Including Youth With
Disabilities
In Educational Reform: Lessons
Learned From School-To-Work States
Janis Chadsey, Ph.D.
Lynda Leach, M.S.
Debra Shelden, M.S., CRC
Transition Research Institute
University of Illinois
Copyright Ó 2001 by the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois
Transition Research Institute
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
117 Children’s Research Center
51 Gerty Drive
Champaign, IL 61820
(217) 333-2325
http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/sped/tri/institute.html
This report is a product of the National Transition Alliance for Youth with Disabilities (NTA), Cooperative Agreement Number H158M50001. The NTA is funded jointly by the U.S. Departments of Education and Labor, including the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, and the National School-to-Work Office. Contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Departments of Education or Labor, nor does the mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. government.
This document is copyright free. We encourage you to reproduce it or any part of it. When doing so, we ask that you credit the Transition Research Institute at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and the National Transition Alliance for Youth with Disabilities (NTA).
Printed in the United States of America
Table of Contents
|
|
|
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge the following people for their contributions to the completion of this monograph. First, we thank the many individuals who contributed their time to be interviewed and to review drafts of their state story. Second, we thank Mary Mack, of the National Transition Network and the National Transition Alliance, who contributed significantly in identifying relevant documents for review and in providing background information on states’ experiences in developing and implementing school-to-work reform. We also thank Merle Levy for the fine job she did editing the manuscript. Finally, we thank Betty Taylor for her exceptional work formatting and typesetting the manuscript.
Recommended citation for this monograph is:
Chadsey, J., Leach, L, & Shelden, D. (2001). Including youth with disabilities in educational reform: Lessons learned from school-to-work states. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Transition Research Institute.
Within the context of educational reform for all children, in 1995 the U.S. Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), U.S. Department of Education1 and the National School-to-Work Office2 jointly funded the National Transition Alliance for Youth with Disabilities (NTA) to promote the inclusion of youth with disabilities in states’ school-to-work systems change efforts, as mandated in the 1994 School-to-Work Opportunities Act (STWOA).
STWOA provided funds to states and local communities to develop school-to-work (STW) systems to promote high academic standards through contextual, applied, and focused learning for all students. Program components included (a) school-based learning that can include career awareness and exploration, and integration of academic and vocational learning; (b) work-based learning that can include work experience, job training, job mentoring, and other forms of instruction that contribute to developing positive work attitudes and employability; and (c) connecting activities that can include employer and teacher training and technical assistance that lead to integrated school-based and work-based learning. As this legislation sunsets in October 2001, states are maintaining the STW momentum in varying degrees through state and local educational reform and workforce development initiatives.
From 1995 to 2001, NTA worked with states to increase the participation of youth with disabilities in these STW efforts. Technical assistance and capacity-building efforts offered to states by NTA varied from state to state; in many cases these efforts were influenced by a state’s particular readiness level for STW and receptivity to outside technical assistance.
NTA selected nine states to illustrate these efforts to include youth with disabilities in STW. In this selection process, consideration was given to the number of years of experience the state had in implementing STW practices, its close relationship with its state’s Transition System Change Initiative (TSCI), and its willingness to share information with others. Like all states, each has experienced both successes and challenges while implementing STW.
Once the states were selected, the following information was collected about each state. Written documentation such as state resources, grants and website information were read and summarized. An NTA technical assistance provider who had worked closely with the states provided additional information about state activities. Notes from an NTA workshop that featured STW presentations from seven of these nine states were analyzed. Finally, telephone interviews were conducted with at least two state-level personnel and at least one local provider using a pre-developed set of questions in the areas of policy building, partnerships, leadership, alignment of resources, successes and challenges, and sustainability.
Based on NTA’s technical assistance activities and the collected information, common themes and lessons learned emerged about the success of inclusive STW efforts. We believe this information will be useful for other states engaged in educational reform efforts who are looking for strategies and lessons to help guide and sustain their work.
To provide a context for the state stories that follow, we would like to highlight some of the themes from these states’ efforts to build inclusive STW systems.
In many states, the STW reform effort was supported by new state policy initiatives. The impetus for the STW-related policy development varied across states and included a desire to build on successful Transition System Change Initiative (TSCI) structures, standards-based reform initiatives, and new workforce development initiatives. Consequently, the focus of resulting policies varied and included outcomes such as state-level interagency councils, academic and workplace skill standards, and employer incentives. Regardless of the impetus or focus of these new policies, they all helped to facilitate sustainability of the STW reform efforts.
In Maryland, the STW program (Career Connections), and the TSCI program were funded concurrently. In the same year as the initial funding for these grants, Maryland passed legislation that created an interagency task force charged with identifying policy and systems improvements designed to facilitate transition services and outcomes for youth with disabilities. Through its state plan, the task force facilitated cooperation between STW and TSCI. Subsequently, the two initiatives developed operating policies to further develop the inclusive nature of STW.
Staff from both Maryland projects developed an integrated grant process during the second year of funding. Career Connections (STW) grant applications had to address strategies for including youth with disabilities in grant activities, whereas the TSCI grant applications had to address how proposed activities would fit within the STW framework. Grant review procedures that mandated cross-representation on review teams were developed for both projects.
In many states, STW components for all students were written into the state’s education reform plans. For example, New Jersey’s efforts to sustain STW are described in its education code, which emphasizes the need for implementing a developmental career guidance and career awareness program. Cross-content Workplace Readiness Standards¾basic principles for all students¾are being integrated into the K-12 curriculum.
Importance of Building Partnerships, Promoting Interagency Cooperation, and Establishing Strong State and Local Leadership
All states recognized the importance of interagency collaboration and cooperation, linkages and partnerships, and leadership to effect, strengthen, and sustain inclusive STW systems. State and local procedures were enacted to guarantee that agencies worked together. “Effective leaders realize the benefits of collaborative partnerships and foster such approaches throughout the system, at the state, regional, and local levels. Concurrently, a collaborative system fosters leadership with a variety of constituencies and utilizes that leadership to promote and sustain effective approaches. Collaborative partnerships promote shared service delivery, efficient resource utilization, and system-wide problem solving.”3
For example, in Rhode Island, the School-to-Career (STC) director, a proponent of inclusive STW systems and unified resource management, used committees comprised of staff from economics, labor, and education to set STC policies and practices for statewide workforce development issues for all learners. Examples of activities from this group included (a) input into the evaluation protocol of the Perkins Act, and (b) exploration of federal grants from labor, rehabilitation, school-to-work, vocational education, and special education in attempts to identify common goals and partnerships that would enhance improved outcomes for all students.
Cross-agency training opportunities and technical assistance, which were a result of these linkages and partnerships, promoted a wider dissemination of information and best practices. Several of the means used across states to accomplish technical assistance activities included continuing education, workshops, personnel preparation, conference presentations, and product development.
Oregon utilized many of these strategies. STW and TSCI staff worked jointly to provide training and technical assistance to local partnerships by combining mailings to make certain their partners received the same information, including information focused on students with disabilities. State personnel from both initiatives also developed a brochure that was especially geared to employers and included information about students with disabilities. Additionally, personnel from both systems served on each other’s committees to read local grants, and STW staff served as liaisons to ensure representation of individuals from the disability community in regional STW efforts.
Leadership that influenced inclusive STW policy formation came not only from STW, TSCI, and the special education community, but also from the grass roots efforts of advocacy groups and parents. This was evident in New Mexico, where the formation of the New Mexico Statewide Task Force on Transition to Postsecondary Education for Youth with Disabilities was a direct result of aggressive parent lobbying for support for students with disabilities to have access to postsecondary education. Parents in New Mexico held systems accountable for students with disabilities transitioning from secondary education to adulthood. They were supported in a variety of ways in state and out-of-state conferences and workshop attendance. Other New Mexico activities that supported parents included parent training and empowerment, and representation on task forces, councils, advisory committees, and policy groups.
All the states recognized the importance of co-sponsoring training and dissemination activities, and they aligned resources and pooled their funds and staff for greater impact for all students. This resource-mapping strategy was successful in reducing duplication of efforts and funds and led to an integrated approach.
Colorado, notable for its resource-alignment efforts, received a sustainability grant from the national STW office to continue efforts to align multiple state, local, and regional resources. A process and database for resource alignment and mapping were developed by STC personnel for use by other states and local partnerships. Through extensive state-led training and technical assistance on resource mapping, some of the STC regional centers in Colorado developed resource pools that enabled them to continue their work in assisting local communities to implement the principles of STC. Resource mapping also assisted local partnerships and districts in identifying funds and resources to continue STC positions and activities.
In New York, the pooling of resources and programs at both the state and local levels was also important for facilitating the involvement of students with disabilities in STW. For example, when the Career Plan for students was developed, all of the agencies involved in its development pooled resources and staff so the work could be accomplished through joint efforts. Additionally, STW funds were provided to the regional Transition Site Coordinators so they could share their best practices with the local STW partnerships.
At the local level, partnerships that made STW inclusive for all students mirrored the successful state activities. Across agencies, local partnerships collaborated and co-sponsored training, product and curricula development, grant writing, information sharing, and a host of other activities. Many of these activities were reflected in Vermont.
The Central Vermont STW Collaborative was just one of the partnerships in Vermont that had demonstrated a commitment to the inclusive vision of STW. A model for many of these inclusive activities, this partnership had developed an innovative program to recruit STW liaisons in each of the schools in the partnership region, developed a resource guide of best practices that aligned STW activities with Vermont education standards, and developed a summer youth employment program for high school students that encouraged inclusion of youth with disabilities. The summer program was aligned with educational standards, resulted in school credit, and included a yearlong mentoring program. The liaison program recruited general educators, business and vocational educators, special educators, and transition specialists. By forming a diverse professional liaison group, the partnership facilitated cross-disciplinary networking and guidance.
In Illinois, several Education to Careers (ETC) partnerships have worked intensively on the inclusion of youth with disabilities in local reform efforts. Through the Including Youth with Disabilities in Education to Careers grant at the Illinois Center for Specialized Professional Development, six ETC partnerships have received ongoing and intensive technical assistance. Outcomes to date include: improved collaboration among ETC partnerships, special educators, and disability advocates; ETC partnership involvement in planning and hosting an Interagency Fair for transition-age students; ETC hosted parent training on how to impact ETC with respect to youth with disabilities; and joint ETC and special education-sponsored training and marketing for teachers, businesses, and students.
All the states receiving federal funds have worked hard to involve all students in their STW programs, and every state has stories that describe its process. Here are a few of those stories.
1 http://www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/
3 Kohler, P.D. (in press). Collaboration, partnerships, and leadership. In J. Knab & A. Edelman (Eds.) NTA state resource manual. Washington, DC: Academy for Educational Development.
Colorado’s School-to-Career initiative (STC)1 funded in 1995, was built on a local-capacity development model intended to enhance local communities’ ability to develop, implement, and sustain educational reform efforts for all students. The emphasis on local capacity was highlighted by the formation of 91 local partnerships throughout Colorado. Local partnerships received support from regional centers and state personnel. STC leaders used the successful Transition Systems Change Initiative (TSCI), 1991-1996, as a model for local capacity development and worked closely with TSCI leaders to develop and implement the STC reform efforts.
The connection between STC and TSCI is evident in many areas. In the original STC proposal, TSCI structures are highlighted as models for structuring educational reform, and the TSCI staff was consulted on the development of the STC proposal. As STC implementation began, personnel previously affiliated with TSCI on the state, regional, and local levels were involved as consultants or STC staff. TSCI had developed local transition teams to develop grass-roots efforts, and STC was connected to those teams. In fact, local partnership proposals for funds required approval and signatures from the chair of the corresponding local transition team. These purposeful connections to local transition teams gave STC personnel immediate access to local expertise related to youth with disabilities. Partnerships were also required to include individuals with experience working with youth with disabilities on their partnership boards.
Although there was initially a strong commitment to design STC reform so that all students would benefit, state leaders understood that extensive planning and collaboration would be needed to make that commitment a reality. One step taken to facilitate the planning was the Collaborative Interagency Policy Forum for Youth at-Risk, a policy retreat convened by the lieutenant governor. The goal of the forum was to develop strategies to align policies and resources that would enable at-risk youth to achieve seamless transitions. Directors of multiple state agencies and programs (e.g., education, labor, higher education, juvenile justice, rehabilitation, and STC) discussed current policies, policy and service gaps, overlapping resources, and resource gaps. From this forum, state agencies continued an effort to align policies and implemented a plan for resource mapping at both the state and local levels.
State-level collaboration was evident in several other STC activities, including many related to ensuring that youth with disabilities benefited from the STC reform effort. Through TSCI, the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation (DVR) and the Department of Education had a state-level agreement supporting the transition of youth with disabilities. With the implementation of STC, DVR demonstrated its commitment to an inclusive STC system by infusing the principles and activities of STC into its state plan. DVR also implemented the School-to-Work Alliance Program (SWAP) to assist 16- to 25-year-olds who had dropped out or were at risk of dropping out of school. These target participants in the SWAP program were primarily youth and young adults who had previously been unserved or underserved by existing systems, often falling through the cracks in the service array. At the local level, SWAP brought together special education, STC, and rehabilitation staff to provide services. SWAP also worked closely with the local transition teams. Typical services provided relate directly to STC, including career exploration and development, and job placement assistance. DVR worked closely with both special education and STC in developing the SWAP program. DVR and special education each have a staff member with explicit responsibilities for connecting with the STC system.
STC also continued and built on the TSCI intensive technical assistance model, which utilized both regional resource centers and state personnel. STC personnel on the state and regional levels were responsible for providing technical assistance to local partnerships to build capacity. STC drew on the expertise of both special education staff and DVR staff by including them in site visits and in the development of training programs.
The local capacity building model adopted by Colorado called for extensive training. All STC-sponsored training programs included material on accommodating students with disabilities. A key focus of STC training, which is indicative of the commitment to align programs and efforts, was the relationship between STC and standards-based education reform. As Colorado developed its state standards, STC staff developed Making Standards Work and Bringing Standards to Life: A “How To” Guide to Contextual Learning and Curriculum2 . Making Standards Work aligned standards with STC activities, provided sample activities and lesson plans, and suggested assessment practices. Strategies for lesson plan accommodations for students with disabilities were included in Making Standards Work. These strategies were incorporated into the general standards-related professional development activities. STC provided additional training on utilizing contextual experiences to achieve standards, bringing special educators and vocational educators to the table with general educators. STC also partnered with special education staff to develop and implement training on infusing STC into the IEP and transition plan.3
The state-level collaboration and commitment to all youth was demonstrated to local partnerships and communities through policy, professional development, and technical assistance. Local partnerships subsequently mirrored that same commitment. Several examples of inclusive STC are available from around the state. SWAP is closely linked to STC in many local partnerships, examples of which include serving on each other’s boards and committees, co-sponsoring and jointly participating in workshops and seminars, and STC funding for SWAP events. In one local partnership, SWAP and STC combined funds for a single coordinator to work with both programs. Looking toward sustainability, one school district created a new position of vocational coordinator, whose responsibilities include building on STC activities to expand work-based learning activities for youth with disabilities. A local STC partnership facilitated a new agreement between a school district and the Department of Labor to expand case management services to at-risk middle school youth. In many districts, special educators and career and technology administrators are working together to develop new business contacts for work-based learning opportunities for all youth.
Although STC funding for Colorado has expired, there are several indications that much of the work and success will be sustained, and that youth, including those with disabilities, will continue to benefit. First, the work that STC did to link STC to standards has connected the expiring program to a continuing statewide effort. The current state standards website includes the Making Standards Work resources, so educators continue to see the connection between standards and contextual learning experiences, as well as strategies to accommodate learners with disabilities. Through extensive resource mapping training and technical assistance from the state4 some of the STC regional centers have developed resource pools that will enable them to continue their work in assisting local communities to implement the principles of STC. Youth Councils formed through WIA have been closely aligned with local partnerships and have strong disability representation. Also on the local level, several school districts have permanently funded the STC director positions.
Many of the individuals interviewed for this profile described Colorado as a “local control” state. They framed their work around that description, offering few mandates but extensive technical assistance to local communities. Communities now not only understand the underlying principles of STC and all learners, but they have the skills to implement new programs and incorporate principles into existing programs. Relationships among the various professional players in STC—general, special, and vocational educators as well as community members—have improved substantially, and in many communities there is a greater sense of working toward a common vision. Those relationships and understandings will continue and will be built upon in future initiatives.
1 http://www.cde.state.co.us/schooltocareer/index.htm
2 http://www.cde.state.co.us/schooltocareer//Resources_Educators.htm
3 http://www.cde.state.co.us/action/equity/tp.htm
Jeanne Fatz, Director
1580 Logan Street, Suite 410
Denver, CO 80203, 303-894-2060,
303-894-2064 (fax)
http://www.cde.state.co.us/schooltocareer/
Individuals Interviewed
Steve Kennedy, Deputy Director, Colorado School-to-Career Partnership
Susan McAlonan, Colorado Department of Education
Sue Schierkolk, Youth Programs Coordinator, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, Colorado Department of Human Services
Julie Sumpter, Regional Coordinator, Region Four, Otero Junior College
Pat Longo, Assistant Director of Special Services, Douglas County School District
Debbie Thompson, Transition Teacher, District 11
Leadership from several state offices and organizations in Illinois has promoted the inclusion of youth with disabilities in school-to-work reform efforts throughout the federal funding period. The structure of the Illinois school-to-work project, Education to Careers (ETC)1, includes a statewide steering committee comprised of leaders from education, business, and labor; a state office housed within the Illinois State Board of Education that provides technical assistance to partnerships; and 39 large regional partnerships that plan and implement system change activities. Early in ETC implementation, the state steering committee recognized the need for an active approach to ensure that all learners benefit from the initiative. Hence, a Serving All Learners subcommittee was included in the state committee structure. The steering committee also funded a Serving All Learners project2 at the Center for Specialized Professional Development at Illinois State University to facilitate training and technical assistance related to including youth with disabilities and other at-risk youth in the ETC initiative.
The Serving All Learners subcommittee includes state administrators, advocates, and business representatives with an interest in particular at-risk youth. Members with a specific interest in youth with disabilities included representatives from the Illinois State Board of Education Department of Special Education, the Illinois Department of Human Services Office of Rehabilitation Services, the Governor’s Council on Developmental Disabilities, the Marriott Foundation, several family and parent advocacy organizations, the Transition Research Institute at the University of Illinois, the Illinois Transition Consortium (the state systems change project), and local special education cooperatives.
Led by the Serving All Learners project, the subcommittee developed a partnership self-assessment tool that examined the extent to which at-risk youth were included in partnership activities and the extent to which they were given opportunities to meet the educational goals of ETC. Dissemination of the self-assessment instrument raised awareness of issues associated with including all learners, and the results were used to identify priorities for technical assistance and training opportunities. The subcommittee and project also developed promotional materials for partnerships to use in marketing the ETC initiative and worked with state ETC staff to increase their awareness of these issues. Promising practices that highlighted inclusive activities in partnerships were recognized by the subcommittee.
In year 3, the subcommittee developed criteria for partnership reviews that examined more specifically the inclusion of all youth, including youth with disabilities. In years 3 and 4, members of the subcommittee, particularly those with connections to youth with disabilities, participated on partnership review teams. These teams were responsible for reviewing past partnership activities and proposed work plans, as well as making technical assistance recommendations. The involvement of disability advocates on these review teams reinforced the importance of the all-learners message for partnerships, and provided them with valuable resources for continued improvement. The Serving All Learners project also compiled lists of resources and experts for partnerships to access as they worked to include all youth in their local reforms.
In addition to the work within the Serving All Learners project and subcommittee, members of the subcommittee promoted the ETC initiative in their own work. For instance, an administrator from the Office of Rehabilitation Services who was active on the subcommittee worked regularly with local Transition Planning Committees (TPCs) that had been established in the 1980s. He disseminated information on the ETC initiative, including goals, activities, and contacts, to all TPCs in the state. Similarly, he disseminated TPC information and contacts to all ETC partnerships. These efforts reflected the value the subcommittee placed on facilitating cooperation among existing systems.
In addition to the All Learners project, the ETC steering committee funded a project through the Illinois Chamber of Commerce to encourage participation of youth with disabilities in ETC initiatives. The state chamber worked with ETC partnerships and local chambers of commerce to host chamber breakfasts aimed to motivate employers to provide work-based learning activities for youth with disabilities. The breakfast speaker was a business person from the state chamber, sometimes accompanied by a student
with a disability who had participated in a work-based learning experience or a local business person who had worked with a student with a disability. Local job developers who worked with students with disabilities were encouraged to attend these breakfasts to network with employers after the speaker addressed them, and business people at the meeting were given the opportunity that day to request that they be contacted by a job developer.
Projects to promote the inclusion of youth with disabilities in ETC came from outside the steering committee as well. The Governor’s Council on Developmental Disabilities recognized the importance of the reform and appropriated funds for a two-year grant to promote the inclusion of youth with disabilities in the initiative, awarded to the Illinois Center for Specialized Professional Support. The goals of the Including Youth with Disabilities in ETC3 project are to develop a training curriculum for the partnerships and steering committee, to deliver training and technical assistance, to compile and disseminate information about available resources, and to raise awareness through a white paper and marketing materials. All 39 partnerships have had opportunities for training related to youth with disabilities and have received information on resources. The white paper, which identified barriers to including youth with disabilities and identified strategies for local partnerships and advocates, was disseminated not only to the partnerships and steering committee, but also to all state senators and representatives. Marketing materials have been similarly disseminated. In the second year of the project, efforts have focused on providing intensive technical assistance to six ETC partnerships to assist them in developing inclusive systems, practices, and partnerships.
The efforts of the state steering committee and related projects such as the Governor’s Council project have impacted the work in several ETC partnerships. The East Central Illinois Workforce Development Commission, an ETC partnership, is one partnership that from the beginning of its ETC implementation has recognized the need to work actively to include youth with disabilities. In its first year, the commission established a committee of disability advocates and professionals to identify potential barriers to the inclusion of youth with disabilities in ETC initiatives and to identify strategies and action plans to address those barriers. The results of that work were then shared with other partnership committees to be addressed through the ongoing work of the partnership. The commission made a commitment to connect with special educators, rehabilitation professionals, and disability advocates; its marketing materials reflected its inclusive vision by including images of students with visible disabilities; its staff consistently encouraged special educators to participate in partnership training activities and to assist youth with disabilities in participating in partnership student activities.
In addition to these steps, which encourage an inclusive system, the partnership leadership also recognized that there were specific needs for youth with disabilities that might not be adequately addressed through general partnership activities. In response, the commission’s executive director has actively sought to connect people working in special education to additional resources and experts to strengthen existing programs or to develop new programs. The commission also designed and led a marketing initiative to encourage employers to provide work-based learning activities to youth with disabilities. Not only did the commission sponsor a nationally recognized speaker for a chamber breakfast devoted to employing youth with disabilities, it also designed and disseminated a business-friendly manual intended to build employers’ confidence in their ability to accommodate workers with disabilities and provide them with contacts in their communities. Future plans in the partnership include sponsoring training on effective job development and connections between career plans and transition plans, providing technical assistance to a new project intended to increase work-based learning opportunities for youth with disabilities in rural areas, and continuing efforts to connect existing systems.
The ETC Partnership for the Joliet Junior College region has also made significant efforts to design inclusive systems change. The project associate for the Including Youth with Disabilities in ETC project highlighted the outstanding collaboration at this project pilot site: the partnership coordinator has established effective relationships with both a local high school and an area special education cooperative. The individual from Joliet Township High School focuses on transition planning for students with disabilities and works very closely with career and technical education personnel, special education personnel, and regular education personnel. He is a strong advocate of ETC and shares all aspects of the ETC initiative with his colleagues. The LaGrange Area Special Education Cooperative (LASEC) representative is also a strong advocate of ETC and for students with disabilities, coordinating the Secondary Transition Employment Program (STEP) and employment opportunities for all students LASEC serves. She is actively involved with employers, employment specialists and job coaches, disability organizations, all regular and special education personnel and administrators, and parents. The ETC coordinator has a strong background in business and can rely on those resources, in addition to those provided by his representatives from the high schools. These three individuals work very closely together, jointly providing inservice opportunities, trainings, information, and marketing materials, collaboratively advocating for the ETC initiative and the inclusion of students with disabilities. The students they serve and the colleagues with whom they work provide tremendous avenues for promoting the value of the ETC initiative.
From initial implementation, leaders on the state steering committee as well as in other state agencies have recognized the need to provide guidance and assistance to local communities on implementing the ETC initiative in a way that benefits youth with disabilities. Continued efforts will be made to provide technical assistance to partnerships, and many local partnerships will continue their work in the final year of ETC to connect different systems so that similar reform will continue beyond ETC funding. Through several state initiatives coupled with strong local leadership, reform is impacting all learners in Illinois.
1 http://www.isbe.state.il.us/etc/
2 http://www.coe.ilstu.edu/icsps/project2.asp
3 http://www.coe.ilstu.edu/icsps/project3.asp
Contact Information . . . .
Susie Morrison, ETC Division Administrator
Illinois State Board of Education
100 North First St., E-420
Springfield, IL 62777-0001
http://www.isbe.state.il.us/etc
Individuals Interviewed
Linda Reabe, Project Coordinator, Serving All Learners Project, Illinois Center for Specialized Professional Support
Stacey Hueberger, Project Associate, Including Youth with Disabilities in ETC, Illinois Center for Specialized Professional Support
Career Connections, Maryland’s school-to-work initiative1, was funded in 1995. From the local to the state level, Career Connections was woven into existing structures and personnel. At the state level, the Career Connections state management team, which included state agencies, education, business, organized labor, and local communities, provided overall policy guidance and management. Housed in the Division of Career Technology and Adult Learning of the Maryland State Department of Education, Career Connection’s day-to-day work at the state level was incorporated into responsibilities for existing staff. At the regional level, Career Connections was linked with twelve pre-existing local labor market teams, which administered grants. Finally, at the local level, Career Connections activities were implemented in local schools by school improvement teams which worked closely with local labor market teams.
In addition to receiving funding for Career Connections, Maryland enjoyed two other critical developments in 1995 that provided support for statewide efforts to improve education for youth with disabilities. The Maryland Transition Initiative (MTI), the state’s transition systems change grant, was also funded, and state legislation, spearheaded by the Governor’s Office for Individuals with Disabilities, established a state interagency transition task force. Assistant state superintendents promoted ongoing cooperation between the two federally funded programs and the state task force.
The state legislation charged the interagency transition task force with identifying policy and system improvements that would promote seamless transitions for youth with disabilities. Key state agencies were represented on the task force, including the Division of Career Technology and Adult Learning, which houses Career Connections; the Division of Special Education; the Division of Rehabilitation Services, which houses MTI; the Developmental Disabilities Administration; the Mental Hygiene Administration; the Governor’s Office for Individuals with Disabilities; and the Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation. The task force met quarterly and in 1997 was required to submit a plan to the state legislature. That 1997 plan identified nine objectives, with primary responsibility for activities delegated to the Divisions of Career Technology and Adult Learning, Special Education, and Rehabilitation. Several activities required or resulted in increased collaboration among the key state players. The ongoing work of the task force facilitated the development and support of a common vision, more effective communication, and greater collaboration among state agencies. These successes were reflected in the relationship between Career Connections and MTI.
Assistant state superintendents from the Division for Career Technology and Learning and the Division of Rehabilitation Services took advantage of concurrent Career Connections and MTI funding to align the activities of the two projects in several ways. After noting redundancies in the grant application process for local communities, staff of both projects developed an integrated grant process in year 2. Career Connections grant applications had to address strategies for including youth with disabilities in grant activities, whereas MTI grant applications had to address how proposed activities would fit within the larger Career Connections framework. In reviewing grant proposals, representatives from both projects participated in all review teams. Having grant award letters signed by both Career Connections and MTI representatives further emphasized the importance of the projects complementing one another at the local level.
Both Career Connections and MTI provided extensive technical assistance to local communities. People working with local projects were encouraged to use support from either or both state projects, and state staff frequently made joint technical assistance site visits. Staff from the Division of Special Education was also integral in providing ongoing technical assistance related to transition and school-to-work to local communities. Career Connections, MTI, the Division of Special Education, the ARC of Maryland, and other cooperating programs and agencies jointly sponsored numerous conferences and training activities. For example, the statewide Career Connections High School Improvement Conference required at least one special educator to be on each school’s eight-person team.
Statewide data collection related to student outcomes also prompted a collaborative effort. Through Career Connections, the Division of Career Technology and Adult Learning collects follow-up surveys from students who have graduated from schools. Initially, there was no mechanism for disaggregating the outcomes of students with disabilities. Staff from the Division of Special Education and Career Connections worked together to develop a system for disaggregation. In 1998, the task force state plan was amended to include a system for collecting data on projected exit dates and categories and anticipated post-school service needs of youth with disabilities. The Divisions of Career Technology and Adult Learning, Special Education, and Rehabilitation are jointly developing this data collection system, which will result in the transmission of data to adult service agencies for strategic planning.
Maryland’s commitment to collaboration is demonstrated by the blended instruction project. Blended instruction workshops have been held throughout the state and highlight strategies to integrate Maryland’s Core Learning Goals with career clusters. Educators participate in teams comprising of academic and occupational instructors, special educators, guidance counselors, and school improvement team leaders. Participating teams design projects that integrate academic standards with industry standards and themes. In addition to hosting workshops throughout the state, the Department of Education has also awarded mini-grants to schools to support continued blended instruction development.
The collaboration evident at the state level through the integrated grant process and joint technical assistance and training activities has prompted greater collaboration at the local level. Local staff responsible for Career Connections activities are housed in district offices, as are local special education administrators, which promotes linkages between the two systems at the local level. Some local partnerships have followed the state lead by building collaborations between career staff and special education, rehabilitation, and other cooperating programs to jointly sponsor and participate in training. Other local partnerships are receiving state assistance in mapping and aligning resources to promote cooperation. In one community, Career Connections and MTI representatives worked jointly to develop a career portfolio process for students with disabilities, and then expanded that same process to all students. Success in promoting change at both the state and local levels is also evidenced by the recognition of 12 programs as promising practices and programs by the National Transition Alliance housed at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Career Connections money was used strategically, with an emphasis on building sustainable reform and partnerships. Funding was not used to hire new staff. Instead, activities outlined in the initial grant proposal were embedded into ongoing school improvement efforts. Career Connections responsibilities were delegated to existing staff in different divisions and offices at both state and local levels. Hence, the reform efforts became an integrated part of operations and have a greater potential for continuing post-grant. Staff remained after the grant expired, and the state has allocated additional state dollars to support the work of Career Connections. As its funding expires, MTI is being folded into Career Connections.
Since its initial funding in 1995, Career Connections has facilitated systemic change in education for all students in Maryland. From the beginning, state administrators sent clear messages to local communities. First, by weaving Career Connections into existing state and local systems, the management team highlighted that Career Connections was not considered a new program, but rather a systems change effort. Second, Career Connections is for all students. The extensive collaboration at the state level among the Divisions of Career Technology and Adult Learning, Special Education, and Rehabilitation, in addition to that between Career Connections and MTI, demonstrated clearly to local systems that the benefits of Connections reforms were expected to reach all students. Collaboration was not only modeled on the state level; local communities were also given extensive technical assistance that facilitated greater collaboration on that level.
Much of the success of the Maryland experience may be attributed to strong leadership. Assistant state superintendents articulated clear missions, set expectations, and provided support for their office staff members to work together to achieve the mission of relevant education for all learners. The “worker bees” of the various cooperating programs demonstrated a strong commitment to the mission and worked tirelessly to support it. Incorporating the initiative into existing and ongoing systems will enable these partnerships to continue and will increase the probability that subsequent inclusive reform efforts will be sustained and continued.
http://www.msde.state.md.us/factsndata/mdcareer.html
Contact Information . . . .
Assistant State Superintendent
Division of Career Technology and Adult Learning
200 West Baltimore Street
Baltimore, MD 21201-2595
(410) 767-0170
http://www.msde.state.md.us/factsndata/mdcareer.html
Individuals Interviewed
Amy Pleet, Transition Specialist, Division of Special Education, MD Department of Education
Lynne Gillie, Program Manager, Career Technology Education/Instructional Branch, MD Department of Education
Beverly Kerkam, Career Development Specialist, Carroll County Schools
The collaborative efforts of New Jersey’s Transition Systems Change Initiative (TSCI) (1993-1998) and School-to-Career Initiative (STC)(1995-2001) helped lay the foundation for promoting an inclusive school-to-work system for all students. New Jersey is one of the initial eight states funded through the School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994 to create a statewide system of school-based, work-based, and connecting activities. The overlapping funding of these two federal initiatives served to strengthen New Jersey’s commitment to preparing all students for work. Before STC funding, New Jersey had in place a unified state plan for workforce readiness that integrated school-based and work-based learning; linked secondary to postsecondary education; had high standards for academic and occupational skills achievement; and had state and local partnerships of stakeholders working together to prepare youth for work.
At the state level, the Interagency Directors’ Forum on Transition was established by the TSCI. This is an ongoing workgroup that comprises state agency directors from the Office of Special Education Programs, Division of Developmental Disabilities, Commission for the Blind and Visually Impaired, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation Services, Office of School-to-Career Initiatives, and the Juvenile Justice Commission. This Directors’ Forum, which meets quarterly, was formed to address issues, policies, regulations, and collaborative strategies for improving school-to-career transition-related activities; to encourage resource sharing at the state and local levels; and to plan collaborative strategies for successful transition from school to adult life for youth with disabilities. As a result of this partnership and subsequent collaboration, inclusiveness has been built into grant writing, project development, and the implementation of school-to-career activities for all students.
The Directors’ Forum is the centerpiece for strong state leadership that filters down to the local levels via training and technical assistance to local education agencies (LEAs), school-to-career partnerships, parent and professional groups, and students. Annual student leadership conferences are an example of this state-level focus to promote student empowerment and self-determination for achieving career potential and independence. These conferences are coordinated with local colleges in New Jersey and are sponsored jointly by the local school-to-career partnerships and the New Jersey Office of Special Education Programs. Conference activities that feature student presenters are designed to attract a broad spectrum of students with a variety of disabilities as well as their parents, and are relevant to students whether they are planning to attend college, enroll in vocational programs, or seek employment after graduation.
Other state-level technical assistance and training activities are customized to individual requests and local needs of LEAs and parent and professional groups. Technical assistance to local districts can include: (a) program development regarding career awareness, exploration and preparation, and (b) outreach to employers to promote partnership building and cultivate sites for structured learning experiences of students with disabilities.
An innovative example of technical assistance to LEAs is New Jersey’s Transition Counselors in Schools project, which models the partnership building, collaboration, and resource alignment necessary for sustaining school-to-career for students with disabilities. This project was funded with IDEA Part B monies from the New Jersey Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, and funds up to 100% of the salaries and fringe benefits for six transition counselors who are based at the New Jersey Division of Vocational Rehabilitation Services (DVRS) local offices to provide technical assistance to LEAs. This assistance includes mentoring school personnel and others to develop and implement career awareness programs, situational vocational assessments, community-based career exploration activities, self-determination and self-advocacy training, services to prepare students and family members for active participation in IEP meetings, and career planning and counseling services.
Information-sharing across agencies and information dissemination to target audiences are important strategies for the collaboration and involvement of all stakeholders in promoting improved school-to-career and transition opportunities and outcomes or students with disabilities. As part of New Jersey’s targeted dissemination of information efforts, a new Transition Resource Manual has been developed which contains information on transition services in New Jersey that will be helpful to a wide variety of stakeholders¾students, educators, parents and family members, adult service providers, advocates, and other state agency personnel¾ in training or technical assistance activities. Another important resource that has been disseminated is the new video A World to Gain¾Transitioning Students with Severe Disabilities. This video production highlights successful educational practices that are utilized in the provision of transition services for students with severe disabilities in the public school setting; it focuses on a case study approach to three students and includes interviews with students, parents, educational personnel, and employers. This video can be used in training, technical assistance, information dissemination, and marketing activities and is available from the New Jersey Office of Special Education Programs.
At the local level, school transition coordinators are members of local youth councils and bring to the table the disability perspective in workforce development initiatives. Additionally, School-to-Career and TSCI jointly sponsor professional development conferences for general and special educators by pooling resources. These examples of cross-agency collaboration and resource alignment are hallmarks of New Jersey’s system-building efforts.
Local STC partnerships and programs in New Jersey model STC and transition best practices that have been identified as exemplary by two Office of Special Education Program, U.S. Department of Education projects, the All Means All project, University of Minnesota, and the National Transition Alliance for Youth with Disabilities (NTA), University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
• One New Jersey partnership is having great success in working with area businesses to provide students with disabilities with employment opportunities and experiences. The Atlantic County Special Services School District (ACSSSD) provides school-based and work-based opportunities for students with disabilities in “classrooms without walls,” which is a community-based program.
Other local examples of model New Jersey school-to-career initiatives are
• the Salem County School-to-Careers Initiative, Pennsville, New Jersey1
• the Supermarket/Retail Program, Denville, New Jersey2
• S-4, Student Self-Survival Skills Project, Millburn, New Jersey3
• Transition Program/Elizabeth High School, Elizabeth, New Jersey4
New Jersey’s efforts to sustain School-to-Career are also found in the New Jersey education code5. Cross-content Workplace Readiness Standards¾basic principles for all students¾are being integrated into the K-12 curriculum. The five cross-content workplace readiness standards that have been identified include: (a) all students will develop career planning and workplace readiness skills, (b) all students will use technology, information, and other tools, (c) all students will use critical thinking, decision making, and problem-solving skills, (d) all students will demonstrate self-management skills, and (e) all students will apply safety principles. This adopted education code emphasizes the need for the implementation of a developmental career guidance and career awareness program for all students. Cross-content workplace readiness standards have been identified as an integral part of the core curriculum content standards for all students.
With an education code that embraces school-to-career principles for all students, strong state leadership committed to school-to-work for everyone, local partnerships that are models for others, technical assistance activities to empower students and families, and information dissemination strategies that target all stakeholders, New Jersey has established a framework that addresses improved educational outcomes for all students. Continuing collaboration and leadership will be required to sustain these efforts.
1 http://www.ici.coled.umn.edu/all/awardsite20.html
2 http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/SPED/TRI/supermarketretail.htm
3 http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/sped/tri/studentselfsurvival.htm
4 http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/sped/tri/transition_program.htm
5 http://www.stw.ed.gov/Database/Subject2.cfm?RECNO=5456
Contact Information . . . .
New Jersey Department of Education
Office of Special Education Programs
P.O. Box 500
Trenton, NJ 08625-0500
609-633-6430
E-mail: rhaugh@doe.state.nj.us
http://www.state.nj.us/njded/voc/index.html
Individuals Interviewed
Bob Haugh, New Jersey Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs
Marie Barry, New Jersey Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs
Russell V. Grecco, Principal, Atlantic County Special Services School
District
Leadership at the state level in the New Mexico Office of School-to-Work (Office of the Governor) and the Department of Education promotes success for all students and encourages local school-to-work (STW) initiatives to work together to overcome challenges that are unique to New Mexico. New Mexico is geographically the fifth largest state, one of the least populated, has a minority as the majority, and is culturally and linguistically rich. In this complex environment, New Mexico has capitalized on the existing and successful network of community colleges in the 17 Regional Area Partnerships (RAPs) and the Transition Systems Change Initiative (TSCI) initiatives to organize and implement STW across rural and urban areas.
At the state level, the STW Director works closely with the Departments of Economic Development, Education, Employment and Labor, and the Statewide Transition Coordinating Council (STCC) to focus policies and programs on what is best for all students. The Statewide Transition Coordinating Council, funded by various state agencies to sustain the TSCI efforts, is influential in STW policies and initiatives. The Transition Coordinating Council holds systems accountable for students with disabilities transitioning from secondary education to adulthood, and was the result of the recommendations from the New Mexico Statewide Task Force on Transition to Postsecondary Education for Youth with Disabilities. Established in 1994 by the state legislature, this task force was a result of aggressive parent lobbying for support for students with disabilities to have access to postsecondary institutions. The New Mexico State Department of Education (NMSDE) and Special Education Office supported the task force for two years and made sure the Governor, the State Board of Education, the Legislative Education Study Committee and the IDEA State Advisory Panel heard the recommendations. It was through this partnership of parents and systems that the State Transition Coordinating Council became a reality.1
From these grass-roots efforts and successes, parents became recognized as important partners in transition and school-to-work and are represented in their own state agency, Lifespan Transition Planning. Parent participation is supported in a variety of ways in state and out-of-state¾conference and worksho pattendance, sponsorship of activities that support parent training and empowerment, and representation on task forces, councils, advisory committees, and policy groups.
The Education Plan for Student Success, a component of New Mexico’s education reform efforts, Standards for Excellence, must show that parents have been asked for their in-put in the development of the goals and objectives of the student plan. The plan includes benchmarks for nine content areas, one of which is career readiness for all K-12 students. In an effort to reduce the dropout rate for students with disabilities and to better prepare them for employment, the State Board of Education has adopted revisions to the Standards for Excellence relating to graduation requirements for students with disabilities. These graduation requirements are a direct result of parents working with systems to promote better outcomes for students with disabilities. In New Mexico, students can choose among three paths to a high school diploma: (a) a standard program of study, (b) a career-readiness program of study, and (c) an ability program of study. These paths require students to identify their career interests and aptitudes to develop an education plan that supports personal career goals, which can be built into a student’s individualized education plan from age 14 and can lead directly to a diploma.
In New Mexico employers as well as parents play an important part in educational outcomes for students with disabilities. The Kemtah Group, Inc., headquartered in Albuquerque, is a good example. Kemtah provides valuable work experience and training in information technology for students with disabilities.2 One of Kemtah’s missions, “to build bridges to employment for people with career barriers,” resulted in the creation of the Innovative Workforce Options Resources (IWORK) program at Kemtah. Adaptive equipment, ranging from ergonomic devices to high tech remote-controlled devices, equipped its training laboratory for the first training group of 25 students. Kemtah provides needs and skills assessment and six months of skills training followed by internships at local and national companies that could lead to permanent employment at these sites. Kemtah is expanding the program to include other sites in New Mexico and California.
At the local level and in an urban setting, a school-to-work program that is having a positive impact on students with disabilities is Community Education and Support Services (CESS). Housed in the Albuquerque public schools, this program provides self-determination and independent living training as well as vocational experiences to students 18-22 years old, by using the community as the classroom. Students can access this program while either in school or out of school, and in some cases a diploma is awarded upon successful completion of the IEP. CESS has been identified by the National Transition Alliance for Youth with Disabilities as a promising program that can be a model for others in development and implementation.3
The importance of interagency collaboration and partnerships for the school-to-work transition for students with disabilities can be seen in local partnerships that emphasize building a seamless system that connects the student with service agencies before exiting public school. Gary Cozzens, STW Coordinator for Otero County Regional Area Partnership, a rural partnership, has co-authored Adult Agencies: Linkages for Adolescents in Transition [Pro-Ed Series on Transition], which describes this interagency collaboration process in depth, and depicts best practices used throughout the United States.4
These collaborative efforts from parents, employers, partnerships, and communities are focused on success for each and every student and reflect much of the work going on in New Mexico. Sustaining these efforts and improving upon them will be a continuing challenge in this state, which is so rich in diversity and complexity.
1 NTA Resource Bulletin, July 2000 issue -
http://www.dssc.org/nta/html/Julbul_5.htm
2 NTA Resource Bulletin, September 2000 issue -
http://www.dssc.org/nta/html/sepbul_5.htm
3 http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/sped/tri/communityeducationsupport.htm
4 Information about this book can be found under “Products - Transition & Employment” at the Pro-Ed, Inc. -- website: http://www.proedinc.com
Contact Information . . . .
Vonell Huitt
Director, New Mexico School-to-Work
Office of the Governor
State Capital Building
Room 400
Santa Fe, NM 87503
E-mail: Huittv@gov.state.nm.us
http://www.edd.state.nm.us/stw
Individuals Interviewed
Carole Brito, Transition Coordinator, New Mexico State Department of Education
Gary Cozzens, Rural Partnership
New York was one of the first eight states to receive funding through the School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994. New York received funding for five years and then obtained additional funding, so that their actual grant period was from 1994-2002. New York was awarded additional funding to implement one of the key defining features of STW identified by the National STW Office. Consequently, New York was able to offer additional funds to local STW partnerships for projects aimed at improving and sustaining “Work-based Learning Connected to Students’ Coursework and Career Plans.” Before and during their school-to-work (STW) funding, New York was also one of the first five states to receive federal dollars targeted toward enhancing transition outcomes for youth with disabilities. During 1991-1996, New York received money through the federally funded Transition Systems Change Initiative.
As with many states during this period, New York was deeply involved in educational reform efforts. The New York Board of Regents established high standards that all students, including students with disabilities, were expected to meet. While the standards emphasized traditional areas, such as literacy and mathematics, they also included the Career Development and Occupational Studies (CDOS) learning standards. The CDOS learning standards were developed as part of the educational reform effort and were closely aligned with the national STW legislation. The CDOS framework integrates academic and vocational learning into a comprehensive delivery system for all students at all levels and comprises three standard areas. Standard 1 is the Career Development Standard, through which students are expected to develop an awareness of the world of work, explore career options, and relate personal skills, aptitudes, and abilities to future career decisions. Standard 2 is called Integrated Learning. Here, students need to understand and demonstrate how academic content is applied in real-world and workplace settings. Standard 3a, Foundation Skills, requires students to master the foundation skills and competencies essential for success in the workplace. Standard 3b, Career Majors, requires that students who choose a career major acquire the career-specific technical knowledge and skills necessary to progress toward gainful employment, career advancement, and success in postsecondary programs.
In order to help students achieve the CDOS learning standards, a framework for a Career Plan was developed and piloted. The Career Plan is filled out by students and requires them to think about their interests and abilities, their interest in careers and experiences that could help them decide on careers, and their future goals and how to achieve them. While the Career Plan helps students to become self-determined individuals, it is also closely aligned and integrated with transition planning activities required by IDEA for students with disabilities.
How did this reform effort occur, and what factors enabled students with disabilities to be an integral part of STW? As in many states, a primary impetus for the involvement of students with disabilities in reform efforts depends on key personnel. In New York, personnel from special education, and others representing students with disabilities, were always at the table and were also appointed to important state committees, such as the State Advisory Council for STW. As another example, personnel from special education were involved in the development of the Career Plan. Diverse groups such as labor and education developed the Career plan, and the involvement of special education allowed these groups to make certain the Career Plan was appropriate for all students. In New York, it was important that the Assistant Commissioner for the Office of Workforce Preparation and Continuing Education, who was also responsible for the STW initiatives, strongly believed the concept that “All Means All”; that is, that STW was for everyone, including students with disabilities.
Beside the involvement of key personnel, the field of special education had much to offer to make sure that STW was a successful initiative in New York. Because New York had prior federal funding for their Transition Systems Change Initiative, it had a structure and expertise in place that facilitated the involvement of students with disabilities in STW. For example, the best linkages seemed to occur where Transition Site Coordinators worked with other local STW partnerships. Also, much of the training that occurred in the state was done jointly between special education and STW staff in areas such as community-based assessment and instruction, mentorship, applied learning, and establishing work experience programs. Outcomes for students with disabilities were best when Transition Site Coordinators were involved in training. Essentially, many personnel in special education had a great deal of expertise in facilitating some of the primary features associated with STW through their prior efforts with transition initiatives articulated in IDEA.
Interestingly, inclusion practices in New York also helped students with disabilities become more involved in STW. Inclusion was seen as a philosophy and practice that helped to reduce barriers between special education and general education. Consequently, the practice of inclusion provided opportunities for conversations and plans to include students with disabilities in STW efforts.
The pooling of resources and programs at both the state and local levels were also important for facilitating the involvement of students with disabilities in STW. For example, when the Career Plan was developed, all of the agencies involved in its development pooled resources and staff so the work could be accomplished by joint efforts. Additionally, STW funds were provided to the regional Transition Site Coordinators so they could share their best practices with the local STW partnerships. Many special education teachers were also assertive in applying for STW mini-grants, which helped them provide STW opportunities for their students.
In New York, there are many local examples of effective STW partnerships that involve students with disabilities. For example, Benjamin Franklin High School in the Rochester City School District in partnership with the Via Health’s Rochester General Hospital was the recipient of the All Means All School-to-Work Award through the University of Minnesota1 . This program’s mission is to deliver a youth apprenticeship program that provides high skills and career paths for students in health care careers.
Another local example occurs in Monroe 1 BOCES. Here, training is always done jointly between coordinators representing transition and STW areas. This joint training helped STW coordinators realize that “All Means All,” and this philosophy defined the partnership from the very beginning. Local partnerships worked together to develop a training manual that showed how the transition requirements of IDEA were aligned with the CDOS learning standards.2 After the manual was developed, STW and transition coordinators did joint training on its content. Training was available to all STW constituency groups, including special educators, general educators, administrators, support service providers, families, and employers. All of these groups, and especially administrators, endorsed the CDOS learning standards and believed that they were for all students. Even though many STW coordinators did not have experience and training with students with disabilities, they were very open to opportunities to get involved. For example, in one region STW internship coordinators received training on working with students with disabilities and were often present for IEP meetings.
Although STW in New York has been very successful in its efforts to include students with disabilities, challenges still remain. In particular, STW is not funded by state legislation, which may have implications for its sustainability. In addition, the principles and practices of STW and transition are not thought to be prominent in the curricula and experiences offered through preservice education. STW and transition are believed to be only as good as the personnel available to implement the policies and practices of these reform efforts.
Much of the success of New York is felt to be due to its state leadership, which has not changed dramatically over the years. This leadership has always ensured that students with disabilities are a part of education reform efforts. Additionally, state leaders have been sensitive to the needs of local partnerships and have worked very hard to make certain that technical assistance and support have been individualized to local needs. Finally, it is likely that many features of STW will be sustained in New York through components of the Workforce Investment Act State Plan, CDOS learning standards, the career plan, transition planning, and the new career and technical education policy recently approved by the New York State Board of Regents.
1 http://www.ici.coled.umn.edu/all/awardsite21.html
2 http://www.monroeschooltowork.com
Contact Information . . . .
Jean Stevens, Assistant Commissioner
Office of Workforce Preparation and Continuing Education
New York State Education Department
99 Washington Avenue
Albany, NY 12234
(518) 474-8892
Individuals Interviewed
Nancy Lauria, Associate, Office of Vocational Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities, New York State Education Department
Sara Knower, Associate, Office of Workforce Preparation and Continuing Education, New York State Education Department
Therese Zona, Rochester Area Transition Coordination Site, Monroe I BOCES
Kathy Heffron, Eastern Monroe County School-Business Partnership, Monroe I BOCES
Although Oregon was among the first states to receive federal School-to-Work (STW) dollars (funded 1994-1999), many of the defining features of STW were already present in current state legislation even before the state received its federal grant. The Oregon Educational Act for the Twenty-first Century was passed in 1991 and later modified in 1995. This state legislation was noteworthy for two reasons. First, it was jump-started by employers who realized that school reform efforts were needed to prepare future workers to meet the challenges of the twenty-first century. Second, this legislation served as one of the models for the 1994 federal STW legislation. Because of pre-existing state legislation and policy, subsequent STW funding, and money from other early federal initiatives (e.g., the Transition Systems Change Initiative), it is difficult to pinpoint which effort was entirely responsible for various educational programs and services. Nonetheless, all efforts reflected STW principles and activities through system building, education improvement, workforce development, and alignment of related programs and priorities.
As part of their school reform efforts, the state board of education in Oregon adopted academic content and career-related learning standards that all students were expected to master in order to achieve the Certificate of Initial Mastery (CIM) and Advanced Mastery (CAM). The career-related learning standards included such performance skills as demonstrating appropriate workplace behaviors; applying decision-making and problem-solving techniques in workplace situations; demonstrating effective teamwork; applying the principles of effective communication to give and receive information; and developing career goals through a comprehensive career plan. Through state assessment, all students are expected to demonstrate that they meet the learning standards in the CIM and CAM. Because students with disabilities may present assessment challenges, personnel in Oregon are actively exploring testing accommodations for students who may need them. In addition, the state is looking at the feasibility and comparability of using multiple assessment tools for the career-related learning standards, including checklists, portfolios, and on-demand video-based scenarios.
Oregon’s STW effort includes the participation of many partners, representing education, business, higher education, chamber of council executives, and agencies associated with disability (e.g., special education and vocational rehabilitation). From 1992-1997, Oregon received federal dollars to fund their Transition Systems Change Initiative, which was aimed at improving the transition from school to adult life for students with disabilities. Like many other states that seemed to be successful in providing STW opportunities for students with disabilities, the blending of both federal efforts¾Transition System Change and STW¾seemed to contribute to this success, and Oregon was no exception. At the state level, personnel from Transition Systems Change met
weekly with STW personnel to make sure that issues related to disability were always a part of the STW agenda, while personnel from both initiatives worked jointly to provide training and technical assistance to local STW partnerships.
Resource-sharing occurred at both the state and local level. For example at the state level, when six New Century schools were funded to be among the first to implement all aspects of CAM, special education and vocational rehabilitation put resources into these schools to ensure the involvement of students with disabilities. When personnel from STW and Transition Systems Change mailed information to their local partnerships, they combined mailings to make certain their partners received the same information, including information focused on students with disabilities. State personnel from both systems also developed a brochure, especially geared to employers, which included information about available resources for working with youth with disabilities. Additionally, personnel from both initiatives served on each other’s committees to read local grants, and STW staff served as liaisons and connectors to ensure representation of individuals from the disability community in regional STW efforts.
Resource-sharing and cooperation also occurred at the local level. In fact, many transition teams for youth with disabilities at the local level were very strong. These teams worked well with STW personnel and often merged into a single team. Local transition teams had established strong partnerships with employers, and these partnerships helped STW to get a head start in many communities. Several other examples of resource-sharing occurred at the local level. For example, some school districts looked at how their courses were taught so that they supported diverse learners. Also, some schools reviewed and revised their career exploration and development programs to make certain that students with disabilities achieved access and success. Career centers established connections with disability services’ personnel at local colleges and provided training for special education support personnel so that they would know how to use career centers in a more efficient and productive manner.
One of the best examples of local STW efforts designed to include students with disabilities occurred at the Mid-Columbia STW System in Hood River, Oregon.1 This system comprised eleven rural Oregon School districts and was a recipient of the All Means All School-to-Work Award through the University of Minnesota and selected as a Promising Program through the National Transition Alliance. The Mid-Columbia system already had transition funds when STW funds became available. The special educator in charge of the local Youth Transition Program served as one of the leaders in designing and writing the local STW partnership grant. In this grant, the foundation of the Youth Transition Program (a program for students with disabilities developed through partnerships among the Oregon Vocational Rehabilitation Division, the Oregon Department of Education, the University of Oregon, and local school districts statewide) was used to ensure that every student participated in the STW system, and the job duties of the current transition specialists were expanded to include STW activities. Because of this active role in planning and designing activities, students with disabilities were involved in STW from the very beginning. As one local provider said, “Start with one seamless system; don’t start with separate systems.”
A unique feature used to write the Mid-Columbia STW Action Plan was the incorporation of Personal Futures Planning. Personal Futures Planning is a strategy that comes from the disability community; it is used to help create a vision that focuses upon the strengths, desires, and dreams of the individual who is the center of the planning process. Personal Futures Planning strategies were used to create a vision statement about STW for the entire community. The Oregon Systems Change Project and Project Choices developed a manual and workshop to train others how to facilitate Personal Futures Planning meetings; the STW grant provided funding for staff, and district moneys were used for staff development time. When planning occurred, it involved school personnel, community leaders, parents, students with and without disabilities, and businesses. The group designed an action plan and then updated the plan every six months. In this manner, the inclusive planning group did not lose sight of what they were trying to accomplish.
In the Career Center at Hood River High School, for example, every student has a transition plan, not just students with disabilities. The plans are updated each year and reflect goals, career plans, and personal preferences. All students throughout high school engage in a number of work-based strategies, culminating in internships, mentorships, and extended job shadows in their senior year. In 1988, even before STW was implemented, focus groups of high school students demonstrated the need for “realism” in their curricula. School did not always make sense to students, and the implementation of internships and the involvement of business and other community leaders helped to make STW a success for all students in Hood River.
STW has been a success for students with disabilities because of Oregon’s long history of delivering transition services to these students. In particular, STW seemed to work best at the local level when the job duties of the transition specialist and STW coordinator were the same, or when a dual position was created. In addition, Oregon’s small size contributed to the success of STW because the same core people at the state and local levels were always together at the table. Leadership was stable because there was not a great deal of staff turnover. Even when staff did change jobs, they often did not move out of state, but instead moved up in the system, so the key players still remained the same. This consistency of leadership was vital to promoting relationships and team-building.
Although Oregon has enjoyed success and has committed staff, new teachers often lack the skills to implement transition and STW activities. This concern reflects the need for these concepts to be incorporated into preservice teacher preparation programs. Additionally, standards and high stakes testing have created a tension for students with disabilities between allocating time for academic content and for transition and career activities. Even with these challenges, however, the principles and activities of STW are likely to be sustained because of the implementation of CAM, strategic state planning that ensures that the principles of STW are incorporated into future school improvement efforts (e.g., Workforce Investment Act) and its positive outcomes for many students with disabilities.
1 http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/sped/tri/midcolumbia.htm
Contact Information . . . .
Salam A. Nooor, Ph.D.
Coordinator, Tech Prep Team
Oregon Department of Education
255 Capitol Street, NE
Salem, OR 9731