Preparing Youth for the World of Work: Educator Perspectives on Pre-Employment Transition Services

Abstract

Effective collaboration among schools and agencies is critical to the success of pre-employment transition services (pre-ETS). We examined the views of 596 middle and high school educators regarding pre-ETS and the employment prospects of their students with disabilities. Educators overwhelmingly affirmed that youth with disabilities needed better preparation for employment, but they were more mixed in their familiarity with pre-ETS and its associated practices. Prevailing partnerships among schools and vocational rehabilitation agencies were described as uneven and fairly limited. Educators sometimes differed in their views based on school level (i.e., middle versus high school) and community type (i.e., rural versus non-rural). We offer suggestions for research and practice aimed at enhancing the employment preparation and outcomes of youth with disabilities.

Keywords

employment transition vocational rehabilitation pre-employment transition services

Youth with disabilities aspire to work. A recent national study of youth with disabilities in the United States found that more than 95% of youth with disabilities in high school (ages 15 and older) expect to have a paid job by age 30 (Lipscomb et al., 2017). This desire for future employment has been described in scores of studies addressing the aspirations of youth (e.g., Kortering et al., 2010; Rojewski et al., 2012; Sinclair & Poteat, 2020; Trainor et al., 2011). Yet, many youth with disabilities struggle to successfully navigate the pathway from high school into the workplace. Numerous follow-up studies paint a portrait of uneven and uncertain employment outcomes in the early years after high school (e.g., Mazzotti et al., 2016; Wehman et al., 2015). For example, only 57% of young adults with disabilities were employed for pay outside the home up to 4 years after leaving high school (Newman et al., 2011). The post-school employment outcomes for youth with intellectual disability, autism, and multiple disabilities are often even more discouraging (e.g., Bouck & Park, 2018; Butterworth & Migliore, 2015).

Pre-employment transition services (pre-ETS) were recently introduced as an additional resource for elevating the employment outcomes of youth with disabilities through the provision of career-related information, instruction, and experiences. The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) of 2014 mandated that vocational rehabilitation (VR) agencies allocate 15% of their federal funds for the provision of pre-ETS to youth with disabilities. Five areas of services were delineated in the law: job exploration counseling, work-based learning experiences, counseling on postsecondary enrollment, work-place readiness training, and instruction in self-advocacy. Each of these areas aligns well with recommended practices in the field of career development and secondary transition (Morningstar & Clavenna-Deane, 2018; National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability for Youth [NCWD/Youth], 2009). This investment reflects considerable expansion of the services VR supports and the individuals they serve. Since the passage of WIOA, states have begun making these services available statewide for all youth with disabilities who may need them and are eligible (Miller et al., 2018).

Secondary educators are essential partners in the delivery of pre-ETS. They have direct and daily involvement in the lives of eligible youth with disabilities. Moreover, they are mandated to provide transition services that improve the employment outcomes of these youth (Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 2004). School-provided transition activities must engage relevant agencies—including VR—in the planning and delivery of individually designed services and supports. Likewise, WIOA requires VR to work with schools to “coordinate and ensure the provision of pre-employment transition services” (361.48(a)). Indeed, strong interagency collaboration is consistently cited as a key contributor to successful transitions for youth with disabilities (Mazzotti et al., 2016; Povenmire-Kirk et al., 2018). However, additional research is needed to better understand the intersections of these partnerships in relation to the recent roll out of pre-ETS.

First, perspectives of middle and high school educators who work closely with transition-age youth with disabilities are important to consider. Special educators have a unique vantage point from which to evaluate the employment prospects of youth, as well as the array of barriers that could affect their employment in the community. For example, Trainor and colleagues (2008) interviewed special educators about the value of summer employment opportunities and the student-, school-, family-, and employer-related barriers that could hinder youth from accessing those experiences. The insights of educators could bolster support for expanding pre-ETS and help identify potential obstacles that pre-ETS should directly address (e.g., skills and dispositions of youth, the quality of transition services, the expectations of professionals and families, and the availability of community opportunities). Likewise, it is important to understand what secondary educators already know about pre-ETS and its implementation. The degree to which they are familiar with its purpose and practices can influence what educators share with families and their interest in (and capacity for) partnering with agencies. To date, no studies have solicited their views on this area of transition services.

Second, the quality of collaborations among schools and VR can impact the delivery and success of pre-ETS. Collaboration has always been at the core of recommended transition practices (e.g., Kohler, 1996; Szymanski et al., 1990). However, prior studies examining collaboration among secondary schools and VR tend to describe struggles more than successes (e.g., Oertle et al., 2013, 2017; Taylor et al., 2016). The need to substantially strengthen school–agency partnerships was a primary impetus for creating pre-ETS through WIOA. In light of this new mandate, it is especially important to understand how educators view their current collaborations and the barriers that could hinder strong pre-ETS partnerships.

Third, the views and experiences of educators in these areas are likely to be varied. The types of communities schools serve may be one salient factor to consider (Trainor et al., 2020). Rural communities include a number of features that distinguish them from suburban and urban communities. For example, they may have a narrower range of employment opportunities, provide fewer disability-related services, report more limited transportation options, and hold different expectations for life after high school (e.g., Sheehey & Black, 2003; Test & Fowler, 2018). It is unclear whether the perspectives and partnerships of rural special educators differ from those of their colleagues in other types of communities. Another factor may be school level. Although transition is emphasized throughout high school, it begins in middle school in more than half of all states (National Technical Assistance Center on Transition [NTACT], 2019). For example, transition planning in Tennessee begins by at least age 14, typically in eighth grade. Pre-ETS are designed to offer an early start for job exploration and are available to youth between the ages of 14 and 22. Thus, the extent to which middle school educators are familiar with pre-ETS and its benefits may affect whether youth with disabilities and their families learn about and access pre-ETS. Unfortunately, few studies have examined the views of middle school teachers about transition service delivery (e.g., Benitez et al., 2009; Weidenthal & Kochhar-Bryant, 2007) and none have addressed pre-ETS.

The purpose of this study was to explore the views of secondary educators regarding pre-ETS and the employment prospects of youth with disabilities in their schools. Our research questions included the following:

Research Question 1: How do secondary educators describe the employment preparation and outcomes of youth with disabilities in their school?

Research Question 2: What do they consider to be barriers to youth employment in their local communities?

Research Question 3: How familiar are they with the five areas of pre-ETS and their implementation?

Research Question 4: How do they assess current collaborations between their school and VR agencies?

Research Question 5: To what extent do these answers vary based on school level (middle versus high school) and school locale (rural versus non-rural)?

Method

Participants

Participants were 596 secondary educators serving youth with disabilities. To be included in the study, participants were required to (a) serve as an educator within a secondary school in Tennessee and (b) work closely with students with disabilities. Our goal was to hear from those educators who may be actively involved in the delivery of transition services for youth with disabilities. Although most educators (65.8%) worked in high schools, 27.5% worked in middle schools, and 6.7% worked in community-based transition programs (i.e., 18–21 programs). Their roles included special educator (82.6%), related services provider (7.6%), work-based learning coordinator (3.5%), district administrator (3.0%), school administrator (1.9%), school counselor (1.0%), or general educator (0.5%). Their highest degrees were a bachelor’s degree (23.0%), master’s degree (66.4%), or doctoral degree (6.5%); 2.2% had not completed their undergraduate degree. Most educators (84.2%) were female and 13.4% were male; 2.4% did not report their gender. Educator ages varied widely—1.5% were ages 18 to 24, 13.5% were ages 25 to 34; 23.2% were ages 35 to 44, 30.0% were ages 45 to 54, 24.4% were 55 to 64, and 2.4% were 65 or older; the remainder did not report their age. Most educators (73.8%) were White, 19.1% were Black/African American, 4.7% were Hispanic/Latino, 2.9% were American Indian/Alaskan Native, 2.9% were Asian American, 1.2 were Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander (1.17%), and 1.3% indicated other race/ethnicities. Almost half of educators (47.8%) reported living in a rural community, with 52.2% living in non-rural communities (i.e., either suburban or urban communities).

Procedures

Recruitment and data collection began in September 2018 and spanned 2 months. We sought to recruit a diverse sample of educators working with youth with disabilities in middle and high school. Because there were no publicly available lists of all special educators in the state, we used multiple approaches to obtain a large and representative sample. First, we announced the survey through electronic newsletters maintained by the Tennessee Department of Education and the Tennessee Department of Human Services (VR). In addition, we sent invitations out to more than 3,000 educators (not all of whom would have worked in secondary schools) who were registered users of the state’s transition professional development portal. Both postings explained the purpose of the study, incorporated a link to the survey, and encouraged recipients to forward information about the study to other colleagues who may be eligible. This method of snowball sampling was also incorporated to increase the number of secondary special educators responding to the survey (Creswell, 2012). We specified that the purpose of the study was to understand the needs of educators and providers in preparing youth with disabilities for employment in our state. To ensure strong participation, we indicated that 50 participants would be randomly selected to win a $20 gift card to their choice of four businesses.

Survey Instrument

We developed a new survey to examine educators’ views regarding pre-ETS and the employment prospects of youth with disabilities at their school. Although the survey was part of a larger project that also surveyed parents and VR personnel on pre-ETS, each stakeholder group was asked both distinct and common questions. The research team included faculty and staff with scholarly expertise and professional experience related to both education- and VR-provided transition services. We reviewed the available literature on pre-ETS (e.g., Benitez et al., 2009; Mazzotti & Plotner, 2014; Neubert et al., 2018; Noonan et al., 2013; Plotner et al., 2013; Riesen et al., 2014) and worked collaboratively to develop an initial set of survey items. The survey was reviewed internally and went through multiple rounds of revision. In addition, it was reviewed by leadership within the state’s VR program to address clarity, accessibility, length, and thoroughness of the survey. The survey was completed using a secure online survey system (REDCap; Harris et al., 2009). The final version (available by request) included four primary sections: (a) depictions of the employment preparation and outcomes of youth with disabilities, (b) barriers to the employment of youth with disabilities in their community, (c) familiarity regarding pre-ETS practices and policies, and (d) perceptions of collaborations between schools and agencies.

Employment preparation

We asked educators about the preparation and outcomes of youth with disabilities in their school in nine areas. As shown in Table 1, all nine items were preceded by the stem, “Most youth with disabilities in my school . . .” (see Table 1 for actual items). For each, educators responded using a 4-point Likert-type scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, 4 = strongly agree.

Table 1.

Educators’ Views of Employment Preparation of Youth With Disabilities.

Item	Percentage selecting				M (SD)	Relation to other variables
Item	Strongly disagree	Disagree	Agree	Strongly agree	M (SD)	Type of community^a	School level^a
Most youth with disabilities in my school . . .
Need substantial help preparing for the world of work	2.01	8.56	49.83	39.60	3.27 (0.70)	0.03	−0.25
Expect to work after high school	3.02	13.42	63.59	19.97	3.01 (0.68)	−0.13	−0.03
Have access to career and technical education	6.71	32.05	51.34	9.90	2.64 (0.75)	0.30	−0.08
Expect to access postsecondary education after high school	5.37	35.07	52.01	7.55	2.62 (0.70)	−0.26	0.18
Are successful in achieving their employment goals	7.21	59.40	31.04	2.35	2.29 (0.63)	−0.02	0.03
Have clear career goals	9.56	60.74	27.18	2.52	2.23 (0.65)	−0.05	−0.17
Are successful in achieving their postsecondary education goals	8.72	61.24	27.85	2.18	2.23 (0.63)	−0.06	0.03
Graduate well-prepared to enter the workforce	13.09	54.87	29.19	2.85	2.22 (0.70)	−0.11	−0.01
Have realistic career goals	14.77	60.23	22.32	2.68	2.13 (0.68)	−0.15	−0.06

Cohen’s d; positive effect sizes are in the direction of rural educators or high school educators.

Barriers to adult outcomes

We asked educators to rate the extent to which each of 16 factors (see Table 2 for items) might serve as barriers to youth employment in the community in which they worked. Educators responded using a 4-point Likert-type scale: 1 = no barrier, 2 = minor barrier, 3 = moderate barrier, 4 = major barrier. We included follow-up questions for four items to understand the direction of the barrier, including: visibility of your disabilities of youth (i.e., not visible versus too visible), expectations of parents and caregivers (i.e., too idealistic versus too low), expectations of parents and caregivers for independence (i.e., too idealistic versus too low), and involvement of parents and caregivers (i.e., too much or too limited).

Table 2.

Educators’ Views of Barriers to the Employment of Youth With Disabilities.

Item	Percentage selecting				M (SD)	Relation to other variables
Item	No barrier	Minor barrier	Moderate barrier	Major barrier	M (SD)	Type of community^a	School level^a
Motivation of youth with disabilities	2.18	18.62	40.27	38.93	3.16 (0.80)	0.21	0.22
Social skills of youth with disabilities	0.84	17.95	46.81	34.40	3.15 (0.73)	−0.21	−0.04
Employment skills of youth with disabilities	1.17	18.79	51.01	29.03	3.08 (0.72)	−0.08	0.04
Availability of accessible transportation	6.38	20.97	31.54	41.11	3.07 (0.93)	0.27	−0.30
Availability of services and supports after graduation	5.70	19.80	39.60	34.90	3.04 (0.88)	−0.03	−0.12
Involvement of parents and caregivers	4.87	21.48	42.79	30.87	3.00 (0.85)	0.14	−0.06
Overall opportunities for employment in our community	6.21	23.49	35.91	34.40	2.98 (0.91)	0.20	−0.18
Expectations of parents and caregivers	3.19	24.83	45.47	26.51	2.95 (0.80)	0.09	−0.09
Parent and caregiver expectations for independence	4.53	27.18	45.30	23.99	2.87 (0.82)	0.01	−0.10
Severity of the disabilities of youth	2.18	33.22	40.94	23.66	2.86 (0.80)	−0.09	0.01
Willingness of employers to hire youth with disabilities	7.05	28.69	42.11	22.18	2.79 (0.87)	−0.03	−0.13
Quality of partnerships we have with community programs	7.38	31.54	37.25	23.83	2.78 (0.89)	−0.08	0.07
Quality of employment preparation our school provides	8.22	34.56	35.74	21.48	2.70 (0.90)	−0.27	0.13
Visibility of the disabilities of youth	10.07	36.91	40.10	12.92	2.56 (0.84)	−0.13	0.07
Expectations of adult agencies and program staff	16.28	43.12	30.87	9.73	2.34 (0.86)	−0.17	−0.20
Expectations of teachers and school staff	19.13	44.30	27.52	9.06	2.27 (0.87)	−0.16	0.01

Cohen’s d; positive effect sizes are in the direction of rural educators or high school educators.

Familiarity with pre-ETS

We asked educators to respond to four questions addressing each of the five pre-ETS: job exploration counseling, work-based learning, counseling on postsecondary educational enrollment opportunities, workplace readiness, and instruction on self-advocacy (see Table 3 for items). Question stems were as follows: “I can describe best practices related to,” “I have personal experience implementing practices related to,” “I feel youth with disabilities need service related to,” and “My students are getting services from outside agencies related to.” Each of the five areas was accompanied by a definition drawn from the Workforce Innovation Technical Assistance Center. For example, “Work-based learning experiences include hands-on opportunities for students to develop skills and explore interests through paid or unpaid internships, apprenticeships, short-term employment, and other experiences (e.g., job shadowing, worksite tours)” and “Workplace readiness training includes opportunities and experiences that help students learn about and apply the skills for their future employment, including social skills, independent living, job seeking skills, and other ‘soft’ skills.” For each of the 20 items, educators responded using a 4-point Likert-type scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, 4 = strongly agree.

Table 3.

Educators’ Views Regarding Pre-ETS Practices.

Item	Percentage selecting				M (SD)	Relation to other variables
Item	Strongly disagree	Disagree	Agree	Strongly agree	M (SD)	Type of community^a	School level^a
I can describe best practices related to
Workplace readiness	2.85	18.62	54.70	23.83	2.99 (0.73)	0.07	−0.31
Work-based learning	2.18	19.13	52.18	26.51	3.03 (0.74)	0.03	−0.44
Job exploration counseling	3.36	21.31	58.56	16.78	2.89 (0.71)	−0.01	−0.35
Counseling on PSE enrollment opportunities	3.52	28.36	53.86	14.26	2.79 (0.72)	0.08	−0.47
Instruction on self-advocacy	2.52	17.45	56.88	23.15	3.01 (0.71)	0.03	−0.21
I have personal experience implementing practices related to
Workplace readiness	5.87	28.69	43.96	21.48	2.81 (0.84)	0.00	−0.49
Work-based learning	7.21	33.72	39.09	19.97	2.72 (0.86)	0.08	−0.59
Job exploration counseling	6.54	31.21	46.14	16.11	2.72 (0.81)	−0.06	−0.48
Counseling on PSE enrollment opportunities	5.70	35.57	42.45	16.28	2.69 (0.81)	0.09	−0.67
Instruction on self-advocacy	4.03	23.49	51.01	21.48	2.90 (0.78)	−0.04	−0.36
I feel youth with disabilities need services related to
Workplace readiness	1.85	3.02	39.60	55.54	3.49 (0.65)	0.25	−0.30
Work-based learning	1.51	4.87	40.94	52.68	3.45 (0.66)	0.12	−0.39
Job exploration counseling	1.85	4.19	45.81	48.15	3.40 (0.66)	0.17	−0.27
Counseling on PSE enrollment opportunities	1.51	4.36	45.81	48.32	3.41 (0.65)	0.17	−0.43
Instruction on self-advocacy	1.51	2.35	43.29	52.85	3.47 (0.62)	0.21	−0.19
My students are getting services from outside agencies related to
Workplace readiness	18.62	41.88	31.88	7.72	2.29 (0.86)	0.19	−0.58
Work-based learning	20.47	40.77	29.87	8.89	2.27 (0.89)	0.26	−0.68
Job exploration counseling	18.46	41.61	31.71	8.22	2.30 (0.86)	0.14	−0.67
Counseling on PSE enrollment opportunities	18.62	42.11	31.71	7.55	2.28 (0.85)	0.22	−0.63
Instruction on self-advocacy	18.79	41.61	32.38	7.21	2.28 (0.85)	0.18	−0.50

Note. Pre-ETS = pre-employment transition services; PSE = postsecondary education.

Cohen’s d; positive effect sizes are in the direction of rural educators or high school educators.

We also asked eight questions related to educators’ knowledge about pre-ETS implementation (e.g., which youth are eligible, how to do outreach, and which agencies provide services). Actual items are displayed in Table 4. Educators responded using a 4-point Likert-type scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, 4 = strongly agree. We then included an open-ended survey question that asked educators to share the biggest question they had about pre-ETS.

Table 4.

Educators’ Knowledge Regarding Pre-ETS Implementation.

Item	Percentage selecting				M (SD)	Relation to other variables
Item	Strongly disagree	Disagree	Agree	Strongly agree	M (SD)	Type of community^a	School level^a
I know which youth with disabilities in my school would benefit from pre-ETS.	4.19	16.78	56.38	22.65	2.97 (0.75)	0.16	−0.33
I know which youth with disabilities in my school would be eligible for pre-ETS.	6.71	30.20	44.97	18.12	2.74 (0.83)	0.46	−0.56
I know how to do outreach to youth with disabilities who could benefit from pre-ETS.	7.72	43.79	35.40	13.09	2.54 (0.82)	0.07	−0.47
I know what to tell youth and their families about pre-ETS.	9.56	46.81	33.39	10.23	2.44 (0.80)	0.25	−0.51
I know how to engage outside agencies and programs to collaborate in the delivery of pre-ETS.	12.08	51.01	28.36	8.56	2.33 (0.80)	−0.04	−0.53
I know which agencies in my community are providing pre-ETS.	15.94	51.51	24.33	8.22	2.25 (0.82)	0.13	−0.48
I have received sufficient training on the goals and delivery of pre-ETS.	19.97	52.85	21.64	5.54	2.13 (0.79)	−0.01	−0.40
I desire additional training related to pre-ETS.	4.53	17.62	48.83	29.03	3.02 (0.81)	0.06	−0.25

Note. Pre-ETS = pre-employment transition services.

Cohen’s d; positive effect sizes are in the direction of rural educators or high school educators.

Collaborative experiences

We asked educators to share their views on collaborating with VR and the programs that provide pre-ETS (see Table 5 for items). These 20 items addressed current collaborations (n = seven items) or potential barriers to collaboration (n = 13 items). Educators responded using a 4-point Likert-type scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, 4 = strongly agree. Cronbach’s alpha for this section was .79. In addition, we included an open-ended question asking educators to share what they see as the biggest barrier to stronger collaborations with agencies in their community around pre-ETS.

Table 5.

Educators’ Views on Collaborations Between Schools and Entities Providing Pre-ETS.

Item	Percentage selecting				M (SD)	Relation to other variables
Item	Strongly disagree	Disagree	Agree	Strongly agree	M (SD)	Type of community^a	School level^a
Current collaborations
I would like to collaborate more extensively with VR.	6.71	15.44	52.85	25.00	2.96 (0.82)	−0.02	−0.60
We often invite VR to attend IEP/transition meetings.	20.47	30.03	33.39	16.11	2.45 (0.99)	0.30	−1.03
I am very familiar with the transition services VR provides.	18.29	38.76	30.70	12.25	2.37 (0.92)	0.27	−0.70
I work closely with VR right now.	26.51	32.89	28.02	12.58	2.27 (0.99)	0.26	−0.97
I work with programs to coordinate and ensure provision of pre-ETS.	24.66	37.25	26.68	11.41	2.25 (0.95)	0.22	−0.96
VR regularly attends IEP/transition meetings when invited.	25.34	36.41	27.52	10.74	2.24 (0.95)	0.28	−0.68
I am satisfied with my present level of collaboration with VR.	23.99	40.44	26.51	9.06	2.21 (0.91)	0.29	−0.39
I consider my current partnership with VR to be very effective.	26.85	39.26	24.66	9.23	2.16 (0.93)	0.25	−0.59
Potential barriers to collaboration
There are not sufficient financial resources needed to collaborate.	5.87	32.21	48.99	12.92	2.69 (0.78)	0.08	−0.04
There is not sufficient time available to collaborate.	6.38	34.56	46.64	12.42	2.65 (0.78)	−0.08	−0.05
Students and families sometimes receive conflicting information from schools and agencies	6.38	40.27	46.98	6.38	2.53 (0.71)	−0.23	−0.19
We do not know about effective models for collaborating.	11.07	39.60	40.60	8.72	2.47 (0.80)	−0.07	0.15
Coordinating services between schools and different agencies is too difficult.	8.72	47.32	37.92	6.04	2.41 (0.73)	−0.11	−0.08
Other responsibilities are more pressing than collaborating.	12.92	49.83	30.70	6.54	2.31 (0.78)	0.00	0.07
Preparing youth for employment is not a high priority of agencies.	16.61	53.52	24.50	5.37	2.19 (0.77)	−0.12	−0.11
Agencies are not interested in or willing to collaborate with us.	11.41	61.07	25.17	2.35	2.18 (0.65)	0.02	−0.14
We are not encouraged to collaborate with one another.	19.30	52.68	23.66	4.36	2.13 (0.77)	−0.10	0.09
Preparing youth for employment is not a high priority for my school.	26.67	49.66	19.46	5.20	2.04 (0.81)	−0.22	0.18
Our school is not interested in collaborating with others.	28.02	60.40	9.40	2.18	1.86 (0.67)	−0.17	0.11
Collaboration does not lead to better transition outcomes for youth with disabilities.	35.40	53.86	9.23	1.51	1.77 (0.67)	−0.04	−0.08
Collaboration is not needed to improve youth employment outcomes.	42.11	48.66	7.21	2.01	1.69 (0.69)	0.10	0.07

Note. VR = vocational rehabilitation; IEP = individualized education program; pre-ETS = pre-employment transition services.

Cohen’s d; positive effect sizes are in the direction of rural educators or high school educators.

Data Analysis

Our final sample included 596 surveys. Although 1,158 surveys were started, only 1,010 were ultimately submitted. We reviewed each survey and eliminated those in which respondents did not meet the eligibility criteria or had entire sections that were missing. This survey required participants to answer questions in each section before moving to the next section. Therefore, if they did not answer questions in Section 1, they would be missing all data from the remaining survey sections. This left 596 complete surveys with no missing data. For each of the first four research questions, we summarized educators’ responses by item using descriptive statistics. When summarizing these findings in the text of the results, we present the percentage of educators agreeing as the sum of agree and strongly agree and the percentage of educators disagreeing as the sum of disagree and strongly disagree. However, all response options are individually presented in Tables 1 to 5.

To address the fifth research question, we conducted two sets of exploratory analyses. First, we compared mean ratings based on type of community—rural versus non-rural (i.e., suburban or urban). Our primary interest was in whether there were distinct views or experiences associated with addressing transition in rural communities. Second, we compared ratings based on school level—middle versus high school (i.e., high school or 18–21 programs). We combined these latter two levels because the age spans often overlap and few districts in the state offer distinct 18 to 21 programs. We focused on the magnitude of any differences between groups by calculating Cohen’s d. We divided the difference in group means by the pooled standard deviation. We interpreted effect sizes using guidelines proposed by Cohen (1988): 0.20 was considered small, 0.50 was moderate, and 0.80 was large.

Results

We organize our study findings according to each of our five research questions. Descriptive findings are presented in Tables 1 to 5.

How Do Educators Describe the Employment Preparation and Outcomes of Youth?

Secondary educators varied in their views of employment preparation of youth with disabilities at their school (see Table 1). Most educators agreed or strongly agreed that most youth expected to work after high school (83.6%) or expected to access postsecondary education after high school (69.6%). However, far fewer indicated that most youth had clear career goals (29.7%) or realistic career goals (25.0%). Moreover, less than one third of educators indicated that most youth would graduate well-prepared to enter the workforce (32.0%), are successful in achieving their employment goals (33.4%), or are successful in achieving their further educational goals (30.0%). Indeed, nearly all educators (89.4%) indicated that most youth at their school would need substantial help preparing for the world of work.

Overall, ratings tended to be similar based on community type and school level. Rural educators were less likely to say that youth at their school expected to access postsecondary education (d = −0.26), but more likely to agree that most youth had access to career and technical education (d = 0.30). High school educators were more likely to agree that most youth with disabilities at their school needed substantial help preparing for the world of work (d = −0.25). These differences were generally small in magnitude.

What Do Educators Consider to be Barriers to Youth Employment?

Educators affirmed a number of different barriers to the employment of youth with disabilities in their community (see Table 2). Those factors most often identified as being a moderate or major barrier were the social skills of youth with disabilities (81.2%), the employment skills of youth with disabilities (80.0%), and the motivation of youth with disabilities (79.2%). The least emphasized barriers—though still prominent—were the visibility of the disabilities of youth (53.0), the expectations of adult agencies and program staff (40.6%), and the expectations of teachers and school staff (36.6%).

Some differences were apparent when considering community type. Among rural educators, ratings of barriers were somewhat higher for the following factors: motivation of youth with disabilities (d = 0.21), overall opportunities for employment in the community (d = 0.20), and availability of accessible transportation (d = 0.27). However, they were lower for the following factors: social skills of youth with disabilities (d = −0.21), the quality of employment preparation provided by the school (d = −0.27), and the expectations of adult agencies and program staff (d = −0.17). In all cases, these differences were fairly small.

Fewer differences were found between educators based on school level. The ratings of barriers among middle school educators were somewhat higher for the motivation of youth with disabilities (d = 0.22). In contrast, the ratings of high school educators were higher in relation to the expectations of adult agencies and program staff (d = −0.20) and the availability of accessible transportation (d = −0.30). These differences were generally small in magnitude.

We asked participants to identify the biggest barrier to employment of youth with disabilities in their community on the open-ended survey questions. Many participants identified a lack of disability awareness as a major barrier influencing employer willingness to hire and, therefore, hindering the employment of youth with disabilities. Examples pertained to the awareness of employers, educators, and other community stakeholders. Educators described needs related to student employment preparation and employability skills, such as social skills and motivation to work. Other needs mentioned by participants included concerns around government assistance and Supplemental Social Security benefits and limited job opportunities in the community.

How Familiar Are Educators With Pre-ETS and Its Implementation?

Nearly all educators agreed or strongly agreed that youth with disabilities at their school needed services related to each of the five areas of pre-ETS, with responses ranging from 93.6% for work-place readiness to 96.1% for instruction on self-advocacy (see Table 3). A majority of educators agreed or strongly agreed they could describe best practices related to each of the five areas of pre-ETS, with responses ranging from 68.1% for counseling on postsecondary educational enrollment opportunities to 80.0% for instruction on self-advocacy. Likewise, most indicated they had personal experience implementing these practices, ranging from 58.7% for counseling on postsecondary educational enrollment opportunities to 72.5% for instruction on self-advocacy. In contrast, a smaller percentage of educators indicated youth with disabilities at their school were getting services from outside agencies related to these areas, with little variability across areas (range: 38.8%–39.9%).

Knowledge about the implementation of pre-ETS was more varied (see Table 4). Although the majority of educators agreed or strongly agreed that they knew which youth would benefit from pre-ETS (79.0%) and would be eligible for pre-ETS (63.1%), far fewer indicated they knew how to do outreach (48.5%), knew what to tell youth and families about pre-ETS (43.6%), knew how to engage outside agencies in the delivery of pre-ETS (36.9%), or knew which agencies were providing pre-ETS locally (32.6%). Most educators disagreed they had received sufficient training on the goals and delivery of pre-ETS (72.8%) and agreed they desired addition training (77.9%).

We asked participants to identify their biggest question about pre-ETS in an open-ended survey question. Many participants expressed a need for understanding what pre-ETS services are and what youth are eligible. Other educators reported questions related to accessing pre-ETS for youth, such as middle school and high school students, those in rural communities, and those with specific disabilities. Questions were posed pertaining to how to implement pre-ETS with fidelity during the school day. For example, educators wondered how to fit pre-ETS into the school day among academic courses and other requirements.

Some differences were seen based on the types of communities in which secondary educators worked. Agreement ratings were higher for educators in rural communities in three areas. First, respondents were more likely to agree they felt youth needed services related to workplace readiness (d = 0.25) and instruction on self-advocacy (d = 0.21). Second, they were more likely to agree youth with disabilities were getting services from outside agencies related to work-based learning (d = 0.26) and counseling on postsecondary educational enrollment opportunities (d = 0.22). Third, they reported a greater understanding of which youth in their school would be eligible for pre-ETS (d = 0.46).

Differences related to school level were more extensive and tended to be larger. For 27 of the 28 items in Tables 3 and 4, educators working in middle schools had lower agreement ratings than educators working in high schools. Effect sizes ranged from small to large.

How Do Educators Assess Current Collaborations With VR?

The portrait of collaborations was mixed (see Table 5). Most educators disagreed they worked closely with VR at present (59.0%) or that VR regularly attended individualized education program (IEP)/transition meetings when invited (61.8%). However, only half (49.5%) agreed they often invited VR to attend such meetings. Moreover, most educators disagreed they were satisfied with their present level of collaboration with VR (64.4%) and most disagreed their current partnership with VR was very effective (66.1%). However, more than three quarters of educators agreed they would like to collaborate more extensively with VR (77.9%). The majority of educators agreed that three of the factors we presented served as barriers to collaboration, including insufficient financial resources (61.2%), insufficient time (59.1%), and conflicting information (53.4%). Most disagreed that collaboration is not needed (90.8%) or that collaboration does not lead to better outcomes (89.3%).

Differences based on the types of communities in which secondary educators worked were found on nearly all items related to current collaborations. Educators working in rural communities described their collaborations as more extensive and positive. Specifically, the ratings of rural educators indicated stronger agreement that they worked closely with VR at present (d = 0.26), worked with programs to coordinate and ensure provision of pre-ETS (d = 0.22), were satisfied with their present collaboration with VR (d = 0.29), considered the partnership to be very effective (d = 0.25), often invited VR to attend IEP/transition meetings (d = 0.30), reported that VR often attends IEP/transition meetings (d = 0.28), and were familiar with the transition services provided by VR (d = 0.27). In terms of barriers, rural educators were less likely to agree that youth and their families received conflicting information from schools and agencies (d = −0.23). All other barriers were viewed more similarly.

Likewise, large differences in current collaborations were apparent between middle and high school educators. Specifically, the ratings of high school educators reflected stronger agreement that they worked closely with VR at present (d = −0.97), worked with programs to coordinate and ensure provision of pre-ETS (d = −0.96), were satisfied with their present collaboration with VR (d = −0.39), considered the partnership to be very effective (d = −0.59), often invited VR to attend IEP/transition meetings (d = −01.03), reported that VR often attends IEP/transition meetings (d = −0.68), were familiar with the transition services provided by VR (d = −0.70), and would like to collaborate more extensively with VR (d = −0.60). Other barriers were rated more similarly.

We asked participants to identify the biggest barrier to collaboration in their community around pre-ETS on an open-ended survey question. Educators identified a lack of agencies and providers with which to collaborate in their communities as a particular barrier to collaboration. Many described needs relating to communication with agencies, such as lack of clear communication and lack of time to identify spaces to collaborate. Other needs mentioned by educators included providers only collaborating to serve youth with certain types of disabilities, limited time during the school day to collaborate, and a lack of training and resources.

Discussion

Enhancing the employment prospects of youth with disabilities has been a long-standing emphasis of secondary education and transition services (Phelps & Hanley-Maxwell, 1997; Will, 1984). The advent of pre-ETS brings further focus and additional investment to the area of career development. Although pre-ETS is an initiative of VR, it requires considerable collaboration with local schools that serve transition-age youth. Yet, little is known about the ways in which educators view this recent initiative and its importance. In this study, 596 secondary educators addressed their familiarity with pre-ETS, the employment preparation of youth with disabilities, their collaboration with VR, and prevailing barriers to youth employment. Our findings extend the literature in several ways.

First, educators overwhelmingly affirmed that youth with disabilities at their schools needed additional preparation for the world of work. For example, more than 90% of educators agreed or strongly agreed that most youth with disabilities in their school needed services related to each of the five areas of pre-ETS. Furthermore, a large proportion of educators disagreed that most of the youth with disabilities at their school had clear or realistic career goals, would graduate well-prepared to enter the workforce, or would be successful in achieving their employment or postsecondary education goals. Such perspectives are not entirely surprising amid the scores of recent studies describing the disappointing post-school outcomes across disability categories (e.g., Burgess & Cimera, 2014; Butterworth & Migliore, 2015; Wagner & Newman, 2015). Yet, it is striking how many secondary educators indicated that youth were insufficiently prepared to attain their post-school transition goals. Moreover, they identified a constellation of barriers to youth employment—some related to youth themselves and others related to the communities in which they live. Overall, these findings affirm the need for pre-ETS from the perspective of middle and highs school educators—the professionals who work most closely with youth.

Second, their familiarity with pre-ETS and its associated practices were more mixed. A modest proportion of secondary educators still indicated they were not familiar with best practices in each of the five areas of pre-ETS (20%–32%) or said they did not have personal experiences implementing these practices (28%–41%). Although pre-ETS are relatively new, the practices that comprise each of these five areas are not. Indeed, most have long been considered recommended components of special education transition services (e.g., Carter et al., 2010; Guy et al., 2009; NCWD/Youth, 2009). Although the legislation introducing pre-ETS had passed 4 years prior, knowledge about specific aspects of pre-ETS implementation was still fairly low across the state. For example, many educators did not know which youth with disabilities would be eligible for pre-ETS, how to undertake outreach, what to tell youth and families, how to engage local agencies, or even which agencies are involved. Such findings are concerning because middle and high school educators comprise the primary link between pre-ETS providers and the youth with disabilities who need them.

Third, current collaborations among schools and VR agencies were reported to be uneven and generally limited. Interagency collaboration has long been considered a staple of best practices in secondary transition (DeFur & Taymans, 1995; Kohler, 1996). Yet, most educators we surveyed were not very satisfied with their collaborations with VR, most disagreed that their current partnerships were effective, and most desired more extensive collaborations. Moreover, participating educators indicated that most of youth with disabilities at their school were not yet receiving pre-ETS from outside agencies. Such disappointing characterizations of school-agency collaborations have been found in other studies (Oertle et al., 2017; Taylor et al., 2016), although their focus was not specifically on pre-ETS. This limited collaboration was also attributed to multiple sources, including limited time and resources. However, it was not ascribed to a lack of willingness, low prioritization, or an anticipation of limited impact. New collaborative models may be needed to help schools and agencies obviate these persistent barriers in ways that strengthen collaborations around pre-ETS specifically and transition more broadly (e.g., Povenmire-Kirk et al., 2015).

Fourth, the views and experiences of educators often differed across school levels. In general, middle school educators were less familiar with pre-ETS implementation and practices and described weaker collaborations with VR. This finding not altogether surprising given that the majority of transition education takes place in high school and community-based programs (e.g., 18–21 programs). However, Tennessee is among the nearly 30 states that requires transition planning to begin earlier by age 14. Likewise, pre-ETS is intended for youth with disabilities beginning at the earliest age they are eligible for the provision of transition services. Thus, most middle schools are serving students who fall within this age range and are part of the earliest discussions youth and their families have about transition (Weidenthal & Kochhar-Bryant, 2007). What might it look like to embed attention to pre-ETS within these earlier grades? What should middle school educators know and communicate with youth and their families about how pre-ETS can support the transition to employment? Schools would benefit from additional guidance and resources in each of these areas.

Fifth, community type was a less prominent factor than we anticipated it would be. Small differences were found in just a few areas. For example, rural educators were more likely to indicate that youth with disabilities needed services related to certain pre-ETS, and they perceived barriers of transportation and local employment opportunities to be more pronounced than did educators in suburban or urban communities. These two barriers to youth employment have been highlighted in prior discussions and studies of rural transition services (e.g., Collet-Klingenberg & Kolb, 2011; Test & Fowler, 2018). In contrast, rural educators were more likely to indicate that youth with disabilities were receiving services related to pre-ETS from outside agencies and they reported more extensive and effective collaborations with VR. In more tight-knit communities, it may be that special educators have closer relationships with other disability-related service providers. Regardless, such connections beyond the walls of the school may be especially important for ensuring youth receive the instruction and opportunities they need in the midst of an often very different employment landscape.

Limitations and Future Research

Several limitations to this study suggest areas for future research. First, our study focused on a single state with a particular history and configuration of pre-ETS. Although we obtained a large sample and involved educators working within 85% of all Tennessee counties, every state adopts an idiosyncratic approach to school- and VR-supported transition services. Future replications should be undertaken across other states that differ in their rollout of pre-ETS or that approach VR services in quite different ways. Second, educators responded to survey questions referencing students as a group (e.g., “youth with disabilities in my school”), rather than as individuals. Youth with disabilities are especially heterogeneous. As a result, how educators view transition preparation and employment barriers likely varies from one student to the next based on the disabilities they experience, the strengths or needs they possess, and the post-school goals they are pursuing. Future research should explore more closely whether and how the perspectives of educators vary based on student-level factors. Third, we used a combination of recruitment approaches, including direct invitations and snowball sampling. Although our goal was to learn from as many of secondary special educators from the state as possible, this means we cannot report an accurate response rate for recruitment (Creswell, 2012). In the states where complete compilations of current educators are available—publicly or from the Department of Education—such lists should be used. Fourth, we solicited the perspectives of educators at a single point in time (i.e., 4 years after federal legislation introducing pre-ETS) and toward the early stages of rolling out pre-ETS in our state. As time passes, familiarity with and implementation of pre-ETS should increase. Longitudinal studies would be helpful for tracking these changes over time.

Implications for Practice and Policy

Our findings have several implications for the field. First, schools are critical partners in the design and delivery of pre-ETS to youth with disabilities. As a result, it is important that middle and high school educators are sufficiently familiar with this service and its intersections with school-delivered transition education. Yet, most current special educators have received their pre-service training prior to the adoption of pre-ETS. States must consider carefully how awareness and training might be promoted in ways that will reach large numbers of educators. In our own state of Tennessee, we are developing an online professional development portal focused on pre-ETS, integrating training sessions into regional summits and state conferences, and planning webinars and communities of practice. Indeed, most educators (78.1%) in our study indicated they desired additional training related to pre-ETS.

Second, joint professional development opportunities that involve both school and agency staff could be one way to promote shared knowledge and further school-agency collaborations. More than half of the educators we surveyed indicated that youth with disabilities and their families sometimes receive conflicting information from schools and agencies about transition. Professional development in the field of transition often reflects a siloed approach (Holzberg et al., 2018). A statewide professional development plan around transition should consider the ways in which stakeholders working across multiple agencies can work together to prioritize and deliver relevant training (Mazzotti et al., 2018).

Third, communities may need guidance on developing local models of collaboration that cross traditional boundaries. Almost half of the educators we surveyed indicated they did not know about effective models for collaborating with VR. Too often, calls for increased collaboration are not accompanied by clear direction for doing so. One promising approach involves establishing a formal interagency collaboration model. For example, the CIRCLES model establishes teams across levels—including student-, school-, and community-level teams—who work in concert to enhance transition services and supports for youth with disabilities (Povenmire-Kirk et al., 2018). Another approach involves using “community conversations” to engage a diverse group of formal and informal stakeholders in addressing the employment and transition needs of youth with disabilities in their local community (Carter et al., 2016).

Fourth, agency collaboration should also be pursued at the state level. This can be implemented through a variety of approaches, such as by developing a written Memorandum of Understanding, establishing standing meetings among relevant state agencies, or undertaking coordinated information campaigns. Indeed, the WIOA of 2014 also mandated development of a State Plan in which state agencies impacting the lives of youth with disabilities should work more closely together. Likewise, the Advisory Committee on Increasing Competitive Integrated Employment for Individuals with Disabilities (U.S. Census Bureau, 2016) emphasized “systems integration for seamless transition” as a high-need area to increase the capacity of the overall system in this area.

The introduction of pre-ETS brings heightened attention and additional resources to the collective task of preparing youth with disabilities for future careers. Working in concert, schools, and agencies can play a powerful role in changing the employment trajectories of young people with disabilities across the country. Yet, findings from this statewide study suggest much more investment may be needed to ensure youth are accessing the constellation of services and supports that are known to elevate outcomes. We hope this study will encourage continued examination of how best to promote effective delivery of pre-ETS in widespread ways.

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: The work reported in this article was supported in part by a contract with the Tennessee Department of Education and through Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research grant support (UL1 TR000445 from National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences [NCATS]/National Institutes of Health [NIH]).

References

Benitez

D. T.

Morningstar

M. E.

Frey

B. B.

(2009). A multistate survey of special education teachers’ perceptions of their transition competencies. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32(1), 6–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885728808323945

Bouck

E. C.

Park

(2018). Exploring post-school outcomes across time out of school for students with autism spectrum disorder. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 53(3), 253–263.

Burgess

Cimera

R. E.

(2014). Employment outcomes of transition-aged adults with autism spectrum disorders: A state of the states report. American Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 119(1), 64–83. https://doi.org/10.1352/1944-7558-119.1.64

Butterworth

Migliore

(2015). Trends in employment outcomes of young adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities: 2006-2013. University of Massachusetts Boston, Institute for Community Inclusion.

Carter

E. W.

Blustein

C. L.

Bumble

J. L.

Harvey

Henderson

McMillan

(2016). Engaging communities in identifying local strategies for expanding integrated employment during and after high school. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 121(5), 398–418. https://doi.org/10.1352/1944-7558-121.5

Carter

E. W.

Trainor

A. A.

Cakiroglu

Swedeen

Owens

(2010). Availability of and access to career development activities for transition-age youth with disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 33(1), 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885728809344332

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.

Collet-Klingenberg

L. L.

Kolb

S. M.

(2011). Secondary and transition programming for 18-21 year old students in rural Wisconsin. Rural and Special Education Quarterly, 30(2), 19–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/875687051103000204

Creswell

J. W.

(2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Pearson Education Inc.

10.

DeFur

S. H.

Taymans

J. M.

(1995). Competencies needed for transition specialists in vocational rehabilitation, vocational education, and special education. Exceptional Children, 62(1), 38–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440299506200104

11.

Guy

B. A.

Sitlington

P. L.

Larsen

M. D.

Frank

A. R.

(2009). What are high schools offering as preparation for employment? Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32(1), 30–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885728808318625

12.

Harris

Taylor

Thielke

Payne

Gonzalez

Conde

(2009). Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap): A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 42(2), 377–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010

13.

Holzberg

D. G.

Clark

K. A.

Morningstar

M. E.

(2018). Transition-focused professional development: An annotated bibliography of essential elements and features of professional development. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 41(1), 50–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143417742362

14.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004. 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. (2004).

15.

Kohler

P. D.

(1996). A taxonomy for transition programming: Linking research and practice. Transition Research Institute, University of Illinois.

16.

Kortering

Braziel

McClannon

T. W.

(2010). Career ambitions: A comparison of youth with and without SLD. Remedial and Special Education, 31(4), 230–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932508324404

17.

Lipscomb

Haimson

Liu

A. Y.

Burghardt

Johnson

D. R.

Thurlow

M. L.

(2017). Preparing for life after high school: The characteristics and experiences of youth in special education (Vol. 2). U.S. Department of Education.

18.

Mazzotti

V. L.

Plotner

(2014). Implementing secondary transition evidence-based practices: A multi-state survey of transition service providers. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 39(1), 12–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143414544360

19.

Mazzotti

V. L.

Rowe

D. A.

Simonsen

M. L.

Boaz

VanAvery

(2018). Steps for implementing a state-level professional development plan for secondary transition. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 41(1), 56–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143417741478

20.

Mazzotti

V. L.

Rowe

D. A.

Sinclair

Poppen

Woods

Shearer

M. L.

(2016). Predictors of post-school success: A systematic review of NLTS-2 secondary analyses. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 39(4), 196–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143415588047

21.

Miller

Sevak

Honeycutt

(2018). State vocational rehabilitation agencies’ early implementation experiences with pre-employment transition services. Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on VR Practices and Youth.

22.

Morningstar

M. E.

Clavenna-Deane

(2018). Your complete guide to transition planning and services. Brookes.

23.

National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability for Youth. (2009). Guideposts for success (2nd ed.). Institute for Educational Leadership.

24.

National Technical Assistance Center on Transition. (2019). Transition age and indicators 2018 [raw data].

25.

Neubert

Luecking

Fabian

(2018). Transition practices of vocational rehabilitation counselors serving students and youth with disabilities in high performing state vocational rehabilitation agencies. Rehabilitation Research, Policy, and Education, 32(1), 54–65. https://doi.org/10.1891/2168-6653.32.1.54

26.

Newman

Wagner

Knokey

A.-M.

Marder

Nagle

Shaver

Wei

Cameto

Contreras

Ferguson

Greene

Schwarting

(2011). The posthigh school outcomes of young adults with disabilities up to 8 years after high school. SRI International.

27.

Noonan

P. M.

Erickson

A. G.

Morningstar

M. E.

(2013). Effects of community transition teams on interagency collaboration for school and adult agency staff. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 36(2), 96–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143412451119

28.

Oertle

K. M.

Sax

C. L.

Chesley

(2017). Expectations of statewide special education and vocational rehabilitation transition leaders for their staff’s collaboration activities. Journal of Rehabilitation, 83(3), 3–20.

29.

Oertle

K. M.

Trach

J. S.

Plotner

A. J.

(2013). Rehabilitation professionals’ expectations for transition and interagency collaboration. Journal of Rehabilitation, 79(3), 24–35.

30.

Phelps

L. A.

Hanley-Maxwell

(1997). School-to-work transitions for youth with disabilities: A review of outcomes and practices. Review of Educational Research, 67(2), 197–226. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543067002197

31.

Plotner

A. J.

Trach

J. S.

Oertle

K. M.

Fleming

A. R.

(2013). Differences in service delivery between transition VR counselors and general VR counselors. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 57(2), 109–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/0034355213499075

32.

Povenmire-Kirk

Diegelmann

Crump

Schnorr

Test

Flowers

Aspel

(2015). Implementing CIRCLES: A new model for interagency collaboration in transition planning. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 42(1), 51–65. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-140723

33.

Povenmire-Kirk

T. C.

Test

D. W.

Flowers

C. P.

Diegelmann

K. M.

Bunch-Crump

Kemp-Inman

Goodnight

C. I.

(2018). CIRCLES: Building an interagency network for transition planning. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 49(1), 45–57. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-180953

34.

Riesen

Schultz

Morgan

Kupferman

(2014). School-to-work barriers as identified by special educators, vocational rehabilitation counselors, and community rehabilitation professionals. Journal of Rehabilitation, 80(1), 33–44.

35.

Rojewski

J. W.

Lee

I. H.

Gregg

Gemici

(2012). Development patterns of occupational aspirations in adolescents with high-incidence disabilities. Exceptional Children, 78(2), 157–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291207800202

36.

Sheehey

P. H.

Black

R. S.

(2003). Transition outcomes of young adults with disabilities: A research synthesis. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 22(2), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/875687050302200202

37.

Sinclair

Poteat

V. P.

(2020). Aspirational differences between students with and without IEPs: Grades earned matter. Remedial and Special Education, 41(1), 40–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518795475

38.

Szymanski

E. M.

Hanley-Maxwell

Asselin

(1990). Rehabilitation counseling, special education, and vocational special needs education: Three transition disciplines. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 13(1), 29–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/088572889001300103

39.

Taylor

D. L.

Morgan

R. L.

Callow-Heusser

C. A.

(2016). A survey of vocational rehabilitation counselors and special education teachers on collaboration in transition planning. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 44(2), 163–173. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-150788

40.

Test

D. W.

Fowler

C. H.

(2018). A look at the past, present, and future of rural secondary transition. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 37(2), 68–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756870517751607

41.

Trainor

A. A.

Carter

E. W.

Karpur

Martin

J. E.

Mazzotti

V. L.

Morningstar

M. E.

Newman

Rojewski

J. W.

(2020). A framework for research in transition: Identifying important areas and intersections for future study. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 43(1), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143419864551

42.

Trainor

A. A.

Carter

E. W.

Owens

Swedeen

(2008). Special educators’ perceptions of summer employment and community participation opportunities for youth with disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 31(3), 144–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885728808323717

43.

Trainor

A. A.

Carter

E. W.

Swedeen

Owens

Cole

Smith

S. A.

(2011). Perspectives of adolescents with disabilities on summer employment and community experiences. The Journal of Special Education, 45(3), 157–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466909359424

44.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2016). New census data show differences between urban and rural populations.

45.

Wagner

Newman

(2015). Longitudinal post-high school outcomes of young adults with learning disabilities or emotional/behavioral disorders. In Cook

B. G.

Tankersley

Landrom

T. J.

(Eds.), Transition of youth and young adults: Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities (Vol. 28, pp. 31–61). Emerald Group.

46.

Wehman

Sima

A. P.

Ketchum

West

M. D.

Chan

Leucking

(2015). Predictors of successful transition from school to employment for youth with disabilities. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 25(2), 232–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-014-9541-6

47.

Weidenthal

Kochhar-Bryant

(2007). An investigation of transition practices for middle school youth. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 30(3), 147–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/08857288070300030401

48.

Will

(1984). OSERS programming for the transition of youth with disabilities: Bridges from school to working life. Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.