This study used multilevel modeling to examine the extent to which secondary special educators promoted nonacademic behaviors that were positively linked to postschool outcomes for students with disabilities, including self-advocacy, goal setting and attainment, disability awareness, employment, and utilization of supports. Respondents were 248 special educators in 20 states. Results showed that between-state factors accounted for significant variance in transition practices and that teachers reported teaching skills related to disability awareness, self-advocacy, goal setting and attainment, and utilization of supports more frequently than those related to employment. Limitations of the study, suggestions for future research, and implications for practice are discussed.
AndersonD.Kleinhammer-TramillJ. P.MorningstarM. E.LehmanJ.KohlerP.BlalockG.WehmeyerM. (2003). What’s happening in personnel preparation in transition? A national survey. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 26, 145–160.
2.
BenitezD. T.MorningstarM. E.FreyB. B. (2009). A multistate survey of special education teachers’ perceptions of their transition competencies. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 32, 6–16. doi:10.1177/0885728808323945
3.
BenzM. R.LindstromL.YovanoffP. (2000). Improving graduation and employment outcomes of students with disabilities: Predictive factors and student perspectives. Exceptional Children, 66, 509–529.
4.
BlackorbyJ.WagnerM. (1996). Longitudinal post-school outcomes of youth with disabilities: Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study. Exceptional Children, 62, 151–165.
5.
BlanchettW. J. (2001). Importance of teacher transition competencies as rated by special educators. Teacher Education and Special Education, 24, 3–12.
6.
DillmanD. A. (2007). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley.
7.
FlexerR. W.BaerR. M.LuftP.SimmonsT. (2008). Transition planning for secondary students with disabilities (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
8.
GallM.GallJ.BorgW. (2007). Educational research: An introduction (8th ed.). New York, NY: Longman.
9.
GreathouseD.ShaughnessyM. (2010). Talking transition: An interview with an expert. Exceptional Parent, 40, 37–39.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101–476, 20 U.S.C. § 1401, et seq. (1990).
12.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108–446, 20 U.S.C. § 1400. et seq. (2004).
13.
LanyonR. I.GoodsteinL. D. (1997). Personality assessment (3rd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley.
14.
LeungS. (2011). A comparison of psychometric properties and normality in 4-, 5-, 6-, and 11-point Likert scales. Journal of Social Service Research, 37, 412–421.
15.
LiJ. Y.BassettD. S.HutchinsonS. R. (2009). Secondary special educators’ transition involvement. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 34, 163–172. doi:10.1080/13668250902849113
16.
MartinJ.HennesseyM. N.McConnellA.KazimiN. (2011, October). The transition success assessment development study: Phases I & II. PowerPoint presented at the 16th International DCDT Conference, Kansas City, MO.
17.
MillerL. E.SmithK. L. (1983). Handling nonresponse issues. Journal of Extension, 21, 45–50.
18.
MorganR. L.MooreS. C.McSweynC.SalzbergC. L. (1992). Transition from school to work: Views of secondary special educators. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 27, 315–323.
19.
MorningstarM. E.ClarkG. M. (2003). The status of personnel preparation for transition education and services: What is the critical content? How can it be offered?Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 26, 227–237. doi:10.1177/088572880302600208
20.
NewmanL.WagnerM.CametoR.KnokeyA. M. (2009). The post-high school outcomes of youth with disabilities up to 4 years after high school: A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences.
21.
NewmanL.WagnerM.CametoR.KnokeyA. M.ShaverD. (2010). Comparisons across time of the outcomes of youth with disabilities up to 4 years after high school: A report of findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS) and the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences.
22.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6301, et seq. (2002).
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and Data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
25.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S.CongdonR. (2011). HLM 7 for Windows [Computer software]. Skokie, IL: Scientific Software International.
26.
SchneiderM. (2006, April). NCES’ identification of rural locales. PowerPoint presentation to the Secretary of Education’s Rural Education Task Force. Washington, DC: Institute of Educational Sciences. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/rural_locales.asp
27.
TurnbullH. R.TurnbullA. P.WehmeyerM. L.ParkJ. (2003). A quality of life framework for special education outcomes. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 67–74.
28.
U.S. Department of Education. (2009). 28th annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 2006, Vol. 1. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/2006/parts-b-c/28th-vol-1.pdf
29.
WolfeP. S.BooneR. S.BlanchettW. J. (1998). Regular and special educators’ perceptions of transition competencies. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 21, 87–106.
30.
ZhangD.IvesterJ. G.ChenL. J.KatsiyannisA. (2005). Perspectives on transition practices. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 28, 15–25. doi:10.1177/08857288050280010401
