Secondary Transition Evidence-Based Practices and Predictors

Abstract

The No Child Left Behind Act (2001) and Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004) had implications for teachers and students at all levels (i.e., elementary, middle, high school). Specifically, IDEA had implications for secondary students with disabilities because it required students with disabilities exit high school prepared for postschool education, employment, and independent living. When considering federal mandates and reform initiatives, state and local education agencies have to consider how students with disabilities and secondary transition will be affected. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of secondary transition evidence-based practices and predictors of postschool success for student with disabilities. Implications for policymakers related to improving secondary transition programs and practices at federal, state, and local levels are discussed.

Keywords

evidence-based practices secondary transition policy school reform

In 1983, the National Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE) presented a report to the nation and the United States Congress on the state of education across the country. The report, titled A Nation at Risk, indicated the current education system needed to make substantial reforms because the nation’s students were performing academically below students from other countries due to inadequate curricula, low expectations, insufficient time spent on schoolwork, and poor teacher preparation programs (NCEE, 1983). Twenty-five years later in a follow-up report to the Nation At Risk, the United States Department of Education (USDOE) indicated the education system had not made necessary improvements to meet the demands related to demographic changes and a global economy (USDOE, 2008). One specific area of concern was student performance at the high school level, which indicated (a) an increased need for remedial coursework and (b) high dropout rates, especially among minority groups and students with disabilities (USDOE, 2008). However, the report also suggested that the United States was in a much better position due to the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2001), which had changed the education system from “a nation at risk of complacency to a nation that is accountable and at work on its education weaknesses” (USDOE, 2008, p. 8).

Since the reauthorization of NCLB (2001) and Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004), the field of special education has experienced mandated changes at the federal, state, and local levels. Although NCLB (2001) was a general education reform initiative, it had implications for the field of special education because it mandated participation by all students in district and statewide assessments, increased accountability for all teachers, and required schools to report adequate yearly progress. Another major component of both laws required teachers to use scientifically based research practices and curricula to guide instruction for students with and without disabilities (IDEA, 2004; NCLB, 2001). The two laws had implications for teachers and students at all levels (i.e., elementary, middle, high school). Specifically, IDEA (2004) had implications for secondary students with disabilities because it required students with disabilities exit from high school prepared for postschool education, employment, and independent living.

In addition to federal mandates, current education reform initiatives have to be considered. The P-16 Pipeline is the most recent education reform movement initiated by the USDOE. The intent of the P-16 Pipeline initiative is to create an education system that is aligned at all levels beginning with pre-kindergarten, moving through elementary, middle, and high school, and continuing through postsecondary education to improve outcomes for all students (National Governors Association, 2010). Several key initiatives have emerged out of the P-16 movement. First, the National Governors Association in collaboration with teachers, administrators, and experts in the field of education developed the Common Core State Standards to encourage states to adopt a system of standards that would be consistent across the country to ensure all students graduate from high school, college and career ready (National Governors Association, 2011). Second, the Race to the Top initiative made funds available to states to address the need for systemic change and to reform state education systems (The White House, 2009). Currently, 46 states have adopted some, or all, of the Common Core State Standards, and all 46 have received Race to the Top funds to improve the quality of state education systems.

Various efforts have been developed to reform schools at all levels based on federal mandates and recent education reform initiatives. In an effort to promote systemic and sustainable change at the high school level, the National Association of State Boards of Education, the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP), and the National High School Center (NHSC) have played essential roles in high school redesign (Test, Toms, Scroggins, & Fowler, 2011). High school redesign involves eight key elements for improving high schools, including (a) rigorous curriculum and instruction, (b) teacher effectiveness and professional growth, (c) stakeholder engagement, (d) organization and structure, (e) assessment and accountability, (f) student and family involvement, (g) effective leadership, and (h) sustainability (NHSC, 2011). When considering federal mandates and reform initiatives, such as high school redesign, state and local education agencies have to consider how students with disabilities and secondary transition will be impacted. Therefore, it remains imperative that systemic and sustainable change to reform high school education includes meeting the needs of students with disabilities (Fixsen, Naoom, Blasé, Friedman, & Wallace, 2005; Kazmowski, 2004).

When considering high school redesign and students with disabilities, secondary transition plays a key role in this effort and has experienced considerable change since the implementation of IDEA (2004). The purpose of secondary transition is to prepare students with disabilities for positive postschool success in the areas of education, employment, and independent living. IDEA (2004) defined transition services as follows:

A coordinated set of activities for a student with a disability that is designed to be within a results-oriented process that is focused on improving the academic and functional achievement of the child with a disability to facilitate the child’s movement from school to post-school activities, including postsecondary education, vocational education, integrated employment (including supported employment), continuing and adult education, adult services, independent living, or community participation. (300.42[a][1])

One specific change to IDEA (2004) included the requirement of states to report to the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) on four indicators specifically related to secondary transition. While states are required by OSEP to report on 20 indicators for IDEA Part B (i.e., children with disabilities; age 3–22), four are directly related to high school completion, transition services, and postschool outcomes. The four State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report (SPP/APR) indicators include (a) Indicator 1, improving graduation rates; (b) Indicator 2, decreasing dropout rates; (c) Indicator 13 (I-13), improving transition services; and (d) Indicator 14, improving postschool outcomes. Of these four indicators, I-13 is a compliance indicator and directly impacts state and local education agencies’ policies and procedures for providing effective transition services and developing quality, compliant transition components of individual education programs to promote both in-school and postschool success for students with disabilities.

To facilitate this process, the National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center (NSTTAC) was funded by the USDOE OSEP to support states in improving secondary transition planning, services, and outcomes for students with disabilities to meet the requirements of I-13 (NSTTAC, 2012). In addition, in an effort to provide state and local education agencies with information on effective, research-based methods for teaching secondary transition skills and improving transition programs, NSTTAC has conducted two comprehensive literature reviews to identify evidence-based practices (EBPs; Test, Fowler, et al., 2009) and predictors of postschool success for students with disabilities (Test, Mazzotti, et al., 2009). The EBPs and predictors identified by NSTTAC can provide valuable information for implementing effective, research-based secondary transition practices and programs. The importance of developing, expanding, and evaluating secondary transition programs to support the needs of students with disabilities and improve postschool outcomes in the areas of education, employment, and independent living remains a priority for the field during this time of considerable education reform (Kohler & Field, 2003; Test, Mazzotti, et al., 2009). Therefore, the purpose of this article is to provide an overview of NSTTAC’s secondary transition EBPs and predictors of postschool success for students with disabilities and discuss implications for policymakers related to the improvement of secondary transition programs and practices.

EBPs for Secondary Students With Disabilities

Part of developing effective secondary transition programs and practices requires change at the classroom level. With the mandated push for implementation of research-based practices, secondary transition teachers must be prepared to use those practices proven by rigorous research to be effective for their students. As stated previously, the first stage of NSTTAC’s literature review was to examine experimental research in secondary transition and identify EBPs to support students in their transition to postschool life (Test, Fowler, et al., 2009). The EBPs were identified through a systematic review process using quality indicators to establish levels of evidence. See Test, Fowler, et al. (2009) for details of review procedures. As a result of the systematic review to date, 64 practices have been identified to support students in the area of secondary transition. These EBPs provide teachers with tools to support skill development of students with disabilities, including development of individualized education program (IEP) goals and objectives.

The EBPs descriptions were developed with teachers in mind. Each practice description includes (a) the number and types of studies used to establish the evidence base; (b) the population with whom the practice has been conducted; (c) an overview of the practice; (d) how the practice has been implemented; (e) where the practice has been implemented; (f) link(s) to research-to-practice lesson plan starter(s); (g) how the practice relates to I-13 requirements, Common Core Standards, and State’s Career Cluster Initiative; and (h) references used to establish the evidence base. All EBPs and research to practice lesson plan starters are housed on NSTTAC’s website (http://www.nsttac.org/content/evidence-based-practices).

On the NSTTAC website, EBPs are organized by skill taught (i.e., dependent variable) and organized by the Taxonomy for Transition Programming (see Table 1; Kohler, 1996). The Taxonomy resulted from the outcomes of four separate studies aimed at identifying effective secondary transition practices: (a) a metaevaluation of model demonstration transition program outcomes and activities (Rusch, Kohler, & Hughes, 1992), (b) a literature review of secondary transition practices (Kohler, 1993), (c) an analysis of exemplary transition programs identified through evaluation studies (Kohler, DeStefano, Wermuth, Grayson, & McGinty, 1994), and (d) a concept mapping process (Kohler, 1996). Specifically, those categories are (a) student-focused planning, (b) student development, (c) interagency collaboration, (d) family involvement, and (e) program structure. The rationale for identifying practices by skill taught was to provide secondary transition teachers with a practical method for incorporating EBPs into their teaching. Teachers typically identify areas of instructional need among their students before seeking out the most appropriate methods for teaching those skills. For example, if Ms. Johnson has identified that a skill deficit for Samuel is in functional math, specifically, his purchasing skills, then she can easily examine NSTTAC’s identified EBPs that support “purchasing skills” under the “student development” category. In doing so, she will see that there are multiple evidence-based methods for teaching purchasing skills to students, including (a) community-based instruction (CBI), (b) one more than strategy, (c) progressive time delay, (d) response prompting, (e) simulations, and (f) system of least to most prompts. Ms. Johnson can examine each practice description to then identify which strategy might be the most appropriate for use with Samuel based on his specific skill need. In addition, by clicking on a specific strategy, such as CBI, Ms. Johnson can easily see what other secondary transition skills for which CBI is considered an effective, evidence-based method.

Table 1.

Evidence-Based Practices Organized by Kohler’s Taxonomy and Skill Taught.

Taxonomy category	Skill taught	Instructional strategy
Student-focused planning	Student knowledge of transition planning	Using whose future is it anyway?
	Student participation in the IEP meeting	Using check and connectUsing computer-assisted instructionUsing the self-advocacy strategyUsing the self-directed IEPUsing published curricula
Student development	Academic skills	Using mnemonicsUsing peer-assisted instructionUsing self-management instructionUsing technologyUsing visual displays
	Functional life skills	Using backward chainingUsing constant time delayUsing forward chainingUsing progressive time delayUsing self-monitoring instructionUsing a system of least to most promptsUsing a system of most to least promptsUsing total task chaining
	Banking skills	Using CBIUsing constant time delayUsing simulations
	Community integration skills	Using CBI
	Food preparation and cooking skills	Using computer-assisted instructionUsing constant time delayUsing response promptingUsing video modelingUsing a system of least to most prompts
	Grocery shopping skills	Using computer-assisted instructionUsing CBIUsing response promptingUsing a system of least to most prompts
	Home maintenance skills	Using response promptingUsing video modeling
	Laundry tasks	Using response prompting
	Leisure skills	Using response promptingUsing constant time delay
	Safety skills	Using CBIUsing progressive time delayUsing a system of least to most prompts
	Counting money	Using one more than strategy
	Increased finance skills	Using extension of career planning services after graduation
	Purchasing skills	Using CBIUsing the one more than strategyUsing progressive time delayUsing response promptingUsing simulationsUsing a system of least to most prompts
	Self-determination	Using whose future is it anyway?
	Goal attainment	Using self-determined learning model of instruction
	Social skills	Using response promptingUsing self-management instructionUsing simulations
	Communication skills	Using CBIUsing a system of least to most prompts
	Employment skills	Using CBIUsing response prompting
	Job specific skills	Using computer-assisted instructionUsing constant time delayUsing self-management instructionUsing a system of least to most prompts
	Completing a job application	Using mnemonics
Interagency collaboration	None	None
Family involvement	Parent involvement in the transition process	Using training modules
Program structure	Student participation in the IEP meeting	Using check and connect
	Banking skills	Using CBI
	Grocery shopping skills	Using CBI
	Community integration skills	Using CBI
	Purchasing skills	Using CBI
	Safety skills	Using CBI
	Communication skills	Using CBI
	Employment skills	Using CBI
	Increased finance skills	Using an extension of career planning services after graduation

Note. IEP = individualized education program; CBI = community-based instruction.

In addition to improving instruction, use of current EBPs in secondary transition should also assist teachers in IEP goal development. If the same teacher from the previous paragraph, Ms. Johnson, has a student, Jasmine, with an independent living postsecondary goal that states, “After high school, Jasmine will live semi-independently with a roommate in an apartment with supports provided through Disability Services,” then there are a plethora of functional life skills that Jasmine might need to acquire and maintain during her final years of high school to increase the likelihood of meeting this postsecondary goal. Because of what Ms. Johnson now knows regarding the effectiveness of CBI, she may develop an annual IEP goal for Jasmine that states, “Given community-based instruction on grocery shopping, Jasmine will independently navigate the grocery store, locate items on her grocery list and purchase items 3 out of 4 times for 5 consecutive weeks.” By developing an IEP goal that includes evidence-based strategies, Ms. Johnson is linking research to regular classroom practice, increasing her own accountability and, in turn, improving the likelihood that Jasmine can successfully complete the postsecondary goal(s) developed by her IEP team.

Although identification of appropriate EBPs in secondary transition is the first step, there are several other factors about which teachers must be aware. First, the importance of treatment fidelity in maximizing student achievement is critical. This means that adhering to intervention procedures and guidelines provided by practice descriptions and research-to-practice lesson plans is essential for promoting successful in-school outcomes. A second important factor on the search for EBPs is that of professional judgment. At this point, not enough EBPs have been identified to meet every skill need of every student a teacher encounters. Therefore, professional judgment must be used when incorporating new instructional strategies into the classroom. The first step is for teachers to learn to differentiate among the terms EBPs, research-based practices, promising practices, and practices that have been unestablished by research. Once teachers have knowledge of the differences among these terms, they can make informed and educated decisions regarding which instructional practices may benefit students and which instructional practices may potentially cause harm. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, students’ needs should always be considered when determining appropriate teaching strategies. The decision to use specific EBPs in a classroom should always be directly linked to assessment and a student’s individualized needs. While EBPs provide teachers with evidence-based tools to teach secondary transition skills, the evidence-based predictors described below can be used by district and school-level personnel to design effective evidence-based transition programs.

In-School Predictors of Postschool Success for Secondary Students With Disabilities

The second phase of NSTTAC’s literature review involved a systematic review of correlational literature to identify evidence-based in-school predictors of postschool success in the areas of employment, education, and independent living for secondary students with disabilities. See Test, Mazzotti, et al. (2009) for details of review procedures. Findings of the systematic review revealed 16 evidence-based predictors of postschool success (Test, Mazzotti, et al., 2009). Table 2 provides a list of the 16 in-school predictors and postschool outcome area(s) associated with each.

Table 2.

Evidence-Based In-School Predictors of Postschool Success.

Predictor/outcome	Education	Employment	Independent living
Career awareness	X	X
Community experiences		X
Exit exam requirements/high school diploma status		X
Inclusion in general education	X	X	X
Interagency collaboration	X	X
Occupational courses	X	X
Paid employment/work experience	X	X	X
Parental involvement		X
Program of study		X
Self-advocacy/self-determination	X	X
Self-care/independent living	X	X	X
Social skills	X	X
Student support	X	X	X
Transition program	X	X
Vocational education	X	X
Work study		X

As secondary transition personnel at the school (e.g., administrators, teachers, transition specialists) and district (i.e., local and state directors) levels make decisions about secondary transition programs, the evidence-based predictors provide information about secondary transition program characteristics that are empirically linked to improved postschool success for students with disabilities. For example, because self-advocacy/self-determination has been empirically linked to positive postschool employment and education outcomes (Test, Mazzotti, et al., 2009), self-advocacy/self-determination skill training (e.g., goal setting, problem solving, choice making, self-management) should be included as one component of a secondary transition program. Community experiences in high school have also been empirically linked to positive postschool employment and education success for secondary students with disabilities; therefore, community experiences (e.g., CBI, travel training, banking skills, job training) should be included as another component of a secondary transition program. Each of the 16 evidence-based predictors can be used to guide decisions about transition program development, implementation, and change. When making decisions about secondary transition program development and improvement, it is imperative that personnel at all levels use the evidence-based predictors as a guide for program development to ensure inclusion of the necessary transition program components empirically linked to positive postschool success for students with disabilities. Table 3 includes descriptions of each evidence-based predictor, recommendations for implementation, and suggestions for assessing/evaluating program implementation related to each predictor.

Table 3.

Using Evidence-Based Predictors for Transition Program Implementation.

Predictor	Description	Recommendations for transition program implementation	Assessment/evaluation examples
Career awareness	Job-related skills students learn in high school through career/vocational coursework to prepare students for postschool employment (Benz, Yovanoff, & Doren, 1997)	District level:Ensure career awareness courses are being offered (e.g., career-technical education)Ensure school curriculum includes career awareness, exploration, and preparationEnsure students with disabilities have access to career awareness curriculum/programs	District level:Evaluate implementation of career awareness curriculum/program components based on student performanceIndicator 13 dataIndicator 14 data
		School level:Teach job-search skillsImplement strategies or curricula related to career awareness (e.g., job exploration and preparation)Have students practice completing job applicationsConduct mock interviews	School level:Conduct career interest inventoriesConduct career awareness assessments prior to high school exit
Community experiences	Community-based instructional opportunities to teach students a variety of skills within the natural environment (White & Weiner, 2004)	District level:Include CBI as a required component of the curriculum for students with disabilitiesInclude community experiences as part of the general education curriculum	District level:Use student evaluation data to determine effectiveness of CBIIndicator 13 dataEvaluate IEPs to ensure CBI is included as transition activity
		School level:Use CBI to teach specific skills related to independent living and employment (e.g., banking skills, travel training, transportation, grocery shopping skills, recreation/leisure skills, social skills)	School level:Ecological inventoriesTask analysis
Exit exam requirements/high school diploma status	Exit exam and high school diploma requirements vary by state; many states offer a variety of options based on students’ plans for life after high school (e.g., career preparation, college/university preparation, occupational preparation; Heal & Rusch, 1994)	District level:Ensure school personnel have knowledge of exit exam requirements and high school diploma options to ensure students with disabilities participate in an appropriate course of study	District level:Indicator 1 dataIndicator 2 dataIndicator 13 dataIndicator14 data
		School level:Be knowledgeable of exit exam requirements and diploma options within the stateEnsure students are receiving accommodations and modifications necessary to be successful in the determined course of study	School level:Use ongoing progress monitoring to assess student progress across content areasEvaluate student specific data (e.g., grade point average, attendance, coursework completion)
Inclusion in general education	Students with disabilities participating in general education classes with peers without disabilities (Test, Mazzotti, & Mustian, 2012). Level of student participation may vary based on students IEP continuum of services (Baer et al., 2003; Blackorby, Hancock, & Siegel, 1993; Halpern, Yovanoff, Doren, & Benz, 1995; Heal & Rusch, 1994; Heal & Rusch, 1995; Heal, Khoju, & Rusch, 1997; Leonard, D’Allura, & Horowitz, 1999; White & Weiner, 2004)	District level:Ensure schools are providing students access to the general curriculum as first option for LREEnsure schools are providing students access to general curriculum regardless of class placement	District level:Evaluate a sample of IEPs to ensure student placements are appropriate
		School level:Ensure students have access to general education settings as the first option for LREProvide appropriate accommodations and modifications necessary for students to be successful in general educationMake decisions on an individual basis (Test, Toms, Scroggins, & Fowler, 2011)	School level:Use ongoing progress monitoring for students participating in regular academic courseworkUse explicit instruction to address deficits in academic content areas
IAC	Collaboration of various stakeholders (e.g., general and special education teachers, parents, student, adult service providers) related to the transition planning process for students with disabilities (Bullis, Davis, Bull, & Johnson,1995; Repetto, Webb, Garven, & Washington, 2002)	District level:Identify effective IAC modelsDevelop interagency agreements	District level:Evaluate Indicator 14 data to determine whether students’ postschool outcomes improve based on improved IACMonitor schools and adult service providers to ensure interagency agreements are effective and being implemented to ensure student success
		School level:Invite stakeholders from various agencies based on student need and postschool goals (e.g., representative from disability services; vocational rehabilitation) to attend IEP/transition planning meetingsAllocate responsibility for providing specific transition services to various stakeholdersCollaborative interagency teams should be developed and meet regularly (e.g., once per month) to discuss student’s transition plans to help ensure success in postschool lifeEnsure adult service providers attend and participate in annual IEP/transition planning meetingsConduct transition assessment and share information with interagency team (Test, Aspel, & Everson, 2006)	School level:Assess adult service provider involvement in the transition planning processFacilitate student involvement/responsibility as a member of interagency teamMonitor various stakeholders to ensure designated transition services are being provided
Occupational courses	Coursework to prepare students with moderate/severe disabilities with the necessary independent living and employment skills to be successful in postschool life (Halpern et al., 1995; Heal & Rusch, 1995)	District level:Include course of study that provides an option to prepare students with moderate/severe disabilities with functional academic and life skills	District level:Evaluate programs to ensure students with disabilities are participating in the appropriate course of study
		School level:Ensure IEPs of students with moderate/severe disabilities include occupational courseworkEmbed occupational skills within general education content (e.g., use real-life examples and application when teaching geometry)	School level:Use ongoing progress monitoring to ensure students are attaining the necessary functional, independent living, and job skills
Paid employment/work experience	Engaging in paid employment or some type of work experience during high school (Benz et al., 1997; Benz, Lindstrom, & Yovanoff, 2000; Bullis et al., 1995; Doren & Benz, 1998; Rabren, Dunn, & Chambers, 2002)	District level:Include paid work experience in courseworkUse special transition program models (e.g., Youth Transition Project) that promote work experience (Test et al., in press)	District level:Evaluate IEPs to ensure paid work experience is included as transition activityAssess implementation of special transition program modelsIndicator 14 data
		School level:Conduct community mapping to identify employment opportunities for studentsDevelop collaborative relationships with employers in the community	School level:Conduct vocational assessmentsConduct interviews with students regarding work experienceConduct on-site observations to assess student job skills
Parental involvement	Facilitating relationships between school personnel and families to ensure family involvement in the transition planning process to promote positive in-school and postschool outcomes for students with disabilities (Fourqurean, Meisgeier, Swank, & Williams, 1991)	District level:Include parents as stakeholders in interagency work groups at school and district levelProvide parent training related to the transition planning process	District level:Assess parent perspectives as members of interagency work groupsAssess parent involvement in interagency work groupsUse progress monitoring to determine whether family involvement is being used by schools and adult service providers to ensure students are successful
		School level:Encourage parent participation in all aspects of transition planning process (e.g., transition assessment, meetings)Allocate parent responsibility for providing specific transition services to studentsWork collaboratively with families to ensure students are receiving effective transition planningFacilitate methods involving parents in the transition planning process (e.g., transportation, phone calls, conference calls during IEP meetings if parent cannot attend; Test et al., 2006)	School level:Collect transition assessment data from parents perspectiveAssess parent involvement in transition planning
Program of study	Specific course of study the student follows based on postschool goals (Shandra & Hogan, 2008)	District level:Ensure transition program characteristics are incorporated into each program of study offered	District level:Indicator 13 dataIndicator 14 data
		School level:Involve general education teachers in the transition process to facilitate inclusion of transition program characteristics in general education settingsInclude school and work-based employment opportunities as part of course of study	School level:Use ongoing progress monitoring to ensure students are successfully progressing through program of studyEvaluate transition program characteristics to ensure alignment with postschool goals
Self-advocacy/self-determination	Self-advocacy includes using strategies/curricula to teach student participation in the IEP/transition planning process (e.g., self-directed IEP, self-advocacy strategy, person-centered planning). Self-determination includes teaching students specific self-determination component skills (e.g., goal setting/attainment, choice making, problem solving, decision making, self-evaluation/management; Halpern et al., 1995; Wehmeyer & Schwartz, 1997)	District level:Provide professional development to school personnel related to self-advocacy/self-determination instructionEnsure schools are including students in the IEP/transition planning processEnsure variety of self-determination/self-advocacy curricula are available and being used across district	District level:Assess student active participation in IEP/transition planning meetings across districtIndicator 13 dataAssess use of self-determination/self-advocacy curricula and practices used across district
		School level:Provide self-advocacy/self-determination instruction using EBPs and published curricula (e.g., Who’s future is it anyway?, self-directed IEP)Ensure students are actively participating in the transition planning process (e.g., attending/talking during IEP/transition planning meetings, participating in transition assessment, advocating for accommodations)Self-determination skill instruction (i.e., goal setting, choice making, problem solving, self-evaluation/management) is provided to all students in both general and special education curriculumEnsure self-determination assessments are being conducted and used	School level:Use self-determination assessments to evaluate students’ level of self-determinationMonitor student participation in IEP/transition planning meetings
Self-care/independent living	Curricula that include self-care/independent living skills ensure students with disabilities exit high school with skills necessary to fully participate in postschool life (e.g., responsibility skills, community integration skills, residential independence, self-care skills, purchasing skills; Blackorby et al., 1993; Heal & Rusch, 1994; Roessler, Brolin, & Johnson, 1990).	District level:Include self-care/independent living skill training in programs of studyProvide options for schools to provide CBI to promote self-care/independent living skill development	District level:Assess types of CBI being provided across districtIndicator 13 dataIndicator 14 data
		School level:Embed self-care/independent living skills with academic skills across school settingsProvide instruction on self-care/independent living skill training (e.g., transportation, personal finance/budgeting, self-care, daily household maintenance, food preparation, hygiene skills) in school-based and community-based settingsUse community mapping to identify resources and services available to students in the communityEnsure independent living assessments are being conducted and used (Test et al., 2006)	School level:Use progress monitoring (e.g., task analysis) during simulated and CBI to ensure students are mastering self-care/independent living skillsIndependent living skills assessment data
Social skills	Social skills training provides students with the social competence and skills necessary to successfully participate in postschool life (Benz et al., 1997; Halpern et al., 1995; Roessler et al., 1990)	District level:Provide professional development to school personnel related to teaching social skills and embedding social skills across the curriculumEnsure variety of social skill instructional practices and curricula are available and being used across district	District level:Assess use of social skills curricula and practices used across district
		School level:Embed social skill instruction with academic content across general and special education courseworkProvide opportunities to practice appropriate social skills in school and community settingsUse peer-mediated instruction to teach social skills when necessaryConduct transition assessments related to social skills (Test et al., 2006)	School level:Use transition assessment related to social skills to determine student skill developmentUse progress monitoring to assess social skills (e.g., task analysis, ecological evaluation) across school and community environments
Student support	Refers to the support system/network (e.g., family, friends) students have as they move from high school into postschool life to help facilitate employment, education, and independent living opportunities (Doren & Benz, 1998; Halpern et al., 1995; Heal, Khoju, Rusch, & Harnisch, 1999; Roessler et al., 1990)	District level:Involve families in interagency work groupsIdentify and implement models (e.g., Check and Connect) for developing support networks across district	District level:Assess parent perspectives as members of interagency work groupsAssess use of student support models across district
		School level:Develop strategies for involving friends and families in the transition planning processEnsure families and friends are active participants in the transition planning process	School level:Assess family and friend involvement in transition planning process
Transition program	Refers to a comprehensive program that includes all necessary instructional and service components involved in the transition planning process to help students attain postschool employment, education, and independent living goals (Benz et al., 2000; Halpern et al., 1995; Repetto et al., 2002)	District level:Identify and implement transition program models (e.g., Youth Transition Program) for students with disabilities across districtEnsure school personnel have necessary training and support to provide transition servicesDevelop interagency agreements	District level:Indicator 1 dataIndicator 2 dataIndicator 13 dataIndicator 14 data
		School level:Provide instruction and transition services related to students postschool goalsIdentify appropriate course of study to facilitate movement towards postschool goalsConduct ongoing transition assessments in all areas to identify students strengths, preferences, and needs	School level:Use transition assessment data to guide the transition planning processMonitor student progress to ensure student success in specific course of studyUse progress monitoring to assess student academic and functional performance
Vocational education	Coursework that focuses on preparing students with career/vocational skills (e.g., completing applications, job training, career-technical education) to promote future postschool education and employment success (Baer et al., 2003; Halpern et al., 1995; Harvey, 2002; Heal & Rusch, 1995; Leonard et al., 1999)	District level:Include vocational coursework across curriculaProvide opportunities for schools to include students with disabilities in vocational coursework	District level:Assess number of students with disabilities participating in vocational education courseworkEvaluate vocational education content to ensure students with disabilities have access
		School level:Include vocational coursework as part of the student’s IEPDevelop intra-agency relationships with school personnel involved in providing vocational skill training (e.g., career/technical education)	School level:Use transition assessment data related to vocational skills to develop IEP/postschool goals and transition servicesCollaborate with school personnel to gather data on student performance during vocational skill training
Work study	School program offered in most school districts that provides students the opportunity to take coursework on campus for part of the day and the rest of the day working for pay or credit hours (Baer et al., 2003; Fabian, Lent, & Willis, 1998; Luecking & Fabian, 2000)	District level:Include work study as part of the curriculumDevelop interagency agreements that ensure job coaches are available for students	District level:Evaluate types of work study programs implemented across district
		School level:Develop relationships with community employers to facilitate work study options for studentsConduct transition assessments (e.g., ecological assessments) at work sitesUse job coaches for students that may need employment support	School level:Use transition assessment data to make decisions related to postschool employment goalsEnsure job coaches are progress monitoring (e.g., task analysis) student performance on the job

Note. CBI = community-based instruction; IEP = individualized education program; LRE = least restrictive environment; IAC = interagency collaboration; EBP = evidence-based practice. See Test, Mazzotti, et al. (2009) or go to http://www.nsttac.org/content/predictor-resources for research support and additional information related to the predictors.

In addition, EBPs and predictors of postschool success can be used in combination to enhance secondary transition programs. As mentioned previously, EBPs provide teachers with tools to support skill development, including the development of IEP goals and objectives. The evidence-based predictors can help IEP teams design transition services/activities that align with postschool goals to help students achieve those goals. For example, consider the previous example of Mr. Bishop and his student Jasmine. Jasmine’s independent living postschool goal stated, “After high school, Jasmine will live semi-independently with a roommate in an apartment with supports provided through Disability Services.” To increase the likelihood of Jasmine attaining this postschool independent living goal, her IEP might reflect transition services related to the community experiences predictor (e.g., travel training, banking skills, visit local apartment communities) and self-care/independent living predictor (e.g., leisure skills, community recreational opportunities). If Jasmine has a postschool education goal that states, “After graduation from high school, Jasmine will attend the local community college and take classes to obtain certification to be a nurse’s assistant,” to increase the likelihood of Jasmine attaining this postschool education goal, her IEP might reflect transition services/activities related to the self-advocacy/self-determination predictor (e.g., disability awareness instruction, self-advocacy training) and the community experiences predictor (e.g., visit local community college, meet with Office of Disability Services). For a postschool employment goal, consider the following: “After graduation from high school, Jasmine will work part-time at a local doctor’s office.” To increase the likelihood of Jasmine attaining the postschool employment goal, her IEP might reflect transition services/activities related to the career awareness (e.g., job-search skills, interview skills), work study (e.g., internships, job shadowing), and vocational education (e.g., first aid/CPR training) predictors. After transition services/activities have been determined, the IEP goal(s) can be developed and might include one or more of the EBPs described above. By developing transition services/activities and IEP goals that reflect the EBPs and predictors, secondary students with disabilities are more likely to attain postschool success.

Implications for Policymakers

Identifying and implementing EBPs and predictors in schools and classrooms result in a variety of implications for policymakers. The following section describes implications at the federal, state, and local levels based on NSTTAC’s EBPs and predictors.

Federal Implications

Although NCLB (2001) and IDEA (2004) encouraged use of scientifically based research or EBPs in classrooms, this legislation was only a first step in helping close the research-to-practice gap (Greenwood & Abbott, 2001; Slavin, 2002). The following section provides four actions that can be taken at the federal level, including emphasizing the “secondary transition” Part B indicators, encouraging research, funding personnel preparation programs, and creating new legislation.

First, federal policymakers must continue to include I-13 as a compliance indicator (i.e., must be at 100%) but require reporting the transition indicators (i.e., 1, 2, 13, and 14) as a single item. Doing so would encourage states to recognize the connection between the activities for improving their graduation rates, reducing dropout rates, writing compliant IEPs, and improving postschool outcomes for all students with disabilities. This recommendation is supported by the findings of a stakeholder policy forum designed to address issues posed by SPP/APR requirements (Ahearn, 2011). Results indicated stakeholders felt that graduation rates and transition from secondary school to employment and/or enrollment in a postsecondary program were some of the most important outcomes for students with disabilities and were recognized as high-priority indicators. In addition, other indicators (e.g., 4, suspension/expulsion rates; 8, parental involvement) also play critical roles in the high school success of students.

Next, federal policymakers must continue to encourage research needed to help build the experimental and correlational evidence base for practices and predictors. If a return to OSEP-funded model demonstration projects (with increased evaluation requirements) is not possible, then the Institute for Education Sciences, National Center for Special Education Research, must be encouraged to make funding research in this area a priority. Some possibilities for research include conducting secondary analyses of the National Longitudinal Transition Study–2 (NLTS2) database to verify and expand NSTTAC’s evidence-based predictors (Test, Mazzotti, et al., 2009), as well as the predictors of in-school success promoted by the NHSC’s Early Warning System (NHSC, 2012). In addition, Test, Fowler, et al. (2009) indicated numerous areas still in need of experimental research, with critical needs in the areas of family involvement and interagency collaboration.

Third, federal policymakers must continue to fund university personnel preparation programs to train secondary transition personnel at the classroom level (e.g., teachers, transition specialists) and administrative level (e.g., local and state directors). Because secondary transition programs at both the state and local level continue to be dependent on single individuals, to ensure transition programs become sustainable, more professionals and teacher educators trained in secondary transition will be needed to ensure the next generation of students are served by highly qualified personnel.

Finally, federal policymakers must create legislation to improve the ability of state and local education agencies to provide quality secondary transition services. The recently proposed TEAM Act (Transition toward Excellence, Achievement, and Mobility; HR602: TEAM-Education Act, 2011) designed to coordinate schools, vocational rehabilitation, and developmental disabilities systems was a potential step in the right direction (see http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr602/text for more information about the TEAM Act). In addition, as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and IDEA are both reauthorized, it is important to consider the role of secondary transition in preparing students to be college and/or career ready in both pieces of legislation, as well as returning the required transition planning age to 14, encouraging interagency collaboration, and removing “training” as a postschool outcome by focusing on education, employment, and, if needed, independent living skills. This will avoid the confusion of whether training is a separate item or could be reasonably assumed to be either education or employment.

State and Local Implications

In addition to federal level implications, the evidence-based secondary transition practices and predictors have implications for state and local education agency policymakers. These include developing sustainable (a) secondary transition programs, (b) professional development systems, and (c) data collection and use systems.

The first thing that state and local policymakers need to do is to develop sustainable secondary transition programs based on EBPs and predictors. To do this, special education can begin to apply lessons coming from the emerging field of implementation science (Fixsen et al., 2005). From this literature, we know the following must occur to ensure EBPs are implemented with high fidelity:

They must be accompanied by coaching (i.e., supporting generalization of skills in school or community-based setting; Joyce & Showers, 2002), which will mean developing regional, district, and/or school-based coaches (i.e., coach models/plans/delivers instruction directly to individual in school or community-based setting) and train-the-trainer models (i.e., individuals receive training on EBPs at a training cite and those individuals then provide the training to others in the school or community-based setting).

There must be an evaluation of the impact of the changes (e.g., student in-school and postschool outcomes), as well as the impact of the training. The NSTTAC Evaluation Toolkit (Kohler, Gothberg, & Coyle, 2011) can provide practitioners with guidance and examples as this recommendation is implemented.

Recognize that implementation, and the resulting increase in student in-school and postschool outcomes, will not occur for 3 to 5 years. Thus, policymakers must realize the short-term costs of starting, or improving high-quality secondary transition programs, must not outweigh the long-term benefit to individuals and society.

Second, while federal personnel preparation dollars have been provided to fund university training programs to produce highly qualified secondary transition personnel, these programs are not enough. States need to create licenses, certificates, and/or endorsements for secondary transition personnel. Without these credentials, there is little incentive for special educators to complete university training programs in secondary transition. Without the professional and/or financial benefits of investing time and money in becoming a highly qualified transition specialist, the field will remain “fragile,” and dependent on one or two experts who, when they leave, take their expertise with them, often requiring state or local programs to “start-over.”

Finally, states and local education agencies must develop systems for using SPP/APR indicator data, as well as other data (e.g., vocational rehabilitation closure data, career-technical education postschool employment data), to improve programs. Some questions to start this process might include the following:

How does your graduation rate compare with your state’s graduation rate?

What districtwide policies and/or procedures contribute to students with disabilities graduating from or dropping out of high school?

Where vocational and career-technical education courses are available, are youth with disabilities enrolling and successfully completing these classes?

How does your district support work-based learning for youth with disabilities while they are in high school (e.g., provide Carnegie unit credit, transportation)?

One tool currently available to help state and local personnel use their Indicator 14 data is the Data Use Toolkit (Alverson, Falls, & Unruh, 2009). This toolkit is designed to help states and local education agencies, and their stakeholders, use postschool outcome data to improve programs for youth with disabilities.

In conclusion, improving college and career-readiness of students with disabilities is an important societal goal. To do this effectively and efficiently, schools have an emerging set of EBPs (Test, Fowler, et al., 2009) and predictors (Test, Mazzotti, et al., 2009) to use as a foundation. However, to build successful transition programs, coordination across policies is needed. That is, to be successful, local education agencies must have federal, state, and local policies that work together to support implementing high-quality transition programs. Only by having coordinated policies will programs that improve postschool outcomes for all students with disabilities be achievable and sustainable.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This document was produced under U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs Grant No. #H326J050004. Dr. Marlene Simon-Burroughs served as the project officer. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the positions and policies of the U.S. Department of Education. No official endorsement by the U.S Department of Education of any product, commodity, service, or enterprise mentioned in this publication is intended or should be inferred.

References

Ahearn

(2011, July). State performance plan process and indicators & policy forum. Alexandria VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education. Retrieved from http://www.projectforum.org/docs/SatePerformacnePlanandProcessIndicators.pdf

Alverson

C. Y.

Falls

Unruh

(2009). Data use toolkit: Preparing and sharing state post-school outcomes. Retrieved from http://profiles.psocetner.org/conent_page_assets/content_page_11/sharing_state_pso.pdf

Baer

R. M.

Flexer

R. W.

Beck

Amstutz

Hoffman

Brothers

. . . Zechman

(2003). A collaborative followup study on transition service utilization and post-school outcomes. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 26, 7-25.

Benz

M. R.

Lindstrom

Yovanoff

(2000). Improving graduation and employment outcomes of students with disabilities: Predictive factors and student perspectives. Exceptional Children, 66, 509–541.

Benz

M. R.

Yovanoff

Doren

(1997). School-to-work components that predict postschool success for students with and without disabilities. Exceptional Children, 63, 151–165.

Blackorby

Hancock

G. R.

Siegel

(1993). Human capital and structural explanations of post-school success for youth with disabilities: A latent variable exploration of the National Longitudinal Transition Study. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

Bullis

Davis

Bull

Johnson

(1995). Transition achievement among young adults with deafness: What variables relate to success? Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 39, 130–150.

Doren

Benz

M. R.

(1998). Employment inequality revisited: Predictors of better employment outcomes for young women with disabilities in transition. Journal of Special Education, 31, 425–442.

Fabian

Lent

Willis

(1998). Predicting work transition outcomes for students with disabilities: Implications for counselors. Journal of Counseling & Development, 76, 311–316.

10.

Fixsen

D. L.

Naoom

S. F.

Blasé

K. A.

Friedman

R. M.

Wallace

(2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Florida: University of South Florida.

11.

Fourqurean

J. M.

Meisgeier

Swank

P. R.

Williams

R. E.

(1991). Correlates of postsecondary employment outcomes for young adults with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 400–405.

12.

Greenwood

C. R.

Abbott

(2001). The research to practice gap in special education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 24, 276–289. doi:10.1177/088840640102400403

13.

Halpern

A. S.

Yovanoff

Doren

Benz

M. R.

(1995). Predicting participation in postsecondary education for school leavers with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 62, 151–164.

14.

Harvey

M. W.

(2002). Comparison and postsecondary transitional outcomes between students with and without disabilities by secondary vocational education participation: Findings from the National Education Longitudinal Study. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 25, 99–122.

15.

Heal

L. W.

Khoju

Rusch

F. R.

(1997). Predicting quality of life of youths after they leave special education high school programs. Journal of Special Education, 31, 279–299.

16.

Heal

L. W.

Khoju

Rusch

F. R.

Harnisch

D. L.

(1999). Predicting quality of life of students who have left special education high school programs. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 104, 305–319.

17.

Heal

L. W.

Rusch

F. R.

(1994). Prediction of residential independence of special education high school students. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 15, 223–243.

18.

Heal

L. W.

Rusch

F. R.

(1995). Predicting employment for students who leave special education high school programs. Exceptional Children, 61, 472–487.

19.

HR602: TEAM-Education Act of 2011, 112th Cong. (2011) (Introduced).

20.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, P.L. No. 108-446, 20 U.S.C.

21.

Joyce

Showers

(2002). Student achievement through staff development (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

22.

Kazmowski

(2004). Slow learners: Are educators leaving them behind? NASSP Bulletin, 88, 31–45.

23.

Kohler

P. D.

(1993). Best practices in transition: Substantiated or implied? Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 16, 107–121.

24.

Kohler

P. D.

(1996). A taxonomy for transition programming: Linking research and practice. Champaign, IL: Transition Research Institute, University of Illinois.

25.

Kohler

P. D.

DeStefano

Wermuth

T. R.

Grayson

T. E.

McGinty

(1994). An analysis of exemplary transition programs: How and why are they selected? Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 17, 187–202.

26.

Kohler

P. D.

Field

(2003). Transition-focused education: Foundation for the future. Journal of Special Education, 37, 174–183.

27.

Kohler

P. K.

Gothberg

J. E.

Coyle

J. H.

(2011). NSTTAC evaluation toolkit. Retrieved from http://www.nsttac.org/content/evaluation-toolkit-table-contents

28.

Leonard

D’Allura

Horowitz

(1999). Factors associated with employment among persons who have a vision impairment: A follow-up of vocational placement referrals. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 12, 33–43.

29.

Luecking

R. G.

Fabian

E. S.

(2000). Paid internships and employment success for youth in transition. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 23, 205–221.

30.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. United States Department of Education. Retrieved from http://teachertenure.procon.org/sourcefiles/a-nation-at-risk-tenure-april-1983.pdf

31.

National Governors Association. (2010). P-16 frequently asked questions. Retrieved from http://www.nga.org/files/live/sites/NGA/files/pdf/0506P16FAQ.pdf

32.

National Governors Association. (2011). Common core state standards initiative. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards

33.

National High School Center. (2011). Eight elements of high school improvement: A mapping framework (rev. ed.). Washington, DC: National High School Center at the American Institutes for Research. Retrieved from http://www.betterhighschools.com/pubs/documents/EightElementsMappingFramework.pdf

34.

National High School Center. (2012). Early warning system high school tool. Retrieved from http://betterhighschools.org/EWS_tool.asp

35.

National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center. (2012). What is Indicator 13? Retrieved from http://www.nsttac.org/content/what-indicator-13

36.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. 7801 § 9101 [37] (2001).

37.

Rabren

Dunn

Chambers

(2002). Predictors of post-high school employment among young adults with disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 25, 25–40.

38.

Repetto

J. B.

Webb

K. W.

Garvan

C. W.

Washington

(2002). Connecting student outcomes with transition practices in Florida. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 25, 123–139.

39.

Roessler

R. T.

Brolin

D. E.

Johnson

J. M.

(1990). Factors affecting employment success and quality of life: A one year follow-up of students in special education. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 13, 95–107.

40.

Rusch

F. R.

Kohler

P. D.

Hughes

(1992). An analysis of OSERS-sponsored secondary special education and transitional services research. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 15, 121–143.

41.

Shandra

C. L.

Hogan

D. P.

(2008). School-to-work program participation and the post-high school employment of young adults with disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 29, 117–130.

42.

Slavin

R. E.

(2002). Evidence-based education policies: Transforming educational practice and research. Educational Researcher, 31, 15–21.

43.

Test

D. W.

Aspel

Everson

(2006). Transition methods for youth with disabilities (1st ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

44.

Test

D. W.

Fowler

C. H.

Richter

White

J. A.

Mazzotti

V. L.

Walker

A. R.

Kortering

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

45.

Test

D. W.

Mazzotti

V. L.

Mustian

A. L.

(2012). Leadership for transition to post-secondary settings. In Crockett

Billingsley

B. S.

Boscardin

M. L.

(Eds.), The handbook of leadership and administration for special education. New York, NY: Routledge.

46.

Test

D. W.

Mazzotti

V. L.

Mustian

A. L.

Fowler

C. H.

Kortering

L. J.

Kohler

P. H.

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

47.

Test

D. W.

Toms

O. M.

Scroggins

L. C.

Fowler

C. H.

(2011). Tool for high school redesign and secondary transition planning for students with disabilities: 101. Retrieved from http://nsttac.org/content/students-w-disabilities-and-collegecareer-readiness-101-documents

48.

United States Department of Education. (2008). A nation accountable: Twenty-five years after a nation at risk. Washington, DC: Author.

49.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Schwartz

(1997). Self-determination and positive adult outcomes: A follow-up study of youth with mental retardation or learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 63, 245–255.

50.

White

Weiner

J. S.

(2004). Influence of least restrictive environment and community based training on integrated employment outcomes for transitioning students with severe disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 21, 149–156.

51.

The White House. (2009). Race to the Top fact sheet. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/fact-sheet-race-top