Jim Martin, Ph.D.University of OklahomaZarrow Center for Learning Enrichmentjemartin@ou.eduhttp://education.ou.edu/zarrow/

Look under the presentation tab on the left of the following website url to download this PowerPoint file

and other supporting information at http://education.ou.edu/zarrow/

Alternative Title

The Reason Why - 1

3

The Reason Why -2

4

53% of students with disabilities plan on attending an education program after leaving high school compared to 95% of their non-disabled peers (Wagner, Newman, Cameto, Garza, & Levine, 2005).

Yet only 19% of youth with disabilities follow through compared to 40% of their non-disabled peers (Wagner et al., 2005).

The rate of current enrollment of youth with disabilities in 2-year/ community colleges is not significantly different from that of their peers in the general population (10% vs. 12%).

Similar-age youth without disabilities are more than four and one-half times as likely as youth with disabilities to be currently taking courses at a 4-year college (28% vs. 6%, p<.001).

5

College freshman with a disabilities increased from 2.6% in 1978 to 9% in 1996 (Cameto, Newman & Wagner, 2006).

Surveys of freshman at 4-year colleges report the percent of students with disabilities has gone from 3%, up to 9%, then down to 6% (Henderson, 1998, 2001)

9% of students with disabilities enroll at four-year colleges. Non-disabled peers are 4.5 times more likely to be enrolled (Wagner et al., 2005)

6

Of youth with a high school IEP in IHE (Wagner et al., 2005). 52% do not believe they have a disability 7% believe they have a disability but did not

disclose 40% identified having a disability

88% of students who identified received services

Put all of this together, about a third of students with IEPs in high school receive IHE disability support

7

Two-year retention data at OU finds that students with and without disabilities return to OU to study at equal numbers (OU Institutional Research, 2006).

Only 4% of students with disabilities who had enrolled in two-year colleges had graduated (Cameto, Newman & Wagner, 2006).

One percent of the students with disabilities enrolled in 4-year schools graduated in a four-year period (Cameto et al., 2006).

20% of students with LD who began IHE graduate 5 years after high school compared to 44% for students without LD (Murray, Goldstein, Nourse, & Edgar, 2000).

10 years after high school, 44% of students with LD graduated compared to 78% without disabilities (Murray, et al., 2000).

After six years at OU 55% of undergraduates without disabilities graduate compared to 28% of their peers with disabilities (OU Institutional Research, 2006).

8

Graduates with LD employed at comparable rates as former students with LD (Madaus, Foley, McGuire, & Ruban, 2001).

Earning a degree from an IHE benefits the employment outcome of adults with learning disabilities (Madaus, 2006).

Students with other disabilities graduating from IHEs appear to have less positive results (Roessler, Hennessey, & Rumrill (2007).

Some students with disabilities at IHEs lack the skills and confidence to seek employment (Corrigan, Jones, & McWhirter, 2001).

9

Why do so few students with disabilities enter higher ed? What happens to the dreams?

Why the poor long-term graduation rate? Why do fewer students with disabilities

who graduate from college continue to graduate school?

Why do some students with disabilities (maybe as many as 33%) experience trouble transitioning from IHE into employment?

10

Transition education for students with disabilities (Sitlington, 2003):

Enrolled in higher education programs Preparing to move from higher education into

full-time careers Higher Ed needs to strongly consider

adopting transition education practices to finish the job (Roessler, Hennessey, & Rumrill, 2007).

Where and Who? Disability Resource Centers? Career Development Offices?

11

1. Adaptive Behavior Assessment

2. Vocational Interest and Skills Assessment

3. Postschool Predictor Assessment

12

We need a transition assessment tool based on actual postschool success predictors.

We need a tool to assess students’ current behavior linked to identified transition success predictors.

No tool like this exists (that we could find).

13

Reviewed the literature to identify student behaviors that predicted postschool success. 45 quantitative and

qualitative studies Several different search

engines Journal reference lists Hand searched major journals Asked colleagues around the

country

14

• Desires • Goals

• Strengths • Limits

• Disability Awareness • Persistence

• Use of Support Systems • Coping Skills

• Social Skills • Proactive Involvement

• Making Positive Choices • Job Experience

• Transition Education

15

Transition Success Assessment: A Transition Behavior Profile 46 items Professional, Family, and Student TSA

Versions TSA Graphic Profile TSA Goal Identification Matrix

Takes about 10 minutes to answer the items and score

16

Fine tuned wording internally at ZC Conducted six social validity groups

4 expert panels (27 participants) 1 parent panel (8 participants) 1 student panel (8 participants) 1 more student panel to go

First round produced changes to 36 of 50 Professional TSA items

Subsequent panels made fewer and fewer changes

17

Family group focused on wording associated with friends, asking for support, coping skills, and independent living.

Students did not like the word “used.” Professional group more sensitive regarding words such as

limitation and disability awareness. Very positive feedback from all the groups

Easy to understand and use Makes sense Beneficial to planning students’ future “Now I understand what to teach” Found the TSA practical

18

Complete internal reliability study with at least 100 professionals, 100 students, and 50 parents

Test-retest reliability (four weeks apart)

Factor analysis of items to determine final clusters

Complete user manualDisseminate final TSA 19

Submitted grant to IES to conduct large scale studies Structural equation modeling to

build construct validation Test parallel versions (student,

professional, and family) Similar factor structure across

tools Reliability studies across

country Undertake predictor studies

20

Defines behaviors students need to learn to increase likelihood of transition from IHE to employment or further education.

Provides goals and objectives to begin self-improvement efforts or to target instructional programs to improve specific behaviors

21

22

Provides a means to identify specific skills students need to learn.

Apply the Self-Determination Model of Instruction concepts to teaching many of these skills (Finn, Getzel, & McManus, in press).

Target instructional efforts.Build students’ confidence.

23

Disability Resource Center staff need to advocate for adopting transition education practices.

Use local and national numbers to support efforts.

Work with campus support systems.May become a job of DRC or Career

Development Offices.

24

Cameto, R., Newman, L., & Wagner, M. (June, 2006). The National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) Project Update: Self-perceptions of youth with disabilities. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences.

Corrigan, M., Jones, C., & McWhirter, J. (2001). College students with disabilities: An access employment group. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 26, 339-349.

Finn, D., Getzel, E. E., & McManus, S. (in press). Adapting the Self-Determined Learning Model for instruction of college students with disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals.

Henderson, C. (1998). Profile of 1996 college freshmen with disabilities. Washington, DC: HEATH Resource Center, American Council on Education.

Henderson, C. (2001). College freshman with disabilities: A biennial statistical profile. Washington, DC: HEATH Resource Center, American Council on Education.

Madaus, J. E. (2006). Employment outcomes of university graduates with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly,29, 19-w31.

Madaus, J. W., Foley, T. E., McGuire, J. M., & Rubin, L. (2001). A follow-up investigation of university graduates with learning disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 24, 133-146.

Murray, C., Goldstein, D. E. Nourse, S., & Edgar, E. (2000). The postsecondary school attendance and completion rates of high school graduates with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 15, 119-127.

Roessler, R. T., Hennessey, M. L., & Rumrill, Ph. D. (2007). Strategies for improving career services for postsecondary students with disabilities: Results of a focus group study of key stakeholders. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 30, 158-170.

Sitlington, P. L. (2003). Postsecondary education: The other transition. Exceptionality, 11, 103-113. University of Oklahoma Institutional Research and Reporting. (2006, June). Students with disabilities. Norman,

Oklahoma. Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., Garza, N., and Levine, P. (2005). After High School: A First Look at the

Postschool Experiences of Youth with Disabilities. A Report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Available at www.nlts2.org/reports/2005_04/nlts2_report_2005_04_complete.pdf.

25