Learning Self-determination: Lessons from the Literature for Work with Children and Youth with Emotional and Behavioral Disabilities

Abstract

Children and youth with disabilities perform more poorly in transitional outcomes than their non-disabled peers. Programs are facing many changes because of these outcomes. Definitions are being revised, and new categories of exceptionalities are being recognized. Accountability measures are being put in place for people with disabilities.However, there is an important, current issue identified by researchers and individuals with disabilities -the issue of self-determination. This article explores how selfdetermination can and should be taught to children and youth with disabilities.LEARNING SELF-DETERMINATION 3 TEACHING SELF-DETERMINATION TO CHILDREN AND YOUTH WITH EMOTIONAL AND BEHAVIORAL DISABILITIES Coleman (1966) states that a sense of purpose and destiny facilitates positive outcomes. Successful people assess their needs, determine their goals, plan actions, act, monitor their performance, and make any needed adjustments (Mithaug, Martin & Agran, 1987). Mithaug (1996) argues that few children succeed because of the instruction they receive. These children succeed because adults identify them as having a sense of purpose for their lives. They know what they like, what they can do, what they want and how to get it. Unfortunately, many children and youth leaving our special education programs lack a sense of purpose and destiny (White et al, 1982). They do not advocate for their own goals and interests (Allen, 1989). They often are not seen as being selfdetermined.The Council for Exceptional Children (1994) reports 37% of youths with disabilities who participated in the National Longitudinal Transition Survey (NLTS) were living independently three to five years after graduation. This figure is 60% for the general population. Only 37% of the youths with disabilities surveyed had enrolled in postsecondary school as compared with 68% of youths without disabilities. Although the NLTS found that employment levels were about the same for general population as for youths with disabilities five years after graduation from secondary school, these youths were earning less than $12,000 per year for full-time, year-round employment.Students with disabilities have only a 35% to 45% chance of finding full-time work after leaving school. The probability of future employment for students with disabilities decreases over time. For part-and full-time work combined, most studies report about a 60% employment level for persons with disabilities (Hasazi, Gordon, & Roe, 1985; Wagner, 1989Wagner, , 1991. Also, according to data provided by NTLS (1990), only 1.8% of the graduating students with learning disabilities go to four-year universities. The number is somewhat higher for two-year postschool institutions.However, most students complete only a few courses. After more than three decades of federal involvement in the education of children and youths with disabilities, these disturbing post school outcomes have led practitioners, policymakers, researchers, and parents of young people with disabilities to conclude that sp...

Interactive behaviours for building independence in exceptional youth

“…By contrast, the SDM involved the professional encouraging the student to take on many of the responsibilities themselves, developing the skills necessary to become independent. Similarly, Ackerman (2006) asserted that children and youth with disabilities perform more poorly in transitional outcomes than their non‐disabled peers owing to limitations in self‐determination – which can and should be taught (although Ackerman is somewhat light on exactly how). In a survey by Carter, Lane, Pierson and Glaeser (2006), disabled students identified infrequent opportunities at school and home for engaging in self‐determined behaviour, whereas educators and parents differed in their assessments of opportunities in each setting.…”

Reflections on the Ethical Possibilities and Limitations of Abolitionist Praxis in Social Work

“…Social work literature has a general consensus on self-determination including governing one's own behavior, being empowered to self-advocate, bodily autonomy, and freedom from external sources (Ackerman, 2006; Wehmeyer et al, 2004). However, inherent in the description of self-determination under Ethical Responsibilities to Clients is a contradiction—self-determination is referred to as a right, yet it can be stripped from the client if the practitioner justifies it with their “professional judgment.” Furthermore, we must consider that many social workers work with involuntary clients through carceral systems of probation, prisons, child welfare, and more.…”

I Have a Voice and Can Speak Up for Myself Through Writing!

“…Students with EBD, in particular, can benefit from explicit instruction on these self-determination components because research has indicated that these students are less knowledgeable about self-determination and have a significantly lower ability to engage in self-determined behaviors in comparison to students with learning disabilities (Carter, Lane, Pierson, & Glaeser, 2006;Carter, Trainor, Owens, Swedeen & Sun, 2010). Further, students with EBD have poor high school completion rates and postschool outcomes compared to their peers with and without disabilities (Ackerman, 2006). Considering the most recent research identifying self-determination skills as an evidence-based predictor of postschool engagement (Test et al, 2009), it is critical that explicit instruction on these skills be provided to this population early and be purposefully incorporated into secondary transition planning.…”