the content to students in both the general and special education programs. The special education team was trained also in the Self Advocacy Strategy (Van Reusen, Bos, Schumaker, & Deshler, 1994) and the Self-Directed IEP (Martin, Huber Marshall, & Maxon, 1996) with the intention of providing students with disabilities the skills to set goals and participate in their IEP meetings.

The core team was interested in using team-building activities to improve their communication. Team building activities were highlighted by a day of different events, each coordinated by a different member of the team. Finally, a fund was established to allow teachers and related staff to attend conferences related to self-determination. At the time of this writing, seven teachers had taken advantage of this funding.

Student variables including the formation of a student club with the purpose of promoting advocacy with and for students with disabilities. The student group, "People Redefining Independence through Disability Education" (PRIDE) was kicked off with a party that included about 30 students with and without disabilities. It now meets regularly and is an integral part of formal school club meeting times. Students also wished to start of a school store in their newly renovated cafeteria. The school clubs of PRIDE, Future Business Leaders of Merica (FBLA), and Family & Consumer Leaders of America (FCLA) met to plan the store’s operation. Inventory was ordered, along with a computerized inventory program. Students also worked together to write a $5,000 grant to support the early months of the store. The store is up and running, with new inventory being ordered regularly.

Additional activities targeted the student variable on job competence. The team sought to link with community-based organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce and the Family Support Council. It also utilized students to provide community service, as well as to develop, conduct, and analyze a survey of local business opportunities in the region. Because Lincoln is located in a rural area, the range of job opportunities is limited and scarce. Project funding has provided the school with a part-time job developer/coach to aid with this problem. A wide range of students were involved in a day-long "Go to Work Day" alongside employees from the local Walmart. Both students and employers were excited about the day; several students have since filled out job applications for employment at Walmart.

Through this process, the morale of the Best Practice team has been high. For the first time, school special educators and general educators are finding value in working together. The students on the team are respected and given a voice. The parents, too, are feeling more a part of the community. It seems evident that self-determination can occur, but only if it is implemented in a holistic way that is respectful of all parts of the system. Progress has been slow but meaningful. There is also strong support from the principal, who attends meetings and participates when possible.

Roosevelt High School. The core project team at Roosevelt High School is made up of two special education teachers, a guidance counselor, a Title 1 reading aide, and a case-manager from a local developmental disabilities service agency. The project team has placed emphasis on the following two variables: (1) providing increased opportunities for students to plan, implement, and evaluate their own programs and (2) development of a strong interagency team approach to support focused, transition planning for all students in the high school, including students with and without disabilities. A multi-pronged effort was initiated for the first variable. First, the core team was not satisfied that their existing assessment procedures placed a value on or invited student participation. The team decided that if they were to build educational programs that incorporated the students’ interests and goals, a different set of procedures would need to be in place. Therefore, Roosevelt’s first project activity was an in-service on the Personal Futures Planning (Mount & Zwernik, 1988) approach to educational planning. This student-centered approach is qualitatively different from traditional educational diagnostic and standardized assessments. Futures Planning places the student at the center of all discussions and it is the student’s hopes and dreams, along with his/her family members and significant friends, that lead the focus and direction of his/her impending educational programs and supports.

The second action taken by the Roosevelt team (with regard to the first variable), was to examine how a self-determination curriculum could be infused within the high school program so that all students, those with and without disabilities, would have access and opportunities to develop the attitudes, skills, and habits associated with self-determined behavior. This objective was consistent with a school policy that all students would contribute to and hold an individual education plan to direct their high school experience. At this point the core team expanded and included two of the high school Health teachers. These two teachers were responsible for teaching a health curriculum to all incoming freshman. The core team decided that if they were to ensure that all students were to have equal access to opportunities to learn and apply skills associated to self-determined behaviors, this freshman health class would serve as the most consistent place to offer that access. Further, the skills and habits associated with self-determination were consistent with many of the underlying concepts and skills in the health curriculum. While activities on this objective continue, the team has reviewed a myriad of existing self-determination curricula and are in the process of (a) selecting which curricula to use as a guide, and (b) making decisions about how to infuse the content within the health class.

To expand opportunities for students and teachers to deepen their understanding of and ability to increase student involvement, a second major curriculum initiative was begun. The project team planned an outdoor, experiential retreat at a local "challenge course" to facilitate a cultural/attitudinal change among students and teachers within the context of self-determination. The opportunity to attend the retreat was extended first to juniors, and then other students, and an interview process was used to select participants. The activities were designed to focus on and strengthen student goal setting, decision-making, and self-advocacy. Emphasis was placed on how those skills might generalize to other life experiences. The retreat was also designed with a follow-up component. Once back from the experiential retreat, all student and teacher participants agreed to meet one hour a week for four weeks, over lunch to continue discussions on how the skills and attitudes experienced at the retreat could be used on a day-to-day basis. An additional action strategy was targeted to students with severe disabilities. Six students with significant support needs and their teachers attended a state Supported Living Conference. The workshops and sessions during this two-day conference provided a myriad of experiences to students and their teachers to learn how to plan, implement, and evaluate students’ long-term transition goals.

The second variable targeted by the Roosevelt team had to do with creating a strong interagency transition planning team from which to conduct focused transition planning activities. Several initiatives supported their objective. First, an existing Interagency Team was brought to the school for an overview of the project goals and objectives. In addition, this team participated in an in-service about developing a more student-focused planning process. The Interagency Team is currently planning a two day retreat to focus their planning efforts on designing a comprehensive, focused transition process, especially targeted towards students aged 18-21 years of age. The goal of this process is to provide students the supports and services they need in community-based living, work, education, and recreational/leisure environments.

The Jefferson District. The "Best Practices" project team was comprised of the existing district transition team whose members included a parent, and representatives from four high schools, the community college, a business school partnership program and a school social worker. The interventions designed by this team related most closely to the student and school variables identified by the research study. The Jefferson team identified two main interventions, one designed to increase students’ opportunities to achieve their desired futures and the other aimed at increasing the skills of regular education teachers in working with students with disabilities.

The first intervention targeted the student variables of job competence and increasing opportunities in which students could be involved. The purpose of this intervention was to help those students who were completing school and who were perceived by educators as being ready to work. The team discussed that frequently these students have little motivation for planning for their future because they have no resources to achieve this future. For example, many students and their families have no financial means to enter into post-secondary training programs that would lead them to the career in which they were interested. These same students may not be eligible for adult service support because they have been labeled as having mild disabilities. Also, given their low, high school grade point average, they are usually not candidates for scholarships or educational loan packages. Planning then for these students could be considered by them to be a moot point - -not in the realm of possibilities.

The Jefferson District Team developed a procedure for identifying students caught in this predicament and a process for providing these students with support to attain their goals. All special education secondary teachers in the district and families of students were informed about this intervention and asked to recommend students who might benefit from such an approach. The Jefferson District Team designed an intervention application form so that it could be completed in collaboration between interested students their special education teachers. The application form documented whether or not students matched specific criteria established by the team for identifying students. Selection criteria required that students:

• were high school juniors or seniors and still in school
• demonstrated a strong commitment to a personal future goal
• had no other resources available to achieve the goal
• had a school sponsor who would vouch for the potential success of the student
• received special education services
• were willing to participate in a personal futures planning meeting
• completed the application form

Thus, teachers and families were invited to identify students they felt were ready to advance into a career but did not have the resources to do so. Teachers who acted as sponsors for students were required to conduct two planning meetings with students using a person-centered approach. Briefly, person-centered planning is the generic name for a group of meeting strategies currently being described in the literature under various names such as Personal Futures Planning (Mount & Zwernik, 1988), Mc Gill Action Planning System (Vandercook, York, & Forrest, 1989), Group Action Planning (Turnbull, Blue-Banning, Anderson, Turnbull, Scaton, & Dinas, 1996). All of these planning processes are characterized by their emphasis on people’s capacities and the development of opportunities to support the individual’s full rights to citizenship into the community. During this meeting the individual and their family, friends and supporters identify their dreams/hopes for the individual’s future.

Several students in the Jefferson district participating in the intervention identified going to cosmetology school, living in an apartment, and becoming a hunting guide as hopes for their futures. A second meeting was held between team members and interested parties to determine if there were any financial resources to support the students’ goals. The district transition team reviewed every possible avenue including vocational rehabilitation, state grants and district projects before offering support to the students. Examples of types of student support provided using the funds allotted for this intervention include dollars expended for tuition, school books, supplies, rent, and driving school.

The intent of this intervention approach was to increase student participation in their planning meetings by using a strategy that, unlike many traditional individualized education planning sessions, promoted the student’s view of his or her future and then helped students carry out their plans by providing the necessary resources to attain their goals. Thus, opportunities for students were expanded because students had a reason to engage in their planning meetings. Resources identified during the meeting could be provided and tasks resulting from goals could be accomplished instead of ignored. The meeting itself garnered credibility for the students. As it became more than a perfunctory school exercise, it became a way for the students to achieve their goals.

The second intervention Jefferson District implemented was a strategy to increase the knowledge and confidence of regular education teachers to work more effectively with students with disabilities in their general education classrooms. This intervention was derived from our research variable that found that when students received their special education services in general education classrooms, they were more likely to be involved actively in their transition-related services. The focus of this intervention was entirely different from the first. This intervention was devised to help all secondary students with disabilities in the district by creating a mechanism for better communication between special education and regular education staffs.

The Jefferson District team arranged a series of three workshops. The agenda of the first workshop (attended by nine special educators, twelve general education teachers and 1 building custodian) was to provide participants with an overview of the grant project, discuss the need to foster students’ empowerment, describe the need for this project, and review possible classroom modifications. The general education teachers were given the assignment to select one or two students in their classrooms with whom they wanted to collaborate in becoming more proficient educators. The teachers were then responsible for devising a plan outlining their strategies for improving the student(s)’ performance(s). The strategies typically involved meeting with the student(s) and identifying ways both parties could change or redirect their efforts to assure student(s)’ success in the classroom. The purpose of the two remaining workshops was to encourage networking between participants and to report progress of the teachers’ plans.

The role of the special educators was to follow-up at least three times during the semester to ascertain what assistance teachers needed. An outcome of those follow-up meetings has been that special education teachers have greater contact with regular educators and have become more aware of the issues faced by these teachers in their classes. This increased communication between regular and special education is leading to changes by the special education personnel in how they provide information to regular educators about modifications students need in their classrooms. Regular educators have indicated that they have needed this level of dialogue with all of their colleagues and the support from special education to better address students’ needs in their classrooms.

Goal Four of the project involved evaluating the interventions. An external evaluation team was formed to conduct the evaluation. A copy of their report can be reviewed in Appendix B.

We have been involved in dissemination efforts since the beginning of this project. Early on a project brochure was designed and disseminated. We also created a web page which was recently updated and will include copies of the final project materials. Most recently we have published 1000 copies of a comprehensive packet of materials that are targeted to students, families, school professionals and administrators. The materials provide extensive information about specific activities, matched to the research results, that assist individuals to support higher levels of student involvement in transition activities. A videotape accompanies the packet of materials and contains an overview of the research, examples of the interventions, and commentary by various project participants. A copy of these project materials are included with this final report. We have disseminated, free of charge, copies of these materials through conference presentations, through the TriTalk listserve, mailing lists from the Division of Career Development, and to project directors of current OSERS transition model demonstration and research projects.

In addition to the materials, results of this project have been widely disseminated through professional conferences, journal articles and book chapters. A listing of these efforts is below.

1. Changing organizations to foster self-determined actions. Presentation to administrative staff at Denver Options. December.