Employment of Youth with and without Handicaps Following High School

Abstract

Factors associated with the employment status of students with and without handicaps were investigated in a sample of 133 youths from nine Vermont school districts. Students with handicaps who exited high school in 1984-85, and who had been receiving special education services, were identified and compared to non-college-bound, vocationally oriented students without handicaps. Two sets of interviews were conducted, one in 1986 and one in 1987. During these interviews, information was obtained on current employment status, employment and training history, social service utilization, and residential status. Additional information regarding educational history, age, and community demographics was obtained through individual student records. Employment, educational, and residential experiences were compared across both groups of former students.Results indicated that students without handicaps had more favorable post-high-school employment outcomes than students with handicaps. Across groups, males were more likely to be employed than females and employment was positively associated with paid work experiences during high school. Vocational class experience was positively associated with later employment for handicapped but not for nonhandicapped students. Although some changes in employment status over the 2-year period did occur, the majority of former students remained in the same employment status (full time, part time, or unemployed) for both years. The results of the study help to put the employment status of youth with handicaps into context and suggest both similarities and differences between students with and without handicaps in employment correlates.Over the past two decades, there have been substantial changes in the organization and delivery of educational and other developmental services to persons with handicapping conditions (Laski, 1985;Singer & Butler, 1987). Efforts have been made to provide such services within less restrictive settings, to enhance the ability of persons with handicaps to participate more fully in the life of the community (Biklen, 1985; Heal, Haney, & Amado, 1988). Within this context, an important social policy objective has been to increase the employment opportunities afforded to such individuals. Recently, a number of follow-up and longitudinal studies concerned with the postschool employment status of students with handicapping con-

The effects of strategy instruction on the reading comprehension achievement of junior secondary school students.

“…Between 1995 and 1996 ten students with a mean grade equivalent score of 4.9 (mean raw score 31, mean percentile 17, range 15-43) on the (SDRCT), who were placed in inclusive settings with no LA support, moved or dropped out It is important to note that these students who dropped out are reading disabled as assessed by the SDRCT. Thus these findings on dropout are consistent with the findings of Levin, Zigmond, and Birch (1985), Blackorby, Edgar, andKortering (1991), andHasazi, Johnson, Hasazi, Gordon, andHull (1989) who note that up to 51% of learning disabled are believed to drop out of school without completing grade 12. However, most of the research literature examines the dropout behaviour of grade ten to twelve students; little research examines the dropout process before grade ten and little research examines the connection between school achievement failure, behavioural problems, dropout, and reading failure.…”

“…There may be more students with leaming disabilities who have not been labelled as such. To further support these data, Hasazi, Johnson, Hasazi, Gordon, and Hull ( 1989), in a longitudinal study of Vermont students, found that 36% of students with handicaps left or dropped out of school before graduation. In addition, 13% of the students with handicaps left school at ages 15-16 and 20% exited between ages 20-22.…”

“…Many students who display achievement difficulties in high school can be categorized as having leaming disabilities (Hasazi, Johnson, Hasazi, Gordon, & Hull, 1989). Furthermore, research shows that many of the students who drop out of school fit into the leaming disabled category (Bender, 1995;Levin, Zigmond, & Birch, 1985;Mel lard & Hazel, 1992;Tanner, Krahn, & Hartnagel, 1995).…”

“…Furthermore, research shows that many of the students who drop out of school fit into the leaming disabled category (Bender, 1995;Levin, Zigmond, & Birch, 1985;Mel lard & Hazel, 1992;Tanner, Krahn, & Hartnagel, 1995). Those students who have a leaming disability do not readily overcome their leaming disability in adulthood thereby affecting their economic well-being as adults (Bender, 1995;Hallahan & Kauffman, 1982;Hasazi, Johnson, Hasazi, Gordon, & Hull, 1989;McCaul, Donaldson, Coladarci, & Davis, 1992;Mellard & Hazel, 1992;Tanner, Krahn, & Hartnagel, 1995;White, 1995). Therefore, to prevent high school dropout it becomes imperative to examine the nature of leaming disabilities and how leaming disabilities are managed and rectified in the high school setting.…”

Transition Goals and Experiences of Females with Disabilities: Youth, Parents, and Professionals

“…Doren and Benz (2001) reviewed studies published between 1972 and 1998 that addressed gender, disability, and transition outcomes and found that women with disabilities were more likely to be unemployed, had significantly lower wages, were more likely to have unskilled jobs (e.g., litde ot no opportunity for advancement), and experienced less job stability than men with disabilities. Hasazi and her colleagues also summarized research investigating the transition outcomes of youth with disabilities and fouhd similar trends; after exiting high school, young women with disabilities were more likely than young men with disabilities to be unemployed, underemployed, or employed in low status jobs (Hasazi, Johnson, Hasazi, Gordon, & Hull, 1989). More recently, and Best (2006) used the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 data set to examine the extent to which outcome variables were differentially associated with gender for students patticipating in special education.…”