Students With Intellectual Disabilities and Career and Technical Education Opportunities: A Systematic Literature Review

Special Education

In the special education system, the individualized education program (IEP) is the cornerstone to service delivery (Yell, 2016). With regard to transition, the IEP has specific requirements to ensure that IEP teams will help students prepare for adult life. IEP transition planning includes the development of postsecondary goals, also known as the “transition” goals, which are one of several required parts of the IEP document once the student reaches age 16. As further specified in IDEA (2004), postsecondary goals must be (a) measureable, (b) stated to occur after high school, (c) age appropriate, and (d) based on student’s interests and preferences (IDEA, 2004, Section 300.320). Furthermore, SWD must have specified goals in two areas: employment and PSE and training. Thus, through the IEP process as governed by the IDEA, SWD have the right to receive transition services that are individualized to meet their unique needs and focus on college and career readiness (IDEA, 2004).

CTE

At the federal level, the Perkins Act (first passed in 1984), is instrumental in funding CTE through block grants to states. In the most recent reauthorization of the Perkins Act, CTE was specifically linked to preparing students for PSE. More recently, models for CTE course delivery have included new waves of Career Academies, Linked Learning models (started in California and now just beginning to proliferate), and the formation of other specialized academies (see, for example, Jacoby & Dougherty, 2016; Visher & Stern, 2015). Moreover, after being called vocational education for decades, the 2006 reauthorization of Perkins precipitated a change in name (and focus; for example, pathways to PSE) to CTE.

Accountability

Federal funding of general education and related accountability structures has most recently been codified as the ESSA. ESSA is the latest iteration of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and provides unprecedented incorporation of CTE, as well as a recognition of its role in providing an appropriately balanced education (ESSA, 2015; Perkins Collaborative Resource Network, n.d.). This renewal comes even as individual states have already leveraged the college and career readiness movement as a way to update their secondary school curricula and requirements (see, for example, Arkansas’s Smart Core requirements). ESSA and college and career readiness are just the most recent domestic policy manifestations of the long-running linkages between public education and a recognition of the need to prepare a workforce to meet the changing demands of the economy (Callahan, 1964; Dougherty & Lombardi, 2016; Grubb & Lazerson, 2005; Labaree, 1997; Lazerson & Grubb, 1974).

There are important sections of ESSA that also affect the relationship between the experiences of SWD and their preparation for postsecondary experiences, particularly employment. For instance, ESSA includes stated definitions of digital and blended learning. The law defines digital learning as “any instructional practice that effectively uses technology to strengthen a student’s learning experience” (§7112), and “blended learning” as “a formal education program that leverages both technology and face-to-face instructional approaches” (§7112). It is critical to ensure that SWD are exposed to technology in blended learning environments in general and special education settings to ensure they have equal opportunity to learn technology skills that are relevant to the job market, and additional training, after high school. CTE offers a setting in which this type of technology exposure could occur.

Systems of Support

The WIOA of 2016, enacted to reform the nation’s workforce through the U.S. Department of Labor, also influences the experiences of SWD with regard to education and preparation for work. WIOA is meant to improve access to education and workforce services by encouraging increased interagency collaboration, which has been linked to best practice in secondary special education and transition (Kohler, 1996). Specifically, WIOA focuses on creating more coordinated and efficient agency lines so that education, training, and employment and reemployment opportunities, including unemployment support, can be improved for more disadvantaged populations, including those with disabilities (U.S. Department of Labor, 2016). Although the focus of WIOA is more on systems of support and less on individuals, it is influential in this context because it has the potential to build the necessary capacity for adults with disabilities, such that they will have increased opportunities to find jobs they are qualified for and keep them. Importantly, WIOA prioritizes preparing adults with disabilities for jobs that will be in the integrated workforce, and not deemed as “supported employment” in segregated settings, which has been a typical employment outcome for students with ID (Morningstar et al., 2017).

Finally, in addition to the provisions relating to postsecondary transition services for SWD, the U.S. Department of Education has more recently promoted a widening of the postsecondary options for SWD to attend 4-year colleges and universities. These options are available primarily through the Office of Postsecondary Education’s “Transition and Postsecondary Programs for Students with Intellectual Disabilities” (TPSID; U.S. Department of Education, 2016b), a funding competition intended for higher education institutions to build inclusive, high-quality programs for students with ID to access and participate in college. Among others, one focus of the TPSID grants is to improve access to competitive employment through inclusive work experiences and PSE. To date, there are 26 TPSID programs in place at college and universities nationwide and a national coordinating center (Think College, 2016).

The intersection and overlap of these laws has resulted in a policy climate that encourages a more expanded and diverse array of postschool options for SWD that could influence both CTE access and delivery. The Perkins Act paved the way for CTE to emerge as a viable secondary pathway for SWD, and more recent reauthorizations have emphasized PSE and disadvantaged populations, including those with disabilities. The ESSA prioritizes college and career readiness for all students, and defines digital and blended learning in an attempt to ensure access to technology tools in secondary schools prior to entering the workforce. WIOA ensures the structural capacity is in place to increase employment services and opportunities for disadvantaged populations. Finally, more recent funding opportunities from the federal government encourages SWD have access to higher education. The purpose of the current study was to conduct a systematic literature review of CTE with a focus on SWD, particularly ID, with the aim to arrive at a better understanding of what programs exist for students with ID. By putting the research in conversation with the existing policies and recent policy developments, a more nuanced perspective on future policy making and program development should be possible.

SWD (Without ID)

We identified 57 studies that were coded as SWD, which meant none of the study samples included students with ID. The disability categories that were captured from the literature included (a) autism spectrum disorder, (b) deafness, (c) emotional disturbance, (d) hearing impairment, (e) multiple disabilities, (f) orthopedic impairment, (g) other health impairment, (h) specific learning disability, (i) speech or language impairment, (j) traumatic brain injury, and (k) visual impairment. Of these studies, 20 (35%) were data-based, six (11%) mentioned students of low socioeconomic status (SES), two (4%) identified the use of some technology, 26 (46%) referred to a specific curriculum, two (4%) utilized portfolios, 21 (37%) discussed nonschool settings, four (7%) mentioned business partnerships, six (11%) were occupation based, and 17 (30%) mentioned PSE.

SWD (Including ID)

Thirty-two studies were coded as SWD&ID, which is when ID is one of multiple disability categories included in study samples. Twenty-three (82%) studies were data-based, one (4%) included students from a low SES, no studies mentioned the use of technology or a business partnership, 11 (39%) utilized a curriculum, 9 (24%) discussed nonschool settings, four (14%) included occupation specific content, and 12 (31%) mentioned PSE.

Students With ID (Only Included ID)

There were four studies (about 4.5%) that included samples of students with ID only (Baer, Daviso, Flexer, Queen, & Meindl, 2011; Dietrich, 1980; Ehrsten & Izzo, 1988; White, 1983). Of the four studies, none of them discussed technology use, portfolios, curricula, high school graduation, or school to business partnerships. Three studies explored hourly waged employment, and two mentioned PSE. Three of the four studies were data-based.

In addition to the coding categories that were the focus of the current study, the four ID only articles were quite diverse with regard to type of article and content covered. As mentioned, three of the four were data-based studies (Baer et al., 2011; Dietrich, 1980; White, 1983). In one of these studies (Baer et al., 2011), predictors of employment were the focus. Findings showed that inclusion in general education courses was a significant predictor of enrollment in postsecondary, whereas completion of CTE courses was not a significant predictor. The second (Dietrich, 1980) focused on “vocational mainstreaming” (p. 101) and included a sample of students without disabilities and students with ID, described with the outdated term “educable mentally retarded.” The study was focused on the validation of a measure of vocational skills in a typical workplace (e.g., relationships with coworkers, listening to directions, attendance, independence, concentration, etc.). Findings showed that across all measure subscales students with ID scored lower than their peers without disabilities. The third (White, 1983) focused on employers as the unit of analysis and sought to validate career-related competencies that were prioritized in career education curricula. The non-data-based article (Ehrsten & Izzo, 1988) presented a conceptual model to employers when considering hiring and training of adults with disabilities in the workforce.

Finally, we examined the distribution of the articles by journal. Figure 2 shows this distribution. The largest concentration of articles (44%) were published in the journal Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals (CDTEI), and the second largest number (19%) were published in the Journal for Vocational Special Needs Education. The remainder of the journals represented had published either two or three articles. Although not shown in Figure 2, there were other journals that had published a sole article that was included in our study, but due to the low frequency these journals are not depicted.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Frequency of articles by journal (n = 89).

Relationship to the Current Policy Context

Given that many states have adopted definitions of college and career readiness that place a heavy emphasis on college as the main avenue for career readiness, the importance of examining this literature base cannot be understated. Students with ID have limited access to PSE as compared with their peers with other disabilities (Newman et al., 2011). It is imperative for this population to explore multiple avenues for gaining the skills necessary to be career ready, including CTE. Despite this need, the results of this literature review suggest that research has not yet explored an exhaustive list of potential paths to careers for SWD, which has many policy implications. Specifically, notable themes emerged from our systematic review in employment and technology use, both of which should be considered within the larger policy context.

Study Limitations

As previously mentioned, this study utilized a systematic literature review. Although attempts were made to capture the full breadth of the research base in vocational education and CTE, it is possible that some of the literature on CTE was not captured in the search due to differing key words or the inability to locate articles from the specified databases. Perhaps most notably, our inclusion criteria were limited to the secondary level. Thus, it is possible there are CTE-like programs geared toward adult populations that were not captured in our review. This was intentional, however, so that we may gain a better understanding of the current state of the high school years as a mechanism for change for SWD and preparation for adult life.

Future Research and Policy Implications

Given the findings from the current study, it is clear that SWD are not actively participating in or the focus of research studies in the CTE environment in a manner that is proportional to their need or their prevalence in the general population. This absence in the literature exists despite the rich overlap of policies designed to serve students with and without disabilities as they prepare for the workforce. Policy makers should explore what populations of students are accessing CTE and be inclusive of SWD when creating policies and decisions regarding CTE. Therefore, we suggest that future CTE policies should be more explicit in their inclusion of SWD and special education researchers and practitioners should be explicit about including CTE professionals in the development of student plans. Specifically, researchers might consider investigating special education programs, including those that serve students with ID, as a way to understand and study the extent to which career preparation exists and is efficacious. As part of such partnerships, researchers should focus on evaluating the effects of current efforts and highlighting examples that show promise as opportunities for replication.

In addition, given everything known about students with ID and success in postschool employment, research should focus on incorporating evidence-based practices into CTE for students with ID. For example, the use of video modeling in a CTE environment for a student with ID may result in promising findings that will encourage and move the forward the relationship between special education and CTE. Finally, future studies should explore the impact of access and participation in CTE has on students with ID.

The current study highlighted and confirmed the significant gap in the research between the CTE and special education fields. Given the small sample of studies for students with ID in CTE scholarship, future research endeavors should attempt to bridge this gap between CTE research and students with ID. This will only be achieved if educators and researchers from both special education and CTE are open to the possibility of working more collaboratively and increasing inclusion for students with ID. Of those studies that may be at the intersection of special education and CTE, it is imperative to collect data on disability categories and limit the practice of merging categories (e.g., “other”) in data analyses.

Ultimately, CTE has the potential to provide a pivotal platform for SWD to gain access to career pathways. Prioritization of such studies must occur, and could eventually lead to more promising career opportunities and improved quality of life for a population of students who have historically experienced more dismal outcomes.