Principles of Shared Responsibility

Abstract

EFFECTIVE SCHOOL-TO-WORK transition planning approaches for students with severe disabilities are based not only on empirical data but also on clear guiding principles. This article contains a description of a philosophical basis for schoolto-work transition among students with severe disabilities, organizes these values in a hierarchical fashion, and provides recommendations for the implementation of the principles. The resultant Principles of Shared Responsibility provide a direction as well as a basis for evaluation of future transition efforts.During the past decade, educators, families, and adult service providers have called for attention to the process of transition from educational services to integrated employment for students with severe disabilities (attention has resulted in the clarification of different approaches to transition planning. Wehman, Kregel, and Barcus (1985) described a three-component transition process that relies on educational services provided in integrated environments, comprehensive and longitudinal planning by a team, and on multiple adult service opportunities. Stark and Karan (1987) described a &dquo;pathways to employment&dquo; model that focuses on a comprehensive approach to transition planning, including an organized and systematic planning component. Will (1984) described a &dquo;Bridges&dquo; model that incorporates the use of three levels of support (time-limited, generic, and ongoing). Numerous demonstrations of transition approaches have also been developed over the past several years with funding from the Ofhce of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) in the U. S. Department of Education.Each of the approaches to transition planning described to date has been based on one or more philosophical bases or guiding principles. For instance, Will's at MOUNT ALLISON UNIV on July 20, 2015 cde.sagepub.com Downloaded from

Enhancing the Involvement of Rehabilitation Counselors in the Transition Process

“…Furthermore, many of these teachers reported that they believed that rehabilitation counselors were infrequently involved in transition-related district meetings. This is a particularly distressing finding in view of Steere, Pancsofar, Wood, and Hecinovic's (1990) suggestion that successful school-to-work transition planning requires close cooperation among public agencies and a positive working relationship with vocational rehabilitation agencies. The appreciable lack of participation of rehabilitation counselors in the transition planning process precludes the establishment of such positive relationships.…”

Shared Responsibility for Multilingual Learners Across Levels of the Education System

“…For example, Berry (2021) conceptualized shared responsibility as all teachers within a school, both special educators and others, “work[ing] together to plan for instruction and collaboratively teach and assess students with disabilities” (p. 95). Although primarily focused on collaboration between special and general education teachers, some research in special education also describes how shared responsibility for students with disabilities should include leaders, families, and communities as equal and collaborative partners in planning instructional services (e.g., Collier et al, 2015; Steere et al, 1990).…”

Student Engagement and Leadership of the Transition Planning Process

“…In 1983, Roberts et al (1983) suggested that students become involved in their IEP meetings. Steere, Pancsofar, Wood, and Hecimovic (1990) indicated that students need ample knowledge to facilitate their informed participation in the transition planning process and that students with the most severe disabilities should be included in “some facet of the transition planning process” (p. 145). J.…”

“…Steere, Pancsofar, Wood, and Hecimovic (1990) indicated that students need ample knowledge to facilitate their informed participation in the transition planning process and that students with the most severe disabilities should be included in "some facet of the transition planning process" (p. 145). J. R. Johnson and Rusch (1993) recommended that future research examine how to encourage student participation and involvement in the transition process, and that future research needs to determine the risks and outcomes associated with not involving students in the transition planning process.…”