Abstract
Students with intellectual disability historically struggle with post-school outcomes. However, much of the research on students with intellectual disability relative to post-school outcomes and transition services is aggregated for students with mild, moderate, and severe intellectual disability. This secondary analysis of the National Longitudinal Transition Study–2 (NLTS2) focused on the in-school and post-school transition services, transition planning, and post-school goals for students with mild intellectual disability. The majority of students with mild intellectual disability received in-school transition services, yet few students reported post-school agencies participating in their transition planning. Inconsistent alignment existed between transition goals and achieving those goals. Implications for practice are discussed, including the potential need to increase attention to social skills in secondary education for students with mild intellectual disability.
The ultimate goal of secondary education is to prepare all students for successful life after high school, including students with disabilities (Gargiulo, 2012; Steere, Rose, & Cavaiuolo, 2007; Test, Aspel, & Everson, 2006; Wehman et al., 2014). Although perhaps more challenging, that is the goal for students with disabilities as well. To assist with their transition from school into post-school, students with disabilities receive special services and planning—aptly called transition (i.e., transition services, transition planning). Transition services are actually included in the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA; 2004), indicating each student with a disability covered under IDEA shall receive coordinated activities that are individualized and focused on post-school success (i.e., independent living, employment, post-secondary education, and community participation). Transition services focus on instruction, related services (e.g., assistive technology), daily living skills—as needed, employment, and other community experiences (Gargiulo, 2012; IDEA, 2004; Storms, O’Leary, & Williams, 2000; Test et al., 2006). In other words, transition services support students with disabilities with the skills and experiences thought necessary for life post high school.
Despite receiving transition services, many students with disabilities continue to struggle with poor post-school outcomes (e.g., employment, independent living; Wagner, Newman, Cameto, Garza, & Levine, 2005). Among students with disabilities, students with intellectual disability particularly struggle (Blacher, Kraemer, & Howell, 2010; Neece, Kramer, & Blacher, 2009; Shogren & Plotner, 2012). Students with intellectual disability often experience lower rates of employment, receive lower wages, are less likely to live independently, and are less likely to attend post-secondary education than students with other types of disabilities (Luftig & Muthert, 2005; Newman et al., 2011).
The reported literature on transition services and planning for students with intellectual disability often involves the aggregation of students with intellectual disability rather than data that disaggregate issues of transition for students with mild, moderate, and severe intellectual disability (Bhaumik et al., 2011; Grigal, Hart, & Migliore, 2011; Shogren & Plotner, 2012). For example, using data from the National Longitudinal Transition Study–2 (NLTS2), Grigal et al. (2011) explored transition planning and post-school outcomes of students with intellectual disability as well as the aggregation of students with all disabilities; students with intellectual disability were categorized as both students with mild intellectual disability and those with moderate/severe intellectual disability. Grigal et al. found students with intellectual disability had different transition goals than the aggregation of students with other disabilities, as well as less positive post-school outcomes. The authors also reported that although schools were more likely to contact an external agency (e.g., vocational rehabilitation) for students with intellectual disability, differences between students with intellectual disability and other disabilities were not found in terms of the participation of such agencies in the actual transition planning meeting.
Similarly, Shogren and Plotner (2012) compared the transition experiences of students with intellectual disability, students with autism, and students with all other disabilities. In particular, their study examined transition planning, including participation in planning, transition goals, and post-school services involvement. The researchers found different transition goals across the three groups examined but similarities across the groups in terms of few students taking leadership in a meeting as well as consistency with respect to Individualized Education Program (IEP) participants being predominantly school-based personnel.
Although the research by Shogren and Plotner (2012) and Grigal et al. (2011) provided the field with important information relative to transition services and planning for students with intellectual disability, they did not present these issues relative to students with mild intellectual disability versus students with more moderate/severe intellectual disability. Just as Grigal et al. and Shogren and Plotner found differences in transition services and planning among students with intellectual disability and other types of disabilities, so might differences exist between students with mild and moderate/severe intellectual disability. Recent work by Bouck & Satsangi (in press) asserted that students with mild intellectual disability are qualitatively and quantitatively unique from students with moderate/severe intellectual disability, and the in-school experiences (i.e., instruction, self-determination ratings, achievement test scores) and post-school outcomes for students with mild intellectual disability need to be independently examined and understood.
In addition to in-school transition services, post-school services to support students with mild intellectual disability in adult life can be important. Although not focused exclusively on students with mild intellectual disability, Izzo, Cartledge, Miller, Growick, and Ruthkowski (2000) found benefits for transition services offered to students post graduation in the area of employment. Access to post-school services can be problematic for students with intellectual disability (Caton & Kagan, 2006; Rapanaro, Bartu, & Lee, 2008), although these students report greater access to post-school services than students with high-incidence disabilities (Baer, Daviso, Flexer, Queen, & Meindl, 2011).
This particular study sought to explore the unique transition services and planning for students with mild intellectual disability. The specific research questions—all focused exclusively on students with mild intellectual disability—examined in this study were as follows:
Method
This study represents a secondary analysis of the NLTS2. It is one part of a larger study focused on understanding the in-school transition practices for secondary students with high-incidence disabilities and the relationship between receipt of transition services and post-school outcomes. This particular secondary analysis sought to understand the transition services and goals for students with mild intellectual disability.
Participants
To be included in this secondary analysis of the NLTS2, students (a) were identified with mild intellectual disability as their primary disability on their IEP, (b) received special education while in school, and (c) were educated in Grades 9 through 13 (13 being ungraded and beyond Grade 12). Weighted, 32,239 secondary students with mild intellectual disability participated in this secondary analysis. Of those, the majority were White (78.6%, standard error [SE] = 7.8) and male (56.5%, SE = 12.4); about 20% were African American (20.6%, SE = 7.7). The average age of the participating students while in school was 17.5 (SE = 0.16), 19.4 (SE = 0.17) for out of school within 2 years (i.e., immediate outcomes), and 21.5 (SE = 0.15) for out of school within 2 to 4 years (i.e., long-term outcomes). The majority of students were in Grade 12 (94.3%, SE = 3.0) at the time of data collection, although a small percentage were in Grade 13 or ungraded (i.e., formal schooling beyond 12th grade; 4.1%, SE = 2.9). More than 50% of students with mild intellectual disability were from homes with an annual family income of between US$25,001 and US$50,000 (55.7%, SE = 13.8), followed by those with family incomes less than or equal to US$25,000 (34.6%, SE = 10.0), and more than US$50,000 (9.7%, SE = 5.0). Finally, the majority of the participating students lived in suburban school districts (72.0, SE = 11.8), followed by urban (15.9, SE = 7.5) and then rural (12.1, SE = 6.5).
Procedures
To undertake this secondary analysis, the researchers used two surveys from the original NLTS2 across four waves of data collection (i.e., a wave within NLTS2 consisted of 2-year periods in which different NLTS2 surveys were conducted): school program survey (Waves 1 and 2) and parent/youth survey (Waves 1–4). From the school program survey, the researchers focused on variables related to transition, including services received (i.e., instruction, employment preparation, related services, transition goals, and transition planning). From the parent/youth survey, researchers focused on post-school outcomes, including attendance at post-secondary education (2-year college, 4-year college, or vocational/technical school), employment (paid work, minimum wage, full-time), and independent living. In addition, two variables representing employment-related transition services were also taken from the parent/youth survey: engagement in school-sponsored work and paid employment experiences while in school. The researchers also used variables representing post-school transition services from the parent/youth survey. Demographic variables (e.g., age, ethnicity, disability status) were obtained from both surveys.
To conduct the secondary analysis, researchers condensed and merged the original NLTS2 databases used in this study. Because the researchers were interested in examining in-school transition services as well as post-school outcomes, they created in-school and post-school databases. For the two in-school databases—reflecting those in school in Wave 1 of data collection but out in Wave 2 and those in school in Wave 2 but out in Wave 3—the researchers focused on the in-school transition services (school program and parent/youth survey Waves 1 and 2) and demographics of the students (school program survey Waves 1 and 2, and parent/youth survey Waves 1 and 2). Both in-school databases reflected the cases (i.e., students) who met the criteria specified in the participants’ section. The researchers then merged the Wave 1 school program database containing variables relevant to the present study with the Wave 1 parent/youth survey with its relevant variables, and likewise with Wave 2 for each database; researchers merged via ID number using the merge variables function in SPSS 18.0.
Next, the researchers focused on the post-school databases: two for in-school in Wave 1, representing immediate (within 2 years) and long-term outcomes (within 2 to 4 years), and two for in-school in Wave 2, also representing immediate and long-term outcomes. For students in school in Wave 1, the parent/youth database Wave 2 operated as the immediate outcomes and Wave 3 as the long-term outcomes. Similarly, for those in school in Wave 2, Wave 3 represented the immediate outcomes and Wave 4 represented the long term. Researchers reduced each of the four post-school databases to the relevant variables (e.g., currently employed, ever attended post-secondary, living independently). They also reduced the number of cases to include only students who indicated they were out of school. Respondents who indicated they were in school in any of the post-school databases were removed from the analyses.
Finally, the in-school and post-school databases were merged to create two databases: (a) in school in Wave 1 but out in Waves 2 and 3 and (b) in school in Wave 2 but out in Waves 3 and 4. At this stage, the researchers renamed all the variables in both databases to be consistent. The researchers then merged the two databases via adding cases function in SPSS 18.0 to create one large database to reflect the in-school and post-school experiences of students with mild intellectual disability, regardless of data collection wave.
Data Analysis
Across all the research questions, the researchers conducted descriptive statistics, examining frequency distributions, and occasionally means, as appropriate. Across all frequency distributions, the researchers focused on reporting for the population rather than the sample. Reporting population data was possible by using Complex Samples with SPSS 18.0. The original NLTS2 provided weights as well as stratum and cluster variables to weight the sample responses by disability, ethnicity, region, income, and student enrollment (Newman, Wagner, Cameto, & Knokey, 2009; SRI International, 2000; Wagner, Kutash, Duchnowski, & Epstein, 2005).
Specifically to examine transition services received (Research Question 1), researchers analyzed the frequency distributions (i.e., the percentage of students who indicated receiving such services in school) for the following variables: received instruction in language arts, mathematics, science, social studies, foreign language, art/music/drama, physical education, study skills, life/social skills, prevocational, and career or vocational education. The researchers also analyzed the frequency with which students with mild intellectual disability received the core content instruction (i.e., language arts, mathematics, science, social studies) in a general education setting. Employment-related transition services analyzed included work experiences, vocational assessment, career counseling, job readiness, instruction in looking for jobs, job shadowing, internship/apprenticeship, tech-prep program, specific job skills training, job placement support, and job coach. Finally, in terms of transition services, researchers ran frequency distributions with respect to related services received: adaptive physical education; assistive technology services/devices; audiology; behavioral intervention/specialist; speech or language therapy; communication services; health services; mental health services; personal/group counseling, therapy, or psychiatric care; mobility training; occupational therapy; physical therapy; service coordination/case management; social work services; and special transportation.
To answer Research Questions 2 and 3 regarding transition planning, the researchers conducted frequency distributions for variables depicting whether transition planning was done, the student’s role in the transition planning, and transition planning participants (e.g., general education teacher, vocational rehabilitation counselor). The mean was calculated for the variable representing a student’s age when transition planning started. For Research Question 4 regarding transition goals, the researcher conducted frequencies on the following variables: attend 2- or 4-year college, attend post-secondary vocational training program, competitive employment, sheltered employment, supported employment, live independently, maximize functional independence, and enhance social/interpersonal relationships.
The researchers also used frequency distributions to calculate the within-2-years (immediate) and within-2-to-4-years (long-term) post-school outcomes for students with mild intellectual disability. Post-school outcomes for both immediate and long term included ever employed, currently employed, wage, full- or part-time employed, living independently, ever attended post-secondary education, and currently attending post-secondary education.
Frequency distributions were also used to determine the extent to which students achieved their transition goals. To do so, the researchers combined variables related to individuals’ transition goals and their corresponding post-school outcomes both immediate and in the long term using the syntax function in SPSS (Version 18.0). For each outcome (ever employed, ever attended post-secondary, and living independently), two variables were created, one each for documenting whether individuals had a transition goal (competitive employment, attended any post-secondary education, and independent living respectively) that they achieved immediately after school exit and one that reflected whether individuals had a transition goal they achieved in the long term. For instance, for the outcome related to post-secondary education participation, only individuals with a transition goal of attending any post-secondary education (i.e., 2- or 4-year college or post-secondary vocational training) and those who had ever engaged in post-secondary education immediately after school exit or in the long term were said to have met their transition goal (0 = no post-secondary and 1 = any post-secondary). If individuals had a transition goal of attending any post-secondary education and they never participated in post-secondary education either immediately or in the long term, they were considered not having met their transition goal. Responses for individuals who did not have a transition goal of attending any post-secondary education, irrespective of their corresponding post-school outcome (0 = did not ever engage in post-secondary education and 1 = did ever engage in post-secondary education) were recorded as missing values. Frequency counts were then calculated for each created variable that reflected students who had a particular transition goal and whether or not they achieved its related outcome.
Finally, the researchers ran frequencies on the post-school transition services received by students with mild intellectual disability. Post-school transition services analyzed included testing to assess abilities, training in specific job skills, training in basic work skills, career counseling, job shadowing, apprenticeships or internships, help in finding a job, help in learning to look for a job, use of transportation, home care skills, financial skills, self-care skills, relationship skills, parenting, and self-advocacy skills.
Results
Transition Services Received
With respect to the core content area instruction, students with mild intellectual disability reported receiving language arts most frequently (86.7%, SE = 6.9), followed by social studies (80.5%, SE = 8.8; see Table 1). Students reported frequencies above 50% for mathematics, prevocational education, career and technical education, and life/social skills. Few students with mild intellectual disability experienced academic instruction in the general education environment: 1.3% for language arts (SE = 1.0) and 2.6% for mathematics (SE = 1.8).
Frequencies and SEs for Instruction Received by Students With MID.
Note. The range of the population size for MID was 29,326 to 32,239. MID = mild intellectual disability; SE = standard error.
In terms of in-school employment-related transition services or activities, students with mild intellectual disability reported receiving instruction in looking for jobs with the greatest frequency (96.1%, SE = 2.5), followed by job readiness training (78.6%, SE = 14.2), and job skills training (76.8%, SE = 9.3; see Table 2). Students reported participating in an internship/apprenticeship with the lowest frequency (13.5%, SE = 6.8). Students received related services at low rates. The most frequently received related service was case management (28.0%, SE = 11.1), followed by assistive technology (10.5%, SE = 5.5). Other related services were received by less than 10% of the population (see Table 3).
Employment-Related Transition Services Received by Students With MID.
Note. MID = mild intellectual disability; SE = standard error.
“—” Data with low unweighted count, not reported.
Related Services Received by Students With MID.
Note. MID = mild intellectual disability; SE = standard error.
“—” Data with low unweighted count, not reported.
Transition Planning and Goals
Transition planning occurred for 100% of the students with mild intellectual disability. Transition planning began for these students at the average age of 15.1 (SE = 0.5). The majority of students participated in their own transition planning at a moderate level (51.9%, SE = 15.5); more than one quarter of students with mild intellectual disability took a leadership role in their transition planning (29.3%, SE = 18.5). One hundred percent of the students had a special education teacher participate in their transition planning. The majority also participated in their own transition planning (93.8%, SE = 2.2) as well as had parents or guardians who participated (82.5%, SE = 7.2; see Table 4). The frequencies for the other participants were less than 50%, with the exception of a school administrator (69.4%, SE = 11.7). In terms of transition goals, the most frequently indicated goal for students with mild intellectual disability was to obtain competitive employment (76.5%, SE = 8.6), followed by living independently (74.3%, SE = 9.5). With respect to all other goals, less than 50% of the students indicated having these (see Table 5).
Frequency Data for Participants Involved in Transition Planning for Students With MID.
Note. Data on MID based out of 32,239 students. MID = mild intellectual disability; SE = standard error.
“—” Data with low unweighted count, not reported.
Frequencies and SEs Transition Goals for Students With MID.
Note. Data for students with mild intellectual disability based on total of 32,239 students. MID = mild intellectual disability; SE = standard error.
Post-School Outcomes
For both the immediate (within 2 years) and long term (2 to 4 years of exiting high school), the majority of students with mild intellectual disability had ever been employed (93.0%, SE = 3.8; 91.3%, SE = 5.9, respectively) and earning above minimum wage at their current or most recent job (87.0%, SE = 8.6; 95.3%, SE = 5.0, respectively; see Table 6). Within 2 years, few students were currently attending post-secondary education (6.2%, SE = 3.6), although more had ever attended (30.4%, SE = 13.9). Within 2 to 4 years, 40.2% (SE = 19.6) were living independently and more than three quarters were working full-time (85.2%, SE = 9.5), which represented a sizable increase in frequencies from within 2 years of exiting school (46.4%, SE = 19.4).
Immediate and Long-Term Post-School Outcomes of Students With MID.
Note. Immediate outcomes = within 2 years of exiting high school; long-term outcomes = within 2 to 4 years after exiting high school. MID = mild intellectual disability; SE = standard error.
“—” Data with low unweighted count, not reported.
Transition goals and outcomes
In terms of the aforementioned transition goals (refer to Table 5) translating to post-school success, 98.4% (SE = 1.9) of the students who indicated their transition goal was competitive employment were ever employed within 2 years of exiting school, based on those who responded to the post-school outcomes question. Just over 50% of students who indicated their transition goal was post-secondary education ever attended post-secondary school within 2 years of exiting high school (50.4%, SE = 17.1). Finally, within 2 years of exiting school, none of the students with mild intellectual disability whose transition goal was independent living was living independently. However, within 2 to 4 years after exiting high school, 38.7% (SE = 24.3) of students with independent living as a transition goal were doing so. More than three quarters of students whose transition goals included both post-secondary education and competitive employment achieved each of them within 2 to 4 years after exiting high school (78.4%, SE = 11.6; 91.4%, SE = 7.0, respectively, out of those who responded to each question).
Post-School Transition Services
Low rates of students with mild intellectual disability received transition services after exiting high school both within 2 years and within 2 to 4 years of exiting high school (see Table 7). Although the frequencies were low for within 2 years of exiting high school (all less than 10%), they were higher than for 2 to 4 years after exiting high school (0% for those in which a sufficient number was reported), suggesting students with mild intellectual disability typically receive post-school transition services immediately after high school. A higher frequency of students received life skills–based post-school transition services as opposed to job training–based post-school transition services.
Post-School Transition Services Received by Students With MID.
Note. Immediate outcomes = within 2 years of exiting high school; long-term outcomes = within 2 to 4 years after exiting high school; MID = mild intellectual disability; SE = standard error.
“—” Data with low unweighted count, not reported.
Discussion
This secondary analysis of the NLTS2 explored in-school and post-school transition services, planning, and goals for students with mild intellectual disability, including relationships between these and post-school outcomes. Three main findings emerged: (a) In-school transition planning occurred for students but few post-school transition services were received, (b) transition planning participation for students with mild intellectual disability needs to extend beyond school-based personnel, and (c) inconsistent alignment existed between transition goals and meeting such goals post school.
In-school transition planning occurred for 100% of students with mild intellectual disability, although the average age when transition planning began exceeded the age specified in IDEA, considering the time of data collection. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997 specified that transition planning begin at age 14, whereas IDEA 2004 increased the age to 16 (Smith, 2005); in-school data collection occurred between 2000 and 2004 while the age 14 regulations were in place. The average age of 15.1 (SE = 0.5) found for students in this study exceeds the age Shogren and Plotner (2012) found for students with intellectual disability (14.5), suggesting perhaps that transition planning occurs earlier for students with more significant needs.
Students with mild intellectual disability, their guardians, and their special education teachers participated in their transition planning. However, involvement by others—such as outside agencies (e.g., vocational rehabilitation)—was lacking. The frequency of participation in transition planning by a vocational rehabilitation counselor and a post-secondary education representative was slightly less for the students with mild intellectual disability in this study as compared with students with intellectual disability in general in the analysis by Grigal et al. (2011). Grigal et al. and Agran, Cain, and Cavin (2002) suggested that perhaps these outside agency individuals were not being invited to rather than not attending meetings. Given research suggesting outside agency involvement can support positive post-school outcomes for students with disabilities, practitioners may want to make a more concerted effort to invite and encourage individuals from outside agencies to attend and participate in students’ transition planning (Bullis, Davis, Bull, & Johnson, 1995; Landmark, Ju, & Zhang, 2010; Rabren, Dunn, & Chambers, 2002).
The rate of some transition services offered to students with mild intellectual disability while in school stands in stark contrast to the low rates of post-school transition services received (refer to Tables 2 and 7). Hopefully, the lack of post-school transition services received reflects that such services were provided in school as opposed to these needs just not being met. Although the frequencies suggest this may be true for employment-related services, perhaps greater attention to life skills/independent living skills is warranted for students with mild intellectual disability or, at minimum, increasing the focus on self-advocacy/self-determination and relationship skills within the in-school life skills instruction (Agran, Blanchard, & Wehmeyer, 2000; Bouck, 2004). In addition, based on the rates of student responses to the question of current employment (59.8%, SEs = 15.7, and 32.2%, SE = 14.8, respectively, for within 2 years and 2 to 4 years of exiting high school), teachers—and post-school providers—may want to provide services relative to keeping a job in addition to obtaining a job (93.0%, SE = 3.8, and 91.3%, SE = 5.9, for ever employed within 2 years and 2 to 4 years of exiting high school, respectively).
On a positive note, alignment existed between students’ goal of obtaining employment and their post-school employment status. Not only had the majority of students with mild intellectual disability ever been employed within 2 years since leaving high school (93.0%, SE = 3.8) but also 98.4% of these students whose transition goal was competitive employment had ever been employed after exiting school. However, alignment between other transition goals and post-school outcomes was not as strong. Few students with mild intellectual disability were living independently within 2 years of exiting school and no students whose transition goal was independent living were doing so within this time frame; within 2 to 4 years post school, 38.7% of students whose transition goal was living independently were doing so. The low frequency of independent living within the relatively short time after exiting high school should not necessarily be cause for concern. The data on students with mild intellectual disability living independently within 2 to 4 years of exiting school are consistent with the frequency for students with disabilities in general (e.g., about 29%; Newman et al., 2009; Newman, Wagner, Cameto, Knokey, & Shaver, 2010).
Implications
From this secondary analysis of the NLTS2, practitioners can ascertain the need for high-quality in-school transition services for students with mild intellectual disability, as few opportunities may exist for these students to receive services after exiting high school. Practitioners may also want to continue to provide employment-related transition services for these students, as this was a more common successful post-school outcome than attendance at post-secondary education. However, practitioners might want to increase the amount of services relative to social skills, as students with mild intellectual disability struggled to keep their jobs (i.e., lower rates of currently employed than ever employed); research has suggested that there is a connection between good social skills and employment (Elksnin, Elksnin, & Sabornie, 1994; Salzberg, Lignugaris-Kraft, & McCuller, 1988).
Limitations and Future Directions
As with all secondary analyses, this study is limited by the data collection of the NLTS2, including attrition and respondents not answering questions. Likewise, given the self-reported nature of the data, the reliability of the data may be in question; however, Chan (2009) downplayed concerns regarding self-reported data. Relatedly, there were cases in which low raw numbers resulted in frequencies not reported; it is the policy of the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) to not report results of data with low raw numbers. A final limitation concerns the fact that long-term outcomes were operationally defined as 2 to 4 years after exiting school. This time frame might not be sufficiently long enough to evaluate long-term outcomes, including obtaining independent living. Future research should seek to examine more extended outcomes as well.
Future research needs to continue to explore how to improve the post-school outcomes and relationships between in-school services and post-school outcomes for students with mild intellectual disability. For example, previous research by Bouck and Joshi (2012) found that curriculum was not related to more successful post-school outcomes. However, Joshi, Bouck, and Maeda (2012) reported that receipt of employment-related transition services was associated with post-school employment for students with mild intellectual disability. Additional research is needed to link other post-school outcomes—including post-secondary education participation and independent living—with receipt of particular transition services for students with mild intellectual disability.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported in part by a Purdue University Bilsland Dissertation Fellowship to the second author.