Implementing College and Career Readiness: Critical Dimensions for Youth with Severe Disabilities

Abstract

Focused attention to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and college and career readiness (CCR) has been attributed to increased secondary school reform efforts directed at ensuring all students graduate high school prepared for adulthood. To successfully experience college and careers, students must have the knowledge, skills, and experiences associated with engagement in core academics, as well as essential nonacademic competencies such as growth mindsets, problem-solving, and interpersonal engagement. This study sought out insights and perspectives from national experts to understand the skills, opportunities, and supports needed to ensure students with severe disabilities are college and career ready. The study offers research results focused on initial insights supportive of inclusive postsecondary outcomes for youth with severe disabilities.

Keywords

college and career readiness Common Core State Standards students with severe disabilities inclusive education integrated postschool outcomes

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Academic Benchmarks. (n.d.). Common Core State Standards adoption map. Retrieved from http://academicbenchmarks.com/common-core-state-adoption-map/

Ayres

K. M.

Lowrey

K. A.

Douglas

K. H.

Sievers

(2011). I can identify Saturn but I can’t brush my teeth: What happens when the curricular focus for students with severe disabilities shifts. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 46, 11-21.

Brantlinger

Jimenez

Klingner

Pugach

Richardson

(2005). Qualitative studies in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 195-207. doi:10.1177/001440290507100205

Bryk

A. S.

Sebring

P. B.

Allensworth

Luppescu

Easton

J. Q.

(2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Carter

E. W.

Austin

Trainor

A. A.

(2012). Predictors of postschool employment outcomes for young adults with severe disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 23, 50-63. doi:10.1177/1044207311414680

Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common Core State Standards. Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers.

Conley

(2014). Common core: Development and substance. Social Policy Report, 28, 3-15.

Cooper

J. O.

Heron

T. E.

Heward

W. L.

(2007). Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Courtade

Spooner

Browder

Jimenez

. (2012). Seven reasons to promote standards-based instruction for students with severe disabilities: A reply to Ayres, Lowrey, Douglas, & Sievers (2011). Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 47, 3-13.

10.

De Bortoli

Balandin

Foreman

Mathisen

Arthur-Kelly

. (2012). Mainstream teachers’ experiences of communicating with students with multiple and severe disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 47, 236-252.

11.

Dedoose 7.0.23. (2016). [Computer software]. Manhattan Beach, CA: SocioCultural Research Consultants. Available from http://www.dedoose.com/

12.

Delbecq

A. L.

Van de Ven

A. H.

Gustafson

D. H.

(1975). Group techniques for program planning: A guide to nominal group and Delphi processes. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company. doi:10.1177/105960117600100220

13.

Dillman

D. A.

Smyth

J. D.

Christian

L. M.

(2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

14.

Dunlap

Kincaid

Jackson

(2013). Positive behavior support: Foundations, systems, and quality of life. In Wehmeyer

M. L.

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of positive psychology and disability (pp. 303-316). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195398786.013.013.0020

15.

Dymond

S. K.

Renzaglia

Gilson

C. L.

Slagor

M. T.

(2007). Defining access to the general curriculum for high school students with significant cognitive disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 32, 1-15. doi:10.2511/rpsd.32.1.1

16.

Elo

Kyngäs

(2007). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62, 107-115. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x

17.

Farrington

C. A.

Roderick

Allensworth

Nagaoka

Keyes

T. S.

Johnson

D. W.

Beechum

N. O.

(2012). Teaching adolescents to become learners. The role of noncognitive factors in shaping school performance: A critical literature review. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research, The University of Chicago.

18.

Hsieh

H. F.

Shannon

S. E.

(2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15, 1277-1288. doi:10.1177/1049732305276687

19.

Hunt

McDonnell

Crockett

M. A.

(2012). Reconciling an ecological curricular framework focusing on quality of life outcomes with the development and instruction of standards-based academic goals. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 37, 139-152. doi:10.2511/027494812804153471

20.

Kearns

J. F.

Kleinert

Harrison

Sheppard-Jones

Hall

Jones

(2010). What does “college and career ready” mean for students with significant cognitive disabilities? Lexington, KY. University of Kentucky.

21.

Kearns

J. F.

Towles-Reeves

Kleinert

H. L.

O’Regan Kleinert

Thomas

M. K. K.

(2009). Characteristics of and implications for students participating in alternate assessments based on alternate academic achievement standards. The Journal of Special Education, 45, 3-14. doi:10.1177/0022466909344223

22.

Kleinert

H. L.

Collins

B. C.

Wickham

Riggs

Hager

K. D.

(2010). Embedding life skills, self-determination, social relationships, and other evidence-based practices. In Kleinert

H. L.

Kearns

J. F.

(Eds.), Alternative assessment for students with significant cognitive disabilities (pp. 267-290). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

23.

Kleinert

H. L.

Garrett

Towles

Garrett

Nowak-Drabik

Waddell

Kearns

(2002). Alternate assessment scores and life outcomes for students with significant disabilities: Are they related? Assessment for Effective Intervention, 28, 19-30. doi:10.1177/073724770202800103

24.

Kleinert

H. L.

Towles-Reeves

Quenemoen

Thurlow

Fluegge

Weseman

Kerbel

(2015). Where students with the most significant cognitive disabilities are taught: Implications for general curriculum access. Exceptional Children, 81, 312-328. doi:10.1177/0014402914563697

25.

Krauss

S. M.

Pittman

K. J.

Johnson

(2016). Ready by design: The science and art of youth readiness. Washington, DC: The Forum on Youth Investment.

26.

Kurth

J. A.

Born

Love

(2016). Ecobehavioral characteristics of self-contained high school classrooms for students with severe cognitive disability. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 41, 227-243. doi:10.1177/1540796916661492

27.

Kurth

J. A.

Enyart

(2016). Schoolwide positive behavior supports and students with significant disabilities: Where are we? Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 41, 216-222. doi:10.1177/1540796916633083

28.

Kurth

J. A.

Morningstar

M. E.

Kozleski

E. B.

(2014). The persistence of highly restrictive special education placements for students with low-incidence disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 39, 227-239. doi:10.1177/1540796914555580

29.

Landers

Courtade

Ryndak

. (2012). Including students with severe disabilities in school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports: Perceptions of state coordinators. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 37, 1-8. doi:10.2511/027494812800903256

30.

Lawson

M. A.

Lawson

H. A.

(2013). New conceptual frameworks for student engagement research, policy, and practice. Review of Educational Research, 83, 432-479. doi:10.3102/0034654313480891

31.

Mazzotti

V. L.

Rowe

D. A.

Cameto

Test

D. W.

Morningstar

M. E.

(2013). Identifying and promoting transition evidence-based practices and predictors of success: A position paper of the Division on Career Development and Transition. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 36, 140-151. doi:10.1177/2165143413503365

32.

Mishkind

(2014). Definitions of college and career readiness: An analysis by state. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.

33.

Morningstar

M. E.

(2017). Transition to adulthood for youth with severe and multiple disabilities. In Orelove

F. P.

Sobsey

Gilles

(Eds.), Educating students with severe and multiple disabilities: A collaborative approach (5th ed., pp. 465-508). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

34.

Morningstar

M. E.

Kurth

J. A.

Johnson

P. E.

(2017). Examining national trends in educational placements for students with significant disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 38, 3-12. doi:10.1177/0741932516678327

35.

Morningstar

M. E.

Kurth

J. A.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Shogren

K. A.

(2017). High quality educational programs for students with intellectual disability in high school. In Wehmeyer

M. L.

Shogren

K. A.

(Eds.), Research-based practices for educating students with intellectual disability (pp. 432-449). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

36.

Morningstar

M. E.

Lombardi

Fowler

C. H.

Test

D. W.

(2017). A college and career readiness framework for secondary students with disabilities. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 40, 79-91. doi:10.1177/2165143415589926

37.

Nagaoka

Farrington

C. A.

Ehrlich

S. A.

Heath

R. D.

(2015). Foundations for young adult success: A developmental framework. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research, The University of Chicago.

38.

Qualtrics. (2015). [Computer software]. Provo, UT: Author. Available from https://www.qualtrics.com/

39.

Restorff

D. E.

Sharpe

Abery

Rodriguez

Kim

N. K.

(2012). Teacher perceptions of alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards: Results from a three-state survey. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 37, 185-198. doi:10.2511/027494812804153570

40.

Ruppar

A. L.

Gaffney

J. S.

(2011). Individualized education program team decisions: A preliminary study of conversations, negotiations, and power. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 36, 11-22. doi:10.2511/rpsd.36.1-2.11

41.

Ruppar

A. L.

Neeper

L. S.

Dalsen

(2016). Special education teachers’ perceptions of preparedness to teach students with severe disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 41, 273-286. doi:10.1177/1540796916672843

42.

Ryndak

D. L.

Taub

Jorgensen

C. M.

Gonsier-Gerdin

Arndt

Sauer

. . .Allcock

(2014). Policy and the impact on placement, involvement and progress in general education: Critical issues that require rectification. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 39, 65-74. doi:10.1177/1540796914533942

43.

Saldaña

(2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

44.

Schreier

(2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. doi:10.4135/9781446282243.n12

45.

Shogren

K. A.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Palmer

S. B.

Rifenbark

G. G.

Little

T. D.

(2015). Relationships between self-determination and postschool outcomes for youth with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 48, 256-267. doi:10.1177/0022466913489733

46.

Stemler

S. E.

(2015). Emerging trends in content analysis. In Scott

Kosslyn

(Eds.), Emerging trends in the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 1-14). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

47.

Taub

D. A.

McCord

J. A.

Ryndak

D. L.

(2017). Opportunities to learn for students with extensive support needs: A context of research supported practices for all in general education classes. The Journal of Special Education. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0022466917696263

48.

Thurlow

M. L.

(2014). Dispelling misperceptions: Shifting focus from whether standards-based reforms result in better outcomes to how they can result in better outcomes! A response to Ryndak et al. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 39, 154-155.