Abstract
The Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) for students 16 years of age or above must address specific transition components. Studies to date have focused on the presence and quality of these transition components, yet the alignment of these components and their role in leading the development of the IEP is just as critical. This qualitative study examines the change in teachers’ understanding of and alignment between IEP components (i.e., present levels, annual goals, postsecondary goals, course of study) after participation in professional development. The results indicate that after the targeted intervention, teachers are more fluent in describing the components of the IEP, as well as in their awareness of alignment and ability to describe the relationship between these components.
Keywords
The ultimate outcome of school is success in adulthood: stable and competitive employment, independent living, and satisfaction with one’s quality of life. In 1990, the reauthorization of Individual With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and subsequent reauthorizations included a series of requirements focused on transition planning and services to address the concern that students with disabilities were faring less well after high school than their peers. Although the postschool outcomes for students with disabilities are changing, they are still behind their peers. The most recent reports of the National Longitudinal Transition Study–2 indicate that within 4 years of leaving school, only 45% of student with disabilities have continued onto postsecondary education as compared with 53% of the general population (Newman, Wagner, Cameto, & Knokey, 2009). The data from this study also indicated that the majority of the students with disabilities attended technical or community colleges with only 8% at 4-year universities compared with 29% of the general population. Students with disabilities also were less likely to be working than their peers in the general population (57% vs. 66%), and students with disabilities held their jobs for shorter duration (10 months vs.15 months for their nondisabled peers). Sanford et al. (2011) reported similar findings in that students with disabilities are more often unemployed or employed with lower wages, and less likely to be participating in postsecondary education.
The Individualized Education Program (IEP) that is mandated in IDEA is the mechanism by which the student, family, and school staff agree on the supports and services to be provided to the student. Both the IEP development process and document are equally critical to best practice in special education (Shriner & DeStefano, 2003). As part of the IEP process for students 16 years of age and older, the team must identify appropriate measurable postsecondary goals (PSG), transition services, and a course of study (COS) that will assist the student in meeting their PSG. This requires the IEP team to (a) focus on decreasing or eliminating barriers to positive outcomes and (b) shifting from an exclusive focus on within-school goals to inclusion of goals and activities that prepare students for the postschool outcomes. Through the development of the IEPs that are focused on postschool goals and the delivery of the identified services, we can improve the postschool outcomes for students with disabilities.
Efforts to Integrate and Align Transition Requirements Into the IEP Process
Despite the addition of these transition requirements, teachers continue to struggle to understand and implement them. In a survey of teachers’ perceptions of their competency, Benitez, Morningstar, and Frey (2009) found that teachers overall were underprepared in the area of transition but felt most comfortable with the competencies related to planning and developing IEPs. This also is evidenced by researchers who through examination of the technical requirements of IEPs found that the IEPs of transition-aged youth were not meeting compliance (e.g., Everson, Zhang, & Guillory, 2001; Finn & Kohler, 2009; Landmark & Zhang, 2012; Powers et al., 2005). Most of these studies have examined the presence and quality of transition components, yet it is critical that the components not just be present but must also be aligned. deFur (2003) identified that teams often implement these transition components as if they are a “stepchild” or “afterthought” to the IEP process and some earlier studies found limited linkage between goals, objectives, and prescribed transition services (Collet-Klingenberg, 1998; Krom & Prater, 1993). For teachers to integrate transition services into the IEP, they must understand the development and connection between relevant components.
Current and Future Training Needs for Addressing Transition Services
Professional development (PD) has long been recognized as an effective strategy for training educators about changes within the field. However, despite ongoing training efforts in the area of transition, teachers still report a lack of knowledge of the transition components (Blanchett, 2001; Morningstar & Benitez, 2013). Given the critical role the IEP is to play in the delivery of transition services, it is important that pre- and in-service programs reexamine and adjust their training methods.
Similar to the research on compliance of IEP transition requirements, most training on IEP development has focused on the overall compliance of the IEP document by reiterating the requirements (e.g., include a statement of transition services, consider postschool training). Beyond an understanding of what the specific transition requirements are, teachers need to understand the connection between the components of the IEP and how to develop the components to support the achievement of the PSG. The student’s transition needs and PSG must be used as the impetus for the development of the entire IEP, rather than viewing transition components as separate or as an “add-on.” This requires a shift toward a process that focuses on the PSG and uses a person-centered and strategic planning approach in the development of each IEP.
Strategic planning is a process that focuses on a goal in the future, identifies steps to get there, communicates the goals and steps to others, and is flexible to deal with the unpredictability of the future. In this model, the PSG would be developed first, the COS and annual goals (AG) would provide the steps that are needed to accomplish the future goals, and the team would clarify who needs to be involved in the implementation. Defining the AG and transition services using the strategic planning process should focus the student and the team on “how to accomplish the future goals.”
Some components of the IEP will not change with this shift in focus (i.e., assessments of present performance, AG, service summaries). However, the choices about which AG, assessments, and services are needed might change as they will depend on the student’s future goals. This new process also requires the team to create greater alignment between the student’s present levels, postschool goals, COS, and AG.
In an earlier study, Flannery, Lombardi, and Kato (2013) examined the quality of IEPs from the same participants as in this study. The study focused on the change in four targeted components of the IEP after PD: PSG, COS, Present Level of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance (PLAAFP), and AG. There were improvements in development of all targeted components after PD though not all components reached significance. They also examined the alignment between IEP component pairs (e.g., PSG and COS) within any IEP that had met a minimum quality rating for both components. More IEP component pairs met the minimum quality rating after training, but change in alignment across all the components was not significant due to limited number of pairs that met the strict coding rules. Therefore, the purpose of this qualitative study was to explore the impact of the PD on secondary teachers’ understanding about the IEP transition components and how these specific IEP components were related. The specific research questions were as follows:
Method
Participants
District administrators in a county in the Northwest informed their secondary special education teachers about the study. Teachers from 12 high schools in five districts contacted the researchers. The researchers ensured they (a) conducted and wrote IEPs, (b) had written IEPs for at least three students who were 16 year of age, and (c) projected having at least three students 16 years of age or older for the next 2 school years. Two teachers were excluded due to writing too few IEPs for transition-aged students. This resulted in 18 participants. Two moved during the study and were unable to complete the process.
Sixty-one percent of the teachers were women between 24 and 63 years of age (
Professional Development
The PD content was developed in an iterative and multistage process. First, the developers reviewed the literature on PD (especially related to adults and education), overall IEP requirements, transition requirements, and strategic planning to clarify the outcomes and concepts to be covered as well as critical features of the PD. Second, two team members presented several of the developed sessions and activities to six teachers at a local high school and obtained their feedback. Finally, a design team of six secondary-level special education teachers from four districts reviewed the outcomes, concepts to be covered, format for delivery, and sample handouts of the PD. The results of the discussion and feedback were used in the development of the final PD materials.
The final PD consisted of 2 days of training with six follow-up meetings. The 2-day training was conducted by three team members with secondary special education teaching experience in K-12 as well as at the university level. The content of the PD focused on transition requirements (i.e., PSG, COS) and two of the standard IEP elements: PLAAFP and AGs. Teachers were also provided general information about the inclusion of the graduation date, type of diploma, and required documentation for participating agencies. The PD was designed to provide clarity and specificity of each of the components and describe the relationship between them. The sequence utilized a strategic planning model that started with the postschool goals being developed based on assessment(s) and then used these goals to drive the process by guiding the decisions and focus of subsequent planning. Each component was introduced by asking questions about what they knew about the requirements for the component, followed by examples and nonexamples based on scenarios, and ending with the teachers examining and commenting on the changes necessary to the components on one of their IEPs. After several components had been presented, the facilitators led a discussion on how the components were related or should influence each other as teachers develop them.
The choice of delivery formats was intentional. To change teachers’ behavior and thus impact future IEP development, the team considered effective practices for improving adult performance (Price, 2002) and features of effective PD (Benitez et al., 2009; Buysse, Sparkman, & Wesley, 2003; Englert & Tarrant, 1995; Klingner, Ahwee, Pilonieta, & Menendez, 2003; Schumm & Vaughn, 1995). This consideration resulted in (a) use of small cohorts to increase familiarity and trust among teachers and thus deepen discussion; (b) meetings across the year; (c) use of problem solving strategies, scenarios, and their own IEPs to ensure application; (d) use of an interactive format that allowed contextualization of the information and acknowledged previous experience; and (e) time allowances to conduct self evaluations, reflections, and sharing of their own work and practices. Self-questioning techniques were used to allow teachers to self-assess their own knowledge and practices as well as provided a framework for them to use when returning to their schools. Scenarios that included students with a range of disabilities and ages were used by teacher dyads to practice the application of these questions. These were shared and discussed across the full group.
At the end of the 2-day PD, teachers rated a series of items on a 4-point scale with 4 = “strongly agree.” The teachers indicated that it was effective by rating all items between 3.0 and 4.0. The teachers’ responses on the PD evaluation also indicated that to fully implement the content, they saw a need for more PD time (2.89) and more practice (3.11), which supported the inclusion of the six professional learning community (PLC) meetings that were held throughout the year. Critical features of the PLC included content driven by teachers’ needs and opportunities to (a) engage in extended practice opportunities after returning to their school context, (b) ask additional questions, (c) hold challenging conversations about their context with peers, and (d) obtain critical analysis of how they perform their jobs (Birman, Desimone, Porter, & Garet, 2000; Borko, 2004; DuFour, 2004). Two of these were half days (with funds to cover costs for substitutes) and four were 90-min after school sessions; all were facilitated by the research team.
Data Collection and Analysis
Qualitative methodology was used to better understand the processes and perspectives of teachers as they developed IEPs (Yin, 2009). This included conducting interviews, coding of interview transcripts, and completing within- and cross-case analysis of the interviews.
Interview procedures
Interview protocols were used both prior to and after PD. Although the protocol was structured, the open-ended questions were designed to allow teachers to share at a level of depth with which they were comfortable. The interview protocol included (a) general questions about their process (i.e., Now I want you to think about writing the IEP document itself: Is there a typical order that you use when you write your IEPs?), (b) specifics about each of the IEP components (i.e., Could you describe the process for planning and writing a COS for your students?), and (c) alignment of the components (e.g., Describe how you think these sections relate to one another, if they do). The end of the interview had specific questions on perceived barriers or contextual challenges that impacted their process. Posttraining interviews had additional questions about the PD and changes to their IEP process. The instruments were reviewed by the research team and administered with several nonstudy teachers to confirm validity of content and ensure consistency of administration across the two interviewers.
The teachers were interviewed at the beginning and end of project participation (approximately 12 months), with each interview lasting 30 to 50 min. Each interview was conducted at a place chosen by the teacher—usually their classroom and was audio recoded. Afterwards, the interviewer recorded field notes to document unique aspects of the interview.
Analysis of interviews
Teacher identification numbers were assigned, interviews were transcribed, and transcripts were reviewed for errors. Each of the interviews was entered into a qualitative data analysis software package (NVivo-6) and analyzed using a multistage process (Miles & Huberman, 1994). The research team developed a coding framework that identified and categorized responses of teachers. The framework had nine major categories aligning with the protocol questions and the postinterview included two additional categories: (a) changes in development and (b) evaluation of the PD training. Subcategories were developed to ensure that all coders had a shared understanding of what the code did and did not include. After pilot coding three transcripts, revisions were made to the coding rules and descriptions. Four of the six team members independently coded three more transcripts and minimal revisions to the codes and definitions were needed. Thus, the “codebook” (listing of codes and their definitions) was finalized and applied to the remaining transcripts.
All six members of the team served as coders and each was trained on use of the coding manual. Each coder was randomly assigned a minimum of nine transcripts (9–18) to code. To ensure coding reliability throughout the study, the research team used a variety of strategies (a) all of the transcripts were assigned to two different coders, (b) the verbatim transcripts were recorded and then transcribed by an independent agency, and (c) coding checks were done on the transcriptions of the interviews. This process of triangulation across coders contributes to the internal validity of the data by ensuring cross-checking and verification of the interpretation of the data. By using a common coding scheme as an organizing structure, the information from within a case and across content codes was able to be summarized and compared. Using the coded transcripts and query reports, a within-case report was developed for each interview by one of the initial coders of the transcript using a common format. These reports summarized content and identified themes that represented each teacher. Each report included sufficient quotes and detailed descriptions to provide evidence for our findings (Brantlinger, Jimenez, Klingner, Pugach, & Richardson, 2005). Five members of the team read each report and discussed questions with the entire team to validate content.
The last step in analysis involved the use of cross-case analysis procedures (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Yin, 2009) to compare and summarize themes across all teachers. Cross-case reports were created for the following topics: PSG Development, PLAAFP Development, COS Development, AG Development, Alignment, Connection to Services, Barriers and Helpful Hints, Previous Training, and Impact of Training. During this phase, the within-case reports, coding reports, and interview transcripts were used to compare content and identify specific examples. Through this cross-case analysis, common themes across teachers were confirmed, critical content was validated, and areas that differed among study teachers were identified.
Results
The purpose of this analysis was to examine how the teachers understood the four targeted IEP components (i.e., PSG, COS, PLAAFP, AG)—what the requirements were and the alignment between them. To do this, it was important to look at the themes from both pre- and posttraining interviews. Overall, the teachers’ interviews demonstrated a positive change in their understanding after the training. Five changes in teachers’ practices and perceptions evolved from the comparison of these interviews. Each is described below, first presenting the summary of the pretraining interviews followed by the posttraining practices and perceptions. The interview data more frequently contain the older term PLEP (Present Level of Education Performance) instead of PLAAFP as this was the preferred term used by the teachers.
Understanding of the Requirements of the Components Changes With Targeted Training
Important to developing strong IEPs is a clear understanding of the requirements. This can be demonstrated through identifying specific requirements and by being able to describe them concisely. Prior to PD, teachers provided longer and less cohesive answers when asked general probes about development of IEP components. They were able to supply more details and examples when discussing traditional elements (PLAAFP, AGs), but they often repeated themselves as they tried to verbalize their process. Conversely, many teachers were confused or unsure about newer transition elements (PSG and COS). Most teachers reported previously receiving training specific to transition, yet few were able to clearly and correctly define the PSG prior to the PD (e.g., occurs after exiting services), often describing the AG instead. Teachers were even more unclear about the COS considering it to be “the same as the PSG” or admitting that they would “have to look it up, but I think I use the drop-down menus on ESIS [an electronic IEP software program].” Although nearly half the teachers stated that they developed the PSG or COS with the IEP team, they were unable to provide details of their process and struggled with vocabulary when asked to describe their process for developing transition services. More often, teachers stated that they “rely on the template” or IEP form to complete transition requirements. There was a general lack of clarity that made pre-PD interviews longer as teachers required additional probes to explain their answers. Frequently, time was spent by the teachers relaying the challenges and obstacles they faced.
After the PD, the teachers provided clearer descriptions of each IEP component. During the postinterviews, every teacher was able to define PSG and COS and most were able to more easily explain their development process for all four of the targeted IEP components. For example, the teacher who reported “using the drop-down menu” to create the COS in his pretraining interview responded this way in his posttraining interview: We sit down with them [the student] and start thinking, “What are you doing at school that connects with what you want to do outside of school?” Then we try to pick out the classes that the student needs next year.
Although this respondent is still not articulating the definition and process from training, he demonstrates that his role and process have changed, and he now involves the student directly in the process.
During the posttraining interview, teachers frequently commented on how they had changed their approach to IEP development. In the following example, the teacher reflected on the PLAAFP: “Well I just make sure that my PLEP is very clear—that every single portion of it is addressed. That it’s really easy to read—strengths of the student, concerns of the parent, and so forth.” The respondent continued by describing the sections she includes and how she focuses more on quality than quantity: “I was doing more of a narrative . . . Now I just make sure that everything is addressed, every time; and that it’s as easy to read as possible.” This response demonstrates the consistency in posttraining responses—providing explanation, relaying examples and additional clarification, and then repeating their initial responses. This contrasts sharply with pretraining interviews where respondents often wandered off-topic as they tried to clarify their answers, requiring additional probes. This indicates a stronger conceptual understanding of their process.
IEP Components Are Seen as Related to Each Other
During the pretraining interviews, most teachers were confused when asked about alignment and most readily admitted that they did not consciously think about these connections when developing and writing their IEPs. In one case, the teacher responds by asking, “Is that what we should be doing?” After the questions were restated, teachers expressed varied opinions about general connections within the IEP. One teacher stated that “everything is interconnected,” but when asked for more information could not define any specific relationships. One teacher was only able to articulate one of these connections: “I start with the PLEP at the center, and the AGs come out of it . . . like the spokes of a wagon wheel,” adding that goals are driven by the needs stated in the PLAAFP but with no mention of PSG or COS. More often, teachers were unsure whether they connect areas of their IEPs but were hopeful they could learn how. Another teacher anticipated that this would be a good goal for herself: “I would like to become a good enough IEP and transition writer that my postsecondary goals or my transition goals would drive my IEP; and it would be tightly related.”
There was only one teacher who prior to PD reported understanding the interconnectedness and was able to demonstrate this understanding of alignment prior to training: I understood that before and so I still think it makes sense. To me it makes sense that the PLEP is where a student is, and the postsecondary goal is where they want to be, and the course of study is how were gonna help them get there. So it makes sense to me, how it’s connected.
After training, most teachers were able to describe connections between components when asked general questions about alignment. They also reported incorporating alignment into their developmental process: The IEP is really kind of a road map; and the AGs are just kind of the next step down the road from the PLEP towards the PSG. I think it might be a meandering road, but there should be some sort of connection between the three of them, well, four of them really: the PLEP, AGs, the COS, and the PSGs.
Teachers were asked to describe changes in their process after the PD. While some referred to general, positive changes (e.g., more organized, more tied to assessment, more compliant), others reported that the biggest change involved the concept of alignment. These teachers offered that their IEPs were “more connected” and “made more sense” as a result of training. Others echo this, stating that they are “now able to connect all parts of the IEP.” (The other change reported by many study participants involved the use of a strategic planning model but will be covered in a later section.)
Relationship between PLAAFP and other components
During the pre-PD interviews, teachers were more likely to be able to describe relationships when given a specific probe for a pair of components. Teachers were nearly twice as likely to state clear definitions and opinions about the relationships between components if the PLAAFP were included in the relationship they were discussing, indicating their comfort with this. Teachers were most successful defining relationships between PLAAFP:AGs and PLAAFP:PSGs. When asked about the connection between PLAAFP:PSG, over half of the teachers reported a connection, but only about one fourth were able to define or describe this connection. When probed about the alignment between PSG:AGs, half believed that there was a relationship, while a few reported that these were not connected or remained “unsure.” Few teachers were able to define the connection, though in some cases this definition was stated as a simple contrast in which the teacher defined them as “present versus future.”
After the PD, when probed about specific connections between component pairs, teachers were much clearer with every teacher reporting a connection between the PLAAFP and AGs in their IEPs. In addition, all teachers were able to define the relationship by characterizing it in one of two ways: (a) half of the teachers connected the AG to the student’s needs identified in the PLAAFP and (b) half connected both components to future needs or to the PSG. Even for teachers who earlier described the PLAAFP as the starting point for the IEP, they expressed changes to their developmental process: “The PLEP is still a central part of my IEPs, but now it is more closely tied to the PSGs and the COS which affects everything else.”
When asked about the connection between the PLAAFP and PSG after the PD, 14 of the 16 teachers again described a relationship. The connection between these components was typically characterized in one of two ways: (a) Those teachers who stated that the PSG is based on the student information (e.g., preference, interests, needs) from the PLAAFP and (b) those who characterized the relationship in terms of time (current to future). For example, this teacher represents the first group: The PSGs definitely are dependent in some degree to what the PLEP says, because that’s your source of information about the student. The PSGs grow from the foundation of the PLEP, which is sort of the groundwork.
This also illustrates how some teachers are still using the PLAAFP as the central point for the development of their IEPs. Others—in the second group—focused on a strategic model directed toward the future: “The PSG describes where the student wants to be, and the PLEP describes where the student is currently.” Another teacher uses a similar explanation: “The PLEP is what’s happening now—where the student is currently at, the PSG is the vision for the future, and the COS is the path to get there.”
Relationship between PSG and COS
Before the PD training when asked about alignment between PSG:COS, half of the teachers stated that there is a relationship, yet only a third of the teachers could define or describe this connection. (Most teachers were unsure about this relationship or believed there was little or no connection.)
After participating in PD and asked about the alignment between the PSG and COS, 14 of 16 teachers articulated a connection. In describing this relationship, many teachers now considered this pair as one unit in which the PSG provides the future goal and the COS lays out the steps to get there. When probed, one teacher offers a typical posttraining response: Those relate because, for students who are one or two years from aging out, the PSG means everything. The COS, those are the steps that you take to get there, so they have to relate. I mean, they have to fall right in line.
These types of responses often led to other connections as well, as another teacher explains: “The COS is further broken down in the AGs and the PLEP.”
Even for teachers who did not specifically mention the PSG, they demonstrated their understanding of the connection: “I consider what the employment is or what is the future outlook for the needs of what the student wants to do.” Other teachers also referred to the student’s “needs” or “support needs,” which might indicate a connection to the PLAAFP. While all teachers expressed the belief that there should be connection, two were still unable to adequately articulate this connection clearly. However, nearly half of the study teachers reported that the greatest change from participating in the PD involved the emphasis of the PSG and COS within the development of their IEPs.
Relationship between PSG and AG
Although teachers did not mention relationships between AG and PSG prior to training, 11 of 16 teachers were able to describe a relationship after PD. The majority of teachers characterized this relationship as AGs representing the small steps required to make progress toward the PSG. Most succinctly put, “The AGs should support the development of the PSGs.” However, one teacher defined the relationship with a little different insight: “The AGs are the needed skills, and the PSG is the motivation for the student to work on them.”
Alignment Is Easy to Integrate Into Development of IEPs
An unexpected outcome of the PD was the way teachers integrated the concept of alignment in their development process. Whereas most teachers were unaware of alignment in pretraining interviews, most teachers spontaneously described connections between components before being probed about alignment in their posttraining interviews. In other words, teachers referred to other aspects of the IEP as they described their development of each part. For example, when describing the development of the PSG, over half of the teachers described alignment with other parts of the IEP. Most discussed the “present levels” (PLAAFP), but others discussed the need to be student centered, considering the student’s “current classes and the COS” as the team reassesses the PSG. Still others focused on how the PSG compares with the AGs: “I also consider the current steps and a student’s progress . . . these are better linked now.” Likewise, when describing the development of the COS, most teachers commented on a connection to the PSG. Even for teachers who did not specifically mention the PSG, they demonstrated their understanding of the connection: “I consider what the employment picture is or what’s the future outlook for the needs of what the student wants to do.” Other teachers referred to the student’s “needs” or “support needs,” which might indicate a connection to the PLAAFP.
In their description of the development of the AGs after training, most teachers cited a connection to the needs identified in the PLAAFP or a connection to future goals (PSG). Most succinctly put, “You look at the PSGs and the COS, and you write the AGs and keep data on how she does.” Another teacher described the relationship this way: “We draw a stair-step model where the PSG is at the top of the stairs, and then we think of the AGs as a step that will lead them to that.” In both cases, teachers were clearly able to articulate the significance of the AGs in relationship to larger goals—namely, the PSG, without being prompted about this relationship.
It Takes Time to Develop the Skills to Align All IEP Components
Despite significant progress in clearly identifying connections between components after training, two teachers discussed how this continues to develop. One teacher reported, “I’m continuing to develop this . . . the idea that they’re all supposed to kind of fit together in a jigsaw puzzle. Sometimes the puzzle fits together really well, and sometimes there are some jagged edges on it.” Another teacher described how the idea of alignment is improving over time, “The necessity of having a circular pattern in all these things is getting more and more clear.”
A few teachers admit that they now understand these relationships but continue to work on aligning components in their IEP documents. One said that the PD helped her see
the way that different parts interact in the IEP and how everything’s kind of interrelated. I think that’s the biggest thing that’s changed for me . . . not viewing each part as a separate part, but kind of seeing how they all dovetail together.
Yet, another admitted, “I’m still not solid on all the pieces . . . I still need the cues on the forms,” and another teacher reported that “even though there should be connections between the sections, some connections are still stronger than others.”
Starting the IEP Process With the Student’s Future as the Focus
Most teachers prior to receiving PD were able to clearly define and explain their process for developing the PLAAFP and the majority also reported using the PLAAFP as the starting point in their development. One teacher described it as the “jumping off point for all the other parts of the IEP.” Others echoed this, illustrating how they built new IEPs from the PLAAFP and set new AGs to build upon progress from the past. Some teachers mention the student’s future plans, yet this may be characterized as an afterthought or secondary focus: I consider where the student is currently, and what their current skills are. Then I consider where we hope they would be successful . . . realistically. And sometimes their career or vocational area . . . that sometimes affects their academics.
This response demonstrates that while teachers may be aware of the need to consider future needs, they do not always feel compelled to use the PSGs to drive their decisions.
After the PD, the majority of the teachers described a more strategic process in which the future-oriented PSG drove the development of the entire IEP and nearly half of the teachers reported this to be the greatest change since training. One teacher reports that he will “start the IEP meetings with the PSGs now rather than kinda at the end of things.” Another teacher states, I have changed as a result of the training, and even though we go over the PLEP from the previous year, the first question I ask now is, “Where do you see yourself in three or four years? Where do you see yourself after high school?” and I build an IEP from there. That’s made a huge difference in how we look at kids and how, I think, the team looks at what the school needs to provide to help the student reach the end goal.
Not only do teachers repeatedly express their understanding of the strategic approach but they also express their language that indicates a strong belief in its use. One teacher opens her definition of PSG by saying: “Everything that a student does in school should be related to helping them when they get out of school.” Another teacher states that the PSG is “like the pinnacle or the destination.”
Discussion
Preparing qualified personnel in the area of transition is critical to improving the outcomes for students with disabilities. As mentioned earlier, a previous study by Flannery et al. (2013) examined the quality of IEPs from the same participants as in this study. This initial study demonstrated improvements in development of all targeted components though all did not reach significance. In this study, a semistructured interview protocol was used to further examine how teachers think about the development of IEPs for their secondary-aged students and how they perceive the alignment between components in their IEPs. The results reveal that prior to the PD, teachers lacked clarity about the transition requirements and had not given much thought to the idea of alignment. However, after the PD on the transition-related components and their connections, the teachers (a) were able to better define these relationships, providing specific examples of these connections; (b) spontaneously discussed connections as part of their definition and description of each component before being prompted about alignment; and (c) shared strong beliefs about the importance of the alignment of IEP components.
One of the barriers to aligning the components of the IEP was simply lack of awareness. In recent studies, data have indicated that teachers do not comply with the components of the IEP or are underprepared to develop and deliver the transition requirements (Benitez et al., 2009; Landmark & Zhang, 2012; Powers et al., 2005). These studies have included document analysis or survey but none have interviewed the teachers to understand their thinking about these components and their relationship to each other. This study extends the knowledge about how teachers think about the relationship between the components and the components themselves. Prior to training, teachers had not considered alignment between components and how this makes the IEP document more meaningful. Many teachers approached the IEP document as a fill-in-the-blank test rather than a summary of a conversation that had taken place. Through participation in trainings teachers gained clearer and more complete information on key relationships in the IEP document. In fact, most teachers after the training were unable to describe the process for a single component without referring to interactions with other components. It would be beneficial for other training organizations to insure that their training supports the alignment between the components and the use of the PSG as the strategic and central component that drives the process.
Limitations
Although these findings offer evidence that the PD impacted teachers’ views about alignment of the transition components, there are a number of limitations that should be considered. First, this study was based on a limited sample of teachers within one Northwestern state. Further research from other regions is needed to confirm these findings and further elaborate on needed services. In addition, the teachers volunteered for participation. Significant insights could be gained through expanding the sample to include a single district-wide cohort and a more diverse population. Finally, the interviews documented procedures and outcomes across 12 months. The development of IEPs is a skill that takes practice and may develop more over time.
Implications for Research and Practice
IEP content delivered in teacher pre-service or in-service programs needs to include two things as a result of this study. First, there is a need to move beyond simply teaching about the components, what they are, and how to be compliant. Teachers reported receiving this type of training but still were unable to accurately replicate this information in pretraining interviews. Data from posttraining interviews support training techniques that provide the rationale for components, practice on new skills, and how the new pieces work together to promote success on postschool outcomes for students. Second, teachers responded positively when provided opportunities for self-assessment and a range of explicit examples that demonstrated when different components are aligned and when they are not. PD should include the use of a PLC or other formats for ongoing problem solving and discussion to avoid the “train and hope” model. Teachers needed the opportunity to discuss challenges, compare strategies, brainstorm, and discover why this might make a difference. Finally, those in leadership positions need to be sure to understand the nuances and intent of the requirements and the barriers in their local district/region that may hinder the development of higher quality IEPs (e.g., access to courses, interagency participation).
Although it is important to examine changes in teacher thinking, it is critical to look at the change in documents and impacts on students’ postsecondary outcomes. “Compliant” IEPs are an important step, but it cannot be assumed that these will result in improved transition services and better postschool outcomes. There is a need for studies to examine the relationship between the compliance of the documents, the quality of the implementation of the IEPs, and the actual students’ in-school and postschool outcomes.
A final implication is that it may take time to impact the development of the IEP document even when the teachers understand alignment. The teachers indicated they understood the concept of alignment, but they did not think that it would be immediately shown in their documents, and the results of the study by Flannery et al. (2013) with these participants support this. Research is needed to understand the length of time needed for the teachers to apply this new knowledge and should include a measure to evaluate the researcher’s evaluation of quality and alignment of the IEP document as well as teacher’s perception.
Conclusion
Despite the limitations, this qualitative study provides insight into teachers’ understanding about the content of their IEPs and specifically about the transition-related components. The study demonstrated that despite participation in traditional training, many teachers still lack clarity on the IEP requirements. After participating in PD that was explicit, provided more concrete examples, provided an increased range of examples, and utilized a strategic planning model that taught teachers how to align the components of the IEP, teachers demonstrated more clarity of understanding about the requirements and the relationship between them. Posttraining teachers used examples and analogies without the need for specific probe questions. As a result, teacher perceptions changed from “not aware” to seeing the alignment as “obvious” in the development of their IEPs. In addition, teachers were more likely to use strategic planning to focus the development of the entire IEP. One teacher states as follows: I particularly like that we learned how to start with the transition goal, build from that, and tie everything together. That has been really well received by parents and staff and made a lot of sense. So, it wasn’t just an afterthought—it was driving the IEP, which I don’t think was ever clarified before.
We believe that this provides the greatest hope for changing student outcomes as they transition to adulthood.
Footnotes
Authors’ Note
Opinions expressed herein are the authors’ and do not reflect necessarily the position of the U.S. Department of Education, and such endorsements should not be inferred.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The development of this article was supported in part by a grant (R324B070039) from National Center for Special Education within the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), the U.S. Department of Education.