Characteristics of Transition Planning and Services for Students With High-Incidence Disabilities

Abstract

Transition planning is conceptually and empirically linked to successful postschool outcomes for adolescents with disabilities and has been legally mandated for more than two decades. Unfortunately, young adults with high-incidence disabilities, including learning disabilities (LD), emotional disabilities (ED), and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), continue to experience poor postschool outcomes. Using a secondary analysis of the second National Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS2), this study examined both the quality and characteristics of transition plans for a nationally representative group of adolescents with high-incidence disabilities and the extent to which transition planning and services were similar across the three high-incidence disabilities. Findings indicate that a majority of students with high-incidence disabilities have transition plans and that key stakeholders participated in planning meetings. Findings also support the inclusion of adolescents with LD, ED, and ADHD in the larger category of high-incidence disabilities. Implications include further examination of the disparate relationship between planning and outcomes.

Keywords

high-incidence disabilities transition planning transition services secondary special education

The link between transition planning and successful postschool outcomes is underscored by legislative mandates in both the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA; 2004) and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and substantiated with empirical evidence (Test, Mazzotti, et al., 2009). For nearly two and half decades, transition planning and services (i.e., transition education) have consistently included assessment, planning, and instruction. According to the IDEA, planning and services must be individualized and specific to students’ interests, preferences, strengths, and needs with specific postsecondary goals documented on students’ individualized education plans (IEPs) no later than age 16.

With an initial emphasis on employment-related outcomes (cf. Will, 1984), the current broader focus is preparing secondary students for opportunities in postsecondary education, employment, and independent living. Transition education mandates first appeared in the IDEA in 1990, and since then outcomes for students with disabilities have generally improved (Wagner, Newman, Cameto, & Levine, 2005). A comparison of high school completion and dropout rates from the first and second National Longitudinal Transition Studies (NLTS and NLTS2) illustrates that 17% fewer students with disabilities dropped out in 2003 than did so in 1987. Similar improvements have been made in the rate of enrollment of students with disabilities in postsecondary education and in employment. Postsecondary education enrollment doubled in the time between the two studies, reaching nearly one third of all students with disabilities, and employment since high school also increased by nearly 16% (Wagner, Newman, Cameto, & Levine, 2005). In a separate examination of the NLTS2 specific to young adults with high-incidence disabilities, Morningstar, Trainor, and Murray (in press) found that 92% of the population had some work experience since high school and that this experience was likely to include full-time work hours. Regardless of noted improvements, Rojewski, Lee, and Gregg (2013), using a separate, representative database from the National Center for Educational Statistics, found that young adults with high-incidence disabilities continue to experience diminished employment outcomes when compared with their peers without disabilities.

Improved postschool outcomes are associated with growth in the special education transition research-base of specific interventions and evidence-based practices. Based on a transition taxonomy consisting of five domains (i.e., student-focused planning, student development, interagency collaboration, program structure, and family involvement), Test and colleagues identified and categorized evidence-based practices (Test, Fowler, et al., 2009) and predictors of positive postschool outcomes (Test, Mazzotti, et al., 2009). Together, these efforts can be used as a framework for analyzing the characteristics of the transition plans and services for adolescents with high-incidence disabilities, for whom successful postschool outcomes have remained elusive. Following an overview of outcomes for young adults with high-incidence disabilities, we examine the taxonomy and related evidence base to understand the scope and characteristics of planning and services associated with successful outcomes for this population. Finally, through secondary analysis of the NLTS2, we examine the characteristics of transition education for adolescents with high-incidence disabilities.

Outcomes for Young Adults With High-Incidence Disabilities

High-incidence disabilities is a term emerging from the historical argument for a cross-categorical service delivery model that is still relevant today (Sabornie, Cullinan, Osborne, & Brock, 2005). Recent meta-analyses comparing patterns of IQ, academic achievement, and behavioral characteristics across three of the most prevalent disabilities—learning disabilities (LD), emotional disabilities (ED), and mild intellectual disabilities (ID)—revealed that students with LD and ED shared many characteristics and received similar services at school (Sabornie et al., 2005; Sabornie, Evans, & Cullinan, 2006). More recently, an examination of the least restrictive environments for students served in these three disability groups demonstrated that those with LD and ED shared similar patterns of access to the general education classroom, distinct from the educational experiences of students with ID. Prevalence and incidence rates among students with high-incidence disabilities have changed little over the past three decades. From 1997 to 2006, the most recent decade for which comparative data are available, the rate of ED remained stable at 0.7%, and the rate of LD has slightly decreased from 4.4% to 4% (U.S. Department of Education & U.S. Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services, 2011). During this same period, however, the prevalence of youth with other health impairments (OHI) substantially increased (from 0.3% to 0.9%), particularly at the secondary level (McLeskey, Landers, Williamson, & Hoppey, 2012). An increase in the incidence rates of secondary students with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) served under the OHI category may explain the growth in this category (Schnoes, Reid, Wagner, & Marder, 2006). In addition, ADHD is a secondary disability diagnosis for 20% of students with LD, nearly 60% of students with ED, and 66% of students with OHI (Schnoes et al., 2006). Therefore, this current study will include an examination of the transition plans and services for adolescents with LD, ED, and ADHD.

Outcomes such as enrollment in postsecondary education, employment, and community participation and independence for young adults with LD, ED, and ADHD have improved in recent decades; however, continued research is needed. Nearly 61% of young adults with LD obtained regular high school diplomas in 2006–2007, similar to the 62% of those with OHI, the category that subsumes ADHD, but higher than the 43% of those with ED (U.S. Department of Education & U.S. Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services, 2011). High school completion rates reported in the NLTS2 are slightly higher because they include young adults who finished high school with certificates of completion and nonstandard diplomas. High school completion for LD was 75% and for ED 56% (Wagner, Newman, Cameto, Garza, & Levine, 2005). Among those who exited high school, rates of obtaining regular diplomas included 97% for LD, 86% for ED, and 94% for OHI (includes ADHD).

Fewer than half of young adults with disabilities enroll in any one of several types of postsecondary education settings and institutions, with the fewest attending 4-year universities and colleges (Newman, Wagner, Cameto, & Knokey, 2009). In a recent analysis of students with LD, ED, and ADHD, we found similar results, with less than half (47%) having ever attended postsecondary settings 2 to 5 years post high school (Morningstar et al., in press). Young adults with ED have been found to be more likely to attend vocational, business, or technical schools (23%) than other postsecondary settings, and 34% of young adults with LD were enrolled in 2-year or community colleges (Newman et al., 2009). Young adults with ADHD were enrolled in postsecondary settings at rates comparable with those with LD with the exception of continuous enrollment in postsecondary that was at rates equivalent to youth with ED (69%) as compared with youth with LD (81%; Morningstar et al., in press).

Employment, another indicator of success, remains a primary engagement for young adults with high-incidence disabilities up to 4 years out of high school ranging from 77% (LD) to 63% (ED; Newman et al., 2009). Among the three groups of interest in this study, quality indicators of employment were equivalent for young adults with LD, ED, and ADHD, including the types of jobs held; opportunities for raises, promotions, and benefits; and social interactions on the job (Morningstar et al., in press). Although employment rates have increased over time for this population, opportunities for young adults with high-incidence disabilities to work full time and make competitive hourly wages continue to be limited (Rojewski et al., 2013).

Community participation and independence is a broad constellation of outcomes that includes indicators of health, social interactions, civic engagement, and financial stability. In the period immediately following and up to 5 years postschool, 49% of young adults with high-incidence disabilities (LD, ED, ADHD) remain living with their parents or other relatives, whereas 37% lived on their own or with roommates or a spouse (Morningstar et al., in press). The majority of the young adults with high-incidence disabilities (73%) were single, with 19% married or in committed relationships. Morningstar et al. (in press) also found that almost 80% of the young adults with high-incidence disabilities were satisfied with their living arrangements, had some level of financial independence (checking account, 62%; credit card, 47%) and a drivers license, and were registered to vote. In terms of emotional well-being and self-efficacy, these researchers found that young adults with LD, ED, and ADHD were more similar than different in their outcomes, with 60% indicating they enjoyed life most of the time and were rarely depressed (65%) or lonely (69%). Although they were more likely to note high levels of being proud of themselves (81%), only about two thirds felt life was interesting for them and that they were useful and important. Critically, youth with ED were found to be significantly more likely to have been arrested than youth with LD or ADHD. Given that improvement continues to be necessary, it is important to consider the transition taxonomy, Kohler’s theoretical framework for transition planning used by Test and colleagues in their 2009 reviews and empirical evidence such as the NLTS2 database that have generated factors associated with effective transition planning and services.

Effective Transition Planning and Services

As mandated in IDEA, schools must facilitate a transition-oriented IEP planning process to promote the movement from school to postsecondary settings no later than 16 years old. Planning involves identifying measurable postsecondary goals based on students’ strengths, interests, and preferences identified through age-appropriate transition assessments. Furthermore, students’ courses of study must align with these goals and be documented on the IEP. Progress toward student’s postsecondary goals should be reviewed on an ongoing basis, and each state is required to complete and submit IDEA compliance reports to the federal government annually.

Two systematic literature reviews of experimental studies in the field of transition have been used to identify transition interventions falling under the umbrella of Kohler’s (1996) taxonomy of transition planning framework and are most closely associated with positive student outcomes. Test, Fowler, and colleagues (2009) and Test, Mazzotti, and colleagues (2009) concluded that few interventions have the highest level of evidentiary support (i.e., multiple experimental or single-subject studies demonstrating positive effects on student outcomes). Interventions with the strongest level of support include teaching students life skills and purchasing skills. More commonly, the level of supportive evidence is moderate (Test, Fowler, et al., 2009; Test, Mazzotti, et al., 2009). This includes support for the instruction of self-determination and active IEP-meeting participation and a range of interventions developing students’ independent living skills through money management, functional academics, home and self-management, and employment-related skills (Test, Fowler, et al., 2009). Increasing parent/family knowledge about transition and programmatic designs such as community-based instruction and extending services beyond high school were also moderately supported (Test, Fowler, et al., 2009). Moderately strong predictors of positive student outcomes (i.e., those with correlational evidence) include inclusion in the general education setting, paid work experiences, and participation in transition programming (Test, Mazzotti, et al., 2009).

Subsequent to these comprehensive reviews, research including students with LD, ED, and ADHD/OHI has demonstrated that student-focused methods such as early work experiences continue to be promising predictors of postsecondary success (Carter, Trainor, Ditchman, & Owens, 2011; Carter, Trainor, Ditchman, Swedeen, & Owens, 2011). Although qualitative studies were screened from inclusion in the systematic reviews, research has documented dissatisfaction from adolescents with disabilities and their families who have not felt valued or genuinely included in the planning process (cf. Cobb & Alwell, 2009; Trainor, 2005, 2007). Furthermore, as Griffin (2011) noted, culturally and linguistically diverse adolescents with disabilities (i.e., students most likely to be overrepresented in high-incidence disability categories) have not been consistently included in research. Unfortunately, despite the growth in the transition knowledge base, students with high-incidence disabilities continue to face barriers to finding and maintaining gainful employment, getting accepted to and obtaining degrees and credentials from postsecondary educational programs, and living independently in their communities.

Method

To better understand the transition experiences of adolescents with high-incidence disabilities, we conducted a secondary analysis of the NLTS2. The NLTS2 was a federally funded study from 2000 to 2010 examining transition experiences, perspectives, and outcomes of a nationally representative group of nearly 11,000 adolescents and young adults with disabilities. The resulting dataset is publicly available for use by permission from the U.S. Department of Education and requires federal permission and institutional human subjects review, both of which we obtained prior to conducting this research. (See www.nlts2.org for complete information about the dataset and permissions.) Five waves of data collection included parent/youth surveys and interviews, teacher and administrator school and program surveys, direct assessments of students, and course transcripts. Participants were identified with at least one disability from the 12 IDEA-identified categories recognized at the time during which NLTS2 data were collected and ranged from ages 13 to 16 at the onset of the study.

The following research questions guided this study:

Research Question 1: What are the characteristics of transition plans and services for adolescents with high-incidence disabilities?

Research Question 2: Are the transition plans and services significantly different for adolescents with LD, ED, and ADHD?

Sample

Participants identified with high-incidence disabilities were extracted from the larger NLTS2 sample using the following criteria: (a) identification by the local education agency (LEA) as LD or ED as a primary disability or (b) LEA identification of OHI as a primary disability and parents either reported ADHD on the Wave 1 survey, indicated the use of one of several pharmaceuticals commonly used to treat ADHD and identified by the National Institute of Mental Health (2008), or both. These efforts resulted in an unweighted sample of approximately 2,400 participants, rounded to the nearest 10 in compliance with Institute of Education Sciences (IES) rules for using U.S. Department of Education restricted datasets. Results beyond the report of sociodemographic characteristics are reported as weighted using the Complex Samples procedure as noted in the “Analysis” section. Variation of sample size occurs due to NLTS2 skip logic. See Table 1 for the sociodemographic characteristics of the sample at Wave 1.

Table 1.

Demographic Characteristics at Wave 1.

NLTS2 question	Unweighted count^a	Weighted %	SE
Gender	2,400
Male	1,760	68.7	1.5
Female	650	31.3	1.5
Age
13–14 years of age	800	31.8	1.4
15 years of age	560	24.4	1.4
16 years of age	620	25.9	1.5
17 years of age	430	18.0	1.5
Disability type	2,400
LD	880	80.2	1.0
ED	840	15.1	0.9
ADHD	690	4.7	0.6
Ethnicity	2,400
White	1,680	62.7	4.3
African American	400	19.6	2.4
Hispanic	270	15.3	2.4
Family income	2,200
Less than US$25,000	750	34.9	2.6
US$25,001–US$50,000	690	30.0	1.4
More than US$50,000	770	35.1	2.6

Note. NLTS2 = National Longitudinal Transition Study–2; LD = learning disabilities; ED = emotional disabilities; ADHD = attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

Unweighted sample sizes weighted to nearest 10 per Institute of Education Sciences requirements.

Variables

Both Kohler’s (1996) taxonomy and the identification of evidence-based practices and predicators (Test, Fowler, et al., 2009; Test, Mazzotti, et al., 2009) were used to define the parameters for variables of interest. The parent/youth interviews and surveys and the school program surveys had items that characterized participants’ transition planning and services. Wave 2 data were the primary source of data; Wave 1 results were used to fill gaps where Wave 2 data were missing in cases where participants were at least 16 years old in Wave 1.

Questions pertaining to students’ transition planning and program were included on the school programs survey completed by teachers. In Waves 1 and 2, response rates for the school program surveys were 50% and 48%, respectively (Javitz & Wagner, 2005). Content included documentation of transition planning, goal-focused instruction, and transition plan content; documentation of student progress toward transition goals, program supports related to transition, and needed services; and documentation of transition information shared with families. The parent/youth interviews and surveys included content about family perspectives on the planning process such as extent of participant and satisfaction. Response rates for the parent/youth interviews and surveys were 81% and 61%, from Waves 1 and 2 respectively. NLTS2 created combined variables for most items so that youth responses were used if available, but parent responses were used if the youth data were missing.

Analysis

We used SPSS 20.0 Complex Samples module to calculate descriptive means and/or percentages. This module allows for the calculation of estimated standard errors associated with a weighted and stratified sample characteristic of the NLTS2, resulting in estimates that are representative of the national population of adolescents with high-incidence disabilities. The analysis included examining data across waves of data collection and instruments; therefore, the cross-instrument weight constructed for such analyses was used. A crosstabs analysis within the Complex Samples procedure was used along with Pearson chi-square statistics to compare disability groups (nominal variables) at a significance level of p < .01. The general linear model procedure available in the Complex Samples module was used to compare the groups of interest (continuous variables). In cases where significant omnibus differences were found, paired contrasts were used. Tests of statistical significance were conducted at p < .01 because multiple comparisons were made.

Results

With few exceptions, the results from this secondary analysis illustrate overarching similarities in the characteristics of transition plans and services across the three high-incidence disability categories—LD, ED, and ADHD—of interest in this study. Based on the extant literature, we examined NLTS2 variables using existing frameworks and research focused on transition planning and services. Our results are described based on the three areas of significant findings relative to (a) transition planning and plan implementation, (b) stakeholder involvement, and (c) needed transition services; we present the descriptive results below. The three areas of significant findings do hark back to Kohler’s transition taxonomy and are, thus, related to Test and colleagues’ work on identified evidence-based practices. Transition planning and implementation includes variables associated with student development and student-focused planning. The roles and involvement of families and educators are described in the “Stakeholder Involvement” section. The results associated with identified needed transition services reflect programmatic and interagency variables.

Transition Planning and Plan Implementation

Nearly all students with high-incidence disabilities had transition plans, as reported by school personnel. More than half had transition goals in the areas of competitive employment and college enrollment, and nearly half had goals in postsecondary vocational training. Significantly, more students with ED (44%, SE = 3.9) and ADHD (29%, SE = 3.0) had goals specific to enhancing social relationships, than did their peers with LD (12%; SE = 2.0) with a chi-square of 49.15, adjusted F(1, 520) = 36.34, p < .001. Not surprisingly, only 10% of students with high-incidence disabilities had transition plan goals to maximize functional independence. More than 70% of all students with high-incidence disabilities received instruction focused on their transition plan goals. Although fewer students with ADHD (64%, SE = 4.0) had well-aligned plans and instruction, the difference was not statistically significant. See Table 2 for detailed group differences in transition planning and implementation.

Table 2.

Transition Planning, Instruction, and Progress by Group.

NLTS2 question	LD		Emotional disturbance		ADHD		Total
NLTS2 question	%	SE	%	SE	%	SE	%	SE
Unweighted n^a	370		220		300		900
There has been planning for the transition to adult life	96.5	1.0	94.9	1.9	94.5	1.5	96.3	0.9
Unweighted n^a	330		200		260		790
Instruction focused on transition planning has been provided	72.1	3.0	78.3	3.1	64.2	4.0	72.3	2.6
Unweighted n^a	350		210		280		840
Transition plan/IEP specifically states course of study/classes needed to meet transition goals	75.1	2.6	73.8	3.5	71.5	3.3	74.8	2.3
Following high school, the primary goal of the student’s education program is to prepare him or her to
Get competitive employment	56.7	3.0	59.5	4.3	46.8	4.0	56.5	2.7
Attend 2 or 4 years	58.7	3.1	43.3	3.9	54.7	3.4	56.9	2.7
Live independently	46.3	3.2	55.4	3.8	47.1	3.4	47.2	2.7
Attend postsecondary vocational training	39.8	3.2	46.2	3.8	39.0	4.1	40.4	2.8
Enhance social/interpersonal relationships and satisfaction	12.0	2.0	43.6*	3.9	28.7*	3.0	15.9	1.8
Maximize functional independence	8.3	1.6	21.6	3.8	13.0	2.4	9.9	1.4

Note. NLTS2 = National Longitudinal Transition Study–2; LD = learning disabilities; ADHD = attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; IEP = individual education plan.

Unweighted sample sizes weighted to nearest 10 as per Institute of Education Sciences requirements.

Statistically significant difference from LD group, p < .01.

As a group, nearly half of all students with high-incidence disabilities were considered by teachers to have made “a lot” of progress toward the goal of graduation, but students with LD were significantly more likely (50%, SE = 3.4) to make such progress than their peers with ED (30%, SE = 4.0) and ADHD (38.3%, SE = 3.0) with a chi-square of 15.39, adjusted F(4, 1640) = 4.82, p < .001. Lower rates of progress were noted in goals pertaining to postsecondary enrollment, independent living, behavior management, social/interpersonal, and self-advocacy goals. See Table 3 for detailed group differences in progress made toward goals.

Table 3.

Progress and Suitability of Goals by Group.

NLTS2 question	Learning disability			Emotional disturbance			ADHD			Total
NLTS2 question	%4s	SE	n ^a	%4s	SE	n ^a	%4s	SE	n ^a	%4s	SE	n ^a
Amount of progress toward transition goals related to
Graduation	50.2*	3.4	340	30.4	4.0	200	38.3	3.0	270	47.6	3.0	810
Vocational	34.2	3.1	320	37.0	4.0	190	27.1	3.5	250	33.1	2.8	760
Postsecondary education	43.9	3.6	300	27.0	4.0	180	32.5	3.3	240	41.6	3.2	720
Independent living	50.7	4.9	190	32.9	5.2	110	35.0	4.0	160	48.1	4.2	460
Behavior management	38.3	4.8	160	38.2	4.0	190	27.7	3.4	170	37.7	3.8	520
Social/interpersonal	42.3	4.4	200	30.7	4.3	200	28.9	3.7	200	39.7	3.6	590
Self-advocacy	38.1	4.0	260	30.3	3.9	200	29.7	4.3	230	36.7	3.4	680

Note. Rating scale = 1 (no progress), 2 (a little progress), 3 (some progress), 4 (a lot of progress). NLTS2 = National Longitudinal Transition Study–2; ADHD = attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; %4s = percentage of responses that are 4s on the Likert-type scale; ED = emotional disabilities.

Unweighted sample sizes weighted to nearest 10 as per Institute of Education Sciences requirements.

Statistically significant difference from ED group, p < .01.

Stakeholder Involvement

Students with high-incidence disabilities were likely to be involved in their transition planning meetings, but the extent to which they participated varied. Although more than half provided some input, less than a quarter played leadership roles. Still, nearly one fifth participated very little or did not attend planning meetings. These results were consistent across LD, ED, and ADHD, with no significant differences among the three groups. Special education teachers, parents, students, and school counselors were among the frequently noted transition planning team participants. General educators, either from academic or vocational courses, participated at a rate of 63% (SE = 3.1) and 43% (SE = 2.9), respectively. Vocational rehabilitation counselors attended fewer than 20% (SE = 1.9) of transition planning meetings. At a rate of 13% (SE = 2.3), related service providers were infrequent participants. Very few stakeholders from outside the school and family (e.g., employers, college representatives, or outside agency representatives) participated in transition planning meetings. Table 4 provides a complete list of stakeholder participation rates and illustrates some variation, but no statistically significant differences.

Table 4.

Participants in Transition Planning by Group.

NLTS2 question	Learning disability		Emotional disturbance		ADHD		Total
NLTS2 question	%	SE	%	SE	%	SE	%	SE
Student’s role in transition planning (Unweighted n^a)	350		210		270		830
Not attended or participated	2.0	0.9	2.7	1.3	2.9	1.5	2.1	0.8
Present but participated very little or not at all	15.7	2.3	24.6	3.9	18.1	2.1	16.7	1.9
Provided some input	59.0	3.0	57.2	4.8	61.8	3.4	58.9	2.7
Leadership role	23.4	2.8	15.5	3.6	17.2	2.9	22.3	2.4
Active participants in transition planning
Special education	97.5	1.0	98.8	0.7	98.2	1.1	97.7	0.9
Parent/guardian	79.3	2.6	85.4	4.0	90.1	2.3	80.4	2.3
Student	89.7	2.3	90.9	2.6	90.0	2.1	89.8	2.1
School administrator	56.9	3.5	66.4	4.3	57.4	3.9	57.9	3.1
School counselor or psychologist	67.7	3.2	73.7	3.6	66.0	3.9	68.2	2.8
General education academic teacher	62.3	3.5	66.1	3.3	67.8	3.3	63.0	3.1
General education vocational teacher	42.9	3.4	42.3	4.6	40.1	3.9	42.7	2.9
Related services personnel	12.3	2.6	16.6	2.6	20.1	3.2	13.1	2.3
Vocational rehabilitation agency counselor	17.7	2.2	23.8	3.2	21.6	3.2	18.5	1.9
Staff of other outside agency	1.5	0.7	6.1	2.4	11.1	2.7	2.4	0.6
Employer	2.9	0.9	7.3	2.6	6.4	2.6	3.5	0.9
Representative of postsecondary education	2.3	1.2	4.3	1.4	5.3	1.9	2.7	1.1
Other	3.1	1.2	3.0	1.4	4.5	1.6	3.2	1.1

Note. NLTS2 = National Longitudinal Transition Study–2; ADHD = attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

Unweighted sample sizes weighted to nearest 10 as per Institute of Education Sciences requirements.

Outside of formal meetings, students with high-incidence disabilities and their families reported committed involvement in transition planning with 79% (SE = 1.8) of youth meeting with teachers to generate postsecondary goals. Whereas 89% (SE = 1.8) of parents reported that they attended the transition planning meetings at school, only 48% (SE = 2.2) said that they also met with their children’s teachers to identify individualized postsecondary goals. Across high-incidence groups, about 38% (SE = 2.6) agreed that developing transition goals occurred jointly, with shared efforts from teachers and families. Most families were satisfied with their levels of involvement in IEP decision making, but about one third wanted to be more involved. See Table 5 for detailed group differences in families’ perspectives on transition planning.

Table 5.

Family Perspectives on Transition Planning.

NLTS2 question	Learning disability		Emotional disturbance		ADHD		Total
NLTS2 question	%	SE	%	SE	%	SE	%	SE
Unweighted n^a	430		340		390		1,170
Youth attended last IEP meeting	83.5	2.7	84.6	2.5	91.3	2.4	84.1	2.3
Youth met with teachers to set postgraduation goals	80.4	2.1	73.3	2.4	70.2	3.1	78.9	1.8
Unweighted n^a	750		710		640		2,100
Adult in household attended last IEP meeting	87.8	2.0	90.4	1.7	95.7	0.8	88.6	1.8
Adult in household met with teachers to set postgraduation goals	49.1	2.5	44.9	2.3	44.0	2.5	48.2	2.2
Who mostly came up with goals? (Unweighted n^a)	460		370		400		1,230
Mostly school	33.9	3.4	41.5	3.5	35.2	3.7	35.0	3.0
Mostly parent/youth	27.6	2.5	20.7	2.4	22.0	2.8	26.4	2.1
Combination	37.8	3.1	37.6	3.5	42.6	2.9	38.0	2.6
Feelings about family involvement in IEP decisions (Unweighted n^a)	430		340		390		1,160
Wanted to be more involved	28.1	3.2	33.3	3.3	29.5	2.7	28.8	2.8
Involved the right amount	70.6	3.2	64.9	3.4	69.1	2.7	69.8	2.9
Wanted to be less involved	1.2	0.6	1.8	0.7	Too small		1.3	0.5

Note. NLTS2 = National Longitudinal Transition Study–2; ADHD = attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; IEP = individual education plan.

Unweighted sample sizes weighted to nearest 10 as per Institute of Education Sciences requirements.

Needed Transition Services

The most commonly identified programs and services necessary for postschool goal attainment across IEPs of students with high-incidence disabilities were vocational training and postsecondary education. In the NLTS2, these variables were linked to survey questions that detailed what services were needed to help students attain postsecondary goals. Students with LD (71%, SE = 3.1) and ADHD (67%, SE = 3.5) were significantly more likely to have program and services identified related to postsecondary education accommodations than those with ED (45%, SE = 4.4) with a chi-square of 21.08, adjusted F(1, 520) = 18.92, p < .001. Students with ED were significantly more likely (24%, SE = 3.6) than students with ADHD (6%, SE = 1.6) to be identified as needing behavioral interventions with a chi-square of 71.61, adjusted F(1, 420) = 22.46, p < .001. An initial step in interagency collaboration, contacting outside agencies in postsecondary education (including vocational and higher education), was made on behalf of about a quarter of the students with high-incidence disabilities. Table 6 provides detailed group differences.

Table 6.

Service Needs and Contacts Made.

NLTS2 question	Learning disability		Emotional disturbance		ADHD		Total
NLTS2 question	%	SE	%	SE	%	SE	%	SE
Service or program needs identified for student after high school on IEP or transition plan (Unweighted n^a)	280		180		230		690
Vocational training, placement, or support	36.9	3.4	45.7	5.1	39.4	3.8	37.9	3.0
Accommodations for postsecondary education	71.3*	3.1	44.7	4.4	66.5*	3.5	68.3	2.7
Mental health services	Too small		17.2	3.5	9.5	2.4	4.0	1.1
Behavioral intervention	Too small		24.4	3.6	6.2*	1.6	4.7	1.1
Contacted about programs/employment postschool (Unweighted n^a)	360		210		280		850
Postsecondary vocational schools	25.3	3.1	29.1	4.0	23.3	3.2	25.6	2.6
Colleges	27.5	3.2	21.4	3.8	24.1	2.6	26.7	2.9
State vocational rehabilitation agency	16.6	2.5	21.9	3.9	21.5	3.0	17.3	2.3
Other vocational training programs	15.9	2.3	21.2	3.0	13.3	2.1	16.3	2.0
Job placement programs agencies	15.0	2.3	31.9	4.4	16.3	2.3	16.8	2.0
Potential employers	17.6	2.4	25.5	3.4	21.1	2.4	18.5	2.1
U.S. military	15.7	2.5	12.3	2.8	10.8	2.1	15.1	2.2
Other social service agencies	4.7	1.3	12.7	2.4	10.4	2.2	5.8	1.1
Social security administration	1.5	0.7	4.2	1.6	3.7	1.6	1.9	0.6
Mental health agencies	1.7	0.8	12.4	2.5	6.2	1.9	3.0	0.7
Supported employment programs	3.3	1.3	11.3	2.7	8.5	2.3	4.3	1.2
Parents provided with information about services available after high school (Unweighted n^a)	290		180		230		700
Yes	77.5	2.6	75.5	4.3	74.9	3.3	77.2	2.2
No	1.1	0.9	3.9	2.1	0.4	0.3	1.3	0.8
Not yet	21.4	2.5	20.6	4.0	24.7	3.3	21.5	2.1

Note. NLTS2 = National Longitudinal Transition Study–2; ADHD = attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; IEP = individual education plan; ED = emotional disabilities.

Unweighted sample sizes weighted to nearest 10 as per Institute of Education Sciences requirements.

Statistically significant difference from ED group, p < .01.

Taken together, the results from this secondary analysis confirm that adolescents with LD, ED, and ADHD/OHI experience transition education in similar ways. This descriptive study provides a snapshot of each group for comparison, detailing these similarities.

Discussion

This study examined the school and transition planning and services available to youth with high-incidence disabilities. This was of interest given the nearly four decades of cross-categorical school services provided to youth with LD, ED, and ADHD (Hallahan & Kauffman, 1977; Sabornie et al., 2006). Furthermore, transition researchers have used the term high-incidence disabilities to examine postschool employment outcomes of adolescents with LD and ED as well as ADHD (Rojewski & Gregg, 2011; Rojewski et al., 2013). Given the long historical focus of special education service delivery associated with students identified with high-incidence disabilities, this study was most interested in examining whether youth experience similar or different transition planning experiences and instruction.

Although some of the results of this descriptive study are encouraging, it is important to interpret them carefully, given that adolescents and young adults continue to exit high school and experience employment and postsecondary enrollment at rates that are lower than their peers without disabilities (Kena et al., 2014) and lower than some subgroups of their peers with disabilities (Wagner, Newman, Cameto, Garza, & Levine, 2005). Poor outcomes may be related to a limited breadth and scope of transition planning and services students receive in school, but the results of this study paint a largely positive picture of the transition planning and education to which adolescents with disabilities have access. One limitation, however, is that NLTS2 data documenting students’ transition plans and their content were teacher-reported rather than directly examined. A second limitation concerns the high rates of missing data, especially for several essential school-related indicators. The school-generated data included survey items highly relevant to this study particularly related to transition planning; however, these variables were reported at low return rates (less than 50% on the School Program Survey) and that warrants caution when drawing conclusions about results. In addition, student school and transition data represent a snapshot of transition planning and instruction (i.e., reflecting participation in a single IEP or transition planning experience) rather than characterizing the broader and long-term participation over time.

Specifically, the positive finding is that according to school personnel, transition planning was occurring for nearly all students with high-incidence disabilities, and the majority also received transition-focused instruction and had course alignment with postsecondary goals. This finding stands out from previous studies that have documented transition planning that falls short of mandated components and best practices (Landmark & Zhang, 2013; Powers et al., 2005). The finding that fewer transition plans were likely to have goals addressing competitive employment and/or postsecondary education programs, however, was more in line with previous studies. Given the long history of transition education in preparing adolescents with high-incidence disabilities for postschool employment (Madaus et al., 2013; Will, 1984) and more recent efforts of preparing for postsecondary education (Brinckerhoff, McGuire, & Shaw, 2002; Madaus & Shaw, 2006), we expected to see a consistent pattern of goals in both areas.

Social and emotional well-being of adolescents identified with disabilities includes challenging behaviors, inattention, and impulsivity, so it was not surprising that transition plans for adolescents with ED and ADHD/OHI were significantly more likely to include goals in these areas, setting them apart from the transition plans for adolescents with LD. Yet, students with LD, and in particular those with LD who also have ADHD characteristics, struggle with social skills (Kavale & Mostert, 2004; Wei, Yu, & Shaver, 2014), making this distinction somewhat surprising.

One disappointing result included the relatively low percentage of adolescents with high-incidence disabilities who had made progress toward goals in self-advocacy, given that successful employment and postsecondary education outcomes have been linked to self-efficacy and self-determination for adolescents and young adults with LD (Madaus, Grigal, & Hughes, 2014; Madaus, Jiarong, & Ruban, 2008; Madaus, Ruban, Foley, & McGuire, 2003) and for adolescents and young adults with ED (Carter & Lunsford, 2005; Carter, Trainor, Ditchman, & Owens, 2011; Carter & Wehby, 2003). Although adolescents with ADHD have been the focus of fewer studies, there is also preliminary support for developing their self-efficacy and self-determination with an eye toward successful postsecondary transitions (Fleming & McMahon, 2012; Schwiebert, Sealander, & Bradshaw, 1998; Walker & Test, 2011).

In general, documentation of progress toward employment-related transition planning goals was notably less than progress toward postsecondary education, social/interpersonal, and behavioral goals for adolescents with high-incidence disabilities. Progress toward interpersonal and self-advocacy might be difficult to measure, however, and these soft skills might not receive instructional attention, especially with academic common core state standards. Successful transitions to postsecondary education require effective preparation that includes both acquisition of core academic standards and social/emotional development (Madaus et al., 2014). Interestingly, progress toward graduation and independent living goals was an area where the most progress was noted, but these types of goals were also less likely to be included in the transition plans of adolescents with high-incidence disabilities. Generally, rates of progress across goal domains was below 50%; however, this does not represent progress made over multiple points in time.

Participation of educators and other service providers, family members, and students with disabilities in transition planning has been theoretically and empirically linked to successful postschool transitions. In fact, IDEA mandates that at a minimum, the LEA, a special educator, and a general educator participate in IEP meetings including those where transition is discussed (Landmark & Zhang, 2013). Given this mandate, participation by LEAs and general educators was expected to be as high as the special educator participation rate of close to 100%; however, this was not the case. In particular, the low rate of participation from vocational educators is particularly concerning because vocational preparation is considered a predictor of successful postsecondary transitions to employment (Test, Mazzotti, et al., 2009). Equally concerning are the low rates of participation in transition planning of vocational rehabilitation counselors and community representatives from the employment sector and postsecondary institutions. Despite that the participation of vocational rehabilitation personnel has been a mandatory procedure in Title 1 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and its more recent iterations, and participation by vocational rehabilitation counselors in adolescents’ transition planning has been increasing (National Council on Disability, 2008), diminished participation of employers and postsecondary education representatives is not uncommon and represents missed opportunities for sharing information.

On a more positive note, adolescent and family participation rates documented for students with high-incidence disabilities in this study demonstrate stakeholder involvement at rates higher than in previous studies (Landmark & Zhang, 2013). A majority of adolescents with disabilities provided some input in transition planning, but fewer played leadership roles. Although the participation rate is encouraging, student leadership of transition planning has the potential to predict postschool employment and postsecondary enrollment (Test, Mazzotti, et al., 2009), and, as this nationally representative subgroup of adolescents with high-incidence disabilities illustrates, leadership in planning has yet to come to fruition for most adolescents with disabilities. Families were only slightly less involved than the adolescents themselves. This is important because family involvement is a component of transition planning that is backed by moderate evidentiary support (Test, Fowler, et al., 2009). Considering the economic and racial/ethnic diversity of participants, the high involvement of parents is an unexpected finding. Again, though, this finding is based on data from the school program survey, so school personnel may perceive the parents as involved, but whether parents see themselves in the same light is impossible to ascertain from these data.

Implications for Research and Practice

Results from this study paint an optimistic and positive view of transition planning for youth with high-incidence disabilities, but these results differ in important ways from previous studies. Furthermore, outcomes for adolescents, although having improved over time, remain problematic (Wagner, Newman, Cameto, Garza, & Levine, 2005). Therefore, further research should use additional methods that allow for an in-depth study of transition planning and processes. Specifically, transition goals and their alignment to individualized curricula and course content should be examined to determine the extent and means by which high school students receive instruction that is linked to key domains (e.g., gaining employment, preparing for postsecondary education, independent living, and interpersonal skills).

Similarly, the findings in this study illustrate high levels of IEP attendance of families and students. This needs further exploration at the intersection of race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status (SES), and disability status to ascertain whether attendance was comparable across groups (e.g., adolescents of color who are also living in poverty). Because of small samples of youth with LD, ED, and ADHD across discrete racial/ethnic groups, it was not possible to delve into the ramifications of the intersectionality of race/ethnicity, SES, and disability. Clearly, more research is needed to ascertain whether subgroups of youth with high-incidence disabilities receive similar or different transition planning and services, which then affect outcomes.

In addition, the level and type of involvement should be examined more thoroughly to understand how parents and adolescents express their preferences, strengths, concerns, and hopes about adulthood. Numerous qualitative studies have documented multiple barriers to collaborative IEP participation, particularly for families of color and those from low socioeconomic backgrounds (Geenen, Powers, & Lopez-Vasquez, 2005; Rueda, Monzo, Shapiro, Gomez, & Blacher, 2005). Further understanding of the lived experiences among families who are often marginalized during transition planning is clearly needed (Hogansen, Powers, Geenen, Gil-Kashiwabara, & Powers, 2008).

Limited progress toward transition goals for adolescents with high-incidence disabilities noted in these findings needs to be addressed in practice. Because initial efforts to identify evidence-based practices in transition have resulted in a set of strategies with promising efficacy, it is important that teachers know about these and are able to implement them in the course of delivering transition education curricula.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

The opinions expressed are those of the authors and are not intended to represent views of the U.S. Department of Education.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant R324A100275, awarded to the University of Kansas and the University of Wisconsin.

References

Brinckerhoff

L. C.

McGuire

J. M.

Shaw

S. F.

(2002). Postsecondary education and transition for students with learning disabilities. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Carter

E. W.

Lunsford

L. B.

(2005). Meaningful work: Improving employment outcomes for transition-age youth with emotional and behavioral disorders. Preventing School Failure, 49, 63–69. doi:10.3200/psfl.49.2.63-69

Carter

E. W.

Trainor

A. A.

Ditchman

Owens

(2011). A pilot study connecting youth with emotional or behavioral difficulties to summer work experiences. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 34, 95–106. doi:10.1177/0885728810395745

Carter

E. W.

Trainor

A. A.

Ditchman

Swedeen

Owens

(2011). Community-based summer work experiences of adolescents with high incidence disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 45, 89–103. doi:10.1177/0022466909353204

Carter

E. W.

Wehby

J. H.

(2003). Job performance of transition-age youth with emotional and behavioral disorders. Exceptional Children, 69, 449–465.

Cobb

R. B.

Alwell

(2009). Transition planning/coordinating interventions for youth with disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32, 70–81. doi:10.1177/0885728809336655

Fleming

McMahon

(2012). Developmental context and treatment principles for ADHD among college students. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 15, 303–329. doi:10.1007/s10567-012-0121-z

Geenen

S. J.

Powers

L. E.

Lopez-Vasquez

(2005). Barriers against and strategies for promoting the involvement of culturally diverse parents in school based transition planning. Journal for Vocational Special Needs Education, 27(3), 4–14.

Griffin

M. M.

(2011). Promoting IEP participation: Effects of interventions, considerations for CLD students. Career Development and Exceptional Individuals, 34, 153–164. doi:10.1177/0885728811410561

10.

Hallahan

D. P.

Kauffman

J. M.

(1977). Labels, categories, behaviors: ED, LD, and EMR reconsidered. The Journal of Special Education, 11, 139–149.

11.

Hogansen

J. M.

Powers

Geenen

Gil-Kashiwabara

Powers

(2008). Transition goals and experiences of females with disabilities: Youth, parents, and professionals. Exceptional Children, 74, 215–234.

12.

Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C.A. § 1400 et seq., Pub. L. No. P.L. 108-446 (2004).

13.

Javitz

Wagner

(2005). Analysis of potential bias in the Wave 1 and Wave 2 respondents to the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

14.

Kavale

K. A.

Mostert

M. P.

(2004). Social skills interventions for individuals with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 31–43.

15.

Kena

Aud

Johnson

Wang

Zhang

Rathbun

. . . Kristapovich

(2014). The condition of education 2014 (NCES 2014-083). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.

16.

Kohler

P. D.

(1996). A taxonomy for transition programming: A model for planning, organizing, and evaluating transition education, services, and programs. Champaign-Urbana: Transition Research, Institute University of Illinois.

17.

Landmark

L. J.

Zhang

(2013). Compliance and practices in transition planning: A review of individualized education program documents. Remedial and Special Education, 34, 113–125. doi:10.1177/0741932511431831

18.

Madaus

J. W.

Gelbar

N. W.

Dukes

Faggella-Luby

Lalor

A. R.

Kowitt

J. S.

(2013). Thirty-five years of transition topics: A review of CDTEI Issues from 1978-2012. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 36, 7–14. doi:10.1177/2165143413476734

19.

Madaus

J. W.

Grigal

Hughes

(2014). Promoting access to postsecondary education for low-income students with disabilities. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 37, 50–59. doi:10.1177/2165143414525037

20.

Madaus

J. W.

Jiarong

Ruban

(2008). Employment satisfaction of university graduates with learning disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 29, 323–332.

21.

Madaus

J. W.

Ruban

L. M.

Foley

T. E.

McGuire

J. M.

(2003). Attributes contributing to the employment satisfaction of university graduates with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26, 159–170.

22.

Madaus

J. W.

Shaw

S. F.

(2006). The impact of the IDEA 2004 on transition to college for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 21, 273–281.

23.

McLeskey

Landers

Williamson

Hoppey

(2012). Are we moving toward educating students with disabilities in less restrictive settings? The Journal of Special Education, 46, 131–140. doi:10.1177/0022466910376670

24.

Morningstar

M. E.

Trainor

A. A.

Murray

(in press). Examining outcomes associated with adult life engagement for young adults with high incidence disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation.

25.

National Council on Disability. (2008). The Rehabilitation Act: Outcomes for transition-age youth. Washington, DC: Author.

26.

National Institute of Mental Health. (2008). Attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Bethesda, MD: Author.

27.

Newman

Wagner

Cameto

Knokey

A. M.

(2009). The post-high school outcomes of youth with disabilities up to 4 years after high school: A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

28.

Powers

K. M.

Gil-Kashiwabara

Geenen

S. J.

Powers

L. E.

Balandran

Palmer

(2005). Mandates and effective transition planning practices reflected in IEPs. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 28, 47–59.

29.

Rojewski

J. W.

Gregg

(2011). Career choice patterns and behaviors of work-bound youth with high incidence disabilities. In Kauffman

J. M.

Hallahan

D. P.

(Eds.), Handbook of special education (pp. 584–593). New York, NY: Routledge.

30.

Rojewski

J. W.

Lee

I. H.

Gregg

(2013). Intermediate work outcomes for adolescents with high incidence disabilities. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 37, 106–118.

31.

Rueda

Monzo

Shapiro

Gomez

Blacher

(2005). Cultural models of transition: Latina mothers of young adults with developmental disabilities. Exceptional Children, 71, 401–414.

32.

Sabornie

E. J.

Cullinan

Osborne

S. S.

Brock

L. B.

(2005). Intellectual, academic, and behavioral functioning of students with high incidence disabilities: A cross-categorical meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 72, 47–63.

33.

Sabornie

E. J.

Evans

Cullinan

(2006). Comparing characteristics of high incidence disability groups. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 95–104.

34.

Schnoes

Reid

Wagner

Marder

(2006). ADHD among students receiving special education services: A national survey. Exceptional Children, 72, 483–496.

35.

Schwiebert

V. L.

Sealander

K. A.

Bradshaw

M. L.

(1998). Preparing students with attention deficit disorders for entry into the workplace and postsecondary education. Professional School Counseling, 2, 26–34.

36.

Test

D. W.

Fowler

C. H.

Richter

S. M.

White

Mazzotti

Walker

A. R.

. . . Kortering

(2009). Evidence-based practices in secondary transition. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32, 115–128. doi:10.1177/0885728809336859

37.

Test

D. W.

Mazzotti

V. L.

Mustian

A. L.

Fowler

C. H.

Kortering

Kohler

(2009). Evidence-based secondary transition predictors for improving postschool outcomes for students with disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32, 160–181. doi:10.1177/0885728809346960

38.

Trainor

A. A.

(2005). Self-determination perceptions and behaviors of diverse students with LD during the transition planning process. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 233–249.

39.

Trainor

A. A.

(2007). Perceptions of adolescent girls with LD regarding self-determination and postsecondary transition planning. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30, 31–45.

40.

U.S. Department of Education & U.S. Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services. (2011). Thirty-first annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 2009. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

41.

Wagner

Newman

Cameto

Garza

Levine

(2005). After high school: A first look at the postschool experiences of youth with disabilities (National Longitudinal Transition Study–2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

42.

Wagner

Newman

Cameto

Levine

(2005). Changes over time in the early postschool outcomes of youth with disabilities (National Longitudinal Transition Study–2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

43.

Walker

A. R.

Test

D. W.

(2011). Using a self-advocacy intervention on African American college students’ ability to request academic accommodations. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26, 134–144. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2011.00333.x

44.

Wei

J. W.

Shaver

(2014). Longitudinal effects of ADHD in children with learning disabilities or emotional disturbances. Exceptional Children, 80, 205–219.

45.

Will

M. C.

(1984). OSERS programming for the transition of youth with disabilities: Bridges from school to working life. Washington, DC: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.