Examining Federally Funded Secondary Transition Personnel Preparation Programs

Abstract

Despite numerous legislation efforts and increased attention aimed at facilitating successful transition outcomes for students with disabilities, postschool outcomes remain less than desirable (Newman et al., 2011). A variety of factors contribute to these poor outcomes, including a lack of preparation of teachers who work with students as they prepare for adult life (Kohler & Greene, 2004). Thus, the need for trained professionals to provide quality preparation, planning, and services, as students prepare for adult life environments, is warranted (Plotner, Mazzotti, Rose, & Carleson-Britting, 2015). In response to these poor outcomes over the last three decades, an emphasis in training professionals (e.g., secondary special educators, transition specialists) has emerged to ensure adequate transition service delivery (Plotner, Trach, Oertle, & Fleming, 2014). Both secondary special educators and transition specialists typically have a variety of tasks and responsibilities, including transition assessment, planning, career development, and coordinating with adult service providers (Tilson & Simonsen, 2013). In 2013, the Council for Exceptional Children's Division on Career Development and Transition (CEC-DCDT) issued an updated set of transition specialist competencies that defined required knowledge and skills in seven major areas: (a) assessment; (b) curricular content; (c) programs, services, and outcomes; (d) research and inquiry; (e) leadership and policy; (f) professional and ethical practice; and (g) collaboration. However, research has shown that a significant number of special educators do not have competencies related to secondary transition practices (Benitez, Morningstar, & Frey, 2009; Morningstar & Clavenna-Deane, 2014). The literature is replete with studies that support teachers/transition specialists not feeling prepared to properly plan and implement activities that lead to successful transition for students (Plotner, Trach, & Strauser, 2012). Mazzotti and Plotner (2016) found that while transition specialists report using evidence-based practices (EBPs), the majority felt that they did not have adequate knowledge in EBPs related to secondary transition. This is compounded by the fact that many professionals involved in transition planning receive most of their training "on the job" (Kohler & Greene, 2004). To promote sufficient preparation and qualification of special education professionals, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) in the U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) has long provided assistance. Through the authorization of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004), OSEP assists states and local 742138C DEXXX10.

Perceptions of Interagency Collaboration: Relationships Between Secondary Transition Roles, Communication, and Collaboration

“…Thus, the emphasis of collaboration between DSTP and special educators is central to ensure effective transition service delivery. This finding is supported by a robust literature base calling for more systematic efforts in preservice training supporting collaboration across DSTP and special education teachers (e.g., Plotner & Simonsen, 2018) as well as at the inservice level (e.g., Morningstar & Clavenna-Deane, 2014). Furthermore, results also indicate a positive relationship between understanding of stakeholder roles, frequency of communication, and overall levels of collaboration between high special education teachers and DSTPs.…”

“…Thus, the emphasis of collaboration between DSTP and special educators is central to ensure effective transition service delivery. This finding is supported by a robust literature base calling for more systematic efforts in preservice training supporting collaboration across DSTP and special education teachers (e.g., Plotner & Simonsen, 2018) as well as at the inservice level (e.g., Morningstar & Clavenna-Deane, 2014).…”

Status of Credentialing Structures Related to Secondary Transition: A State-Level Policy Analysis

“…Given the critical role transition specialists play in facilitating the transition process for youth with disabilities—and the WIOA mandate that VR counselors should be integral in providing preemployment services to students with disabilities (WIOA, 2015)—SEAs, SVRs, and IHEs should (a) review credentialing requirements for transition-related coursework, licensure, and standards to ensure that all secondary special educators, CTE teachers, and VR counselors have a core knowledge base related to transition and (b) investigate collaborative options for transition-related certification or endorsement. Given the interagency context of transition planning, collaborative preservice preparation for educators and rehabilitation counselors provides opportunities for students to learn alongside colleagues from partner organizations (Plotner & Simonsen, 2017; Plotner, Trach, Oertle, & Fleming, 2014). Recent initiatives have sought to expand collaboration between state agencies serving transition-age students.…”

“…Given the current and future shortages of special education teachers, SEAs/LEAs face a number of challenges relative to hiring and retaining special education teachers. First, insufficient funding is available to support preservice and in-service personnel preparation of special education teachers in general, and secondary special education teachers in particular (Mazzotti, Rowe, Cameto, Test, & Morningstar, 2013; National Coalition on Personnel Shortages in Special Education and Related Services, 2017; Plotner & Simonsen, 2017). Next, a lack of collaboration between SEAs, LEAs, and institutions of higher education (IHE) exists relative to providing credentialing options for special education teachers (Morningstar, Kleinhammer-Tramill, Hirano, Roberts-Diehm, & Teo, 2017; Muller, 2010).…”

“…It is important that SEAs/LEAs work with IHEs to align state educator credentialing structures with professional accreditation standards for educator preparation (National Coalition on Personnel Shortages in Special Education and Related Services, 2017). In addition, an increase in funding at the state and local levels to create new positions through federally funded personnel preparation grants is imperative (Mazzotti et al, 2013; Plotner & Simonsen, 2017).…”