Abstract
In this explanatory mixed method study, we surveyed 79 special educators and teachers of students with visual impairments who worked with at least one transition-age youth with a visual impairment (VI) in the U.S. state of Tennessee. Following the survey, we interviewed a smaller convenience sample of 18 teachers. Across the survey and follow-up interviews, we explored (a) with whom teachers of students with VI and special educators collaborate around transition for students with VI and the frequency of their collaborations, (b) differences in collaboration partners between teachers of students with VI and special educators, and (c) perceived barriers/facilitators to collaboration. Findings indicated that both teachers of students with VI and special educators collaborate with a range of persons but at moderate frequencies. Interview findings helped identify multiple barriers to collaboration with in-school personnel, outside personnel/agencies, and families. We offer strategies to overcome these barriers to collaboration and provide recommendations for collaborative models that may improve student outcomes.
Keywords
The purpose of special education is to “prepare [students with disabilities] for further education, employment, and independent living” to ensure “equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency for individuals with disabilities” (20 U.S.C. § 1400 (d)(1)(A)). Therefore, planning for the transition from high school to adulthood should occur well before a student exits high school. Every state legally requires student transition plans to be included as part of the annual individualized education program (IEP) starting at age 16; some states require this earlier. Transition planning involves multiple in-school personnel, outside personnel and agencies, the family, and the student working together to identify the student’s future goals and the path to get there. Indeed, collaboration is a legally mandated part of the transition process. Both the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA, 2004) and the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA, 2014) emphasize that transition services can and should be provided in collaboration with various individuals who know the student well.
Visual impairment (VI), including blindness, is one of the disability categories identified under IDEIA (2004). The term means “an impairment in vision that, even with correction, adversely affects a child’s educational performance. The term includes both partial sight and blindness” (20 U.S.C. § 300.8 (c)(13)). Recent research has shed light on predictors of employment specific to students with VI. In their systematic review, Lund and Cmar (2020) found that previous work experience and postsecondary education were consistently significant positive predictors of employment across studies. Although their review did not focus on predictors of success in postsecondary education, the study authors noted that youth with VI need to be prepared for an abrupt change in supports and services as they leave high school; as the model for services changes from one of entitlement to one of eligibility. The authors recommended that strong interagency and interprofessional collaboration among high schools, postsecondary schools, vocational rehabilitation (VR) agencies, and rehabilitation professionals could help provide consistency to students with VI during the transition years. Moreover, they found that collaboration is likely to increase the number of students with VI who enter postsecondary education programs with the knowledge and skills they need to succeed (Lund and Cmar, 2020).
Prior studies have solidified the importance of collaboration to improve transition outcomes for all youth with disabilities. The term “collaboration” is used broadly and can include activities like sharing resources, coordinating services, joint planning, and working together toward common goals. Research has emphasized the need for collaboration within schools (e.g., Frazier et al., 2020; Magee & Plotner, 2022), between agencies (i.e., interagency collaboration; e.g., Bumble et al., 2021; Oertle et al., 2021; Plotner et al., 2020), and with families (e.g., Mazzotti et al., 2021; Wilt & Morningstar, 2018) to improve postschool outcomes. In particular, collaboration is needed to identify the professionals who support student skill development and the specific roles that they play. Teachers should not work in isolation when preparing students for life after high school (Nagle, 2001). In better understanding the roles of other professionals who can provide education related to transition, educators can more effectively manage their time to increase their work capacities.
A range of educators can be involved on the transition planning team for students with VI. However, two primary educators are particularly important. First, for every student with VI, a teacher of students with visual impairments (TVIs) should be included. TVIs vary in their service delivery models but their primary responsibility across models includes providing access to instruction and materials. Typically, TVIs are itinerant (moving between multiple schools) or classroom/school-based (working in one classroom or school). Within these two service delivery models, models of instruction can vary. For example, in an itinerant model, TVIs can pull students out of their classes for direct instruction (i.e., pull-out model); they can join students in one or more of their classes (i.e., push-in model); or they may never/rarely interact directly with students, but rather provide consultation to educators who have the student with VI in their class (i.e., consultation model). Classroom-based models are usually specific to schools for the blind but can include resource classrooms in local district schools. TVIs are essential to the transition team, no matter the service delivery model or the model of instruction provided. They understand issues of access and can help other school personnel, families, and students themselves understand what accommodations will be necessary and helpful to ensure success in a postsecondary education and/or employment setting (Spungin et al., 2017).
Second, for students with VI with an additional disability—more than 50% of students with VI have multiple disabilities (Erin, 2007; Kapperman & Love, 1999)—a special education teacher must be involved. This teacher will likely know the student well and be able to speak to the student’s preferences, interests, needs, and strengths. For students with VI, TVIs and special educators (when part of the student’s educational staff) should collaborate to ensure (a) a student’s postsecondary goals are reasonable and appropriate, and (b) that the appropriate instruction and supports are provided before graduation to promote later student success.
Despite the known benefits of collaboration around transition for students with disabilities, several barriers can affect the frequency and quality (e.g., Oertle et al., 2021; Plotner et al., 2020). For example, educators may have limited knowledge of the roles of other transition stakeholders (Schutz et al., 2023) or limited knowledge of how to establish and build effective partnerships with other stakeholders (Weiss et al., 2017), including families. In addition, research has found that teachers feel that they have limited time for collaboration during the workday due to large caseloads and competing priorities (Carter et al., 2020). This may be particularly challenging for teachers in rural communities who likely have multiple responsibilities around supporting transition-age students due to limited staffing (Schutz et al., 2023). Finally, collaboration can be influenced by the attitudes of the different transition stakeholders. For example, research has found the frequency and quality of collaboration can be influenced by administrator support and school culture (e.g., Noonan et al., 2008).
Further work is needed to understand and improve collaborations that can facilitate better outcomes for students with VI (Brown et al., 2013; Stearns, 2017). Young people with VI may attend college at similar rates as their peers without disabilities, but the U.S. Department of Education [USDOE], National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (2017) found that as many as 70% of students with VI at 2-year institutions and 46% at 4-year institutions did not graduate from that institution within 3 and 6 years, respectively (Schuck et al., 2019). Additionally, individuals with VI have poor rates of employment, similar to those of individuals with low-incidence disabilities (i.e., autism, intellectual disability, multiple disabilities; McDonnall, 2010). These gaps suggest students with VI are not receiving the instruction, experiences, and linkages they require for achieving strong postschool outcomes.
No prior research has focused on the collaborations among TVIs and special educators around transition for students with VI. Gaining a better understanding of what collaboration is happening between these individuals and other in-school personnel, outside personnel/agencies, and families, we may better understand how to provide effective instruction and support for students before they graduate. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to explore the landscape of collaboration—defined broadly to include things like resource sharing, coordination of service delivery, and/or joint planning—among teachers in Tennessee who support transition-age youth with VI. To do this, we distributed a statewide survey and asked surveyed participants if they would be interested in participating in a follow-up interview. Follow-up interviews allowed us to dive deeper into participant responses to understand potential facilitators and barriers to collaboration. This study sought to answer the following questions:
Method
To explore our research questions, we used a sequential explanatory mixed method design including a quantitative phase followed by a qualitative phase (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017). In the quantitative phase, we collected and analyzed survey data. In the qualitative phase, we collected data through individual interviews with special education teachers and TVIs to help explain the survey results. In the following sections, we describe the participating teachers as well as data collection and data analysis procedures.
Participants
Study participants included 79 Tennessee teachers (i.e., TVIs and/or special education teachers). To be included in the study, the teacher must have had at least one transition-age student (ages 14–22 years) on their caseload receiving special education services under the IDEIA (2004) category of VI (with or without additional disabilities). The majority of participants were special education teachers (58.2%, n = 46); 31 participants (39.2%) were TVIs; and two participants (2.5%) worked as both special education teachers and TVIs. Most participants identified as White/non-Hispanic (86.1%, n = 68) and had a master’s level education (69.6%, n = 55). Collectively, participants worked in 38 counties across Tennessee, representing 40% of all counties in the state. Additional teacher information by teacher type (e.g., age, number of transition-age students with VI on caseload, school level[s] served) is displayed in Table 1.
Demographics for Special Educator and TVI Study Participants.
Note. Both = an educator who worked as both a TVI and a special educator; TVIs = teacher of students with visual impairments; VI = visual impairment.
Median (range). bMultiple options could be selected.
Interview participants included a sample of 18 survey respondents. Participants varied by role (n = 10 special educator, n = 8 TVI), number of transition-age students with VI on caseload (M = 3.8 students, range 1–15 students), years of teaching experience (M = 16.7 years, range 1–33 years), years of experience working with transition-age youth (M = 13.1 years, range 1–23 years), highest degree earned (n = 6 bachelor’s, n = 10 master’s, n = 2 doctoral/specialist), and teaching locale (n = 11 rural, n = 3 suburban, n = 4 urban). See Table 1 for additional information.
Recruitment
After receiving institutional review board (IRB) approval, we emailed each of the 144 special education directors in Tennessee. In the email, we shared information about the purpose of the study, the inclusion criteria, and the benefits each district would receive with or without participation from teachers in their district (i.e., free resources and professional development opportunities to support the successful transition of students with VI). We also embedded a short email template that we asked each director to send to all TVIs and special educators in their district. In this embedded email we informed teachers of the purpose of the study, the inclusion criteria, the benefits each district would receive, the compensation each teacher would be eligible for upon completion of the survey (i.e., automatic entry into a drawing for one of fifty $20 gift cards), and a link to the survey. In both the email to the special education directors as well as in the embedded email to teachers, we encouraged individuals to share information about the study with others who might be eligible to participate. After sending the initial email to the directors, we received six responses that their district did not currently have any transition-age students with VI. Only four directors confirmed that they sent the embedded email along to teachers in their district. We also emailed survey invitations to users of our state online transition portal (n = 2,577) using the same language as the embedded teacher email. About half of the users (n = 1,315) opened the email; only 93 individual users clicked on the link to the survey.
For the follow-up interviews, we used convenience sampling. All individuals who completed the survey were asked if they would like to participate in a follow-up interview. Only 42 individuals volunteered. However, after reaching out to follow-up, 24 declined to participate or did not respond. We chose to conduct interviews rather than focus groups to ensure each participant was given enough time to provide their unique perspective.
Survey Design and Measures
We developed a 122-item survey to solicit information from educators regarding their: (a) demographic information; (b) confidence in implementing transition practices; (c) interest in additional training and resources for these practices; (d) thoughts and attitudes toward transition; and (e) collaborators in transition. Findings related to their confidence in implementing transition practices and interest in additional training and resources are reported in a separate companion paper (Travers, 2024). We required participants to complete the survey in a single sitting using REDCap (Harris et al., 2009). All surveys were completed in the fall and winter of 2021.
We presented teachers with a list of 24 individuals or agencies who support transition-age youth (i.e., potential transition collaborators; see Table 2 for a complete list). The list of collaborators was modeled off a similar list from a survey developed by Bumble et al. (2021) to query special educators about their transition networks. Collaborators were representative of families, those in the school system (in-school personnel; e.g., general educators, school counselors), and those in the service system and community (outside personnel/agencies; e.g., advocacy groups, postsecondary education institutions). Participants were instructed to indicate how often they collaborated with each potential collaborator to support students with VI around transition. Response options were limited to a 4-point, Likert-type scale: 1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = sometimes, and 4 = often. In addition, we asked teachers to list any other individuals or agencies with whom they collaborated to support the successful transition of students with VI.
Joint Display of Quantitative and Qualitative Findings Related to Educator Collaboration.
Note. OT = occupational therapist; PT = physical therapist; SLP = speech-language pathologist; VR = vocational rehabilitation; TVI = teacher of students with visual impairment.
Interview Design and Measures
The lead author conducted 18 semi-structured interviews, each lasting between 30 and 60 min over 3 months in the winter of 2021. All interviews took place virtually via Zoom and started after the completion of all surveys. To guide each interview, the lead author developed a semi-structured interview protocol (available by request). The interview protocol was developed in response to the survey results to allow us to dig deeper into participant responses to understand potential facilitators and barriers to collaboration. We were interested in unpacking what enabled special educators and TVIs to collaborate frequently with families, some in-school professionals, and VR. Conversely, we wanted to understand what barriers to collaboration existed that prevented collaboration with most of the outside agencies. The lead author began each interview by introducing herself, explaining the purpose of the project, and providing a brief description of the study. After answering any questions from the interviewees, the lead author started with questions to build rapport (e.g., Tell me about your role as an educator; What does your caseload look like this year?) followed by questions grouped by theme: (a) Transition-related instruction and services, (b) Supports and resources, and (c) Collaboration. The two primary questions related to collaboration included: “Who do you collaborate with within your school to support the transition of students with visual impairments?” and “How about collaborations with those outside of your school? Families, VR, employers, community persons?” During the interview process, we stuck to these questions listed in the interview protocol but asked for clarification and examples as necessary. Moreover, we asked participants to speak to the facilitators/barriers that enabled/prevented them from collaborating with each stated partner. As a way of conducting informal member checks, during each interview, the first author regularly restated what participants shared and asked for affirmation. As a thank you for participation, each participant was provided with a $50 gift card.
Each interview was audio-recorded and professionally transcribed. Three graduate students took turns reviewing each transcription for accuracy and de-identified any names with pseudonyms. During each interview, a notetaker (i.e., second author or graduate student) captured nonverbal responses (e.g., head nods, thumbs up). Following each interview, the first author and the notetaker for that interview each completed a written reflection sheet that involved (a) recording overall impressions from the interview, (b) noting salient themes, and (c) describing similarities and differences between other interviews (a copy of the reflection sheet can be made available upon request). These reflection notes served as a way to document interesting findings and identify areas in which to probe deeper during future interviews.
Quantitative Data Analysis
To answer our first research question, we determined the percentage of teachers who rated each collaborator as being someone whom they collaborated with never, rarely, sometimes, or often. To answer our second research question, we calculated a new variable, “frequent collaborator,” by adding the percentage of teachers who rated collaboration as occurring sometimes and the percentage of teachers who rated collaboration as occurring often for each collaborator. Given the nature of our data (i.e., ordinal, non-normally distributed), we used a Mann–Whitney U test to determine if there were significant differences in the frequency of collaboration among special educator and TVI ratings for each collaborator. We ran this test including all four potential ranks (never, rarely, sometimes, and often). For this comparison test, we excluded the two teachers who indicated they were both TVIs and special educators from the analysis. For each comparison test, we calculated the effect size using the rank-biserial correlation (see Table 3).
Ratings of Frequent (Sometimes or Often) Collaboration by Teacher Role.
Note. U = Mann–Whitney U; r = rank-biserial correlation; OT = occupational therapist; PT = physical therapist; SLP = speech-language pathologist; TVIs = teachers of students with visual impairments.
The percentage of teachers who rated collaboration as occurring sometimes or often.
The formula for calculating the rank-biserial correlation:
p < .05. **p < .01.
Qualitative Data Analysis
Coders included the study authors (one research assistant faculty member and one educational consultant) and a second educational consultant. Each of the study authors and the second educational consultant had worked previously as special education teachers supporting transition-age youth. We purposively employed multiple coders to address the potential bias from a single coder who was also the interviewer (Patton, 2015). To analyze the data, we used a deductive approach (Saldana, 2016) to develop an initial coding framework based on the data collected during the surveys. Given the straightforward nature of the interview questions, the initial codebook, developed by the first author with input from the educational consultants, included three initial codes related to collaboration: (a) collaboration with other school staff, (b) collaboration with families, and (c) collaboration with outside agencies. After organizing the data into these three primary codes, we worked together to further refine our coding framework to include two subcodes nested within each broader code: (a) facilitator and (b) barrier to collaboration. Each coder applied these subcodes to the data to further organize our findings. All three coders engaged in multiple rounds of independent coding, meeting regularly to achieve consensus on all applied codes and subcodes. In the rare instances of disagreement in coding, consensus was obtained after each coder had a chance to explain why they applied a particular code, after which agreement on the assigned code was reached. To increase trustworthiness, we kept an audit trail of all procedures and sought out disconfirming evidence to identify any evidence inconsistent with our themes and/or the survey findings (Brantlinger et al., 2005).
Integrating the Quantitative and Qualitative Data
To enhance our understanding of the quantitative results and mitigate the inherent bias of using a single research method, we integrated our quantitative and qualitative data through two primary approaches: building (i.e., informing data collection) and merging (i.e., bringing data together for analysis; Fetters et al., 2013). Given the small sample of survey participants, we invited all respondents to participate in a follow-up interview. Based on the survey findings we designed our interview protocol to include questions about collaborators and facilitators/barriers to collaboration that might explain why some collaborators were more frequently mentioned than others. Finally, we analyzed the quantitative and qualitative results separately and brought the data together to aid in interpretation.
Results
RQ1: With Whom Do TVIs and Special Educators Collaborate Around Transition for Students With VI and What Is the Frequency of Their Collaborations?
Survey Results
Survey results suggested all teachers collaborate most frequently with parents and/or family members, second most frequently with in-school personnel, and least frequently with outside personnel/agencies. The ratings of frequency of collaboration among all teachers are presented in Table 2. Looking within the range of in-school collaborators, all teachers most frequently collaborated with general education teachers (64.6% indicated collaborating often), paraprofessionals (57.0% indicated collaborating often), and special education teachers (51.9% indicated collaborating often). Alternatively, only 24.1% of all teachers rated collaborating with vocational-technical teachers often, and 10.1% rated collaborating with extra-curricular coaches or advisors often. Considering outside personnel/agencies that may be particularly important to the transition of students with VI, 20.3% of all teachers rated collaborating with VR agencies often. Alternatively, 19.0% indicated never collaborating with VR. Also, only 2.5% of all teachers indicated collaboration occurred with local chambers of commerce often; 64.6% rated that collaboration with this group never happened. When allowed to write in additional collaborators not listed, teachers included church leaders, pre-employment transition services (pre-ETS) providers, and the student.
Interview Findings
Findings from the interviews in some ways supported survey results and contrasted in other ways. For example, teachers who participated in the interviews were knowledgeable of a variety of in-school personnel with whom they can and should collaborate around transition for students with VI. The range of in-school collaborators mentioned varied widely and included TVIs, special educators, general educators, after-school residential staff, case managers, related services providers (e.g., occupational therapists (OTs), physical therapists (PTs), speech-language pathologists (SLPs)), pre-ETS providers, Transition School to Work providers, reading specialists, school counselors, work-based learning coordinators, and general mentions to in-school “IEP team members.” Across these partners, the most frequent mentions of collaborations were with other TVIs and other special education teachers.
Similarly, findings from the interviews supported survey results and suggested there is limited collaboration happening between TVIs and special educators and outside personnel/agencies. The only outside personnel/agencies mentioned during the interviews included: VR, local employers, vision outreach teachers from the state school for the blind, higher education office of disability services, local recreation and leisure organizations (e.g., the YMCA), local libraries, and the Lions Club.
Finally, some interview findings contrasted with the survey results and these findings were all specific to collaboration with families. Almost all (93.7%) of the teachers who completed the survey said they sometimes or often collaborated with parents and/or other family members. However, the discussion around collaboration with families in the interviews was very limited, which seemed contraindicative of frequent communication. Furthermore, interviews revealed that while some teachers had positive experiences collaborating with parents, many others struggled to engage with families. (“Most of the time you just have to have [the IEP meeting] and send forms home to be signed. [The parents] could care less. The care’s not there.”) Interview findings further suggested that if collaboration did occur, it primarily revolved around the IEP process, especially as students approached graduation. As shared by one TVI “a lot of [parents] are way more involved senior year because it’s that, ‘uh oh, now what do we do?’ kind of thing.”
RQ2: What Differences Exist Between TVIs and Special Educators Concerning Whom They Collaborate With and the Frequency of These Collaborations Around Transition for Students With VI?
Findings for the survey suggested TVIs and special educators collaborate with the same people around transition for transition-age students with VI. However, a Mann–Whitney U test indicated that ratings of frequency of collaboration for several collaborators differed significantly between teacher groups (see Table 3). Specifically, ratings of frequency of collaboration among special educators were higher than among TVIs for each of the following collaborators: vocational-technical teachers (U = 397.0, p < .001, r = .44); career and technical education (CTE) teachers (U = 433.5, p = .003, r = .39); mental health service providers (U = 488.5, p = .012, r = .32); and school counselors (U = 520.5, p = .036, r = .27). Conversely, compared to special educators, TVI ratings of collaboration indicated they were more likely than special educators to collaborate with other TVIs (U = 981.5, p = .003, r = .38).
RQ3: What Are the Barriers and Facilitators to Collaboration?
Below, we detail our findings from the interviews that explore teacher perceptions of barriers and facilitators to their collaboration with in-school personnel, outside personnel/agencies, and families.
In-School Personnel
Barriers Identified by All Teachers
Caseload Size
The size of a teacher’s caseload and their competing priorities were often cited as barriers to collaboration with in-school personnel. For example, special educators spoke about how it was hard to find time to collaborate with TVIs who worked in an itinerant model. As stated by one special educator, “She travels, from the way I’ve understood it. She’s not just within this county. She goes to multiple accounts. So, I’m sure she has, she has several [students] to deal with.” This was similar to a statement from another special educator who was displeased with the consultation model employed by many TVIs with large caseloads. “We have the vision person through the county that just contacts me. . .their consultation isn’t even a drop-in onsite unless they’re needed. [Communication is] all done through just emailing. Like, ‘Hey, do you have any current concerns with this student’?” The experience described by this special educator was echoed by others who worked with TVIs who had students on their caseload as “consult only.” TVIs also recognized their own large caseloads as a barrier to collaboration. As shared by one, TVI, “we’re all kind of doing our own thing because everyone’s putting out fires.” Another itinerant TVI with a large caseload who often worked in a consult model stated: I can’t possibly be with 76 students to know exactly what work skills I need to work on and which transition skills. And then I think some of the teachers are confused that they think I do the transition goal and objective. I don’t, because there’s just no, like there’s no way for me to know what that student needs to work on the most because I’m not in the classroom. Or, you know, some of the students, like if I work with them, I do. But most of them, I don’t. So, I have to go off of the teacher’s assessment to write those trends, just to transition services, the present levels.
Similar to the views of special educators, TVIs recognized it could be hard to collaborate with others who had large caseloads. For example, one TVI lamented about the large caseloads of related service providers in her district and how difficult it was to maintain a team approach to planning and instruction.
It’s hard when you’re working with people that also have a ton of other kids. Like I have a small caseload. [The students each get] a lot of time, just not as many kids. But then you have OT or PT or speech, and I’m trying to collaborate with them to make sure what I’m working on also crosses over with what they’re working on. But it’s hard when they have, you know. . .If we have two PTs for the entire county, how many kids do they have on their caseload? So, a team approach is ideal. But sometimes it’s really difficult. And it’s not because they don’t want to, it’s just, we’re all just doing what we can.
All teachers felt that caseloads seemed to increase as students got older, making collaboration more challenging. For example, one TVI spoke about how she tries to email and touch base with all of her students’ teachers at the high school level but it’s difficult because,
[These] teachers also have a ton of other students. So, my emails might not always get answered. I always hate popping in because I get it. There are a million other things you need to do, and you don’t need a random vision teacher saying, “Hey, by the way. . .”
Feelings of Isolation
Both TVIs and special educators spoke about feeling solely responsible for the transition planning and instruction for the student(s) with VI on their caseload. Some special educators talked about how school counselors, specifically, were rarely involved, “Our counselors typically are not that involved in the IEP process.” Others spoke more generally about taking on sole responsibility for the transition-focused IEP: There ain’t anybody else involved in the [IEP] process other than me as the person putting the IEP together. Like talking with the parent and dealing with counselors, making sure [the student is] in the right classes, things like that. As it pertains to like individual teachers being part of the process? Doesn’t happen.
Both special educators and TVIs concluded that feelings of isolation and bearing sole responsibility to engage in transition-related work may be, in part, due to their school’s size or location. One special education teacher who worked in a small school in a self-contained classroom with students with high support needs shared: I kind of feel like I’m on an island. Now that I’m in a county school and not one of the schools in the city, I feel kind of disconnected versus when I was at the central high school. I was right there in the middle of everything. And we had like six resource teachers, and we had all kinds of people assigned just to that school because it was so big. And I was able to go to other people and ask what they were doing for certain students or what could I do to help students. And I feel like right now, nobody really knows what I’m doing. And so, I don’t feel like I have a lot of people I can really turn to.
Barriers Identified by TVIs Only
Some barriers to collaboration were identified solely by the TVIs who participated in interviews.
Working in a Residential Setting
TVIs who worked in residential settings (i.e., the school for the blind, the school for the deaf) spoke to a unique issue of collaboration within their placements. TVIs recognized that the residential component of a student’s day was the perfect opportunity to work on transition-related skills: “A lot of transition stuff could be addressed in that time [in the cottages] because that’s when a lot of [transition] stuff is happening.” However, residential staff are not trained educators (“It is hard because those staff, they’re not teachers.”) and as shared by one TVI, “You hate to put too much on them because honestly, I don’t think they get paid enough for what they do.” Therefore, it would take planning and effort to maintain a collaborative and supportive relationship between the school staff and the residential staff to ensure that transition skills are being worked on. Unfortunately, this does not seem to be happening. When asked how they work with residential staff one TVI replied, “. . .we don’t. I mean, it’s really separate and that is kind of sad. And it should be more, you know, collaborating together, because that’s the best way to serve the student as a whole.”
School Culture
Several TVIs who worked as itinerant teachers spoke about how different school cultures could positively or negatively affect their ability to collaborate with in-school personnel. For example, one TVI stated, “If I need help or something, depends on the school. Every school has a different chemistry, a different flow.” This issue was particularly apparent for TVIs who worked in large urban districts where they could have up to 45 students at different schools on their caseload: “Every school is different. Every team is different. . .We have 45 schools down here. And every school is its own fiefdom. And they all do everything differently and they think they all do it the same.”
Knowledge of Local Area and Longevity in Role
TVIs felt that having less experience as a working TVI was a barrier to collaboration, particularly for TVIs who were itinerant and who worked in rural communities. One TVI spoke about how it was helpful to have a colleague who had the experience and knowledge she desired, “She’s lived here her whole life. She knows everyone, everything. She’s just. . .she’s all-knowing. If I ever have a question, I just go to her.” TVIs recognized that with longevity comes knowledge of the local people, the local resources, and the local supports. Shared by one TVI who had years of experience: You’ve got to have kind of institutional knowledge of how the system works. And I live in this system. I’ve worked in other ones. And I’m also in my fifties. So, you kinda put all that together and you try to do what works. But I don’t know how to make that work faster for brand-new people.
This TVI recognized that there is no way to speed up the process, but rather it will take time and patience for new TVIs to build their knowledge so that they too can know what works to best support students in their local communities.
Other Teachers’ Limited Knowledge of VI
TVIs felt that other educators’ lack of knowledge about VI could be a barrier to collaboration. For collaboration to be effective, both parties need to have a similar baseline knowledge. Indeed, this is not usually the case when it comes to knowledge of how to support and best serve students with vision loss. As stated by one TVI, “I’ve had so many teachers this year. ‘I don’t know what to do with vision kids. What is vision? What does. . .?’ you know, ‘What do I do?’” This same TVI shared how a case manager in her school building typically handles the development of the IEP. However, she insists on collaborating because “. . .no one ever knows about vision. So, I try to help develop those plans.”
Facilitators to Collaboration
Most survey participants did not mention facilitators of collaboration. In fact, no special educator spoke specifically about facilitators. However, some TVIs did share helpful strategies they used to build relationships with in-school personnel that benefit collaboration around transition. For example, one TVI spoke about the challenge of coming into new schools with new ideas for transition, but not wanting to “step on toes.” This concept of “stepping on toes” came up several times in interviews from TVIs who felt that as itinerant teachers, it could be uncomfortable to come into a new school asking the special education teacher to change their practice or try something new; especially if this special educator was more veteran. As a solution to this challenge, a TVI shared how she makes sure everyone is on board with a new idea and personally takes responsibility for instituting the change with the student: If I come up with ideas and say, “Hey, I’m not trying to step on toes. But here’s an idea for transition.” Or “here’s something that I want to present to the student. Are you okay? Is this okay as a team or a school?” Especially coming into new schools and not knowing all the programs that they have to offer. Everyone’s been really receptive and they’re kind of relieved that I’m gonna take on that role, that position. Cause they’re like, “Okay, well that’s one student I don’t have to worry about. Let me focus on these other ones that need it.”
A second TVI shared how it takes time to build relationships with in-school personnel, but with time and effort, it can be done. Similar to the first teacher with a collaborative solution, this TVI felt if she initiated a new transition practice, she would share this information with other teachers to try to get them interested and engaged rather than asking them to take on more responsibility: You throw out a couple of feelers and if they bite, you kind of keep working that, and you just, it’s just like this constant calibration of, “Hey, what if I, what would happen if we tried this?” type of thing. And if it works out for the people, then you get more real estate, and you get more real estate, and you’re constantly building more relationships.
Finally, a third TVI realized that with large caseloads and multiple students on a consult model, it can be hard to engage in effective collaboration. Therefore, she talked about a practical way to connect with special educators to make sure they have her information so that she can share any knowledge about students with VI: I take a welcome letter for all 57 of my schools. This year I typed up a welcome letter with my name, my cell number, and my contact info. Look, if you have a vision kid here, I’m the person to reach, keep my info. And I try to make myself known.
Outside Personnel/Agencies
Below we highlight interview findings related to barriers to collaboration with the most referenced outside personnel/agencies. We also highlight strategies to facilitate collaboration with offices of disability services.
Barriers to Collaborating With VR
The most commonly referenced collaborator among all TVIs and some special educators was VR. (“I would say voc rehab is probably, you know, my biggest collaboration.”) However, much of the conversation around collaboration with VR highlighted the barriers to collaboration. Identified barriers included (a) the high turnover of VR counselors, “[It’s] hard because you get the kids hooked up with one voc rehab rep and then five, six months later, it’s somebody else.”; (b) the lack of knowledge of when and how to identify a VR counselor, “We don’t know who is the person to contact? What needs to be done? Like, when do these things need to be done?”; and (c) the limited knowledge among staff, particularly among TVIs, of how long the process of getting connected to services can take,
I think a lot of our vision teachers still think, ‘Well, I’ll call them in May.’ You know, you have to have it all finished way before May so the kids can get what they need when they walk out at graduation. . .I invite [VR] to come in their senior meeting. If their senior IEP is at the end of the year, then we invite [VR] junior year so that they can start talking about services and applications and “What do I need?” And you know, all the paperwork that they’re going to need.
Across TVIs, there was a desire for a step-by-step guide or task analysis on how to connect with VR counselors and what to do once the VR person was identified. Noted by one TVI, “We need a step A, B, C, D about what do we do with our kids. Because like you said, when I leave, who knows that stuff here in [district name redacted]?”
Strategies to Collaborate With Offices of Disability Services
Both TVIs and special education teachers mentioned the importance of collaborating with offices of disability services at local colleges and universities to support the transition of students to postsecondary education. For example, one special educator in a rural community new to supporting transition-age youth talked about how she spoke with colleges to learn more about the office of disability services to support her students.
I went to a conference back, you know, several years ago, and started looking at some of the things that the bigger towns do. And tried to figure out how I can keep my kids off the couch. So, my role has kind of shifted from the more math basis to the transition employment. And I’ve learned a lot this year, even more about like getting kids into college. And I’ve been speaking with colleges.
TVIs seemed to have a better understanding of the importance of offices of disability services for students who choose to pursue postsecondary education. One TVI commented on how she included the office of disability services in her classroom instruction, “Last year, I did a Zoom with the disability services office at the college with the students.. . .I said, ‘That’s the first thing you need to do. Go to the disability service office where you’re going to college.’” A second TVI shared a strategy she employed to better understand how an office of disability services can support her students with VI as they transition to college/university. She said that each year she calls the offices of disability services at the universities her students are interested in and asks “How are kids screwing up? What do I need to tell [my students]? What’s the vocabulary that [students with VI are] not understanding.” In this way, she hoped to help her students avoid the common pitfalls of college life for students with VI and prepare them with the terminology they would need to succeed.
Parents and/or Other Family Members
Below we highlight the interview findings related to collaboration with parents and/or other family members. Of note, specific strategies to facilitate collaboration with families did not emerge across the interviews. However, one TVI shared a successful collaborative experience with her students’ parents.
Teachers spoke about how collaboration with families could be tense when expectations around a student’s future were misaligned, or not a topic for discussion. For example, a TVI recounted a time early in the school year when the measurable postsecondary goal she wrote under education/training in her student’s IEP did not align with a parent’s expectations: I didn’t put that [the student] was going to a four-year university. And the father was like, “Well, you know, we didn’t intend on her going to a community college. We want her to go to a four year.” And I’m thinking, she’s on the 7th-grade math level, she’s not going to have the ACT score to go to a four-year college. A community college doesn’t have that ACT requirement. At least I think that would be a good way for her to start. She needs to learn how to use utensils. She needs to learn her orientation and mobility skills. She needs to learn the technology.
Separately, a special educator shared how she could not get a parent to talk about her student’s future, limiting her from making a reasonable plan for instruction in high school to promote the student’s chances of future success.
I’ve tried to talk to mom, but mom’s one of these people who lives in the here and now. She doesn’t think about the future. And I’ve tried to get her to understand that we have to think about [the child’s] future. And she said, “I’m not worried about her future. She’ll be taken care of.” I went “Okay.” Cause I don’t want to upset the parent. God forbid they call my supervisor at central office. I’d get a good butt chewin.’
Alternatively, collaborations could be difficult for teachers when they felt parents had too low of expectations for their child. As shared by one special educator, “[The] parent doesn’t want them doing certain things. Parents say, ‘That’s not gonna work.’ They just hit you before you even get started.” This seemed to be a common sentiment from teachers who collaborated with parents of students with VI who had higher support needs.
Only one teacher shared a specific positive experience collaborating with families. She talked about how she was most successful in collaborating with parents when expectations were aligned, or became aligned, around a student’s future.
I’ve had where the parent freshman year said ‘this kid’s going to college.’ And academically, that might not be the best fit, is a nice way to say it. So, over the four years, we talked about it a lot with the parent. And then [the parent] started to see what we were seeing. And then by senior year [the parent] was like, “Okay, he needs to get a job!”
Discussion
A robust collection of research has identified collaboration as an essential part of transition planning and instruction to improve postschool outcomes for students with disabilities. However, for students with VI, little is known about collaboration among the professionals who most often provide them with direct support. We were interested in understanding with whom TVIs and special educators collaborated and the frequency of these collaborations. As well, we wanted to know if there were differences in collaboration partners or frequency among the two teacher groups, and what barriers and facilitators might hinder or enable collaboration. Our research seems to be the first to study collaboration around transition for students with VI among TVIs and special educators. Therefore, much more work is needed in this area. Below we highlight how our findings extend the literature in important ways.
First, our findings suggest that TVIs and special educators collaborate with a variety of individuals to support the transition of students with VI including family members, in-school personnel, and outside personnel/agencies. However, there is certainly room to expand the number of collaborative partnerships as well as the frequency of collaborations. For example, of the 24 listed collaborators, only 11 were rated as sometimes or often by the majority of educators. Furthermore, discussion around collaboration during the interviews mostly provided evidence of barriers to collaboration, indicating frequency may be lower than survey results suggested or of poor quality. For example, teachers identified six unique barriers to collaboration with in-school personnel. Moreover, special educators did not name a single facilitator for collaboration. Teachers who identify barriers to collaboration in their practice should consider adopting one of the many available models of collaboration to achieve deeper collaboration through the intentional involvement of each stakeholder (e.g., Francis et al., 2018).
Second, survey and interview findings revealed that teachers collaborated least frequently with outside personnel/agencies. Of course, not every student with VI needs to be connected to every adult agency. Therefore, the expectation is not that each educator is collaborating often with each outside agency. However, apart from collaboration with VR, our results indicated that a large number of teachers never collaborated with outside agencies. This finding is consistent with current research that suggests there is a lack of implementation of collaboration principles with outside agencies among teaching professionals generally (Poirier et al., 2022). Lack of collaboration with outside agencies is problematic, as these agencies can provide critical linkages to the resources and supports that students will need for long-term postschool success. TVIs and special educators should employ collaboration strategies (e.g., Noonan et al., 2008) that have been identified and researched for more than a decade, such as ensuring individual collaborative team members are assigned specific roles and responsibilities (Magee & Plotner, 2022).
Third, findings from the interviews seemed to diverge from survey results related to collaboration with families, and therefore, more work is needed in this area. In the survey, most teachers indicated collaboration occurred often (64.6%). However, in the interviews, discussion around collaboration was limited, and when it occurred, it often centered on the challenges teachers experienced. Moreover, the only collaboration that happened seemed to be specific to the legally mandated collaboration surrounding IEP meetings. There was no mention of sharing resources, including parents in assessments to identify appropriate measurable postsecondary goals, identifying transition services that could happen at home or in the community, and so on. This finding is consistent with prior research that suggests families have little meaningful engagement during transition planning and the IEP process (Wilt & Morningstar, 2018). Whenever possible, educators should go beyond the minimally required communication with families surrounding IEP meetings. Research continues to demonstrate that parent involvement in the broader transition process increases the likelihood of positive postschool outcomes for students with disabilities (Mazzotti et al., 2021; Wilt & Morningstar, 2018). For strategies related to working with families, including culturally and linguistically diverse families, readers might consider steps proposed by Rossetti et al. (2017) or Francis et al. (2019). Some of these strategies include reflecting on one’s own cultural beliefs and experiences, gaining knowledge about the family, establishing and aligning high expectations, and providing information.
Fourth, there were few significant differences in the ratings of frequency of collaborations between TVIs and special educators. However, there were some significant differences worthy of additional attention. For example, the ratings of frequency of collaboration with CTE and vocational-technical teachers were somewhat low for all teachers—consistent with prior research (Schmalzried & Harvey, 2014). TVIs’ ratings of frequency of collaboration with these two groups were significantly lower than the ratings among special educators. This is concerning as CTE and vocational classes are settings where vision loss can have radical effects on a student’s ability to safely perform classroom and work-related tasks. For example, students enrolled in welding would likely require specific accommodations identified by someone with a deep knowledge of visual conditions to allow them to fully participate alongside their peers. The lack of collaboration noted by TVIs likely suggests students with VI are not fully participating in these classes, or they are doing so in ways that may be unsafe. Or, potentially worse, it may suggest that students with VI are not participating in these classes at all. Further work is needed to understand collaboration among CTE/vocational professionals and TVIs. In this way, we may be able to develop a stronger model of collaboration between these in-school professionals to ensure that students with VI are enrolled and included in the full range of vocational courses offered. Indeed, enrollment in CTE is a predictor of positive postschool outcomes for all students with disabilities (Mazzotti et al., 2021).
Limitations
Several limitations to this study should be considered. First, when asking participants about their frequency of collaboration on the surveys, we did not define collaboration. This is important because how teachers thought about collaboration may have differed significantly. For example, one teacher may have thought of collaboration as “sharing information” and rated their collaborations as happening often. At the same time, another teacher may have thought of collaboration as “formal agreements with defined roles and responsibilities between stakeholders” and similarly rated their collaborations as happening often. This is particularly problematic considering our findings related to differences in teacher groups because median differences between groups may be measuring differences between conceptualizations of collaboration rather than differences between groups for the same construct. Future research focused on collaboration should specifically define collaboration or consider including measures that speak to degrees of collaboration (e.g., Frey et al., 2006). Second, during the interviews, we asked teachers two primary questions related to collaboration. The second question asked about those whom they collaborated with outside of school, and we elaborated by listing a few possibilities, “Families? VR? Employers? Community Persons?” By including families within this question, and not as their own separate question, we may have inadvertently introduced a bias that resulted in less conversation around collaboration with families. Third, response rate and representation are two indicators of survey quality. However, we are unable to calculate these indicators given how participants were recruited.
Implications for Future Research
Several future research studies should be explored based on the results of this work. First, research is needed to understand how educational settings (e.g., rural vs. urban) may play a role in collaborative practices as this has not been explored presently. Second, research is needed to understand how often outside agencies are invited to the IEP meetings of students with VI, and if there is diversity in who is invited. Third, research is needed to understand how TVIs are prepared to work with transition-age youth, including preparation around collaboration and connecting to outside agencies. Finally, the results of this work related to collaboration with families need further exploration. It is still unclear the degree to which special educators and TVIs are engaging families around the transition for youth with VI. However, what is clear from prior research in transition is that family involvement is essential. Parent expectations (Mazzotti et al., 2021), parent support (Francis et al., 2019), and parent involvement (Test et al., 2014) are positive predictors of successful transition outcomes. By actively involving parents early in the transition process, teachers can develop a trusting relationship with families that will benefit students.
Implications for Practice
Our findings have important implications for practice to support youth with VI. First, TVIs and special educators must increase their collaborative efforts to support transition-age youth with VI. By this, we mean expanding their range of collaborative partners, as well as the frequency with which they collaborate to support the transition of students with VI. To do this, teachers will likely need to identify creative solutions to their stated barriers. For example, teachers shared that they felt isolated in their work to support students with VI, especially in smaller or rural communities. As a potential solution, TVIs and special educators should consider working with their state school for the blind to set up a community of practice where teachers can connect and learn about evidence- and research-based methods to support transition-age youth with VI regularly. In addition, this strategy could help inform special educators about VI so that TVIs do not feel the burden is completely on them to consider how a student’s vision loss will affect their future.
Second, professional development around collaborative practices needs to be provided as part of secondary professionals continuing education. Moreover, special educators and other in-school personnel need to understand the role and value of TVIs. Collaboration will not happen without effort (Oertle et al., 2021). Therefore, teachers should advocate for using planned professional development time for collaborative efforts.
Third, TVIs should take a more active role in the IEP planning process for all of their transition-age students, regardless of the service delivery model. TVIs are the only direct service professionals who have intimate knowledge of a student’s vision and how vision loss can affect a student’s ability to perform in a future education and/ or employment setting. TVIs must collaborate with the other members of the IEP team, inclusive of the student and their family, to make certain a student’s long-term plans are appropriate and that the necessary supports are in place to ensure success in adulthood. Finally, TVIs and special educators must invite outside personnel/agencies to IEP meetings and sustain these collaborative efforts so that there is a smooth continuation of services for students between high school and life after graduation.
Conclusion
Understanding how TVIs and special educators collaborate to support the transition of students with VI is essential to improving students’ in-school experiences and postschool outcomes. The results of this study suggest that TVIs and special educators collaborate with a variety of persons including family members, in-school staff, and outside agencies. However, the frequency of collaboration varies. As well, several identified barriers to collaboration must be addressed to see positive change. A focus on collaboration around transition in pre-service and in-service training may lead to more positive practices. Given that this is the first study exploring these issues for this population, more work is needed.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
This research was funded through a contract with the Tennessee Department of Education. The content of this manuscript does not necessarily reflect the views of the funding agency.
