Perceptions of Special Education and Career and Technical Education Collaboration and Communication

Participants and Setting

Sampling utilized a purposeful stratified systematic sample based on specified selection criteria. The selection criteria for this study were CTE Stand-Alone Centers. Programs for CTE across the state of Indiana are organized by 14 regions. There are a total of 49 CTE centers identified in the state with 12 stand-alone CTE centers in Indiana (Julie Yeater—Indiana Department of Education [IDOE], personal communication, January, 2008). A stand-alone CTE center is identified as being a CTE site that is not attached to a secondary building or campus and where “sending” high schools send students to a regional CTE center for programs and services. The first step in sampling included the identification of six stand-alone CTE centers (50% of the population) with their CTE teachers and administrators. The 2008 Indiana Association for Career and Technical Education (IACTED) website (http://www.iacted.org) was used to identify site participants. Six initial sites were chosen as potential centers that met the stand-alone criteria for participation. Once the sites were identified, CTE directors were contacted and asked to participate. Of the initial six sites identified, three agreed and became study participants while three were unable to participate. Additional sites were needed. The IDOE Division of CTE was contacted and advised contacting three other potential CTE stand-alone sites. The three additional CTE centers met the study criteria and were contacted. The directors of the three CTE centers agreed to participate in the study. The final sample represented CTE centers serving 6 of the 14 CTE regions across the state.

The second step in the sampling process was identification of the school districts and their sending high schools to the selected six CTE stand-alone centers. The 2008 IACTED website (http://www.iacted.org) was used to identify the sending school districts. The IDOE website (http://www.doe.in.gov/data/) was utilized to identify the Superintendent of Schools for each sending school district and the specific high schools located within each district. There were a total of 43 school districts within the six sampled CTE centers. Of those, 31 agreed to participate in the study (72%). Nineteen of the 31 sampled school districts actually responded to the survey and participated in the study (61%). The 2008 IDOE School Data Website Teacher Rosters (http://www.in.doe.gov/data/) were used to identify specific CTE center administrators and CTE teachers and the sending school district high schools’ special education teachers and guidance counselors. The final six CTE stand-alone centers had a sample that consisted of 10 administrators and 114 CTE teachers. Their associated 31 sending high schools represented by a total sample of 117 special education teachers and 74 guidance counselors. Respondents for this study included 5 CTE administrators (50% return rate) and 64 CTE teachers (56% return rate) and 19 sending high schools (61% return rate) with 42 special educators (36% return rate) and 20 guidance counselors (27% return rate). The study had a total of 131 usable surveys for analysis with an overall return rate of 42%.

Table 1 displays the demographic characteristics of study participants. Females made up 59% of the study respondents. Respondents between the ages of 30 and 50 made up 56% of participants while 34% of respondents were above the age of 50. CTE teachers made up 49% of the study respondents. Of all participants, 70% had a bachelor’s degree or higher level of education. Fifty-seven percent of CTE teachers held a high school diploma, Associates Degree, or Occupational Specialist Certificate. Of those responding, 36% had been in their present position 5 years or less, while 44% had been in their present position between 6 and 15 years. Thirty percent indicated they had been in the field of education for 16 years or more. Data presented for CTE personnel from stand-alone centers within the state were representative of the field, and school data also provided a reasonable representation of high school special educators and guidance counselors for sending high schools based on the study sampling.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Special Education and Career and Technical Education Participant Demographic Characteristics.

	CTE				Secondary education
	Administrators		Teachers		Special educators		Guidance counselors		Total
	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Gender
Male	3	60.0	39	61.9	9	21.4	2	10.0	53	40.8
Female	2	40.0	24	38.1	33	78.6	18	90.0	77	59.2
Total	5	100	63	100	42	100	20	100	130	100
Age
20–29	0	0.0	6	9.7	4	9.5	2	10.0	12	9.3
30–39	1	20.0	19	30.6	9	21.4	4	20.0	33	25.6
40–49	2	40.0	21	33.9	11	26.2	6	30.0	40	31.0
50+	2	40.0	16	25.8	18	42.9	8	40.0	44	34.1
Not specified	0	0.0	1	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	1	0.0
Total	5	100.0	62	100	42	100	20	100.0	130	100
Education level
HS diploma	0	0.0	5	7.9	1	2.4	0	0.0	6	2.6
AA/AS degree	0	0.0	7	11.1	2	4.8	0	0.0	9	6.9
Occupational certificate	0	0.0	24	38.1	0	0.0	0	0.0	24	18.5
BA/BS	0	0.0	23	36.5	16	38.1	0	0.0	39	30.0
MA/MS	4	80.0	4	6.3	23	54.8	20	100.0	51	39.2
PhD/EdD	1	20.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	1	0.8
Total	5	100.0	63	100	42	100	20	100.0	130	100
Years in current position
1–2 years	2	40.0	13	20.3	5	11.9	1	5.0	21	16.0
3–5 years	1	20.0	14	21.9	8	19.0	4	20.0	27	20.6
6–10 years	1	20.0	14	21.9	13	31.0	9	45.0	37	28.2
11–15 years	0	0.0	10	15.6	6	14.3	5	25.0	21	16.0
16+ years	1	20.0	13	20.3	10	23.8	1	5.0	25	19.1
Total	5	100.0	64	100	42	100	20	100	131	100
Years in education
1–2 years	0	0.0	10	15.6	2	4.8	0	0.0	12	9.2
3–5 years	0	0.0	12	18.8	3	7.1	1	5.0	16	12.2
6–10 years	0	0.0	19	29.7	16	38.1	4	20.0	39	29.8
11–15 years	3	60.0	10	15.6	5	11.9	6	30.0	24	18.3
16+ years	2	40.0	13	20.2	16	38.1	9	45.0	40	30.3
Total	5	100.0	64	100	42	100	20	100	131	100

Note. CTE = career and technical education; HS = high school. Percentages represent data reported by category.

Instrumentation

Emailed web-based surveys may be blocked by active firewalls in many public school systems. Barry Conrad (Technology Director for the Metropolitan School District of Wabash County, IN) stated surveys emailed directly to staff within Indiana school districts are often blocked (personal communication, January, 2008). Given that fact and traditional paper-and-pencil survey methods typically yield a higher response rate compared with web-based surveys (Matz, 1999; Sax, Gilmartin, & Bryant, 2003), paper-and-pencil surveys were used.

Development of the survey instrument was guided by the literature (Cotton, 2000; Haber & Sutherland, 2008; Harvey et al., 2007). Two parallel surveys (CTE/Secondary Special Education & Guidance) were constructed. Each survey form was divided into five sections including (a) Section I, demographic information; (b) Section II, methods of communication; (c) Section III, 4-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, 4 = strongly agree) perception questions regarding collaboration efforts; (d) Section IV, process questions; and (e) Section V, follow-up scaled response questions regarding present practice. To ensure confidentiality, a six-digit numerical coding system was used for survey distribution and study data management.

A jury panel of six educational professionals assessed the surveys for face, content, and constructs validity. Reviewers included experts in the field of transition, CTE, and special education throughout the state of Indiana and the United States. The jury panel provided feedback on formatting, question design, readability, and overall usefulness of the instrument. Based on jury feedback, minor adjustments were made in wording for clarification. The study was pilot tested with one stand-alone CTE center and the six sending secondary schools feeding into the pilot CTE center. The pilot site CTE center and the six sending schools were excluded from the study due to researcher conflict of interest issues. Survey instruments were mailed to pilot test participants with a self-addressed return envelope. The pilot test provided opportunity to gain additional feedback on the survey instruments and to validate data analysis methods for the study. No additional revisions were made.

Survey packets consisted of an introduction-overview letter, consent form, survey, and a self-addressed stamped envelope for return. Distribution of the surveys to the six CTE stand-alone centers was conducted via on-site delivery and delivery by U.S. mail. CTE Directors were instructed to distribute the sealed surveys and consent forms at their regular staff meeting. Study participants were instructed to put their completed survey and signed consent form in the provided return envelopes. The sealed envelopes were then returned to the researcher by U.S. mail. Surveys for all participating sending high schools were sent to special education teachers and guidance counselors through individually mailed survey packets delivered by U.S. mail.

Data Analysis Procedures

Statistical Program for Social Sciences (SPSS 17.0), a statistical software package, was used for data analysis. Research questions incorporated 4-point Likert-type scale items, multiple-choice responses, and forced choice items presented in parallel survey form. Study results were reported as descriptive data by frequencies and percentages and means and standard deviation. The Likert-type questions included inferential statistics utilizing ANOVA reporting Welch tests and Tamhane post hoc procedures. Welch test was used whereas it is a more conservative estimate of ANOVA adjusting for unequal variance.

Methods of Providing Information to CTE and Frequency of Communication

The most commonly used method of providing information to CTE Centers regarding students with disabilities, as identified by CTE (77%), special educators (51%), and guidance counselors (65%), was the student’s Individual Education Plans (IEP) sent to the CTE center by the sending school. In addition, special educators and guidance counselors (20%) indicated a list of students with disabilities was sent to the CTE center as a means of communicating information regarding students with disabilities enrolled in CTE. Almost 10% of respondents did not know how information was provided to the CTE center.

Study participants were asked when student information was provided to the CTE centers. CTE respondents (81%), special education (56%), and guidance counselors (40%) indicated that information was provided in the fall or at the beginning of the school year. In addition, CTE respondents were asked who was responsible for ensuring the needed information regarding students with disabilities was provided to CTE. Twenty-six percent of CTE staff believed that it was the sending high school’s special education teacher’s responsibility while another 26% believed that it was the guidance counselor’s responsibility. Sixteen percent of CTE respondents felt that it was the CTE administrator’s responsibility, 16% felt it was the special education coordinators or department head’s responsibility to see that this information was provided, and 16% indicated they did not know who held this responsibility.

When asked the same question, sending school secondary educators held differing views. Half of special educators (50%) felt it was their responsibility to provide student information to the CTE centers while 38% felt it was the guidance counselor’s responsibility. Five percent of special education teachers did not know who was responsible for providing this information. Conversely, guidance counselors (74%) indicated it was their responsibility to provide this information to CTE while only 11% felt it was the special education teacher’s responsibility.

Respondents were asked about the frequency of communication between CTE and special educators. Table 2 presents the findings of occurrence and frequency of communication between CTE and special education teachers. Overall, respondents indicated that communication occurred only as needed (40%), quarterly (23%), or not at all (15%). CTE (39%) and sending school special educators (43%) indicated communication occurred only as needed while guidance counselors indicated communication occurred on a monthly basis (42%) or only as needed (37%). In addition, CTE (20%) and special educators (35%) indicated communication occurred on a quarterly basis or that communication did not occur at all (CTE 22%, special educators 10%). Regular and consistent communication was not evident.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Communication Methods and Frequency of Communication Used by Position.

	CTE		Secondary education
	CTE educators		Special educators		Guidance counselors		Total
	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Commonly used methods of providing information
IEPs sent to CTE center	53	76.8	21	51.2	13	65.0	87	70.0
List of students sent to CTE center	5	7.2	8	19.5	4	20.0	17	13.0
Summary sheets provided	5	7.2	8	19.5	1	5.0	14	10.8
I don’t know	6	8.7	4	9.8	2	10.0	12	9.2
Total	69	100	41	100	20	100	130	100
How often does CTE/special education communicate with special education/CTE
Weekly	6	8.7	2	5.0	0	0.0	8	6.3
Monthly	4	5.8	3	7.5	8	42.1	15	11.7
Quarterly	14	20.3	14	35.0	2	10.5	30	23.4
Semester	3	4.3	0	0.0	2	10.5	5	3.9
Annually	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0
Only as needed	27	39.1	17	42.5	7	36.8	51	39.8
Not at all	15	21.7	4	10.0	0	0.0	19	14.8
Total	69	100	40	100	19	100	128	100
Method of communication most often used between CTE and special education
Midterm reports	23	39.7	9	24.3	6	31.6	38	33.3
Email	18	31.0	20	54.1	11	57.9	49	43.0
Phone	12	20.7	7	18.9	2	10.5	21	18.4
On-site visit	3	5.2	1	2.7	0	0.0	4	3.5
Conference	2	3.4	0	0.0	0	0.0	2	1.8
Total	58	100	37	100	19	100	114	100

Note. CTE = career and technical education; IEP = Individual Education Program. Percentages represent data reported by category.

Study participants were asked to identify the methods used to communicate between CTE and special educators. Respondents indicated email (43%), midterm reports (33%), and phone calls (18%) were most frequently used. Sending school personnel (guidance counselors 58%, special education 54%) indicated email was most often used for communication with CTE whereas CTE (31%) indicated email was used less often. Forty percent of CTE indicated midterm reports were most frequently used for communication whereas guidance counselors (32%) and special educators (24%) indicated midterm reports were used less often. All respondents indicated conferences were least likely used or not used at all between CTE and special education regarding students with disabilities. This is of value because conferences are mandated by IDEA as a requirement for student program/progress review through the annual IEP meeting.

Quality of Communication, Conference Representation, and Professional Development

Respondents were asked to rate survey items concerning communication related to students with disabilities attending CTE programs, CTE representation at conferences for students with disabilities, and professional development opportunities (see “Instrumentation” section for Likert-type scale). Table 3 presents the findings regarding whether regular communication took place between special education and CTE. The results indicated CTE (M = 2.32) and sending school guidance counselors (M = 2.42) tended to disagree regular communication took place. Special educators disagreed (M = 1.98) there was regular communication. No statistically significant differences were found among respondent groups (Welch = 2.68, df1 = 2, df2 = 53.13, p > .05).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Overall Mean Ratings of Respondents’ Perceptions of CTE and Secondary Education Communication and Collaboration Efforts.

	CTE			Secondary education
	CTE educators			Special educators			Guidance counselors
Areas of communication and collaboration	n	M	SD	n	M	SD	n	M	SD	df1	df2	Welch	η
Regular communication takes place
Regular communication between CTE and special education	69	2.32	1.15	42	1.98	0.78	19	2.42	0.84	2	53.13	2.68	0.03
CTE is given adequate information regarding students	69	2.77	0.88	42	3.19	0.71	20	3.20	0.62	2	57.99	4.86*	0.07
Special education is adequately informed about CTE	69	2.70	0.81	42	2.64	0.85	20	2.75	0.55	2	59.82	0.18	0.01
CTE Representation at conferences
CTE representatives are invited to and attend conferences for current students with disabilities	68	2.57	1.05	42	2.12	1.01	20	2.25	1.02	2	51.65	2.65	0.04
CTE representatives are invited to attend conferences for projected students with disabilities	68	2.18	0.88	42	2.00	0.98	20	2.20	1.01	2	48.71	0.51	0.01
Professional development opportunities for CTE
CTE instructors are provided professional development opportunities regarding disabilities	68	2.47	0.87	40	2.28	0.91	16	2.06	0.85	2	41.05	1.67	0.03
CTE instructors are provided professional development for students specific needs	68	2.47	0.95	41	2.05	0.77	16	2.00	0.89	2	41.57	3.76*	0.06
Professional development opportunities for special education
Special education teachers are provided professional development regarding CTE programs	67	2.58	0.91	42	2.02	0.92	18	2.11	0.78	2	49.52	5.56**	0.09

Note. CTE = career and technical education.

*

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

When asked whether CTE was given adequate information about adaptations and modifications for students with disabilities, special educators (M = 3.19) and guidance counselors (M = 3.20) agreed adequate information was provided. CTE had lower ratings indicating less agreement (M = 2.77). A significant difference was found between respondent groups (Welch = 4.86, df1 = 2, df2 = 57.99, p <.05) with CTE having lower agreement ratings (Tamhane p < .05). In regard to whether the groups believed that special education was provided with adequate information about CTE programs, respondents’ ratings were more closely aligned (CTE = 2.70, special educators = 2.64, guidance counselors = 2.75). All respondent groups tended to agree special educators were provided with adequate information regarding CTE programs. No statistically significant differences were reported (Welch = 0.18, df1 = 2, df2 = 59.82, p > .05).

In looking at representation of CTE personnel at IEP meetings for both present and projected students with disabilities attending a CTE program, results indicated general consensus. Special educators (M = 2.12) and guidance counselors (M = 2.25) were more likely to disagree CTE representatives were invited to attend conferences for present students with disabilities. CTE respondents had higher ratings (M = 2.57) indicating slightly more agreement CTE was invited to attend conferences for present students with disabilities. There were no statistically significant differences found among respondent groups (Welch = 2.65, df1 = 2, df2 = 51.65, p > .05). When asked about CTE representation at conferences for students with disabilities projected to be in CTE programs, special educators disagreed (M = 2.00) CTE respondents were invited to attend. Guidance counselors (M = 2.20) and CTE (M = 2.18) also tended to disagree. There were no statistically significant differences found among groups (Welch = 0.51, df1 = 2, df2 = 48.71, p > .05).

Table 3 reports findings for questions asking respondents whether professional development opportunities were provided for CTE in regard to disabilities and also for student-specific needs. All groups tended to disagree (CTE = 2.47, special educators = 2.28, guidance counselors = 2.06) CTE instructors were provided with professional development opportunities regarding disabilities. No statistically significant differences were found among respondents (Welch = 1.67, df1 = 2, df2 = 41.05, p > .05). When asked whether CTE instructors were provided professional development for student-specific needs, a significant difference was reported (Welch = 3.76, df1 = 2, df2 = 41.57, p < .05). CTE respondents (M = 2.47) had higher agreement ratings (Tamhane p < .05) compared with special educators (M = 2.05) and guidance counselors (M = 2.00). The results concerning whether respondents believed professional development opportunities were provided to special education teachers regarding CTE programs and services were also reported. Special educators (M = 2.02) and guidance counselors (M = 2.11) indicated overall disagreement. CTE respondents (M = 2.58) indicated more favorable ratings (higher agreement). Significance was noted between respondent groups (Welch = 5.56, df1 = 2, df2 = 49.52, p < .01) with CTE respondents having higher agreement ratings (Tamhane p < .05). Sending school respondents felt less confident special education teachers were provided professional development regarding CTE programs and services compared with CTE respondents. The effect size reported for all analysis (η = .01 to .09) in Table 3 is considered small with limited practical significance.

CTE and Special Educators Roles and Responsibilities

Table 4 reports CTE perceptions regarding the importance of collaboration between CTE and special education as well as perceptions regarding their own personal responsibility and role within the delivery of services. More than 75% of CTE respondents agreed or strongly agreed with each item. CTE respondents felt it was important for them to (a) know about their students with disabilities prior to the beginning of the school year (54% strongly agree), (b) communicate with their special education teacher (46% strongly agree), (c) know the necessary adaptations and modifications for students with disabilities in their program (57% strongly agree), and (d) make the necessary adaptations and modifications specified in the IEP (42% agree). Less than 15% of CTE respondents had a negative perception of the importance of making adaptations and accommodations for students with disabilities in their programs (14.5% disagree). CTE respondents’ ratings indicated the importance of knowing about disabilities. They largely felt responsible for adapting and modifying their CTE programs for students with disabilities.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 4.

Overall Frequencies and Percentages of CTE Perceptions of Communication/Roles/Responsibility.

CTE perceptions of communication and collaboration		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Agree	Strongly Agree	Total
It is important to have student information prior to the beginning of the school year.	n	5	5	22	37	69
	%	7.2	7.2	31.9	53.6	100
I would like for the special education teacher to communicate with me throughout the year.	n	4	3	30	32	69
	%	5.8	4.3	43.5	46.4	100
It is necessary for me to know the adaptations modifications for students in my programs.	n	4	5	21	39	69
	%	5.8	7.2	30.4	56.5	100
It is my responsibility to make IEP adaptations and modifications for students in my programs	n	5	10	29	25	69
	%	7.2	14.5	42.0	36.2	100

Note. CTE = career and technical education; IEP = Individual Education Program.

Given similar questions (see Table 5), sending school special educators and guidance counselors felt (a) it was important for CTE teachers to have specific student information prior to the start of the school year (69% strongly agreed), (b) it was their responsibility to provide this information to the CTE center (49% strongly agree), (c) they had a responsibility in monitoring IEP adaptations and accommodations were being made at the CTE center, (43% agree, 16% strongly agree), and (d) it was their responsibility to assist CTE with the adaptations and modifications for students with disabilities enrolled in CTE programs (43% agree, 20% strongly agreed). It is important to note that 41% of secondary educators disagreed that they were responsible for monitoring the IEP adaptations and accommodations being made at the CTE center (30% disagree, 11% strongly disagree). A similar percentage (38%) disagreed they should be responsible for assisting CTE teachers with making needed adaptations or accommodations for students with disabilities in CTE programs (28% disagree, 10% strongly disagree). These findings indicated sending school respondents had mixed feelings about their role and responsibilities concerning support for CTE programs.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 5.

Overall Frequencies and Percentages of Secondary Education Perceptions of Communication/Roles/Responsibility.

Secondary education perceptions of communication/ collaboration		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Agree	Strongly Agree	Total
It is important for CTE to have student information prior to the beginning of the school year.	n	0	1	18	42	69
	%	0.0	1.6	29.5	68.9	100
It is my responsibility to provide specific student information to the CTE center.	n	2	8	21	30	69
	%	3.3	13.1	34.4	49.2	100
It is my responsibility to monitor that adaptations and modifications are being made at CTE.	n	7	18	26	10	69
	%	11.5	29.5	42.6	16.4	100
It is my responsibility to assist CTE with adaptations and modifications for students at CTE.	n	6	17	26	12	69
	%	9.8	27.9	42.6	19.7	100

Note. CTE = career and technical education.

Communication Process

Findings from the present study supported the literature indicating CTE and special educators believe communication was important, but do not always communicate regularly or effectively on behalf of students with disabilities in CTE (Cotton, 2000; Harvey et al., 2007; Wonacott, 2001). Data also identified a lack of knowledge and process that impeded the success of communication. CTE teachers and administrators, secondary special education teachers, and guidance counselors generally agreed student IEPs were most often sent to the CTE center although several respondents did not know how student information was made available to the CTE center. Generally, respondents believed student information (e.g., IEP) was provided to the CTE center in the fall or at the beginning of the school year although several respondents had no knowledge of when this information was provided, if at all. These findings are similar to those reported by Hall (2007) regarding CTE teachers not being aware of students with disabilities participating in CTE programs and not having seen their IEPs. Not having student information or knowing which students need supports is problematic in CTE.

Sixteen percent of CTE respondents did not know who was responsible to provide information regarding students with disabilities to the CTE center. A smaller percentage (5%) of special education teachers did not know. CTE respondents believed the responsibility belonged to the special education teacher or guidance counselor, while secondary special education teachers believed it was their responsibility. Guidance counselors largely felt they were responsible to provide this information. The lack of a “clear-cut” understanding of how information was provided to the CTE center and who was to provide the information as noted in this study is an ongoing concern. Sending schools’ guidance counselors and special education teachers each felt they held this responsibility. Findings indicated the function of each position was obviously not clearly delineated. Legally, Indiana’s special education rules (IDOE, 2010) indicate the special education teacher of record (TOR) is responsible for informing general education teachers (including CTE) regarding students with disabilities and their specific needs. The legal obligation is instructive as to how and who shares pertinent student information.

Study results indicated CTE and special educators believed communication took place only as needed or not at all. Secondary school guidance counselors felt communication occurred monthly or as needed. The findings align with those reported by Okolo and Sitlington (1988) and point to minimal levels of communication, which were not conducted on a regular basis, between CTE and sending school personnel. This is an ongoing issue. Communication and collaboration between CTE and special educators is a critical element in student success as suggested by Cotton (2000), Harvey et al. (2007), and Wonacott (2001). How communication occurs is equally important. This study found disconnects in the methods used for communication (e.g., email, midterm reports, conferences). Conferences were not often utilized for communication although IDEA mandates annual IEP meetings. At the very least, the annual review provides a logical (if not legal) opportunity for CTE communication and collaboration. There needs to be established parameters of communication to occur as suggested by Rehm (2008).

Collaborative Efforts and Professional Development

The importance of participation of CTE staff in planning for students with disabilities in CTE programs is well documented (Haber & Sutherland, 2008; Test et al., 2006). Decision making regarding CTE program placement for students with disabilities must involve CTE representation at planning meetings. This study found CTE was not typically present at IEP planning meetings for present or projected students with disabilities. The results were similar to those reported by the NCSET (2009). There was (and continues to be) a legitimate need for CTE to be invited to actively participate in the decision-making process concerning students with disabilities enrolled in or projected to participate in CTE programs as suggested by Haber and Sutherland (2008).

Okolo and Sitlington (1988) reported little training regarding student needs took place between special education and CTE. Harvey et al. (2007) found CTE teachers needed support from special education teachers to meet student-specific needs to support CTE programming. Study results indicated CTE staff felt they had limited professional development in working with students with disabilities and student-specific needs. When asked whether special education teachers were provided professional development regarding CTE programs and services, special educators and guidance counselors clearly disagreed. These findings suggest more professional development was needed. Professional development efforts can support effective collaboration and communication and are critical elements in better serving and advocating for students with disabilities enrolled in or projected to participate in CTE. Results reported here indicated a need for better understanding by each stakeholder group (CTE, guidance counselors, special education teachers) regarding the needs and how to best serve students with disabilities in CTE. Professional development opportunities in this area would be beneficial.

CTE respondents agreed it was important for them to have student information prior to the start of the year, and it was necessary to know adaptations and modifications for these students in their programs. Overall, CTE respondents agreed they would have liked to have communication with the special education teacher throughout the year. These findings align with those reported by Cotton (2000). Special educators and guidance counselors strongly agreed it was important for CTE teachers to have student information prior to the start of the school year. These respondents also felt strongly it was their responsibility to provide student information concerning students with disabilities attending CTE programs. In addition, many secondary education respondents indicated they had a responsibility to monitor CTE to make sure program adaptations and modifications were being made. They also indicated they needed to assist CTE personnel with making the needed adaptations and modifications. Surprisingly, 41% of sending school respondents disagreed they had a responsibility to monitor and make sure program adaptations and modifications were being made in CTE. Harvey et al. (2007) explicitly stated CTE would need further assistance from special educators to better serve students with disabilities in CTE. When looking at the direct responsibility for support taking place, no clear-cut level of responsibility was noted in our findings. This indicated a need for continued efforts to support collaboration, communication, and cooperation between CTE and sending schools on behalf of students with disabilities. The literature represents two decades of research that supports this need (Cotton, 2000; DeFur & Taymans, 1995; Haber & Sutherland, 2008; Hall, 2007; Harvey et al., 2007; Wonacott, 2001).

Limitations

First, this study was exploratory, designed to provide insights into the issue of collaboration and communication between stand-alone CTE centers and their sending high schools. The results represented aggregate data reinforcing the exploratory nature of the study. As such, the findings do not generalize beyond Indiana. Second, the sampling design was purposeful based on the CTE population of interest, stand-alone centers, and their associated sending high schools. There were issues in obtaining permission for the original selected sample of CTE stand-alone centers for participation. This resulted in IDOE involvement and expanded the scope of study participation. This may have influenced our findings although the intent and design of the study remained the same. Third, the study required direct delivery of the survey packets to CTE centers and/or distribution to CTE centers and sending high schools through the U.S. Postal Service. This survey method may have limited the return rate (42%) although this rate aligns with findings reported by Matz (1999) for paper-and-pencil surveys. Finally, many CTE teachers held alternative teaching credentials (e.g., associate’s degree, occupational specialist certificate). There is potential that teacher training and background may have influenced respondents’ perceptions based on their knowledge of special needs populations and students with disabilities participating in CTE.

Implications for Practice and Recommendations

CTE is a viable course of study for students with disabilities (Newman et al., 2011; Wagner et al., 2003). This is further evidenced by positive postsecondary employment outcomes for those who participated in CTE programs while in high school (Harvey, 2002; Wagner, 1991; Wonacott, 2001). Clearly CTE and special education professionals need to work collaboratively and cooperatively to meet the needs of students with disabilities concerning CTE training (Haber & Sutherland, 2008; Harvey, 2001b; Wonacott, 2001). Shared information and assistance from sending school special educators is needed by CTE instructors to meet the needs of students with disabilities enrolled in CTE (Cotton, 2000; Hall, 2007; Harvey et al., 2007).

The following recommendations to improve practice at the local level are made:

First, CTE administrators must collaborate with their sending high school administrators and school district special education administrators to review local education agency (LEA) policies and school-based practices regarding CTE programming for students with disabilities as part of a comprehensive approach to gathering, analyzing, and reviewing data related to processes and structures presently in place. LEA policies and practices used must establish the basis for design of a survey, similar to the one used in this study, to assess the perceptions of present practices at the local level. The survey can serve as front-end needs assessment to guide CTE improvement efforts where local policies, practices, and concerns are incorporated into the survey. It is suggested survey methods use face-to-face traditional paper-and-pencil surveys conducted with CTE staff and secondary special education teachers and guidance counselors as part of data collection. Efforts to improve/support CTE services must focus on three key components (a) analysis of federal and state mandates to support CTE programming for students with disabilities (e.g., Perkins Act, IDEA, State law, that is, IDOE Article 7), (b) distillation of local policies and procedures specific to students with disabilities and CTE programs, and (c) survey results concerning stakeholders’ perceptions of both positive and negative present practices and suggestions to support best practices. A report of findings above would be prepared and shared with CTE and secondary sending school staff as benchmarking to establish improvement efforts and best practice. Survey results would be instructive to future improvement efforts regarding interdisciplinary collaboration as suggested by Kohler and Field (2003).

Second, the LEA must create an intereducational team (IET) consisting of CTE, secondary special education, guidance counselors, students, parents, and others (as defined by the LEA) to serve as an advisory group to CTE. The IET would be charged with reviewing the reported finding from a, b, and c above. The IET would synthesize the needs assessment data working with stakeholders to make recommendations regarding policies and practices to improve communication, sharing of information, decision-making process/practices, and collaboration on behalf of shared students with disabilities in CTE programs. The IET would formulate recommendations to include (a) procedures for CTE representation at IEP meetings for students with disabilities projected to be in or presently enrolled in CTE programming, (b) formalized structure of paperwork and student information sharing to include timeline, documents, method, and means of communication, (c) delineate the roles and responsibilities of CTE staff and sending school special educators and guidance counselors concerning students with disabilities participating in CTE programs, (d) a framework for professional development opportunities for CTE and sending school personnel to more effectively serve shared students, and (e) formalized and informal structures for communication and collaboration with a recommended timeline to inform and support all stakeholders (CTE, special education, guidance, administration, students, and parents). The IET’s recommendations would be shared with the appropriate stakeholder group/s at the local level (CTE and LEA administration, school board/s, advisory council) for action.

Finally, further research needs to be conducted at the state and local level in this area. The present body of literature is limited and dated but is critically important to policy makers and the field whereas effective secondary CTE programming leads to school completion and positive employment outcomes for students with disabilities. Broader survey research similar to this study can inform the field regarding present practice, improvements needed, and action steps toward more effective CTE programming for students with disabilities as suggested by Haber and Sutherland (2008), Harvey et al. (2007), and Test et al. (2006). Research results could also inform policy makers regarding CTE and special education programming and service mandates needed to improve CTE and sending school collaboration on behalf of students with disabilities in CTE.