East Tennessee State University East Tennessee State University
Digital Commons @ East Digital Commons @ East
Tennessee State University Tennessee State University
Electronic Theses and Dissertations Student Works
8-2024
Consultation Versus Direct Special Education Services and Consultation Versus Direct Special Education Services and
Postschool Outcomes for Individuals with Disabilities as Postschool Outcomes for Individuals with Disabilities as
Assessed by Indicator 14 Data Assessed by Indicator 14 Data
Callie Welch
East Tennessee State University
Follow this and additional works at: https://dc.etsu.edu/etd
Part of the Accessibility Commons, Curriculum and Instruction Commons, Educational Leadership
Commons, Education Law Commons, Elementary and Middle and Secondary Education Administration
Commons, Secondary Education and Teaching Commons, Special Education Administration Commons,
and the Special Education and Teaching Commons
Recommended Citation Recommended Citation
Welch, Callie, "Consultation Versus Direct Special Education Services and Postschool Outcomes for
Individuals with Disabilities as Assessed by Indicator 14 Data" (2024).
Electronic Theses and
Dissertations.
Paper 4438. https://dc.etsu.edu/etd/4438
This Dissertation - unrestricted is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Works at Digital
Commons @ East Tennessee State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and
Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State University. For more
information, please contact [email protected].
Consultation Versus Direct Special Education Services and Postschool Outcomes for Individuals
with Disabilities as Assessed by Indicator 14 Data
________________________
A dissertation
presented to
the faculty of the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis
East Tennessee State University
In partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Doctor of Education in Educational Leadership
______________________
by
Callie Dorcas Welch
August 2024
_____________________
Dr. Virginia Foley, Chair
Dr. John Boyd
Dr. Donald Good
Keywords: special education, transition planning, postschool outcomes, Indicator 14
2
ABSTRACT
Consultation Versus Direct Special Education Services and Postschool Outcomes for Individuals
with Disabilities as Assessed by Indicator 14 Data
by
Callie Dorcas Welch
There is abundant research relating to transition supports and services for students with
disabilities as they move out of high school into adulthood; however, relatively little is known
about the relationship between the type of special education services they received and their
postschool outcomes. Guided by the Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT) and Tennessee’s
Indicator 14 survey, I sought to better understand the relationship between the type of special
education services received in high school and student further schooling or employability after
graduation. Data were drawn from Indicator 14 surveys from 2021 and 2024 conducted by a
rural school district in Tennessee. The purpose of this quantitative study was to examine if there
is a significant difference in postschool outcomes for students with disabilities who received
supports through different service delivery methods in the high school setting.
Through the Indicator 14 surveys, students and their parents reflected on what the student had
done within the year since graduating from high school. Questions gathered information about
work history, postsecondary enrollment, and other related topics. To investigate the relationship
between postschool outcomes and student services, information was also assessed about the
services that students received as well as their manner of exit from high school (general
education diploma, special education diploma, alternate academic diploma, or drop out). Data
analysis revealed that students who received consultation services in high school were
3
significantly more likely to attend some type of postsecondary education program. There was no
significant relationship between type of service and employability. Diploma or exit type also
played a role in student outcomes, as well as the disability category under which they were
served. Students who earned a general education diploma were more likely to attend some type
of postsecondary education program than their peers who earned a special education diploma or
dropped out of school. Similarly, students who were served under the specific learning disability
category were more likely than their peers served under all other disability categories to attend
some type of postsecondary education program and be employed.
4
Copyright 2024 by Callie Dorcas Welch
All Rights Reserved
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................... 2
Chapter 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 10
Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................................... 11
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................. 12
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 13
Significance of the Study .................................................................................................. 15
Limitations........................................................................................................................ 15
Definitions of Terms ......................................................................................................... 16
Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................................... 24
Overview of Study ............................................................................................................ 25
Chapter 2. Literature Review .................................................................................................... 26
Social Cognitive Career Theory ........................................................................................ 27
Legal Foundations............................................................................................................. 28
Transition as a Concept ..................................................................................................... 34
Indicator 14 Data .............................................................................................................. 39
Family Involvement .......................................................................................................... 41
Challenges ........................................................................................................................ 43
Diversity ....................................................................................................................... 43
Ableism ........................................................................................................................ 46
6
Rural Implications and Access ...................................................................................... 47
Community and Work-Based Learning Impact.................................................................. 51
Postschool Outcomes ........................................................................................................ 54
Continuing Education .................................................................................................... 56
Employability ............................................................................................................... 61
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................. 64
Chapter 3. Methodology ........................................................................................................... 66
Research Questions and Null Hypotheses .......................................................................... 66
Population and Sample ...................................................................................................... 70
Instrumentation ................................................................................................................. 71
Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 72
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 73
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................. 73
Chapter 4. Findings................................................................................................................... 74
Research Question 1 ......................................................................................................... 75
Research Question 2 ......................................................................................................... 76
Research Question 3 ......................................................................................................... 77
Research Question 4 ......................................................................................................... 79
Research Question 5 ......................................................................................................... 81
7
Research Question 6 ......................................................................................................... 83
Research Question 7 ......................................................................................................... 85
Research Question 8 ......................................................................................................... 87
Research Question 9 ......................................................................................................... 88
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................. 90
Chapter 5. Conclusions and Recommendations ......................................................................... 91
Discussion ........................................................................................................................ 91
Research Question 1 ......................................................................................................... 91
Research Question 2 ......................................................................................................... 93
Research Question 3 ......................................................................................................... 95
Research Question 4 ......................................................................................................... 96
Research Question 5 ......................................................................................................... 97
Research Question 6 ......................................................................................................... 98
Research Question 7 ......................................................................................................... 99
Research Question 8 ....................................................................................................... 100
Research Question 9 ....................................................................................................... 101
Recommendations for Practice ........................................................................................ 102
Recommendations for Future Research ........................................................................... 104
Summary ........................................................................................................................ 105
8
References .............................................................................................................................. 107
APPENDIX: Tennessee Indicator 14 Survey .......................................................................... 122
VITA ...................................................................................................................................... 126
9
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Students Who Attended Some Type of Postsecondary Program in Relation to
Special Education Services Received………..…………..…...………………................76
Figure 2. Students Employed in Relation to Special Education Services Received……………77
Figure 3. Students Enrolled in a Postsecondary Program in Relation to Disability Category.....78
Figure 4. Students Employed in Relation to Disability Category.………..……………………..81
Figure 5. Students Enrolled in A Postsecondary Program in Relation to Disability Category….83
Figure 6. Students Employed in Relation to Disability Category…….………………………....85
Figure 7. Type of Diploma Awarded in Relation to Special Education Services ………...…….86
Figure 8. Type of Diploma Awarded in Relation to Attending a Postsecondary Program……...88
Figure 9. Type of Diploma Awarded in Relation to Employment Status……............................89
10
Chapter 1. Introduction
This study focused on the postschool outcomes of students with disabilities. These
postschool outcomes were assessed through Indicator 14 data collected by the local school
district and related to how many students were competitively employed, attending some type of
postsecondary schooling, or both. Indicator 14 data were collected 1 year after students
graduated from high school. Students with disabilities were also broken down into two categories
for further research, those were: students who received indirect, consultation services and
students who received full, direct supports during their time in the high school setting.
Consultation services for students with disabilities are considered to be indirect services. These
services required a special educator or case manager to check in with students, teachers, and
other members of the student’s Individualized Education Plan (IEP) team to monitor student
progress and grades in the general education curriculum and provide support as needed. Direct
special education services were provided through a more involved model where students with
disabilities were provided with direct supports in the classroom setting as well as more direct
guidance in other areas relating to school and postschool life.
Special education students received transition planning services as outlined by the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to support them in their postschool lives.
Transition planning requires students with disabilities, their parents, and their special education
teachers to develop postschool plans and goals for them to follow. Transition planning focuses
on high school programs of study, what career the student want to pursue after graduation, if the
student wants to attend some type of postsecondary schooling or enlist in the military, how the
student will access community resources, and if the student will live independently (Wehmeyer
11
et al., 2019). The purpose of developing these plans is to know how to best support students
while they are in high school before plans for their futures become reality.
The increased emphasis in IDEA on postschool outcomes for students with disabilities
has led to a greater urgency from states and school districts to focus on student outcomes.
Schools and school districts are directed to utilize research-based transition supports and services
to best prepare students with disabilities for life after high school. However, there may still be
gaps in student preparation and outcomes. These differences could be attributed to the location of
the school or district, the qualifications of the teacher delivering the services, or other external
factors (Carter et al., 2021). No matter where students with disabilities live or are educated, they
still experience significantly fewer positive postschool outcomes where compared to their peers
without disabilities. Students with disabilities are less likely to obtain postsecondary schooling of
any kind and are less likely to hold a job that pays an adequate wage than their same age peers.
The differences in these outcomes may be attributed to many things, but the supports that
students received in high school seem to make the greatest impact (Lipscomb et al., 2018).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this quantitative study was to examine if there is a significant difference
in postschool outcomes for students with disabilities who received supports through different
service delivery methods in the high school setting. The study compared the postschool
outcomes for students receiving consultation services to postschool outcomes for students
receiving direct services. Student postschool outcomes were focused on if the students were
employed, obtaining further schooling or training, or both.
Indicator 14 data provided an overview of all students with disabilities and their
postschool outcomes. By looking at individual student survey data for this indicator from one
12
school district, I was able to see the service delivery method for each student and their
postschool responses. Having data that stated what students were doing a year removed from
high school and having information about what supports those students got in high school aided
me in being able to analyze the relationships between services and outcomes in the lives of
students with disabilities. Obtaining information about the practices that took place and the
postschool outcomes of students made the findings of this study more insightful than assessing
only the postschool outcome numbers.
The focus of this study was to gain more knowledge about the relationship between the
level of special education programming supports provided to students with disabilities in high
school and their postschool outcomes. A structured system for transition planning is very
important to the postschool outcomes experienced by students; however, these outcomes still lag
behind peers without disabilities (Scheef et al., 2018). Through more extensive research into
transition programs and how services are provided, there are opportunities for growth in the area.
Statement of the Problem
The problem addressed by this study was the potential for poor postschool outcomes for
students with disabilities depending upon the type of special education services that they
received while in high school. Postschool outcomes for students with disabilities fell
significantly below their peers without disabilities in all areas (Scheef et al., 2023). The
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) outlines the necessary supports and services
for students with disabilities and their individualized transition plans. Though legal outlines are
in place, students with disabilities seem to still lag behind their peers without disabilities in the
transition to postschool life. IDEA states that students with disabilities should have well-
developed, research-based transition plans in place by their 16
th
birthday.
13
However, relatively little research exists on the implications of the types of special
education supports and services that students received while in high school. In the selected
school district, students who received direct supports were served directly in the special
education classroom or by a special education teacher, in other special education related services,
or in a setting that was more developed to meet complex needs. Students who received
consultation services were provided with more of a counseling type approach and met with a
special education teacher periodically to discuss progress and future plans.
This research was used to examine the differing postschool outcomes for students with
disabilities depending upon their receiving direct services or consultation services while in the
high school setting in a single school district. Postschool outcomes were defined in the study as
students being employed, being enrolled in some type of postsecondary education program or
training, or both. The purpose of the study was to provide insight into what type of service
delivery model might be most beneficial for students with disabilities as they transitioned to
postschool life.
Research Questions
The study tests the overall hypothesis that there is a positive relationship between student
postschool outcomes and the level of special education support they received in high school.
Results from Indicator 14 survey data collected by one rural school district were used to evaluate
special education service delivery models used in comparison to postschool outcomes for
students with disabilities. The data from this survey were used to address the following research
questions:
14
Research Question 1: Is there a significant relationship between the postschool outcome
of further education (yes or no) for students with disabilities and the type of special education
services (consultation or direct services) they received while in high school?
Research Question 2: Is there a significant relationship between the postschool outcome
of employability (yes or no) for students with disabilities and the type of special education
services (consultation or direct services) they received while in high school?
Research Question 3: Is there a significant relationship between the postschool outcome
of further education (yes or no) for students with disabilities and the IDEA disability category
under which they received services in high school (specific learning disabilities or all other
disabilities)?
Research Question 4: Is there a significant relationship between the postschool outcome
of employability (yes or no) for students with disabilities and the IDEA disability category under
which they received services in high school (specific learning disabilities or all other
disabilities)?
Research Question 5: Is there a significant relationship between the postschool outcome
of further education (yes or no) for students with disabilities and the IDEA disability category
under which they received services in high school (other health impairments or all other
disabilities)?
Research Question 6: Is there a significant relationship between the postschool outcome
of employability (yes or no) for students with disabilities and the IDEA disability category under
which they received services in high school (other health impairments or all other disabilities)?
Research Question 7: Is there a significant relationship between the type of special
education services (consultation or direct services) students with disabilities received while in
15
high school and the manner in which they exited high school (general education diploma or
special education diploma/alternate academic diploma/dropout)?
Research Question 8: Is there a significant relationship between the postschool outcome
of further education (yes or no) for students with disabilities and the manner in which they exited
high school (general education diploma or special education diploma/alternate academic
diploma/dropout)?
Research Question 9: Is there a significant relationship between the postschool outcome
of employability (yes or no) for students with disabilities and the manner in which they exited
high school (general education diploma or special education diploma/alternate academic
diploma/dropout)?
Significance of the Study
The findings from this study could be used by the school district and school districts with
similar students and programs to help improve postschool outcomes for students with
disabilities. The study identified current practices being implemented in high schools regarding
students with disabilities and whether or not they are effective. Other rural or small school
districts may be able to use the findings to direct future planning of transition services and
supports provided to students with disabilities.
Limitations
In this quantitative study, the sample size was relatively small. It is also important to note
that all analyzed responses were from participants who graduated from the same high school.
Limitations included the number of student survey responses available for review, the programs
offered by the one school from which all students graduated, and potential changes in teacher or
program offerings. Since the Indicator 14 survey is voluntary, some students and their families
16
elect to not complete the survey. Students who were served under the special education category
of gifted were also not included in this sample.
Definitions of Terms
The following definitions provide context for the research presented in this study.
Alternate Academic Diploma (AAD): Diploma option for students who are assessed using
alternate state assessments. This diploma option recognizes the growth and
success of students with significant cognitive disabilities. It is counted toward
district graduation rate just like a general education diploma. Students who earn
an AAD are not eligible to attend 4-year universities or community college.
However, having an AAD does show to potential employers or postsecondary
training programs that the student has the skills and knowledge necessary for
success (Transition Tennessee, 2020).
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): United States civil rights law that prohibits
discrimination based on a diagnosed disability or suspected disability (ADA
National Network, n.d.).
Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD): Developmental disability that typically presents in
early childhood (around the age of 2) and effects an individual for their entire life.
ASD is often characterized by communication difficulties, struggles in
socialization and development of age-appropriate social skills, hyper fixation on
certain topics or interests, and repetitive behaviors (Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, 2022-a).
Career-Technical Education (CTE): Area of public education that focuses on career
17
and job skill development in specific career clusters. Depending upon the career
and school/school district, students may be able to leave high school with a job
certification that will help them be more employable in the workforce
(Association for Career and Technical Education, 2023).
Career and Technical Education for the 21
st
Century Act: Law signed in 2018 to
improve supports for and funding of Career Technical Education in United States
public schools. It looked to improve student outcomes and career readiness once
leaving high school. Also known as Perkins V (Perkins Collaborative Resource
Network, n.d.).
Competitive Employment: Employment where individuals are employed and earning at
least minimum wage for over 20 hours a week for 90 days within the year after
graduating high school. This workplace could be related to the military,
community employment, or other similar settings. This is the definition developed
and utilized for the purpose of this study.
Consultation: Indirect special education service provided to students with disabilities
served under an individualized education plan. Consultation services require the
case manager or managing special education teacher to monitor the students
grades and progress in the general education curriculum. The case manager or
special education teacher will meet with the student’s teachers, the student, and
other important parties throughout the year to ensure the students is getting any
supports they might need and are making adequate progress. This is the definition
developed and utilized for the purpose of this study.
Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CLD): Students who are not proficient in English
18
or have limited English proficiency. The term can also be used to recognize
students who are from homes or communities where English is not the primary
language used. They often have different background experiences and cultural
practices (Colella et al., 2020).
Developmental Disability (DD): Umbrella term for disabilities that may affect an
individual’s ability to learn, communicate, complete daily tasks, and integrate
socially. A developmental disability may affect an individual’s ability to speak,
meet common milestones, express themselves, move their bodies in a typical
manner, or intake sensory stimuli from the environment (Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, 2022-a).
Direct Services: Special education services provided to students with disabilities served
under an individualized education plan in the special or general education
settings. Students who receive direct services typically receive more supports and
specialized instruction in their least restrictive setting as deemed necessary by the
individualized education plan team. These supports are often provided in a special
education classroom or in an inclusion, general education classroom. The
restrictiveness and magnitude of the direct services provided to each student will
vary based on their individualized needs related to their disability (Pacer Center,
2018).
Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA): Legislation that was put in place in
1975 to protect the right to a free and appropriate public education for students
with disabilities. It provided an outline for the things needed by students with
disabilities including school-based supports, parental rights, schooling in their
19
least restrictive environments, and individualized plans for education (U.S.
Department of Education, 2024).
Emotional Disturbance (ED): Disability characterized by one or more of the following:
an inability to learn and develop relationships, the expression of inappropriate
behaviors and feelings, reoccurring unhappiness or depression, and physical
symptoms related to fears or worries. Students served under this umbrella
category of emotional and mental health related disabilities experience extreme
ranges in emotion and issues regulating those emotions and feelings. Students
with emotional disturbance may need behavior plans that help them know how to
behave appropriately and manage their emotions (Montana Department of Health
and Human Services, n.d.).
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA): Law signed into effect in 2015 that governs K-12
public education in the United States. A major aspect was that it adjusted the
wording about standardized testing in the law (U.S. Department of Education,
n.d.-b).
Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE): Ensures that students with disabilities are
given access to a free public education that appropriately meets their individual
and unique needs due to their disability. Outlined in the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and is a foundational part of the law (TN
Department of Education, n.d.-a).
General Education Diploma: Traditional diploma earned by high school students.
Students must successfully complete 22 credits in core content areas, take the
ACT or SAT, have a satisfactory attendance and disciplinary record, and pass the
20
U.S. Civics test. Students who earn a general education diploma can attend
traditional postsecondary schools and training programs. General education
diplomas are most widely recognized by employers and tend to make employment
easier (Transition Tennessee, 2020).
Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA): 2008 law that strengthens the ability of
colleges and universities to meet the diverse needs of students. The law also
makes financial assistance provisions for students enrolled in postsecondary
institutions (Lee, 2009).
Individualized Education Plan (IEP): Legal document that is outlined and protected
under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This document is
developed for each child who qualifies as having a disability (also outlined by
IDEA) in a public school to develop a plan for their success in the school. The
IEP includes medical information, strengths, areas for growth, current
performance, goals, and other information related to placement and additional
services that might be needed for the child to be successful. Transition plans are
also part of the IEP for students who are 16 and older (U.S. Department of
Education, 2000).
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA): Act that provides students with
disabilities a free-appropriate public education, in their least restrictive
environments, with their programs and supports outlined in their individualized
education programs. Formerly known as the Education for All Handicapped
Children Act (EHA). The law was updated and renamed Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1990. The 1990 provisions included
21
statements about transition planning and placed an importance on the postschool
outcomes of students with disabilities. Its most recent re-signing occurred in 2004
(U.S. Department of Education, n.d.-a).
Indictor 14 Data: Data collected by school districts to determine postschool
outcomes of students with disabilities that were served with an individualized
education plan in the public high school setting. The survey asks students whether
they are enrolled in a postsecondary institution or training program, employed, or
both within the year since they graduated from high school. School districts and
states use this data to improve transition planning for students with disabilities
when they are in the school setting (TN Department of Education, 2022).
Intellectual Disability (ID): Disability category that is characterized by below average
intellectual functioning (typically 70 or below) and poor adaptive or life skill
attainment before the age of 18. Students with intellectual disabilities may have
trouble understanding and thinking and often require more intense supports than
their peers with other types of disabilities (Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, 2022-b).
Least Restrictive Environment (LRE): Setting in which a child with a disability is
educated or spends most of their day. The least restrictive environment directly
relates to how much or to what extent the student with a disability is educated
with their peers without disabilities. Students with disabilities should be educated
with their peers without disabilities to the greatest extent possible or appropriate
for their needs (TN Department of Education, n.d.-a).
Perkins IV: Act that provided funding for and outlined career technical education
22
programs in public school settings to improve postsecondary outcomes for
students. It was a precursor to the Career and Technical Education for the 21
st
Century Act (Congressional Research Service, 2016).
Pre-Employment Transition Services (Pre-ETS): Includes career counseling, work-based
learning experiences, postsecondary counseling, and training in workplace
readiness and self-advocacy as outlined in the Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act (WIOA) (TN Department of Human Services, n.d.).
Related Services: Additional services that are provided to students with disabilities who
are served under an individualized education plan outside of typical classroom
instruction to aid them in being successful. Common related services are speech,
occupational, and physical therapy (TN Department of Education, n.d.-b).
Self-Advocacy: Ability to identify and understand ones needs and let others know what
those needs are (Lee, n.d.).
Self-Determination: Ability of an individual to be able to choose what they do and what
path they may take. A person’s free choice to set their own goals, make their own
decisions, and determine their own path in life (Cal State LA, n.d.).
Special Education: Education of students with disabilities that are served under the
umbrella of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Special
education focuses on providing individualized supports and
accommodations/modifications for students in the school setting, aiding students
in obtaining important life skills, and helping students and families build a plan
for the future beyond school (TN Department of Education, 2018).
Special Education Diploma: Diploma earned by students who will not be earning a
23
general education diploma because they cannot meet the set requirements. Special
education diplomas do not count in the school graduation rate calculation.
Students who earn special education diplomas are not eligible to attend 4-year
universities or community colleges. Most employers or postsecondary institutions
do not recognize special education diplomas (Transition Tennessee, 2020).
Specific Learning Disability (SLD): Persistent impairment in reading, writing, or math.
Students with specific learning disabilities have the ability to complete the work
but there is a gap in their achievement. Often, students with SLDs are not
impacted socially or in their adaptable, life skills when compared to their same
age peers with and without disabilities (TN Department of Education, 2017).
State Performance Plan (SPP): Required documentation for each state to complete and
submit to the U.S. Department of Education as outlined in the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). It evaluates a state’s effort
and success in implementing the requirements defined in IDEA to meet the needs
of students with disabilities. Indicator 14 data and the focus on transition and
postschool outcomes are part of the State Performance Plan (Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act, n.d.-c).
Transition: Period of time after a student with disabilities exits high school and
begins integrating into postschool life. Time is spent while the student is in school
planning for this transition time by developing a plan for further schooling, career
readiness, and other life outcomes (TN Department of Education, n.d.-c).
Transition Plan: Plan that outlines the supports, services, and outside factors necessary
24
for a student with disabilities (served under the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act), to be successful in postschool life. A transition plan includes
information about how a student will continue their education, be employed, live
independently, and/or access the community around them. These plans are
individualized based on each student’s abilities and goals for the future (TN
Department of Education, n.d.-c).
Vocational Rehabilitation (VR): Menu of services that help students with disabilities to
get support for employment through counseling and training. These services are
available to all students with disabilities served under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (TN Department of Education, n.d.-c).
Workforce Investment Act (WIA): Legislation that was signed into law in 1998 that
helped to improve employability job training programs in the United States. The
ultimate goal was to provide individuals with supports necessary for them to gain
and maintain employment (U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2004).
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA): Act that increased emphasis on and
funding for workforce development programming and supports WIO. It replaced
the Workforce Investment Act in 2014 (The ARC, 2015).
Theoretical Framework
I used a single career-focused theoretical framework to guide the study. The framework
was chosen because of its correlation to education, transition-related practices, and career
development and attainment. The theory utilized in assessing the findings of this study and
developing a framework was the Social Cognitive Career Theory. This theory provided a basis to
25
compare the different types of service delivery options used to serve students while they were in
high school on student postschool outcomes (Wang et al., 2022).
Overview of Study
Chapter 1 contains the context and history needed to understand the issue of transition
services and postschool outcomes for students with disabilities. It also includes the statement of
the problem for this topic, why the study is significant, what the overarching purpose of the study
is, an explanation of the theoretical framework I used, the research questions that guided the
study, important terms and their definitions, and any potential limitations or issues with the
study. Chapter 2 synthesizes information and ideas from past research relating to postschool
outcomes and post-high school transition for students with disabilities. Chapter 3 delves into the
methodology I used and discusses the study design, setting, participants, and data collected and
analyzed. In Chapter 4 presents the findings from the study and discuss relationships from the
data that was analyzed. Finally, Chapter 5 focuses on the implications and outcomes brought
about by the findings of the study. There is emphasis placed on understanding the potential
effects of the study and its impact on future research and practice.
26
Chapter 2. Literature Review
Graduating high school and delving into postschool activities that are defined by more
freedom, responsibility, and opportunity is a very exciting time for all students (Bouck & Park,
2018). Students with disabilities also desire this freedom and adult independence after
completing their high school career. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of
2004 (IDEA), school districts are mandated to provide classroom supports, additional services,
and future planning for students with disabilities (Vitelli, 2013). Though given these provisions,
students with disabilities had more negative postschool outcomes than their peers without
disabilities. In this same vein, school districts have historically had issues with IDEA compliance
and transition planning is not immune from that struggle (Landmark & Zhang, 2012).
Chapter 2 includes relevant scholarly literature and research to provide a lens through
which to view this study about postschool transition for students with disabilities. The literature
review was organized around the following themes: (a) theoretical framework, (b) legal
foundations, (c) transition as a concept, (d) indicator 14 data, (e) family involvement, (f)
challenges, (g) community and work-based learning impact, and (h) postschool outcomes.
Several theories were utilized to better understand the postschool outcomes of students with
disabilities: Stages of Development, Social Cognitive and Self-Efficacy Theories, Social
Cognitive Career Theory, and Career Development Theory.
While there is much research about transition as a whole, there is relatively little research
about the specific types of supports students are getting. The majority of articles and research
artifacts found fell in the parameters of years 2017-2024. The following topics were uncovered
by the research using keywords and phrases that included: transition, special education, IDEA,
transition planning, postschool outcomes, students with disabilities, Indicator 14, consultation,
27
direct services, postsecondary, work-based learning, and employability. The following databases
were used to search for the literature: Google Scholar, United States Department of Education
websites, state Department of Education websites, East Tennessee State University library,
Tennessee Tech University library, Rural Special Education Quarterly, and Career Development
and Transition for Exceptional Individuals journal.
Social Cognitive Career Theory
The theoretical framework used to guide this study was the Social Cognitive Career
Theory. The theory chosen acknowledges human development throughout the lifespan and
interweaves career development and self-concept into the growth of an individual over time. By
using this theory to guide the study, I was able to note the differences in supports and
opportunities given in the school setting on the postschool outcomes experienced by students
with disabilities.
Robert Lent, Stephen Brown, and Gail Hackett developed the Social Cognitive Career
Theory (SCCT) that provides a unique lens through which to view transition and postschool
outcomes (Wang et al., 2022). The SCCT combines two strands of Bandura’s work. Initially,
SCCT was derived from Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory that underscores the interaction
among people, their behaviors, and the environment (Bandura, 1986). SCCT is similar but
directly related to career choice. Individuals choose their vocations based on exposure to and
involvement in different experiences related to a specific career field (Wang et al., 2022). This
theory is also related to Bandura’s Self-Efficacy Theory that explores an individual’s willingness
to perform or be involved in a task based on their perceived ability. This affects an individual’s
choice in activities, effort given, and persistence in tasks (Artino, 2012). According to SCCT,
individuals go through the three-factor model of career development. They ask themselves can I
28
do this, what will happen if I do this, and how much do I want to do this (Wang et al., 2022). The
SCCT relates to postschool planning and outcomes by connecting to the importance of students
understanding their potential and gaining a number of experiences in the school setting before
graduating. This theory helped support the need for individualized transition planning and goal
setting for students with disabilities to increase their positive postschool outcomes. I used this
theory to consider the number and type of experiences that students received based on service
delivery while in high school related to a specific work setting or career cluster and how that
might have affected postschool outcomes.
Legal Foundations
The purpose of special education and transition planning is to prepare students with all
types of disabilities for postschool success in a postsecondary setting, the workforce, and
independent living (Carlson et al., 2019). The idea of graduating and moving on from high
school is an exciting prospect for many students, but for students with disabilities navigating
postschool life can be a daunting endeavor (Eastman et al., 2021). In 1975, the United States
Federal Government enacted the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA). With this
law, students with disabilities were eligible for individualized supports and services through their
local public education agencies. Since 1997, the law has been known as the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Prior to 1975, students with disabilities had little to no access
to the school setting (Prince et al., 2020). Data showed that in 1970, schools in the United States
served only 1 in 5 students with disabilities. This issue was exacerbated by state laws and
policies that put even tighter regulations on who could and could not be educated in the school
setting (U.S. Office of Special Education Programs, 2000).
29
In its initial incarnation, IDEA bolstered four main points. The overarching point focused
on access to a free public education that was designed to meet the needs of each student. From
there, emphasis was placed on parent rights and student privacy, provision of funds and supports
to be used by states and school districts, and ongoing assessments to ensure the level of
effectiveness of the education and interventions being utilized (U.S. Office of Special Education
Programs, 2000). Since that time, amendments have been made to the law providing United
States public schools with a guide for betterment of education and services for students with
disabilities.
In 1975, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA), now the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), was signed requiring all public schools to provide free
appropriate public education (FAPE) to all students no matter their disability status in their least
restrictive environment (LRE) through services outlined in an Individualized Education Plan
(IEP) (Transition TN, n.d.). IDEA also assured that students who met the criteria for outlined
disability categories would receive services until the time of their high school graduation or until
the age of 21 (Carlson et al., 2019). While IDEA has gone through several revisions and
additions over the past 50 years, the addition of transition services focused on postschool
outcomes was added in 1990. Much of the language used in IDEA was directly related to
improving planning for postschool success for students with disabilities (Clavenna-Deane &
Coates, 2022).
In 1983, a pilot study examined the benefits of in-school transition services designed for
students with disabilities and their postschool outcomes in mind (Transition TN, n.d.). This led to
the acknowledgment of model programs and services in transition practices included in the 1986
reauthorization of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA) (Harvey et al., 2020).
30
The changes made altered the trajectory for students with disabilities though there were still hills
to climb. The reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1990
resulted in much more than just a name change. In 1990, transition planning and services were
added to the already existing outline for supporting students with disabilities and unique needs in
the school setting (Carlson et al., 2019). The law outlined the requirement of a transition plan
that discussed post-high school plans and goals for students age 16 and older. These plans had to
include measurable postsecondary goals that reflected student interests, preferences, and
strengths (National Center for Education Evaluation, 2018). Some states took the law even a step
further and said that schools and multi-disciplinary teams were required to begin transition
assessments, conversations, and planning for students at age 14 and have a full plan in place by
9
th
grade (Stevenson et al., 2016). The increased focus on transition planning for students with
disabilities at a younger age made sense because it gave more chance for student involvement for
a longer amount of time (Shogren & Wittenburg, 2020). It was also important for teachers to
have transition-related conversations with parents as early as elementary school so that families
could be exposed to the idea of their children working and being successful in their postschool
lives (Cmar et al., 2018). Transition assessments were ongoing and used to assess student
strengths, interests, preferences, skills, or aptitudes related to their future goals. It was important
that transition teams use standardized, ongoing assessments that were current, reliable, and valid.
The use of appropriate transition assessments had a positive correlation to more successful
postschool outcomes for students with disabilities (Rowe et al., 2015).
In 1998, the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) was signed into law to provide additional
federal funds, beyond the provisions outlined in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA), for employment and training opportunities for youth with disabilities to increase access
31
to jobs and improved wages (Transition TN, n.d.). WIA provided students and schools with
work-based learning opportunities to assist students with gaining experience while in high
school, thus setting them up for greater success after graduation (Coolberth, 2021, n.d.). Several
years later, WIA was updated and renamed the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act
(WIOA). WIOA mandates that Pre-Employment Transition Services (Pre-ETS) are necessary for
student success through programs and local agencies and a fundamental component of the
transition framework (McCormick et al., 2021). In the latest revision of WIOA, specific learning
disabilities (SLD) are explicitly noted as a disability eligible for receiving Vocational
Rehabilitation (VR) services (Scheef & McKnight-Lizotte, 2022). These Pre-ETS services
provided for individuals with disabilities include: job exploration counseling, work-based
learning experiences, postsecondary education counseling, workplace readiness training, and
self-advocacy training (Ruiz & Scott, 2021). VR and other school-related transition services are
very important when looking at successful postschool outcomes for students with disabilities
particularly in the domain of employment (Shogren & Wittenburg, 2020). Well-rounded
interagency collaboration showed some correlation with positive postschool outcomes for
students with disabilities (Plotner et al., 2017).
Self-determination training or coaching is also an important part of student postschool
success. Students who had higher levels of self-determination skills had greater postschool
outcomes and success than their peers with poor self-determination abilities (Petcu et al., 2017).
Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) provisions have been positively associated with employability of
adults and youth with disabilities (Hartman et al., 2021). Self-determination helps learners be
change agents in their own lives. They are able to make intentional decisions about what was and
was not best for them (Wehmeyer et al., 2019). The services provided by the Workforce
32
Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) focus on high school completion as well as local in-
demand jobs and associated occupational training (Harvey et al., 2020). While much legislation
focuses on providing transition supports for students with disabilities from a broad scope, the
Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA) narrows the focus to students with intellectual
disabilities (ID). HEOA provides provisions specifically to students with IDs to access
postsecondary education and other related opportunities (Love & Mock, 2019).
The most recent reauthorization and additions to the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA) occurred in 2004, and, in relation to transition planning, several
provisions are outlined to better support postschool outcomes for students with disabilities served
under the IDEA umbrella (Stevenson et al., 2016). According to Stephenson et al. (2016),
transition planning and programming are to be well-embedded in all of the activities of a
student’s day. Since 2004, postschool goals relating to further education and training,
employment, independent living, course of study, and community access are required when
writing an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) for a student 16 or older. Providing quality
transition services that are outlined in the IEP for specific skill attainment is a hallmark
component of the transition planning process (Clavenna-Deane & Coates, 2022). IEPs for
secondary students include career or job-related goals. Having career and job-related goals is
especially important for students who need more extensive supports. Many students with
extensive needs were less likely than their peers with other disabilities to have employment-
related goals written in their IEPs (Carlson et al., 2019).
IEPs and transition plans can be improved for students in the secondary setting when
transition assessments are used to develop present levels of academic achievement and functional
performance that can be used to write goals and track progress (Rowe et al., 2015). In
33
conjunction with this, schools and case managers are required to utilize age-appropriate
transition assessments that are directly related to student strengths, needs, and interests (Kraemer
et al., 2022). It is very important that school teams look at each student on a case-by-case basis to
determine if they should pursue a regular education diploma or not. This decision is a heavy one
that could impact student postschool outcomes and overall life success (Prince et al., 2018).
Parents are also a part of the conversation as many of them do not see the possibility of a high
school diploma for their student. In fact, many parents, especially parents of students with
intellectual disabilities, do not know about the postschool opportunities available to their child
with the receipt of a high school diploma (Bouck et al., 2021).
In the world of special education, transition planning focused on improving academic and
functional achievement while also facilitating a smooth transition from school to postschool life
is the goal (Wade, 2023). Over time, the complexity and importance of transition planning
increases as students advance in age and are faced with more adult or postschool decisions
(Newman, 2022). Research indicated that high school students with disabilities showed stronger,
more successful postschool outcomes when a transition plan that met the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requirements was put into place for them (Jackson, 2021). In
2006, with the Carl D. Perkins Act (Perkins IV), career-technical education (CTE) was
authorized as an impactful way to support secondary and postsecondary occupational skills
training. Perkins IV also included a caveat about educating students with disabilities and
including vocational services as an essential component of the IEP (Harvey et al., 2020).
Students with disabilities were then able to explore career interests and strengths when given
opportunities through CTE and other related work experiences (McCormick et al., 2021). Paid
work experiences were also directly related to students attaining competitive employment in their
34
postschool lives (Carlson et al., 2019). The Perkins Act was reauthorized and renamed in 2018 to
be the Career and Technical Education for the 21
st
Century Act and continues to emphasize the
importance of career and college readiness along with increasing employability skills and
opportunities for student populations that had been chronically under or unemployed (Harvey et
al., 2020).
As described by Harvey et al. (2020), the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2018 (ESSA)
made great changes to the transition services and opportunities provided to students. ESSA
focuses on college and career readiness in United States public schools. It reinforces that all
students educated in public school should be ready for college and careers upon graduating
through the development of challenging academic standards and indicators for student success
(Harvey et al., 2020). There is also a strong focus on utilizing evidence-based practices to
educate students (Madaus et al., 2021). Students with disabilities receive a variety of services to
assist in meeting their unique needs when compared to their peers without disabilities that
seemed to lead to postschool outcome gaps (Stevenson et al., 2016).
Transition as a Concept
The very basic definition of the term transition is to transfer from one setting to another.
This transition can refer to educational, institutional, or programming (Chen, 2019). Transition is
an inevitable and a natural aspect of the human experience that occurs all throughout life
(Newman, 2022). Developing transition plans for students with disabilities is fundamental to
student success and should be made a priority in schools (Carlson et al., 2020). Transition
planning is extremely important in regard to students with disabilities as they leave high school
and enter the adult world (Jackson, 2021). Postschool transition for students with disabilities has
35
evolved over the years but has always been grounded in career development theories and
guidance from the field (Wehmeyer et al., 2019).
Youth with disabilities who received special education services made up 12% of all
students in secondary United States public schools (National Center for Education Evaluation,
2018). Post-high school transition has been marked with optimism and complexity over the years
as focus has shifted to helping students with disabilities pursue personal and meaningful
outcomes for their lives (Trainor et al., 2020). Many students, with and without disabilities,
imagine what their lives will be like after high school. Most envision securing a good job or
continuing their schooling, living on their own, choosing how they spend their time, and fully
experiencing all of the freedom that adulthood has to offer (Rowe et al., 2020). While these
feelings are hard to put into a plan or on paper, transition services are outlined by the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) as,
…a results-oriented process, that is focused on improving the academic and functional
achievement of the child with a disability to facilitate the child’s movement from school
to postschool activities, including postsecondary education, vocational education,
integrated employment (including supported employment), continuing and adult
education, adult services, independent living, or community participation; is based on the
individual child’s needs, taking into account the child’s strengths, preferences, and
interests; and includes — instruction, related services, community experiences, the
development of employment and other postschool adult living objectives, and, if
appropriate, acquisition of daily living skills and provision of a functional vocational
evaluation. (U.S. Department of Education, 2017)
36
The transition planning process is critical to the field of special education (Chen, 2019). Students
with disabilities are more likely to struggle with postschool outcomes when compared to their
peers without disabilities in employability, postsecondary schooling, and independent living
(Plotner et al., 2017).
The contemporary concept of transition planning implores that students with disabilities
are more likely to achieve their postschool success if they are provided with the right supports,
services, instruction, and opportunities while still in school (Trainor et al., 2020). However, the
various frameworks that are used to define what a disability is can also cause issues when
beginning transition planning. Supports and services can only be truly beneficial once individual
student needs are assessed and not just addressed by an overarching definition (Shogren &
Wittenburg, 2020). There are many cross-system barriers that arise for students with disabilities
so it is important for teachers to know how to direct students to resources offered outside of
school. These outside supports relate to financial well-being, health care, disability specific
supports, criminal justice education, and similar life-related concepts (McCormick et al., 2021).
It is obvious that transition planning should be individualized and person-centered as each
student should have an idea of what they want their adult lives to entail (Rowe et al., 2020).
Transition planning can be made more student-centered with increased student involvement in
the IEP process and meeting (Eastman et al., 2021). Regardless of what desired outcomes are,
students with disabilities are far less prepared for the workforce or further schooling than their
peers without disabilities (Scheef et al., 2023).
While all students undergo many transitions in school from home to preschool,
elementary to middle, middle to high, and high to postschool, the final transition is the most
important (Jackson, 2021). Though they do undergo many transitions and changes with their
37
peers, students with disabilities are at a greater risk of having less seamless transitions than their
peers (Ressa, 2016). Generally, students with disabilities experienced lower rates of
postsecondary school enrollment, employment, and independent living during the years after
high school (Bouck & Park, 2018). Many students struggled after graduation with the drastic
decrease in services readily available to them (Carlson et al., 2019). However, there is research
that suggests the strong benefits of effective transition planning in positively influencing in-
school and postschool outcomes for students with disabilities (Scott & Shogren, 2023).
Transition planning teams and families of students with disabilities should adopt a life planning
mindset and perspective when looking at a student’s future (Wehmeyer et al., 2019).
Based on the findings of Prince et al. (2018), students with disabilities were more likely
than their peers without disabilities to drop out of school, be unemployed or underemployed, not
pursue postsecondary schooling, or live independently. The issue of dropping out of school
became even greater for students with disabilities if they were retained in a secondary grade
(Prince et al., 2018). Schools and districts work to provide supports and services to students with
disabilities to steer them away from dropping out. The probability of life success after high
school is improved when transition planning and goals are not left to chance (Patton & Kim,
2016). Transition planning should be focused on the environment, the student’s personal values
and education level, other outside relationships, and psychological constructs such as self-
determination and self-esteem (Wehmeyer et al., 2019). Fundamentally, the main aim of high
school transition is to prepare students to meet the four categories outlined by federal disability
policy: independent living, economic self-sufficiency, full participation, and equality of
opportunity in adulthood (Francis et al., 2020).
38
Transition plans are seen as the very heart of educational planning under the provisions of
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (Hennessey et al., 2023). Personal
fulfilment was an overarching term used to describe the idea of success that students may have
had based on their knowledge, skills, and needs in response to the daily demands of adulthood
(Patton & Kim, 2016). Transition planning and supports through the school as well as Vocational
Rehabilitation (VR) services and other similar agencies can help students develop stronger, more
attainable plans for their futures. VR provides many postschool services related to employability,
training, and independence for students with disabilities (Bouck & Chamberlain, 2017). These
services included job exploration, counseling, work-based learning experiences, workplace
readiness training, and self-advocacy instruction (Rowe et al., 2020). Working on transition
planning and goals gives students the opportunity to learn self-advocacy skills and sharpen other
necessary adult skills so they could be self-sufficient later in life and in the workforce (Newman,
2022). Self-advocacy skills were found to be very important when working with students who
planned to attend some type of postsecondary schooling program because it helped them access
available academic supports and advocate for themselves and their needs (Madaus et al., 2021).
Students with disabilities represent an incredibly heterogenous group of individuals with
varying needs (Bouck & Park, 2018). The complex needs for such a diverse group of students is
impacted by their individual school and communities as well as the policies and practices within
those. However, the varying levels of need does not stop there because there are also the
individual goals that students and families have (Trainor et al., 2020). Nonetheless, most students
with disabilities have needs that fall into a few different categories to be addressed by schools
and community agencies. Those categories of concern attend to their ability to function, behave,
communicate, and operate in society (Wade, 2023). Attainment of skills relating to career
39
awareness, self-awareness, decision-making, and perseverance were directly connected to
success in adulthood (Clavenna-Deane & Coates, 2022). Self-awareness was a very important
aspect of transition planning and preparing students for life after high school. Increased levels of
self-awareness helped with overall mental health and career success (Pham et al., 2020).
When schools provide students with strong transition programming, the main goal of
special education is met which is to prepare students with disabilities for life after high school in
education, employability, and independence (Schutz et al., 2021). Preparing students for
transition and postschool outcomes while they were still in school seems to be more realistic and
promising than just assuming they will receive career and life supports upon graduating high
school (Bouck & Chamberlain, 2017). However, this is not always a simple endeavor for school
systems that often struggle to assemble effective and meaningful transition programming (Shultz
et al., 2021).
Indicator 14 Data
Each state department of education is required to contact former students with disabilities
one year after they graduated from high school to determine whether they have been enrolled in
some type of postsecondary education or training or are employed (Alverson & Yamamoto,
2019). Since the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) provides the overarching
guidance on transition practices for students with disabilities, the level of accountability for the
transition practices being utilized in schools has increased. To monitor compliance of serving the
needs of students with disabilities in the school setting, Local Education Agencies (LEA) collect
data on 20 indicators. This data is used to assess state compliance as well as individual district
and school compliance (Akom et al., 2021). Transition services and planning are one of the
topics measured by the indicators. Through data collection for the State Performance Plan (SPP),
40
Indicator 14 measures postschool outcomes of students with disabilities by looking specifically
at postsecondary education or training and employment (Clavenna-Deane & Coates, 2022). The
data gathered through this survey is the chief metric for assessing the level of effectiveness of
transition and special education services provided in schools (Mamun et al., 2018). Findings
from recent Indicator 14 comparative studies showed that states made progress in improving
postschool outcomes for students with disabilities by increasing the percentage of students
seeking postsecondary schooling, competitive employment, and a combination of the two
between 2012 and 2018 (Clavenna-Deane & Coates, 2022).
Indicator 14 considers engagement levels in different postschool activities by students
with disabilities who had IEPs when in school but graduated in the past year (Akom et al., 2021).
When referring to engagement in postsecondary outcomes after high school, it means that
students are attending a 2-year, 4-year, or technical college, employed in a job where they make
at or above minimum wage working with peers without disabilities or are enlisted in the military,
enrolled in some type of training program without receipt of a diploma, or they are self-
employed or working for a family member (Akom et al., 2021).
The federal government, states, and individual school districts use Indicator 14 data to
improve services and supports for students with disabilities thus improving long-term, adult
outcomes (Vitelli, 2013). However, other data collected by outside studies explored the idea of
collecting data beyond the 1st year that students were out of school as their outcomes generally
improve or increase beyond the 1st year (Bouck & Park, 2018). Indicator 14 data looks explicitly
at student outcomes one year after exiting high school. Many speculated that this snapshot did
not give a true representation of student outcomes or adult successes; thus, providing an unclear
or incorrect picture of the effectiveness of transition services (Vitelli, 2013). The collection
41
Indicator 14 data was initially mandated by the reauthorization of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 2004 which added provisions to hold schools accountable
for attaining the true promise of IDEA which are successful long-term outcomes for students
with disabilities (Akom et al., 2021). Schools and transition teams can help in the collection of
valid and reliable Indicator 14 data if they discuss the survey at student exit meeting and collect
multiple points of contact for the student and family prior to graduation (Prince et al., 2018).
Family Involvement
Family involvement is explicitly outlined and especially noted in the aspects of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) relating to transition planning (Bouck et al.,
2021). Families have unique insights and knowledge about their child and often provide the
transition planning team with helpful information during the postschool planning process that
might otherwise be missed (Eastman et al., 2021). Family involvement is crucial for the
successful attainment of postschool outcomes for students with disabilities. Families are required
to be involved in the planning process (Francis et al., 2020). Schools should be aware of the
unique needs that culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) families and learners bring to the
transition conversation. Parents need to feel they play a vital role in the development of goals
and future plans for their child with a disability (Carlson et al., 2020).
Family expectations have a great impact on student postschool outcomes, especially in
the domain of paid work experience (Mazzotti et al., 2021). It is integral that school districts
provided real, meaningful opportunities for active family involvement in the IEP and transition
planning process (Sprunger et al., 2018). However, there are also many barriers to this parental
or caregiver involvement noted. Caregivers and parents at times felt disjointed or unincluded in
the conversation with education professionals due to attitudes from the staff and lack of support
42
(Francis et al., 2020). Family involvement was sometimes an issue because of work schedules,
transportation, and lack of understanding of the process. Schools should develop strong
relationships with families and important stakeholders and understand the relationships between
groups. These relationships act as support systems for students as they navigate postschool life
(Eastman et al., 2021). Research also showed that immigrant families and caregivers participated
in secondary transition planning at significantly lower rates that their Caucasian, English-
speaking peers (Francis et al., 2020). Schools should insure that they were working with all
families to develop strong plans and create high expectations for all students to help them be
successful and independent to the greatest extent possible in their postschool life (Bouck et al.,
2021).
When educators or transition teams fail to recognize the differences in cultures and value
systems of the students and families they serve, issues and damage ensue (Povenmire-Kirk et al.,
2015). It is important that multidisciplinary and transition planning teams understand that
universal values do not exist among all families. This recognition pushes teams to better
understand the values, wishes, and dreams of the specific families and students being served.
Active parent or family involvement in transition planning have a large impact on student
postschool success (Sprunger et al., 2018). Parent expectations play a pivotal role in the
transition and postschool planning process as well as in student employment after graduation
(Cmar et al., 2018). Families make a difference when discussing transition planning. By
increasing family involvement, both immediate and postschool outcomes have shown a positive
trend when working with students with disabilities (Bouck et al., 2021).
Schools should include parents and students as part of the collaborative team involved in
transition planning and development of postschool goals for education, independent living, and
43
employment (McCormick et al., 2021). It truly is a collaborative effort to set the student up for
life after high school (Sprunger et al., 2018). Families provide insight into the experiences that
students have and also help determine what experiences might be most beneficial. This
collaborative process helps schools and teams develop better ways to support students with
disabilities in the transition planning process (Alverson & Yamamoto, 2019). Family
involvement was found to be a key predictor is successful transition for students with disabilities
into postschool life (Eastman et al., 2021).
Challenges
Diversity
Prince et al. (2018) states that from type of disability, manifestation of the disability, race,
culture, and geographic area students with disabilities prove to be a very diverse group in the
school setting. Of the diverse perspectives seen in serving students with disabilities, transition
planning is at the forefront. Youth with disabilities from racial minority backgrounds
experienced poorer postschool outcomes when looking at employability and postschool
education than their nonminority peers with disabilities (Prince et al., 2018). Students with
disabilities from diverse backgrounds experienced very different postschool outcomes from one
another. Postschool outcomes for youth with disabilities lagged drastically compared to their
same-age peers. However, the discrepancy was even greater for students who were culturally and
linguistically diverse (CLD) (Povenmire-Kirk et al., 2015). Even though the needs of students
with disabilities vary greatly, their backgrounds and experiences are often even more diverse.
The need for service providers and transition teams to have a deep understanding of culturally
responsive practices and teaching is key to the collaborative mindset needed when planning for
postschool transition (Ruiz & Scott, 2021).
44
Scott and Shogren (2023) discuss that, for decades, research relating to transition policy,
assessment, and intervention was designed to primarily meet the needs of learners without
disabilities from monolingual, White, middle-class backgrounds. There has been recognition that
the students being served are changing and so should the practices. A true representation of the
students and their unique needs has been considered when researching the effectiveness of
transition practices. Efforts have been made in the arena of transition and specifically in serving
culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students, but current practices within transition
planning have failed to close the gaps between students of color and their peers postschool
outcomes (Sinclair et al., 2023). Dually identified students who are students that receive special
education services as well as English language learner supports make up around 10% of the
population of students in United States schools. This demographic of students seems to face even
more compounded challenges in the realm of school engagement (Trainor et al., 2023).
Povenmire-Kirk et al. (2015) stress the importance of teachers being aware of the need
for cultural competency and understanding when working with this diverse group of students. In
most recent reports, teachers and leaders in the field of special education were not diversifying as
quickly as the students being served. However, increasing the number of culturally and
linguistically diverse (CLD) educators was found to not be the answer. It has been found that
educators who were not CLD still had the ability to provide appropriate supports for learners
from diverse backgrounds (Povenmire-Kirk et al., 2015). Being aware of diversity and varying
needs is not a new concept in education, especially special education. Due to this, transition
teams and educators should look at transition within each student’s social sphere of needs, goals,
and postschool desires (Sinclair et al., 2023). When teams work toward building transition plans
for students the factors of poverty and culture cannot be ignored. Diverse experiences and
45
backgrounds should be at the forefront of the planning process for transition teams (Mazzotti et
al., 2021).
Males were more likely to receive Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) services and had
higher odds of obtaining successful employment than female peers (Hartman et al., 2021).
Females were more likely than males to earn college degrees, but females still made less money.
In 2018, females made $0.80 to every dollar a male made (Pham et al., 2020). This gender gap
was again noted when looking at the divide between teenage male and female youth receiving
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) (Hartman et al., 2021). This lends to the idea that more
males are employed in the workforce in some way or another. Students had to fall into a very
specific range of criteria to receive SSI funding which may have skewed the perceived
correlation between males and females receiving monies through the program (Shogren &
Wittenburg, 2020).
According to Pham et al. (2020), when a female had a disability the wage gap grew even
wider. Females with disabilities’ earnings were 72% of men’s average earnings. That means that
women with disabilities made less than men with disabilities, women without disabilities, and
significantly less than men without disabilities (Pham et al., 2020). Due to the income and
earning gap, women with disabilities faced many unique challenges that others may not have
encountered. These barriers to economic stability and career development can hinder females in
having positive postschool outcomes. Though the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is
supposed to protect individuals with disabilities in the workforce, females with disabilities still
may experience unequitable hiring practices, poor training opportunities, and prejudicial
promotion practices. Transition planning that focuses on career self-efficacy, expectations, and
46
goals helps in the career development process and overall postschool outcomes for females with
disabilities (Pham et al., 2020).
Ableism
As defined by the Oregon Department of Ed (n.d.), ableism in the school setting
emphasizes the presence of barriers or unique issues that individuals with disabilities face along
with potential exclusion and discrimination. When looking though a lens of ableism, some
abilities and traits are seen as normal or better while a society-constructed ranking system is used
to determine an individual’s worth (Oregon Department of Ed, n.d.). Ableism is a type of
discrimination that favors able-bodied individuals. When looking at schooling and transition with
the knowledge of ableism, issues in architecture, programming, and expectations are often made
apparent (Sinclair et al., 2023).
After high school, the employment rate for individuals without disabilities was nearly
double that of adults with disabilities (77% versus 37%) (Scott & Shogren, 2023). Due to this,
individuals with disabilities were twice as likely to live in poverty compared to their peers
without disabilities. Individuals with disabilities were twice as likely as individuals without
disabilities to state that they had a family income of $15,000 or less (Carlson et al., 2019).
Students with intellectual and developmental disabilities, were less likely to be employed when
compared to their peers with other disabilities that were perceived as less constraining. The
employment of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities ranged from 18% to
23%. This employment gap was created by policy, economics, and geography (Adams et al.,
2019). This statistic shows that ableist rankings sometimes even existed within the different
disability categories outlined in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
47
Appropriate transition planning is potentially even more important for students with
intellectual disabilities as they will most likely need additional supports and services throughout
their transitions (Jackson, 2021). Historically, disability was viewed through a disease or deficit-
thinking model lens, but recently there have been changes in seeing disability not as a lack of
person but as a lack of the environment being the right fit for the individual. A higher emphasis
has been placed on strengths and strengths-based planning (Wehmeyer et al., 2019). This can be
seen as a better understanding of individuals with disabilities and their needs to be successful in
the workplace. Students just having expectations for themselves increased their likelihood to
have postschool plans and goals (Bouck et al., 2021). Students who had high self-determination
skills typically fared better in the postschool world than those who did not. These students also
typically had increased feelings of hope and empowerment in the high school setting before
exiting (Eastman et al., 2021). Self-determination is considered a best-practice in transition
planning and can certainly promote more positive postschool employment outcomes (Carlson et
al., 2019).
Rural Implications and Access
Living and being educated in rural communities presented its own set of unique barriers
for individuals with disabilities (Francis et al., 2020). Fewer employment opportunities, lack of
resources, higher rates of poverty, and highly qualified teacher recruitment and retention were a
few of the major issues facing rural education. Over the past 20 years, research showed
conclusively that obtaining and maintaining employment in rural areas was more challenging
than other urban locales (Adams et al., 2019). The availability of quality supports and services
varies across communities and regions of the country (Shogren & Wittenburg, 2020). Despite
years of research and changes in legislation, youth with disabilities were still not experiencing
48
outcomes that were directly outlined with their personal aspirations and priorities (Kucharczyket
al., 2021). This trend was exacerbated in the rural setting where 38% of youth with disabilities
resided (Deardorff et al., 2021). Parents of students in rural schools, especially parents of
students with intellectual disabilities, sometimes have a hampered idea of what is available to
their child after graduation. They are not always aware of potential postschool programs and
opportunities so it is the job of the special education teacher and transition team to be sure that
parents and students are informed of their options (Bouck et al., 2021).
Carter et al. (2021), insists that there is awareness that transition planning and preparation
need to be improved in rural communities for the postschool outcomes of students with
disabilities, but the list of potential obstacles remains. Rural communities often have fewer
postsecondary and employment opportunities, limited options for transportation, fewer adult
service providers, smaller school staffs, and different ideas about what life should look like after
high school (Carter et al., 2021). There were issues with school-to-work transitions in rural
settings due to accessibility to financial resources and lack of availability of community support
(Eastman et al., 2021). In many rural communities, various nonprofit agencies designed to
support individuals with disabilities tend to utilize group employment opportunities instead of
individualized experiences. This limits the ability for individuals, especially those with more
involved disabilities such as intellectual disabilities, to be able to make decisions about
employment based on their preferences and desires (Love & Mock, 2019). There are typically
many different players in the transition planning process and everyone views the needs and goals
of a student through a unique lens. Different members of the transition planning team have
diverse ideas and thoughts about how student services should be handled; however, these
49
differences in opinion are also helpful in perceiving and overcoming potential barriers (Plotner et
al., 2017).
Individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities were less likely to be
employed due to several factors: job environment, employer and coworker attitudes,
transportation access, disability benefits, limited opportunities to develop employability skills,
and other broad economic factors (Adams et al., 2019). Transportation was a large issue in rural
communities for individuals with disabilities that limited their ability to get to jobsites or
postsecondary education programs (Love & Mock, 2019). The consistent issues with lack of
resources and transportation, schooling outside of the student’s home community, and
geographic spread of the IEP team members led to major issues with transition planning.
However, some of these issues could be improved by implementing a multidisciplinary transition
team with varying perspectives and knowledge leading to more individualized supports for
students and overall better postsecondary outcomes (Kucharczyket al., 2021).
When thinking about transition holistically and what it means for students, it is important
to acknowledge that each student may take a different path but ultimately the desire was for each
student to be a productive member of society no matter where they lived (Deardorff et al., 2021).
Utilizing the same lens of success and productivity no matter where they were located could be
used when looking at educators in rural schools. Many factors distinguished the challenges faced
in rural school districts from their suburban and urban counterparts (Shultz et al., 2021).
However, no matter where a student resides they require effective intervention from an array of
experts to prepare them for postschool success (Stevenson et al., 2016). There are certain factors
that are imperative to successful postschool transition in the rural setting: collaboration with
50
agencies, student-centered planning, postschool outcome guided instruction, family involvement,
and self-determination skills in students (Eastman et al., 2021).
Deardorff et al. (2021) noted that many special education teachers did not receive a great
deal of instruction on transition practices and planning from their teacher prep programs and this
led to issues in knowledge and understanding of how to support students. More than 30% of rural
special education teachers reported that they did not feel qualified to provide transition services
to their students (Deardorff et al., 2021). However, special education teachers in the middle and
high school settings are tasked with developing and delivering transition related services (Scheef
& McKnight-Lizotte, 2022). Some negative consequences noted in postschool outcomes are
attributed to lack of teacher prep and knowledge. Current research suggests that teachers, in rural
schools particularly, are not developing compliant, high quality transition plans for their students
with disabilities. This is an area of concern because high quality transition plans are a predictor
for postschool success (Deardorff et al., 2021). Interagency collaboration helps when developing
high quality transition plans that meet the needs of students. While collaboration is sometimes
difficult, it is key to ensuring student postschool success. Interagency collaboration became even
more important when the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act 2014 (WIOA) was signed
into effect in 2014 mandating that students with disabilities must be given access to Pre-Early
Transition Services (Pre-ETS) (Eastman et al., 2021). When schools and outside agencies that
were focused on transition-related domains worked together, student outcomes improved
(Plotner et al., 2017).
Many teachers are not familiar with the support provided by outside agencies or the
resources available to them and students (Sprunger et al., 2018). Secondary teachers may have
little knowledge about available transition services and how interagency collaboration can work.
51
This really hinders student success and is why using the support of Vocational Rehabilitation
(VR) counselors and resources is so impactful (Scheef & McKnight-Lizotte, 2022). Sometimes,
members of the transition planning team do not know how to develop partnerships with
businesses in the community to provide job shadowing opportunities to students (McCormick et
al., 2021). This becomes a real issue as many teachers do not know who to talk to about
developing partnerships outside of the school organization. Many teachers do not see these
outside of school connections as being in their purview as often as VR and other service
providers do (Plotner et al., 2017). It is important for teachers to learn who their VR
representatives are and develop relationships with them to support students. The same is true for
business owners and other community-based agencies and leaders (Eastman et al., 2021).
Community and Work-Based Learning Impact
Equipping students with disabilities to enter the workforce is a very important aspect of
transition planning and special education (Mamun et al., 2018). Career researchers have stated
that adolescence is a time in which students should be exploring career pathways through
structured activities so that they can begin formulating their vocational and career identities
(Kern et al., 2023). The idea of work-based learning and on the job experiences have really
helped build transition planning into what it is today (Wehmeyer et al., 2019). When student
opinions were assessed, most indicated that work-based learning and career exploration were
important to them. Early employment and experiential opportunities seem to be elusive to many
students with disabilities. Employment outcomes are disappointing for almost every disability
category served under IDEA in the first 8 years after graduating high school (Mamun et al.,
2018).
52
Providing students with on the job training and real work experience is very important
and has shown to be directly correlated to positive postschool outcomes; however, many students
with disabilities struggle with employment opportunities when compared to their same age peers
without disabilities (McCormick et al., 2021). Career-technical education (CTE) can help with
some of these employment issues and provides students with opportunities to explore career
clusters first hand. By participating in CTE, students with disabilities tend to experience more
positive postschool outcomes than their peers with disabilities who do not participate (Mazzotti
et al., 2021). Allowing students to follow and expand their interests in a certain career area
cluster helps them determine what they might want to do after high school. This career area of
choice is not something that is set in stone, as students may change their minds and interest areas
as they are exposed to more opportunities (Eastman et al., 2021).
Harvey et al. (2020) stated that while there was a strong correlation between postschool
success and the level of career-technical education provided to students with disabilities, these
opportunities were still often limited. More students with disabilities are participating in career-
technical education (CTE) programming than ever before, but participation and inclusion does
seem to vary across states and regions (Harvey et al., 2020). Lack of exposure to and experiences
with CTE was very evident in students with extensive support needs (Carlson et al., 2019). CTE
programs are considered an evidence-based practice that schools can use when developing
transition plans for students and they are also identified as very positive indicators for postschool
success (Clavenna-Deane & Coates, 2022). Career-technical education has a great potential to
improve employment and post-secondary outcomes for students with disabilities in the coming
year (Harvey et al., 2020). Students with specific learning disabilities (SLD) who attained some
type of CTE in the high school setting had a higher chance of employment after graduation
53
(Scheef & McKnight-Lizotte, 2022). Transition assessments can be used to help students and
transition teams identify courses of study that will help prepare students for postsecondary goals
(Rowe et al., 2015). When students were provided with training and work experience in settings
that mirrored or were similar to the settings they would be in after graduating, postschool
outcomes were improved. Transition programs need to be real, meaningful, and effective for
students (Sprunger et al., 2018). There is a direct correlation between students who had
community-based work experiences during high school and positive adult outcomes in the job
force (McCormick et al., 2021).
Pre-Employment Transition Services (Pre-ETS) helps support students with disabilities
and their families through a sustained, family-focused case management system where the needs
of students are the focus of conversations between the school and state Vocational Rehabilitation
(VR) programs (McCormick et al., 2021). Inclusion and utilization of VR programs was very
impactful when looking at positive employment outcomes for students with extensive support
needs after high school (Carlson et al., 2019). Pre-ETS is another avenue that students with
disabilities can take to gain important skills and elevate their employability among their peers.
(Carter et al., 2021). These supports and services provide students, especially students with more
involved disabilities, opportunities for employment-based experiences that help in developing
better postschool outcomes (Love & Mock, 2019). Teaching and developing basic life skills and
independence is very important when looking at student postschool success (Sprunger et al.,
2018). Parents and families need to also be involved in this conversation as they assist in honing
these skills outside of the school setting and holding their children to higher expectations (Cmar
et al., 2018). High expectations created by the school and family are potentially even more
important when serving students with extensive support needs (Carlson et al., 2019).
54
Collaborative practices are key when developing proper Pre-ETS programming for students and
their postschool outcomes. Strong collaboration among the schools, communities, and families of
students are seen as best practice and lead to better adult outcomes for students with disabilities
(Schutz et al.., 2021). Teachers and planning teams can collaborate and become more aware of
student needs related to skills and communication in various settings (Stevenson et al., 2016).
Postschool Outcomes
Poor postschool outcomes for individuals with disabilities are a common issue that
infiltrate all areas of life after graduation (Stevenson et al., 2016). Postschool outcomes are
founded on the concepts of furthering education, employability, and independence. All of these
highlight the importance of transition planning within the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA) (Deardorff et al., 2021). Students wanting to become independent is almost
considered a rite of passage as they get older (Bouck & Chamberlain, 2017). Through this
independence was the ability for students to develop and attain career aspirations as studies have
shown that early career attainment and success was an indicator for more positive later life
mental health outcomes. This was especially true for females (Pham et al., 2020). Postschool
planning and outcomes have become increasingly important for all students, especially students
with disabilities. Yet, given the importance pressed upon the subject, recent studies have
suggested that students with disabilities were not attaining employment or acceptance into
postsecondary schooling at the same rate as their peers (Harvey et al., 2020). Preparing students
with disabilities for postsecondary schooling is seen as an important piece of the puzzle when
looking at postschool outcomes such as competitive employment and independent living (Petcu
et al., 2017).
55
Middle and high school is a critical period for students to begin developing the abilities,
experiences, and networks they will need later in life (Schutz et al., 2021). Students with
disabilities are falling behind their peers without disabilities as they transition into adulthood.
This is especially true in postsecondary schooling and employment (Shogren & Wittenburg,
2020). Heightened levels of school engagement (through cognitive, behavioral, and social-
emotional acknowledgements) have also been directly correlated to improved postschool
outcomes such as earning a high school diploma and enrolling in some type of postsecondary
schooling (Trainor et al., 2023). However, it is important to note that not all students with
disabilities leave high school with a regular education diploma. In fact, in 2009, 80% of students
with disabilities between the ages of 18 and 24 did not (Prince et al., 2018).
Overall high school graduation rates are at the highest level in United States history, but
students with disabilities graduation rates are still lagging (Sprunger et al., 2018). When thinking
about student success upon graduating high school, it is critical that a heavy focus be placed on
each student’s postsecondary prospects and goals (Stevenson et al., 2016). Relevant work
experience and meeting student-identified goals in transition planning showed a correlation to
improved graduation rate and postschool outcomes (McCormick et al., 2021). Early work
experience also played a crucial role in postschool employment outcomes for youth with
disabilities (Cmar et al., 2018). Students with disabilities are below their peers when it comes to
postsecondary schooling, employment rates, and independent living; however, improvements in
these areas have been seen with programming and a shift in focus (Bouck & Chamberlain, 2017).
Transition assessments are used to help students determine what type of postsecondary
education or employment they want to seek, where or who they want to live with, what kind of
supports they may need to be successful, and what their postsecondary goals are (Rowe et al.,
56
2015). During the transition planning and assessment process, there is also a focus placed on
ensuring students are not experiencing barriers in the domains of education, independent living,
or employment. To avoid this, teachers or support staff can provide resources, information, and
guidance to meet the needs of the learner and family being served (McCormick et al., 2021).
Continuing Education
Attainment of some type of postsecondary schooling or training has been found to
improve life outcomes for students with disabilities (Prince et al., 2018). Having postschool
goals related to postsecondary education developed with family input has been found to increase
the likelihood of postsecondary schooling enrollment (Carlson et al., 2019). Enrollment in
postsecondary education programs provides students with a well-paved pathway to financial
independence and a successful career (Scheef & McKnight-Lizotte, 2022). The benefits of
postsecondary schooling for students with disabilities are well documented, but these students
enrolled in programs at much lower rates than their peers (Petcu et al., 2017). There were
substantial gaps between students with disabilities and those without enrolling in a higher
education program and earning a bachelor’s degree (Mazzotti et al., 2021). According to
previously collected data, 60% of individuals with disabilities enrolled in some type of
postsecondary schooling compared to 67% of individuals without disabilities. This percentage
changed even more when looking at completers where 41% of individuals with disabilities
completed a postsecondary education program compared to 52% of their peers without
disabilities (Stevenson et al., 2016).
When transition teams are developing plans to meet the needs of the student who is
interested in attending a postsecondary education program, they look at improving student self-
determination skills and designing attainable postsecondary goals (Petcu et al., 2017). With
57
improved self-determination skills, learners are more apt in making decisions about their
learning and life outcomes (Wehmeyer et al., 2019). Involvement in some type of Vocational
Rehabilitation (VR) programming or support helped increase the likelihood of student success as
well (Scheef & McKnight-Lizotte, 2022). Students who received some type of support through
VR were more likely to gain employment and stay employed longer than students who did not
(Cmar et al., 2018). Schools using the inclusion model for delivering services has also provided a
unique advantage to students with disabilities. Students with specific learning disabilities (SLD)
that spent at least 80% of their days in the general education classroom with peers without
disabilities were twice as likely to enroll in some type of postsecondary schooling opportunity
than their peers spending less time in such a setting (McNaught & Pope, 2022). There is
evidence that suggests that students with disabilities who had access to the general education
curriculum through inclusive settings had more positive postschool transition outcomes than
their peers who did not (Carlson et al., 2019).
Based on collected census data, 88% of college grads and 77% of those with some
college were employed as compared with 69% of non-college graduates (Trainor et al., 2019).
Individuals with disabilities that had earned a bachelor’s degree were 3 times less likely to be
employed compared to their peers without disabilities (Mazzotti et al., 2021). College or
postsecondary schooling graduates earned up to 80% more than students who just received a
high school diploma (McNaught & Pope, 2022). Research shows that employment promotes
access to social, health, and community participation for individuals with disabilities thus
avoiding poverty (Adams et al., 2019). Students with disabilities have historically experienced
the feeling of being outcasts in school, diminished personal perceptions, and lack of transition or
life-applicable knowledge (Kern et al., 2023). These are all things that transition planning looks
58
to improve which can lead to improved postschool outcomes for students. Students who attended
some type of postsecondary schooling also had a higher quality of life than their peers who did
not further their education after high school (McNaught & Pope, 2022).
Many students have a desire to attend a postsecondary institution or be involved in some
type of postsecondary schooling, but they have often faced issues with limited knowledge,
inadequate skills, or a lack of mindset to meet their goals (Newman, 2022). There are many
factors that influence college attendance for students with disabilities such as parental education
level, socioeconomic status, gender, and race or ethnicity (Petcu et al., 2017). According to
recent data, students with disabilities were less likely to attend some type of postsecondary
schooling or workforce training than their peers without disabilities (Jackson, 2021). However,
students with disabilities that graduated with a regular education diploma were more likely than
their peers who received special education or modified program diplomas to attend at least one
semester of higher education schooling (Prince et al., 2018).
According to data, students with specific learning disabilities (SLD) attended vocational,
technical, and 2-year community college programs more than their peers without disabilities
which was greater than students in other disability categories (Scheef & McKnight-Lizotte,
2022). However, many students with SLDs reported difficulty in performing the required
behaviors to successfully obtain a postsecondary degree. There are several barriers that
influenced their struggles: limited access to college-preparatory classes in high school, low
expectations, and limited academic focused instruction (McNaught & Pope, 2022). Though they
may have faced difficulties, students with specific learning disabilities made up the largest
proportion of students with disabilities that attended college (Newman et al., 2019).
59
According to Harvey et al. (2020), individually perceived outcomes for students with
disabilities lagged when compared to their same age peers without disabilities in postschool
education. Statistics showed that 76% of youth with disabilities expected to enroll in some type
of postsecondary schooling while 94% of their peers without disabilities planned to do the same
(Harvey et al., 2020). In 2017, 48% of students with disabilities enrolled in a 4-year
college/university, 26% enrolled in a 2-year college, and 1% enrolled in technical school. It was
also important to note that just attending some type of postsecondary school was not enough.
Students needed to finish the program for the true impact to be seen. Studies showed that
students who completed some type of postsecondary education program had greater life
outcomes and success than their peers who simply attended a postsecondary program (Petcu et
al., 2017). According Carter et al. (2021), Tennessee specific research stated that less time was
spent focusing on postsecondary schooling options for students with disabilities. Partially this
was due to proximity to college and other training programs, but the decreased likelihood of any
rural resident earning a college degree compared to individuals in urban or suburban areas was a
sizeable factor as well (Carter et al., 2021).
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act
Amendments Act of 2008, and civil rights laws have given students the opportunity to disclose
their disability and receive supports and services in the college setting (Jackson, 2021). The shift
in responsibility of the legal framework of academic support from the school to the student
sometimes proves to be difficult for students needing support to navigate the postsecondary
schooling system (Newman et al., 2019). Students enrolled in some type of postsecondary
education program are also entitled to supports if they disclosed their disability; unfortunately,
many students who need supports do not do this leading to academic and social struggles (Bouck
60
& Chamberlain, 2017). Disclosure of a disability in the postsecondary setting is completely
optional for individuals, but not doing so limits the supports and services available to the learner
(Newman et al., 2019). Over 50% of students with disabilities who attended postsecondary
education programs decided that they did not have the identified disability by the time they
enrolled in the program or just declined to disclose it (Bouck & Chamberlain, 2017). Many of
these issues can be contributed to low levels of self-advocacy as students do not disclose
disabilities or seek other avenues of support (Madaus et al., 2021). In looking at services from a
national scale, 98% of students with disabilities received accommodations in the high school
setting while only 24% of students with disabilities utilized supports in the postsecondary school
setting. Transition teams and teachers need to ensure that students with disabilities who were
planning to attend a postsecondary school of some type know that supports were available and
teach them how to navigate receiving those supports (Newman et al., 2019). Students with
disabilities who choose to attend college can improve their outcomes by developing strong self-
advocacy skills, building relationships with faculty and staff, and having positive interactions
with on-campus supports (Carlson et al., 2020).
There were low rates of self-disclosure of a disability at the postsecondary level for
students with disabilities and this may have been directly correlated to lower completion rates
(Newman et al., 2019). Findings showed that students who received components of transition
planning during high school were more likely to get supports for their disclosed disability in 2-
year colleges and technical education schools than their peers who did not have such supports
(Jackson, 2021). The same was true for students who had a well-developed transition plan that
outlined optional postsecondary accommodations and potential supports (Newman et al., 2019).
Planning for these potential postsecondary needs can be addressed with students with disabilities
61
by giving them the opportunity to guide the writing of their own summary of performance (SOP)
which outlines student strengths, needs, and accommodations (Carlson et al., 2020). Completion
of the SOP is outlined by IDEA once a student graduates or ages out of services. It provides a
summary of a student’s past performance and potential upcoming needs by requiring a summary
of their academic achievement, functional performance, and recommendations on how to help
them meet their postsecondary goals (Prince et al., 2018).
Employability
According to Wehmeyer et al. (2019), individuals entering the workforce should expect
to occupy at least 10 jobs over their lifetime. This large number of jobs was due to a volatile and
ever-changing economy that makes it difficult to make a lifetime commitment to one employer.
Youth with disabilities in the United States have a desire to work. More than 95% of students
with disabilities, ages 15 and older, expected to have a paid job by the time they are 30 years old
(Carter et al., 2021). This desire to work was evident in the data that indicated that 73% of
students with disabilities reported that they were employed after exiting high school; however,
only 58% were employed full time (Bouck & Park, 2018). Many students with disabilities have
well-developed postschool goals; however, they often struggle with attaining those goals and
desires due to low aspiration and self-doubt (Newman, 2022). In 2015, the unemployment rate in
the United States was 10.7% for individuals with disabilities compared to 5.1% for individuals
without disabilities (Prince et al., 2018). Students who graduated with a regular high school
diploma were more likely than their peers who received a special education diploma, another
type of modified certificate, or dropped out of school to be competitively employed (Prince et al.,
2018).
62
Though there is a desire to work and attain career success, many students with disabilities
struggle to navigate the transition from high school to the workplace successfully (Carter et al.,
2021). This struggle is even greater for students with more severe disabilities such as intellectual
disabilities (ID). Students with IDs typically had lower rates of postschool success when
compared to their peers in other disability categories (Bouck & Chamberlain, 2017). In 2016, the
United States employment rate for individuals with IDs between the ages of 21 and 60 was
26.4% (Love & Mock, 2019). Studies suggested that students with specific learning disabilities
(SLD) had the greatest success in postschool life and they were more likely than students with
intellectual disabilities and emotional disturbances to be competitively employed in the
workforce (Prince et al., 2018). While the outlook seems better for students with SLDs, all of the
news is not positive. Students with SLDs are typically enrolled in classes similar to those of their
same age peers without disabilities but they usually experience worse postschool outcomes
(Scheef & McKnight-Lizotte, 2022).
The discrepancy that is shown in the employability of students with disabilities is
alarming given the efforts made over the years for increased transition planning and high-quality
practices (Hennessey et al., 2023). It has been recognized in national policies and current
legislation that there are substantive contributions that a good job could add to a person’s quality
of life, community involvement, and self-worth; however, underemployment and unemployment
still characterize many students with disabilities postschool outcomes (Mamun et al., 2018). In
2020, the rate of unemployment for all students exiting high school was 14.6% and this
percentage was even greater for students with disabilities. Students with autism were typically at
a greater risk of being unemployed than students with other identified disabilities at a rate of
50% (Eastman et al., 2021).
63
Many of the barriers faced by individuals with disabilities and their success in the
workforce were related to their inability or unwillingness to inform employers of their disability
or any accommodations they might have required (Newman, 2022). Many times, the transition
from a dependent life to an independent life after high school proved to be a difficult and
stressful one for students with disabilities. Recent studies showed that within 4 years of
graduating 57% of young adults with disabilities were gainfully employed outside of the home.
This percentage was even less for those with autism, intellectual disabilities, or multiple
disabilities (Ressa, 2016). Students with autism often had a difficult time maintaining
employment and, if they were employed, worked fewer hours and earned less money than their
peers without autism (Eastman et al., 2021). Issues with employment and staying employed may
stem from the lack of support students feel while in the workforce. Students often go from
having many given supports when in school to having to request those supports in the workplace
(Shogren & Wittenburg, 2020).
Most students plan to enter the work world upon graduating high school. This may be due
to the perceived wider expanse of choices available to students outside of the school setting
(Wagner & Blackorby, 1996). Though the choices may be there, many students struggle with
gaining and maintaining employment. There are many factors that help or hinder an individual’s
employability. Students with disabilities that had little to no issue when communicating with
others were four times more likely to obtain postschool employment when compared to their
peers with disabilities and difficulties in communication (Stevenson et al., 2016). Students with
disabilities did have a desire to be employed and contribute to their communities in some way;
however, they often felt unprepared for paid employment (Love & Mock, 2019).
64
Chapter Summary
The overall goal for all students, with and without disabilities, as they move into
adulthood was to become self-sufficient and learn to be their own independent person (Love &
Mock, 2019). Being employed and living independently is the presumed goal for adult-life
success for every postschool student (Bouck & Chamberlain, 2017). Due to some of the gaps
seen in postschool outcomes for individuals with and without disabilities, students may not be
accessing or receiving necessary transition services while in school (Mazzotti et al., 2021).
Individuals with disabilities are much less likely than their peers without disabilities to say that
they were very satisfied with their lives (Carlson et al., 2019). Much of this is attributed to poorer
postschool outcomes relating to education, employment, or independence.
Much of the research surrounding transition planning and postschool outcomes for
students with disabilities has focused on improving in-school supports and transition services
offered to students with disabilities. This focus has been brought about from many years of poor
postschool outcomes for students with disabilities when compared with their same age peers.
Laws such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) supports transition services
for students throughout high school. Focus has been placed on developing goals and supports to
meet those goals (National Center for Education Evaluation, 2018). The Workforce Innovation
and Opportunity Act (WIOA), focuses on the provision of Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) and
Pre-Employment Transition Services (Pre-ETS) services. By providing students with services
outside of school, schools will be able to graduate students with more on-the-job work
experience and knowledge (McCormick et al., 2021). Perkins IV was related to the provision of
career-technical education (CTE) for all students, but the emphasis given to students with
65
disabilities was impactful (Harvey et al., 2020). All in all, these laws work together to support
students in ways that will help them to be successful in life beyond high school.
Students with disabilities tend to have poorer postschool outcomes than their same age
peers without disabilities (Plotner et al., 2017). Often times, this is due to lack of support and
services provided to them during the transition process. Many schools, especially rural schools,
seem to struggle with implementing valid and helpful transition plans for students with
disabilities (Deardorff et al., 2021). Poor transition planning not only affects students during high
school, but the impact is felt years into adulthood. Much of the planning and preparation that
takes place in the school setting directly correlates to postschool and life success for students
with disabilities by affecting their chances of obtaining more education, living independently, or
obtaining meaningful employment (Scott & Shogren, 2023).
66
Chapter 3. Methodology
The purpose of this quantitative study was to examine if there is a significant difference
in postschool outcomes for students with disabilities who received supports through different
service delivery methods in the high school setting. The study adds to the research and literature
around transition from high school to postschool life for students with disabilities with a focus on
employability and further education. For the purpose of this study, Indicator 14 surveys that were
completed by high school graduates from 2023 and 2020 who were served under the special
education umbrella were used as the primary data. Indicator 14 surveys ask students if they have
been enrolled in higher education and/or competitively employed within the year since leaving
high school as well as other questions related to the these. These data were then compared by the
different types of special education services students received while in high school. The data
were collected by the selected school district through surveys administered to students who had
received special education services while in high school. The surveys were given to students 1
year after they graduated high school to attain an understanding of student postschool outcomes
in employability and furtherance of education.
Research Questions and Null Hypotheses
The study tests the overall hypothesis that there is a positive relationship between student
postschool outcomes and the level of special education support they received in high school.
Results from Indicator 14 survey data collected by one rural school district were used to evaluate
special education service delivery models used in comparison to postschool outcomes for
students with disabilities. The data from this survey were used to address the following
questions:
67
Research Question 1: Is there a significant relationship between the postschool outcome of
further education (yes or no) for students with disabilities and the type of special education
services (consultation or direct services) they received while in high school?
H
0
1: There is no significant relationship between the postschool outcome of further
education (yes or no) for students with disabilities and the type of special
education services they received (consultation or direct services) while in high school.
Research Question 2: Is there a significant relationship between the postschool outcome of
employability (yes or no) for students with disabilities and the type of special education services
(consultation or direct services) they received while in high school?
H
0
2: There is no significant relationship between the postschool outcome of
employability (yes or no) for students with disabilities and the type of special education
services they received (consultation or direct services) while in high school.
Research Question 3: Is there a significant relationship between the postschool outcome of
further education (yes or no) for students with disabilities and the IDEA disability category under
which they received services in high school (specific learning disabilities or all other
disabilities)?
H
0
3: There is no significant relationship between the postschool outcome of further
education (yes or no) for students with disabilities and the IDEA disability category
under which they received services in high school (specific learning disabilities or all
other disabilities).
Research Question 4: Is there a significant relationship between the postschool outcome of
employability (yes or no) for students with disabilities and the IDEA disability category under
68
which they received services in high school (specific learning disabilities or all other
disabilities)?
H
0
4: There is no significant relationship between the postschool outcome of
employability (yes or no) for students with disabilities and the IDEA disability category
under which they received services in high school (specific learning disabilities or all
other disabilities).
Research Question 5: Is there a significant relationship between the postschool outcome of
further education (yes or no) for students with disabilities and the IDEA disability category under
which they received services in high school (other health impairments or all other disabilities)?
H
0
5: There is no significant relationship between the postschool outcome of further
education (yes or no) for students with disabilities and the IDEA disability category
under which they received services in high school (other health impairments or all other
disabilities).
Research Question 6: Is there a significant relationship between the postschool outcome of
employability (yes or no) for students with disabilities and the IDEA disability category under
which they received services in high school (other health impairments or all other disabilities)?
H
0
6: There is no significant relationship between the postschool outcome of
employability (yes or no) for students with disabilities and the IDEA disability category
under which they received services in high school (other health impairments or all other
disabilities).
Research Question 7: Is there a significant relationship between the type of special education
services (consultation or direct services) students with disabilities received while in high school
69
and the manner in which they exited high school (general education diploma or special education
diploma/alternate academic diploma/dropout)?
H
0
7: There is no significant relationship between the type of special education services
(consultation or direct services) students with disabilities received while in high school
and the manner in which they exited high school (general education diploma or special
education diploma/alternate academic diploma/dropout).
Research Question 8: Is there a significant relationship between the postschool outcome of
further education (yes or no) for students with disabilities and the manner in which they exited
high school (general education diploma or special education diploma/alternate academic
diploma/dropout)?
H
0
8: There is no significant relationship between the postschool outcome of further
education (yes or no) for students with disabilities and the manner in which they exited
high school (general education diploma or special education diploma/alternate academic
diploma/dropout)?
Research Question 9: Is there a significant relationship between the postschool outcome of
employability (yes or no) for students with disabilities and the manner in which they exited high
school (general education diploma or special education diploma/alternate academic
diploma/dropout)?
H
0
9: There is no significant relationship between the postschool outcome of
employability (yes or no) for students with disabilities and the manner in which they
exited high school (general education diploma or special education diploma/alternate
academic diploma/dropout)?
70
Population and Sample
The data used in the study were collected from Indicator 14 surveys. Per past guidelines
set forth by the state, because school system chosen has fewer than 50,000 students, Indicator 14
surveys were only completed once every 4 years. However, guidelines have changed and from
2024 on, Indicator 14 surveys will be collected yearly by every school system no matter the size.
The data used in this study are from 2024 (2023 graduates) and 2021 (2020 graduates). The
study originally planned to use data collected from 2017 (2016 graduates) as well, but the data
was no longer accessible by the district. The data from 2017 was taken by a past Director of
Special Education and the state ePlan did not reflect those findings in a useable way. It is also
important to mention that the data collected in 2021 based off of the outcomes for the 2020
graduates was said to reflect no negative effects from the COVID-19 pandemic. The state of
Tennessee said that the survey was conducted over the phone so there was no hinderance in
collecting and applying the data. The Indicator 14 survey data used included students served
under 6 of the 13 disability categories outlined by the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act. All students surveyed graduated from the same high school, which is the only high school in
this school district. The school is a public, rural high school with approximately 1,200 students in
grades 9-12. From the years of Indicator 14 data collection used in this study, the average size of
the graduating class was 267 with around 36 students with disabilities receiving some type of
special education services.
This school district was selected for the study because of their willingness to share data,
the rural setting, and the structure of special education programming. The population included
students with disabilities who received special education services through either consultation or
direct services while in high school. Purposeful sampling was utilized and the sample was
71
comprised of students who completed the voluntary Indicator 14 survey that was developed by
the state of Tennessee and administered by phone by the local school district.
Instrumentation
Per the State Performance Plan (SPP) for Tennessee, data related to postschool outcomes
for students with disabilities was collected through an Indicator 14 survey. The survey is given to
students with disabilities, who were served under an Individualized Education Plan, 1 year after
they graduate high school. The survey given in Tennessee focuses on whether students have been
competitively employed since graduating high school and/or enrolled in some type of
postsecondary schooling or training. Students are asked to identify which category best describes
them based on their time since exiting high school and select it on the survey. The survey was
introduced by the United States Department of Education to collect data relating to postschool
outcomes and transition planning for students with disabilities. Though roughly outlined by the
federal government, each state has the prerogative to customize the survey and adapt questions to
meet the needs of the state. The importance of the survey is to gain an understanding of what
students with disabilities are doing after graduating from high school and to assess the
performance of local school district and states on preparing students for postschool life.
The Indicator 14 survey is utilized nationwide but survey questions are written by each
state to meet specific regional needs. The collected data are used to improve transition planning
practices for students with disabilities. The survey questions in Tennessee are related to student
employment, additional student training and schooling, or both of these things within the past
year. The full survey is available in Appendices A.
72
Data Collection
Prior to reviewing the data provided by the school district’s Indicator 14 surveys,
approval of the study was granted by the East Tennessee State University Institutional Review
Board (IRB). A data sharing agreement was put in place between East Tennessee State
University, the school district, and myself before access to the data was given. All student
identifying information was removed to protect participants and comply with federal law
regarding students with disabilities.
All data utilized had been collected through the Indicator 14 survey (from 2024 and
2021) that was developed by the state of Tennessee and the given by phone to students by the
school district. Students who are no longer in high school but had an IEP at the time of their exit
from high school took part in the voluntary survey. The survey is administered by phone based
on the contact information that the school district has on file for the students. Students, parents,
or other legal guardians can respond to the survey questions regarding the student. Responses to
the surveys are noted individually on paper and the data is then assessed by the special education
department of the district and inputted into the state database where it will be used to develop
goals and plans for future program planning. Previously, school districts with fewer than 50,000
students were only required to complete Indicator 14 surveys every 4 years. For school districts
with more than 50,000 students, the survey had to be conducted yearly. The school district used
in this study only collected responses every 4 years until 2024. As of 2024, all school districts in
Tennessee will be completing the Indicator 14 surveys yearly no matter enrollment.
I was given access to the Indicator 14 survey results and related student data by the
school district via an Excel file. Prior to being given access to the data, a Data Use Agreement
was signed by the Director of Schools of the district that outlined the need for and use of the
73
data. The Indicator 14 data is housed in an Excel spreadsheet that is broken down by survey
questions and student information. The Indicator 14 survey responses came from students with
disabilities who graduated from high school in 2023 and 2020. The Excel sheet included the
types of special education services students received while in high school, their identified
disability category, and the type of diploma they received.
Data Analysis
Data were analyzed using the SPSS statistical analysis software to determine the
statistical significance of the data provided from the Indicator 14 survey and the school district.
A series of chi-squared tests were used to examine the relationship between the categorical
postschool outcomes and demographic data provided by the Indicator 14 survey and the school
district. All data were analyzed at the .05 level of significance.
Chapter Summary
This chapter provides information about the methodology used to inform and frame the
research of this study. The data utilized in this study were previously collected through the
Indicator 14 survey. Using previously collected data relating to postschool outcomes for students
with disabilities and comparing it to the type of special education services students received
while in high school provided the findings for this study. Chapter 4 presents the findings of the
analyses.
74
Chapter 4. Findings
The purpose of this quantitative study was to examine if there is a significant difference
in postschool outcomes (employability and/or further schooling) for students with disabilities
who received supports through different service delivery methods (direct services or
consultation) in the high school setting. I utilized responses to the Indicator 14 survey from 2024
and 2021 by students who had graduated from high school while receiving some type of special
education supports and services. Survey data was not collected in the years between 2024 and
2021. Also, survey data from the years before 2021 was unusable due to changes in the survey
and procedure. The Indicator 14 surveys consisted of questions that required students to reflect
on their time since graduating high school the year previous. The main focus of the surveys is
employment and further schooling or training.
The Indicator 14 survey is a voluntary screener utilized by school districts and the state of
Tennessee to assess outcomes for students with disabilities one year after graduating. From the
2024 and 2021 collection years, there were 39 responses from students or their families received
by the school district. Students who were asked to complete the survey graduated within the past
year and were receiving special education supports while enrolled in high school. For these
Indicator 14 responses, I looked for relationships between the types of services students received
and their postschool outcomes. I also looked at student disability categories and the outcomes
they experienced.
In this chapter, I present the data from the analysis of my 9 research questions to test the
9 corresponding null hypotheses. I utilized SPSS to conduct chi-squared tests at a .05 level of
significance for each question. Following are the findings of the data analysis for each research
question and the null hypotheses.
75
Research Question 1
Research Question 1: Is there a significant relationship between the postschool outcome
of further education (yes or no) for students with disabilities and the type of special education
services (consultation or direct services) they received while in high school?
H
0
1: There is no significant relationship between the postschool outcome of further
education (yes or no) for students with disabilities and the type of special
education services they received (consultation or direct services) while in high school.
A two-way contingency table analysis was conducted to evaluate the relationship
between further schooling for students with disabilities and the type of special education services
they received while in high school. Students received special education services through direct
support or through consultation. The type of services students received was the independent
variable while their enrollment in a postsecondary program was the dependent variable. The chi-
squared test indicated a significant relationship between the variables, Pearson X
2
(1, N = 39) =
4.744, p = .029, Cramer’s V = .349. Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected. Students who
received consultation services were significantly more likely to attend some type of
postsecondary education program than students who received direct services. Figure 1 displays
the number of students who attended some type of postsecondary program in relation to the
special education services they received while in high school.
76
Figure 1
Students Who Attended Some Type of Postsecondary Program in Relation to Special Education
Services Received
Research Question 2
Research Question 2: Is there a significant relationship between the postschool outcome
of employability (yes or no) for students with disabilities and the type of special education
services (consultation or direct services) they received while in high school?
H
0
2: There is no significant relationship between the postschool outcome of
employability (yes or no) for students with disabilities and the type of special education services
they received (consultation or direct services) while in high school.
A two-way contingency table analysis was conducted to evaluate the relationship
between employment of students with disabilities and the type of special education services they
received while in high school. Students received special education services through direct
77
support or through consultation. The type of services students received was the independent
variable while being employed was the dependent variable. The chi-squared test indicated there
was not a significant relationship between the variables, Pearson X
2
(1, N = 39) = .277, p = .634,
Cramer’s V = .076. Therefore, the null hypothesis was retained. Students who received
consultation services were not significantly more likely to be employed than students who
received direct services. Figure 2 displays the number of students who were employed in relation
to the special education services they received while in high school.
Figure 2
Students Employed in Relation to Special Education Services Received
Research Question 3
Research Question 3: Is there a significant relationship between the postschool outcome
of further education (yes or no) for students with disabilities and the IDEA disability category
78
under which they received services in high school (specific learning disabilities or all other
disabilities)?
H
0
3: There is no significant relationship between the postschool outcome of further
education (yes or no) for students with disabilities and the IDEA disability category under which
they received services in high school (specific learning disabilities or all other disabilities).
A two-way contingency table analysis was conducted to evaluate the relationship
between further education for students with disabilities and the disability category under which
they were served while in high school. The disability categories were separated into students
who had a specific learning disability (SLD) and those with all other disabilities. The disability
categories were separated into students who had specific learning disabilities (SLD) and those
with all other disabilities. SLD was selected as an area to assess due to the implications that
many students with various learning disabilities may face when looking at postsecondary
enrollment and employability. The other disabilities in the all other disabilities category included
other health impairments, autism, intellectual disability, language impairment, and orthopedic
impairment. The disability category under which students were served was the independent
variable while their enrollment in a postsecondary program was the dependent variable. The chi-
squared test indicated there was a significant relationship between the variables, Pearson X
2
(1, N
= 39) = 10.029, p = .002, Cramer’s V = .507. Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected.
Students who were identified as having a specific learning disability were significantly more
likely attend some type of postsecondary education program than students who were served
under all other disability categories to. Figure 3 displays the number of students who were
enrolled in a postsecondary program in relation to the disability category (SLD or all others) they
were served under while in high school.
79
Figure 3
Students Enrolled in a Postsecondary Program in Relation to Disability Category
Research Question 4
Research Question 4: Is there a significant relationship between the postschool outcome
of employability (yes or no) for students with disabilities and the IDEA disability category under
which they received services in high school (specific learning disabilities or all other
disabilities)?
H
0
4: There is no significant relationship between the postschool outcome of
employability (yes or no) for students with disabilities and the IDEA disability category under
which they received services in high school (specific learning disabilities or all other
disabilities).
A two-way contingency table analysis was conducted to evaluate the relationship
between employment for students with disabilities and the disability category under which they
80
were served while in high school. The disability categories were separated into students who had
a specific learning disability (SLD) and those with all other disabilities. SLD was selected as an
area to assess due to the implications that many students with various learning disabilities may
face when looking at postsecondary enrollment and employability. The other disabilities in the
all other disabilities category included other health impairments, autism, intellectual disability,
language impairment, and orthopedic impairment. The disability category under which students
were served was the independent variable while their enrollment in a postsecondary program was
the dependent variable. The chi-squared test indicated there was a higher relationship between
the variables but it was not significant, Pearson X
2
(1, N = 39) = 3.548, p = .060, Cramer’s V =
.302. Therefore, the null hypothesis was retained. Students who were identified as having a
specific learning disability were not significantly more likely to be employed than students who
were served under all other disability categories. Figure 4 displays the number of students who
were employed in relation to the disability category (SLD or all others) they were served under
while in high school.
81
Figure 4
Students Employed in Relation to Disability Category
Research Question 5
Research Question 5: Is there a significant relationship between the postschool outcome
of further education (yes or no) for students with disabilities and the IDEA disability category
under which they received services in high school (other health impairments or all other
disabilities)?
H
0
5: There is no significant relationship between the postschool outcome of further
education (yes or no) for students with disabilities and the IDEA disability category under which
they received services in high school (other health impairments or all other disabilities).
A two-way contingency table analysis was conducted to evaluate the relationship
between further education for students with disabilities and the disability category under which
they were served while in high school. The disability categories were separated into students
82
who had other health impairments (OHI) and those with all other disabilities. The disability
categories were separated into students who had other health impairments (OHI) and those with
all other disabilities. The OHI category was comprised mostly of students with attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) which is common for students receiving services under the OHI
category. OHI was selected as an additional area to assess due to the implications that many
students with ADHD face when looking at postsecondary enrollment and employability. The
other disabilities in the all other disabilities category included specific learning disabilities,
autism, intellectual disability, language impairment, and orthopedic impairment. The disability
category under which students were served was the independent variable while their employment
was the dependent variable. The chi-squared test indicated there was not a significant
relationship between the variables, Pearson X
2
(1, N = 39) = 1.433, p = .231, Cramer’s V = .192.
Therefore, this means that the null hypothesis was retained. Students who were identified as
having other health impairments were not significantly more likely to attend some type of
postsecondary education program than students who were served under all other disability
categories. Figure 5 displays the number of students who were enrolled in a postsecondary
program in relation to the disability category (OHI or all others) they were served under while in
high school.
83
Figure 5
Students Enrolled in a Postsecondary Program in Relation to Disability Category
Research Question 6
Research Question 6: Is there a significant relationship between the postschool outcome
of employability (yes or no) for students with disabilities and the IDEA disability category under
which they received services in high school (other health impairments or all other disabilities)?
H
0
6: There is no significant relationship between the postschool outcome of
employability (yes or no) for students with disabilities and the IDEA disability category under
which they received services in high school (other health impairments or all other disabilities).
A two-way contingency table analysis was conducted to evaluate the relationship
between employment of students with disabilities and the disability category under which they
were served while in high school. The disability categories were separated into students who had
other health impairments (OHI) and those with all other disabilities. The OHI category was
84
comprised mostly of students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) which is
common for students receiving services under the OHI category. OHI was selected as an
additional area to assess due to the implications that many students with ADHD face when
looking at postsecondary enrollment and employability. The other disabilities in the all other
disabilities category included specific learning disabilities, autism, intellectual disability,
language impairment, and orthopedic impairment. The disability category under which students
were served was the independent variable while their enrollment in a postsecondary program was
the dependent variable. The chi-squared test indicated there was not a significant relationship
between the variables, Pearson X
2
(1, N = 39) = 1.242, p = .265, Cramer’s V = .178. Therefore,
the null hypothesis was retained. Students who were identified as having other health
impairments were not significantly more likely to be employed than students who were served
under all other disability categories. Figure 6 displays the number of students who were
employed in relation to the disability category (OHI or all others) they were served under while
in high school.
85
Figure 6
Students Employed in Relation to Disability Category
Research Question 7
Research Question 7: Is there a significant relationship between the type of special
education services (consultation or direct services) students with disabilities received while in
high school and the manner in which they exited high school (general education diploma or
special education diploma/alternate academic diploma/dropout)?
H
0
7: There is no significant relationship between the type of special education services
(consultation or direct services) students with disabilities received while in high school and the
manner in which they exited high school (general education diploma or special education
diploma/alternate academic diploma/dropout).
A two-way contingency table analysis was conducted to evaluate the relationship
between the type of special education services students received while in high school and the
86
manner in which they exited high school. Students received special education services through
direct support or through consultation. Student exits were separated into two categories of
students who earned a general education diploma and those who earned a special education
diploma, alternate academic diploma, or dropped out of school. The type of services students
received was the independent variable while the manner of exit or diploma was the dependent
variable. The chi-squared test indicated there was a significant relationship between the
variables, Pearson X
2
(1, N = 39) = 6.719, p = .010, Cramer’s V = .415. Therefore, the null
hypothesis was rejected. Students who received consultation services were significantly more
likely to earn a general education diploma than students who received direct services. Figure 7
displays the type of diploma students were awarded in relation to the special education services
they received while in high school.
Figure 7
Type of Diploma Awarded in Relation to Special Education Services
87
Research Question 8
Research Question 8: Is there a significant relationship between the postschool outcome
of further education (yes or no) for students with disabilities and the manner in which they exited
high school (general education diploma or special education diploma/alternate academic
diploma/dropout)?
H
0
8: There is no significant relationship between the postschool outcome of further
education (yes or no) for students with disabilities and the manner in which they exited high
school (general education diploma or special education diploma/alternate academic
diploma/dropout)?
A two-way contingency table analysis was conducted to evaluate the relationship
between further education for students with disabilities and the manner in which they exited high
school. Student exits were separated into two categories of students who earned a general
education diploma and those who earned a special education diploma, alternate academic
diploma, or dropped out of school. The manner of exit or diploma was the independent variable
while enrollment in a postsecondary program was the dependent variable. The chi-squared test
indicated there was a significant relationship between the variables, Pearson X
2
(1, N = 39) =
5.584, p = .018, Cramer’s V = .378. Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected. Students who
earned a general education diploma were significantly more likely to attend some type of
postsecondary program than students who earned a special education diploma, alternate
academic diploma, or dropped out. Figure 8 displays the type of diploma students were awarded
in relation to them attending a postsecondary program.
88
Figure 8
Type of Diploma Awarded in Relation to Attending a Postsecondary Program
Research Question 9
Research Question 9: Is there a significant relationship between the postschool outcome
of employability (yes or no) for students with disabilities and the manner in which they exited
high school (general education diploma or special education diploma/alternate academic
diploma/dropout)?
H
0
9: There is no significant relationship between the postschool outcome of
employability (yes or no) for students with disabilities and the manner in which they exited high
school (general education diploma or special education diploma/alternate academic
diploma/dropout)?
A two-way contingency table analysis was conducted to evaluate the relationship
between employment of students with disabilities and the manner in which they exited high
89
school. Student exits were separated into two categories of students who earned a general
education diploma and those who earned a special education diploma, alternate academic
diploma, or dropped out of school. The manner of exit or diploma was the independent variable
while employment was the dependent variable. The chi-squared test indicated there was a higher
relationship between the variables but it was not significant, Pearson X
2
(1, N = 39) = 3.535, p =
.060, Cramer’s V = .301. Therefore, the null hypothesis was retained. Students who earned a
general education diploma were not significantly more likely to be employed than students who
earned a special education diploma, alternate academic diploma, or dropped. Figure 9 displays
the type of diploma students were awarded in relation to them being employed.
Figure 9
Type of Diploma Awarded in Relation to Employment Status
90
Chapter Summary
This chapter presented a statistical analysis of the data regarding special education
services that students received while in high school (consultation or direct services), their
identified disability, and their postschool outcomes (employability and further education).
Several hypotheses were rejected showing significant relationships in the type of special
education services provided, disability category, diploma types, and student postschool
outcomes. Students who received consultation services were significantly more likely than
students who received direct services to attend some type of postsecondary program. Students
who were served under the specific learning disability category were significantly more likely
than students who were served under all other disability categories to attend some type of
postsecondary program. Students who received consultation services were significantly more
likely than students who received direct services to earn a general education diploma. Students
who earned a general education diploma were significantly more likely than students who earned
a special education diploma, alternate academic diploma, or dropped out to attend some type of
postsecondary program. Chapter 5 discusses the findings of the data, suggestions for current and
future practice, and recommendations for future research.
91
Chapter 5. Conclusions and Recommendations
Research in the area of postschool outcomes and transition for students with disabilities
bolsters the importance of transition services and programs to teach students the skills necessary
to be successful in postschool life (Madaus et al., 2021). Transition supports and services should
include career readiness courses and on-the-job training options to students in the high school
setting. Transition remains an important topic in the special education world as students are
continuing to go further and do more after graduation. The current belief is that students with
disabilities who are provided the appropriate transition supports and opportunities will be able to
achieve their life aspirations (Trainor et al., 2020). While there is a plethora of transition-based
research, research relating to the level of special education services and supports received by
students is nonexistent. This study provided a unique lens in which to view transition and
postschool outcomes for students with disabilities that highlighted the potential importance of the
type and level of services received by students in the high school setting.
Discussion
Each research question examined the relationship between postschool outcomes (further
education and/or employability) for students with disabilities in relation to the type of special
education services (consultation or direct services) students received while in high school as well
as the relationships found among differing disability categories and diploma types. The
following is a breakdown of each research question and a discussion of the findings and
implications.
Research Question 1
Research Question 1 evaluated the relationship between the type of special education
services students received while in high school and the postschool outcome of further education.
92
As the results of the two-way contingency table analysis revealed, there was a significant
relationship between students who attended some type of postsecondary education program and
the type of special education services they received while in high school (consultation or direct
services). This was a significant relationship that I expected. A potential factor in this significant
relationship that was shown may be that students who receive consultation services typically
have fewer comprehensive needs than students who are served with direct services. Students on
consultation often need minimal guidance and support when compared to their peers who receive
direct and more involved special education supports. Though this difference exists, students who
received direct services still tended to attend some type of postsecondary training program, just
at a lower rate than their peers receiving consultation.
The concern with this discrepancy is that we may not be preparing students with more
socially and academically impactful disabilities such as intellectual disabilities, autism, and
emotional disturbance for life after high school. The entire purpose of special education is to
prepare students with disabilities for postsecondary education or training, employment, and
independent living (Trainor et al., 2020). Just because some students with disabilities have more
significant needs than their peers, does not mean that they should not have the opportunity to
attend some type of postsecondary education program. Serving students with disabilities can be a
complex endeavor, especially after high school, but it is not something that should be
overlooked. All students should be given the opportunity to continue their education in some
way beyond high school if they so choose. That continuance may not always look like college or
university enrollment, but there are a number of programs and training opportunities for
individuals with disabilities to improve their skills and earn them better opportunities in the
workforce (Trainor et al., 2020).
93
Research Question 2
Research Question 2 evaluated the relationship between the type of special education
services students received while in high school and the postschool outcome of employability. As
the results of the two-way contingency table analysis revealed, there was not a significant
relationship between students who were employed and the type of special education services
they received while in high school (consultation or direct services). This lack of significance was
unanticipated for me as I thought that the type of special education services received in high
school would have more of a relationship with employment following graduation. From the
findings of this analysis, students were just as likely to be employed no matter the level of
special education services they received in high school. While students who received
consultation services were more likely than their peers to be enrolled in some type of
postsecondary education program, the majority of them were still employed during their
schooling.
There was no significant relationship in the student’s employment and the services they
received. This can be looked at through two different lenses. All students are able to be
employed because the school is doing an excellent job of preparing them to be employable after
high school; or, the school has little to no effect on how employable the students are. Even
though employability does not seem to be an issue, there is room for improvements in curriculum
and career prep opportunities. McCormick et al. (2021) emphasized the importance of work
experience during high school on postschool outcomes for students with disabilities. Students
who have some type of work experience, paid or unpaid, in high school tend to have higher rates
of employment and career opportunities. Students who receive more work opportunities in the
high school setting may be leading the pack when it comes to postsecondary employment.
94
The students included in the data from 2024 received services a bit differently than the
students in 2021. The programs have changed and shifted over time and there is now a space of
time monthly for all students to get transition and career readiness help. For the students in the
2021 group, transition support and career readiness help looked very different. Students were
getting most of their support from school and college counselors. The special education
department was really not lifting their weight in the transition planning game. Due to this, the
school in this study noted the issues with this and made some changes. The 2024 group was part
of a new design for the special education program at the high school. Students received career
focused support monthly by special education teachers in addition to the support they were
getting from school and college counselors. This shift in services could also be impactful.
It cannot be overlooked that a good job can improve so many aspects of a person’s life
and well-being throughout their lifetime (Mamun et al., 2018). While the study showed that
students were employed, there was still a fairly large number of students who were not working.
Unemployment and underemployment are concerns that many students with disabilities face and
those concerns often lead to issues throughout all of their adult lives. Mamun et al. noted that by
improving opportunities for work experiences during adolescence, students with disabilities are
much more likely to have higher levels of life satisfaction in adulthood. Schools and special
educators can help by seeking work opportunities for students with disabilities while they are in
high school through community programs, agencies, and local companies. CTE and related
opportunities can also play a role in this by allowing students to learn skills and build knowledge
about different trades.
95
Research Question 3
Research Question 3 evaluated the relationship between the disability category under
which students were served while in high school and the postschool outcome of further
education. Students with disabilities were split into two distinct categories for the purposes of
this question. Those categories were: students with specific learning disabilities (SLD) and
students with all other disabilities. As the results of the two-way contingency table analysis
revealed, there was a significant relationship between students who attended some type of
postsecondary education program and the disability category under which they were served
(SLD or all other disabilities). This relationship was not unexpected. Based on past research and
trends seen in schools, students with SLDs tend to enroll in some type of postsecondary
education program at a higher level than their peers with other disabilities (Newman et al., 2019).
Students with learning disabilities tend to make up the largest disability category served
in K–12 schools today (Scheef & McKnight-Lizotte, 2022). This is why I chose to look at this
category compared to students with all other disabilities. Many students with learning disabilities
are more willing to attempt some type of postsecondary education program than their peers with
other disabilities. Scheef and McKnight-Lizotte also noted a correlation between students with
learning disabilities and their typical placement in the school setting. Most of these students are
educated fully in the general education setting along with peers without disabilities. Due to this,
many of these students will be heavily involved in some type of extracurricular activity and have
many friends who do not have disabilities. Also, students with learning disabilities tend to be
able to find better supports, if they seek them, in the university or college setting and may not
even require them in a more flexible setting (Newman et al., 2019).
96
Research Question 4
Research Question 4 evaluated the relationship between the disability category under
which students were served while in high school and the postschool outcome of employability.
Students with disabilities were split into two distinct categories for the purposes of this question.
Those categories were students with specific learning disabilities (SLD) and students with all
other disabilities. As the results of the two-way contingency table analysis revealed, there was
not a significant relationship between students who were employed and the disability category
under which they were served (SLD or all other disabilities). I found the lack of a significant
relationship unexpected. Since students with SLDs are often attending postsecondary schools or
programs more, I believed there would a correlation to employability. However, the analysis
found that SLDs were no more likely to be employed than their peers with different disabilities.
It was surprising to me that the type of disability did not prove to be significant when looking at
postschool employment.
Students with SLDs saw greater postschool outcomes in employability when they were
enrolled in some type of CTE course or program than their peers who were not (Scheef &
McKnight-Lizotte, 2022). This is just another example of the importance of CTE in relation to
students with disabilities and the skills those students learn than can be applied in the workforce.
Scheef and McKnight-Lizotte also found that students with SLDs had higher postschool
outcomes when they worked with a Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) counselor before graduating.
This is another improvement that might be made to many school programs when it comes to
providing students with the means necessary to be successful in postschool life. If schools do not
have access to VR counseling, allowing time for students to talk with a trusted adult about future
plans and strategies for meeting those plans can be helpful.
97
Research Question 5
Research Question 5 evaluated the relationship between the disability category under
which students were served while in high school and the postschool outcome of further
education. Students with disabilities were split into two distinct categories for the purposes of
this question. Those categories were students with other health impairments (OHI), such as
ADHD, and students with all other disabilities. As the results of the two-way contingency table
analysis revealed, there was not a significant relationship between students who attended some
type of postsecondary education program and the disability category under which they were
served (OHI or all other disabilities). I anticipated for there to be a lack of a significant
relationship between furthering education and disability category. Historically, students with
OHIs struggle with postschool outcomes (Smith et al., 2021).
Students with OHIs need comprehensive and integrated transition planning that includes
family input to help prepare them for postschool life especially when it comes to postsecondary
schooling. Positive postschool outcomes seem to mean something different to every student with
OHI and their family; that is why it is so important for parents and families to be involved in the
transition planning and IEP development process (Kim & Dababnah, 2022). Many students with
OHIs may not see postsecondary schooling as an option for them. In the high school setting, little
focus may be placed on what these students are doing after graduation because teachers are more
concerned about getting them involved with the course from a social standpoint or because they
have been asked to do so (Shutz et al., 2024). Students with OHIs are capable but because of the
diverse needs of the disability category, they are often overlooked and underprepared for life
after high school.
98
Research Question 6
Research Question 6 evaluated the relationship between the disability category under
which students were served while in high school and the postschool outcome of employability.
Students with disabilities were split into two distinct categories for the purposes of this question.
Those categories were students with other health impairments (OHI), such as ADHD, and
students with all other disabilities. As the results of the two-way contingency table analysis
revealed, there was not a significant relationship between students who were employed and the
disability category under which they were served (OHI or all other disabilities). The lack of a
significant relationship between the disability categories and employment was unanticipated.
Much research has been conducted looking at students with OHIs and employment. For example,
many students with OHIs struggle with gaining and maintaining employment in a typical
workplace (Smith et al., 2021).
Students with OHIs may have a difficult time finding competitive employment (Hartman
et al., 2021). The struggle that many of these students face in the workplace stem from issues
with multitasking, short- and long-term memory, staying on task, and hampering impulsivity.
Students with OHIs, especially in this study, had been diagnosed with some form of ADHD.
There are many adults who manage ADHD daily, but students who are fresh out of school where
they were receiving supports will sometimes struggle with life in the adult world. Many
workplaces either do not know that a person has a disability or do not have the means to provide
supports to help that person be successful in the work environment. This is especially true in a
rural setting (Scheef et al., 2023).
99
Research Question 7
Research Question 7 evaluated the relationship between the type of special education
services students received while in high school and the manner in which they exited high school.
In this question, exiting high school was separated into two categories. Those categories were
students who graduated with a general education diploma and students who graduated with a
special education or alternate academic diploma or dropped out. As the results of the two-way
contingency table analysis revealed, there was a significant relationship between the manner in
which students exited high school and the type of special education services they received while
in high school (consultation or direct services). I anticipated this relationship to be significant.
Students who receive consultation services often do not have disabilities that are as involved or
severe as their peers who receive direct services.
Many students who receive direct services are educated in a comprehensive development
classroom with all day or most day special education supports. These are also often the students
who will earn a special education diploma as they do not go out into the general education
setting where they can earn credits toward a general education diploma. However, there are
students who receive direct services that are educated fully in the general education setting so
service delivery still has some relationship when it comes to the outcomes of students. It is very
important to understand the implications for postschool outcomes that students may experience
based on the type of diploma they may receive. Past research states that students who are
involved in some type of work experience, paid or unpaid, while still in high school are more
likely to complete high school and earn a diploma (McCormick et al., 2021).
100
Research Question 8
Research Question 8 evaluated the relationship between the way students exited high
school and the postschool outcome of further education. As the results of the two-way
contingency table analysis revealed, there was a significant relationship between students who
attended some type of postsecondary education program and the way they exited high school
(general education diploma or special education diploma, alternate academic diploma, and
dropped out). The relationship between further schooling and the type of diploma a student
earned was not unexpected to me. It seems common sense to say that students who receive a
general education diploma are more likely to attend some type of postsecondary education
program than their peers who did not earn a general education diploma. However, that
relationship goes even deeper. Students who earn special education or alternate academic
diplomas are typically not accepted into 4-year universities, community college, or vocational
schools.
Unfortunately, to many schools, and even workplaces, a special education diploma is
equivalent to a certificate of attendance. The requirements necessary to earn a general education
diploma are the bare minimum when looking at what colleges, universities, or technical schools
will accept. The alternate academic diploma (AAD) is fairly new in the state of Tennessee.
While the AAD does provide a bit more support for student skills and abilities in the workplace
than a special education diploma, it is nearly the same thing (Transition Tennessee, 2020). While
having the option of an AAD is great for students who want to go into the workforce with a little
more skill acknowledgement than a special education diploma carries, there are still issues with
postsecondary education options for students’ who do not earn a general education diploma.
101
There is a relationship between postsecondary schooling and the type of high school
diploma a student earns. However, there may be an even stronger relationship between students
being enrolled in some type of postsecondary program and positive adult life outcomes (Prince et
al., 2018). Those postsecondary enrollment opportunities are greatly affected by the type of
diploma a student earns. Providing students with improved pathways to general education
diplomas may help increase postsecondary enrollment and overall adult life outcomes for
students with disabilities.
Research Question 9
Research Question 9 evaluated the relationship between the way students exited high
school and the postschool outcome of employability. As the results of the two-way contingency
table analysis revealed, there was not a significant relationship between students who were
employed and the way they exited high school (general education diploma or special education
diploma, alternate academic diploma, and dropped out). The lack of relationship between
diploma type and work was unexpected. I had initially thought that there would be a significant
relationship between diploma type and employability; however, this proved to be incorrect.
Students with general education, special education, and alternate academic diplomas were all
employed. Going even further than that, some of the students who had dropped out of school
were also employed.
The lack of a significant relationship between diploma or high school exit type and
employment surprised me because so many workplaces seek out individuals with at least a high
school diploma. However, this finding does lend itself to the idea that people can be successful
and find work even given these constraints. It also contrasted prior research that said that
102
students who graduated with a general education diploma were more likely to be competitively
employed than their peers (Prince et al., 2018).
The data in this study could have been swayed by the number of these students that may
work in a family-owned business or have stayed in the rural community for work where the term
competitive employment becomes a little looser. Competitive employment should mean that
students are working under appropriate conditions, being paid minimum wage, and receiving all
benefits that are legally outlined. Unfortunately, this is not always the case in family-owned
businesses or seasonal rural jobs. Overall, research states that rural jobs are often poor fitting for
students with disabilities because of a lack of understanding and resources available (Scheef et
al., 2023).
No matter the potential issues, according to the data in this study, students with
disabilities are being employed. Though this might not reflect what is said in other research, it is
good to know that students are finding work after high school no matter how they exited. It is
also important to note that many of the students included in this sample would have been looking
for work or employed between May 2020 and May 2021 during the pandemic. I was concerned
about this affecting the data because students may have struggled to find work, but it seems to
have had little effect on the data or their ability to find employment.
Recommendations for Practice
• Students with disabilities should receive consultation services rather than direct
special education services if at all appropriate or direct services should
incorporate the counseling element of consultation services.
• Schools should increase the emphasis placed on transition planning and practices
related to improving postschool outcomes for students with disabilities.
103
• Meaningful transition planning services for students with disabilities should be
provided in a small group or one-on-one setting 2 times a month for 30 to 45
minutes. Students should be getting transition and future planning support more
than once a month.
• A focus should be placed on both career readiness and potential postsecondary
training options during transition planning periods.
• If the school has access to a Vocational Rehabilitation counselor, they should
utilize them as a resource in the transition planning conversation.
• Transition planning time needs to be structured. There should be specific things
that they are talking about or working on each time that they meet.
• Students with more comprehensive disabilities need to be included more
frequently in the general education setting. This can include students going to a
CTE class, non-academic class, lunch, or extracurricular activities with students
with and without disabilities.
• Special educators should increase the focus on life skills and things that will help
students with more comprehensive disabilities be successful in life after they
graduate from high school. More time should be spent on transition planning and
providing the needed services for students on a weekly basis.
• Students educated in the comprehensive or life skills classroom should be
working on transition plan goals and skills even more often than their peers with
disabilities in the general education setting. Teachers in the comprehensive or life
skills classes should take a substantial amount of time weekly to work on
students’ career and schooling goals.
104
• Students with disabilities should be given more opportunities to explore
postsecondary options if they so choose. Students with disabilities can be given
confidence by discussing the wide array of schooling options and programs now
available to them. It is also an opportunity to let students know that they can
receive services related to their disability in the postsecondary setting.
• Schools should develop more inclusive CTE programs for students with
disabilities. Enroll students in CTE courses where they have an interest and could
leave the course sequence with some type of industry certification. Special
educators and schools can also utilize community agencies and business to help
students find jobs where they can build their skills.
• School districts should provide better pathways to general education diplomas for
students with disabilities. This also includes ensuring elementary teams are
thinking about the long-term effect of special education services provided to
students and their least restrictive environment (LRE) placement.
• School districts and educational preparation programs should better prepare
special educators for the world of transition planning so that they can serve
students and help them be successful after high school.
Recommendations for Future Research
• When more data are available, the study should be conducted again in the county
of the original study to get a better understanding of significant relationships and
effects.
• The study should also be carried out in other rural school systems in Tennessee to
assess the reliability of the study as well as provide other school districts with
105
valuable information. Including other school districts would also help with the
body of research.
• The study should also be utilized in suburban and urban areas as many of the
issues highlighted are widespread for students with disabilities and special
education programs.
Summary
The findings of this study show that different special education service delivery models
have a significant relationship with some postschool outcomes for students with disabilities. This
study is unique as it looks through transition and postschool outcomes through a different lens
than previous studies in the field. Based on the findings, school systems should be assessing
student outcomes through the lens of special education service delivery. The relationship
between services and postschool outcomes cannot be ignored when looking at students attending
some type of postsecondary schooling. With an ever-changing world, the demands of those in the
workforce are ever-changing. Transition planning and practices are an integral piece of student
outcomes and should not be forgotten. School district and high school special education teams
should be looking at student outcomes yearly to assess, change, and improve their programs so
that students with disabilities seize opportunities in life just like their peers without disabilities.
By looking at postschool outcomes for students with disabilities based on the type of special
education services they received in high school, predictions about how services are provided and
what those services look like come to the forefront. With the findings of this study and similar
studies in the future, meaningful change can be made in regards to serving students with
disabilities and preparing them for bright, successful futures. It is our responsibility as educators,
school leaders, and change makers to ensure that every student that leaves our doors and makes
106
the transition into adult life has the opportunity to be successful, no matter what success might
look like for that student.
107
References
ADA National Network. (n.d.). What is the Americans with disabilities act (ADA)? ADA
National Network. https://adata.org/learn-about-ada
Adams, C., Corbin, A., O’Hara, L., Parks, M., Sheppard-Jones, K., Butler, L., Umeasiegbu, V.,
McDaniels, B., & Bishop, M.L. (2019) A qualitative analysis of the employment needs
and barriers of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities in rural areas.
Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 50(3), 227-240.
https://doi.org/10.1891/0047-2220.50.3.227
Akom, K., Gokita, T., Holland, L., & St. John, K. (2021). Understanding Indicator 14. VCU
Center on Transition Innovations. Virginia Department of Education.
Alverson, C. Y., & Yamamoto, S. H. (2019). Messages from former students and families:
Analysis of statements from one state’s post-school outcomes survey. Career
Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 42(4), 225-234.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143418814243
Artino A. R., Jr. (2012). Academic self-efficacy: From educational theory to instructional
practice. Perspectives on Medical Education, 1(2), 76-85.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-012-0012-5
Association for Career and Technical Education. (2023). What is CTE?
https://www.acteonline.org/why-cte/what-is-cte/
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
National Institute of Mental Health. Prentice-Hall, Inc.
108
Bouck, E. C., & Chamberlain, C. (2017). Postschool services and postschool outcomes for
individuals with mild intellectual disability. Career Development and Transition for
Exceptional Individuals, 40(4), 215-224. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143416665802
Bouck, E. C., Long, H. M., & Costello, M. P. (2021). Parent and youth post-school expectations:
Students with intellectual disability in rural schools. Rural Special Education Quarterly,
40(1), 14-23. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756870520945572
Bouck, E. C., & Park, J. (2018). Exploring post-school outcomes across time out of school for
students with autism spectrum disorder. Education and Training in Autism and
Developmental Disabilities, 53(3), 253–263. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26563466
Cal State LA. (n.d.). Self-determination.
https://www.calstatela.edu/coe/cats/self-
determination#:~:text=Self%2Dawareness%2C%20problem%20solving%20and,that%20
follow%20their%20choice%20making
Carlson, S. R., Munandar, V. D., Wehmeyer, M. L., & Thompson, J. R. (2019). Special
education transition services for students with extensive support needs. Advances in
Special Education, 35, 117-136.
Carter, E. W., Awsumb, J. M., Schutz, M. A., & McMillan, E. D. (2021). Preparing youth for the
world of work: Educator perspectives on pre-employment transition services. Career
Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 44(3), 161-173.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143420938663
Carter, E. W., Schutz, M. A., Gajjar, S. A., Maves, E. A., Bumble, J. L., & McMillan, E. D.
(2021). Using community conversations to inform transition education in rural
109
communities. The Journal of Special Education, 55(3), 131-142.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466920950331
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2022-a). Developmental disabilities.
https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/developmentaldisabilities/index.html#:~:text=Development
al%20disabilities%20are%20a%20group,Causes%20and%20Risk%20Factors
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2022-b). Intellectual disabilities.
https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/developmentaldisabilities/facts-about-intellectual-
disability.html#:~:text=What%20is%20intellectual%20disability%3F,disability%20vary
%20greatly%20in%20children
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2022-c). Signs and symptoms of autism spectrum
disorders.
https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/signs.html#:~:text=Autism%20spectrum%20disorde
r%20(ASD)%20is,%2C%20moving%2C%20or%20paying%20attention
Chen, L. J. (2019) Special education transition issues over the past 60 years: Social network
analysis on web of science exploration. European Journal of Special Needs
Education, (34)1, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2017.1413805
Clavenna-Deane, B. A., & Coates, W. R. (2022). High school experiences that support post-
school success: What can we learn? Career Development and Transition for Exceptional
Individuals, 45(4), 176-186. https://doi.org/10.1177/21651434211068406
Cmar, J. L., McDonnall, M. C., & Markoski, K. M. (2018). In-school predictors of postschool
employment for youth who are deaf-blind. Career Development and Transition for
Exceptional Individuals, 41(4), 223-233. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143417736057
110
Colella, K. M., Gaeta, L., Friedland, E., Hudson, M. A., & Busacco, D. (2020). Being mindful of
cultural and linguistic diversity in everyday practice. Audiology Today, 32(4).
https://www.audiology.org/news-and-publications/audiology-today/articles/being-
mindful-of-cultural-and-linguistic-diversity-in-everyday-
practice/#:~:text=A%20culturally%20and%20linguistically%20diverse,values%20differ
%20from%20mainstream%20culture
Congressional Research Service. (2016). Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of
2006: An overview.
https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20160620_R44542_11ed2c866047b19ec903ab39b
42d010b621dd805.pdf
Coolberth, N. L. (2021). Updated: Side-by-side comparison of WIA and WIOA. National Skills
Coalition. https://nationalskillscoalition.org/blog/higher-education/updated-side-by-side-
comparison-of-wia-and-wioa/
Deardorff, M. E., Peltier, C., Choiseul-Praslin, B., Williams-Diehm, K., & Wicker, M. (2021).
Teacher knowledge in transition planning: Does locale matter? Rural Special Education
Quarterly, 40(3), 132-142. https://doi.org/10.1177/87568705211027982
Eastman, K., Zahn, G., Ahnupkana, W., & Havumaki, B. (2021). Small town transition services
model: Postsecondary planning for students with autism spectrum disorder. Rural Special
Education Quarterly, 40(3), 157-166. https://doi.org/10.1177/87568705211027978
Francis, G. L., Gross, J. M. S., Lavín, C. E., Casarez Velazquez, L. A., & Sheets, N. (2020).
Facing double jeopardy: The transition experiences of Latina family caregivers of young
adults with disabilities living in a rural community. Rural Special Education Quarterly,
39(1), 17-34. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756870519879069
111
Harvey, M. W., Rowe, D. A., Test, D. W., Imperatore, C., Lombardi, A., Conrad, M.,
Szymanski, A., & Barnett, K. (2020). Partnering to improve career and technical
education for students with disabilities: A position paper of the division on career
development and transition. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional
Individuals, 43(2), 67-77. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143419887839
Hartman, E. C., Jones, W., Friefeld Kesselmayer, R., Brinck, E. A., Trainor, A., Reinhard, A.,
Fuller, R. K., Schlegelmilch, A., & Anderson, C. A. (2021). Demographic and transition
service predictors of employment outcomes for youth receiving supplemental security
income. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 44(2), 97-109.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143420984797
Hennessey, M. N., Williams-Diehm, K. L., & Martin, J. E. (2023). Piloting an assessment of
foundational workplace competencies for students with disabilities and competitive
employment aspirations. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional
Individuals, 46(4), 184-196. https://doi.org/10.1177/21651434221141405
Jackson, E. O. (2021). Teachers’ perceptions of linking special education transition and
academic goals in Southeastern Georgia. [Doctoral dissertation, Northcentral University].
ProQuest LLC.
Kern, L., Kelly, S., Rosati, S. A., Shera, S., Fluharty, M., Gabrilowitz, R., Carter, D., Liang, C.
T. H., & Freeman, J. (2023). Systematic review of college and career readiness
interventions for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Career Development
and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 46(3), 155-168.
https://doi.org/10.1177/21651434221136132
Kim, I. & Dababnah, S. (2022). Transition to adulthood: Perspectives of Korean immigrant
112
parents of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Career
Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 45(3), 120-130.
https://doi.org/10.1177/21651434211043440
Kraemer, B. R., Tomaszewski, B., Rentschler, L. F., Steinbrenner, J. R., Hume, K. A., McDaniel,
S., Dawalt, L., Brum, C., & Szidon, K. (2022). Quality of the transition component of the
IEP for high school students with autism. Career Development and Transition for
Exceptional Individuals, 45(4), 200-212. https://doi.org/10.1177/21651434221079743
Kucharczyk, S., Thomas, J., & Schaefer Whitby, P. (2021). “It would be nice if”: Analysis of
transition experiences through grand challenges. Rural Special Education Quarterly,
40(3), 117-131. https://doi.org/10.1177/87568705211027970
Landmark, L. J., & Zhang, D. (2013). Compliance and practices in transition planning: A review
of Individualized Education Program documents. Remedial and Special Education, 34(2),
113-125. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932511431831
Lee, A. M. I. (n.d.). What is self-advocacy?. https://www.understood.org/en/articles/the-
importance-of-self-advocacy
Lee, S. (2009). Overview of the federal Higher Education Opportunity Act. Think College:
Institution for Community Inclusion, UMass Boston.
https://thinkcollege.net/resource/federal-legislation/overview-federal-higher-education-
opportunity-act
Love, K., & Mock, M. (2019). Participatory action research and student perspectives in a rural
postsecondary education program. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 38(1), 43-52.
https://doi.org/10.1177/8756870518783707
113
McCormick, S. T., Kurth, N. K., Chambless, C. E., Ipsen, C., & Hall, J. P. (2021). Case
management strategies to promote employment for transition-age youth with disabilities.
Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 44(2), 120-131.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143421991826
McNaught, J., & Pope, E. M. (2022). Youth leaders with learning disabilities and their decision
to enroll in higher education. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional
Individuals, 45(4), 187-199. https://doi.org/10.1177/21651434221076063
Madaus, J. W., Gelbar, N., Dukes, L. L., Taconet, A., & Faggella-Luby, M. (2021). Are there
predictors of success for students with disabilities pursuing postsecondary education?
Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 44(4), 191-202.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143420976526
Mamun, A. A., Carter, E. W., Fraker, T. M., & Timmins, L. L. (2018). Impact of early work
experiences on subsequent paid employment for young adults with disabilities. Career
Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 41(4), 212-222.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143417726302
Mazzotti, V. L., Rowe, D. A., Kwiatek, S., Voggt, A., Chang, W. H., Fowler, C. H., Poppen, M.,
Sinclair, J., & Test, D. 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
Montana Department of Health and Human Services. (n.d.). Emotional Disturbance.
https://dphhs.mt.gov/schoolhealth/chronichealth/developmentaldisabilities/emotionaldistu
rbance#:~:text=(A)%20An%20inability%20to%20learn,or%20feelings%20under%20nor
mal%20circumstances
114
National Center for Education Evaluation (NCEE). (2018). Preparing for life after high school:
The characteristics and experiences of youth in special education. Institute of Educational
Sciences. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20184011/pdf/20184011.pdf
Newman, K. M. (2022). Special education transition supports for deaf or hard of hearing
students: Cure or crutch?. [Doctoral dissertation, Houston Baptist University]. ProQuest
LLC.
Newman, L. A., Madaus, J. W., Lalor, A. R., & Javitz, H. S. (2019). Support receipt: Effect on
postsecondary success of students with learning disabilities. Career Development and
Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 42(1), 6-16.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143418811288
Oregon Department of Education. (n.d.). Understanding and addressing ableism in schools.
Oregon Department of Education. https://www.oregon.gov/ode/students-and-
family/SpecialEducation/publications/Documents/informalremovals/understandingableis
minschools.pdf
Pacer Center. (2018). Direct and indirect services. Pacer Center: ACTion Information Sheets.
https://www.pacer.org/parent/php/php-c180.pdf
Patton, J. & Kim, M. (2016). The importance of transition planning for special needs students.
Revista Portuguesa de Educação, 29(9). https://doi.org/10.21814/rpe.8713
Perkins Collaborative Resource Network. (n.d.) Perkins V. https://cte.ed.gov/legislation/perkins-
v
Petcu, S. D., Van Horn, M. L., & Shogren, K. A. (2017). Self-determination and the enrollment
in and completion of postsecondary education for students with disabilities. Career
115
Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 40(4), 225-234.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143416670135
Pham, Y. K., Hirano, K. A., Lindstrom, L., & DeGarmo, D. S. (2020). Future aspirations of
young women with disabilities: An examination of Social Cognitive Career Theory.
Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 43(3), 169-179.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143420920168
Plotner, A., Stinnett, C. V. H., Rose, C. & Ivester, J. (2017). Professional characteristics that
impact perceptions of successful transition collaboration. Journal of Rehabilitation,
83(2), 43-51.
Povenmire-Kirk, T. C., Bethune, L. K., Alverson, C. Y., & Kahn, L. G. (2015). A journey, not a
destination: developing cultural competence in secondary transition. TEACHING
Exceptional Children, 47(6), 319-328. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059915587679
Prince, A. M. T., Hodge, J., Bridges, W. C., & Katsiyannis, A. (2018). Predictors of postschool
education/training and employment outcomes for youth with disabilities. Career
Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 41(2), 77-87.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143417698122
Prince, A. M. T., Plotner, A. J., & Gothberg, J. E. (2020). Current special education legal trends
for transition-age youth. In D. Bateman & M.L. Yell (Eds.), Current Trends and Legal
Issues in Special Education (pp. 72-91). Sage Academic Books.
Ressa, T. W. (2016). The path to college: Transition experiences of students with disabilities.
[Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University]. OhioLINK ETD.
116
Rowe, D. A., Mazzotti, V. L., Hirano, K., & Alverson, C. Y. (2015). Assessing transition skills
in the 21st Century. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 47(6), 301-309.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059915587670
Rowe, D. A., Carter, E., Gajjar, S., Maves, E. A., & Wall, J. C. (2020). Supporting strong
transitions remotely: Considerations and complexities for rural communities during
COVID-19. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 39(4), 220-232.
https://doi.org/10.1177/8756870520958199
Ruiz, A. B., & Scott, L. A. (2021). Guiding questions for a culturally responsive framework
during preemployment transition services. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 53(5), 369-
375. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059920982312
Scheef, A. R., Bruno, L., & Whittenburg, H. N. (2024). Supporting positive post-school
outcomes for students with disabilities in rural locations. Rural Special Education
Quarterly, 43(1), 36-43. https://doi.org/10.1177/87568705231214809
Scheef, A. R., & McKnight-Lizotte, M. (2022). Utilizing vocational rehabilitation to support
post-school transition for students with learning disabilities. Intervention in School and
Clinic, 57(5), 316-321. https://doi.org/10.1177/10534512211032604
Schutz, M. A., Carter, E. W., Gajjar, S. A., & Maves, E. A. (2021). Strengthening transition
partnerships through community conversation events. TEACHING Exceptional Children,
53(5), 359-368. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059920987877
Schutz, M. A., Carter, E. W., & Travers, H. E. (2024). Rural school staff roles in career
development for students with disabilities: A mixed methods study. Career Development
and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 47(1), 46-61.
https://doi.org/10.1177/21651434231152822
117
Scott, L. A., & Shogren, K. A. (2023). Advancing anti-racism and anti-ableism in transition:
Equity-oriented indicators for research. Career Development and Transition for
Exceptional Individuals, 46(4), 237-248. https://doi.org/10.1177/21651434231189665
Shogren, K. A., & Wittenburg, D. (2020). Improving outcomes of transition-age youth with
disabilities: A life course perspective. Career Development and Transition for
Exceptional Individuals, 43(1), 18-28. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143419887853
Sinclair, J., Jez, R., Banks, J., & Kucharczyk, S. (2023). Building equity into transition practice
and service delivery: A call for systemic changes in the field of transition. Career
Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 46(4), 223-236.
https://doi.org/10.1177/21651434231183415
Smith, M.J., Sherwood, K., Blajeski, S., Ross, B., Smith, J.D., Jordan, N., Dawalt, L., Bishop, L.,
& Atkins, M.S. (2021). Job interview and vocational outcomes among transition-age
youth receiving special education pre-employment transition services. Intellectual and
Developmental Disabilities, 59(5), 405-421. https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-59.5.405
Sprunger, N. S., Harvey, M. W., & Quick, M. M. (2018). Special education transition predictors
for post-school success: Findings from the field. Preventing School Failure, 62(2), 116-
128. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2017.1393789
Stevenson, B. S., Flynn, P. F., & Test, D. W. (2016). Evidence-based practices and predictors:
Improving post-school outcomes for students with disabilities. Perspectives of the ASHA
Special Interest Groups, 16(1), part 16, 47–62.
The ARC (2015). WIOA: What is means for people with intellectual and/or developmental
disabilities (I/DD). http://www.thearc.org/wp-
content/uploads/forchapters/NPM_WIOA_final.pdf
118
TN Department of Education. (n.d.-a). The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
https://www.tn.gov/education/districts/federal-programs-and-
oversight/idea.html#:~:text=Free%20Appropriate%20Public%20Education%20(FAPE,sc
hool%2C%20or%20secondary%20school%20education
TN Department of Education. (n.d.-b). Related-services.
https://www.tn.gov/education/families/student-support/special-education/related-
services.html
TN Department of Education (n.d.-c). Transition services.
https://www.tn.gov/humanservices/ds/vocational-rehabilitation/transition-services.html
TN Department of Education (2017). Standards for special education evaluation and eligibility:
Specific learning disability. https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/education/special-
education/eligibility/se_eligibility_sld_standards.pdf
TN Department of Education (2018). Special education framework.
https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/education/special-
education/framework/sped_framework.pdf
TN Department of Education. (2022). Proposed state performance plan (SPP)/annual
performance report (APR) targets for Indicator 14: Post-school outcomes.
https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/education/special-
education/Indicator%2014%20(Postsecondary%20Outcomes)%20Target%20Setting_202
1_FINAL%20(508).pdf
TN Department of Human Services. (n.d.). Pre-employment transition services.
https://www.tn.gov/humanservices/ds/vocational-rehabilitation/transition-services/pre-
employment-transition-services.html
119
Trainor, A. A., Carter, E. W., Karpur, A., Martin, J. E., Mazzotti, V. L., Morningstar, M. E.,
Newman, L., & Rojewski, J. W. (2020). A Framework for research in transition:
Identifying important areas and intersections for future study. Career Development and
Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 43(1), 5-17.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143419864551
Trainor, A. A., Newman, L., Garcia, E., Woodley, H. H., Traxler, R. E., & Deschene, D. N.
(2019). Postsecondary education-focused transition planning experiences of English
learners with disabilities. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional
Individuals, 42(1), 43-55. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143418811830
Trainor, A., Newman, L., & Romano, L. (2023). Contextualizing school engagement during
transition for students receiving special education and English learner services. The
Journal of Special Education, 57(1), 24-35. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669221107089
Transition Tennessee. (2020). Postsecondary transition: Diploma pathways. Transition
Tennessee. https://transitiontn.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/PSE_Diploma-
Pathways_04-16-20_FINAL.pdf
Transition Tennessee. (n.d.). History of disability legislation for students with disabilities.
Transition Tennessee. https://transitiontn.org/vr/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/History-of-
Disability-Legislation.pdf
U.S. Department of Education (n.d.-a). About IDEA. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/about-idea/#IDEA-
Purpose
U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.-b). Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).
https://www.ed.gov/essa?src=rn
120
U.S. Department of Education (n.d.-c). State performance plans (SPP)/annual performance
reports (APR). https://sites.ed.gov/idea/spp-
apr/#:~:text=State%20Performance%20Plans%2FAnnual%20Performance%20Reports%
20(SPP%2FAPR),-
Home%20%C2%BB%20State%20Performance&text=The%20SPP%2FAPRs%20includ
e%20indicators,at%20least%20every%20six%20years
U.S. Department of Education (2000). A guide to the individualized education program.
https://www2.ed.gov/parents/needs/speced/iepguide/iepguide.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2017) Sec. 300.43 transition services.
https://sites.ed.gov/idea/regs/b/a/300.43
U.S. Department of Education. (2024). A history of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/IDEA-History
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2004). Workforce Investment Act: Labor has taken
several actions to facilitate access to one-stops for persons with disabilities, but these
efforts may not be sufficient. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-05-54
U.S. Office of Special Education Programs. (2000). History: Twenty-five years of progress in
educating children with disabilities through IDEA. U.S. Office of Special Education
Programs. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED556111.pdf
Vitelli, E. M. (2013). A perspective on revising OSEP Indicator 14. Career Development and
Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 36(2), 124-134.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143412457984
Wade, T. (2023). Barriers to community and vocational resources in special education transition
planning. [Doctoral dissertation, Northcentral University]. ProQuest LLC.
121
Wagner, M. M., & Blackorby, J. (1996). Transition from high school to work or college: How
special education students fare. The Future of Children, 6(1), 103-120.
Wang, D., Liu, X., & Deng, H. (2022). The perspectives of social cognitive career theory
approach in current times. Frontiers in Psychology, 13.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1023994
Wehmeyer, M. L., Nota, L., Soresi, S., Shogren, K. A., Morningstar, M. E., Ferrari, L.,
Sgaramella, T. M., & DiMaggio, I. (2019). A crisis in career development: Life
designing and implications for transition. Career Development and Transition for
Exceptional Individuals, 42(3), 179-187. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143417750092
122
APPENDIX: Tennessee Indicator 14 Survey
123
124
125
126
VITA
CALLIE DORCAS WELCH
Education: Ed. D. Education Leadership, East Tennessee State University,
Johnson City, Tennessee, 2024
Ed.S. Educational Leadership, East Tennessee State University,
Johnson City, Tennessee, 2023
M.S. Curriculum & Instruction – Applied Behavior Analysis,
Tennessee Tech University, Cookeville, Tennessee, 2019
B.A. Special Education – Comprehensive,
Tennessee Tech University, Cookeville, Tennessee, 2016
White County Schools, Sparta, Tennessee, 2012
Professional Experience: Lecturer, Tennessee Tech University;
Cookeville, Tennessee, 2020-present
Special Education Teacher, White County High School;
Sparta, Tennessee, 2016-2020
