Contexts of Transition

By Scanlon, David

Modern American special education was begun out of concerns for effective transitions. From the days when asylums began to include minimal training to current trends in inclusive schooling, special education has functioned to prepare students with disabilities to lead improved lives. In later years, that has come to include participation in the citizenry. The Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA; 1975) was a reaction to the lack of schooling and dismal outcomes that many children with disabilities faced. A decade later, the charge to reform special education (notably Will, 1986) was based in part on concerns that special education outcomes, in terms of secondary school completion, postsecondary participation, employment, personal well-being, and independent living were barely better than before nationwide special education began. The ensuing special education focus on transition outcomes reflected that concern. Special Education, Learning Disabilities, and Transition

The modern history of learning disabilities (LD) closely matches the modern history of special education. Both existed prior to 1975, but both as we know them today were vitalized by the EAHCA. Much of the research on learning disabilities in the first decade of nationwide special education was focused on documenting the nature of the condition and its impact. Increasingly, intervention and service delivery have become the research field’s primary focus.

In both research eras, the overall outcomes have been the same: Students with LD underachieve academically, socially, and in transition outcomes. Published interventions typically document successful practices; however, students with LD generally make slower progress and lag behind their regular education peers in achievement, including in transition outcomes. Despite the way it may appear, special education for students with LD is far from a failure. Great progress has been made in academics and socialization, and descriptions of successful adults with LD abound.

Beginning with mostly segregated goals, cumculums, and placements, students with LD in special education have increasingly come to sit next to their peers without disabilities in the regular classroom and to work on the same curriculum. With the No Child Left Behind Act (2001) and the 2004 Reauthorization of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, students with LD are held to the same achievement standards as their peers. Still, students with LD are less likely than many of their peers to finish secondary education; they are more likely to end up involved in the corrections system; they leave school as lower achievers; they are less likely to participate in and complete postsecondary education; they hold lower status and more transient employment; and they have less independence, security, and satisfaction in their adult lives. Those were the reasons we began special education, those were the shortcomings of special education cited by Will (1986), and those have consistently been the findings of three decades of research into LD.

Despite continuing trends of poor transition outcomes for many with LD, we know a lot about how to help students with LD. The past three decades of research have yielded many insights into effective interventions and service delivery options, including for transition. Some understandings of the institutional and personal factors that impact transition have also resulted.

Researching the Contexts of Transition

Having established a research-based knowledge of the transition needs of students with LD and of effective planning and intervention practices, we need to research further why transition outcomes are not consistently better for those with LD. A glass-half-empty perspective says that the outcomes are not appreciably worse than before or for students with other disabilities, a glass-halffull perspective might say that transition is in the best state it has ever been for students with LD, and we might reasonably expect that they will continue to lag behind their regular education peers to some degree. There is some truth to both perspectives. Yet the intention of transition planning is that we do more. Without successful transition, special education has not failed merely to attain high standards for achievement; it has failed.

Making progress in transition planning, intervention, and outcomes requires moving beyond research documenting the phenomenon or to experiment with interventionsalthough more of both are still needed. Researchers must examine the contexts of transition to more fully understand why the trends we observe occur and how the outcomes of presumably effective interventions can be so mixed. Each of the five studies reported in this series examines a context of transition. Two of the studies consider factors that influence urban high school students on the road to transition, both personal and school-/ community-based (Murray & Naranjo; Scanlon, Saxon, Cowell, Kenny, Perez-Gualdron, & Jernigan). The three other studies examine adults who do/may have LD and the services they receive, to document how they differ from their peers (Gregg, Bandalos, Coleman, Davis, Robinson, & Blake; Mellard & Patterson) and factors that facilitate successful transitions (Madaus, Zhao, & Ruban, which will appear in a subsequent issue). Collectively, these reports contribute to documenting the contexts in which transition takes place.

Reference

Madaus, J., Zhao, J., and Ruban, R. (Forthcoming). Employment satisfaction of university graduates with learning disabilities. Remedial and Special Education.

Will, M. C. (1986). Educating children with learning problems: A shared responsibility. Exceptional Children, 52, 411-415.

David Scanion

Boston College

Author’s Note: Please address correspondence to David Scanlon, PhD, 216 Campion Hall, Lynch School of Education, Boston College, 40 Commonwealth Ave., Chestnut Hill, MA 02467; e-mail: scanloda@bc.edu.

David Scanlon, PhD, is an assistant professor of special education in the Lynch School of Education at Boston College. His research interests include content-area literacy, strategic teaching and learning, and adolescent and adult populations with mild disabilities.

Copyright PRO-ED Journals May/Jun 2008

(c) 2008 Remedial and Special Education; RASE. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.