IEP transition-related content was compared between young adults with developmental disabilities who had or did not have legal guardians. It was found that students with guardians were more likely to earn a certificate of completion, and wanted to remain living with their families, in comparison to students without guardians who were more likely to earn a diploma, and wanted to live on their own. Regardless of whether they had a guardian or not, the majority of students had no post-secondary education goals. No significant differences in the number of objectives related to employment, transportation and self-care were observed. Differences were observed regarding teaching self-determination related skills; students without guardians had more objectives than those with. Additional findings are presented.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AgranM.AlperS.WehmeyerM. L.Access to the general education curriculum for students with significant disabilities: What it means for teachers. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities37123–1332002
2.
BaerR. B.FlexerR. W.DennisL.Examining the career paths and transition services of students with disabilities exiting high schoolEducation and Training in Developmental Disabilities42317–3292007
3.
CobigoV.MorinD.LachapelleY.Assessing work task preferences among persons with intellectual disabilities: An integrative review of the literatureEducation and Training in Developmental Disabilities42286–3002007
4.
DefurS.GetzelE. E.KregelJ.Individual transition plans: A work in progressJournal of Vocational Rehabilitation4139–1451994
5.
EversonJ. M.ZhangD.GuilloryJ. D.A statewide investigation of individualized transition plans in LouisianaCareer Development for Exceptional Individuals2437–492001
6.
GrigalM.TestD. W.BeattieJ.WoodW. M.An evaluation of transition components of Individualized Education ProgramsExceptional Children63357–3721997
7.
HalpernA. S.The transition of youth with disabilities to adult life: A position statement of the Division on Career Development and Transition, the Council for Exceptional ChildrenNo. 108 -446, 118 Stat. 2647Career Development for Exceptional Children,17115–1241994
8.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-446, 118 Stat. 2647 (2004).
9.
LisiL. B.BurnsA. M.LussendenK.National study of guardianship systems: Findings and recommendationsThe Center for GerontologyAnn Arbor, MI1994
10.
MacciniP.GagnonJ. C.Mathematics instructional practices and assessment accommodations by secondary special and general educatorsExceptional Children72217–2342006
11.
MartinJ. E.Van DyckeJ. L.D'ottavioM.NickersonK.The student-directed summary of performance: Increasing student and family involvement in the transition planning process. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals3013–262007
12.
MartinJ. E.Van DyckeJ. L.GreeneB. A.GardnerJ. E.ChristensenW. R.WoodsL. L.Direct observation of teacher-directed IEP meetings: Establishing the need for student IEP meeting instructionExceptional Children72187–20002006
13.
330.1600Mental Health Code of Michigan ActMichigan Compiled Laws Annotated (MCLA2581974
14.
Individualized education program (IEP) ManualMichigan Department of Education2005
15.
MillarD. S.Self-determination in relation to having or not having a legal guardian: Case studies of two school-aged young adults with developmental disabilities2008Scheduled to appear in the September 2008 issue of Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities
16.
MillarD. S.I never put this together”: The disconnect between self-determination and guardianship -implications for practiceEducation and Training in Developmental Disabilities42119–1292007
17.
MillarD. S.Age of majority, transfer of rights and guardianship: considerations for families and educators. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities38378–3972003
18.
MillarD. S.RenzagliaA.Factors affecting guardianship practices for young adults with disabilitiesExceptional Children68465–4842002
Nevada Department of Education (2006). State of Nevada Individualized Educational Program (IEP). Nevada Department of Education: Publisher.
21.
No Child Left Behind Act, 20 U.S.C. et seq. (2001).
22.
PowersK. M.Gil-KashiwabaraE.GeenanS.PowersL.BalandranJ.PalmerC.Mandates and effective transition planning practices reflected in IEPsCareer Development for Exceptional Individuals287–592005
23.
SimonsJ. B.Perceptions of the IEP requirementsTeacher Education and Special Education29225–2352006
24.
SpearsE. H.Students with HIV/AIDS and school considerationTeacher Education and Special Education29213–2242006
25.
/ch089aa.html#89. 1049Source: The provisions of this §89.1049 adopted to be effectivehttp://www.tea.state.tx.us/rules/tac/chapter2002. November 1, 2006. April 18, 2002, 27 TexReg 3061§89.1049. Parental Rights Regarding Adult Students
26.
TurnbullH. R.TurnbullA. P.WehmeyerM. L.ParkJ.A quality of life framework for special education outcomesRemedial and Special Education2467–742003
