Abstract
The introduction of pre-employment transition services (Pre-ETS) brought the promise of improved competitive integrated employment outcomes for students with disabilities; however, research reveals a lack of consistency and questions about the quality of Pre-ETS implementation. This manuscript describes a pilot Model Demonstration Project (MDP) to comprehensively support Pre-ETS providers in their preparation, planning, and service delivery. We present the steps of the MDP through the perspective of two Pre-ETS providers participating in two MDP sites during the 2023 to 2024 and 2024 to 2025 school years. Providers believed that the components of the MDP assisted with their knowledge attainment, Pre-ETS planning, and overall service delivery, with particular emphasis on trainings and the collaborative service delivery meeting. Providers believed their participation in the project deepened their understanding of Pre-ETS and facilitated increased collaboration with other professionals. We offer implications and recommendations for future research and practice for developing a model to support providers’ provision of Pre-ETS.
Introduction
Students with disabilities continue to experience significant disparities in postschool outcomes compared to their peers without disabilities. National data consistently demonstrate that students with disabilities experience lower rates of competitive integrated employment and enrollment in postsecondary education, as well as higher rates of underemployment (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2025; U.S. Census Bureau, 2024). These disparities contribute to a lack of economic independence and reduce opportunities for full community participation throughout students’ lives (Carter et al., 2012; Newman et al., 2011). The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA, 2014) was designed, in part, to address these persistent disparities by requiring state vocational rehabilitation (VR) agencies to expand services to students with disabilities. Through this legislation, VR agencies are mandated to allocate at least 15% of their budget toward Pre-Employment Transition Services (Pre-ETS) and to coordinate service delivery with schools. Pre-ETS are comprised of five specific services, including job exploration counseling, work-based learning experiences, counseling on postsecondary education, workplace readiness training, and instruction in self-advocacy (WIOA, 2014). Pre-ETS are designed to be short-term in nature, support transition services students are receiving through special education programming, and are available to students who are eligible or potentially eligible for VR services (WIOA, 2014).
Despite policy advances, Pre-ETS implementation remains highly variable. Studies have revealed inconsistencies in the types and intensity of Pre-ETS students receive across states (Whittenburg et al., 2024). While job exploration counseling services are provided frequently across the United States, services like work-based learning experiences are less consistently delivered to students (Whittenburg et al., 2024). A growing body of research documenting providers' perspectives highlights several systemic barriers to implementation. For example, providers report difficulty sustaining partnerships with schools, unclear role expectations between VR and school personnel, and a lack of time with students as barriers to Pre-ETS delivery (Awsumb et al., 2020, 2024; Malouf et al., 2025). Moreover, while providers value Pre-ETS and recognize their potential to support postschool readiness, they often feel underprepared or lack resources to fully implement certain services (Neubert et al., 2018). Additionally, providers consistently cite a need for professional development and training to ensure that students receive Pre-ETS that are tailored to their postschool goals (Malouf et al., 2025).
To combat these challenges and address providers’ needs, ongoing investment in infrastructure, training, and collaborative support is needed to ensure consistent, high-quality Pre-ETS delivery. One such investment involves providing professional development specifically tailored to Pre-ETS providers. Special education research has long demonstrated that sustained, job-embedded professional development improves teacher practice, fosters collaboration, and contributes to improved student outcomes (Billingsley et al., 2019; Desimone, 2009). Special education teachers who receive iterative and targeted training are more likely to adopt evidence-based practices with fidelity and sustain them over time (Billingsley et al., 2019). In contrast, Pre-ETS providers often enter their roles with highly varied professional preparation and experiences (Awsumb & Carter, 2024; Malouf et al., 2025; Neubert et al., 2018). Additionally, in a scoping review of the current Pre-ETS literature, Rooney-Kron and colleagues (2024) found limited evidence of standardized preparation packages or credentialing requirements in the field. When asked about specific training needs, Pre-ETS providers desired training related to implementation of their services across student groups (e.g., students with extensive support needs), gaining buy-in from diverse stakeholders, and desired information related to instructional practices and implementation strategies (Awsumb & Carter, 2024; Rooney-Kron et al., 2024). Awsumb and Carter (2024) echoed the varied nature of pre-service training within the state of Tennessee, documenting.
Although several technical assistance centers have been funded by the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) over the past decade to provide professional development (e.g., the National Vocational Rehabilitation Technical Assistance Center, the Vocational Rehabilitation Technical Assistance Center for Quality Employment, the National Technical Assistance Center on Transition: The Collaborative), these centers face unique challenges amidst the current funding landscape. Moreover, they do not exclusively focus on Pre-ETS or the needs of Pre-ETS providers. Moreover, current professional development opportunities for Pre-ETS providers tend to emphasize compliance with WIOA requirements or are limited to one-time training sessions (Lambert et al., 2023), leaving providers without the ongoing support needed to improve and sustain high-quality practice. Compared to the established evidence base in special education, research on professional development for Pre-ETS providers remains scant, underscoring the need for new models that embed continuous, collaborative, and individualized learning opportunities.
In addition to the need for professional development, effective Pre-ETS implementation depends on collaboration across multiple team members, including schools, VR agencies, families, and community organizations. Legislative efforts such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004) and WIOA (2014) explicitly mandate cross-agency collaboration, and transition research consistently identifies interagency collaboration as critical to improving postschool outcomes for students with disabilities (see Kohler et al., 2016; Luecking & Luecking, 2015). When schools, students, families, VR counselors, and community partners engage in coordinated planning, students are more likely to access meaningful work-based learning opportunities and to graduate connected to adult services (see Castruita Rios et al., 2023). Providers have also expressed a desire to collaborate with school professionals to deliver meaningful Pre-ETS; however, they consistently describe barriers such as inconsistent communication and the absence of structured opportunities to engage in joint planning with partners (Awsumb et al., 2020; Carter et al., 2021).
Professional development and collaboration operate in tandem as essential supports for ensuring consistent and effective Pre-ETS delivery. Professional learning equips providers with the knowledge and tools necessary to plan and implement services with intentionality (Billingsley et al., 2019; Desimone, 2009), while collaboration ensures that services are coordinated, individualized, and aligned with students’ postschool goals (Carter et al., 2009; Kohler et al., 2016; Luecking & Luecking, 2015). While both are recognized as critical, few studies have examined how professional development and collaboration might be integrated to strengthen Pre-ETS delivery (Rooney-Kron et al., 2024). Integrated approaches that include targeted professional learning while also embedding opportunities for cross-agency collaboration may hold particular promise for enhancing Pre-ETS implementation. Structured meeting formats and planning tools that elevate student voice and create shared ownership among partners represent especially promising strategies (Awsumb et al., 2024; Carter et al., 2009), although they have received little empirical attention in the Pre-ETS context.
Although professional development and collaboration are recognized as essential supports for Pre-ETS, few studies have examined intervention models that intentionally integrate these components to strengthen service delivery. To begin addressing this gap, the present study piloted an intervention package (hereafter referred to as the Model Demonstration Project [MDP]) designed to support providers in their preparation, planning, and delivery of Pre-ETS. The MDP framework combined individualized professional learning with structured opportunities for cross-agency collaboration and emphasized providers’ use of person-driven planning to guide services. As part of the project, providers accessed training, resources, and guidance from Transition Tennessee (www.transitiontn.org), a state-level initiative that supports high-quality Pre-ETS by offering professional development and materials designed to help providers support students with disabilities as they transition to higher education and employment. The purpose of this study was to examine Pre-ETS providers’ experiences with the MDP and to explore how participation in this integrated intervention shaped providers’ knowledge, planning, and delivery of Pre-ETS. The study was guided by the following research questions:
Method
Intervention Package
The MDP was intended to be a comprehensive package for use by providers to prepare, plan, and deliver Pre-ETS to students with disabilities. To guide development of the MDP, we conducted a review of the Pre-ETS literature (e.g., Awsumb et al., 2020; Carlson et al., 2020; Taylor et al., 2021), existing models for transition services (e.g., Kohler et al., 2016; Luecking & Luecking, 2015; Povenmire-Kirk et al., 2015), and reviewed statewide survey results of 96 Pre-ETS providers detailing their perceptions of their planning, delivery, and impact of services (see Awsumb et al., 2024). We then developed a draft of the MDP. Once drafted, we sought feedback from three transition professionals. We asked Pre-ETS providers across the state their opinions as to whether the MDP would support their endeavors to plan and provide Pre-ETS to their students. As a last development step, we presented the MDP to the Department of Human Services – VR leadership and received approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB). The finalized MDP included a four-step process designed to guide high-quality Pre-ETS implementation including (a) application, site selection, and an orientation to the steps in the process and expectations for participation, (b) a provider-driven meeting, (c) asynchronous and synchronous trainings based on provider need, and (d) a collaborative service delivery meeting.
Application, Site Selection, and Orientation
To be selected to participate in the MDP, providers were invited to complete an application. In this state, Pre-ETS are delivered by two types of providers: (a) a community rehabilitation provider (CRP) instructor and (b) a transition school to work (TSW) instructor. The CRP instructor is employed by an outside agency, while the TSW instructor is employed in the school to provide Pre-ETS. For the first MDP, the application was sent to TSW instructors in a southern state. The second MDP applications were sent to CRP instructors in the same state. The application shared the support the researchers would provide, compensation for participation, and expectations of the selected Pre-ETS provider. Pre-ETS providers were asked to share their contact information and the percentage of their caseloads who were receiving each of the five Pre-ETS. Pre-ETS providers were also asked to answer questions regarding their strengths, challenges, and support they were seeking, provide descriptive information about their role and Pre-ETS program, their reasons for wanting to be involved in the project, and a letter of approval from school leadership that expressed their support and approval for the provider to participate in the project. Once selected, each TSW and CRP instructor participated in a 60-minute in-person orientation held at a location chosen by the instructor (e.g., school, CRP instructor’s office). During the orientation, research staff outlined the steps of the MDP and explained the roles and expectations of participating staff.
Provider-Driven Meeting
After the orientation, each provider participated in the provider-driven meeting focused on the instructors’ needs to prepare, plan, and deliver high-quality Pre-ETS. To meet the scheduling needs of the TSW and CRP instructors, the orientation and provider-driven meeting were combined on the same day. We structured the discussion and documented information that the instructors communicated about their current understanding of Pre-ETS related topics, practices, and systems. The meetings lasted 60 minutes during which research staff asked the instructor to describe their needs related to: (a) the purpose of Pre-ETS, (b) the role of a Pre-ETS provider, (c) the role of transition team members, (d) the activities included in the five required Pre-ETS, (e) coordinating and planning Pre-ETS activities, (f) monitoring student progress, (g) using the Individualized Education Program (IEP) transition plan to inform instruction, and (h) the role of VR. Next, TSW and CRP instructors identified a target group of students including how often the students received Pre-ETS, the length of each Pre-ETS session, and the type of Pre-ETS each student was receiving. Being that the meeting occurred in the summer, the instructors had not yet confirmed their caseloads for the upcoming school year. Thus, much of this step was completed once school started. Lastly, the instructor identified individuals to be a part of the upcoming collaborative service delivery meeting including their role, current supports and services the students received from each individual, and new opportunities for support and collaboration.
Trainings
Based on the needs shared at the provider-driven meeting and the baseline measure (see description below), instructors were assigned asynchronous and synchronous trainings. Asynchronous trainings included in-depth information on each of the five Pre-ETS, developing partnerships and collaborating, and Pre-ETS activity planning from our Transition Tennessee website. The TSW instructor completed 6.9 hours of asynchronous training. The CRP instructor completed 7.7 hours of asynchronous training. Research staff delivered 2 hours of synchronous trainings to each instructor. Trainings focused on a personalized approach for each instructor to (a) strengthen collaborative relationships to support students and (b) sequence their Pre-ETS instruction.
Collaborative Service Delivery Meeting
We designed the collaborative service delivery meeting to facilitate cross-agency planning and intentional implementation of Pre-ETS. Each collaborative service delivery meeting was scheduled for 90 minutes after the school day. Most participants attended in person; however, three participants attended virtually at the CRP instructor’s site. Prior to the meeting, TSW and CRP instructors met with participating students and completed the Student Goal Collection Form (available upon request). This form provided a list of guiding questions that captured students’ postsecondary aspirations for work, education, and independent living. This process ensured that students’ voices were embedded into the collaborative service delivery meeting and shaped who was invited to the meeting. Both instructors invited the building principal, SPED teachers, and VR counselors. Additionally, each instructor invited partners who would meet their students’ unique needs (e.g., school guidance counselor, school social worker) or partners who were unique to the schools in which they provided services and relevant to the collaborative discussions that occurred (e.g., part-time career counselor).
As the ultimate purpose of Pre-ETS is to prepare students for competitive integrated employment, the collaborative service delivery meeting guide (see Figure 1) was adapted from two employment-focused tools: (a) the Employment Planning Meeting Tool (Awsumb et al., 2024) and (b) the Summer Activities Planning Tool (Carter et al., 2009). During the meeting, each attendee introduced themselves and shared their role. Then, researchers guided the conversation so that attendees discussed participating students’ goals, strengths, and skills. Researchers provided an opportunity for collaborative service delivery meeting attendees to ask any questions and then prompted attendees to identify current service coordination efforts and specific services that would benefit students. Virtual attendees were specifically prompted for their thoughts to ensure their voices were included. Throughout the meeting, researchers noted barriers as they arose and provided a specific time for attendees to discuss barriers they encountered when providing services. Researchers then prompted attendees to think about potential solutions to the barriers identified. Finally, researchers helped facilitate the creation of an action plan among attendees. Each meeting concluded with defined next steps, including responsible parties and timelines for follow-up.
Example completed collaborative service delivery meeting form.
Participants and Recruitment
We implemented the steps of the MDP at two sites, the first during the 2023 to 2024 school year and the second during the 2024 to 2025 school year. At the request of VR leadership, we recruited TSW instructors for the first site and CRP instructors for the second site. Participants were recruited by emailing the list of Pre-ETS providers in our state, shared with us by VR leadership. To be eligible, providers had to (a) be either a TSW instructor (Year 1) or a CRP instructor (Year 2), (b) provide services to students with disabilities in the state, (c) complete the application, (d) deliver all five Pre-ETS, (e) request help that could be provided (e.g., not a request for less paperwork, more staff, or increased funding), and (f) have a letter of support from the school where support would be provided. We received eight applications for Year 1 and seven applications for Year 2. One TSW instructor was chosen for Year 1, and one CRP instructor was chosen for Year 2. The TSW instructor served one middle school and one high school in a rural district in the central part of the state. The CRP instructor served eight high schools in suburban and rural areas of the western part of the state. Each instructor chose a set of students on their caseload to consent/assent along with their parent or guardian. For Year 1, eight students and their parents consented. For Year 2, an additional eight students and seven parents consented (see Table 1 for demographic information). Students who were under 18 or in a conservatorship relationship assented (n = 15). One student was their own guardian and consented. Providers received $500 for participation in the study and completion of five check-in measures, short knowledge attainment surveys, and two interviews. Parents received $50 for each measure completed (up to $100). Students were not compensated for completing measures.
Demographic Information of MDP Participants.
Individualized Education Program (IEP).
Data Collection
We collected a baseline measure from the instructor before the school year began, collected knowledge attainment surveys for each training, a measure at the end of the school year (i.e., end of year), and conducted an end-of-year individual interview (available upon request). Participants completed surveys online using the Research Electronic Data Capture system (Harris et al., 2009).
Measures
Baseline and End-of-Year Surveys
The baseline and end-of-year surveys addressed instructors’ perceptions of their (a) training and needs (e.g., learning experiences, resources), (b) collaboration (e.g., collaboration within school, collaboration outside of school, experiences with students and families), (c) planning of services (e.g., Pre-ETS curriculum, transition websites), (d) quality of Pre-ETS implementation (e.g., Pre-ETS activities implemented, classroom – versus community-based services), and (e) information about their caseload (e.g., students’ special education categories, size of caseload). Measures were adapted from two prior studies conducted with Pre-ETS providers (see Awsumb et al., 2020; Awsumb et al., 2024).
Knowledge Attainment Surveys
Each instructor completed short knowledge attainment surveys after each training. Participants were asked to share (a) if their knowledge increased (i.e., yes or no) and (b) how they planned to use the training information to inform their services.
Interview
At the end of the school year, we interviewed each instructor to gather feedback on the impact of the intervention and to identify opportunities for improvement. The interview protocol (available upon request) was developed by the researchers based on their transition expertise and the extant data (Awsumb et al., 2020; Carlson et al., 2020; Frentzel et al., 2021; Schutz & Carter, 2022; Taylor et al., 2021). Instructors reflected on (a) which aspects of the MDP were most helpful, (b) what challenges remained, and (c) how the experience shaped their approach to Pre-ETS delivery. These reflections offered insight into the feasibility of the intervention and highlighted conditions necessary for long-term sustainability. Interviews took place via Zoom and lasted an average of 38 minutes (range 18–58 minutes) with at least two researchers participating in each interview. During the interviews, one researcher served as the lead interviewer and the other researchers took notes.
Data Analysis
Quantitative data were summarized within and across instructors at each time point (see Table 2). Additionally, knowledge attainment was summarized quantitatively across instructors. We used an inductive coding approach to analyze interview data (Merriam, 2009). Researchers independently assigned labels to sentences or phrases, met to discuss their codes, generate code descriptions, and create a codebook. As we continued to code each transcript, researchers followed the same process, independently coding a section of the transcript, meeting to discuss codes and refine code descriptions, as well as iteratively updating the codebook overtime. Researchers then grouped similar codes into larger categories and began to develop themes that were exclusive, yet exhaustive, sensitive, and representative of the interviews (Merriam, 2009).
Frequency of Engagement in Instructional Preparation, Planning, and Delivery Practices.
Baseline and end-of-year ratings correspond to a Likert-type scale: 1 = Never, 2 = Rarely, 3 = Sometimes, 4 = Often, 5 = Always. bThe change score is the difference between baseline and end-of-year ratings.
Results
In this section, we describe each instructor’s experience during their participation in the MDP. First, we describe instructors’ experiences with each component of the MDP, including (a) the provider-driven meeting, (b) asynchronous and synchronous trainings, and (c) the collaborative service delivery meeting (RQ1). Second, we present interview findings that illustrate how participation in the MDP shaped instructors’ perspectives, knowledge, planning, and delivery of Pre-ETS (RQ2).
RQ1: How did Providers Experience Each Component of the MDP?
Provider-Driven Meeting
The information gathered at the provider-driven meeting served as the foundation for the trainings, recommendations, and supports provided by the research team. During the provider-driven meeting, instructors discussed their needs related to Pre-ETS planning and delivery. These discussions ranged from sharing contact preferences (e.g., after 3 pm via email) to specific needs related to Pre-ETS topics. For example, both the TSW instructor and CRP instructor expressed needs relating to improving their partnership with VR counselors (i.e., understanding the role of a VR counselor, increasing collaboration opportunities, informing families about the role of VR). They also requested support with work-based learning experiences, particularly to build partnerships with local businesses to provide a variety of experiences for students. Researchers used the information gathered during the provider-driven meeting to formulate recommendations. Recommendations were categorized into four distinct activity areas, including Asynchronous Trainings, Personalized Synchronous Trainings, Resources and Tools, and Collaboration. Researchers considered providers’ backgrounds, experiences, and circumstances (e.g., time with students, level of priority for each need) as they assigned asynchronous trainings, developed personalized synchronous trainings, shared resources, and recommended opportunities for collaboration. Researchers addressed needs related to VR by recommending the use of specific resources and facilitated collaboration. Resources included a family tip sheet about VR and a list of ready-made activities from Transition Tennessee that instructors could complete with students in the classroom. Instructors were also encouraged to contact their regional Pre-ETS Specialist and VR counselor and to invite them to the collaborative service delivery meeting. Needs related to Pre-ETS activities were addressed through the asynchronous training assignments. For example, researchers provided the TSW with a list of potential work-based learning sites willing to host students.
Trainings
Asynchronous Training
Asynchronous trainings served as general background knowledge about Pre-ETS topics. During provider-driven meetings, instructors expressed needs related to collaboration in four or more Pre-ETS-related topics; however, each instructor’s needs focused on different aspects of collaboration. To address the needs of the instructors, the TSW instructor and CRP instructor were assigned different asynchronous trainings and completed a knowledge attainment survey following the conclusion of each training. The TSW instructor was assigned three asynchronous trainings titled Counseling on Postsecondary Education, Work-based Learning Experiences, and Instruction in Self-advocacy. In her knowledge attainment surveys, the TSW instructor indicated that 88% of the trainings increased her knowledge of the topics. She also noted that they highlighted the importance of providing students with leadership roles, starting early, and encouraging more parent involvement. The CRP instructor completed five asynchronous trainings titled Developing Strong Partnerships, Strategies for Effective Instruction, Counseling on Postsecondary Education, Work-based Learning Experiences, and Pre-ETS Activity Planning. When asked if her knowledge of the topics increased, she responded yes for 100% of the trainings and expressed that the activity ideas and resources helped her to better understand services related to work-based learning experiences. She also noted that these trainings provided her with more knowledge about the importance of meaningful collaboration and the importance of hands-on experiences.
Synchronous Training
Personalized synchronous trainings were used to address instructor-identified topics not fully covered in the asynchronous trainings. Both the TSW instructor and CRP instructor indicated needs in the categories of understanding the role of a Pre-ETS provider, activity planning and coordinating in the five required Pre-ETS, and monitoring student progress. The TSW instructor needed additional support in understanding the role of transition team members and the role of VR. In addition to the topical areas identified by instructors, personalized trainings were used to deliver information about specific planning tools and instructional resources developed by the Transition Tennesseeteam (e.g., the Pre-ETS Sequencing Guide, Transition Tennessee student website, Transition Tennessee instructional materials). For example, we provided training on the Pre-ETS Sequencing Guide, a tool that helps providers prioritize, sequence, and individualize Pre-ETS for their students. During each personalized training, we shared strategies to help the instructor use the Pre-ETS Sequencing Guide, given their program structure (e.g., frequency and duration of services, goals for target students), and their perceived level of need in using the guide.
Personalized synchronous trainings also incorporated components of activity planning. Resources from the Transition Tennessee website including student lessons, instructional materials, and family tip sheets were shared and personalized based on instructors’ needs. For the TSW instructor, these resources included broad explanations of Tennessee Disability Pathfinder’s website (www.tnpathfinder.org) as well as a general description of Transition Tennessee family tip sheets, and information about Community Resource Mapping. Similarly, the CRP instructor received training about aspects of the Transition Tennessee website more broadly; however, the research team also shared specific student activities (e.g., worksheets about worksite tours and job shadows) as well as focused family tip sheets with examples of how each may be used during service delivery.
Both personalized trainings also included a focus on strengthening collaboration. The research team adapted collaborative content based on each instructor’s existing partnerships and identified needs. For instance, while both the TSW instructor and CRP instructor identified different needs related to collaborating with school personnel, the TSW instructor shared she already had strong partnerships, but was unsure how to effectively leverage those partnerships and deliver comprehensive services. To address this need, the research team provided training about specific collaborative strategies involving school staff and community members. Contrastingly, the CRP instructor identified needs related to strengthening collaborative relationships with school personnel. As such, the research team provided opportunities for attendees to identify their current levels of collaboration, discuss the ways in which collaboration may occur (e.g., in-person meetings, using Google Docs, talking on the phone, texting or emailing) and brainstorm ways in which they may increase or improve their collaborative relationships to support students. At the end of each personalized training, attendees (e.g., the instructor, special education teachers, school staff) completed post-training knowledge attainment surveys. Both instructors indicated that their knowledge of the topics presented increased, noting that the strategies and resources shared would help them collaborate with the special education teachers. Additionally, both instructors shared that the information would help inform the provision of Pre-ETS.
Collaborative Service Delivery Meeting
Across both sites, the collaborative service delivery meeting functioned as a structured forum for initiating cross-agency collaboration. Participants used the meeting time to collaboratively problem solve, plan for the delivery of meaningful and individualized services, and ensure that services and supports met students’ needs and goals for the future. The collaborative service delivery meetings established a shared sense of purpose among team members by grounding the conversation in students’ goals, strengths, and needs. Discussion of these topics occurred at the beginning of the meeting. As such, meeting participants were able to glean background information about students, which was especially helpful for attendees who had limited or no student interactions.
Meeting participants were then able to draw on their distinct expertise to develop coordinated supports. For example, during the meeting, when team members discussed a student’s interests in architecture and animal care, the CRP instructor noted that gaining access to local animal hospitals had been a challenge. In response, a special education teacher shared a personal connection to a nearby veterinary office. She offered to connect the CRP instructor to the business so the student could engage in an informational interview or internship. Similarly, the discussion of two students’ goals to attend technical colleges and acknowledgment of their needs (i.e., one student needed glasses, one student struggled with reading and writing) prompted the VR counselor to coordinate a referral assistive technology evaluation. The transition specialist then offered to organize a tour of local technical training programs centered around each students’ career goals. By beginning the meeting with a discussion about students’ aspirations, teams were able to quickly connect student goals with actionable ideas, including the potential for dual enrollment, implementation of workplace readiness activities, access to work-based learning experiences, and the provision of individualized Pre-ETS and supports.
The collaborative service delivery meetings also provided a space for attendees to openly discuss barriers to service delivery and collectively generate solutions. In several cases, barriers were resolved simply because the right people were present at the meeting. For example, the TSW instructor shared that her ability to offer job shadowing, campus tours, and other community-based services was limited by a lack of transportation. Upon hearing this, the school principal immediately offered access to school vans, removing the barrier to transportation in real time. In the same meeting, team members recognized that several students needed support in obtaining a driver’s license but lacked access to proper training. The VR counselor offered a solution by connecting students to a VR-sponsored Driver’s Education program housed at a nearby American Job Center. At both meetings, participants spoke of challenges related to obtaining and maintaining work-based learning sites. To combat the challenges faced, one team proposed organizing a community-wide career fair and “reverse interview” event, where students would demonstrate their skills to local employers. Another team discussed attending a Chamber of Commerce meeting to raise awareness of work-based learning and explore strategies for expanding job shadowing opportunities in their rural community. Because of the structured format of the collaborative service delivery meeting and the participation of key partners, the meetings functioned as dedicated planning spaces for cross-agency coordination. These discussions supported actionable, student-centered planning and clarified how team members could support students following the meeting.
RQ2: How did the Components of the MDP Shape Providers’ Perspectives, Knowledge, Planning, and Delivery of Pre-ETS?
To examine how participation in the MDP shaped instructors’ perspectives, knowledge, planning, and delivery of Pre-ETS we analyzed pre-post data from baseline and end-of-year surveys and data from interviews following the conclusion of the study.
Survey Results
According to survey data, instructors utilized a variety of approaches to prepare, plan, and deliver Pre-ETS to students with disabilities (see Table 2). The TSW instructor reported growth in the frequency of use of instructional practices from baseline to the end of the school year on the following items: information about students’ current skills, strengths, and needs is gathered or assessed before beginning services (change from sometimes to often); evaluations/assessment of students are valuable in planning instruction of Pre-ETS (change from often to always); students’ current skills, strengths, needs and goals guide planning of instructional content (change from sometimes to often); student progress is monitored to inform future services (change from rarely to often); and through Pre-ETS, students learn about supports and services for adulthood (change from sometimes to often). The CRP instructor rated an increase in frequency for two instructional practices: (a) activities are planned so that students can practice new skills in multiple settings (change from sometimes to often) and (b) student progress is monitored to inform future services (change from sometimes to often). However, she also indicated a decrease in the frequency of three instructional practices: (a) information about students’ current skills, strengths, and needs is gathered or assessed before beginning services (change from always to often); (b) students’ current skills, strengths, needs, and goals guide planning of instructional content (change from always to often); and (c) students exit high school connected with adult supports and services (change from always to often).
Interview Findings
In addition to survey data, interview findings provided deeper insight into how the MDP influenced providers’ perspectives, planning practices, and collaboration. Analysis of interview data resulted in two interrelated themes that are shared below.
Developing a Shared and Intentional Approach to Pre-ETS
Instructors described a shift in how they understood the purpose of Pre-ETS and their role in supporting students’ postschool outcomes. The CRP instructor described the small-group format of the synchronous trainings as particularly helpful, explaining, “. . . being able to sit and walk through it the way y’all walk through it and have the printouts . . . helped me understand how I can deliver [Pre-ETS] better and make it better for the students.” The TSW instructor also expressed a shift in other team members’ understanding of Pre-ETS as a function of their attendance at the synchronous trainings. Despite initially questioning whether these trainings would foster engagement and buy-in among teachers, the TSW instructor reflected that the trainings were “. . . helpful for them to see the information that you all presented.” The TSW instructor went on to describe that a common understanding of Pre-ETS laid the groundwork for collaboration throughout the year, noting that team members “. . . were more willing to give input and follow through,” on joint efforts to provide transition services to students.
In addition to a collective understanding of Pre-ETS, instructors also described a substantial shift in how they approached the planning and delivery of Pre-ETS. Each started to move away from a compliance-driven approach toward more intentional planning and service delivery. The TSW instructor described how the project prompted her to reconsider both what she was doing and why she was doing it, explaining, “It’s been . . . beneficial to help me see, broader, like just see from a different perspective and really look at what we’re doing and why we’re doing it.” She went on to describe a change in how she approached assessments, sharing that the MDP helped her realize that “. . . I’m checking a box when I could really be using this [assessment] as a way to help me navigate how I work with the student . . . and make [my services] more impactful.” The CRP instructor echoed the idea that the MDP improved the intentionality of her service delivery sharing that she was, “. . . more in tune to the resources, and I know how to use them better . . . which in turn helps me deliver [services to my students].”
Both the CRP and the TSW instructors highlighted the collaborative service delivery meeting as a critical component of the project that influenced their ability to plan and deliver individualized services to their target students. The CRP instructor highlighted the importance of completing the Student Goal Collection Form with students prior to the collaborative service delivery meeting. The CRP instructor believed that “. . . just breaking it down like that . . . we were able to actually talk to [the students] about [their postschool goals].” These structured conversations helped students “put everything into perspective” and provided an opportunity for students to describe their goals and dreams for the future. In addition to conversations that guided the topics of the collaborative service delivery meeting, instructors also shared that it was beneficial to hear other team members’ perspectives of students’ strengths, needs, and preferences. The TSW instructor shared that during the collaborative service delivery meeting, she “. . . really got to see how [the teachers] saw the student versus how we see the student,” and reflected that the project as a whole, “. . . helped me to have different conversations with the SPED teachers and ask more specifically what we need to do for individual students.”
Developing Sustained and Coordinated Collaboration
Instructors also described meaningful changes in how they collaborated with school personnel, supervisors, and VR staff as a result of the project. The CRP instructor noted that “the collaboration that y’all brought into it with principals, teachers, even with the students,” was the most rewarding experience of the project. Notably, improved collaboration between the TSW instructor and her VR counselor resulted in tangible change for students. Prior to the project, the TSW instructor shared that she was unsure how to engage with her supervisor noting, “. . . you kind of feel like [the supervisor is] over you rather than in partnership with you.” However, throughout the project she became less worried about “doing everything right” and more focused on “breaking those walls down and having more of a relationship” with the VR counselor. As a result of the project, the TSW instructor explained, “I very much know who [the VR counselor] is, and we’ve sat through meetings with students to . . . get them, you know, applied to VR, which is good. And I didn’t have that prior to this year.”
Both instructors shared that the collaborative service delivery meeting was a powerful vehicle that fostered collaboration and shared responsibility among meeting attendees. Broadly, the collaborative service delivery meetings also helped establish a collective focus among meeting attendees, creating a roadmap from which instructors could plan and deliver services. The TSW instructor reflected, “I think [the collaborative service delivery meeting] helped to steer the way we were going . . . that was really what started helping me . . . become more intentional with what I wanted to focus on.” As a result, collaborative service delivery meetings seemed to foster the development of sustainable systems-level services that would meet the needs of many students. The TSW instructor described that after the collaborative service delivery meeting she and the SPED teacher were able to have more meaningful collaboration with the local Chamber of Commerce sharing, “. . . starting this school year, we’re gonna be able to plan with, ‘Hey, we need to let the Chamber know about this,’ or ‘We need to reach out to them about letting us get into a business with these students.’” This lasting team member engagement was also described by the CRP instructor. She explained that even after the project ended, “[meeting attendees] actually still are involved, so they’re still keeping up with the different things . . . that we talked about and looking at what we can do to help the other [students] that are coming along.”
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to examine a model of Pre-ETS preparation, planning, and delivery. We implemented the MDP with one TSW instructor and one CRP instructor focused on supporting instructional practices through the provision of personalized trainings and structured collaboration opportunities. To understand instructors’ experiences with each component of the MDP, findings reveal that the pilot project offered a sequenced set of supports that began with the provider-driven meeting and continued through individualized asynchronous and synchronous trainings, and a collaborative service delivery meeting. Across components, instructors described engaging in tailored trainings, accessing targeted resources, and participating in collaborative activities that improved coordination around students’ Pre-ETS and postschool needs. To examine how participation in the MDP shaped instructors’ perspectives, knowledge, planning, and delivery of Pre-ETS, findings indicate that components of the MDP clarified instructors’ understanding of the purpose of Pre-ETS and their roles in supporting students’ postschool goals. Instructors also reported increased knowledge of planning tools and resources, which contributed to more intentional planning, individualized service delivery, and strengthened collaboration with school staff and VR partners. Further, study findings add to the literature in three predominant ways.
First, students with disabilities need well-equipped Pre-ETS providers that can provide high-quality individualized instruction (Billingsley et al., 2019). To accomplish this, Pre-ETS providers also need an individualized approach for their own preparation. The provider-driven meeting was a unique space where the needs of Pre-ETS providers served as an anchor to tailor subsequent study components. Namely, the provider-driven meeting ensured that asynchronous and synchronous trainings were individualized, and information gleaned allowed the research team to distribute additional resources and share instructional strategies that could be tailored to the needs of students. The provider-driven meeting informed the planning and implementation of the collaborative service delivery meeting, allowing the provider to identify relevant team members to invite and collaborate with ahead of the meeting. As is seen in the literature, professional development and training opportunities should be offered on-the-job, individualized, ongoing, collaborative, and responsive to instructors’ contexts to be most effective (Billingsley et al., 2019; Desimone, 2009).
Second, the trainings served two purposes in the study: (a) to address the Pre-ETS instructor’s identified needs with Pre-ETS-related topics and (b) to deliver additional trainings to move beyond a foundational understanding of Pre-ETS. Both instructors indicated that the trainings they participated in were beneficial for their preparation, instructional planning, and service delivery. In the state where the study took place, there are no current requirements for onboarding training, background preparation, or professional development beyond needing to participate in 10 hours of credit per year. Therefore, this makes on-the-job Pre-ETS focused professional development trainings an important consideration for effective Pre-ETS planning and delivery (Lambert et al., 2023; Rooney-Kron et al., 2024). Given the varied levels of knowledge and experience across providers, change and improvement are more attainable with targeted supports and training.
Third, collaboration was situated as an essential piece of the MDP, as is echoed by IDEA (2004) and WIOA (2014). The collaborative service delivery meeting afforded a space for cross-agency staff to: (a) gain a better understanding of the role of the Pre-ETS instructor, (b) help students get services they otherwise may not have (e.g., a student was signed up for VR that had been absent, a plan was developed to use school vans to do work-based learning and the principal approved in the meeting), and (c) collaboratively brainstorm ways to help students prepare for and attain their postsecondary education and employment goals. These meetings provided a unique forum for cross-agency partners to work together in a professional planning session. Unlike a typical IEP meeting focused on one student, the collaborative service delivery meeting allowed for a broader, more holistic discussion. The structure of the meeting encouraged participants to share their expertise and available resources for the identified students. This meeting also led to immediate action that directly benefited students such as VR providing a student glasses so they could work, identification of existing resources, granting administrative support to utilize school resources, expanding outside partnerships such as those with the local chamber of commerce, and the building of stronger, more lasting relationships between school staff through a sense of shared responsibility.
Limitations and Future Research
This study has several limitations that should be considered. First, the small sample size of only two providers limits the generalizability of the findings. While plans are in place to implement the MDP at additional sites, the current results are based on a limited scope. Second, the study primarily gathered data from the instructors’ perspective through interviews and self-report surveys. It did not directly capture the experiences or outcomes of students, families, or other professionals who participated in the collaborative service delivery meetings. Future research should incorporate multiple perspectives to provide a more complete picture of the MDPs’ impact. Future research should also measure student outcomes more directly. This could involve gathering data on student voice, post-high school outcomes, and the specific services and supports students received as a result of the collaborative service delivery meetings. It would also be beneficial to examine the impact on other professionals involved, such as special education teachers and administrators, to better understand how their roles and practices shifted because of the MDP. Finally, the study’s reliance on retrospective recall from participants is a limitation. A long-term, longitudinal design that includes fidelity measures and real-time data collection would strengthen the findings and provide a better understanding of the MDPs’ effectiveness over time. The instructors’ own suggestion for 2-year implementation, with the first year for training and planning and the second for targeted implementation, offers a promising framework for a future study. This approach would allow for a more detailed examination of long-term changes in practice and the sustainability of the MDPs’ effects.
Implications for Practice
This research underscores the value of individualized professional development for Pre-ETS providers. Rather than a one-size-fits-all approach, recommending trainings based on the specific needs and self-identified gaps of providers can significantly enhance their Pre-ETS planning and instruction (Lambert et al., 2023). This type of support ensures professional development is relevant and meets the need of providers. As a part of our partnership with this state’s VR, a requirement for 10 hours of professional development was added to the 2022 contracts of providers. Based on our previous surveys of provider needs (see Awsumb et al., 2024) and the MDP, we are now developing an onboarding and continuing education package for providers across our state. This step is critical to ensuring new providers have a strong foundational knowledge of Pre-ETS and opportunities for professional development and support based on the providers' knowledge, experience, and needs.
Central to the MDP is collaboration both within and outside of the school to ensure students are ready to meet their goals for competitive integrated employment. The MDP provided Pre-ETS instructors with the opportunity to strengthen current relationships and build new relationships in a specific space (i.e., the collaborative service delivery meeting), focusing on each person’s role in supporting student goals. Bringing collaboration to the forefront through a structured meeting space is a common practice to increase quality instructional planning and support for service delivery (e.g., Awsumb et al., 2024; Billingsley et al., 2019; Castruita Rios et al., 2023); however, this has not been focused on the provision of Pre-ETS. This study offers a model for identifying and engaging partners beyond a Pre-ETS provider’s existing network, while also acknowledging the intentional coordination required to bring these partners together.
The study also highlights the importance of sharing a variety of tools that support providers’ daily work. The MDP utilized individualized meetings (i.e., provider-driven meetings) and trainings, collaborative spaces (i.e., collaborative service delivery meetings), and planning tools with ready-made activities like the Pre-ETS sequencing guide. These tools can assist providers who often have limited time and resources. Sharing tools and ways to use them to meet their students’ needs enhances providers' ability to use the tools more effectively and with greater confidence, while also giving them the autonomy to adjust and adapt as they need for their program. That is, TSW and CRP instructors were given the framework for Pre-ETS planning and delivery, and the space to adjust as necessary. These tools are designed for Pre-ETS providers to analyze the needs of their students, build their own and their students’ network of supports, and ultimately plan and deliver services tailored to the needs of their students. This manuscript provides a step-by-step guide for how the process can be replicated by Pre-ETS providers.
Policymakers and administrators should consider using existing frameworks, such as the WIOA state plans, to include and emphasize the importance of collaborative meetings. These plans could explicitly encourage cross-agency planning meetings, like the collaborative service delivery meeting, to foster an environment of teams of support for students with disabilities transitioning from school to adult life. Such efforts may reduce siloed service delivery and duplication while promoting coordinated, student-centered planning across agencies.
Conclusion
The MDP is a structured and intentional framework for supporting providers as they prepare, plan, and deliver Pre-ETS to students with disabilities. The findings demonstrate that a provider-driven approach, combined with tailored training and collaboration, can support providers’ knowledge attainment, Pre-ETS planning, and overall service delivery. The findings provide preliminary evidence that the MDP can support providers’ knowledge attainment, Pre-ETS planning, and overall service delivery. Further refinement and research are necessary to determine the impact and sustainability for providers as they attempt to prepare, plan, and deliver high Pre-ETS.
Footnotes
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The work reported in this article was supported by a contract partnership with the Tennessee Department of Human Services (fund number 34570-91622).
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.