Improving Secondary Education and Transition Services for Youth with Disabilities

A Forum — December 5, 2003

Background

According to national research youth with disabilities have lower than desired academic achievement levels, high dropout rates, substantial levels of under- and un-employment, economic instability, and low levels of enrollment and completion in postsecondary education and training. In response to these outcomes and to improve results for youth with disabilities, the National Center on Secondary Education and Transition (NCSET), a research and technical assistance center funded by the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, U.S. Department of Education, hosted a National Leadership Summit on Improving Results for Youth in partnership with 15 federal agencies and national organizations There, state leaders and policymakers identified policies and practices to improve access to and success in secondary and postsecondary education, workforce preparation, and employment for youth with disabilities.

At this American Youth Policy Forum, summit participants and policymakers discussed the outcomes of the summit and presented recommendations for improved secondary education and transition policies, systems, and programs. A representative from NCSET also described NCSET’s work and the cross-state data gathered from summit participants.

Forum Summary

According to David Johnson, Director of NCSET, his organization works to improve school and post-school opportunities for youth with disabilities. To achieve this goal, NCSET partners with other organizations that share an interest in youth with disabilities, and provides research and technical assistance to states. The purpose of the recent NCSET summit was to help states build capacity in order to improve secondary education and post-school results for young people with disabilities. Forty-two states and other entities, including the District of Columbia, Pacific Rim territories, U.S. Virgin Islands, and Bureau of Indian Affairs were represented at this event. At the summit, participants worked in state teams to identify priority issues in their state and leadership goals for each issue. The teams then came to consensus on action steps for each goal and identified the technical assistance needed to implement and sustain these actions.

NCSET analyzed the data collected from participants and identified ten cross-state priorities in three overarching issue areas. The first area focused on state-level infrastructure. Here, participants emphasized the development of collaborative relationships between agencies within their states and alignment of special programs with broader education and workforce reforms in order to give all youth the chance to achieve successful academic, occupational, and social outcomes. Also critical to participants were the collection, dissemination, and use of outcome data to improve services and programs, as well as the provision of high quality professional development for those who work with youth with disabilities. The second area that emerged in the analysis of state action plans concerned programs and services for youth. Access to general education, issues related to testing and standards, dropout rates, workforce development, and employment were identified as priorities. The third area of importance focused on issues related to the involvement of youth and their families in the service and transition activities. Priorities included the education and involvement of families and the use of youth-centered planning in transition services. In addition to the three issue areas identified at the summit, fifteen cross-state technical assistance priority areas (such as assistance in engaging employers and facilitating the resource mapping process) also emerged. More information about these areas and the cross-state priorities identified at the summit is available on NCSET’s website at www.ncset.org.

David Sienko, Secondary Transition Coordinator for the Rhode Island Department of Education, Office of Special Needs, spoke about priorities from the perspective of his state, the experiences of his state team at the summit, and the benefits of their participation. The summit offered the state’s participants a chance to refocus their work and collaborate with others in the field. The pre-summit reflective exercises in particular were useful because they helped participants to focus the work they did at the summit and make effective use of their time, said Sienko. The summit itself had several important outcomes for their group; by working with experts in the field, the team identified specific actions they could take after returning home, he continued.

While at the summit, the state teams suggested action federal policymakers could consider to better support the work taking place in the states. These included, for example, defining outcome data indicators so that they are consistent with parallel systems indicators, specifying the meaning of the term “meaningfully engaged”; involving states in the development of outcome data; encouraging or requiring interagency collaboration through legislation and policy; providing incentives for schools to serve as service hubs and for schools and programs that demonstrate student and family-centered practices. The group also suggested that policymakers use a consistent definition of ‘transition’ across legislation, put language in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act regarding career planning and development beginning at age 14, be consistent in the performance indicators used in policy, and fit transition planning and processes in No Child Left Behind.

Wendy Collison, Education Program Specialist in Exceptional Student Services at the Arizona Department of Education, spoke about her state’s participation in the NCSET summit. While at the summit, she and her colleagues identified current priorities for their state, such as the development of adequate mechanisms for collecting, analyzing, and disseminating data, and strategies to align pre-service and professional development activities for students, families, and educators. The summit experience provided structure and focus for their work and helped them to identify local, regional, and national partners to collaborate with in the future. It also led them to realize that their efforts so far had produced progress, and enabled them to participate in useful dialogue with others about effective strategies, approaches, and mechanisms for achieving results for youth with disabilities.

Collison shared suggestions for action developed at the summit by her team for federal policymakers. Her group suggested, for instance, that policymakers adopt broader conceptions of positive outcomes and education to recognize that not all youth with disabilities will go to college and that not all of their learning needs to be solely focused on gaining entry to college. She and her colleagues also recommended that policymakers 1) recognize the importance of self-determination and advocacy for youth with disabilities in legislation; 2) reexamine pertinent laws and regulations to ensure that they work in concert with one another; 3) prioritize universal literacy; 4) promote accessibility for students via assistive technology; 5) support development of partnerships between public and private entities; and 6) make funding for postsecondary systems contingent upon working in unison with secondary education systems.

American Youth Policy Forum   1836 Jefferson Place NW,  Washington DC 20036
Telephone 202-775-9731      |      Fax 202-775-9733      |     Email aypf@aypf.org