This article describes a process to provide solutions to the prevalent problem of interagency collaboration in planning for transition outcomes. The project is implementing and evaluating the process in seven Oregon sites that differed in respect to numbers of students served, rural versus urban, and availability of a range of adult service options. Results to date support the inclusion of procedures such as an outside stimulus to initiate the collaborative effort; locally generated plans; transitions teams empowered with policy-level decision making; and follow-up technical assistance at the administrative and direct service level.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BrownL.Branston-McLeanM.BaumgartD.VincentL.FalveyM., & SchroederJ. (1979). Using the characteristics of current and subsequent least restrictive environments in the development of curricular content for severely handicapped students. AAESPH Review, 4, 407–424.
2.
EdgarE.MaddoxM., & WysockiK. (1985). Oregon transition study. Unpublished manuscript, Univ of WA, Experimental Educ Unit, Seattle.
3.
FalveyM. A. (1986). Assessment strategies. In FalveyM. A., Community based curriculum instructional strategies for students with severe handicaps (pp. 13–30). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
4.
PetersPetersen J.TreckerN.EganI.FredericksH. D., & BunseC. (1983). The Teaching Research curriculum for handicapped adolescents and adults: Assessment procedures. Monmouth, OR: Teaching Research.
5.
TemplemanPiazza T.FredericksH.BunseC., & MosesC. (1983). Teaching Research inservice training model. Educ & Trng of Mentally Retarded, 18, 245–252.
6.
RuschF. R.SchultzR., & AgranM. (1982). Validating entry-level survival skills for several occupations: Implications for curriculum development. Jrnl for Assn for Severely Handicapped, 7, 32–41.
7.
WilcoxB., & BellamyG. T. (1982). Design of high school programs for severely handicapped students. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
