How Vocational Rehabilitation Transition Specialists Influence Curricula for Students With Severe Disabilities

Abstract

According to decades of research on secondary transition for individuals with disabilities, cross-agency collaboration with adult service providers is an integral element of positive post-school outcomes. While much has been written about the general functions of vocational rehabilitation (VR) professionals and their part in the transition planning process, limited research has explored the role these professionals play in curriculum decisions, particularly for students with the most significant disabilities. Through the use of semi-structured, face-to-face interviews, the authors explain the work of six transition specialists in a midwestern state who are jointly funded by VR and the respective local education agencies with which they work. Specifically, their influence on the development and implementation of transition-related curricula for students with severe disabilities is addressed. Participating VR transition specialists reported that they influence curricula through a collaborative approach, and focus on resource and knowledge sharing. These professionals also reported delivering several direct-service activities to students inside and outside of the school environment.

Keywords

vocational rehabilitation transition severe disabilities high schools curriculum

Under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA, 2004), schools must provide a coordinated set of transition activities that are results oriented and that “ . . . facilitate the child’s movement from school to post-school activities, including postsecondary education, vocational education, integrated employment (including supported employment), continuing and adult education, adult services, independent living, or community participation” (IDEIA, 2004, Section 300.43(a)). Beyond the school system however, the vocational rehabilitation (VR) system is also charged to assist youth with disabilities to transition from school to work. The Rehabilitation Act has several mandates that focus on promoting successful transition planning to ensure students who are eligible for VR do not experience “an interruption in services after they leave secondary school settings” (National Council on Disability, 2008, p. 18). For example, Section 101(a)(11)(D) of the Rehabilitation Act requires the state VR agency to coordinate with educational officials and to enter into a formal interagency agreement with the state education agency with regard to transition planning and service delivery. More recently, the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) has increased VR’s role in transition. The Act requires that 15% of VR funds must be used for transition services, including work-based learning experiences, counseling related to post-secondary opportunities, and self-advocacy training.

Although legislation has clarified the responsibilities of schools and adult service agencies to prepare youth for adulthood, existing data on post-school outcomes suggest legislation has had limited impact, particularly in the area of employment. Adults with disabilities have higher rates of unemployment and underemployment, receive lower rates of pay, and face higher levels of poverty than adults without disabilities (The ARC, 2011; Butterworth et al., 2013; National Disability Rights Network [NDRN], 2011).

Particularly disturbing are the outcomes for individuals with an intellectual disability. Butterworth and colleagues (2013) found that in 2011, the employment participation rate for individuals aged 16 to 64 who did not report having a disability was 66.7%, yet only 32.4% of individuals with disabilities and 22.2% of those with an intellectual disability participated in employment. Not surprisingly, the percentage of working-age individuals with an intellectual disability (34%) living below the poverty line was more than twice the rate for individuals without a disability (15%; Butterworth et al., 2013). Reducing this percentage is challenging because many employees with an intellectual disability find work in sheltered workshops where the income is often substantially lower than if the employee was in a competitive work environment. The NDRN (2011) reports that for every one person who is working in competitive employment, three people work in a segregated setting.

Transition service delivery has been targeted to improve transition success over the last three decades. One critical area that continues to receive attention is how to best coordinate services between schools and VR (Carter, Austin, & Trainor, 2011; Shogren & Plotner, 2012; Test & Cease-Cook, 2012; Wehman et al., 2014). Research on the role of VR in supporting the transition of students with disabilities from school to employment has focused extensively on describing the transition process (e.g., Plotner, Trach, & Strauser, 2012), teamwork (e.g., Certo & Luecking, 2006), and the formation of planning councils (e.g., Benz, Lindstrom, & Latta, 1999). Although the literature confirms the vital nature of including VR professionals in transition planning, little is known about VR professionals’ specific activities, approaches, and contributions to the curriculum students receive while they are in school. There has been some research that has examined various initiatives on how VR has partnered with schools to enhance transition services. For example, Hart, Zimbrich, and Ghiloni (2001) describe a community-based employment services (CBES) program that was developed as a partnership to fulfill multiple needs, including identifying consumer-driven employment outcomes and facilitating cross-agency payment methods. Their six-step process requires increased communication among schools and adult agencies, and minimizes duplication of services. In addition, Yamamoto, Stodden, and Folk (2014) discuss a model (i.e., Dual Enrollment With Individualized Supports Project [DEIS]) where local education agencies (LEAs), VR, and post-secondary education programs work together to facilitate appropriate placements to support students by focusing on the implementation of evidence-based practices (e.g., person-centered planning, educational coaching).

Although partnerships between VR and LEAs that assist students as they transition have been explored, more information regarding collaboration and specific activities is needed (Hart et al., 2001). Knowledge about specific practices and activities is especially essential when considering the curriculum for students with the most significant disabilities, who may require a very individualized program of study and one that targets instruction on employment skills earlier than most students (Bouck, 2012; Carter et al., 2011; Dymond, Renzaglia, & Hutchins, 2014). The foundation of special education is to ensure an individualized program of study. A fertile area of inquiry is how non-school professionals (e.g., VR counselors, state developmental disabilities [DD] agency professionals, community rehabilitation providers [CRPs], Centers for Independent Living [CIL] professionals) are working together on a small scale in the classroom or at a student level rather than at the state or district level. Furthermore, the curriculum for students with severe disabilities is a logical place for collaboration between school and agency personnel because of the intensive support needs such students require to transition successfully to employment.

The term curriculum is both broad and complex. Finch and Crunkilton (1993), in describing curriculum in the context of vocational and technical education, note that it is a key element in any educational endeavor and touches almost everyone involved in the teaching and learning process. The importance of providing a rigorous and relevant curriculum for students is well documented throughout the literature and a critical component of the transition process (Bouck, 2012; Carter, Harvey, Taylor, & Gotham, 2013; Mazzotti, Test, & Mustian, 2014; Morningstar, Bassett, Kochhar-Bryant, Cashman, & Wehmeyer, 2012; Test et al., 2009); however, VR professionals are not typically included in many curricular activities (Plotner, Trach, & Shogren, 2012). Jackson, Ryndak, and Billingsley (2000) stated that educators and related service providers, such as VR, must reconfigure service provision and redefine this contribution. In addition, they emphasize the need to reduce role differences between these two groups while ensuring that each has something unique to contribute.

There is a need for VR professionals to take on new transition roles and activities to combat static outcomes for transition-age youth. This need is especially great for students with the most severe disabilities, who typically have the poorest employment outcomes of all students with disabilities. One potential avenue for positively affecting employment outcomes involves greater coordination among VR professionals and school personnel around curriculum decisions. Coordination among transition professionals regarding what to teach and how to teach it may help to ensure that skills taught are representative of those needed for employment, which, in turn, may positively affect employment outcomes.

The purpose of this exploratory study was to examine the perceptions of VR transition specialists about their role in influencing the curriculum for students with severe disabilities. This study addressed the following research question: How do VR transition specialists influence curricula for students with severe disabilities?

Method

A qualitative research design was employed to examine the role of VR transition specialists in influencing curricula for students with severe disabilities in one Midwestern state.

Participants

At the time of this study, there were 200 VR counselors in the participating state, of whom 27 were designated as VR transition specialists. The VR transition specialists were spread across the five regions of the state set up by the state VR office. Four of the regions included a combination of rural and urban communities; one reflected a dense urban population. Each VR transition specialist was physically based within a public high school but typically served multiple high schools in the region. The transition specialists for this study were chosen based on their unique position within VR and schools: physically co-located in the schools and jointly funded by the LEA and the state VR agency. Positions jointly funded by both education and adult services have been linked to successful collaboration across VR and LEAs (Benz, Lindstrom, & Yovanoff, 2000).

An administrator from VR supervised the work of the transition specialists in each region. Each VR supervisor/administrator was sent an email that described the study and asked them to nominate one transition specialist from their region who best exemplified the following criteria: (a) at least 2 years of experience serving as a VR transition specialist, (b) a caseload that included a majority of students (i.e., at least 50%) with severe disabilities, and (c) successful in working with students with severe disabilities. Successful was defined as having positive outcomes with students with severe disabilities and displaying positive working relationships with colleagues. In the most urban region, two participants were requested because of the large number of specialists serving this region.

Individuals nominated were contacted by email, provided information about the study, and invited to participate. All six VR transition specialists nominated for the study agreed to participate. Three of the participants had a bachelor’s degree and three had a master’s degree. The three participants with a MS were also certified rehabilitation counselors (CRC). Those with only undergraduate degrees had a BS in special education, guidance counseling, and business management. Participants were of ages 30 to 50 (M = 43), had 5 to 17 (M = 14) years of experience as VR counselors, and had been in their current position for 4 to 17 (M = 12) years. In addition, each participant served between five and 13 (M = 8) schools and 123 and 350 (M = 214) students. After the sample was identified, the state transition coordinator confirmed that each of the participants involved in the study had school caseloads that were representative of the other VR transition specialists and ranged between five and 15 schools.

Instrument

A semi-structured interview guide was developed to obtain the perceptions of VR transition specialists regarding their role in transition-related curriculum development and delivery for students with severe disabilities. The instrument consisted of three sets of questions focused on (a) background information about the participant, (b) the definition of transition curriculum and students with severe disabilities, and (c) how participants believed they influenced the transition curriculum for students with severe disabilities.

The first set of questions asked participants to describe their experiences providing transition services, their prior education, the number of schools they served, and the size of their caseload. The second section asked the participants to respond to two questions: (a) “What do you think of when I say curriculum?” and (b) “What do you think of when I say severe disabilities?” We felt it was necessary to ask these questions because the terms often have different meanings across VR and special education. Discussing the terms allowed us to understand the participants’ frame of reference and clarify the two constructs that were the focus of the interview. Following the discussion, the interviewer clarified the meaning of the terms. “Severe disabilities” was defined as “students who traditionally have been labeled as having severe to profound intellectual disability.” The term “curriculum” was defined as

the activities and content of courses in which a student with disability engages (e.g., vocational education course curriculum, social skills training content, and community-based work experiences). These activities assist students to achieve their goals and may or may not be listed in the Individualized Education Program (IEP).

The researchers clarified this meaning and answered any questions regarding curriculum. For example, activities and roles that VR counselors perform when the student is not directly involved, such as job placement, are not considered a curricular activity. However, on-the-job training would be considered a curricular activity. Participants were asked to keep these definitions in mind when responding to the interview questions.

The third section gathered information regarding participants’ perceptions of their role in the curriculum of students with severe disabilities. Questions focused on how participants were currently involved in the curriculum (e.g., activities in which they engaged), contexts that facilitated and inhibited their involvement in the curriculum, and suggestions for improving their involvement in the curriculum. Questions were crafted based on a review of the literature on transition, severe disabilities, and rehabilitation counseling; as well as the researchers’ knowledge of the VR secondary transition program in the state. Two professionals with expertise in transition services reviewed the content of the instrument. Each professional had a master’s degree in rehabilitation counseling and at least 4 years of experience in the field. The purpose of the content review was to determine (a) the adequacy of overall coverage of the interview questions, (b) the distinctiveness of each item, (c) the clarity of each item, and (d) if any items needed to be added or deleted (Alreck & Settle, 1985). The content review resulted in minor rewording of two items to improve clarity and distinctiveness from other questions. In addition, probes were added to three interview questions. Two doctoral students, both former secondary teachers of students with severe disabilities, reviewed the revised instrument and confirmed the appropriateness of the changes.

Data Collection

In-depth, semi-structured, face-to-face interviews were conducted by the first author and recorded using a digital voice recorder. Each interview lasted between 50 and 85 min and was held at the VR transition specialist’s office. The interviewer asked the questions and used probes as needed to solicit more in-depth responses. Handwritten notes were also taken during and immediately after each interview by the interviewer. These notes served as written accounts regarding impressions and details that were observed throughout the interview that could not be interpreted through audio recording. In addition, following each interview, the audio recording was transcribed verbatim and a summary of the interview was written. A member check (Brantlinger, Jimenez, Klingner, Pugach, & Richardson, 2005) was conducted to increase trustworthiness of the data. Each participant was asked to review the accuracy of the summary and clarify any misinterpretations. New questions were posed within the summary to clarify the meaning of concepts from the interview that were not clear. Each of the six interviewees reviewed their summaries and agreed that they were accurate.

Data Analysis

The first author reviewed each interview transcript multiple times and identified preliminary codes. This initial process, known as open coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1998), was used to break down and examine data while assigning conceptual labels to the emergent concepts. The second author then reviewed the transcripts to determine if any new concepts appeared that were not represented in the preliminary codes. Discussions between the researchers led to several changes to the codes and the development of operational definitions that ensured shared meaning between the researchers.

After agreement was reached about the codes and operational definitions, the first author reread each transcript and assigned codes. The second author reviewed the coded transcripts and confirmed the consistent application of codes to units of meaning. After agreement was established on each transcript, the researchers engaged in a series of face-to-face meetings to examine the coded transcripts and determine themes that emerged relative to the study’s research question. Credibility was addressed by (a) using interview transcripts that were transcribed verbatim, (b) conducting member checks, and (c) engaging in an iterative process to develop the codes and identify themes.

Findings

Three themes emerged regarding how VR transition specialists perceived they influence the transition curriculum for students with severe disabilities. These themes center on the major roles that VR transition specialists assumed: collaborator, connector, and teacher. In each of these roles, participants perceived that they either directly or indirectly influenced the type of curriculum offered or the manner in which it was delivered.

Collaborator: A Catalyst for Influencing Curriculum

Participants reported that they influenced the curriculum primarily through a collaborative approach to service delivery. As VR transition specialists, they collaborated with a variety of people, including general and special education teachers, school transition specialists, VR counselors, parents, and students. Across all participants, there was a shared belief that the effectiveness with which they were able to collaborate and influence the curriculum was directly linked to the unique nature of their position. Unique components of the position included having (a) a physical presence (i.e., office) in the school building and (b) a “dual position” that was partially funded by both the schools and VR. These components were believed to serve as catalysts for facilitating high levels of collaboration.

The physical presence of the participants’ office within the school building combined with the regular frequency with which participants were in the schools increased the frequency and ease of collaboration among team members. This structure was deemed dramatically different than the structure of typical working relationships between schools and VR. As one participant stated, “I used to be a general VR counselor and was not involved with the schools . . . my presence is more regular than a typical VR counselor.” Another participant noted, “It is difficult to get VR staff to come to IEP meetings, but because I also work for the schools, it is so much easier.”

Collaboration was also facilitated by the dual nature of the participants’ position (i.e., funded by the schools and VR). The participants were not viewed as outsiders who were guests in the school, but rather as insiders who were members of the school staff. Being an insider allowed participants to better understand how schools operate and to in turn help other team members understand the ways in which VR and post-school employment settings operated. One participant suggested that lack of knowledge about school contexts interfered with the ability of typical VR counselors to work effectively with schools:

I don’t know that VR really understands what goes on in the school, and the structure that the school district lives under, as much as I would or someone else in my capacity. I don’t think either one (schools or VR) does a good job of seeing the other.

Participants indicated that it could take a long time (often years) for traditional VR professionals to establish meaningful and effective relationships with school professionals and students, especially when they are responsible for working with students across multiple schools and even districts. What was palpable to participants, however, was that their dual role aided in relationship building because they could better understand the school context and the nuances that affect practice. One participant explained it in this manner:

Many VR professionals don’t really know how the school works and how supports and services are set up. I think it’s really important that you have this relationship with the school and when you are employed by the school district, you naturally have that. It is also vital to know the programs that exist but also what the school culture is like.

Participants felt that both their presence in the schools and how their position was defined assisted in eliminating barriers to collaboration. In addition, they reported that the nature of their position created a culture of higher expectations for collaboration among all team members: VR and school alike. These shared expectations for collaboration provided an avenue in which participants could influence curriculum by sharing ideas, resources, and strategies. One participant went on to state that his teams do not have an attitude of “This is the only way we are going to do things.” Furthermore, school professionals understood they could not provide all of the needed supports alone and welcomed the input of various transition-related service providers.

Connector: Linking People With Resources

A recurrent theme among participants was the idea of serving as a “go-between” or “liaison” that was able to influence the curriculum by connecting students, their parents, and school personnel with needed resources. Participants described two types of connections they facilitate: (a) assisting parents, students, and school personnel to navigate and understand the adult service system and (b) connecting special education teachers with resources and information to develop vocational curricula. The activities they described illustrate the use of both formal and informal means for introducing new ideas, methods, and services that in turn affected the curriculum students received.

Participants uniformly agreed that the expertise they bring about the adult service delivery system and the skills needed in post-school work environments is essential to assisting transition teams make appropriate decisions about curricula. They viewed themselves as being the “link to the adult world,” and more specifically, to the adult world of work. Beyond simply helping transition teams understand the adult service delivery system, participants assisted students and their parents to think about the future and life after graduation. The following participant summarized this role succinctly:

My job is really to keep my focus on what’s going to happen after they leave school: what we have to do to get them to the point where they can connect to an agency or connect to employment options, or to connect to some other support service.

Many participants described themselves as bringing a “broader perspective” about post-school employment options than school personnel were typically able to offer families. As one participant stated, “I think VR involvement in curriculum is important because the school districts need to know what’s available, what’s possible, and sometimes they don’t see that.” Although school personnel were supportive of preparing students for employment, special education teachers often possessed limited knowledge about post-secondary environments and the skills students needed to learn. One participant noted,

The teachers don’t really know what’s out there and available in the community, so I’m kind of that liaison that says, okay, if this student is going to need support . . . then we’ve got to get them to this point.

Due to the limited knowledge of special education teachers about post-school employment, an important role played by the participants was providing teachers with information that could help them develop appropriate vocational curricula. Many of the participants discussed that they are freer to attend professional conferences than teachers and felt that it was important to “bring back ideas and meet (with teachers) about what is new to assist (them) with curriculum.” One respondent went on to state,

If I am at a conference and receive resources, I will pass them on if I think their [special education teacher’s] students or family can benefit from it, such as part of a curriculum. I went to a great financial education seminar and I gave them [teachers] those tools, so they could use it for their students.

Thus, participants were able to shape the beliefs of school personnel, families, and students about post-school employment options by connecting them with information that promoted informed choices. This in turn allowed participants to influence curricular decisions by helping transition teams understand the skills students needed to acquire or refine while still in high school to reach their employment goals.

Teacher: Making the Curriculum “Real”

The area in which participants felt they had the least direct influence on the curriculum was in their role as a teacher. This was also the role in which they reported feeling least confident. Their lower self-confidence most likely stemmed from a belief that the curriculum was specific to classroom-based activities, and the participants reported not operating full-time in the classroom. Despite their limited presence (most were typically in the classroom only a couple of times a month), participants revealed a variety of ways they affected curricula. The examples provided suggest that they focused on infusing “real life experiences” into the curriculum.

One of the primary ways in which participants assumed the role of teacher was in developing vocational training programs for use with students. One participant described his role in developing these programs as assisting teachers to determine “how to get students to a level where they are increasingly employable” and “helping them [teachers] set some standards for them [students] to reach.” Once vocational programs were developed, the participants observed students in the community and evaluated their progress. The following participant described a carefully constructed sequence of activities for evaluating students and helping them to develop their skills:

I evaluate their work program. While working, I go watch and see how they are doing and talk to their supervisor to get an idea what they are doing well and what they need improvement on. I can discuss the findings of the evaluation [with the student] in order to teach them strategies for improvement.

In fact, several participants shared how they discuss work observations and employer feedback on a one-on-one basis with students. Examples of topics discussed included “how to talk about their [student’s] support needs,” “how to advocate for themselves at work,” and “how to go through the interview process.”

While most of the respondents discussed serving students in some sort of teaching capacity in community-based settings, some respondents discussed teaching in classroom-based settings as well. For example, one participant described how he assisted teachers to simulate “coffee breaks” or “breaks at work” during class times to teach a student the behavioral expectations of these situations. A few participants also shared examples of activities where they assumed a lead teaching role. For example, one participant led classroom discussions that linked to students’ experiences on the job site:

We talk about “What happened at your job last night?” or “What happened with the supervisor when they said something to you?” The progress that is being made is discussed in the classroom. It is important to talk about things that can be changed and implemented back on an employment site.

Another participant illuminated their role in occasionally co-teaching a classroom-based activity:

About half of the teachers in the schools ask VR to come in and do “Training Interviews” instead of “Mock Interviews.” The reason that they would like us to come in is because the teachers know their students too well, which doesn’t make for a very fair interview. Also, doing it that way allows us to give more effective feedback.

At times, participants viewed themselves as assisting in the classroom rather than specifically serving as a teacher. This allowed them to not only follow the routine of the class but also engage students on an impromptu basis. For example, one respondent stated, “I will help with a lesson of the life skills class or I’ll just bring in my own lesson . . . I like to go into the class so students feel comfortable with me and know who I am.”

Despite the themes that emerged highlighting how VR counselors influence curriculum for students with severe disabilities, there were also two key barriers that emerged by more than two participants that hindered their role in influencing curriculum. First, the need for more training for both themselves and special educators alike regarding secondary transition was discussed. The participants recalled how difficult it was when they began in their role understanding various activities such as goal development and the Individualized Education Program (IEP) process. Second, several participants discussed the fact that some large high schools had too many stakeholders involved in transition and made efforts difficult to coordinate. One participant expressed that “some school districts are like their own little systems and there are too many players. I think that’s a huge problem.”

Discussion

The findings from this study support the critical nature of VR professionals in transition service delivery for students with disabilities (Noonan, Gaumer-Erickson, & Morningstar, 2013; Plotner, Trach, & Shogren, 2012). A core finding from this study is that participants believed the nature of their position (jointly funded by VR and school districts, and physically located within the school building) served as a catalyst for encouraging high levels of collaboration. Joint funding of the position allowed participants to become “insiders” that were viewed as members of the school staff, whereas physical location within the school building enabled participants to spend more time in the school and classroom working directly with teachers and students. As a result of this unique position, participants believed they were able to build rapport with school personnel and influence the curriculum in ways that might not otherwise have been possible.

The literature supports the notion that physical distance between two collaborating partners often contributes to a lack of collaboration (Timmons, Boeltzig, Cohen Hall, Hamner, & Fesko, 2009); thus, it is not surprising that participants in the current study believed that physical proximity enhanced their collaboration with school personnel. Jointly funded VR transition specialist positions were originally created to address factors necessary to facilitate collaboration, such as effective methods of communication and understanding the culture of collaborating agencies (Johnson, Zorn, Tam, Lamontagne, & Johnson, 2003). However, simply having these arrangements in place does not ensure collaboration or effective service delivery. There are many professional competencies stakeholders must possess to build trust between professionals, regardless of whether they are situated in an environment conducive to collaboration (Plotner, Trach, & Shogren, 2012).

Evidence from the current study suggests that the collaborative relationships participants experienced enabled them to influence the curriculum through their roles as connectors and teachers. In the role of connector, they provided school personnel, families, and students with information and resources that shaped decisions about the curriculum, and in the role of teacher they infused “real life” experiences into the curriculum by directly working with students. Participants were initially reluctant to offer examples of how they influence the curriculum, and some experienced great difficulty finding the words to describe their actions even when the interviewer reworded the questions. This may be because the term “curriculum” is often associated with a prescribed set of activities that is determined by teachers or a school district. Participants may not have viewed their activities as affecting the curriculum as they were not teachers. Alternatively, they may have viewed the preparation of students for employment as a series of transition activities rather than considering its linkage to vocational curricula. There are limited descriptions within the literature regarding the specific activities performed by VR professionals during transition despite overwhelming acknowledgment of the important role VR plays in the transition planning process (Benz et al., 2000; Hasazi, Furney, & Destefano, 1999).

In addition to appearing unclear about the meaning of curriculum, participants often conceptualized the term severe disabilities more broadly than how it was defined for this study. Although the interviewer defined severe disabilities (i.e., students who traditionally have been labeled as having severe to profound intellectual disability) at the onset of the interview and reminded participants of the definition throughout the interview, it was challenging for some participants to discuss only those students with severe disabilities. Many examples shared were considered students with significant support needs (e.g., paralysis, blindness) that did not include intellectual disability. It may be that participants were unfamiliar with the categorical definitions frequently used in schools to refer to intellectual disability due to differences that exist between schools and VR regarding the definitions of a “severe” or “significant” disability. Section 7(21)(A) of the Rehabilitation Act defines an “individual with a significant disability” as

an individual with a disability—(1) who has a severe physical or mental impairment which seriously limits one or more functional capacities (such as mobility, communication, self-care, self-direction, interpersonal skills, work tolerance, or work skills) in terms of an employment outcome; (2) whose VR can be expected to require multiple VR services over an extended period of time; and (3) who has one or more physical or mental disabilities listed in section 7(21)(A)(iii) of the Act or another disability or combination of disabilities determined on the basis of an assessment for determining eligibility and vocational rehabilitation needs to cause comparable substantial functional limitation.

As a result of differing definitions, VR professionals likely think of a broader group of individuals when referring to students with severe disabilities. These different views and operating systems can be a point of contention and miscommunication, particularly as schools serve a wider array of students with disabilities than those eligible for VR services.

Currently, many students with the most severe disabilities transition directly to sheltered workshops with limited exposure to integrated, community-based vocational training during high school. Others transition to non-vocational settings, where they engage in leisure or community activities, and some receive only in-home support. IEP teams may not provide integrated community-based vocational training during high school to these students or refer them to VR because the severity of their disability is such that integrated employment may seem questionable. Alternatively, VR professionals may believe that the support needs of these students exceed the capacity of VR services and recommend alternative placements. In the current study, it appears that participants influenced the curriculum for a subset of students with severe disabilities who demonstrated the greatest employment potential.

The recent reauthorization of the VR portion of the Rehabilitation Act, now a part of WIOA, should facilitate significant changes that increase opportunities for integrated employment for more students with severe disabilities, including those who traditionally have not been served by VR. Under WIOA, the primary employment goal for people with disabilities, including those with the most significant or severe disabilities, is employment at minimum wage or higher in an environment that is fully integrated with co-workers who do not have disabilities. In fact, half of each state’s supported employment monies are to be spent for the provision of services to youth with the most severe disabilities. To realize these outcomes, WIOA requires that students with disabilities receive transition services (e.g., workplace training, employment opportunities) while in high school to ensure that proper supports occur before they enter the workforce. Furthermore, Section 511 requires schools to stop moving students directly into non-integrated environments by prohibiting schools from contracting with programs that pay sub-minimum wage (e.g., sheltered workshops).

Changes resulting from WIOA will have a direct impact on transition services for students with the most severe disabilities. Realization of WIOA will require school personnel, VR professionals, and families to expand their vision of what is possible for students who traditionally have not been viewed as having the potential to be successful in integrated employment. It may also require teams to provide transition services earlier than required by law, as Cimera, Burgess, and Bedesem (2014) found that students with significant disabilities who received transition services beginning at age 14 were more likely to be employed when their VR cases were closed than students who received transition services beginning at age 16. Early transition planning will be particularly important for students with the most severe disabilities. These students benefit from intensive community-based work experiences to determine work preferences and build vocational skills (Dymond et al., 2014; McDonnell, 2010). Increased use of jointly funded VR professionals who are located in school settings may help to facilitate early transition planning as well as ensure that curriculum decisions focus on preparing students for integrated community employment. The role of VR professionals in ensuring appropriate curricula is developed and implemented in schools is essential to realizing the intent of WIOA.

Limitations

Several limitations should be noted when interpreting the study findings. These data are based on self-report and may not represent the actual roles VR professionals serve in influencing curricula for students with severe disabilities. Observations of the participants in the field would have helped to confirm the findings. Second, criteria for selection required participants to have at least 2 years of experience and demonstrated success in their position. Therefore, it is likely that their dual position is not the only factor that contributed to enhance collaboration. In fact, it could be primarily based on professional dispositions and experiences. Finally, the small sample size and selection of participants from only one state limit the generalizability of the findings. As such, the findings from this study should be considered exploratory in nature.

Implications for Research

With limited literature investigating the specific role of VR in the transition process, it is clear that more work is needed to ascertain the activities VR professionals perform to facilitate transition from school to employment. In particular, there is a need to better understand how VR professionals work with school personnel to design curricula that leads to integrated employment for students with the most severe disabilities. The VR professionals in this study did not discuss differentiation of duties or activities based on student support needs. As changes occur due to WIOA, it will be important to determine the impact of VR professionals on the vocational preparation of students who traditionally have not been viewed as eligible for VR services.

Future research should also seek to identify policies, procedures, and other organizational structures that facilitate the use of VR transition specialists who are jointly funded and located within schools. Understanding the factors that enable schools and VR agencies to develop and sustain these collaborative relationships might help other states move in the direction of shared services. Furthermore, gathering the perspectives of teachers, school administrators, parents, students, and other stakeholders regarding the use of VR transition specialists may illuminate factors that facilitate and hinder the effectiveness of this service delivery model, and the impact it has on curriculum and student outcomes.

Implications for Practice

Promoting VR involvement through VR transition specialists has emerged relatively recently as a vital practice for assisting transition-age youth to prepare for a career. Although VR professionals have limited training in curriculum design, they have the potential to take on an increasing role. Therefore, there is a need for these professionals to receive additional training about vocational curricula to better serve students in this role. This is particularly important as students with severe disabilities who traditionally were not targeted for integrated employment begin to receive instruction during high school that prepares them for this outcome. In addition, although the findings from this study support having VR professionals assume nontraditional roles, it is important to note that these findings do not suggest that VR professionals become something they were never intended to be, such as a curriculum specialist or classroom teacher.

Given the positive experiences of the participants in this study, it would seem that more states should consider implementing a model that supports increasing collaboration around curriculum by school personnel and VR professionals. The jointly funded transition specialist model used by participants in the current study represents just one possible method for creating this collaboration. Over 30 years ago, at the National Conference on Transition, it was recommended that state offices of Special Education and VR establish policies to encourage joint development of statewide curricula. It was also recommended that LEAs, VR, and Vocational Education assume joint responsibility for developing IEPs and Individual Work Plans, and deciding needed syllabi and instructional materials (Edmonson & Cain, 2002). It appears that these recommendations have not been implemented universally; yet, the need for a collaborative approach to curriculum decision making remains critical if students with the most severe disabilities are to ever realize integrated employment.

Footnotes

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: This research was supported by a grant from the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education.

References

Alreck

P. L.

Settle

R. B.

(1985). The survey research handbook. Homewood, IL: Irwin.

The Arc. (2011, June). Still in the shadows with their future uncertain: A report on family and individual needfor disability supports (FINDS), 2011. Retrieved from http://www.thearc.org/document.doc?id=3140

Benz

M. R.

Lindstrom

Latta

(1999). Improving collaboration between schools and vocational rehabilitation: The youth transition program model. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 13, 55–63.

Benz

M. R.

Lindstrom

Yovanoff

(2000). Improving graduation and employment outcomes of students with disabilities: Predictive factors and student perspectives. Exceptional Children, 66, 509–529.

Bouck

E. C.

(2012). Secondary students with moderate/severe intellectual disability: Considerations of curriculum and post-school outcomes from the National Longitudinal Transition Study–2. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 56, 1175–1186.

Brantlinger

Jimenez

Klingner

Pugach

Richardson

(2005). Qualitative studies in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 195–207.

Butterworth

Hall

A. C.

Smith

F. A.

Migliore

Winsor

Domin

Sulewski

(2013). StateData: The national report on employment services and outcomes. Retrieved from http://www.statedata.info/sites/statedata.info/files/files/2012_bluebook.pdf

Carter

E. W.

Austin

Trainor

A. A.

(2011). Factors associated with the early work experiences of adolescents with severe disabilities. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 49, 233–247.

Carter

E. W.

Harvey

M. N.

Taylor

J. L.

Gotham

(2013). Connecting youth and young adults with autism spectrum disorders to community life. Psychology in the Schools, 50, 888–898.

10.

Certo

N. J.

Luecking

R. G.

(2006). Service integration and school to work transition: Customized employment as an outcome for youth with significant disabilities. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 37, 29–35.

11.

Cimera

R. E.

Burgess

Bedesem

P. L.

(2014). Does providing transition services by age 14 produce better vocational outcomes for students with intellectual disability? Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 39, 47–54.

12.

Dymond

S. K.

Renzaglia

Hutchins

(2014). Career development: Developing basic work skills and employment preferences. In Storey

Hunter

(Eds.), The road ahead: Transition to adult life for persons with disabilities (3rd ed., pp. 107–136). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press.

13.

Edmonson

C. A.

Cain

H. M.

(2002). The spirit of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: Collaboration between special education and Vocational Rehabilitation for the transition of students with disabilities. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 33, 10–14.

14.

Finch

C. R.

Crunkilton

J. R.

(1993). Curriculum development in vocational and technical education: Planning, content, and implementation. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

15.

Hart

Zimbrich

Ghiloni

(2001). Interagency partnerships and funding: Individual supports for youth with significant disabilities as they move into postsecondary education and employment options. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 16, 145–154.

16.

Hasazi

S. B.

Furney

K. S.

Destefano

(1999). Implementing the IDEA transition mandates. Exceptional Children, 65, 555–566.

17.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act Amendments of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004).

18.

Jackson

Ryndak

D. L.

Billingsley

(2000). Useful practices in inclusive education: A preliminary view of what experts in moderate and severe disabilities are saying. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 25, 129–141.

19.

Johnson

L. J.

Zorn

Tam

B. K.

Lamontagne

Johnson

(2003). Stakeholders views of factors that impact successful interagency collaboration. Exceptional Children, 69, 195–209.

20.

Mazzotti

Test

Mustian

(2014). Secondary transition evidence-based practices and predictors: Implications for policymakers. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 25, 5–18.

21.

McDonnell

(2010). Employment training. In McDonnell

Hardman

M. L.

(Eds.), Successful transition programs: Pathways for students with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (pp. 241–256). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

22.

Morningstar

M. E.

Bassett

D. S.

Kochhar-Bryant

Cashman

Wehmeyer

M. L.

(2012). Aligning transition services with secondary education reform: A position statement of the Division on Career Development and Transition. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 35, 132–142.

23.

National Council on Disability. (2008). The Rehabilitation Act: Outcomes for transition-age youth. Retrieved from http://www.ncd.gov/publications/2008/10282008

24.

National Disability Rights Network. (2011). The failure of the disability service system to provide quality work. Retrieved from http://www.ndrn.org/images/Documents/Resources/Publications/Reports/Segregated-and-Exploited.pdf

25.

Noonan

P. M.

Gaumer-Erickson

Morningstar

M. E.

(2013). Effects of community transition teams on interagency collaboration for school and adult agency staff. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 36, 96–104.

26.

Plotner

A. J.

Trach

J. S.

Shogren

K. A.

(2012). Identifying a transition competency domain structure: Assisting transition planning teams to understand roles and responsibilities of community partners. Journal of Rehabilitation Research, Policy, and Education, 26, 257–272.

27.

Plotner

A. J.

Trach

J. S.

Strauser

D. R.

(2012). Vocational rehabilitation counselors’ identified transition competencies perceived importance, frequency, and preparedness. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 55, 135–143.

28.

Shogren

K. A.

Plotner

A. J.

(2012). Transition planning for students with intellectual disability, autism, or other disabilities: Data from the National Longitudinal Transition Study–2. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 50, 16–30.

29.

Strauss

Corbin

(1998). Basics of qualitative research: Procedures and techniques for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

30.

Test

D. W.

Cease-Cook

(2012). Evidence-based secondary transition practices for rehabilitation counselors. The Journal of Rehabilitation, 78, 30–38.

31.

Test

D. W.

Mazzotti

V. L.

Mustian

A. L.

Fowler

C. H.

Kortering

Kohler

(2009). Evidence-based secondary transition predictors for improving post-school outcomes for students with disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32, 160–181.

32.

Timmons

Boeltzig

Cohen Hall

Hamner

Fesko

(2009). Collaborative relationships between vocational rehabilitation and other one-stop partners. Policy considerations for supporting partnerships. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 20(2), 67-78.

33.

Wehman

Schall

Carr

Targett

West

Cifu

(2014). Transition from school to adulthood for youth with autism spectrum disorder: What we know and what we need to know. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 25, 30–40.

34.

Yamamoto

K. K.

Stodden

R. A.

Folk

E. D.

(2014). Inclusive postsecondary education: Reimagining the transition trajectories of vocational rehabilitation clients with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 40, 59–71.