From Optimism to Complexity

(1)

https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143419864551 Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals

2020, Vol. 43(1) 5 –17

sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/2165143419864551 cdtei.sagepub.com

Article

The field of secondary transition has long been marked by both optimism and complexity. Early advocacy shifted the purpose and priorities of secondary schooling to include supporting students with disabilities in the pursuit of per- sonally valued postschool outcomes (e.g., Halpern, 1985;

Will, 1984). These calls ushered in new legislation, funding, and programs that raised expectations for what young people with disabilities could achieve during school and after graduation. Contemporary transition policies and practices are grounded in the belief that students with disabilities are far more likely to achieve their aspirations for life after high school if provided the right combination of opportunities, instruction, services, and supports. This belief aligns with special education’s overarching purpose to “prepare [students with disabilities] for further education, employment, and independent living” to ensure

“equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency for individuals with disabilities” (Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act [IDEA], 2004).

Yet the challenges associated with supporting successful transitions for these young adults have also endured. Scores of follow-along and follow-up studies of students with disabilities have revealed that attainment of their aspirations can be inconsistent or, in some instances, elusive (e.g., Halpern, 1990; Mazzotti et al., 2016). Indeed, improving secondary and postschool outcomes for individuals with

disabilities has been an incredibly complex endeavor. This complexity is especially apparent when considering

•

• the substantial diversity reflected among students, schools, and communities;

•

• the wide variations in policies, priorities, and resources across districts and states;

•

• the breadth of life domains that require assessment, planning, and instruction;

•

• the range of goals students may have for life after high school;

•

• the multiple service systems, disciplines, and community partners involved;

•

• the field’s commitment to individualization, inten- sity, and inclusion;

1New York University, USA

2Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA

3Autism Speaks, Princeton, NJ, USA

4The University of Oklahoma, Norman, USA

5The University of North Carolina at Charlotte, USA

6Portland State University, Portland, USA

7SRI International, Menlo Park, CA, USA

8University of Georgia, Athens, USA Corresponding Author:

Audrey A. Trainor, New York University, 239 Greene Street, Room 524, New York, NY 10003, USA.

Email: [email protected]

A Framework for Research in Transition:

Identifying Important Areas and Intersections for Future Study

Audrey A. Trainor, PhD

¹

, Erik W. Carter, PhD

²

, Arun Karpur, MD, MPH

³

, James E. Martin, PhD

⁴

, Valerie L. Mazzotti, PhD

⁵

, Mary E. Morningstar, PhD

⁶

, Lynn Newman, EdD

⁷

, and Jay W. Rojewski, PhD

⁸

Abstract

The role of research in transition education has been prominent and influential. Yet too many young people with disabilities are still not experiencing outcomes aligned with their personal aspirations and priorities. Moreover, individuals with disabilities continue to experience barriers to employment, educational, economic, and other challenges well into adulthood. Moving forward as a field will require continued investment in strong scholarship and careful consideration of new areas of inquiry. In this article, we present a framework for transition research designed to identify key issues and intersections in which future inquiry should be directed. We present research needs in six different areas to illustrate these possibilities. We also highlight some of the complexities and considerations associated with conducting this research.

Keywords

transition, evidence-based practices, students with disabilities, research methodology

(2)

•

• the uneven preparation that professionals receive to carry out this work; and

•

• the broader educational and societal contexts within which transition takes place.

For more than three decades, research has played a prominent role in informing, guiding, and evaluating the provision of transition programs and services (e.g., Madaus et al., 2013; Test, Fowler, et al., 2009). Transition-related scholarship has described evidence-based or promising practices and demonstrated the efficacy of numerous interventions; identified multiple factors that contribute to valued outcomes; defined important constructs and concepts;

solicited the views of diverse stakeholders; identified key barriers to service delivery; pinpointed gaps in services and supports; developed strategies to weave together an assort- ment of services across the school-based and adult service systems; and illustrated the successes of young people in schools, postsecondary education settings, workplaces, and communities.

Need for an Overarching Research Framework

Although research has contributed to high-quality transition service delivery, our current understanding represents just a fraction of what needs to be known. Outcomes in many areas of transition have reflected only modest change since transition was first legislated in 1990. Accountability mandates are driving schools and districts to strengthen their programs and practices for all students. The demand for

“evidence-based” practices and policies to guide the work of schools continues to escalate. And there is a strong sense that our current understanding of high-quality transition service delivery represents just a fraction of what the field still needs to know. Moving forward, how can research help address these multiple demands on the field?

Several sources continue to inform needed research on transition-related issues. First, a number of transition models have been developed to organize and guide practice (e.g., Kohler, 1996; Kohler, Gothberg, Fowler, & Coyle, 2016; National Alliance for Secondary Education and Transition [NASET], 2005; National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability for Youth [NCWDY], 2009).

These models assemble available research, policy, and practice into cohesive structures that guide transition supports and services. They also pinpoint areas where considerable research has accumulated and where more attention is needed (e.g., Landmark, Ju, & Zhang, 2010; Test, Fowler, et al., 2009). Second, systematic reviews have addressed specific areas of transition practice (e.g., career and technical instruction, self-determination interventions, peer-medi- ated supports, skills training). These works summarize the quantity and quality of prior transition research, as well as

identify gaps in our knowledge base (e.g., Haber et al., 2016; Mazzotti et al., 2016; Test, Terrell, Clark, & Rusher, 2018). Third, individual studies offer specific recommenda- tions addressing specific gaps or limitations regarding a subgroup of youth in transition, a domain of transition education, or a specific intervention.

Although each of these sources provide important and helpful guidance for transition research, the field would benefit from also having a more comprehensive and interactional framework to steer future research. Many prevail- ing transition models were developed from a retrospective, rather than a prospective, posture. Likewise, research rec- ommendations emerging from literature reviews and individual studies tend to concentrate on a specific practice or a particular facet of transition education. This intentionally narrow focus can mean that interactions among practices or topics are often not unaddressed.

Framing Transition Research

The purpose of this article is to present a framework for transition research that identifies key areas in need of further examination, as well as intersections across these areas and with other aspects of the field. A holistic and proactive view of transition guided our work in identifying areas where future research could occur. We further showcase specific research needs to call attention to areas where future research should occur. We do not intend our recom- mendations to be interpreted as exhaustive or constraining.

Instead, they provide examples of inquiry which hold potential to substantively move the field forward.

As members of the research committee in the Division on Career Development and Transition (DCDT) of the Council for Exceptional Children, our initial discussions examined past and current perspectives explaining, synthe- sizing, and guiding research on transition issues, as well as identifying emergent research needs. Our review of transition-related literature pinpointed a number of extant models that have been influential in shaping transition policy, research, and practice, including conceptual models (e.g., Halpern, 1985; Wagner, Kutash, Duschnowski, & Epstein, 2005; Will, 1984) and practice models (e.g., Kohler, 1996;

NASET, 2005; NCWDY, 2009). We examined these models to identify both commonalities and conceptual gaps requir- ing attention. We also considered features of interdisciplin- ary frameworks from related fields (e.g., Bourdieu, 1986;

Bronfenbrenner, 2005; Tinto, 1993).

The working group held a series of nearly a dozen meet- ings (both distance and in-person) to develop a framework that would build on the work of past scholars and provide a comprehensive picture of current and anticipated transition research needs. Discussions addressed relevant features of past efforts that should be incorporated in a new framework as well as ideas for depicting this work visually. Multiple

(3)

rounds of reviewing, discussing, and writing occurred both individually and in teams, resulting in a new research framework (see Figure 1). We then used the framework to illustrate its application for future research.

Description of the Research Framework

Transition is a process-oriented, results-based approach young people experience as they prepare for, and move

from, adolescence to adult life. Interaction across and among people and contexts make the presence of variation expected and constant. As such, transition research on individuals with disabilities is complex and multifaceted, often invoking multiple disciplines of knowledge. The components of this framework (see Figure 1) depict the individual with a disability as a core running through multiple layers representing culture, services and supports, levers, and quality of life.

Each of these layers depicts focal elements that are known to Figure 1. Framework depicting aspects of transition warranting additional research attention.

(4)

impact transition. All framework components should be seen as having permeable or soft boundaries; the depiction of these boundaries seen here is stretched or expanded to facilitate our discussion of each discreet one. Like the bel- lows of an accordion that collapse and expand, the layers of this framework have iterative and uneven movement, illus- trating the individualized and multidirectional nature of transition. Although complex, all parts of the framework—

core, layers, and elements—and their intersections warrant examination to fully understand transition.

The figure depicts the components of the framework—

its core, layers, and elements—separately and distinctly for the purposes of this discussion. In reality, the delineation of transition components may escape clear boundaries and can be interactional and multidirectional. Previous frameworks have emphasized the individual with a disability and transition as a student-centered process. We retain this focus as reflected by the prominent position of the individual with a disability who represents the framework’s core. Individuals, however, change and grow over time.

Transition experiences and goals evolve as an adolescent becomes an adult, a reality we depict by segmenting this core into three broad time periods: school years, young adulthood, and adulthood.

The core in this framework extends through several layers. The arrangement of layers reflects proximity and imme- diacy in the life of the individual with a disability. Family, group, and community are elements comprising the first layer, culture. Taken together, these elements along with the social capital, or connections that result from an individual’s interconnectedness to other individuals and groups, represent culture. This layer plays a primary role in shaping individual identity, but it also reflects societal interactions and contextualizes transition planning. The core then tra- verses through the second layer, services and supports, its elements (i.e., assessment planning, instruction, supports, activities, and relationships) representing formal and informal experiences associated with learning how to meet the demands of adulthood. This layer represents the substance of transition programming that combines both disability- specific and generically available services and supports.

Levers, the third layer through which the core travels, is comprised of elements (e.g., funding, laws, policies) that are instrumental in shaping the transition services and supports individuals with a disability access. However, these elements are less proximal to the individual with a disability. The fourth layer depicted in the framework, quality of life, includes experiences and outcomes that emerge from the process of transition.

Although the layers are depicted as separate from one another (see Figure 1), we see them as collapsible and expandable depending on their centrality to a particular research question. This distinguishes our framework from others because the layers are omnipresent and adjacent to

the individual. Like lenses, the layers are intended to help researchers intentionally filter their examination of transition. They can be used singly, in combination, or expanded/

collapsed unevenly, so that a particular aspect of a transition question or problem is emphasized.

The use of arrows in this framework is sparse and only used to underscore multidirectionality. The paths from layer to layer can be traversed back and forth over time as educational and community systems are integrated. Another dis- tinction of this framework is that time periods associated with transition push beyond the end of secondary school and well into adulthood. This focuses researcher attention on the core as a reflection of both individual development and maturation and the collective development of community. By depicting the expanded framework and increasing the visibility of all components, we underscore researchers’

need to consider the embedded nature of the elements, the push and pull of the layers, and the resulting, variable adja- cency of these to the core. We acknowledge that a single study cannot address all components equally or simultane- ously, but we advocate that researchers acknowledge the foci of their work and address the resulting limitations with transparency.

Pressing Research Needs

As emphasized in the previous section, the framework identifies underexamined complexities of transition research. To more fully illustrate the application of this framework, this next section addresses six areas of pressing research need. We emphasize that this list is neither exhaustive nor prioritized. Instead, we selected research examples to illustrate the potential use and flexibility of the framework for transition researchers. See Table 1 for example questions in each of the selected areas of needed transition research.

Identifying Student Characteristics

Individuals with disabilities are the focal point of this transition research framework—the core that intersects with—

as is impacted by—all other areas. More than 2,000,000 transition-age youth with disabilities are served in secondary schools across the United States (U.S. Department of Education, 2016). Although they are all identified as need- ing special education, they are anything but homogeneous.

Indeed, the diversity in students’ strengths, needs, prefer- ences, interests, goals, characteristics, and life experiences—irrespective of disability label—is striking.

Individualization is a hallmark of special education and must also permeate transition research. As a field, we have not yet attained a level of precision whereby we can pinpoint which particular transition practices are best (or most appropriate) for which subgroups of students.

(5)

It is important that future researchers identify which individual characteristics are most salient when selecting appropriate services and supports. For example, transition practices are often described in the literature as “evidence- based” for students with autism, emotional disturbance, or other special education disability categories. But it is not clear—empirically or theoretically—that the IDEA categories are the best or only way to match the most appropriate transition services and supports to individual students. Not only can special education category criteria vary across states, but adult service systems and postsecondary programs tend to conceptualize disability categories quite dif- ferently than do schools. As the field strives to identify what

“works,” attention must also turn to how practices are adapted for or applied with different subgroups of students.

The current focus on multitiered supports emphasizes rely- ing on the experiences and outcomes of individual students

rather than disability groups when identifying interventions. It may be that decisions about interventions related to employment, self-determination, college preparation, and community participation are best driven by particular needs, functioning, or goals that intersect with (or are independent of) disability. This framework calls for consideration of how the characteristics of individuals with disabilities intersect with the services and supports they receive and shape the experiences and outcomes they have over time.

Providing richer descriptions and better assessments of study participants is an initial step in depicting a fuller portrait of the students for whom a practice has been shown to work (or failed to work). Moreover, systematic replications of interventions across students with different profiles also are needed to help explain the boundaries of interventions and pinpoint which student characteristics take precedence when selecting interventions for use in practice.

Table 1. Example Research Questions.

Area Example questions

Identifying student characteristics What are the most salient student characteristics to consider when selecting interventions?

How do we individualize interventions to maximize their impact and relevance for particular students?

Which groups of students have had limited representation in the research literature?

What strengths and positive characteristics do transition-age youth with disabilities possess and how can they best be amplified?

Understanding culture How and why do secondary and postschool outcomes differ across groups at the intersections of disability, sex, socioeconomic status, and home language?

How does the culture of a practice such as transition planning, driven by education policy, work for families from nondominant groups?

To what extent are evidence-based practices for youth with disabilities applicable across differing contexts and environments?

How are resilience and risk evidenced in the transition to adulthood for immigrant and first- generation adolescents identified with disabilities?

Reexamining outcomes What indicates a “good life” for individuals with disabilities at different points in time?

What are the different pathways students take in the early years after leaving school?

What combinations of experiences are most likely to lead to particular postschool outcomes?

Elucidating social capital How does social capital function in the transitions to employment and postsecondary education?

How do inclusive education and community environments impact the development of social capital during secondary and postschool transition?

Appraising transition practices and

programs What practices and programs are most effective? What are the boundaries of their effectiveness?

What are the critical elements of transition that must be implemented with high degree of fidelity? What are successful adaptation of these elements?

What are some leading methods in assessing implementation fidelity?

How can principles of implementation science inform implementation of secondary transition programs for youth with disabilities?

Documenting integration and

interactions among systems How might we support access to the wider range of preparatory experiences available to any student in a particular school or community?

What steps could be taken to build the commitment and capacity of local, state, and federal programs to address the needs of transition-age individuals with and without disabilities?

How might educational and adult service systems work in tandem to support seamless movement between school and adult experiences?

(6)

The heterogeneity among students with disabilities also highlights the necessity of adapting or individualizing interventions to meet the needs of particular students. Amid its current emphasis on implementation fidelity, the field may be overlooking opportunities to individually tailor interventions in ways that optimize their impact or relevance for different students. Our framework also encourages consideration of the multiple contexts in which interventions are embedded (e.g., general education and special education, school services and adult services) and the ways in which intervention components might be individualized to meet contextual demands. For example, practices like paid employment, community-based instruction, and self-advocacy instruction need to be tailored to meet the needs of individuals depending on the contexts in which they are implemented. For researchers, this may require delineating which components of an intervention are considered essential and which components are considered flexible or optional and identifying which student characteristics (along with contextual factors) should lead us to select one intervention configuration over another. Navigating the bal- ance between implementation fidelity, adaptation, and individualization is a complex issue that warrants additional attention among researchers.

It is clear that gaps related to serving some groups of students still exist. For example, much research has focused on college participation for students with learning disabilities (Newman & Madaus, 2015), but less so for students with sensory disabilities. Likewise, much research has focused on promoting self-determination for students with intellectual disability, but little attention has focused on students with emotional disturbance. Overall, much less is known about effective services and supports for individuals with disabilities of color, who experience poverty, who live in rural communities, and/or who have complex support needs. Continued efforts to map existing and generate new research across student characteristics, service and support areas, and quality of life domains are needed to address enduring omissions.

Finally, the field of special education has paid primary attention to the challenges, deficits, and needs experienced by students with disabilities (Harry & Klingner, 2006;

Trainor, 2017). However, the transition mandates within the IDEA emphasize that services be “based on the individual child’s needs, taking into account the child’s strengths, pref- erences, and interests” (34 CFR 300.43(a), italics added).

Yet few studies have addressed the strengths, abilities, and positive qualities among students with disabilities. As importantly, few studies have addressed how these are informed by group affiliation and identity. Transition is a period in which connections to the workplace, postsecondary education, and community involvement are forged based on what students can, and are motivated to, accom- plish rather than what they struggle to do. Much

more attention should be directed toward examining strength-based assessment and planning approaches, devel- oping interventions that build upon and enhance those strengths, and documenting the contributions individuals with disabilities are making in their communities that contribute to their overall quality of life.

Understanding Culture

A robust model for secondary and postschool transition attends to the role of culture (see Figure 1). To date, a small number of transition studies (e.g., Povenmire-Kirk, Lindstrom, & Bullis, 2010; Rueda, Monzo, Shapiro, Gomez,

& Blacher, 2005) have examined group differences, laying the important groundwork demonstrating that transition planning is not a one-size-fits-all endeavor. Identifying and studying practices that include experiences, interactions, and activities, in addition to individual and group identities and affiliations (Artiles et al., 2011; Arzubiaga, Artiles, King, & Harris-Murri, 2008), is essential to understanding variation across and within groups of people.

Although no single, all-encompassing definition exists, culture is understood to mean ways of knowing and doing that are learned via group membership (Rogoff, 2003).

Theoretical frameworks for studying culture typically have the following common threads: (a) an individual’s identity and group affiliation are multiple in origin, they intersect, and they change over time (e.g., being male and Black is measurably different than being male and White when cal- culating the risk of school expulsion); (b) an individual or group culture is more than identity and affiliation; it includes experiences resulting from interactions with things and people, as is evidenced when people learn to use language and other tools (e.g., learning when to say “no,” designing a resume); (c) the relationship between cultural and behavior is not predetermined and may vary in degree to which individuals and groups accept or reject in- and across-group norms (e.g., shifting the norm from employment to postsecondary education for students with ID); (d) a culture of practice is established by dominant or majority groups through shared values, behaviors, and activities (e.g., expecting children to accept the legal responsibilities of adulthood at age 18); (e) a culture of practice can be dis- rupted or resisted by the agency of individuals or minority groups (e.g., the “nothing about us without us” disability rights movement); and (f) a relationship between cultural practices and power exists (e.g., recruitment and employment practices by people without disabilities often, intentionally or not, exclude qualified people with disabilities from competitive employment).

The focus on culture in future transition research is one way to address persistent inequitable transition outcomes. It is important that researchers employ a theory of culture as they attach meaning to transition outcomes disparities and

(7)

variation in experiences across subpopulations. Transition research is not without important studies that have examined problems of equity. For example, Hart, Grigal, and Weir (2010) and Rojewski, Lee, and Gregg (2015) examined differing aspects of contextual and programmatic barriers to postsecondary education for students with disabilities. Currently, transition research has identified some causes and results of marginalization, but transition researchers have made relatively few assertions about how to dismantle associated obstacles in schools and communities. The interconnectedness of the individual to community and to transition supports and services is underexamined.

The hidden barriers of ableism, racism, and sexism relative to transition are a challenge to unearth without expanding our conceptualization of culture and its role in transition.

Reexamining Student Outcomes

Attention to student outcomes has long dominated discussions of transition education. Research documenting the disappointing postschool outcomes of early special education graduates helped spur the introduction of federal transition mandates (e.g., Hasazi, Gordon, & Roe, 1985; Stanfield, 1973). More recently, the value of understanding what happens to students during and after high school has been codi- fied in a series of measures required by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). These include measures of graduation (Indicator 1), dropping out (Indicator 2), exclu- sionary discipline rates (Indicator 4), and postschool outcomes (Indicator 14). The achievements of students with disabilities during and after high school speak to whether the primary purpose of special education is being met—pre- paring students to thrive in adulthood. In other words, it is essential to determine the ways in which the services and supports students with disabilities receive enhance their experiences and outcomes outside of school. Despite the importance and attention already allocated to examining student outcomes, this area of research endures as crucial.

Research questions about the temporal nature of student outcomes is important to consider. The outcomes considered most important or relevant to individuals with disabilities can look quite different at various points in the transition process. Students’ experiences and achievements during high school (e.g., skill and knowledge acquisition, grades, early work experiences) provide the most proximal measures of the impact of the services and supports delivered at the secondary level through both special and general education. It is here that the field needs a much richer understanding of both the immediate and longer-term impact of transition-related interventions. The clarity with which the field can describe life after high school will influence our ability to make much-needed refinements to transition- related policies and practices. However, the years following high school exit can be marked by considerable

fluidity—involvement in employment, further education, independent living, community experiences, and access to government and community supports—changing substantially over time as young adults find their footing.

Although numerous studies have focused on the outcomes of students at some point during the first 5 years after school exit, most of this scholarship has addressed a single point in time (i.e., 1, 2, or 4 years out). For example, postsecondary education research primarily has focused on enrollment rather than completion. Although the percentage of students with disabilities enrolling in postsecondary education programs has increased over time, completion rates have remained stagnant (Newman, Wagner, Cameto, Knokey, & Shaver, 2010). Focusing on both access and completion requires us to examine the types of postsecondary supports, programs, and environments necessary at key junctures over time. Finally, the achievements of adults in later adulthood (i.e., five or more years after school exit) reflect a period of time when career and community pathways have typically stabilized and the overall success of the transition to adulthood can best be evaluated. Yet few studies have adopted such a long-term perspective and few funding mechanisms are available to support this sort of longitudinal work.

A number of measurement challenges quickly become apparent when reflecting on available research addressing the experiences and outcomes that contribute to one’s quality of life. In both research and reporting on key transition indicators, researchers almost always treat postschool outcomes dichotomously (e.g., someone is either working or not working, accessing postsecondary education or not, living independently or not). Although such measurement approaches can certainly ease analyses, they do not ade- quately capture the relevant dimensions and quality of these experiences. For example, a variety of job features can influence whether a young person considers their job to constitute a “successful” employment outcome—sufficient pay, adequate benefits, opportunities for advancement, alignment with one’s interests, degree of inclusivity, and availability of supports. In addition, an individual’s quality of life requires giving attention to a broader range of outcomes that can contribute to human flourishing. A good job and additional education may contribute to a satisfying life.

But thriving can be also influenced by friendships, health, safety, intimacy, family, spirituality, self-determination, valued community roles, and belonging. Although such dimensions of a “good life” can be especially challenging to capture, we encourage researchers to tackle this important complexity.

In addition, individualization should be accounted for in the examination of outcomes. Although the benchmark against which individuals with disabilities are experiencing postschool success should reference the outcomes typical of similar-age peers without disabilities, it may also be

(8)

helpful to examine the extent to which each student’s outcomes reflect her or his own personal goals for life after high school. In other words, the degree of alignment between the aspirations and postschool outcomes of students provides another relevant way of determining the success of transition education. Personal definitions of quality of life—conceptualizations influenced by many personal and external factors, including one’s culture, community, family, and even where one finds themselves in history—vary. Different students will hold a variety of priorities for whether, where, or how they work, learn, live, recreate, and socialize after high school. For researchers, this may require paying more serious attention to which outcomes matter most to individual students. In addition, this may push the field to pursue more holistic portraits of quality of life in which multiple outcomes (e.g., work, college, relationships, community) are examined in combination with others rather than separately.

Finally, the field needs a much deeper understanding of how the combination of services and supports students receive during secondary school, postsecondary school, and young adult life lead to the various outcomes discussed in this section. Numerous studies have examined a constella- tion of factors that might be associated with the postschool outcomes of students with disabilities (e.g., Mazzotti et al., 2016; Test, Mazzotti, et al., 2009). However, much of this research has focused on the extent to which a small number of discrete skill domains (e.g., social, communication, travel, self-care skills), isolated experiences (e.g., occupa- tional course taking, paid work experience, general education inclusion), and/or other factors (e.g., interagency involvement, parent expectations) predict specific postschool outcomes (e.g., employment, postsecondary education enrollment, independent living). Fairly little is known about (a) which combinations of educational and other transition experiences over time best position students with disabilities to attain their goals for life after high school, (b) how the quality of those experiences impact students’ trajectories, and (c) the ways in which the programming schools and others provide should be tailored to align with the individual needs and goals of students.

Elucidating Social Capital

Social capital is comprised of connections among individuals and groups that can extend access to information and opportunity; the volume and potential of these resources are directly tied to the expanse and strength of one’s social network (Bourdieu, 1986). Social capital has been linked to employment and postsecondary education for people without disabilities. Examining the role of social capital in transition processes can inform the development of strategies to increase connections with peers and adults. Social capital is best understood as a function of membership in families,

groups, and communities. Transition calls upon a range of interactions and connections to people. For example, secondary students with and without disabilities access and use information about college from guidance counselors, receive test preparation from SAT tutors, interact with vocational rehabilitation counselors, and connect with adults about internships, job opportunities, and independent living arrangements for life after high school. These relationships are the product of human interaction that is contextualized over time and lays the groundwork for both the implementation and the receipt of transition services and supports.

Studying connections between individuals with a disability, community, and services expands our understanding of how both formal and informal supports are critical. Extant transition studies have identified the importance of early work experiences on successful transitions (Carter, Austin, &

Trainor, 2011), but researchers must also ask how engagement in other settings, beyond the walls of the classroom, such as participation in clubs, community recreation, activ- ism, and special interest or affinity groups help prepare adolescents for adulthood.

Transition policies influence social capital (e.g., identifying the least restrictive environment), makes it important to expand the knowledge base with a focus in this direction.

Research has identified a positive relation between inclusion and a variety of secondary and postschool outcomes.

For example, multiple studies have shown that inclusive education in academic content areas correlate with postsecondary enrollment for secondary students with disabilities (e.g., Lombardi, Doren, Gau, & Lindstrom, 2013; Rojewski et al., 2015). The extent to which these outcomes are associated with social capital deserves greater attention and can be further examined with methodological tools such as social network analysis, infrequently used in special education but routinely used in other fields.

Simultaneous consideration of natural peer supports in transition, supported by empirical evidence (Carter &

Kennedy, 2006), could be expanded. For example, the impact of peer relationships in postsecondary independent living for individuals with disabilities (e.g., dorm life) has not been fully studied, yet this is a normative experience for young adults with and without disabilities as they leave high school and enter college or university that includes campus residency. Social capital can also be associated with disability-specific resources such as policy-driven collaborations between secondary and vocational rehabilitation professionals (Morningstar, Trainor & Murray, 2015).

Appraising Transition Practices and Programs

Much of the research in our field to date has concentrated on identifying particular services and supports (i.e., practices) that are effective when delivered to individual

(9)

students at particular points in time during their secondary school experience (Mazzotti et al., 2016; Test, Fowler, et al., 2009). Scores of such studies have made critical contributions to the field’s understanding of transition assessment and planning and the instruction, supports, activities, and relationships students should access during secondary school. However, as the number of evidence-based practices accumulate, examination of the ways in which these individual practices are sequenced and delivered within the context of multiyear, comprehensive secondary schools and programs to large numbers of students with disabilities is needed. In other words, the ways in which school- and district-level programming ought to be conceptualized and administered to maximize impact should be addressed empirically. Few descriptions, and even fewer evaluations, of comprehensive intervention packages for transition pres- ently exist (e.g., Certo et al., 2003; Odom, Duda, Kucharczyk, Cox, & Stabel, 2014). In addition, the field has paid too little attention to the fact that individual practices are delivered across classrooms and embedded within larger district- and community-level systems.

The essential elements of high-quality transition programs should be clearly delineated and rigorously evaluated. Although research on evidence-based practices and predictors can help inform this understanding, additional work is needed. Fixsen, Blase, Metz, and Van Dyke (2013) recommended four criteria when operationalizing programs: (a) a clear description of program features, (b) a clear description of essential functions that define the program, (c) operational definitions of essential functions, and (d) practical assessment of practitioners who are using the program. Although some efforts have been made to identify salient elements of transition programs through literature mapping, expert consensus, and stakeholder feedback (e.g., Morningstar, Lee, Lattin, & Murray, 2016; Odom et al., 2018), the extent to which programs marked by the combination of these elements actually contribute to better outcomes for students requires future evaluation. Studies are needed that causally link program delivery to student outcomes, particularly for programs that are both complicated and complex (Rogers, 2008).

The process of initiating and sustaining change in program implementation is not well understood. The persis- tence of disappointing student outcomes suggests substantial changes are still needed in the ways in which schools and districts provide transition education. What might be the catalyst for local change? How are needed changes intro- duced throughout a school or district? What factors ensure desired changes are initiated and sustained over time amid shifting staff and changing contexts (e.g., policies, laws, resources, funding, priorities)? Undertaking this work well will require researchers to articulate explicit theories of change, operationalize programs clearly, document program implementation, and examine student outcomes within lon-

gitudinal projects. Embedding the principles of implementation science could be especially helpful to the field.

Documenting Interactions Among Systems

The transition to adulthood is not unique to individuals with disabilities. Rather, it represents an ordinary and expected period of change and development experienced by all young people, regardless of their disability status. Yet transition tends to be addressed in divergent tracks—one set of professionals, policies, and practices for individuals with disabilities (i.e., special education and disability-specific adult services); another set for all others (i.e., general education and universally available community services). As a result, ordinary experiences and partnerships that might benefit individuals with disabilities are regularly overlooked or rarely accessed. The field has focused little empirical attention on the wide range of services and supports available to any young person and how these might be accessed and integrated with more specialized services—both within schools and into adulthood.

More than 80% of youth with disabilities spend much (i.e., 40% or more) of their school day in regular classes (U.S. Department of Education, 2016). It is less clear whether these students are accessing the universally available transition experiences available within their schools and communities (Morningstar & Kurth, 2017). For example, participation in college and career fairs, service-learning and volunteer opportunities, extracurricular and leadership activities, internship and apprenticeship programs, mentorships and community connections, and career assessments and counseling are all avenues through which students without disabilities prepare for adulthood.

Supporting access to typical transition experiences and supports available to any young person and evaluating its impact on postschool trajectories is an important area of research (Morningstar, Lombardi, Fowler, & Test, 2017).

Such normative experiences provide the foundation upon which more specialized experiences can be added.

Tighter integration of disability-specific and generically available programs is still needed. Historically, the discipline of special education emerged in response to the failure of regular education to meet the needs of students with disabilities. Likewise, formal transition and adult services were developed because typical secondary school and community programs were not always leading individuals with disabilities into the workplace, postsecondary education, or other community experiences (Wehmeyer & Webb, 2014).

Yet, it is the combination of these pathways, rather than a focus on one over the other, that now holds the most potential for students with disabilities. The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (2014) requirement that vocational rehabilitation works collaboratively with schools to provide preemployment transition services represents one example

(10)

of synergistic action across systems. Moreover, noticeable changes in student outcomes are unlikely to materialize in the absence of strong partnerships with local, state, and federal programs aimed at all citizens (e.g., American Job Centers, Jobs for America’s Graduates, youth development programs, community workforce initiatives). The development and evaluation of interventions that also involve partners and programs from beyond the disability system should be pursued (Carter & Bumble, 2018).

Delivering the breadth of needed transition services and supports—within both school and adult systems and across both disability and nondisability systems—requires that educators and other professionals have the capacity and commitment to implement effective practices for individuals with disabilities. The initial training and ongoing professional development needs of these stakeholders are implicit throughout this entire framework. Yet a resounding finding throughout the literature is that many professionals report being poorly prepared or ill-informed to implement or advocate for recommended practices (e.g., Holzberg, Clark,

& Morningstar, 2018). The field needs to identify and evaluate models of professional development that lead to better effective implementation of services and supports across systems.

Finally, strengthening the interactions among school and adult programs is an enduring need. Although interagency collaboration has long been mandated, it occurs inconsis- tently and in highly variable ways. A clear portrait of the ways in which schools are working in tandem with state agencies and community programs to meet the transition needs of students with disabilities has yet to emerge.

Moreover, the literature includes few empirically validated models of interagency collaboration, at either the local or state level, that substantially improve the in- and postschool outcomes of students with disabilities (cf. Flowers et al., 2018).

Methodological Complexities and Considerations

Conducting rigorous research that addresses the multiple, intersecting aspects of this transition framework is replete with challenges. In this final section, we highlight just a few of the complexities and considerations related to this work.

First, the framework makes clear that transition researchers must attend to the multiple layers of contexts and factors that impact transition education. The core connection of these layers is the individual with a disability. Looking at the framework, researchers are reminded that each layer has multiple elements, increasing the complexity of the way transition is studied. Factors such as the local and regional economy, density of services, and policies shaped by preva- lent political environment can be imagined as a part of every layer. Again, we acknowledge that one study cannot

examine all components of the framework—the core, the layers, and the elements—with equal and simultaneous attention. What the framework illustrates, however, is that these components are present and their relationship to both the questions being asked and the methods used to answer them should be made transparent. The framework offers a reminder that the complexity of transition as process and outcome requires either a set of research studies addressing a particular problem of practice and/or a frank discussion of the limitations associated with a narrow focus.

Second, the research areas we have highlighted embody some of the most difficult measurement challenges in need of addressing. Characterizing the students we serve in different and better ways, accurately representing the role of culture, establishing fidelity for new interventions, documenting program implementation over time, and operationalizing a broader range of student outcomes all require the availability of strong measures that can capture the complexity of these transition issues. Meeting these needs may require both adapting established measures from related fields and investing in the development of new measures specific to our context. To date, many of the measures reflected in our literature have been researcher created and have limited psychometric information (Carter et al., 2013).

Third, answering the pressing questions of our field will certainly require the use of multiple methodologies.

Methodological diversity has marked our field since its inception (Carter et al., 2013; Mazzotti, Rowe, Cameto, Test, & Morningstar, 2013). Mixed-method studies or lines of inquiry that combine quantitative and qualitative approaches that include not only the utilization of extant datasets, direct observation, and experimentation, but also description and interpretation will be particularly important, as many of the issues the field faces must be examined from multiple vantage points to be fully understood.

Likewise, less frequently employed methodologies may be needed moving forward (e.g., rigorous program evaluations, longitudinal designs, discreet group analyses). As the field strives to address the areas highlighted in Figure 1, we emphasize the importance of methodological pluralism.

Fourth, the identification of “quality indicators” within transition research remains important. Indicators addressing qualitative, group-experimental, single-subject, and correlational designs in special education (e.g., Brantlinger, Jimenez, Klingner, Pugach, & Richardson, 2005; Gersten et al., 2005; Horner et al., 2005; Thompson, Diamond, McWilliam, Snyder, & Snyder, 2005) have already had a substantial impact on the rigor of transition research. Yet the field of transition also relies heavily on document reviews, content analyses, secondary data analyses, observational tactics, large-scale surveys, and longitudinal designs. Each of these approaches has been carried out in uneven and inconsistent ways, partially owing to the complexity of transition illustrated in the framework. Offering methodological

(11)

guidance in these (and other) areas could provide much- needed guidance to future scholars and raise the quality of research in the field.

Fifth, we also advocate for increased levels of funding support for research that allows for a broad examination of issues impacting interventions. While it is certainly laud- able that agencies such as the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) and nonprofit organizations such as the William T.

Grant Foundation continue to prioritize rigorous research designs in transition to adulthood research (e.g., Test et al., 2018), we urge higher levels of funding and lengthier scopes of work to allow for appropriate data collection.

Research has long played a critical role in enhancing transition opportunities and outcomes for students with disabilities. Future policies, practices, and priorities in the field of transition will continue to be informed and influenced by the multitude of studies that have yet to be undertaken. We described a new research framework for transition that identifies areas and intersections for exploration. We also offered examples of research we see as especially important to pursue. We invite our colleagues to build upon this work in ways that lead to a richer and fuller understanding of how best to design and deliver high-quality transition education for students with disabilities.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Artiles, A. J., Thorius King, K. A., Bal, A., Neal, R., Waitoller, F.

R., & Hernandez-Saca, D. (2011). Beyond culture as group traits: Future learning disabilities ontology, epistemology, and inquiry on research knowledge use. Learning Disability Quarterly, 34, 167–179. doi:10.1177/0731948711417552 Arzubiaga, A. E., Artiles, A. J., King, K. A., & Harris-

Murri, N. (2008). Beyond research on cultural minori- ties: Challenges and implications of research as situated cultural practice. Exceptional Children, 74, 309–327.

doi:10.1177/001440290807400303

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York, NY: Greenwood Press.

Brantlinger, E., Jimenez, R., Klingner, J., Pugach, M.,

& Richardson, V. (2005). Qualitative studies in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 195–207.

doi:10.1177/001440290507100205

Bronfenbrenner, U. (Ed.). (2005). Making human beings human:

Biological perspectives on human development. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Carter, E. W., Austin, D., & Trainor, A. A. (2011). Factors associated with the early work experiences of adolescents with severe disabilities. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 49, 233-247. doi:10.1177/1044207311414680 Carter, E. W., Brock, M. E., Bottema-Beutel, K., Bartholomew,

A., Boehm, T. L., & Cease-Cook, J. (2013). Methodological trends in secondary education and transition research:

Looking backward and moving forward. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 36, 15–24.

doi:10.1177/2165143413475659

Carter, E. W., & Bumble, J. L. (2018). The promise and possibilities of community conversations: Expanding employment opportunities for people with disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 28, 195–202. doi:10.1177/1044207317739408 Carter, E. W., & Kennedy, C. H. (2006). Promoting access to the

general curriculum using peer support strategies. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31, 284-292.

Certo, N. J., Mautz, D., Pumpian, I., Sax, C., Smalley, K., Wade, H. A., . . . Batterman, N. (2003). Review and discussion of a model for seamless transition to adulthood. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 38, 3–17.

Fixsen, D., Blase, K., Metz, A., & Van Dyke, M. (2013). Statewide implementation of evidence-based programs. Exceptional Children, 79, 213–230. doi:10.1177/001440291307900206 Flowers, C., Test, D. W., Povenmire-Kirk, T. C., Diegelmann,

K. M., Bunch-Crump, K. R., Kemp-Inman, A., &

Goodnight, C. I. (2018). A demonstration of interagency collaboration for students with disabilities: A multi-level approach. The Journal of Special Education, 51, 211–222.

doi:10.1177/0022466917720764

Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Compton, D., Coyne, M., Greenwood, C., & Innocenti, M. S. (2005). Quality indicators for group experimental and quasi-experimental research in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 149–164.

doi:10.1177/001440290507100202

Haber, M. G., Mazzotti, V. L., Rowe, D. A., Bartholomew, A., Test, D. W., & Fowler, C. H. (2016). What works, when, for whom, and with whom: A meta-analytic review of predictors of postsecondary success for students with disabilities. Review of Educational Research, 86, 123-162.

doi:10.3102/0034654315583135

Halpern, A. S. (1985). Transition: A look at the founda- tions. Exceptional Children, 51, 479–486. doi:10.1177 /001440298505100604

Halpern, A. S. (1990). A methodological review of follow-up and follow-along studies tracking school leavers from special education. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 13, 13–27. doi:10.1177/088572889001300102

Harry, B., & Klingner, J. K. (2006). Why are so many minority stu- dents in special education? New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Hart, D., Grigal, M., & Weir, C. (2010). Expanding the paradigm:

Postsecondary education options for individuals with autism spectrum disorder and intellectual disabilities. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 25(3), 134-150.

Hasazi, S. B., Gordon, L. R., & Roe, C. A. (1985). Factors associated with the employment status of handicapped youth exit- ing high school from 1979 to 1983. Exceptional Children, 51, 455–469. doi:10.1177/001440298505100601

(12)

Holzberg, D. G., Clark, K. A., & Morningstar, M. E. (2018). Transition- focused professional development: An annotated bibliography of essential elements and features of professional development. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 41, 50–55. doi:10.1177/2165143417742362 Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., &

Wolery, M. (2005). The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education.

Exceptional Children, 71, 165–179. doi:10.1177/001 440290507100203

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C.A. § 1400 et seq., Pub. L. No. P.L. 108-446 (2004).

Kohler, P. D. (1996). A taxonomy for transition programming:

Linking research and practice. Champaign: Transition Research Institute, University of Illinois.

Kohler, P. D., Gothberg, J. E., Fowler, C. H., & Coyle, J. (2016).

Taxonomy for transition programming 2.0: A model for plan- ning, organizing, and evaluating transition education, services, and programs. Kalamazoo: Western Michigan University.

Landmark, L. J., Ju, S., & Zhang, D. (2010). Substantiated best practices in transition: Fifteen years later. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 33, 165–176.

doi:10.1177/0885728810376410

Lombardi, A. R., Doren, B., Gau, J. M., & Lindstrom, L. (2013).

The influence of instructional settings in reading and math on postsecondary participation. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 24, 170–180. doi:10.1177/1044207312468766 Madaus, J. W., Gelbar, N. W., Dukes, L. L., Faggella-Luby,

M., Lalor, A. R., & Kowitt, J. S. (2013). Thirty-five years of transition topics: A review of CDTEI issues from 1978 to 2002. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 36, 7–14. doi:10.1177/2165143413476734 Mazzotti, V. L., Rowe, D. A., Cameto, R., Test, D. W., &

Morningstar, M. E. (2013). Identifying and promoting transition evidence-based practices and predictors of success: A position paper of the Division on Career Development and Transition. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 36, 140–151. doi:10.1177/2165143413503365 Mazzotti, V. L., Rowe, D. A., Sinclair, J., Poppen, M., Woods, W.

E., & Shearer, M. L. (2016). Predictors of post-school success:

A systematic review of NLTS2 secondary analyses. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 39, 196–215. doi:10.1177/2165143415588047

Morningstar, M. E., & Kurth, J. A. (2017). Status of inclusive educational placement for students with extensive and per- vasive support needs. Inclusion, 5, 83–93. doi:10.1352/2326- 6988.5.2.83

Morningstar, M. E., Lee, H., Lattin, D. L., & Murray, A. K. (2016).

An evaluation of the technical adequacy of a revised mea- sure of quality indicators of transition. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 39, 227–236.

doi:10.1177/2165143415589925

Morningstar, M. E., Lombardi, A., Fowler, C. H., & Test, D.

W. (2017). A college and career readiness framework for secondary students with disabilities. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 40, 79–91.

doi:10.1177/2165143415589926

Morningstar, M. E., Trainor, A. A., & Murray, A. (2015).

Examining outcomes associated with adult life engagement

for young adults with high incidence disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 43, 195–208. doi:10.3233/JVR- 150769

National Alliance for Secondary Education and Transition. (2005).

National standards and quality indicators: Transition toolkit for systems improvement. Minneapolis: National Center on Secondary Education and Transition, University of Minnesota.

National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability for Youth.

(2009). Guideposts for success (2nd ed.). Washington, DC:

Institute for Educational Leadership.

Newman, L., & Madaus, J. (2015). An analysis of factors related to receipt of accommodations and services by postsecondary students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 36, 208–219. doi:10:117/0741932515572912

Newman, L., Wagner, M., Cameto, R., Knokey, A.-M., & Shaver, D. (2010). Comparisons across time of the outcomes of youth with disabilities up to 4 years after high school. A report of findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS) and the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

Odom, S. L., Cox, A., Sideris, J., Hume, K. A., Hedges, S., Kucharczyk, S., . . . Neitzel, J. (2018). Assessing quality of program environments for children and youth with autism:

Autism Program Environment Rating Scale (APERS).

Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 48, 913–

924. doi:10.1007/s10803-017-3379-7

Odom, S. L., Duda, M. A., Kucharczyk, S., Cox, A. W., & Stabel, A. (2014). Applying an implementation science framework for adoption of a comprehensive program for high school students with autism spectrum disorder. Remedial and Special Education, 35, 123–132. doi:10.1177/0741932513519826 Povenmire-Kirk, T. C., Lindstrom, L., & Bullis, M. (2010). De

escuela a la vida adulta/From school to adult life: Transition needs for Latino youth with disabilities and their families.

Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 33, 41–51.

doi:10.1177/0885728809359004

Rogers, P. (2008). Using programme theory to evaluate complicated and complex aspects of interventions. Evaluation, 14, 29–48. doi:10.1177/1356389007084674

Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development.

New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Rojewski, J. W., Lee, I. H., & Gregg, N. (2015). Causal effects of inclusion on postsecondary education outcomes of individuals with high-incidence disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 25, 210–219. doi:10.1177/

1044207313505648

Rueda, R., Monzo, L., Shapiro, J., Gomez, J., & Blacher, J. (2005).

Cultural models of transition: Latina mothers of young adults with developmental disabilities. Exceptional Children, 71, 401–414. doi:10.1177/001440290507100402

Stanfield, J. S. (1973). Graduation: What happens to the retarded child when he grows up? Exceptional Children, 39, 548–552.

doi:10.1177/001440297303900705

Test, D. W., Fowler, C. H., Richter, S. M., White, J., Mazzotti, V., Walker, A. R., . . . Kortering, L. (2009).

Evidence-based practices in secondary transition. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32, 115–128.

doi:10.1177/0885728809336859

(13)

Test, D. W., Mazzotti, V. L., Mustian, A. L., Fowler, C. H., Kortering, L., & Kohler, P. (2009). Evidence-based secondary transition predictors for improving postschool outcomes for students with disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32, 160–181. doi:10.1177/0885728809346960 Test, D. W., Terrell, M., Clark, K., & Rusher, D. (2018). A summary

of NCSER funded projects in the area of Transition Outcomes for Secondary Students with Disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 29, 67–81. doi:10.1177/1044207318759447 Thompson, B., Diamond, K. E., McWilliam, R., Snyder, P., &

Snyder, S. W. (2005). Evaluating the quality of evidence from correlational research for evidence-based practice. Exceptional Children, 71, 181–194. doi:10.1177/001440290507100204 Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures

of student attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Trainor, A. A. (2017). Transition by design: Improving equity and outcomes for adolescents with disabilities. New York, NY:

Teachers College Press.

U.S. Department of Education. (2016). Thirty-eighth annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2016. Washington, DC:

Author.

Wagner, M., Kutash, K., Duschnowski, A. J., & Epstein, M.

H. (2005). The special education elementary longitudinal study and the national longitudinal transition study:

Study designs and implications for children and youth with emotional disturbance. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 13, 25–41. doi:10.1177/10634266050130 010301

Wehmeyer, M. L. & Webb, K. W. (Eds.). (2014). Handbook of adolescent transition education for youth with disabilities.

New York, NY: Routledge.

Will, M. (1984). OSERS programming for the transition of youth with disabilities. Washington, DC: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014, PL 113-128, 29 U.S.C. §§ et seq.