Interagency collaboration (IAC) is mandated by U.S. federal legislation and is a well-established best practice in the transition literature. At the same time, there is limited research that examines the predictors of greater IAC, and the breadth of partners that secondary special educators collaborate with across school systems, service systems, and communities to support the transition process. Using a quantitative survey of 376 secondary special educators in a Midwestern U.S. state, we examined their IAC practices by documenting the characteristics of their social networks (i.e., diversity, communication patterns, and supports exchanged). Furthermore, we examined which malleable factors including network intentionality, collaboration self-efficacy, innovative action, and access to transition-focused professional development were associated with greater IAC. These findings provide a deeper portrait of transition-focused IAC and have implications for special educators and teacher preparation programs.
BiggsE. E.BumbleJ. L.HackerR. E. (2023). Professional networks of special educators and speech-language pathologists working with students who use augmentative and alternative communication. Remedial and Special Education, 44(5), 351–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932522112849
4.
BullisM.DavisC.BullB.JohnsonB. (1995). Transition achievement among young adults with deafness: What variables relate to success?Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 39, 130–150.
5.
BumbleJ. L.CarterE. W.KuntzE. (2022). Examining the transition networks of secondary special educators: An explanatory sequential mixed methods study. Remedial and Special Education, 43(6), 375–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325211063485
6.
CohenA.KleinK.DalyA. J.FinniganK. (2011). Out with the old, in with the new: When are leader successions successful [New Directions in Leadership Annual Meeting]. The Wharton School of Business University of Pennsylvania.
7.
ColemanJ. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120. https://doi.org/10.1086/228943
8.
Consortium on Chicago School Research. (2006). Public use data set: 2003 survey of students and teachers user’s manual.
9.
FabianE.DongS.SimonsenM.LueckingD. M.DeschampsA. (2016). Service system collaboration in transition: An empirical exploration of its effects on rehabilitation outcomes for students with disabilities. Journal of Rehabilitation, 82(3), 3–10.
10.
FlanaganM. F.BumbleJ. L. (2022). Mapping Assets for Postschool Success (MAPS): Using digital resource mapping to enhance the transition process. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 56, 256–264. https://doi.org/10.1177/00400599211068
11.
FlowersC.TestD. W.Povenmire-KirkT. C.DiegelmannK. M.Bunch-CrumpK. R.Kemp-InmanA.GoodnightC. I. (2018). A demonstration model of interagency collaboration for students with disabilities: A multilevel approach. The Journal of Special Education, 51(4), 211–221. http://doi.org/10.1177/0022466917720764
12.
FreyB. B.LohmeierJ. H.LeeS. W.TollefsonN. (2006). Measuring collaboration among grant partners. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(3), 383–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214006290356
13.
GoddardY.KimM. (2018). Examining connections between teacher perceptions of collaboration, differentiated instruction, and teacher efficacy. Teachers College Record, 120(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811812000102
14.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq. (2004).
15.
LinN. (1999). Building a network theory of social capital. Connections, 22(1), 28–51.
16.
LinN.FuY. C.HsungR. M. (2001). The position generator: Measurement techniques for investigations of social capital. In LinN.CookK.BurtR. (Eds.), Social capital: Theory and research (pp. 57–81). Aldine de Gruyter.
17.
LiouY. H.DalyA. J. (2018). Evolving relationships of pre-service teachers: A cohort-based model for growing instructional practice through networks. In YoonS.Baker-DoyleK. (Eds.), Networked by design (pp. 85–110). Routledge.
18.
MazzottiV. L.RoweD. A.KwiatekS.VoggtA.ChangW. H.FowlerC. H.PoppenM.SinclairJ.TestD. W. (2021). Secondary transition predictors of postschool success: An update to the research base. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 44(1), 47–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143420959793
19.
McPhersonM.Smith-LovinL.CookJ. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415
20.
MoolenaarN. M.DalyA. J.CornelissenF.LiouY. H.CaillierS.RiordanR.WilsonK.CohenN. A. (2014). Linked to innovation: Shaping an innovative climate through network intentionality and educators’ social network position. Journal of Educational Change, 15(2), 99–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-014-9230-4
21.
MorningstarM. E.BenitezD. T. (2013). Teacher training matters: The results of a multi-state survey of secondary special educators regarding transition from school to adulthood. Teacher Education and Special Education, 36(1), 51–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406412474022
22.
OertleK. M.TrachJ. S. (2007). Interagency collaboration: The importance of rehabilitation professionals’ involvement in transition. Journal of Rehabilitation, 73(3), 36–44.
23.
ParkJ.HillJ. C.MontgomeryT. W.BarkerK. E.WhiteK. L. (2022). A directed content analysis of interagency collaboration literature within the framework of the working alliance. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 46(1), 28–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/21651434221090897
24.
Parker-KatzM. B.CushingL. S.AthamanahL. (2018). Fostering collaboration as transition specialists through community conversations. Journal of Disability Policy, 28(4), 244–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/104420731773940
25.
PereraH. N.CalkinsC.PartR. (2019). Teacher self-efficacy profiles: Determinants, outcomes, and generalizability across teaching level. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 58, 186–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.02.006
26.
PerryB. L.PescosolidoB. A.BorgattiS. P. (2018). Egocentric network analysis: Foundations, methods, and models (Vol. 44). Cambridge University Press.
27.
PlotnerA. J.MazzottiV. L.RoseC. A.TeasleyK. (2020). Perceptions of interagency collaboration: Relationships between secondary transition roles, communication, and collaboration. Remedial and Special Education, 41(1), 28–39. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-140723
28.
Povenmire-KirkT.DiegelmannK.CrumpK.SchnorrC.TestD.FlowersC.AspelN. (2015). Implementing CIRCLES: A new model for interagency collaboration in transition planning. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 42(1), 51–65. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-140723
29.
Stanton-SalazarR. D.SpinaS. U. (2000). The network orientations of highly resilient urban minority youth: A network-analytic account of minority socialization and its educational implications. The Urban Review, 32, 227–261. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005122211864
30.
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, Pub. L. No. 113–128, H.R. 803 U.S.C. (2014).
31.
YoonS. A.Baker-DoyleK. J. (2018). From understanding teacher social networks to interventions that build social capital. In YoonS.Baker-DoyleK. (Eds.), Networked by design (pp. 1–6). Routledge.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
