Abstract
Over the past decade, there has been an increased emphasis on transition planning for students with exceptional needs. This is in part the result of the mandates contained in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004. This increased emphasis has revealed a number of shortcomings with how transition planning is done day-to-day. Transition planning can be improved, however, if assessment data serve as the foundation to the IEP process—including the determination of effective transition services. This article illustrates how to use a multitiered process, including screening, progress monitoring, and diagnostic assessment, to enhance students’ transition plans and positively affect the outcomes for persons with disabilities.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) has undergone a number of changes over the years (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, 2007). The 2004 reauthorization of IDEA specifically contained some important changes and new requirements, including the requirement to assist students in transitioning from high school to postsecondary education or employment (Kochhar-Bryant, Bassett, & Webb, 2009). This requirement has resulted in an increased emphasis on transition planning for students with exceptional needs to achieve postsecondary outcomes (D. R. Johnson, 2005). IDEA 2004 mandates that all transition-age students have an individualized education program (IEP) that must include
appropriate measurable postsecondary goals based upon age-appropriate transition assessments related to training, education, employment and, where appropriate, independent living skills; The transition services (including courses of study) needed to assist the child in reaching those goals. (34 CFR 300.320(b) and (c), 20 U.S.C. § 1414 (d)(1)(A)(i)(VIII))
However, even with the increased emphasis on postsecondary outcomes in IDEA 2004, research has shown that there are still inconsistencies with transition planning (Grigal, Test, Beattie, & Wood, 1997; Powers et al., 2005; Shearin, Roessler, & Schriner, 1999). Powers, Hagans, and Miller (2007) argued that these inconsistencies include “vague goals that do not easily permit direct measurement, absence of data in identifying student needs, and poorly defined and ineffective interventions” (p. 419). For instance, in an earlier study, Powers et al. (2005) found that many IEPs they analyzed were missing key areas or lacking sufficient detail, thus not meeting the goals targeted by IDEA 2004.
IDEA specifically states that transition planning should be “annually updated and based on transition assessment” (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B)). Transition assessment can range from informal interviews with students to conducting a complete battery of assessments that identify and plan for the comprehensive transitional needs of students. One way to improve transition planning and ultimately postsecondary outcomes is to place assessment data at the foundation of the IEP process, similar to the process utilized in a multitiered system of supports.
Multitiered Assessment Data in a Gap Analysis
Morningstar (2010) proposed an intervention model that emphasizes the successful transition from high school to adulthood for students with disabilities. This model includes traditional assessment and intervention components of a multitiered system of supports; in addition, it adds postsecondary considerations to each tier of support. Morningstar proposed the need for early and ongoing assessment for developing career and graduation plans. This transition-focused model includes data collection regarding progress made on postsecondary goals and outcomes, a central component in the process outlined throughout the rest of this article.
A multitiered system of supports offers a problem-solving approach using assessment data to select and create interventions to improve student achievement (Stuart & Rinaldi, 2009). This system is easily expanded to incorporate transition assessments. Designing instruction and intervention based on assessment data to provide effective transition planning can improve student engagement and preparation for life after high school. This article illustrates how to use a multitiered system of supports to create an effective transition plan and ultimately improve student achievement.
A multitiered system of supports presents a number of benefits. One benefit, according to Batsche, Castillo, Dixon, and Forde (2008), is its diagnostic approach to shape instruction and to help teachers make decisions about issues regarding intervention, special education programming and eligibility, and IEPs. A multitiered system of supports also holds promise for monitoring instruction and learning for all students at the high school level, including targeted interventions focused on transition (Duffy, 2007). It is clear that the strengths of a multitiered system of supports can be applied to transition planning.
One of the best ways to leverage the strengths of a multitiered system of supports is to focus on the gap between students’ postsecondary goals and their current academic knowledge. A gap analysis involves calculating the discrepancy between a student’s performance and the needed benchmark (Batsche et al., 2007). In a secondary educational context, transition goals can be readily identified by conducting a gap analysis of students’ current academic knowledge and skills in relation to their previously identified postsecondary criterion (goal). IEP teams can then use assessment data to identify how subsequent transition planning and instruction need to be adjusted or whether students’ postsecondary goals need to be modified.
Transition Assessment and Planning
Given the aforementioned benefits, the authors illustrate how a multitiered system of supports can be used to improve transition planning by following seven procedural steps with a student. These steps are (1) developing the postsecondary goals, (2) determining the postsecondary criteria, (3) collecting screening data, (4) calculating growth, (5) calculating gaps, (6) using progress monitoring, and (7) reviewing diagnostic assessment.
Steps 1 and 2: Developing Postsecondary Goals and Criteria
IDEA (2004) defined transition services as “a coordinated set of activities for a child with a disability that is based on the individual child’s needs, taking into account the child’s strengths, preferences, and interests” (34 CFR 300.43 (a) (2)). This definition supports the transition assessment process, which begins with students developing (with the assistance of educators and family members) their postsecondary goals. Once postsecondary goals have been established, an IEP team can begin to determine the necessary criteria to successfully attain students’ identified goals. This includes an appraisal of students’ basic skill levels. Many students at the secondary level have deficits in basic skills and may also be ill prepared to meet the content demands of secondary education (E. S. Johnson, Smith, & Harris, 2009). If students are to realistically attain a specific postsecondary goal, they must develop proficiencies in the basic academic skills as well as develop the knowledge of the specific content related to the postsecondary goal.
The IEP teams must first research the skills needed for each of their students’ postsecondary goals. Postsecondary career goals can be researched through the Occupational Information Network, or O*NET (n.d.). O*NET provides (at no cost) a thorough description of thousands of occupations, including the skills needed for each occupation. Educators and students can investigate a specific occupation, note the skills needed for the occupation, and begin to match the types of courses needed (in both high school and postsecondary education) to attain this occupation.
Getting to know Jenny
Let’s take a look at Jenny, an 11th-grader who is receiving special education services in the area of mathematics (see Note 1). Jenny is a creative and artistic student who enjoys school, especially art courses, but she does not enjoy math. Jenny has identified a postsecondary goal to attend the local university’s program in architecture and design. Now that she has identified her postsecondary goal, the second step for Jenny and her IEP team is to determine the criteria for this specific postsecondary goal. In other words, they need to determine what skills and content knowledge are needed to be an architect as well as specific proficiencies needed to be accepted into an architecture program.
Jenny and her IEP team begin by researching the entrance requirements for the architecture program. They find that students must have a minimum 3.5 grade point average and an average composite ACT score of 27 (with a mathematics score of 29) or a composite SAT score of 1210–1230 (with a math score of 1280–1310). Through this process, they also discover that all states require architecture graduates to pass a licensing exam following a 3-year training period.
Jenny and her team also research the field of architecture on O*NET to identify specific skills and content knowledge that architects must possess once they graduate. They find that architects must demonstrate mathematical knowledge in arithmetic, algebra, geometry, calculus, statistics, and their applications. In addition, architects must have knowledge of the structure and content of the English language including the meaning and spelling of words, rules of composition, and grammar. Finally, architects must have the ability to visually communicate their ideas to clients, have strong visual orientation and the ability to understand spatial relationships, be able to work independently and as a team, and possess strong computer skills for drafting and financial management.
Step 3: Screening Data
After investigating the criteria for a student’s postsecondary goal, the third step in the process includes using screening data to determine the student’s current performance level. Screening data help to identify conditions (e.g., processing, fluency, organization, memorization, structure, student mental state) that may interfere with a student’s learning (E. S. Johnson et al., 2009). Although most screening measures do not provide enough data to calculate growth rate, they do provide baseline data on a student’s academic ability and skills. Most screening measures can also identify a student’s level of self-determination. Screening data should be used not only in developing a student’s transition plan but also as a component of the present level of educational performance in a student’s IEP. For example, state assessments rate a student’s proficiency level in relation to same-age peers. These assessments may be a valid and efficient measure for determining if a student is at-risk for not mastering content. The data from these assessments can be used as screening instruments in the transition process to identify if a student is at risk for not successfully working toward identified postsecondary goals.
Jenny’s story
During 11th grade, Jenny and her IEP team used her 10th-grade state assessment and national PLAN results. Also, since she had not yet taken the ACT, the IEP team used 11th-grade district assessments results in prealgebra to examine Jenny’s performance levels in math, which was her central area of academic concern. The data indicated that Jenny had not met the proficiency requirements for math on the state assessment. She scored a 14 (range = 1–32) on the PLAN assessment. This placed her significantly below the 50th percentile in math in relation to her peers. The local district math assessments also indicated that she was performing at a prealgebraic level of math processing. All of these screening measures suggested that Jenny may have been at risk for not attaining her postsecondary goal of attending college with a major in architecture. Jenny’s IEP team was then tasked to determine Jenny’s current rate of progress and the gap in academic skills to help determine how to develop a transition plan that can decrease this gap (see Figure 1).
Jenny’s current rate of math progress versus college entrance requirements
Step 4: Calculating Growth
There are multiple assessments that an IEP team can use to evaluate the level and rate of growth in students across a school year (Hosp & Ardoin, 2008). At the secondary level, rate of growth can be calculated using classroom assessments, district measures (with sufficient data), departmental rubrics, and teacher-created assessments. In some cases, though, an IEP team will need to analyze discrete skills to create a measure to determine the current rate of growth. For example, if Jenny had the postsecondary daily independent living goal of living with a roommate and budgeting living expenses, a task analysis of budgeting would be needed to identify her current performance level. This would require developing a rubric to track Jenny’s growth in budgeting.
The same process can be used with students who have more significant impairments. Take, for instance, a student with significant cognitive impairments who has the postsecondary daily independent living goal of doing laundry independently. A task analysis of laundering can be done to identify the student’s current performance level. A rubric can then be created to assess each step needed to take care of one’s laundry independently.
Whether a student’s goal is budgeting or laundry, a rubric can be created (that results in a quantitative score) to assess a student’s current level. The same rubric can then be used to monitor and assess how quickly a student is learning all of the tasks for the goal in question. Table 1 outlines the steps for calculating student growth.
Steps for Calculating Student Growth
Note. Adapted from the response to intervention model for calculating growth.
Step 5: Calculating the Gap
After an IEP team has calculated the current rate of growth, the next step in the assessment process is to calculate the gap between the student’s current performance level and the criteria for attaining the postsecondary goal. In secondary instruction, a gap analysis should include scrutiny of both skill level gaps and content level gaps.
Identifying skill level gaps at the secondary level is important because a skill deficit may be preventing a student from learning needed content. For example, if a 12th-grade student can comprehend only 3rd-grade text, the student will not be able to read the physics text in science and will miss a large portion of the content in the class. Understanding a skill deficit will help educators to select appropriate interventions for a student. Educators, though, must also identify any content deficits a student might have. Many students may be able to use adaptive technology or accommodations to help with skill deficits, but content knowledge is necessary for success in postsecondary education and beyond.
Skill level gaps may include reading fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, problem solving, calculations, and written expression. To calculate a student’s skill level gap, educators must first assess a student to determine the student’s current skill level. Once a student’s current skill level is known, educators can then compare the results to the scores of same-age peers. Any notable difference between a student’s current score (on skill level assessments) and the scores of same-age peers is considered the “gap.” For example, if a student is currently reading grade-level text at 40 words per minute whereas same-age peers are reading grade-level texts at 130 words per minute, the student has a 90-point gap in fluency rate (130 − 40 = 90).
Content level gaps, on the other hand, are the difference between a student’s actual performance and a student’s grade-level performance in a specific content area. For example, if a student is in the 10th grade taking a basic math course (which teaches basic arithmetic and computations) whereas same-age peers are working on geometry concepts, the student has a gap in content knowledge. The amount of the gap can be determined using achievement tests that provide a current grade level, grade-level standards, or any other assessment that looks at content knowledge. For example, if a student at the end of 10th grade is at a 3.7 grade level in math, the student has a gap of 6.3 in math content knowledge (i.e., 10th grade minus 3.7 grade level equals a 6.3 gap).
Once a student’s gaps have been determined, it is necessary to calculate the amount of growth the student needs to reach the student’s postsecondary goal and how long it will take to reach the goal at the student’s current rate of progress. Table 2 outlines the steps to calculate the rate of growth a student will need to demonstrate to reduce any skills or content gaps based on the amount of time left until that student graduates from high school.
Steps for Calculating Student Gaps Based on Time
In Jenny’s case, her IEP team used an achievement assessment to calculate her current grade level of instruction and her gap (see Figure 2). A typical student demonstrates a growth rate of .028 each week over 1 school year (or 36 weeks). Jenny however only demonstrated a 0.8 growth rate during the past school year (i.e., 36 weeks)—as opposed to a 1.0 growth rate (literally, a year’s growth); this indicated her weekly growth rate was only .022 (i.e., 0.8 ÷ 36 = 0.022). To meet her postsecondary goal, Jenny had to increase her current rate of growth to almost 3 times that of her past growth rate to close her academic content knowledge gap to perform at grade level
Calculation of Jenny’s needed growth rate
Once an IEP team has calculated a student’s gaps based on time, the team needs to identify how long it will take to reduce these gaps. Table 3 outlines the steps to calculate how long it will take for a student to reduce any skill or content gaps based on the student’s current rate of growth. Figure 3 provides an illustration of the time it would take Jenny to reduce her gap.
Steps for Calculating Student Gaps Based on Current Growth Rate
Calculation of Jenny’s gap based on current growth rate
Jenny’s story
Jenny and her IEP team determined that as an 11th grader, Jenny was currently working at an 8th grade level in mathematics. They arrived at this conclusion by looking at district assessments as well as her grade level of instruction. The district used the Pre-Algebra Diagnostic Online Mathematics Assessment (DOMA; Let’sGoLearn, n.d.) to assess students’ knowledge of mathematics. Jenny’s DOMA results revealed that she had mastered only 5 of the 11 constructs in prealgebra and that she maintained a 6-point gap (11 constructs required, only 5 constructs mastered to date) in prealgebraic skill development. The IEP team also studied Jenny’s grade level of instruction to identify any content level gaps.
Jenny was 3 years behind grade-level content knowledge. Although this gap might appear small, it was of concern because Jenny’s current growth rate would need to triple or she would need 135 weeks to close this gap. Her gap in prealgebraic skills was also problematic. It had taken Jenny 22 weeks (of a 36-week school year) to master 5 constructs. Jenny’s growth rate indicated she was mastering approximately 0.23 constructs each week (i.e., 5 constructs ÷ 22 weeks = 0.23 growth rate). If Jenny continued with this rate of growth, the gap analysis showed it would take 26 additional weeks to master the additional 6 constructs (i.e., 6 constructs ÷ 0.23 rate of growth = 26 weeks) in prealgebra. There were, however, only 14 weeks left in the current school year. Jenny’s IEP team calculated the needed increased rate of progress as well as the number of weeks it would take to master the content to meet the admission requirements of the architecture program. At her rate, they found that it would take approximately 135 weeks to meet the admission requirements to the university program, a depressing but realistic timeline for Jenny.
Once an IEP team determines a student’s gaps, the team should develop the IEP to include annual goals and objectives that will close any identified gaps. The IEP should include the course of study identified to remediate the deficit skills and content while also offering transition services to help the student learn related strategies and skills. When used properly, screening assessment data can have direct implications for instructional program decisions, including program design, program placement, curriculum planning, instructional procedures, and additional assessment requirements (Overton, 2012).
Step 6: Progress Monitoring
Depending on the size of the gaps, some students require an additional level of assessment to monitor their progress on an ongoing basis. Progress monitoring is the routine assessment of student performance to determine whether the student is responding to instruction (E. S. Johnson et al., 2009). Progress monitoring assessments systematically observe and record student improvement, determine if instructions and services are effective, determine gaps between student goals and current achievement, and identify students who might need additional assessment (Overton, 2012). Developing transition plans through a model of multitiered supports may enhance the quality of transition plans by encouraging IEP teams to identify measurable annual goals that can lead to mastery of the student’s postsecondary goals through constant and consistent use of progress monitoring. Powers et al. (2007) argued that the lack of progress-monitoring data contributes to the problem of vague or nonexistent goals in the transition plans. If IEP teams write goals that specifically relate to achieving a student’s postsecondary goals, teams must then monitor the progress students make toward achieving those goals to reduce gaps at the necessary rate (Powers et al., 2007).
Creating a plan of action that explicitly focuses on decreasing the identified gap might alter the current instructional path of the student. In Jenny’s example, the IEP team does not want to tell Jenny that she cannot be successful in college because of her current math ability; rather, the team should discuss how to create a plan that will increase success in achieving this goal. Or the team may decide to create a plan that changes the timeline of achieving this goal, or it may create a plan to look at adjusting the goal. Regardless of the choice, the plan may include intensive math intervention during high school and self-determination instruction that will help Jenny to advocate to receive appropriate accommodations while attending college. It could also include attending a community college or summer program prior to attending college to help improve her math ability. It could include a conversation about developing compensatory strategies, use of technology, enrolling in fewer classes while attending college so she can focus more time on being successful in one or two college courses each semester rather than struggling to pass five courses. And finally, it could include a look at adjusting or changing the current postsecondary goal.
Jenny’s story
In Jenny’s case, progress monitoring was very important since she demonstrated a large gap in mathematics. Her teachers needed to document any increased rate of improvement. They also needed to use the data to discuss the possibility of taking another path to achieve her postsecondary goal of getting into the architecture program. For example, she might need to attend a community college to gain some of the prerequisite math skills before entering the local university. The progress monitoring data also helped Jenny understand the timeline for learning the skills needed to attain her goals.
Step 7: Diagnostic Assessments
In some cases, progress monitoring data and the student’s current gap will identify the need for additional diagnostic assessments. Diagnostic assessments are used to determine students’ specific strengths, weaknesses, knowledge, and skills (Swearingen, 2002). An IEP team can use diagnostic assessments to ascertain that a student’s abilities and interests actually match the intended postsecondary goal. An IEP team can also use diagnostic assessment to identify if a student has a specific skill deficit that is affecting the student’s achievement. For example, a mathematics diagnostic assessment can identify if a student has deficits in basic calculations, problem solving, number operations, or other areas or if the student has multiple skill deficits (Burns & Klingbeil, 2010).
In addition to academic diagnostic assessments, these diagnostic assessments can include evaluation of self-determination, adaptive behavior, aptitude, and functional vocational evaluations. In a study conducted by Powers et al. (2005), only 7% of the IEPs referenced any type of self-determination education. Self-determination has been found to support both immediate academic outcomes and postsecondary outcomes (Powers et al., 2005). Unfortunately, today’s educational process has not adequately prepared students with special learning needs to become self-determined individuals (Wehmeyer & Schalock, 2001). Just as with content skills, educators must assess and diagnose student self-determination needs. Diagnostic assessment data can identify specific self-determination deficiencies in relation to a student’s identified postsecondary goal. Once these deficiencies have been identified, teams can design an individualized action plan for addressing these critical skills.
Misperceptions of students
Students often select postsecondary goals based on false perceptions. For example, many students want to be doctors or lawyers because of how these professions are portrayed on television as well as the earning potential. Often when students learn that lawyers attend college for a minimum of 6 years and spend a majority of their time researching, reading, and writing rather than arguing in front of a jury, the appeal of becoming a lawyer disappears.
Students also may not recognize the amount of preparation required for their identified postsecondary goals. When they begin to realize what is necessary for success in their chosen postsecondary goals, they may decide that they do not want to proceed any further. For example, when a student like Jenny learns that she will have to take more literacy and mathematics courses, study numerous hours outside of school to improve college entrance exam results, and attend a community college to improve the prerequisite skills for college entrance, she may decide to modify her postsecondary goal. When students misunderstand expectations associated with a goal, the IEP team should resolve any misperceptions and design a plan that informs students of how their transition plan will help them reach their postsecondary goals.
Discussing a student’s ability level
Although an educator should never use transition assessment data to tell students that they cannot reach their desired postsecondary goal, it is critical to discuss students’ realistic abilities and its relationship to the goal with the students and their families. For example, if a student has aspirations of being a professional football player but can’t throw or catch and has never played football in his life, this may be an unrealistic goal. When faced with a situation like this, the IEP team should question the student further to identify why the student has identified this specific postsecondary goal. It may be that the student is unaware of the training and preparation required to be a football player. This is where O*NET can be an invaluable resource in identifying other occupations related to football that may be more suitable for the student. The IEP team can “follow the dream” by encouraging the student to play intramural or school football, while also envisioning occupations related to his desired goals.
Jenny’s story
After Jenny learned more about the requirements for becoming an architect, she began to question whether this career was the right path. Jenny did not realize that being an architect had more to do with mathematics and computer-aided drafting than drawing. She did not want to focus her senior year of high school concentrating on math courses and attending tutoring outside of school to remediate her mathematical learning difficulties. Based on the assessment data, she came to the realization that she would rather develop another, more realistic, more satisfying, and better fitting postsecondary goal. Jenny and the IEP team investigated related fields and found one that fit beautifully with several of her interests. Because Jenny was also interested in theater arts, the postsecondary career goal was altered to include working in theater production and, in particular, stage design. Thanks to a thoughtful and well-prepared team, Jenny was poised to assume her dream career and a successful adult life.
After Jenny decided to change her postsecondary goal to better meet her interests and abilities, she completed additional diagnostic transition assessments. She completed an aptitude test, a job tryout, and a self-determination assessment. The results showed Jenny’s interests and strengths in design techniques, creativity, communication, and planning. The IEP team also taught Jenny to use O*NET and the state’s online career information system to search for careers based on her strengths and interests. These resources helped Jenny find a career of interest: set and exhibit designer. This particular occupation is related to the field of architecture. It still contains a math component; however, it requires artistic ability more than a strong mathematical aptitude. Jenny and the team used assessment data to create a plan for Jenny based on her interests and skills. Jenny and the IEP team devised a plan to take realistic math courses to help complete the design program and work on play or movie sets. Her engagement in learning and the importance of school now becomes relevant to her future goals.
Conclusion
Transition planning can suffer from a number of limitations, including vague goals that are difficult to measure, little or no data to identify student needs, and poorly defined and ineffective interventions. One of the best ways to improve transition planning (and ultimately postsecondary outcomes) is to focus on gap analyses using transition assessment. A quality transition plan that begins with solid, comprehensive assessment data can improve the postsecondary outcomes of students with exceptional needs while also meeting IDEA mandates. Determining the gaps between students’ current academic, functional, and behavioral performance and their intended postsecondary goals will help IEP teams to create transition plans that meaningfully assist students in achieving their postsecondary ambitions. In understanding a gap between academic performance and the real-world requirements of an occupation, students can choose to either meet those challenges or develop new challenges that better match their abilities and needs. Gap analysis, as envisioned through a multitiered process, is an effective tool for secondary educators involved in transition planning.
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 author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.