Is College and Career Readiness Adequately Addressed in Annual and Postsecondary Goals?

Abstract

In current special education law, the individualized education program (IEP) addresses the transition to adult life by mandating goal statements be written in employment, postsecondary education, and sometimes independent living. Although these broad areas encompass quality of life for adults with disabilities, they are not necessarily aligned with broader general education policies in college and career readiness (CCR). The current study addresses this disconnect by examining extant data consisting of IEP annual and postsecondary goals in the context of an organizing framework of CCR. IEP goals were coded for the presence of six domains of CCR: (a) academic engagement, (b) mindsets, (c) learning processes, (d) critical thinking, (e) interpersonal engagement, and (f) transition competencies. Findings illustrate the promise of a potential strategy to incorporate CCR into IEP goals. Implications for educators are discussed.

Keywords

college and career readiness individualized education program (IEP)transition school reform/restructuring policy

For more than a decade, the individualized education programs (IEPs) of students with disabilities who are transition aged (e.g., 16 years or older) have included both annual goals and postsecondary goal statements. In particular, postsecondary goals are required to incorporate employment and postsecondary education and training and may also address independent living (Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act [IDEA], 2004). Although these three broad areas encompass important considerations surrounding the quality of adult life for all people, with or without disabilities, employment, postsecondary education, and training or independent living are not necessarily connected with current policy initiatives in general education. For example, the recent college and career readiness (CCR) movement stems from general education policy. The majority of states have prioritized CCR to some extent in general education (Mishkind, 2014), whether it be with the adoption of the Common Core State Standards (National Governors Association & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010), the development and endorsement of a separate set of CCR standards (e.g., Texas, Indiana), or by expanding the CCR definition to include nonacademic factors that are not necessarily captured by the academic standards of the Common Core (Conley, 2010; Farrington et al., 2012).

Despite this growing and evolving movement, CCR is not required or explicitly addressed within IEP goals as governed by the IDEA. In other words, IEP team members have to take the initiative to embed CCR features into either annual or postsecondary goals. Even with those motivated, there is no monitoring and compliance of this occurrence. As such, IEP goals may be compliant with special education law and policy but are not necessarily related to the CCR definitions that are applied to all students.

In an effort to bridge transition services with broader CCR initiatives, Morningstar, Lombardi, Fowler, and Test (2017) recently developed an organizing framework of CCR intended for secondary students with disabilities. The framework is based on an infusion of several established CCR models in general education research and was further developed with input from state-level transition leaders (Morningstar et al., 2017). The purpose of this study is to apply this organizing framework to IEP goal statements to explore a potential strategy focused on integrating CCR into secondary transition. To this end, IEP annual and postsecondary goals were reviewed and coded for the presence of the six CCR domains across and within disability categories. As such, findings illustrate the potential of applying the CCR framework to IEP annual and postsecondary goals, an exploratory process that may inform the field of next steps to consider in future larger scale research studies that examine alignment between the IEP and broader CCR initiatives.

The Evolution of the Standards-Based IEP

The IEP is considered a cornerstone of the IDEA (Yell, 2016) with a primary purpose to ensure a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) for students with disabilities. Over the years, debate ensued on the meaning of FAPE, particularly the term “appropriate” (Yell, 2016). In Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, the Supreme Court developed what became known as the Rowley standard. Under this standard, “appropriate” was tied in with a two-part test consisting of compliance with the procedural aspects of the act and “an individualized education program . . . reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits” (Rowley, 1982, pp. 206–207). Over time, this benefit has been interpreted narrowly as more than a trivial benefit, but not precisely as a significant benefit (Bateman & Linden, 2006). Although the least restrictive environment explicitly suggests that the first preference for setting is the general education classroom, the reasonable benefit under Rowley might have led to an education that did not provide for ideal quality (IDEA, 20 U.S.C. § 1412 (a)(5); Yell, 2016). The 2004 amendments of IDEA increased some of the standards of special education, such as the need to support students in the general education curriculum and include them in large-scale assessments (Bateman & Linden, 2006; IDEA, 20 U.S.C. § 1414 (d)(1)(A)(i)(I)(aa); IDEA, 20 U.S.C. § 1414 (d)(1)(A)(i)(VIII)(aa); IDEA, 20 U.S.C. § 1412 (a)(16)). These efforts continued in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA; commonly known as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001), which is now the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). In fact, when IDEA was amended in 2004, there was a stronger connection made between special education with general education (Yell, 2016).

As alignment between general education and special education policy increased under NCLB (2001) and IDEA (2004), and now ESSA (2015), schools were asked to ensure the access of students with disabilities to the general education curriculum. This led to the introduction of standards-based IEPs, which connect IEP goals with grade-level standards (Holbrook, 2007). In a guidance letter, Yudin and Musgrove (2015) suggest using standards-based IEPs to strengthen the provision of FAPE for students with disabilities by increasing their access to the general education curriculum (34 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) section 300.320(a)(1)(i) cited by Yudin & Musgrove, DOE Guidelines; 11/16/15). In addition, Yudin and Musgrove (2015) connect CCR in both general and special education to the important role of IEP goals in providing FAPE. As the interpretation of FAPE continues to evolve, and as CCR initiatives continue to persist, the IEP will play a crucial role in ensuring students with disabilities have access to CCR programs, services, and opportunities.

With regard to transition, the IEP has specific requirements to ensure that IEP teams will help students prepare for adult life. The annual and postsecondary goals of the IEP are an example of how these requirements are carried out. Prior research focused on increasing the compliance of teachers in the development of appropriate and measurable postsecondary goals (Finn & Kohler, 2009; Landmark & Zhang, 2012) and annual goals (Flannery, Lombardi, & Kato, 2015), which is required under the IDEA regulations (IDEA, 20 U.S.C. § 1414 (d)(1)(A)(i)(VIII)(aa)). In addition, through provision of resources and capacity building mechanisms, the National Technical Assistance Center on Transition (NTACT) diligently worked to increase compliance (Finn & Kohler, 2009). Although compliance is important and foundational, it is also critical to differentiate compliance from the quality of IEP goals. In other words, a compliant goal is not necessarily a quality goal.

Recent findings show that targeted, ongoing professional development (PD) for special educators who write IEPs can be effective in ensuring goals are not only compliant but also of quality (Doren, Flannery, Lombardi, & Kato, 2013; Flannery & Hellemn, 2015; Flannery et al., 2015). In these studies, “quality” is defined as aligning the various components of the IEP, and increasing clarity and specificity, to name a few. Indeed, this definition of quality could be moved one step further by focusing on the alignment of IEP goal content with relevant educational reform initiatives, such as the current CCR policy movement. In other words, we propose that quality annual and postsecondary goals are those that are not only compliant but also aligned with each other, and embed features of CCR models and definitions.

Embedding College and Career Readiness Into IEP Goals

Little is known about the alignment of the IEP with broader definitions of CCR. This phenomenon may be due in part to the multiple and evolving definitions of CCR that exist in today’s policy climate. For example, the two sources of data that continue to be the most utilized in measuring CCR are high school grade point average and college admissions exam scores (e.g., SAT, ACT). These are primarily academic measures, not necessarily well aligned with the expectations of college instructors (Brown & Conley, 2007). At the same time, multiple researchers propose the expansion of CCR to include nonacademic indicators that map onto constructs such as social and emotional learning (Dymnicki, Sambolt, & Kidron, 2013), key cognitive strategies that span across disciplines (Conley, 2010; Lombardi, Conley, Seburn, & Downs, 2013), organization, time management, and learning strategies (Farrington et al., 2012). Coupled with school climate researchers that emphasize safety and connectedness (Bradshaw, Waasdorp, Debnam, & Johnson, 2014) and the secondary special education literature base (Kohler, 1996; Mazzotti, Rowe, Cameto, Test, & Morningstar, 2013), the general consensus among researchers is that CCR expands well beyond the academic indicators that are currently used to measure it. Despite this consensus, systematic processes to measure nonacademic CCR skills remain the exception rather than the rule.

With these various CCR models in mind, Morningstar and colleagues (2017) developed an organizing framework of CCR for secondary students with disabilities that includes academic and nonacademic domains: (a) academic engagement, (b) mindsets, (c) learning processes, (d) critical thinking, (e) interpersonal engagement, and (f) transition competencies. The organizing framework was developed from a synthesis of extant research on CCR outside of the special education literature base, as well as an iterative process of focus group data analysis and refinement to the framework (Morningstar et al., 2017). The focus groups were conducted with state-level stakeholders with expertise in CCR, dropout prevention, and secondary transition. Through this process, the six domains were developed and refined. Each of these domains will now be described.

Academic Engagement

Academic engagement includes three subdomains: (a) content knowledge, (b) knowledge structures, and (c) engagement. The content knowledge subdomain represents the cognitive and content knowledge defined by a general education core curriculum across multiple subject areas, including language arts, math, science, social studies (Conley, 2010), and career and technical education (Morningstar et al., 2017). Knowledge structures is connected with a student’s ability to link ideas, facts, concepts, to comprehend the content more thoroughly (Conley, 2010). Finally, this domain focuses on the behaviors in the classroom that enhance the student’s ability to learn (Fredricks et al., 2011), including attendance, participation, and productivity (e.g., work habits, homework completion).

Mindsets

This domain includes (a) sense of belonging, (b) growth, (c) ownership of learning, and (d) perseverance (e.g., grit). Sense of belonging encompasses students’ identification with and connection to the school community and environment so that they feel supported when attempting to grow, take risks, and persist in the face of obstacles. A sense of belonging increases the confidence to build relationships (e.g., peer-to-peer relationships, peer-to-adult relationships), and also includes a student’s participation in extracurricular activities (Morningstar et al., 2017). The growth mindset subdomain emphasizes that students should be given opportunities to practice and experience failure to respond, learn from mistakes, and make progress (Dweck, 2008). The two remaining subdomains focus on the student’s inner response to their environment. Ownership of learning considers how students feel about their abilities and efforts (self-efficacy) and what they do to make adjustments (self-monitoring, goal-setting), including self-determination (Wehmeyer, 2013). Perseverance includes persistence, effort, motivation, resilience, and grit, essentially persisting through difficult tasks (Duckworth & Seligman, 2005). Recent evidence shows the perseverance construct is predictive of grade point average in high school students, with and without disabilities (Lombardi, Rifenbark, & Freeman, 2017). Thus, although mindset is more nonacademic by definition, there is substantial evidence to show there is a meaningful relationship with academic performance.

Learning Processes

Learning processes is divided into two subdomains that focus on the use of different tools to access learning: (a) accessing content and (b) engaging in learning. Accessing content requires the use of tools or strategies that might remove barriers in content academics (Deshler et al., 2001). This might include exam and instructional accommodations as well as study strategies (e.g., test-taking skills, note-taking skills, organizational skills, time management skills) and specific tools (e.g., calculator). Engaging in learning focuses on accessing content, but occurs with peers in a group. Thus, the interaction with peers is a “tool” in the same way as other study strategies; students use group collaboration on projects, activities, and in learning new materials as a means to access content (Farrington et al., 2012).

Critical Thinking

This domain is based on five key cognitive strategies related to postsecondary education and academic success (Lombardi et al., 2013), which are (a) problem solving, (b) research, (c), interpretation, (d) communication, and (e) precision/accuracy. Problem solving includes hypothesizing and strategizing potential solutions to a problem. Research is the process of identifying and collecting sources (e.g., data, evidence), which might include career exploration. Interpretation is the process of analyzing sources, locating patterns and trends, and synthesizing to make meaning. Communication is the relating of synthesized information to others across various forms (e.g., written, oral presentation). Precision/accuracy emphasizes the confirmation (e.g., check for spelling, grammar) and revision (e.g., write multiple drafts) throughout the process (Conley, 2010).

Interpersonal Engagement

This domain focuses on the interactions between individuals and was initially labeled “social skills” to emphasize what is required to socially interact with others. For example, Gresham, Sugai, and Horner (2001) define social skills as “ . . . specific behaviors that an individual uses to perform competently or successfully on particular social tasks (e.g, starting a conversation, giving a compliment . . . )” (p. 333). The domain was then expanded to include other types of interactions (e.g., with self, with others), as well as a broad sense of understanding others (e.g., empathy). These skills incorporate expectations of adult workplace and in postsecondary settings (Morningstar et al., 2017) that are not just academic in nature.

Transition Competencies

This domain encompasses the skills suggested for employment and postsecondary education as defined by the secondary special education field (e.g., Kohler, 1996; Mazzotti et al., 2013). The specific subdomains are (a) early planning, (b) career culture, (c) college culture, and (d) adult roles and responsibilities. As was found in the focus group results in the Morningstar and colleagues (2017) study, the culture involved in these settings is paramount (e.g., workplace professionalism, postsecondary faculty expectations). This domain also includes the expectations adults have with independent living, financial responsibility, health, and well-being

As described above, each of the six domains includes specified subdomains meant to operationally define the organizing framework. In Table 1, the subdomains are listed beneath the appropriate domain and followed by bulleted description that summarizes the operational definitions developed by Morningstar and colleagues (2017). Using this organizing framework of CCR, the current study was conducted as a preliminary exploration of the prevalence of the six domains in IEPs of secondary-aged students. Although there are multiple transition components in the IEP, this study examined the application of the framework on the postsecondary goals and annual goals because these two components are written in observable and measureable terms. In particular, postsecondary goals focus on specifying future directions for the student and are required to incorporate employment and postsecondary education and training and may also address independent living (IDEA, 2004). However, the annual goals describe the specific skills the student will learn during the upcoming year. To explore the potential of applying the CCR framework to the IEP, annual and postsecondary goals were reviewed and coded for the presence of the six CCR domains across and within disability categories.

Table 1.

The CCR Organizing Framework.

Academic engagement	Mindsets	Learning processes	Critical thinking	Interpersonal engagement	Transition competencies
Cognitive and content knowledge • Language arts • Math • Science • Social studies • Career and technical education Includes computer software or tech training Knowledge structures • Factual • Linking ideas • Organizing concepts • Challenge level Includes comprehension Behaviors • Attendance • Productivity (early planning) • Work habits • Class Participation • Adaptability/flexibility Includes course completion	Sense of belonging • Trusting relationships: academic and nonacademic • Extracurricular engagement Includes building behaviors that can lead to better relationships Growth mind-set • Opportunities to practice • Learn from mistakes/progress Ownership of learning • Help seeking • Self-awareness • Self-efficacy • Self-monitoring • Goal setting Perseverance • Persistence • Effort • Motivation • Value • Grit/tenacity Must emphasize overcoming obstacles, not just practicing; includes trying to change one’s behavior	Accessing content • Test-taking skills • Note-taking skills • Time management skills • Organizational skills • Technology skills • Metacognition Includes using a calculator as a tool to access content; utilizing an accommodation Engaging in learning • Group/team engagement • Listening and speaking skills • Strategies to incorporate technology into learning Accessing content in a group, such as a study group; people are the “tool” to help access content. Contact with people could be through technology devices or in person	Problem solving • Recognize/formulate problem • Hypothesize • Strategize actions • Research • Identify solutions • Collect data Includes career exploration and searching Interpretation • Analyze • Synthesize Includes comprehension Communication • Organization • Create product (verbal, written, presentation) Includes assignments: writing essays, giving presentations; communication of a product to an audience, not communication with other people (more interpersonal) Precision/accuracy • Monitor progress • Confirm results • Apply solutions to new situations Transferability/generalization Includes revising work, managing time; grammar, spelling, and mechanics of writing	With self • Responsibility • Adaptability With others • Assertion • Accountability • Leadership • Collaboration Could be through a study group Understanding others • Social awareness • Empathy • Tolerance	Early planning • Career interests/goals tied to interests • Managing application and interview processes • Financial planning Includes goals that describe individual and environmental fit that is tested or tried out before end of high school Career culture • Professionalism • Knowledge of career resources Includes employer expectations, workplace fit College culture • Campus resources • Program of study • Faculty expectations Includes vocational certificate programs and any type of postsecondary training, and campus living Adult roles/responsibilities • Financial literacy • Accessing community resources • Health and wellness • Advocating supports and accommodations • Transportation • Adult living Includes community membership, civic engagement

Source. Morningstar, Lombardi, Fowler, and Test (2017).

Note. Further clarification of domain/subdomain intent in the coding matrix is shown in italics. These clarifications were made as part of the current study. CCR = college and career readiness.

Method

Participants

In this study, extant data of IEP goals were utilized. The IEP goals were collected over multiple years from one cohort of secondary special education teachers who participated in a PD research project (for full study details, see Flannery et al., 2015). The cohort included eight secondary special education teachers from four schools within three districts in the Pacific Northwest. Among the teachers, the mean number of years of case managing IEPs was 11 (SD = 13.1 years, minimum number of years = 0, maximum number of years = 39). Overall, 86 student IEPs were collected and represented the following disability categories: learning disability (LD; 47%), emotional disturbance (ED; 27%), autism spectrum disorder (ASD; 20%), intellectual disability (ID; 14%), other health impairment (5%), communication disorder (2%), hearing impairment (1%), and orthopedic impairment (1%). Of the 86 students, 14 (16%) had multiple disabilities and were counted in two categories.

Procedures

Over the course of the study between 2008 and 2011, IEP annual and postsecondary goals were collected from teachers at three points in time throughout the PD intervention. At each time point, goals were collected from different students. In other words, goals were not tracked for the same students across multiple time points. The PD focused on the requirements of writing compliant postsecondary goals in employment, postsecondary education, and independent living, as well as writing quality goals that were aligned with each other (e.g., annual goals related to postsecondary goals). This was in line with the requirement under IDEA that after a student turns 16, IEPs include “appropriate and measureable postsecondary goals based upon age appropriate transition assessments related to training, education, employment, and, where appropriate, independent living skills” (IDEA, 20 U.S.C. § 1414 (d)(1)(A)(i)(VIII)(aa)).

In the current study, we examined these IEP goals (both annual and postsecondary) through the CCR lens. To that end, we used the organizing framework of Morningstar et al. (2017) as a coding matrix. We did not change the CCR domains or subdomains but did clarify the intent of the domain when questions arose. See Table 1 for the organizing framework and any clarification of intent (italicized in the table).

Interobserver Agreement (IOA)

Several rounds of independent coding were conducted throughout the study. With each round, we examined IOA by looking at disagreement, and identified language that needed to be clarified within the coding matrix. For example, for critical thinking under communication, we noted that this subdomain was intended to cover assignments (academic content) and not for communication between people (which was more appropriate under interpersonal skills), and for engagement under cognitive and content knowledge, we noted that the intent of this domain in capturing content knowledge also includes the use of computer software and technology training as a content area. The clarifications are included in Table 1 in italicized font.

As the IEP goals were extant data and were not necessarily designed to align with CCR, it was critical to establish IOA throughout the rounds of coding. To do this, IOA was calculated by comparing each independently coded goal in every category as either agreed or not agreed. We then tallied the overall agreements for the construct subdomain and determined the overall percentage of agreement per subdomain using a stringent, exact count-per-interval IOA (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007). We calculated the average agreement using the percentage of agreement of each of the subdomains of the constructs to determine an overall average of agreement. Two of the authors were coders in this project (a professor who was one of co-authors of the CCR organizing framework alongside Morningstar and a doctoral student in special education). After meeting to code 20 goals together in a pilot round, each of five rounds were coded independently: Round 1 included 23 goals, Round 2 included 11 goals, Round 3 included 21 goals, Round 4 included 103 goals, and Round 5 included 160 goals (338 total goals). After each round, IOA was calculated and disagreements were addressed. From the beginning of the process, it was possible for goals to be coded as fitting into multiple CCR domains.

Results

IOA Results

Overall, IOA results were strong and increased in accuracy across coding. For the domains, the majority of individual IOA categories were above 80% (29/30 or 97%). For the subdomains, Round 1 ranged from 70% to 100%, Round 2 ranged from 64% to 100%, Round 3 ranged from 71% to 100%, Round 4 ranged from 81% to 95%, and Round 5 ranged from 84% to 96%. See the appendix for the complete IOA results by domain and subdomain. The average percentage of IOA across the five rounds ranged as academic engagement, 87% to 92%; critical thinking, 83% to 90%; mind-set, 82% to 98%; learning processes, 79% to 98%; interpersonal engagement, 85% to 94%; and transition competencies, 85% to 94%. After each round, coders met to discuss disagreements to obtain 100% agreement across categories. After the IEP goals were coded, frequencies and percentages were examined by CCR domain and subdomain. The overall goals were examined, as well as annual and postsecondary goals. Finally, this same process was followed to examine the frequencies and percentages of goals by select disability categories.

Overall IEP Results

Overall, 338 goals for 86 students across eight teachers were coded. Of the 338 total goals, 252 (75%) were annual goals and 86 (25%) were postsecondary goals. By domain, the mean percentage of goals represented was highest for transition knowledge (26%) and lowest for learning processes (7%). Table 2 shows the overall results for annual and postsecondary goals.

Table 2.

Frequency and Percentage of IEP Goals by CCR Domain and Subdomain.

Domain	Overall (n = 338)		Annual goals (n = 252)		Postsecondary goals (n = 86)
Domain	n	%	n	%	n	%
Academic engagement
Cognitive and content knowledge	134	40	131	52	3	3
Knowledge structures	50	15	50	20	0	0
Behaviors	46	14	46	18	0	0
Mindsets
Sense of belonging	20	6	18	7	2	2
Growth mind-set	50	15	49	19	1	1
Ownership of learning	69	20	60	24	9	10
Perseverance	39	12	37	15	2	2
Learning processes
Accessing content	41	12	40	16	1	1
Engaging in learning	9	3	9	4	0	0
Critical thinking
Problem solving	44	13	44	17	0	0
Research	40	12	35	14	5	6
Interpretation	86	25	84	33	2	2
Communication	62	18	62	25	0	0
Precision/accuracy	93	28	93	37	0	0
Interpersonal engagement
With self	63	19	58	23	5	6
With others	58	17	54	21	4	5
Understanding others	30	9	28	11	2	2
Transition competencies
Early planning	76	22	52	21	24	28
Career culture	122	36	40	16	82	95
College culture	62	18	9	4	53	62
Adult roles/responsibilities	85	25	40	16	45	52

Note. IEP = individualized education program; CCR = college and career readiness.

In all, of the CCR subdomains, cognitive and content knowledge was the most represented in the sample of both types of IEP goals (annual and postsecondary). Of the 338, 134 (40%) were coded as cognitive and content knowledge. The second highest subdomain represented was career culture with 122 (36%) goals. The subdomain with the least representation in the IEP goals was engaging in learning. Of the 338 goals, nine (3%) were coded as engaging in learning. The second lowest was sense of belonging with 20 goals (6%).

Annual Goals

In a separate examination of the annual goals, the mean percentage of annual goals represented was highest in the subdomain of academic engagement (30%) and lowest in learning processes (10%). Of the 252 annual goals, cognitive and content knowledge was the most prevalent subdomain (52%), followed by precision/accuracy (37%) and communication (25%), both of which are part of the critical thinking domain. The subdomain with the least representation in annual goals was engaging in learning and college culture, both of which were 4%.

Postsecondary Goals

In a separate examination of the postsecondary goals, the mean percentage of goals represented was highest in the transition competencies domain (59%) and lowest was in both academic engagement and learning processes, both at 1%. Overall, the other three domains (critical thinking, mindsets, interpersonal engagement) were not well represented in the postsecondary goals, which ranged from 2% to 4%. Of the 86 postsecondary goals, career culture was the most prevalent (95%), followed by college culture (62%), both of which are part of the transition competencies domain.

Disability Categories

The IEP goals also were examined for the prevalence of CCR constructs by disability category. Table 3 shows the results. For this analysis, the categories were selected based on the four most prevalent in the sample: LD, ED, ID, and ASD. Overall, we found notable differences by disability category as well as different patterns with regard to representation of the six CCR domains and respective subdomains.

Table 3.

Frequency and Percentage of IEP Goals by CCR Domain and Subdomain for Select Disability Categories.

Domain	Learning disability (n = 155)		Emotional disturbance (n = 84)		Intellectual disability (n = 62)		Autism spectrum disorder (n = 69)
Domain	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Academic engagement
Cognitive and content knowledge	80	52	26	31	19	31	17	25
Knowledge structures	35	23	7	8	4	6	7	10
Behaviors	10	6	24	29	4	6	13	19
Mindsets
Sense of belonging	4	3	9	11	6	10	1	1
Growth mind-set	29	19	8	10	10	16	10	14
Ownership of learning	23	15	23	27	12	19	20	29
Perseverance	16	10	14	17	6	10	6	9
Learning processes
Accessing content	15	10	11	13	5	8	16	23
Engaging in learning	3	2	3	4	1	2	2	3
Critical thinking
Problem solving	28	18	7	8	4	6	5	7
Research	20	13	7	8	6	10	10	14
Interpretation	54	35	13	15	9	15	14	20
Communication	41	26	12	14	3	5	6	9
Precision/accuracy	54	35	18	21	15	24	16	23
Interpersonal engagement
With self	12	8	28	33	14	23	15	22
With others	10	6	24	29	14	23	14	20
Understanding others	7	5	13	15	5	8	7	10
Transition competencies
Early planning	36	23	15	18	14	23	20	29
Career culture	55	35	27	32	23	37	30	43
College culture	32	21	17	20	6	10	11	16
Adult roles/responsibilities	28	18	18	21	31	50	17	25

Note. IEP = individualized education program; CCR = college and career readiness.

For students with LD, the mean percentage of goals represented was highest in cognitive and content knowledge subdomain (52%) in the academic engagement domain, followed by a mean of 35% in interpretation and precision/accuracy within the critical thinking domain, and career culture within transition domain. The subdomain with the least representation in the IEP goals for students with LD was engaging in learning (2%) within the learning processes domain.

For students with ED, the mean percentage of goals was highest in the interpersonal engagement domain (33%), followed by career culture (32%) in the transition competencies domain, and then by cognitive and content knowledge in academic engagement domain (31%). The subdomain that was represented the least in the IEP goals for students with ED was engaging in learning (4%; e.g., learning with a group) within the learning processes domain.

For students with ID, the IEP goals were coded the highest in adult roles and responsibilities (50%), followed by career culture (37%), both of which are in the transition competencies domain. The IEP goals were coded the least in the engaging in learning (2%), a subdomain within learning processes domain. For students with ASD, the IEP goals were coded the highest in the subdomains of career culture (43%), followed by early planning and ownership of learning, both at 29%. The least represented subdomain was sense of belonging (1%) within the mindsets domain.

Discussion

In this exploratory study, IEP annual and postsecondary goals were examined for the presence of six domains of CCR to investigate the extent to which IEP goals reflect CCR initiatives that have been prioritized in general education. Importantly, these results help to illustrate the potential utility of this exploratory strategy, and thus the following interpretations should be carefully considered. In this section, we interpret the results according to goal type (annual and postsecondary) and disability category.

Annual and Postsecondary Goals

The most prevalent subdomains were cognitive and content knowledge and career culture, which represent the academic engagement and transition competencies domains, respectively. However, these subdomains were not equally prevalent in annual and postsecondary goals. Cognitive and content knowledge was mostly represented in annual goals, and career culture was mostly present in postsecondary goals. These findings suggest that academic skills are the focus of many of the annual goals, for the most part, particularly for students with LD. Also, the prevalence of career culture in the IEP postsecondary goals demonstrates the prioritization of employment, which is consistent with Indicator 13 compliance efforts. Overall, this finding demonstrates that special educators prioritize academic learning and career development, specifically focused on school-to-work efforts, and that academic engagement is represented the most in annual goals whereas transition competencies is most represented in postsecondary goals.

The two subdomains with the lowest representation across annual and postsecondary goals were engaging in learning and sense of belonging, which are part of the learning processes and mindsets domains, respectively. Interestingly, both these subdomains have some amount of interaction and relationship building with other peers and adults as part of the definition. This finding suggests that relationship building may not be emphasized in IEP goal statements, which is somewhat ironic given more recent efforts around inclusive education and the importance of getting along with peers and adults. Particularly, sense of belonging is important with regard to dropout prevention. Simply put, if students feel they belong at school, they will be more engaged and less likely to drop out (Farrington et al., 2012; Jimerson, Egeland, Sroufe, & Carlson, 2000). Such a consideration is particularly important in light of students with ED, a subpopulation with the tendency to exhibit problem behaviors and receive discipline referrals, factors that are associated with higher dropout rates (Goldschmidt & Wang, 1999; Lehr, Johnson, Bremer, Cosio, & Thompson, 2004). Students with ED, as well as students with other disabilities, might benefit more from instruction in sense of belonging and engaging in learning. IEP goals that address these domains could prioritize such instruction.

Recently, Feldman, Carter, Asmus, and Brock (2016) found that adolescents with disabilities included in general education classrooms were not typically situated in close enough proximity to engage meaningfully with their peers. Specifically, students with ID or ASD were studied in general education classrooms in high school with a focus on their proximity to their peers without disabilities. Examples of proximity included sitting together (e.g., next to or across a table from) and small-group collaboration on activities or assignments (e.g., project, lab activity). The definition of proximity from Feldman and colleagues is quite similar to the engaging in learning subdomain, which Morningstar and colleagues defined as small-group collaborative efforts by students to help access content in academic courses. The group interaction is, in effect, the “tool” used to access the content. Potentially, our findings contribute to this notion of proximity, as very little of the engaging in learning subdomain was present in the IEP goals. This suggests that prioritizing student interaction in small groups as a means to access content is not considered by teachers who write IEP goals. This type of interaction is key to promoting inclusion in general education content-area courses in high schools, and this skill is important for students to have in postsecondary education and employment settings.

Disability Categories

Across disability categories, some aspects of critical thinking were found in IEP goal statements (e.g., interpretation, precision/accuracy). This finding is promising because students with disabilities tend to have a less rigorous academic curriculum that might promote these skills (Gregg, 2007) and they self report having fewer of these skills (Lombardi, Kowitt, & Staples, 2015). However, our findings showed important patterns related to disability category with regard to the prevalence of the critical thinking domain. As shown in Table 3, IEP goals written for students with LD that included aspects of critical thinking ranged in prevalence from 13% to 35%. Specifically, interpretation and precision/accuracy were the most represented with 35% each, followed by communication at 26%, problem solving at 18%, and at 13%. Research was the least represented in goals for students with LD. These findings are promising in that critical thinking was somewhat represented in IEP goals for students with LD; yet, at the same time, it is troubling it was not well represented in the other disability categories (ED, ID, and ASD). In fact, critical thinking ranged in prevalence across IEPs from 8% to 21% for students with ED, 6% to 24% for students with ID, and 7% to 23% for students with ASD. These data show considerably lower prevalence of the critical thinking domain than for students with LD, which suggests the disability category could be a major influence of case managers when writing IEP goals. These findings are somewhat troubling in light of the more recent increase in postsecondary programs available for students with ID on college campuses (Think College, 2016).

Overall, the findings provide some insight into the prevalence of the CCR domains in IEP goals. Specifically, some domains were well represented (e.g., academic engagement, transition competencies), whereas others were not well represented (e.g., learning processes, mindsets). The domains and subdomains with less prevalence happen to be more focused on inclusion and social interaction between students with and without disabilities. As such, careful consideration of how these domains might be better integrated into IEP goals is a potential next step, and could help IEP goals to move beyond compliance toward quality, and be better aligned with broader CCR initiatives.

Limitations

There are several limitations to consider in the interpretation of the findings. First, the coders integrated some agreed-upon clarifying language in applying the six domains to the IEP goals. In future research studies, this clarifying language should be revisited and reviewed by a broader panel of experts. Despite this limitation, the procedures that were implemented in the current exploratory study reflect best practices in calculating IOA and offer a potential strategy that could be applied in future studies regarding CCR and the IEP. Second, the sample size was limited, and thus, the findings should not be broadly generalized. Instead, the findings should be considered in the design of future studies that could further expand upon this exploratory study. Moreover, those included in the sample did not receive any sort of training in CCR; thus, at best, these results should be interpreted as a baseline. Third, although independent IOA coding was done and independent results were acceptable (the majority were more than 80%, which meets the standard suggested by Cooper et al., 2007), there were only two coders who participated in the coding and the categories with disagreement were ultimately consensus coded to reach 100% agreement. Finally, the unit of analysis in the current study was limited to annual and postsecondary goals recorded on the IEP documents. Closer examination of transition services, although outside the scope of the current study, is important to consider in the design of future studies.

Implications for practice

There is an opportunity to strengthen standards-based IEPs and improve the notion of quality by incorporating the domains of CCR into IEP goals. More recently, researchers suggest standards-based IEPs must be “triangular” in that postsecondary goals, state standards, and industry standards are considered in the process of writing annual goals (Peterson et al., 2013). The triangulated process relies heavily upon connecting the annual goals to academic standards, whether these are state standards or the Common Core, and has been expanded to include nonacademic considerations (Gothberg, Peterson, Peak, & Sedaghat, 2015). Although studies in targeted PD that emphasize writing quality IEP transition goals to ensure quality have occurred (e.g., Blackwell & Rossetti, 2014; Flannery et al., 2015), these efforts have not been expanded to include CCR content. The findings from the current study are useful to consider in the context of the triangulated process, as an additional way to address quality by layering in the CCR considerations. For example, for increasing interpersonal engagement with others might be done in group settings to incorporate the engaging in learning subdomain.

Furthermore, these findings are useful with regard to the notion of quality of IEP goals and the differentiation from compliance. Since IDEA 2004, it has been suggested that “appropriate” in FAPE is perhaps more than a reasonably calculated benefit (Zirkel, 2013). Legal mandates and guidance documents have suggested that aligning the IEP with the general education curriculum is important. As the policy guidance letter links standards-based IEPs to the provision of FAPE (USDOE & OSERS, 2015), quality might suggest more alignment between special and general education. Integrating the CCR domains into the IEP goals helps to further clarify and define a quality IEP goal that incorporates general education mandates into special education. Efforts to include the CCR organizing framework in PD for secondary special educators and in the context of writing IEP goals are an important consideration.

Ultimately, this exploratory study illustrates the potential of applying the CCR organizing framework to current IEP policies and procedures, a process which had not been previously attempted. The findings help to inform the field of next steps in future research studies of a larger scale. This method offers great potential to improve the IEP process so that it is more meaningful for all students with disabilities.

Footnotes

Appendix

IOA by CCR Domain and Subdomain.

Construct	IOA Round 1 (n = 23)	IOA Round 2 (n = 11)	IOA Round 3 (n = 21)	IOA Round 4 (n = 103)	IOA Round 5 (n = 160)
Engagement	87%	91%	89%	90%	92%
Cognitive and content knowledge	96%	91%	95%	95%	96%
Knowledge structures	83%	100%	76%	82%	87%
Behaviors	83%	82%	95%	93%	94%
Critical thinking	90%	91%	83%	86%	87%
Problem solving	83%	100%	81%	86%	85%
Research	100%	100%	95%	89%	90%
Interpretation	91%	91%	71%	81%	84%
Communication	83%	100%	86%	89%	91%
Precision/accuracy	91%	64%	81%	86%	87%
Mind-sets	82%	82%	98%	84%	89%
Sense of belonging	96%	100%	100%	89%	94%
Growth	70%	91%	95%	78%	84%
Own. learning	91%	73%	95%	82%	89%
Perseverance	70%	64%	100%	85%	89%
Learning processes	79%	82%	98%	94%	95%
Accessing content	83%	91%	95%	92%	94%
Engaging in learning	74%	73%	100%	95%	96%
Interpersonal engagement	85%	88%	94%	86%	90%
With self	78%	64%	95%	83%	87%
With others	87%	100%	86%	84%	94%
Understanding others	91%	100%	100%	91%	90%
Transition	85%	93%	93%	90%	94%
Early planning	78%	100%	90%	90%	85%
Career culture	96%	100%	90%	90%	98%
College culture	91%	91%	90%	92%	98%
Adult roles/responsibilities	74%	82%	100%	89%	96%

Note. IOA = interobserver agreement; CCR = college and career readiness.

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 in part by Grant R324B070039 awarded to the College of Education at the University of Oregon by the National Center for Special Education Research within the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), U.S. Department of Education.

References

Bateman

B. B.

Linden

M. A.

(2006). Better IEPs (4th ed.). Verona, WI: Attainment Company.

Blackwell

W. H.

Rossetti

Z. S.

(2014). The development of individualized education programs. SAGE Open, 4(2). doi:10.1177/2158244014530411

Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982).

Bradshaw

C. P.

Waasdorp

T. E.

Debnam

K. J.

Johnson

S. L.

(2014). Measuring school climate in high schools: A focus on safety, engagement, and the environment. Journal of School Health, 84, 593–604.

Brown

R. S.

Conley

D. T.

(2007). Comparing state high school assessments to standards for success in entry-level university courses. Educational Assessment, 12, 137–160.

Conley

D. T.

(2010). College and career ready: Helping all students succeed beyond high school. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Cooper

J. O.

Heron

T. E.

Heward

W. L.

(2007). Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Deshler

D. D.

Schumaker

J. B.

Lenz

K. B.

Bulgren

J. A.

Hock

M. F.

Knight

Ehren

B. J.

(2001). Ensuring content-area learning by secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16, 96–108.

Doren

Flannery

K. B.

Lombardi

A. R.

Kato

(2013). The impact of professional development and student and teacher characteristics on the quality of postsecondary goals. Remedial and Special Education, 34, 215–224.

10.

Duckworth

A. L.

Seligman

M. E.

(2005). Self-discipline outdoes IQ in predicting academic performance of adolescents. Psychological Science, 16, 939–944.

11.

Dweck

C. S.

(2008). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Ballantine Books.

12.

Dymnicki

Sambolt

Kidron

(2013). Improving college and career readiness by incorporating social and emotional learning. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research, College and Career Readiness and Success Center.

13.

Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015, S. 1177 § 1000 et seq.

14.

Farrington

C. A.

Roderick

Allensworth

Nagaoka

Keyes

T. S.

Johnson

D. W.

Beechum

N. O.

(2012). Teaching adolescents to become learners. The role of noncognitive factors in shaping school performance: A critical literature review. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research.

15.

Feldman

Carter

E. W.

Asmus

Brock

M. E.

(2016). Presence, proximity, and peer interactions of adolescents with severe disabilities in general education classrooms. Exceptional Children, 82, 192–208.

16.

Finn

J. E.

Kohler

P. D.

(2009). A compliance evaluation of the Transition Outcomes Project. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32, 17–29.

17.

Flannery

K. B.

Hellemn

L. A.

(2015). Building strategically aligned individualized education programs for transition. The Journal of Special Education, 49, 67–76.

18.

Flannery

K. B.

Lombardi

Kato

M. M.

(2015). The impact of professional development on the quality of the transition components of IEPs. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 38, 14–24.

19.

Fredricks

J. A.

McCloskey

Meli

Mordica

Montrosse

Mooney

(2011). Measuring student engagement in upper elementary through high school: A description of 21 instruments. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

20.

Goldschmidt

Wang

(1999). When can schools affect dropout behavior? A longitudinal multilevel analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 36, 715–738.

21.

Gothberg

J. E.

Peterson

L. Y.

Peak

Sedaghat

J. M.

(2015). Successful transition of students with disabilities to 21st-century college and careers: Using triangulation and gap analysis to address nonacademic skills. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 47, 344–351.

22.

Gregg

(2007). Underserved and unprepared: Postsecondary learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 219–228.

23.

Gresham

F. M.

Sugai

Horner

R. H.

(2001). Interpreting outcomes of social skills training for students with high-incidence disabilities. Exceptional Children, 67, 331–344.

24.

Holbrook

M. D.

(2007). Standards-based individualized education program examples. Project Forum. Retrieved from http://nasdse.org/DesktopModules/DNNspot-Store/ProductFiles/36_a7f577f4-20c9-40bf-be79-54fb510f754f.pdf

25.

Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Regulations, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.

26.

Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(1)(i)

27.

Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act [IDEA], 2004.

28.

Jimerson

S. R.

Egeland

Sroufe

Carlson

(2000). A prospective longitudinal study of high school dropouts: Examining multiple predictors across development. Journal of School Psychology, 38, 525–549.

29.

Kohler

P. D.

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

30.

Landmark

L. J.

Zhang

(2012). Compliance and practices in transition planning: A review of individualized education program documents. Remedial and Special Education, 34, 113–125.

31.

Lehr

C. A.

Johnson

D. R.

Bremer

C. D.

Cosio

Thompson

(2004, May). Essential tools. Increasing rates of school completion: Moving from policy and research to practice. Minneapolis: National Center on Secondary Education and Transition, College of Education and Human Development, University of Minnesota.

32.

Lombardi

A. R.

Conley

D. T.

Seburn

Downs

A. M.

(2013). College and career readiness assessment: Validation of the key cognitive strategies framework. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 38, 163–171.

33.

Lombardi

A. R.

Kowitt

Staples

(2015). Correlates of critical thinking and college and career readiness for secondary students with and without disabilities. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 38, 142–151.

34.

Lombardi

A. R.

Rifenbark

G. G.

Freeman

(2017). Exploring grit in adolescents with and without disabilities. Manuscript submitted for publication.

35.

Mazzotti

V. L.

Rowe

D. A.

Cameto

Test

D. W.

Morningstar

M. E.

(2013). Identifying and promoting transition evidence-based practices and predictors of success: A position paper of the division on career development and transition. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 36, 140–151.

36.

Mishkind

(2014). Definitions of college and career readiness: An analysis by state. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research, College and Career Readiness and Success Center.

37.

Morningstar

Lombardi

Fowler

Test

(2017). A college and career readiness framework for secondary students with disabilities. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 40, 79–91. doi:10.1177/2165143415589926

38.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards. Washington, DC: Author.

39.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB; 2001), 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.

40.

Peterson

L. Y.

Burden

J. P.

Sedaghat

J. M.

Gothberg

J. E.

Kohler

P. D.

Coyle

J. L.

(2013). Triangulated IEP transition goals: Developing relevant and genuine annual goals. Teaching Exceptional Children, 45(6), 46–57.

41.

Think College. (2016). College options for people with intellectual disabilities. Boston, MA: Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts.

42.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

(2013). Beyond pathology: Positive psychology and disability. In Wehmeyer

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of positive psychology and disability (pp. 3–6). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

43.

Yell

M. L.

(2016). The law and special education (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

44.

Yudin

M. K.

Musgrove

(2015). U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. Dear Colleague Letter on Guidance-on-Fape-11-17-2015. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/memosdcltrs/guidance-on-fape-11-17-2015.pdf

45.

Zirkel

P. A.

(2013). Is it time for elevating the standard for FAPE under IDEA? Exceptional Children, 79, 497–508.