“It’s My Meeting!”: Involving High School Students With Significant Disabilities in the Individualized Education Program Process

Abstract

Sonja is an 11th grader with autism spectrum disorder attending a public high school. Sonja accesses an adapted curriculum that focuses on functional academic and life skills. She also uses an electronic communication device her family calls her “talker” to communicate. At last year’s individualized education program (IEP) meeting, Sonja was surprised and excited to see her mom at school upon arriving in the conference room with her teacher, Mrs. Robio. Mrs. Robio smiled, sat across from Sonja’s mom, and introduced everyone in the room before diving into Sonja’s present level of performance. Shortly after, Sonja accessed her device to ask for food. Sonja’s mom lovingly patted Sonja’s thigh, continuing to give Mrs. Robio her attention and providing her input about Sonja’s progress and her concerns. Moments later, Sonja asked for food again, and her mom whispered to Sonja that she would find her a snack “in just a few minutes.” Sonja asked for food several more times but did not use her device to answer questions from Mrs. Robio about her IEP. When the meeting ended, Sonja’s mom and Mrs. Robio stayed after to review the major points discussed to ensure that the IEP represented the team’s decisions. While discussing Sonja’s annual goals, Sonja’s mom apologized for Sonja “distracting everyone” during the meeting by asking for food. Mrs. Robio indicated that it was “no problem” and lamented that she wished there were a better way to involve Sonja during the meeting. “After all, it’s her meeting!”

The Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA; 2004) requires that special education teachers include transition in student IEPs in preparation for adulthood. The law also requires that, at a minimum, educators invite students with disabilities to attend their IEP meetings starting no later than age 16. Student involvement in the IEP process (i.e., contributing to the development of the IEP, planning and participating in the IEP meeting) is an essential component of effective transition planning (Kohler et al., 2016). Student involvement is also found to facilitate self-determination, communication skills, decision making, and goal development (Arndt et al., 2006; Papay & Bambara, 2014).

“Explanations, preparation, and practice will help students with significant disabilities meaningfully participate in their IEP process.

Students with significant disabilities, defined as a student with “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)” (Rehabilitation Act, 1973, § 7[21][A]), are among those with the poorest transition and postschool outcomes (Butterworth & Migliore, 2015; Grigal et al., 2014). For example, students with significant disabilities are the least likely to attend postsecondary education programs, obtain competitive employment, or participate in their communities following graduation from high school, compared with other students with disabilities (Butterworth & Migliore, 2015; Carter et al., 2011; Grigal et al., 2014; Newman et al., 2011). Fortunately, student participation in IEP meetings has been identified as a predictor of transition success (Mazzotti et al., 2015; Wehmeyer et al., 2009).

The IEP process addresses several core components of self-determination, such as choice making, self-advocacy, and goal setting (Wehmeyer et al., 1997). For example, IEP meetings serve as an authentic place to practice communication, self-advocacy, and leadership skills (Biegun et al., 2020). Further, many of the skills learned to support participation throughout the IEP process can be generalized to other opportunities in which self-advocacy is crucial to success (e.g., job interviews, postsecondary education, employment). However, it is not enough to simply invite a student to their IEP meeting. Students must be actively involved as a valued team member in all aspects of the IEP process so that their IEP is aligned with and focused on student goals and interests (Wehman, 2011). Such involvement forges the pathway for students with significant disabilities to become productive adults with a high quality of life (Newman et al., 2016).

Despite student involvement policy requirements, known benefits, and general approaches to student involvement, such as person-centered planning designed to keep students at the center of the planning process (Test, 2012), students with significant disabilities are often left out of their own IEP process. In fact, many students with significant disabilities are not even invited to their IEP meeting (Shogren & Plotner, 2012). This is due in large part because special education teachers feel unprepared to involve students with significant disabilities in the IEP process (Royer, 2016). As a result, Sonja’s IEP experience is all too common among students with significant disabilities. This article provides strategies to meaningfully involve students with significant disabilities throughout the IEP process.

Strategies for Educators to Support Student Involvement in the IEP Process

Attending an IEP meeting may be a new experience for students. Some students with significant disabilities might find this new experience confusing, intimidating, or even scary (Wehman, 2013). Explanations, preparation, and practice will help students with significant disabilities meaningfully participate in their IEP process. To achieve this, educators may employ several strategies that can be tailored to individual student preferences and needs. Instructional practices (e.g., prompting, modeling, naturalistic interventions) that work for mastering academic and daily living skills may be applied to IEP preparation as well in order to support the student. The following sections detail suggestions and examples for educators to prepare students with significant disabilities to engage in their IEP meeting. Participation in the IEP process will vary and should be individualized based on the age, needs, and abilities of the student. It is important to recognize that there is a continuum of participation in which there will be students who choose not to engage or participate in the meeting (but may contribute information in other ways) to students who take full responsibility for the process, presenting information and facilitating the conversation. In these next sections, we will describe how to prepare students to engage in different aspects of the IEP process: (a) review and team invitations, (b) interest inventories, (c) visual agendas, (d) student-made presentations, and (e) model-lead-test.

“Students with significant disabilities are often left out of their own IEP process.

Review and Team Invitations

To reduce the confusion that students may have around IEPs, the first step educators should take is to explain what an IEP is, the purpose of IEP meetings, what will happen during the meeting, and ways students can engage throughout the IEP process. This should begin early, perhaps starting as early as elementary school (Papay et al., 2015). Starting early provides students time to process and understand the information presented to them. Information related to IEPs should be presented using multiple means of representation (e.g., show videos of IEP meetings, review IEP documents, practice goal setting), consistent with Universal Design for Learning principles (Iris Center, 2009; Lowrey, 2014).

Whose Future Is It Anyway (WFA) is a research-based curriculum aimed at preparing students with significant disabilities to lead their IEP meeting (Lee et al., 2011; Wehmeyer et al., 2013). This is a 36-lesson package designed to help students learn to be more involved in the IEP process. It is freely available at http://www.ou.edu/education/centers-and-partnerships/zarrow/transition-education-materials/whos-future-is-it-anyway. Initial conversations with students should include roles and responsibilities. In general, responsibilities for students include (a) participating actively in discussions and decisions, (b) communicating preferences and interests, (c) communicating strengths and areas of need (e.g., areas where help is needed; how they are doing in classes and community experiences; what accommodations, modifications, and supports are needed for the student’s success in school and in the community), and (d) participating in the development of the IEP document. WFA provides guidance on how to teach these skills in addition to other skills needed to plan for and participate in the IEP meeting; however, some students may need more systematic instruction using procedures such as time delay or response prompting.

In Section 2 of the WFA curriculum, it focuses on helping students choose the people they would like to attend, including the mandatory members of IEP teams (e.g., legal guardians, administrators). To involve students understanding who is on their IEP team and whom they would like to join, educators may use guiding questions, such as “Who can provide information about jobs or job skills you may need in the future?” “Who can provide information about classes that will help you gain skill to support your future goals?” and “Who do you want to talk about your favorite classes with?” This allows them to develop their circle of support as noted on page 26 of the WFA curriculum.

After the student and educator generate a list of people for the student’s IEP team, students can create a variety of visuals (Wong et al., 2014), such as name tags or table tents to pair with photographs of team members, to get to know the name of each team member. The student can then use these same visuals during the IEP, so that all team members know each other’s names. An additional visual could include an IEP team visual (see Figure 1) to aid the student in remembering the name and role of each member of the team. This visual not only is a helpful reminder for the student but could also serve as a communication aid during the meeting. For example, the student may point to a team member’s photograph to gain their attention or request input from a specific member. Educators may use additional evidence-based strategies, such as task analysis (e.g., breaking down the steps to gain a team member’s attention; Wong et al., 2014), response-prompting procedures (e.g., teaching to respond given the stimulus of “Who do you want to talk next?”; Horn et al., 2019), and video modeling (e.g., creating a video to demonstrate gaining attention; Courtade et al., 2015), to teach students how to best use the team member visual during the IEP meeting.

Figure 1

Example individualized education program team visual

After team members are decided, educators and students can collaborate to create and deliver paper or electronic invitations to members of the student’s IEP team for the IEP meeting. This process would provide educators the opportunity to provide students with a face-to-face introduction between students and team members whom students may not readily be familiar with, such as administrators. Teaching students about their IEP, the purpose of the IEP meeting, and how they can contribute as a team member can encourage students to actively participate in the IEP process and take ownership in their education (Biegun et al., 2020; Mason et al., 2004).

In order to protect the dignity and worthiness of individuals with disabilities during the IEP process, educators could send a message to other IEP team members to establish meeting norms to support the equitable, respectful, and student-centered participation among members of the team. Figure 2 provides an example of an email educators may send to IEP team members or distribute along with the IEP invitations that establish student-centered norms, such as providing sufficient wait time, allocating extra time for meetings, and directing all questions to the student.

Figure 2

An example email establishing meeting norms

Gathering Student Input Through Interest Inventories

Student input regarding preferences, interests, strengths, and needs is important to meaningfully include student voice in the IEP process. Consistent with the IDEA (2004) requirement of conducting age-appropriate transition activities, interest inventories may be used as a way to gather student input and inform transition planning. Although many interest inventories and vocational assessments exist, most of these are difficult for students with significant disabilities to complete (Martin et al., 2005). As a result, educators may consider developing individualized interest inventory activities and data collection forms to collect student input on specific transition areas (e.g., vocational training, career, postsecondary education, independent living). For example, independent living goals related to daily living activities can be developed based on targeted observations conducted during a home visit (e.g., preferred household tasks, areas of need for hygiene, interests in recreational activities).

Interest inventory activities can also be customized to maximize accessibility for different students. Low-tech assistive devices can provide students multiple means for providing information, responding to questions, and assuming leadership roles during meetings (Mazzotti et al., 2015; Wells & Sheehey, 2012). Examples of low-tech devices that students can use include choice cards, dry-erase markers and board, yes-no paddles, pointers, and recordable buttons to support student involvement (Wong et al., 2014). These devices are often low cost, portable, and can be used for a variety of other purposes in differing environments (e.g., classroom participation, communicating in the home or community).

Educators can create a variety of options for students to respond to inventory questions, including speaking, using a communication device, writing with support from a scribe, nodding, gesturing, writing, typing, circling pictures, or crossing out items inconsistent with their preferences. Educators may also provide students a variety of choice cards with appropriate iconicity (e.g., words, images, icons, photographs) for students to select or reject in order to communicate their preferences. Educators can also vary the number of choices students are presented at once (e.g., present students with a field of two choices vs. five choices), depending on student needs and ability to scan. Educators can provide different configurations of cards (e.g., presenting the same cards in a different order) to give students multiple opportunities to share their preferences. Further, educators should consider the appropriateness of differing levels of vocational assessments (e.g., informal assessments, formal assessments using standardized tools, situational assessments) based on student age, grade, and previous experiences. Figure 3 provides an example of an educator-created interest inventory designed to gauge interest in potential job sites that could inform an IEP goal or worksite experience. Such an inventory may be adapted to accompany each level of vocational assessment. Like other activities and skills, completing an inventory may need to be explicitly taught using evidence-based practices. Further, these inventories should be reviewed and completed throughout the year, not solely in preparation for an IEP meeting. Last, supporting student choice in selecting preferences may be most effective in a naturalistic setting (Franzone, 2009a) if possible. Teachers may conduct preference assessments while in the community or at the jobsite, instead of the classroom table or computer, to support student understanding of the preferences they are communicating.

Figure 3

Interest inventory activity about worksite preferences

Visual Agendas

Educators should collaborate with students before IEP meetings to discuss topics that will be discussed (e.g., goals, interests, strengths, concerns). To involve students and honor their preferences, educators can encourage students to decide the order in which the IEP sections will be discussed as well as when and how they would like to participate. Together, students and educators can create a customized visual agenda to reflect student preferences and guide the team. Figure 4 is an example of a visual agenda that could be used throughout the IEP meeting. Students can construct the agenda using high- or low-tech devices, such as writing, cutting and pasting, typing, or drawing. Further, students and educators may consider including pictures of team members next to specific parts of the agenda to signal to students when each person will lead the discussion, including the best times for students to share their work and ideas they prepared prior to the meeting. Moreover, educators may prompt students to include sentence starters (e.g., “Now I want to share my interests”) within sections written into the agenda by preprograming messages into a communication device or using other modalities (e.g., PowerPoint) to support students leading conversations and contributing information.

Figure 4

Example visual agenda for an individualized education program meeting

Students may also refer to their agenda to guide the meeting. For example, students can check off items once they are completed and direct the team to the next portion of the meeting. This is especially important for students who thrive with routines or when expectations are clearly established and rehearsed prior to an event. Again, the WFA curriculum (Section 34) provides guidance on how to manage the meeting. In addition, educators may use other evidence-based practices, such as video modeling or prompting hierarchies (least-to-most or most-to-least prompting), to support students to use their agenda as independently as is possible and appropriate during the IEP meeting (Courtade et al., 2015).

Running the Meeting via Student-Made Presentations

Students participating during IEP meetings can increase student buy-in and independence in the process (Biegun et al., 2020; Mazzotti et al., 2015). One way students can do this is by sharing a visual presentation. Student-made presentations facilitate the sharing of student interests, strengths, and career goals with the rest of the team in an accessible way. Consistent with technology-aided instruction (Wong et al., 2014), educators may consider a variety of different technology options to create student presentations, such as PowerPoint, Google Slides, and Flipgrid. Additional low-tech options may include trifold poster boards or a piece of construction paper. Simply creating or co-creating a visual does not ensure student participation in meetings. Educators need to embed instructional practices for the creation and presentation of visuals. Depending on student preference and comfort, educators need to consider engaging in task analysis to determine (a) what tools to use (e.g., tablet, cell phone, computer, paper), (b) the steps they need to teach students to create the presentation (e.g., what to include; ways to present information, such as photographs), and (c) how to present the information (e.g., speaking, pointing, displaying written words) to increase student understanding and involvement (Kelley et al., 2011).

In order to run the meeting using student presentations, additional instruction beyond creation of materials is necessary. When creating the visual presentation, educators could provide prompts for students to answer to increase seamless involvement. Response prompting (graduated guidance, simultaneous prompting, system of least prompts) provides errorless learning and tends to predict positive outcomes when working with adolescents with intellectual and developmental disabilities (Horn et al., 2019). For example, educators may pair the student-chosen image of towels to the presentation script of “I enjoy doing laundry” as they create the visual presentation. During the meeting, this visual becomes a cue for the student to describe a work preference. Instructing students with response-prompting procedures may be necessary for days, weeks, or months leading up to the IEP meeting. Figure 5 is an example of the types of slide prompts that could be used to guide students to help develop the transition plan portion of their IEP.

Figure 5

Sample selection of slides for transition presentation

Model-Lead-Test

After creating presentations, educators can teach students how to share them with their IEP team. One way to support this is through the model-lead-test approach. Model-lead-test is a form of direct instruction that involves three phases: educators (1) modeling a target through demonstration, (2) leading students to practice the skill until students are able to demonstrate the skill, and (3) determining if students can perform the targeted skill (Bos & Vaughn, 1994). Educators should model the steps of the IEP meeting and each skill required for their participation, such as locating the conference room, introducing themselves and the members of their team, and sharing their presentation. Educators can also engage students in guided practice and naturalistic instruction (Wong et al., 2014) during the second phase of this approach by practicing skills in the conference room in which the IEP meeting will occur to increase student familiarity with the setting (e.g., space of room, seating arrangements, available technology). Because students with significant disabilities require repeated practice to develop fluency of a skill (Datchuk & Hier, 2019), educators should consider engaging in task analysis (Franzone, 2009b) and take ongoing evaluation data during the lead phase of this approach to support skill acquisition. Educators can also create scripts to engage students to help them become familiar with prompts the educator may use during the IEP meeting. The low-tech devices the student may use could be included within the script to provide a visual prompt as they practice (see Figure 6). Finally, during the test phase of this approach, educators evaluate student performance (ability to engage in targeted skills). If the students are unable to carry out skills, educators should return to the modeling phase.

Figure 6

Excerpt of teacher-created script for role-playing individualized education program practice

If students are unable to consistently or meaningfully participate in role-playing due to lack of conference room availability, staffing, behavior, or other reasons, another instructional tool that educators may use is social narratives describing the IEP meeting (Wong et al., 2014) or video modeling (Courtade et al., 2015). For example, educators could record either themselves or other students (with permission) acting out the role the student will assume during the IEP meeting that students can observe. Following the observation, educators could facilitate a discussion about IEP meetings and review IEP-related materials and information (e.g., agenda, goals, presentation).

Using the strategies outlined in this article, Sonja’s most recent experience in the IEP process was much improved.

This year, Mrs. Robio decided to meet with Sonja several months before her annual IEP to explain what an IEP is, talk about what is included in the IEP, and start to gather information on her dreams for the future, including her ideal employment and where she wants to live. Soon after, Mrs. Robio sat down with Sonja to complete an interest inventory activity to learn about her goals for after high school. Using picture choice cards, a glue stick, her “talker,” and a variety of writing utensils, Mrs. Robio explained how Sonja could use any of the materials to help her think about her dreams and express her ideas. Sonja nodded and examined the three employment picture cards on the table. Mrs. Robio continued, “Sonja, I want you to pretend you are going to work and you feel so happy. Where are you going?” Sonja eyed the picture cards but did not answer. Mrs. Robio suggested that Sonja remove the employment picture cards that she did not want to do, and together they went through each card, with Mrs. Robio describing the photo and job. Mrs. Robio recorded the choices Sonja pushed away and those she kept. Mrs. Robio then presented Sonja a visual interest inventory, and together they compared the picture cards she selected with the form, crossing out the images she did not like.

After determining who would attend her IEP meeting, Mrs. Robio and Sonja hand-delivered invitations to individuals at the school, along with an agenda for the meeting and a “See You at My Meeting!” sheet that listed five ways “my team can make my meeting great,” including “stick to the agenda.” Mrs. Robio emailed the same documents to the remaining team members, followed by a draft of the IEP.

In the meantime, Mrs. Robio and Sonja spent a bit of time every day after lunch working on her IEP presentation by adding photos and images from the internet as well as programming her presentation speech into her “talker.” As the meeting drew near, Mrs. Robio and Sonja practiced walking to the conference room and setting up her presentation. She even invited some of her classmates to role-play her IEP meeting, including using her agenda to lead the group and the group using a script to ask Sonja questions.

The big day came and Sonja and her IEP team gathered around the table for her annual meeting. Sonja confidently began by greeting all members using her communication device and handing out her agenda for “My Meeting.” Each member of the team introduced themselves, and Sonja checked “Introductions” off her visual agenda. Sonja then asked Mrs. Robio to introduce the transition section of her IEP by pointing to the next agenda item and nudging her. Mrs. Robio reviewed last year’s transition plan, and Sonja passed out copies of her interest inventory activities. She pointed to the jobs she circled during her pre-meetings, and Mrs. Robio announced each job as Sonja pointed. Sonja’s mom suggested that Sonja might prefer office work, so Mrs. Robio shared her notes of Sonja’s choices and other transition assessments and placed photos of a chef, a person photocopying, and a person sitting at a computer in front of Sonja. “Here, Sonja. Take a look at these photos. Do you like any of these jobs?” Sonja pushed the photos away and pointed to “snack” (the next activity on the visual schedule). Mrs. Robio suggested the team eat their snack (Sonja’s favorite food, potato chips). “We can continue to discuss job possibilities, but it sounds like Sonja has indicated her preference to stick to the agenda.” Over snack, the IEP team agreed that safe food handling and storage should be an area for Sonja to practice because it aligns with general employment and independent living skills that coincide with Sonja’s goals.

“This is important as these skills are crucial for success in future environments.

Concluding Thoughts

When discussing important issues, such as career goals, housing options, and community activities after high school, educators should collaborate with students to gain valuable input and help students understand their strengths, interests, preferences, and needs (Haber et al., 2016). The IEP process affords students and educators multiple opportunities to address core components of self-determination, such as choice making, self-advocacy, and goal setting (Wehmeyer et al., 1997). This is important as these skills are crucial for success in future environments, such as postsecondary education (advocating for services), employment (advocating for accommodations or communicating preferences), or job interviews (introducing self, communicating strengths and needs). However, for students with significant disabilities, educators may need individualized tools and approaches to facilitate student involvement in their IEP process. Further, although planning for life after high school is an essential component of the transition IEP, teachers do not have to wait until students are 16 years old to start the process, especially when considering transition objectives. Educators can use information from this article to contemplate how to meaningfully involve students with significant disabilities in their IEP process starting in middle or even elementary school.

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Maureen Howard

Grace L. Francis

Maureen Howard, MEd Doctoral Candidate, Alexandra S. Reed, Doctoral Candidate, and Grace L. Francis, PhD, College of Education and Human Development, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA.

References

Arndt

S. A.

Konrad

Test

D. W.

(2006). Effects of the self-directed IEP on student participation in planning meetings. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 194–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325060270040101

Biegun

Peterson

McNaught

Sutterfield

(2020). Including student voice in IEP meetings through use of assistive technology. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 52(5), 348–350. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059920920148

Bos

C. S.

Vaughn

(1994). Strategies for teaching students with learning and behavior problems. Allyn & Bacon.

Butterworth

Migliore

(2015). Trends in employment outcomes of young adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities 2006–2013. University of Massachusetts Boston, Institute for Community Inclusion.

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(4), 233–247. https://www.aaiddjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1352/1934-9556-49.4.233

Courtade

G. R.

Test

D. W.

Cook

B. G.

(2015). Evidence-based practices for learners with severe intellectual disability. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 39(4), 305–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796914566711

Datchuk

S. M.

Hier

B. O.

(2019). Fluency practice: Techniques for building automaticity in foundational knowledge and skills. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 51(6), 424–435. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059919847213

Franzone

(2009a). Overview of naturalistic intervention. https://autismpdc.fpg.unc.edu/sites/autismpdc.fpg.unc.edu/files/imce/documents/Naturalistic-Intervention-Complete10-2010.pdf

Franzone

, (2009b). Overview of task analysis. https://csesa.fpg.unc.edu/sites/csesa.fpg.unc.edu/files/ebpbriefs/TaskAnalysis_Overview_0.pdf

10.

Grigal

Hart

Smith

F. A.

Domin

Sulewski

Weir

(2014). Think College National Coordinating Center: Annual report on the transition and postsecondary programs for students with intellectual disabilities (2012-2013). University of Massachusetts Boston, Institute for Community Inclusion.

11.

Haber

M. G.

Mazzotti

V. L.

Mustian

A. L.

Rowe

D. A.

Bartholomew

A. L.

Test

D. W.

Fowler

C. H.

(2016). What works, when, for whom, and with whom: A meta-analytic review of predictors of postsecondary success for students with disabilities. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 123–162. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315583135

12.

Horn

A. L.

Gable

R. A.

Bobzien

J. L.

Tonelson

S. W.

Rock

M. L.

(2019). Teaching young adults job skills using a constant time delay and eCoaching intervention package. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 43, 29–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143419828983

13.

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

14.

Iris Center. (2009). Universal Design for Learning: Creating a learning environment that challenges and engages all students. https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/udl/

15.

Lee

Wehmeyer

Palmer

Williams-Diehm

Davies

D. K.

Stock

S. E.

(2011). Effect of student-directed transition planning with a computer-based reading support program on the self-determination of students with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 45(2), 104–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466909358916

16.

Lowrey

K. A.

(2014, April). When all means every: Two approaches to UDL curriculum design for students with severe disabilities [Paper presentation]. Universal Design for Learning Implementation and Research Network Annual Summit, Columbia, MD. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330934442_When_All_Means_Every_Two_Approaches_to_UDL_Curriculum_Design_for_Students_with_Severe_Disabilities

17.

Kelley

K. R.

Bartholomew

Test

D. W.

(2011). Effects of the self-directed IEP delivered using computer-assisted instruction on student participation in educational planning meetings. Remedial and Special Education, 34(2), 67–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932511415864

18.

Kohler

P. D.

Gothberg

J. E.

Fowler

Coyle

(2016). Taxonomy for transition programming 2.0: A model for planning, organizing, and evaluating transition education, services, and programs. Western Michigan University. https://www.transitionta.org

19.

Martin

J. E.

Woods

L. L.

Sylvester

Gardner

(2005). A challenge to self-determination: Disagreement between the vocational choices made by individuals with severe disabilities and their caregivers. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 30(3), 147–153. https://doi.org/10.2511/rpsd.30.3.147

20.

Mason

C. Y.

McGahee-Kovac

Johnson

(2004). How to help students lead their IEP meetings. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 36(3), 18–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990403600302

21.

Mazzotti

V. L.

Kelley

K. R.

Coco

C. M.

(2015). Effects of self-directed summary of performance on postsecondary education students’ participation in person-centered planning meetings. The Journal of Special Education, 48(4), 243–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466913483575

22.

Mazzotti

V. L.

Rowe

D. A.

Sinclair

Poppen

Woods

W. E.

Shearer

(2015). Predictors of post-school success: A systematic review of NLTS2 secondary analyses. Journal of Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 39, 196–215. http://doi.org/10.1177/2165143415588047

23.

Newman

Madaus

Javitz

(2016). Effect of transition planning activities on postsecondary support receipt by students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 82(4), 497–514. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402915615884

24.

Newman

Wagner

Knokey

A.-M.

Marder

Nagle

Shaver

Wei

Cameto

Contreras

Ferguson

Greene

Schwarting

(2011). The post-high school outcomes of young adults with disabilities up to 8 years after high school: A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) (NCSER 2011-3005). SRI International. https://ies.ed.gov/ncser/pubs/20113005/pdf/20113005.pdf

25.

Papay

C. K.

Bambara

L. M.

(2014). Best practices in transition to adult life for youth with intellectual disabilities. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 37(3), 136–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143413486693

26.

Papay

Unger

D. D.

Williams-Diehm

Mitchell

(2015). Begin with the end in mind: Infusing transition planning and instruction into elementary classrooms. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 47(6), 310–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059915587901

27.

Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C., § 701 (1973).

28.

Royer

(2016). My IEP: A student-directed individualized education program model. Exceptionality, 25, 235–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2016.1216850

29.

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(1), 16–30. https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-50.1.16

30.

Test

D. W.

(2012). Evidence-based instructional strategies for transition. Brookes.

31.

Wehman

(2011). Essentials of transition planning. Brookes.

32.

Wehman

(2013). Transition from school to work: Where are we and where do we need to go? Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 36(1), 58–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143413482137

33.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Palmer

S. B.

Shogren

Williams-Diehm

Soukup

J. H.

(2013). Establishing a causal relationship between intervention to promote self-determination and enhanced student self-determination. The Journal of Special Education, 46(4), 195–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466910392377

34.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Parent

Lattimore

Obremski

Poston

Rousso

(2009). Promoting self-determination and self-directed employment planning for people with disabilities. Journal of Social Work in Disability and Rehabilitation, 8(3/4), 117–131. https://doi.org/0.1080/15367100903200429

35.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Sands

D. J.

Doll

Palmer

(1997). The development of self-determination and implications for educational interventions with students with disabilities, International Journal of Disability, 44(4), 305-328, doi: 10.1080/0156655970440403

36.

Wells

J. C.

Sheehey

P. H.

(2012). Person-centered planning: Strategies to encourage participation and facilitate communication. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 44(3), 32–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/00400599120440034

37.

Wong

Odom

S. L.

Hume

Cox

A. W.

Fettig

Kucharczyk

Schultz

T. R.

(2014). Evidence-based practices for children, youth, and young adults with autism spectrum disorder. Autism Evidence-Based Practice Review Group. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-014-2351-z