In a study that examined transition services for students with disabilities aged 18-21 years in the state of Wisconsin, respondent completed and returned 231 surveys. Survey data indicated that 50% of respondents lived in rural communities. The authors analyzed data for participant perspectives on components of transition planning in the areas of curriculum, employment, independent living, instruction, leisure/recreation, post-secondary education, transition, and transportation/mobility. Results included that the most common reported perceived barriers to provision of effective transition programming center around lack of resources. The authors discuss the specifics of these barriers and suggest ways schools may begin to remove or circumvent these barriers.
Bambara,L.M., Wilson,B.A., & McKenzie,M. (2007). Transition and quality of life. In OdomS.L., HornerR.H., SnellM.E., & BlacherJ. (Eds.), Handbook of developmental disabilities (pp. 371-389). New York, NY: Guilford.
2.
Chadsey,J. (2007). Adult social relationships. In OdomS.L., HornerR.H., SnellM.E., & BlacherJ. (Eds.), Handbook of developmental disabilities (pp. 449-466). New York, NY: Guilford.
3.
Collet-Klingenberg,L. L. (1998). The reality of best practices in transition: A case study.Exceptional Children,65(1), 67-78.
4.
Crockett,M.A., & Hardman,M.L. (2010). The role of secondary education in transition. In McDonnellJ., & HardmanM.L., (Eds.), Successful transition programs: Pathways for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities (pp. 43-60). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
5.
Fowler,F.J.Jr. (2009). Survey research methods (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Sage.
6.
Grubb,W.N. (2009). The money myth: School resources, outcomes, and equity. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation Publications.
7.
Hardman,M.L., & Dawson,S.A. (2010). Historical and legislative foundations. In McDonnellJ., & HardmanM.L. (Eds.), Successful transition programs: Pathways for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities (pp. 43-60). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
8.
Kohler,P.D. (1996). Preparing youths with disabilities for future challenges: A taxonomy for transition programming. In KohlerP. D. (Ed.), Taxonomy for transition programming: Linking research and practice (pp. 1-62). Champaign: University of Illinois, Transition Research Institute.
9.
Kolb,S.M. (2003). Special students, specific needs.Principal Leadership,4(2), 39-42.
10.
National Organization on Disability, Harris,L., & Associates. (2004). National Organization on Disability/Harris survey of Americans with disabilities. New York, NY: National Organization on Disability.
Snyder,T.D. (2010). Mini-Digest of Education Statistics,2009 (NCES 2010-014). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC.
13.
Thurlow,M.L., Sinclair,M.F., & Johnson,D.R. (2002). Students with disabilities who drop out of school: Implications for policy and practice.National Center on Secondary Education and Transition Issue Brief: Examining current challenges in secondary education and transition,1(2).
14.
Wagner,M., Newman,L., Cameto,R., & Levine,P. (2005). Changes over time in the early postschool outcomes of youth with disabilities: A report from the National Longitudinal Study (NLTS) and the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
15.
Wehmeyer,M.L., & Schalock,R.L. (2001). Self-determination and quality of life: Implications for special education services and support.Focus on Exceptional Children,33(8), 1-20.
16.
Winzer,M.A. (1993). The history of special education: From isolation to integration. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
17.
Wisconsin Cooperative Educational Service Areas (2010). Retrieved from http://www.cesawi.org/.
