A National Survey of Transition Services for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students

Abstract

This manuscript analyzed a survey of programs providing transition services to deaf and hard-of-hearing (D/HH) students. Quantitative analyses compared services offered by residential, large (35+ D/HH students), and small (<35 students) programs. Correlations across Employment Preparation, Post-school Preparation, and Transition Assessments were significant suggesting program consistency in offerings. ANOVA comparisons for Employment Preparation found that residential programs offered significantly more services than large or small programs. Post-school Preparation and Transition Assessments were not significantly different indicating similar levels of services. Overall, programs focused their services on early and initial transition issues rather than on long-term needs and strategies. In contrast, research indicates that D/HH students require longer to achieve postsecondary and employment outcomes commensurate with their peers. Several strategies are offered to increase program access to specialized transition services and supports for these students in meeting their unique transition needs.

Keywords

deaf hard of hearing transition employment postsecondary preparation

Introduction

The Nature and Extent of Population Differences

In 1989, Allen, Rawlings, and Schildroth published an extensive study describing transition service provision for deaf and hard-of-hearing (D/HH) students across the United States. A number of publications since have described transition challenges facing D/HH students and their service providers (Bonds, 2003; Bowe, 2003; Danek & Busby, 1999; Luckner, 2002), but none have collected or reported program services data. A more current description of transition services is needed that would reflect new patterns of educational placement for D/HH students. Prior to P.L. 94-142, D/HH students were educated primarily in separate and residential schools (Moores, 2001). In 1993, 18.74% of D/HH students enrolled in public residential or special school programs; as of 2005, this figure was 10.48% (U.S. Department of Education, 1995, 2010).

The movement from residential to local public school placements presents a unique concern for D/HH students with regard to availability of disability-specific transition services. Although increased integration provides greater opportunities for instruction from the standard curriculum and with normally hearing peers, D/HH students in public school programs have fewer specialized programmatic supports and services to address their unique transition needs. Stinson and Kluwin (2003) reported that residential and special schools for D/HH students provided more dedicated services. Some of these services include on-site vocational rehabilitation (VR) counselors, on-campus and off-campus work experiences and training, and disability-appropriate career and academic-preparation programs.

Deaf residential schools also provide many of the services and social supports not found in public school settings (Padden, 1996). These include opportunities for student leadership and strong role modeling through hiring of deaf faculty and staff with approximately half of school superintendents who are, themselves, deaf (Moores, 2001). Residential schools typically have larger enrollments at the high school due to higher numbers of transfer students from local schools (Moores, 1996, 2001; Schirmer, 2001).The disability-specific focus of these schools suggests greater capacity to provide specialty transition services to address unique preparation needs for entering adulthood.

Research comparing school programs has found that residential schools have better outcomes and implementation of more desirable transition practices. Bull and Bullis (1991) found that D/HH students from residential schools had higher rates of positive postschool activities (employment, postsecondary attendance). In contrast, Luft and Huff (2011) found relatively poor transition outcomes for public school secondary D/HH students with none of 53 participants demonstrating competency across the six subtests of the Transition Competence Battery (Bullis & Reiman, 1992; Reiman, Bullis, & Davis, 1993). Nearly two thirds (n = 33, 62.3%) were unable to achieve competency on any of the subtests suggesting substantial gaps in their transition preparation. Similarly, Moores (2001) described many small- to moderate-sized public school programs as not offering appropriate services to D/HH students.

Access to the general academic curriculum is expected to result in higher achievement. However, comparisons of academic achievement by school placement for D/HH students have been difficult to interpret. Stinson and Kluwin’s (2003) review found that between 65% and 80% of the variance in achievement was unexplained. Several studies found between 1% and 5% of achievement to be due to placement with 25% or more due to student characteristics (gender, level of hearing loss, presence of other disabilities). Therefore, unlike other disability groups, access to the general curriculum and placement in general education classrooms seem to contribute little to achievement of D/HH students.

An additional challenge for many D/HH students is their comparatively poor literacy and academic achievement. This affects their access to the academic curriculum and coursework, subsequent postsecondary programs, and success with functional academic tasks of adult living. Despite three-plus decades of increasing inclusion with typical peers, improved hearing aid and cochlear implant technologies, broader support for early intervention and preschool programs, and a range of communication options, language delay has remained an unfortunate and resilient sequela of early childhood hearing loss (Anderson, 2006; Carney & Moeller, 1988; Davis, Elfenbein, Schum, & Bentler, 1986; Friedmann & Szterman, 2006; Gilbertson & Kamhi, 1995; Gregory & Hindley, 1996; Lederberg, 2003; Marschark & Lukomski, 2001; Marschark, Schick, & Spencer, 2006; Mayne, 1998; Moeller, 2000; Moeller, Osberger, & Eccarius, 1986). Substantial language delays are present regardless of severity of hearing losses, and even children with mild and moderate hearing losses demonstrate these delays (Lederberg & Everhart, 1998; Mayne, Yoshinaga-Itano, Sedey, & Carey, 2000).

In general, early language delay due to hearing loss results in substantial lifelong language impoverishment with deficiencies in literacy skills and academic achievement (Boudreault & Mayberry, 2006; Karchmer & Mitchell, 2003; Lederberg, 2003; Marschark & Lukomski, 2001; Traxler, 2000). Neurological maturation patterns suggest that linguistic capacity peaks between ages 2 and 3 (Lecours, 1975; Lenneberg, 1967). By the time children with hearing losses arrive at kindergarten, their linguistic learning slows as their brains shift to logical and abstract reasoning functions, leaving their final achievement of full language fluency compromised. Evidence of long-term impacts is found in decades of poor academic achievement scores. Mean SAT math problem-solving scores for 18-year-olds showed some improvement with grade equivalents rising from 3.8 to 5.6 between 1974 and 2003 (Qi & Mitchell, 2012). However, mean scores for reading comprehension during those same years remained below the fourth grade. This fourth-grade reading plateau also was found by Furth in 1966 (as cited by Ewoldt, 1981) indicating that literacy has been problematic for quite some time, and extremely resistant to intervention.

As suggested from the research review by Stinson and Kluwin (2003), education and transition services for D/HH students require unique strategies and supports, with outcomes that may not be similar to either their typical peers or peers with disabilities. Instructional content is transmitted primarily through language—spoken, signed, or written—which assumes full language fluency that is not necessarily present in this population. In addition, it is through language that adults and peers scaffold life experiences into meaningful learning events. Access to the general curriculum or classroom and to transition services may be substantially occluded by nonfluent linguistic abilities. Much of the education for D/HH individuals requires modification or alteration provided by specially trained professionals who have insight into the depth and breadth of linguistic and world understanding differences, including the more hidden issues that affect those with milder hearing losses (Punch, Hyde, & Creed, 2004; Schroedel, Watson, & Ashmore, 2003).

Postsecondary Attendance and Postschool Employment

Poor academic achievement compromises postsecondary admissions, retention, and graduation. Bullis, Bull, Johnson, and Peters (1995) found that rates of D/HH postsecondary attendance were significantly lower (p = .00) than those of their hearing peers. Yet, postsecondary completion is linked to increased employment outcomes for D/HH individuals (Moores, 2001; Schroedel & Geyer, 2000). Recent studies examining positive postschool activities found that 35.9% of D/HH young adults were working and attending postsecondary education 2 years after high school, with an additional 5.9% attending only postsecondary programs (Wagner, Newman, Cameto, Garza, & Levine, 2005). After 2 additional years, the rate of postsecondary attendance with employment had changed little (36.2%), although those combining postsecondary program attendance with job training increased by 17.4% (Newman, Wagner, Cameto, & Knokey, 2009). Eight years after leaving high school, 45.7% of D/HH individuals had attended postsecondary programs and been employed at some point, with 24.4% engaged in three activities: job training, employment, and postsecondary programs (Newman et al., 2011). Overall, 95.4% of D/HH individuals had been engaged in some type of postsecondary education and training or employment since leaving high school, which ranked 3rd across 12 disability categories.

Although most D/HH individuals attended postsecondary education, prior research has indicated poor rates of completion often due to inadequate postsecondary skill preparation (Bat-Chava et al., 1999; Moores, 2001). Newman et al. (2009) found that 4 years after leaving high school, only 15.4% of D/HH individuals no longer enrolled in postsecondary programs actually had graduated or completed their training. In all, 8 years after leaving high school, postsecondary completion rates rose to 52.9% (Newman et al., 2011). The 42.5% difference at 8 years between attending and completing postsecondary training suggests that transition planning teams and adult agencies need to anticipate an extended time period for completion with long-term service and support needs.

Whether D/HH young adults enter employment immediately after high school or first attend a postsecondary program, they often have difficulty entering and competing in the job market (Allen, Rawlings, & Schildroth, 1989; Bullis et al., 1995; Schildroth, Rawlings, & Allen, 1991; Valdes, Williamson, & Wagner, 1990). Research has documented general workforce marginalization of this group, partially due to limited or inappropriate vocational or apprenticeship training opportunities (Schroedel et al., 2003).

More recent data show that 2 years after leaving high school, D/HH young adults’ employment rates grew from 39.2% to 44.2%, an increase of 5.0% (Wagner et al., 2005). However, this still ranked 9th of 11 disability groups, with 3 groups increasing 19% or more in those same 2 years. Four years after high school, D/HH employment increased to 53.9% and by 8 years was 57.2%, increases that ranked 4th across 12 disability groups (Newman et al., 2009; Newman et al., 2011). Again, these rates suggest needs for long-term transition planning and support services.

Less positively, data from VR indicate that individuals with hearing losses worked in competitive employment positions less frequently than other disability categories and had jobs requiring lower skill levels (Capella, 2003a, 2003b). Poor literacy and academic achievement often limit successful competition for skilled and professional-level employment positions with a high number of D/HH individuals who are underemployed in relation to their abilities and training (Moores, 2001).

Teacher Preparation in Transition

State requirements through the No Child Left Behind Act of 2011 (P.L. 107-110) ensure that deaf educators have basic state licensure in the disability and content area to which they are assigned (Luft, 2008b). Programs serving D/HH students must report to parents and on state report cards the qualifications of their teachers as a guarantee that D/HH students receive high-quality education from appropriately trained teachers. However, several studies have found that special educators have limited or inadequate training in transition services (Blalock et al., 2003). Wandry et al. (2008) found that most entry-level special educators had little training in transition. Transition-related instruction also may be inadequately or insufficiently implemented. Carlson, Chen, Schroll, and Klein (2003) noted that transition and postschool living instruction often received minimal focus in K–12 school programs, and many teachers believed that they had little time to conduct transition activities. In addition, although special educators used best practices for reading, inclusion, and behavior management, they rarely did so for transition (Carlson et al., 2003). These studies suggest that although deaf educators are trained and considered highly qualified with regard to academic content, they are likely to have limited training or time to provide transition instruction or to utilize best practices when doing so.

In summary, there have been historical as well as ongoing challenges to achieving positive postsecondary and employment outcomes for D/HH individuals. In addition, the change of primary educational placements from residential to public school programs has affected D/HH students’ access to specialized transition, vocational, and employment services appropriate to their educational and disability needs. To better understand their current access to transition services, this study surveyed programs throughout the United States to identify differences between residential, large, and small public school transition offerings. The study’s first hypothesis stated that residential schools have the most specialization, capacity, and consistency in provision of transition services. The second hypothesis stated that public school programs with higher numbers of D/HH students (large programs) would have greater specialization, capacity, and consistency in providing transition services in comparison with programs with lower numbers (small programs).

Method

Participants

A survey of transition services was developed and distributed during the spring and fall of 2007 using a listing of programs for each state from the American Annals of the Deaf Reference Issue (2006). Programs were chosen based on their listing by type (residential, special day, and local programs), enrollment size, grade levels, and services.

The study defined large programs as those consisting of 35 or more D/HH students across K–12 levels and small programs as those with 34 or fewer students. Programs without enrollment data or secondary-level services were not included. This categorization represented a natural division of program size across the listings with far fewer programs enrolling 35 or more students. For example, Ohio listed 2 residential programs (enrollments of 81 and 135), followed by 17 local programs, 6 of which did not provide enrollment data. Of the remaining, 8 had enrollments less than 35 students (5–31) and 3 had enrollments of 35 or more (40–228).

Deaf education programs with 35 or more students across K–12 levels often consist of at least one classroom at the primary, elementary, middle, and high school levels. In addition, higher enrollment often leads to greater program stability and enables longer term planning, resource development, and programming options. Programs with fewer students more often utilize itinerant or temporary teachers to address changing enrollment patterns that are flexible, rather than stable.

Procedure

Program selection utilized a 15% weighted random procedure across the residential, large, and small program categories within each state. Three research assistants received training in contact and data collection procedures, and each was assigned one third of the listings. Within each state, they categorized each program based on type and enrollment and used a random number generator to produce a sequential (nonrepeating) list of numbers for contact order that continued until reaching 15% of each program category.

The research assistants contacted each program from this randomized list using the telephone and/or email contact from the directory, and asked for the name of the individual most knowledgeable about transition services for D/HH students. After giving consent, this person chose to take the survey by telephone or through an Internet tool (Survey Monkey). Research assistants entered all telephone survey data into the survey software. The software’s analysis function created a spreadsheet of results that was transferred to SPSS 15 for statistical analysis. Demographic information on the response form was voluntary to ensure privacy, and was saved as text data.

Instrument

Survey development

To ensure development of a comprehensive instrument, the author reviewed and compiled transition services and outcomes from 20 publications on transition services. This list was categorized into the topics with items that asked for ratings of program quality for D/HH students with and without additional disabilities. The transition assessment category was included to identify ways in which programs met the Individuals With Disabilities Educational Improvement Act (IDEIA; 2004) requirements to provide age-appropriate transition assessments.

Pilot testing

The research assistants randomly chose five programs to complete a pilot survey of the items. The respondents reported that the survey required 30 min or more to complete, and many felt that they had insufficient detail to respond appropriately. Overall, they felt that the survey’s comprehensiveness was burdensome and would not yield accurate information or a high response rate.

The author and research assistants reduced the survey to a 10- to 15-min web survey with transition items and four open-response windows for comments. Survey items were organized into four transition topics with the number of final survey items shown in Table 1. The new format facilitated ease of response by use of a radio-button format to mark those services offered; a blank indicated that these were not offered. Three final survey items asked for demographic information that was voluntary because many states have a single residential school and respondents and school could be easily identified.

Table 1.

Transition Survey Topics and Number of Items.

Topic	Number of items
Employment preparation
Career preparation	4 items
Community-based work	4 items
Job search and training	5 items
Postschool preparation
Computer and Internet training	7 items
Postsecondary preparation	7 items
Transition assessments	7 items

Analyses

Descriptive statistic comparisons between programs utilized percentages because of unequal respondent numbers between program categories. Differences in transition offerings between program categories were compared using an analysis of variance procedure with the dependent variable being the number of services offered. Relationships between services offered across transition topic areas were compared using correlations between programs and within program categories. High correlations would suggest consistent levels of offerings across transition topics. Comments from the open-response windows provided details and examples to support quantitative results.

Results

The randomized weighting procedure was not successful because of limited responses despite the much abbreviated survey document. For example, across the 44 states with residential programs (American Annals of the Deaf, 2006), a total of 14 responded. Although this 31.8% response rate is acceptable for survey research, it did not allow for weighted representation within each state. A response rate could not be calculated for the other programs because nonresponders potentially included those whose directory information was incorrect due to personnel attrition and delay between submission of information and directory publication. The number who never received contacts cannot be accurately differentiated from those who chose not to respond.

Research assistants continued to contact all programs listed in each state to increase the analysis pool, but replies did not reach the targeted 15% sampling rate for most states. Program contacts continued for an additional 8 months, through August 2008. The extended contacts resulted in 94 total responses of which 92 indicated program category (residential, large, or small). Narrative comments from the 2 without program type indicated that both were small programs and were classified accordingly: The first reported having one D/HH student in the program, and the second program’s most knowledgeable person was a special education coordinator and speech/language pathologist.

Of the 94 responding programs, 14 were residential, 28 were large (35 or more D/HH students), and 52 were small (34 or fewer, see Figure 1). Within the 14 residential programs, 5 identified their state; 13 within the large programs identified their state, representing 10 different states; and 15 small programs identified their state, also representing 10 different states. Responses by state were not tracked further due to limited data.

Figure 1.

School program categories by number of programs responding.

Participants

A voluntary, open-response text box allowed respondents to identify themselves, their positions, and their years of experience. A total of 11 of the 14 residential school respondents had from 3 to 30 years of experience in providing transition to D/HH students, with a mean of 12.09 years. In all, 14 of the 28 large school respondents reported D/HH transition experience ranging from 1 to 32 years with a mean of 13.5. In all, 14 of the 52 small school respondents had D/HH transition experience ranging from 2 to 26 years with a mean of 11.36.

The respondents’ positions varied across the school hierarchy. Of the residential school respondents, three were superintendents, four were transition coordinators, and two were work developers/career specialists. For the large schools, three were superintendents, four were special education or school directors, five were supervisors, four were program coordinators, four were lead teachers, and one was a transition coordinator. For the small schools, one was an executive director, one was a principal, six were special education directors or coordinators, two were speech/language pathologists, two were transition teachers, two were transition coordinators, and two were classroom teachers. All of the residential schools provided services exclusively to D/HH students. In addition, three of the large schools and two of the small schools described providing services exclusively to D/HH students.

Survey Responses

Employment preparation

Services provided in this area included topics of career preparation, community-based work, and job search and training. Career preparation was the most frequently offered topic across all program categories beginning with career awareness (see Figure 2). Career development (interest and skill-based experiences) was offered more often by small programs than large, with similar levels for work experience across large and small programs. Career advancement (job maintenance, tenure, and promotion strategies) was offered least frequently by programs.

Figure 2.

Results of career preparation survey items.

The community-based work topic included job shadowing, work experience, work in a preferred career area, and/or paid employment in the community. Community-based work experience was offered at the highest rate, by 75% or more of schools across categories (see Figure 3). Work in a preferred area of interest was offered at the lowest rate, especially by large and small programs.

Figure 3.

Results of community-based work survey items.

The job search and training topic included job applications, disability disclosure, job interviewing, interpersonal job-related skills, and preparing for job or career changes. Job applications and job interviewing topics were offered most frequently across all categories with interpersonal job skills following closely as third (see Figure 4). Instruction on disability disclosure was offered by approximately 60% of programs with job and career change offered least often.

Figure 4.

Results of job search and training survey items.

Number of offerings for each responding school was summed across the employment preparation topics. The totals ranged from 8 to 13 for residential programs and 0 to13 for large and small programs. An ANOVA comparison was significant, F(2, 91) = 5.786, p = .004, see Table 2. A post hoc t test between categories showed that residential schools offered significantly more services than large or small programs (p = .002 and p = .003, respectively) with no significant difference between large and small programs (p = .515). Effect size calculations used partial η², showing small effects, and explained 11.3% of the variance of this comparison.

Table 2.

ANOVA Comparison for Employment Preparation Offerings Across Program Categories.

	df	MS	F	Significance	Effect size
Employment preparation
Between groups	2	61.028	5.786	.004**	0.113
Within groups	91	10.547
Postsecondary preparation
Between groups	2	22.716	2.497	.088	0.052
Within groups	91	9.096
Transition assessments
Between groups	2	11.266	2.837	.064	0.059
Within groups	91	3.971

Note. MS = mean square.

p < .01.

A Levene test for homogeneity of variance was significant (p = .45) indicating that variances within the three categories were not homogeneous in violation of statistical assumptions for the ANOVA. The heterogeneity of variance may have resulted from the restricted range (8–13) for residential programs across this small category (n = 14) compared with a broader range of service offerings (0–13) and greater numbers for large and small programs. Residential programs typically had the highest offering rates for each of the 13 items suggesting support for ANOVA results.

Open-response comments for the employment preparation area identified 8 from residential, 18 from large, and 31 from small programs. One residential school utilized a career portfolio, three had strong collaborative arrangements with other agencies, and three described offering strong work preparation programs. One school described a paid work experience program that had been eliminated due to budget cuts. Table 3 lists narrative comments that represent the continuum of responses across program categories and transition topics.

Table 3.

Respondents’ Narrative Comments.

Employment preparation
Residential programs	We offer a wide range of programs to perpare [sic] students to enter employment settings, strong collaboration with Office of Vocational Rehabilitation as well as local and regional employers.Previous to this year, we offered paid work experiences both at XXXX and in the community after school. Due to budget cuts, this was canceled for 2007–2008. During the school day, students earn a grade and are not paid.
Large programs	We have a representative from Vocational Rehabilitation come to senior case conferences. Most of our D/HH high schoolers are mainstreamed in the general education. They receive the same career/employment opportunities as their classmates. The D/HH students in the moderate–severe classroom do work in sheltered workshops or other work-related areas.Our D/HH students only have access to community-based vocational experience through the school district if they are also intellectually disabled. Our D/HH students who work toward general education high school diplomas do not have access to these courses because they are completely involved in the regular curriculum. I do not think this is a good thing for them or for general education students either. This is a result of NCLB’s implementation.
Small programs	Our district believes that arranging college housing and taking campus tours is a parent responsibility. I help to set up tours, but I can not take the students on the tours.Beginning in eighth grade, students are encouraged to think about and explore job possibilities and postsecondary options.
Postschool preparation
Residential programs	During senior year our college bound students work with the transition department and career center specialist to handle all of their [sic] post secondary planning needs such as financial aid, VR, scholarship searches, college applications, etc.We need to improve our services in seeking financial aid and completing applications.
Large programs	Many of our D/HH students attend postsecondary education at the community college level or at one of our state universities. THey [sic] receive connecting support from their disabled student resources.The above is done in a transition meeting. It is not actually taught in a class room.
Small programs	Most of the above areas would be reviewed with the students through VR or their individual guidance counselors.I complete the self-advocacy for D/HH students’ book with my secondary students. This book is out of print now, which is regrettable as it is a valuable tool for helping students understand their ADA rights in the postsecondary and work environments.
Transition assessments
Residential programs	We utilize what we feel is a good menu of assessment tools but are always seeking improved ways of assessing and measuring students’ achievement of transition goals.All students prepare a power point slide that they present at the start of their IEP meeting that starts the meeting and allows them to experience advocating for their educational needs.
Large programs	We use a variety of assessments and individualize according to each student’s needs. Most sophomores take a vocational screening or vocational evaluation that includes information about student’s aptitude and abilities. The Transition Competency Battery for the Deaf is administered and used to identify student weaknesses. Students are provided opportunities in competitive job settings or supported employment sites with assistance.This is state specific. XX does not require us to do this, but depending on where the student is from, we will complete the appropriate assessements [sic].
Small programs	XX Career Information System—Students complete an Interest Inventory, which outlines jobs they may be interested in based on their likes and dislikes. Vocational Rehabilitation also completes trasition [sic] assessments with each student, beginning in their junior year.We only test ability when absolutely necessary because ability testing is not a part of determining D/HH qualification into our program. An audiogram is more important.

Note. D/HH = deaf and hard-of-hearing; NCLB = No Child Left Behind Act; VR = vocational rehabilitation; ADA = Americans With Disabilities Act; IEP = Individualized Education Program.

Large schools described providing employment preparation activities in a variety of ways: One school used transition high school counselors, another used a vocational program with interpreters, and a third used the Life Centered Career Education curriculum (Brolin, 1997). Two schools offered the same services available to all other students, three schools offered electives, and three schools used VR services. One program used vocational classes only “as needed,” and another school provided employment training only when students “aged out” of the typical program. Four schools offered work skills only for students with cognitive disabilities, and two schools offered employment topics only during students’ senior year.

Small schools also used a variety of offerings to address this topic: One school had a deaf job trainer, one used a life skills center, one had a transitions class, one had an elective at the middle school, one used an elective at the high school, and one held a weekly employment meeting for students. Two schools used a guidance counselor, and five schools allowed D/HH students access to general education courses, a regional training program for students with disabilities, and/or VR services. Two schools limited work skills training to students with multiple disabilities.

Postschool preparation

This area consisted of computer and Internet training, and postsecondary preparation. At the time of the survey and literature review, classroom utilization of computers focused on future and postschool skill development rather than as part of ongoing instruction. Computer and Internet trainings were more frequent for Microsoft Word, email, and Internet search strategies (see Figure 5). Presentation software applications were more frequently offered than spreadsheet applications, and personal ethics and security issues.

Figure 5.

Results of computer and Internet training survey items.

The most frequent postsecondary preparation topics were entrance requirements and application processes with lower rates for Advanced Placement (AP) coursework and housing arrangements (see Figure 6). A majority of programs offered visits to postsecondary sites, orientation to postsecondary issues, and financial aid information.

Figure 6.

Results of postsecondary preparation survey items.

Narrative comments for postschool preparation included 9 from residential, 19 from large, and 25 from small programs. One residential school used their transition department to offer these skills, two had a specific postsecondary preparation program, and two others used visits from recruiters. One school addressed these issues only through Individualized Education Program (IEP) meetings, and one school listed computer skill offerings for keyboarding and Internet ethics.

Across the large school respondents, three reported having a specific class for postsecondary skills and two used guest speakers for this topic. One program used only the IEP meeting process, and one had parent information meetings. Three programs allowed access to the same classes available to other students. Six programs reported a range of computer software training, web development, and webpage design offerings.

Small schools described a variety of single-school offerings: One used a program for vocationally focused students, one relied on the local district programs, one used school electives, one offered personal visits to sites, and one utilized a self-advocacy booklet about Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA; see Table 3). Two programs allowed access to typical program options, four used guidance counselors, and one relied on parents to address this topic. Computer offerings were less extensive with one requiring a computer class and another teaching WebCt (Web Course Tools).

The total of postschool preparation offerings ranged from 5 to 14 for residential programs, 4 to 14 for large programs, and 0 to 13 for small programs. The ANOVA comparison was not significant, F(2, 91) = 2.497, p = .088, indicating a similar rate of offerings across program categories. The Levene test for homogeneity of variances was not significant (p = .97) indicating similar variances between the program categories in support of ANOVA results.

Transition assessments

Program respondents indicated offerings across seven assessment types: interest inventories or checklists, aptitude, ability, vocational, transition, work samples, and work adjustment and motivation. Programs used interest inventories or checklists most frequently, at 85% level or higher (see Figure 7). More than 50% of programs also used aptitude and vocational assessments with work samples with work adjustment and motivation assessments used less frequently.

Figure 7.

Results of transition assessment survey items.

The program totals of transition assessment offerings ranged from 1 to 7 for residential programs and 0 to 7 for large and small programs. An ANOVA comparison was not significant, F(2, 91) = 2.837, p = .064, indicating a similar rate of assessment use across categories. The Levene test for homogeneity of variances was not significant (p = .77), indicating similar variances between the program categories.

Open-response comments for the transition assessment area included 7 from residential, 10 from large, and 18 from small programs (see Table 3). Four residential programs listed several specific assessments, indicating that a psychologist did all such assessments, another incorporated transition assessments into the IEP, and a third used an annual case conference committee. Three large programs reported being strong in this area: one school used a career center, another used an annual conference committee, and the third used a computer program to provide assessments. Two small programs incorporated assessments as part of the IEP, two others relied on transition coordinators, and four used VR services.

Relationships between transition topic offerings

Pearson correlations compared numbers of services across employment preparation, postschool preparation, and transition assessment to examine consistency: A high correlation between topics would suggest that level of offerings in one transition area was similar in the other area. Table 4 lists the correlations with significant correlations between topics (p < .01), suggesting that level of service was consistent across programs. Additional correlations compared services within program categories (see Table 5). Based on the study hypothesis, residential programs were expected to offer transition services with the greatest consistency, followed by large programs. Results found that residential programs had the strongest relationships between postschool preparation and transition assessments (p < .001) with significant correlations also between postschool preparation and transition assessments (p < .05). Large programs had the strongest relationships between employment preparation and transition assessments, and between postschool preparation and transition assessments (p < .05). Small programs had the most consistent relationships between all transition topics with significance at the p < .01 level.

Table 4.

Correlations of Transition Services by Transition Topic.

Transition topic	Analyses	Employment preparation	Postschool preparation	Transition assessments
Career preparation	Pearson correlation	1	471	.526
	Significance (two-tailed)		.000***	.000***
	n	94	94	94
Postsecondary preparation	Pearson correlation		1	.456
	Significance (two-tailed)			.000***
	n		94	94
Transition assessments	Pearson correlation			1
	Significance (two-tailed)
	n			94

***

p < .001.

Table 5.

Correlations of Transition Services Within Programs by Transition Topic.

Transition topic	Program category	Analyses	Employment preparation	Postschool preparation	Transition assessments
Employment preparation	Residential (n = 14)	Pearson correlation	1	.754	.704
		Significance (two-tailed)		.002**	.005**
	Large (n = 28)	Pearson correlation	1	.368	.434
		Significance (two-tailed)		.054	.021*
	Small (n = 52)	Pearson correlation	1	.529	.560
		Significance (two-tailed)		.000***	.000***
Postschool preparation	Residential (n = 14)	Pearson correlation		1	.570
		Significance (two-tailed)			.033*
	Large (n = 28)	Pearson correlation		1	.439
		Significance (two-tailed)			.019*
	Small (n = 52)	Pearson correlation		1	.393
		Significance (two-tailed)			.004**
Transition assessments	Residential (n = 14)	Pearson correlation			1
		Significance (two-tailed)
	Large (n = 28)	Pearson correlation			1
		Significance (two-tailed)
	Small (n = 52)	Pearson correlation			1
		Significance (two-tailed)

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

Discussion

The first hypothesis stated that residential schools have the most specialization, capacity, and consistency of transition services. Specialization and capacity was supported only in the employment preparation area as indicated by a significant ANOVA comparison. Residential schools often showed a slightly higher rate of offering but not at significantly different levels. Consistency of transition offerings indicated through correlations was greater than large programs but not greater than small programs; however, all correlations were significant at the p < .05 level or less. High correlations could indicate either consistently high or low levels; however, residential program frequencies were among the highest across the categories suggesting that programs offered consistently high levels of services.

The second hypothesis stated that public school programs with higher numbers of D/HH students (large programs) have greater specialization and capacity as well as consistency of transition services in comparison with programs with lower numbers (small programs). ANOVA results found no statistical difference between large and small programs to support this. Correlations to indicate consistency found that small programs had higher correlations than did large programs. Small programs services indicated high as well as low frequencies across these transition topics indicating that level of service in one transition area could be expected to be similar across other transition areas. Teachers, parents, and service agencies working with small schools could expect consistency in terms of overall strength or scarcity of offerings across transition services. Large programs were the least consistent suggesting that transition team members and parents could expect greater variation with strong offerings in one area that might not generalize to other transition areas.

Overall results suggest that although residential schools provide greater professional specialization in training and in transition services, this did not result in more frequent or greater breadth of services, except for employment preparation. In addition, the effect size was small indicating that other unidentified variables had greater impact. This aligns with Stinson and Kluwin’s (2003) findings of high levels of unexplained variance overall with substantial influence due to individual student characteristics. Moore’s (2001) description of differential rates of residential program enrollment by age suggests this as a potential student factor in addition to individual characteristics that result in program transfers. Large public school program offerings were not significantly more frequent than those of small programs school programs, despite their higher numbers of students and greater potential programmatic and personnel stability. In fact, despite fewer personnel who often covered multiple responsibility areas, small programs offered similar levels of services.

Survey Participants

Although responses were voluntary, 14/14 of the residential, 27/28 of the large, and 48/52 of the small programs included demographic information. The mean years of experience for respondents were similar across all three categories of programs, between 11 and 13 years. Each program category also had a few individuals with more than 20 years of experience and a nearly equal number of those with 5 or fewer years.

Respondent comments offered additional information relevant to the hypotheses, although because these were voluntary, results are not definitive. Respondents’ positions offered some insights into the specialization and capacity of the school categories. Residential schools had 4 respondents who were transition coordinators and 2 were work developers/career specialists. Across 14 possible respondents, these represent a D/HH transition specialization of 42.86%. Across large school respondents, 1 was a transition coordinator with a 3.57% specialization in transition, with expertise in deafness not indicated. Four other respondents were program coordinators and 4 were lead teachers suggesting involvement of midlevel management in providing and overseeing transition services. Specialization at the small program level indicated 2 who were transition teachers and 2 who were transition coordinators for a rate of 7.69% with expertise in deafness also not indicated. Of the other respondents, 2 were speech/language pathologists and 2 were classroom teachers suggesting greater involvement of direct service providers assigned to cover a broad range of responsibilities in comparison with larger programs. In that these individuals were the primary contacts in D/HH transition suggests some support for the second hypothesis with regard to breadth of small program personnel responsibilities. Yet, frequency of services for small programs was not affected and, in fact, was generally equal to or better than large program services.

Employment Preparation Concerns

Examination of this area indicated possible concerns in terms of low frequency of offerings for career advancement, community-based work in a preferred career area, paid employment in the community, and job shadowing, although more characteristic of large and small programs than residential schools. Many adolescents need opportunities beyond exploratory work experiences before making their final career choices (Brolin, 1997; Luft, 2008a; Sitlington & Clark, 2006; Super, 1990). However, survey results suggest a programmatic pattern in favor of career awareness, career development, and community work experience. In particular, large and small programs focus on initial job placement and generic work experiences rather than on targeted career-specific experiences or longer term career maintenance. Paradoxically, job change is now expected and common. Baby boomers (born 1957–1964) held an average of 11.3 jobs from ages 18 to 46, with nearly half that number held between the ages of 18 to 24 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2012). D/HH individuals typically have had lower rates of upward mobility and career advancement than their peers and more often were constrained to entry-level positions (Johnson, 1993). Johnson also found that employers rated deaf employees similar to other coworkers on key job attributes but were less likely to get ratings that would lead to advancement. Job change not only is expected but also is a means to career advancement.

Data on early job change found that by 8 years after high school, young adults with disabilities had held four jobs and had held their recent or current job for 24 months. This was not significantly different from young adults in the general population (Newman et al., 2011). In comparison, D/HH youths held an average 3.3 jobs during this time, ranking 8th across 12 disability groups. This could suggest greater stability, or it could reflect poorer job advancement opportunities such as found by Johnson (1993). Work site communication difficulties (Luft, 2000) may support inclinations to retain, rather than leave, a position. Lower work expectations may contribute to the average 31.3 hr that D/HH youths worked each week, ranking 7th across the 12 disability groups (Newman et al., 2011). Reasons that D/HH youths left jobs was second highest for quitting (64.3%) but lowest for being fired (3.7%). They also spent the least amount of time looking for work (5.3 months) across 11 disability groups. These data suggest a potential willingness to take jobs without a lengthy search and to stay in jobs longer than other disability groups although working less than full-time, but then to quit rather than be fired or laid off.

In terms of school program services, a focus on entry-level job attainment does not prepare students for the multiple job changes that characterize workers of today (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2012; Newman et al., 2011). Those who are ill-equipped for, or unsuspecting of, market-driven career disruptions and skill reconfigurations are likely to be increasingly marginalized from today’s globalized workforce (Schroedel et al., 2003). D/HH students need this preparation specific to their disability and individual strengths and needs (Punch et al., 2004). For example, Phillips et al. (2009) found benefits from customized transition employment for students with cognitive disabilities. Allaire, Niu, Zhu, and Brett (2011) found that disability-specific job-related strategies were important for increasing the individual’s sensitivity to impacts of disability on his or her work and for increasing confidence in addressing these issues. Generic services and those limited to early career preparation are not likely to prepare D/HH students for the employment world of today.

Disability disclosure is another concern because students who do not disclose cannot access supports and services to assist them in postsecondary or employment settings. Approximately 60% of the schools in this survey provided information on this topic. Students with milder losses may not consider themselves as having a disability, yet the ADA (1990) requires the individual to disclose his or her disability and to request needed accommodations. The content and timing of disability disclosure also are essential aspects that can alter perceptions and responses of postsecondary staff or faculty, and employers and coworkers (Job Accommodations Network, 2010; Lynch & Gussell, 1996; Madaus, Foley, McGuire, & Ruban, 2002; Smith, 2011). A number of studies have suggested that failure to disclose is not uncommon, despite potential negative impacts (Gerber, Price, Mulligan, & Shessel, 2004; Madaus et al., 2002; Price & Gerber, 2001). As suggested by the Allaire et al.’s (2011) study, knowledge of one’s disability is important to understanding of the impacts of disability and for successfully addressing concomitant issues.

It is perhaps coincidental, yet 59.4% of D/HH students disclosed their disability to postsecondary institutions (Newman et al., 2011) and 60% of programs offered disability disclosure information. Given the often poor rates of postsecondary completion by D/HH students (Bat-Chava et al., 1999; Moores, 2001; Newman et al., 2009; Newman et al., 2011), one cannot assume that disability disclosure is irrelevant. Again, coincidentally similar figures indicate that 52.9% of D/HH students completed their postsecondary program 8 years after high school (Newman et al., 2011). High school programs may assume that postsecondary disability support services or employment services through state VR will address disability disclosure. Yet, the struggles of D/HH students in postsecondary and employment settings suggest that understanding one’s disability should not be assumed or ignored.

Postschool Preparation Concerns

Analysis of this topic suggests that programs focused on entrance requirements and the application process. Somewhat less attention was given to next steps such as site visits, orientation programs, and AP offerings, experiences that would facilitate adjustment to these new environments and their expectations. Although 95% of D/HH individuals reported enrolling in postsecondary programs, program completion appears to be longer than other disability groups (Newman et al., 2009; Newman et al., 2011). Even with a completion rate of 52.9% after 8 years (ranking 5th across 10 disability groups), this leaves 47% who are noncompleters (Newman et al., 2011). Bat-Chava et al. (1999) found substantial gaps in postsecondary preparation for D/HH students who often struggled to remain in degree programs. D/HH individuals who can complete such programs typically have higher rates of employment success (El-Khiami, 1993; Moores, 2001; Newman et al., 2011; Schroedel & Geyer, 2000). They have higher levels of financial self-sufficiency (81%) with salary increases by education level, even though still significantly below their typical peers (Schroedel & Geyer, 2000). Program focus on entrance and early issues without also addressing long-term completion skills may be contributing to the difficulties experienced by D/HH students. It appears that their transition planning requires greater depth and attention to unique, disability-specific challenges.

Transition Assessment Concerns

Programs offered interest inventories, aptitude, ability, and general vocational tests more often than evaluation work samples, and work adjustment and motivation. This also suggests a focus on early decisions rather than on long-term career planning. Narrative comments suggested that a few respondents were knowledgeable in this area but that others had substantial gaps. One small program respondent indicated that no additional transition assessment was necessary beyond disability determination. A large program responded that assessment was not required in their state, although another cited compliance with both Carl Perkins and Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) legislation. An exemplary activity from a residential school described students summarizing and presenting assessment information in a PowerPoint to open their IEP meetings.

Although IDEIA’s Indicator 13 requires programs to comply with, and report on, transition requirements, including use of age-appropriate transition assessments (National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center, 2009a, 2009b, 2011), a number of respondents appeared unaware of testing or related mandates. This suggests, as found by Morningstar and Liss (2008), that few states have developed policy or guidance documents to ensure IDEIA 2004 compliance with interpretation of the law varying with those implementing it. Overall, survey respondents described a focus on initial assessments rather than use for longer term decisions, and knowledge gaps suggest a lack of transition training and guidance (Blalock et al., 2003; Carlson et al., 2003; Morningstar & Liss, 2008; Wandry et al., 2008).

Summary

A potential service pattern across programs was a focus on initial skills and choices related to employment, postschool activities, and transition assessments rather than on long-term planning and preparation. This was true for large and small programs across all three transition service topics with residential schools providing some longer range employment preparation services. Another concern was access to specialized and disability-specific services. A total of 22 comments from large (n = 12) and small programs (n = 10) indicated that D/HH students had access to the same general curriculum or career assessments as did other students. Yet, generic services do not address the unique challenges that D/HH students face in moving beyond high school (Bat-Chava et al., 1999; Moores, 2001; Schroedel & Geyer, 2000) or at work (Allaire et al., 2011; Johnson, 1993; Punch et al., 2004; Schroedel & Geyer, 2000).

Limitations

The survey had several limitations. Overall, the response rate was not high, thereby compromising generalizability to nonresponding programs. In addition, the directory listing in the American Annals depends on voluntary responses and is not a complete listing of all D/HH programs. It may disproportionately exclude smaller programs that would not be otherwise identified. The survey itself eliminated items with regard to depth and quality of transition services to increase response rates. This would have been helpful in further differentiating between general and disability-specific services and services quality. For example, a 1-hr guest presentation on college finances at one program and a semester-long course on postsecondary planning at another program would have been marked affirmative for offerings. Finally, although each respondent was identified as the program’s transition contact for D/HH services, several respondents appeared unfamiliar with transition services or mandated requirements such as requirements for age-appropriate transition assessment. Therefore, some data may be incorrect due to misunderstandings or unfamiliarity, despite respondent identification as the transition contact.

Conclusion

This national survey of residential, large, and small public school programs found that there were more similarities in transition instruction and services availability, than differences. Residential programs offered significantly more employment-related services but, otherwise, did not offer postschool or transition assessment services with more frequency. Although residential schools have personnel who are more specialized in D/HH-specific training and experience, the majority of students attend large or small public programs (U.S. Department of Education, 2010) limiting the potential impact of this expertise.

Large and small programs also were more similar in their offerings than different. A few respondent comments described offering specialized programs, but many utilized general academic or vocational coursework and guidance services to meet D/HH student’s transition needs. Several comments suggested an assumption that transition services were not typically needed by most D/HH students, or needed only on a time-limited basis. For example, college-bound students could enroll in senior-year courses or electives, if desired. Although identified as the D/HH transition contact person, some respondents appeared to have minimal understanding of the breadth of transition needs across this population.

An emergent pattern was that programs focused on early transitions rather than on longer term issues, although this was less true for residential schools with regard to employment preparation. Impacts include the longer timelines and lower rates for achieving typical markers of adult success. The early focus for employment would not prepare D/HH students for the multiple job changes they are likely to experience during their careers (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2012; Newman et al., 2011). Already, they seem to make fewer job changes compared with their peers and may need strategies that result in successful changes to ensure long-term marketability and job competiveness, rather than marginalization (Shrodel & Geyer, 2000). Their transition planning needs to address multiple job choice opportunities and career decisions that will occur across their life span.

Postschool preparation and transition assessments also found a greater focus on early decisions and issues rather than long-term concerns and skills. Paradoxically, D/HH students take longer to complete their postsecondary programs (Newman et al., 2009; Newman et al., 2011) and have a history of struggling to remain in these programs (Bat-Chava et al., 1999; Moores, 2001). Therefore, long-term planning would seem essential to their success. Although one third or more were employed while attending postsecondary training (Newman et al., 2009; Newman et al., 2011), these data do not make clear whether this early employment aligned with training and long-term career goals or whether it further delayed their entry into preferred careers.

Generally, D/HH students seem to bring a unique set of concerns and challenges to transition preparation that require a longer term, rather than a shorter term, scope of planning and access to disability-specific expertise and insights. Yet, many of the transition offerings across large and small programs utilize more generic services, a short-term and early focus, with few that have D/HH transition and disability expertise to address these issues. D/HH students represent a mere 0.11% of the K–12 student body and 1.19% of those receiving special education services (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). Therefore, providing high-quality, specialty transition services challenges most Local Education Agency (LEA) budgets.

Given the low incidence of this population, resource sharing and low-cost solutions are important. Several solutions are possible: Regional cooperative agreements could share funding for a D/HH transition specialist hired to work across a state or region. Regional sharing of successful programs also could encourage shared capacity building. Several programs in each school category had exemplary offerings, and clearly, there were dedicated professionals who worked beyond job descriptions to serve their D/HH students.

Another state source of expertise is the residential schools for the deaf, many of whom provide outreach services in professional mentoring, instruction, resource sharing, and supports. Many have access to D/HH role models who can significantly affect student self-esteem and opportunity seeking as well as improve decision making, career maturity, and vocational knowledge, all of which are concerns for this population (Punch et al., 2004).

An additional disability and transition resource is VR counselors and in particular, rehabilitation counselors for the deaf (RCDs). A number of respondents (n = 18) identified work with VR services: 4 from residential programs (28.6%), 4 from large programs (14.8%), and 10 from small programs (19.2%) often resulting in multiple related services for transition planning. Several of the research-substantiated transition practices (Landmark, Ju, & Zhang, 2010) are within the scope of VR services, including paid or unpaid work experience, employment preparation, daily living skills and self-determination skills training, and community or agency collaboration making them an important transition participant. Therefore, ensuring RCD participation is likely to improve transition outcomes. Luft, Vierstra, Copeland, and Resh (2009) found a pattern of less successful outcomes for D/HH rehabilitation consumers when they utilized general vocational counselors. This again suggests the importance of specialized training and insights that include VR counselors.

Unfortunately, deFur, Getzel, and Kregel (1994) found that VR counselors were rarely present at transition meetings. Powers et al. (2005) found that 32.1% of IEPs included an adult services outcome. However, only 12.8% of related goals were adequate, suggesting limited adult service or VR involvement in these goals.

Another potential resource is the expanded core curriculum (ECC), currently utilized by programs serving visually impaired and blind students. Designed to address essential areas unique to persons who are visually impaired, it is taught in addition to, or integrated with, the academic core curriculum (Lohmeier, Blankenship, & Hatlen, 2009). Several states have developed an ECC for D/HH students with the most extensive being from Iowa (Iowa Department of Education, 2010). This curriculum could help guide transition planning teams in addressing important disability-specific topics. In combination with expertise D/HH transition specialists and RCDs, large and small programs would have the critical elements for ensuring thorough and appropriate long-term transition services that would improve the adult success of their D/HH students.

D/HH young adults are a unique population as a result of compromised language fluency that continues to limit their academic achievement, postsecondary completion, and employment competitiveness. Although large and small programs may have limited access to D/HH and transition-specific expertise, there are available curricular and state personnel resources that can minimize the costs of low-incidence specialty services. Most importantly, transition services need to focus on long-term planning issues to ameliorate the disability-specific struggles and extended timelines required by these young adults to achieve commensurate success.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank Jonathan Steele, Olivia Chapman-Krise, and Alison Ramsay for their assistance in collecting the survey data, and to Patricia Peters for her assistance with data analysis.

Author Note

A copy of the survey items is available from the author on request.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article: This manuscript was partially supported by the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) funded project number H325A010060.

References

Allaire

S. J.

Niu

Zhu

Brett

(2011). Providing effective early intervention vocational rehabilitation at the community level. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 54, 154–163.

Allen

T. E.

Rawlings

B. W.

Schildroth

A. N.

(1989). Deaf students and the school-to-work transition. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

American Annals of the Deaf Reference Issue. (2006). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University.

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C.A. § 12101 et seq.

Anderson

(2006). Lexical development of deaf children acquiring signed languages. In Schick

Marschark

Spencer

P. E.

(Eds.), Advances in the sign language development of deaf children (pp. 135–160). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Bat-Chava

Rosen

R. B.

Sausa

Meza

Shockett

Deignan

(1999). An evaluation of a college preparatory and readiness program for deaf students. Journal of Rehabilitation, 65, 51–59.

Blalock

Kochhar-Bryant

C. A.

Test

D. W.

Kohler

White

Lehmann

Patton

(2003). Comprehensive personnel preparation in transition and career development: A position statement of the division on career development and transition. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 26, 207–226.

Bonds

B. G.

(2003). School-to-work experiences: Curriculum as a bridge. American Annals of the Deaf, 148, 38–48.

Boudreault

Mayberry

R. I.

(2006). Grammatical processing in American Sign Language: Age of first-language acquisition effects in relation to syntactic structure. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21, 608–635.

10.

Bowe

F. G.

(2003). Transition for deaf and hard-of-hearing students: A blueprint for change. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 8, 485–493.

11.

Brolin

D. E.

(1997). Life-centered career education: A competency-based approach. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

12.

Bull

Bullis

(1991). A national profile of school-based transition programs for deaf adolescents. American Annals of the Deaf, 136, 339–348.

13.

Bullis

Bull

Johnson

Peters

(1995). The school-to-community transition experiences of hearing adults and young adults who are deaf. Journal of Special Education, 28, 405–423.

14.

Bullis

Reiman

J. W.

(1992). Development and preliminary psychometric properties of the Transition Competence Battery for deaf adolescents and young adults. Exceptional Children, 59, 12–26.

15.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2012). Number of jobs held, labor market activity, and earnings growth among the youngest baby boomers: Results from a longitudinal survey. Washington, DC: Author, U.S. Department of Labor. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/nlsoy.pdf

16.

Capella

M. E.

(2003a). Comparing employment outcomes of vocational rehabilitation consumers with hearing loss to other consumers and the general labor force. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 47, 24–33.

17.

Capella

M. E.

(2003b). Evaluating differences in demographics, services, and outcomes for vocational rehabilitation consumers with hearing loss versus consumers with other disabilities. Journal of Rehabilitation, 69, 39–46.

18.

Carlson

Chen

Schroll

Klein

(2003). SPeNSE (study of personnel needs in special education): Final report of the paperwork substudy. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://Ferdig.coe.ufl.edu/spense/Finalpaperworkreport3-24-031.doc

19.

Carney

A. E.

Moeller

M. P.

(1998). Treatment efficacy: Hearing loss in children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41, 61–84.

20.

Danek

M. M.

Busby

(1999). Sharing ideas series: Transition planning and programming: Empowerment through partnership. Washington, DC: Laurent Clerc National Deaf Education Center Gallaudet University.

21.

Davis

J. M.

Elfenbein

Schum

Bentler

R. A.

(1986). Effects of mild and moderate hearing impairments on language, educational, and psychosocial behavior of children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 51, 53–62.

22.

deFur

Getzel

E. E.

Kregel

(1994). Individual transition plans: A work in progress. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 4, 139-145.

23.

El-Khiami

(1993). Employment transitions and establishing careers by postsecondary alumni with hearing loss. Volta Review, 95, 357–366.

24.

Ewoldt

(1981). A psycholinguistic description of selected deaf children reading in sign language. Reading Research Quarterly, 17, 58–89.

25.

Friedmann

Szterman

(2006). Syntactic movement in orally trained children with hearing impairment. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 11, 56–75.

26.

Gerber

P. J.

Price

L. A.

Mulligan

Shessel

(2004). Beyond transition: A comparison of the employment experiences of American and Canadian adults with LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 283–291.

27.

Gilbertson

Kamhi

A. G.

(1995). Novel word learning in children with hearing impairment. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 38, 630–642.

28.

Gregory

Hindley

(1996). Annotation: Communication strategies for deaf children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 37, 895–905.

29.

Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEIA), 20 U.S.C. § 1400.

30.

Iowa Department of Education. (2010). The expanded core curriculum for students who are deaf or hard of hearing. Des Moines, IA: Author, Bureau of Student Family Support Services.

31.

Job Accommodations Network. (2010). Fact sheet series: Dos and don’ts of disclosure. Morgantown, WV: Author.

32.

Johnson

V. A.

(1993). Factors impacting the job retention and advancement of workers who are deaf. Volta Review, 95, 341–354.

33.

Karchmer

M. A.

Mitchell

R. E.

(2003). Demographic and achievement characteristics of deaf and hard-of-hearing students. In Marschark

Spencer

P. E.

(Eds.), Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language, and education (pp. 21–37). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

34.

Landmark

L. J.

Zhang

(2010). Substantiated best practices in transition: Fifteen plus years later. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 33, 163–176.

35.

Lecours

A. R.

(1975). Myelogenetic correlates of the development of speech and language. In Lenneberg

E. H.

Lenneberg

(Eds.), Foundations of language development: A multidisciplinary approach (pp. 121–135). New York, NY: Academic Press.

36.

Lederberg

A. R.

(2003). Expressing meaning: From communicative intent to building a lexicon. In Marschark

Spencer

P. E.

(Eds.), Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language, and education (pp. 247–260). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

37.

Lederberg

A. R.

Everhart

V. S.

(1998). Communication between deaf children and their hearing mothers: The role of language gesture, and vocalizations. Journal of Speech, Language, Hearing, and Research, 41, 887–899.

38.

Lenneberg

E. H.

(1967). Biological foundations of language. New York, NY: John Wiley.

39.

Lohmeier

Blankenship

Hatlen

(2009). Expanded core curriculum: 12 years later. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 103, 103-112.

40.

Luckner

J. L.

(2002). Facilitating the transition of students who are deaf or hard of hearing. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

41.

Luft

(2000). Communication barriers for deaf employees: Needs assessment and problem-solving strategies. Work, 14, 51–59.

42.

Luft

(2008a). Career development theories for transition planning. In Flexer

R. W.

Baer

R. M.

Luft

Simmons

T. J.

(Eds.), Transition planning for secondary students with disabilities (3rd ed., pp. 82–100). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

43.

Luft

(2008b). Examining deaf educators as highly qualified teachers: Roles and responsibilities under IDEA and NCLBA. American Annals of the Deaf, 152, 429–440.

44.

Luft

Huff

(2011). How prepared are transition-age DHH students for adult Living? Results of the transition competency battery. American Annals of the Deaf, 155, 569–579.

45.

Luft

Vierstra

Copeland

Resh

(2009). How staffing patterns impact employment outcomes across diverse D/HH consumers. Journal of the American Deafness and Rehabilitation Association, 2009 (Conference Issue Supplement), 210–219.

46.

Lynch

R. T.

Gussell

(1996). Disclosure and self-advocacy regarding disability-related needs: Strategies to maximize integration into postsecondary education. Journal of Counseling & Development, 74, 352–357.

47.

Madaus

J. W.

Foley

T. E.

McGuire

J. M.

Ruban

L. M.

(2002). Employment self-disclosure of postsecondary graduates with learning disabilities: Rates and rationales. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 364–369.

48.

Marschark

Lukomski

(2001). Understanding language and learning in deaf children. In Clark

M. D.

Marschark

Karchmer

(Eds.), Context, cognition, and deafness (pp. 71–87). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.

49.

Marschark

Schick

Spencer

P. E.

(2006). Understanding sign language development of deaf children. In Schick

Marschark

Spencer

P. E.

(Eds.), Advances in the sign language development of deaf children (pp. 3–19). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

50.

Mayne

A. M.

(1998). Expressive vocabulary development of infants and toddlers who are deaf or hard of hearing. Volta Review, 100, 1–28.

51.

Mayne

Yoshinaga-Itano

Sedey

A. L.

Carey

(2000). Expressive vocabulary development of infants and toddlers who are deaf or hard of hearing. Volta Review, 100, 1–28.

52.

Moeller

M. P.

(2000). Early intervention and language development in children who are deaf and hard of hearing. Pediatrics, 106, 1–9.

53.

Moeller

M. P.

Osberger

M. J.

Eccarius

(1986). Receptive language skills. In Osberger

M. J.

(Ed.), Language and learning skills of hearing impaired children: ASHA Monograph 26 (pp. 41–53). Rockville, MD: ASHA.

54.

Moores

D. F.

(1996). Educating the deaf: Psychology, principles, and practices (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

55.

Moores

D. F.

(2001). Educating the deaf: Psychology, principles, and practices (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

56.

Morningstar

M. E.

Liss

J. M.

(2008). A preliminary investigation of how states are responding to the transition assessment requirement under IDEIA 2004. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 31, 48–55.

57.

National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center. (2009a, July). NSTTAC Indicator 13 Checklist Form A. Retrieved from http://www.nsttac.org/sites/default/files/assets/pdf/ChecklistFormA.pdf

58.

National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center. (2009b, July). NSTTAC Indicator 13 Checklist Form B. Retrieved from http://www.nsttac.org/sites/default/files/assets/pdf/ChecklistFormB.pdf

59.

National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center. (2011). NSTTAC I-13 Checklist. Charlotte, ND: Author, University of North Carolina – Charlotte. Retrieved from http://www.nsttac.org/content/nsttac-i-13-checklist

60.

Newman

Wagner

Cameto

Knokey

A.-M.

(2009). The post-high school outcomes of youth with disabilities up to 4 years after high school. A report from the national longitudinal transition study-2 (NLTS2). Institute of Educational Sciences, National Center for Special Education Research, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.nlts2.org/reports/2009_04/index.html

61.

Newman

Wagner

Knokey

A.-M.

Marder

Nagle

Shaver

Wei

(2011). The post-high school outcomes of young adults with disabilities up to 8 years after high school. A report from the national longitudinal transition study-2 (NLTS2) (NCSER 2011-3005). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Retrieved from http://www.nlts2.org/reports/2011_09_02/index.html

62.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. P.L. 107–110.Title IX, Sec 9101(23)(A&B).

63.

Padden

C. A.

(1996). From the cultural to the bicultural: The modern deaf community. In Parasnis

(Ed.), Cultural and language diversity and the deaf experience (pp. 79–98). New York, NY: Cambridge University.

64.

Phillips

W. L.

Callahan

Shumpert

Puckett

Petrey

Summers

Phillips

(2009). Customized transitions: Discovering the best in us. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 30, 49–55.

65.

Powers

K. M.

Gil-Kashiwabara

Geenen

S. J.

Powers

L. E.

Balandran

Palmer

(2005). Mandates and effective transition planning: Practices reflected in IEPs. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 28, 47–59.

66.

Price

L. A.

Gerber

P. J.

(2001). At second glance: Employers and employees with learning disabilities in the Americans with disabilities act era. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 248.

67.

Punch

Hyde

Creed

P. A.

(2004). Issues in the school-to-work transition of hard of hearing adolescents. American Annals of the Deaf, 149, 28–38.

68.

Mitchell

R. E.

(2012). Large-scale academic achievement testing of deaf and hard-of-hearing students: Past, present, and future. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 17, 1–18.

69.

Reiman

Bullis

Davis

(1993). Transition Competence Battery for deaf and hard of hearing adolescents and young adults. Santa Barbara, CA: James Stanfield.

70.

Schildroth

Rawlings

Allen

(1991). Deaf students in transition: Education and employment issues for deaf adolescents. Volta Review, 93, 41–53.

71.

Schirmer

B. R.

(2001). Psychological, social, and educational dimensions of deafness. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

72.

Schroedel

J. G.

Geyer

P. D.

(2000). Long-term career attainments of deaf and hard of hearing college graduates: Results from a 15-year follow-up survey. American Annals of the Deaf, 145, 303–314.

73.

Schroedel

J. G.

Watson

Ashmore

D. H.

(2003). A national research agenda for the postsecondary education of deaf and hard of hearing students: A road map for the future. American Annals of the Deaf, 148, 67–73.

74.

Sitlington

P. L.

Clark

G. J.

(2006). Transition education and services for students with disabilities (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

75.

Smith

J. A.

(2011). Embracing the elephant in the room: Interviewing ideas for applicants who are deaf or hard of hearing. Journal of the American Deafness and Rehabilitation Association, 44, 67–81.

76.

Stinson

M. S.

Kluwin

T. N.

(2003). Educational consequences of alternative school placements. In Marschark

Spencer

P. E.

(Eds.), Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language, and education (pp. 52–64). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

77.

Super

D. E.

(1990). A life-span, life-space approach to career development. In Brown

Brooks

, & Associates (Eds.), Career choice and development: Applying contemporary theories to practice (2nd ed., pp. 197–261). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

78.

Traxler

C. B.

(2000). The Stanford Achievement Test, 9th edition: National norming and performance standards for deaf and hard-of-hearing students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5, 337–348.

79.

U.S. Department of Education. (1995). Seventeenth annual report to congress on the implementation of the individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/OSEP95AnlRpt/index.html

80.

U.S. Department of Education. (2010). 29th annual report to congress on the implementation of the individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2007 (Vol. 2). Washington, DC: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Special Education Programs. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/2007/parts-b-c/index.html

81.

Valdes

K. A.

Williamson

C. L.

Wagner

M. M.

(1990). The national longitudinal transition study of special education students. Statistical almanac, volume 7: Youth categorized as hearing impaired. Washington, DC: SRI International, prepared for the Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education.

82.

Wagner

Newman

Cameto

Garza

Levine

(2005). After high school: A first look at the postschool experiences of youth with disabilities: A report from the national longitudinal transition study-2 (NLTS2). Institute of Educational Sciences, National Center for Special Education Research, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.nlts2.org/reports/2005_04/index.html

83.

Wandry

D. L.

Webb

K. W.

Williams

J. M.

Bassett

D. S.

Asselin

S. B.

Hutchinson

S. R.

(2008). Teacher candidates’ perceptions of barriers to effective transition planning. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 31, 14–25.