An increasing amount of attention has been paid in recent years to issues related to decision-making support for students with significant disabilities approaching the age of legal adulthood. Research indicates that special education teachers support practices that minmize the use of undue and overbroad guardianship for their students. However, many are working within environments in which this belief may not be well supported. The purpose of this article is to provide special education teachers with context and strategies for systemic advocacy efforts that support the dignity and autonomy of their students with complex support needs.
BlanckP.MartinisJ. G. (2015). “The right to make choices”: The national resource center for supported decision-making. Inclusion, 3(1), 24–33.
2.
DencklaD. A. (1999). Nonlawyers and the unauthorized practice of law: An overview of the legal and ethical parameters. Fordham Law Review, 67(5), 2581–2599.
3.
JamesonJ. M.RiesenT.PolychronisS.TraderB.MiznerS.MartinisJ.HoyleD. (2015). Guardianship and the potential of supported decision making with individuals with disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 40(1), 36–51.
4.
KanterA. (2015). Guardianship for young adults with disabilities as a violation of the purpose of the individuals with disabilities education improvement act. Journal of International Aging Law & Policy, 8, 1–68.
5.
LandaC.SmithM. S.HallA. C.BoseJ.TimmonsJ. C.SteinM. A. (2023). What is known about schools’ transfer of rights practices for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 57(3), 142–151.
6.
LevinH. M. (1998). Some musings on what can be done. In FranklinB. M. (Ed.), When children don’t learn: Student failure and the culture of teaching (pp. 160–174). Teachers College Press.
7.
LindseyP.GuyB.WehmeyerM. L.MartinJ. (2001). Age of majority and mental retardation: A position statement of the division on mental retardation and developmental disabilities. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 36, 3–15.
8.
MacLeodK. (2017). “I should have big dreams”: A qualitative case study on alternatives to guardianship. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 52(2), 194–207.
9.
MartinisJ. G. (2015). “The right to make choices”: How vocational rehabilitation can help young adults with disabilities increase self-determination and avoid guardianship. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 42(3), 221–227.
10.
MartinisJ.HarrisJ.FoxD.BlanckP. (2023). State guardianship laws and supported decision-making in the United States after Ross and Ross v. Hatch: Analysis and implications for research, policy, education, and advocacy. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 34(1), 8–16.
11.
MassoumehZ.LeilaJ. (2012). An investigation of medical model and special education methods. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 5802–5804.
12.
MillarD. S. (2007). “I never put it together”: The disconnect between self determination and guardianship-implications for practice. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 42(2), 119–129.
13.
MillarD. S. (2013). Guardianship alternatives: Their use affirms self-determination of individuals with intellectual disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 42(3), 291–305.
14.
MillarD. S. (2014). Extending transition to address guardianship alternatives: An issue concerning students who have intellectual disability. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 49(3), 449–463.
15.
National Council on Disability (Ed.). (2018). Beyond guardianship: Toward alternatives that promote greater self-determination. Government Printing Office.
16.
PerskeR. (1972). The dignity of risk and the MR. Mental Retardation, 10(1), 24–27.
17.
PhillipsE. (2008). When parents aren’t enough: External advocacy in special education. The Yale Law Journal, 117(8), 1802–1853.
18.
PlotnerA. J.WaltersC. B. (2022). Perceptions of district-and school-level special education leaders on guardianship and adult decision-making support. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 32(4), 290–300.
19.
PlotnerA. J.WaltersC. B. (2023). The importance of centers for independent living supporting youth with disabilities: A critical contribution to maximize transition service delivery. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 46(2), 94–103.
20.
RaleyS. K.ShogrenK. A.MartinisJ.WehmeyerM. L. (2023). Age of majority and alternatives to guardianship: A necessary amendment to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 34(1), 17–27.
21.
RoodC. E.KanterA.CaustonJ. (2014). Presumption of incompetence: The systematic assignment of guardianship within the transition process. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 39(4), 319–328.
22.
ShogrenK. A.PlotnerA. J. (2012). Transition planning for students with intellectual disability, autism, or other disabilities: Data from the national longitudinal transition study-2. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 50, 16–30.
23.
ShogrenK. A.WehmeyerM. L.MartinisJ.BlanckP. (2018). Supported decision-making: Theory, research, and practice to enhance self-determination and quality of life. Cambridge University Press.
24.
ShogrenK. A.WehmeyerM. L.UyanikH.HeidrichM. (2017). Development of the supported decision making inventory system. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 55(6), 432–439.
25.
SmithM. S.SteinM. A. (2020). Transfer of parental rights: The impact of section 615(m) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Drexel Law Review, 13, 987–1076.
26.
Smith-HillR. B.WaltersC. B.StinnettC. V.PlotnerA. J. (2022). Social work as social justice: Supporting the autonomy of students with disabilities through alternatives to guardianship. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 40, 503–512. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-022-00895-9
27.
SpauldingL. S.PrattS. M. (2015). A review and analysis of the history of special education and disability advocacy in the United States. American Educational History Journal, 42(1/2), 91–109.
28.
StelitanoL.PereraR.JohnstonW. R. (2019). Supporting students with high-incidence disabilities in U.S. schools: National findings from the American educator panels. RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2992.html
TrianoS. (2000). Categorical eligibility for special education: The enshrinement of the medical model in disability policy. Disability Studies Quarterly, 20(4), 1–16.
31.
WaltersC.ImleB.PlotnerA. (2022). Age of majority in special education and the compliance-driven denial of student dignity and autonomy. In WilliamsR. (Ed.), Handbook of research on challenging deficit thinking for exceptional education improvement (pp. 420–435). Idea Group.
32.
WaltersC.PlotnerA. (2023). A Delphi study to generate, clarify, and prioritize professional recommendations on age of majority-related practice in special education. Journal of Disability Policy Studies. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/10442073231185740
33.
WaltersC.PlotnerA.AllisonM.MojicaA. (2022). An exploratory study of special education director experiences with issues related to age of majority, guardianship, and alternative options for adult decision-making support. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 35(1), 18–32.
34.
WaltersC.PlotnerA.OertleK. (2022). Perceptions of special education teachers on guardianship and alternative options for adult decision-making support. Journal of Rehabilitation, 88(3), 4–10.
35.
WehmeyerM. (1997). Self-determination as an educational outcome: A definitional framework and implications for intervention. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 9(3), 175–209.
36.
WhitbyP. J.MarxT.McIntireJ.WienkeW. (2013). Advocating for students with disabilities at the school level: Tips for special educators. Teaching Exceptional Children, 45(5), 32–39.
37.
WoulfinS. L.JonesB. (2021). Special development: The nature, content, and structure of special education teachers’ professional learning opportunities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 100, 103277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103277
