What's Happening in Personnel Preparation in Transition? A National Survey

Abstract

The availability of professionals trained to design and deliver transition services is important to implementing the federal mandate for transition services. Yet, there is limited information available on the state of the nation with regard to personnel preparation in transition. To address this lack of information, a national survey of colleges and universities was conducted to determine (a) which transition-related competencies are considered to be most important and (b) how much instructional time is devoted to transition content. Responses received from a total of 573 institutions of higher education across the United States and Puerto Rico indicated that administrators and faculty appear to be attending to transition issues.

Availability of and Access to Career Development Activities for Transition-Age Youth With Disabilities

“…Educators may lack an awareness of the importance of promoting inclusion within this aspect of the school curriculum, as well as possess limited knowledge about effective strategies for supporting the inclusion of youth with extensive support needs (cf., Carter & Hughes, 2006;Washburn-Moses, 2005). Research also suggests that limited preservice training addressing career development continues to be available to special educators (Anderson et al, 2003;Kohler & Greene, 2004) and that virtually no efforts have been made to integrate such information into the professional development of vocational educators, guidance counselors, and other secondary-level staff (Agran, Cain, & Cavin, 2002;Fives, 2008).…”

Examining the Status of Transition-Focused Content Within Educator Preparation Programs

“…During the initial development of the survey, the authors included the original Anderson et al (2003) items within the matrix, thereby comparing the original items with more recent research and development of practitioner standards.…”

“…To date, only a handful of studies have examined how EPPs align course content and learning experiences with transition evidence–based practices and programs. Although some studies have focused on preservice students engaged in educator programs (i.e., Morningstar, Kim, & Clark, 2008; Wandry et al, 2008), the last nationally representative study of educator preparation occurred more than 15 years ago (Anderson et al, 2003), well before emerging research began to confirm the critical practices and predictors most likely to lead to postschool success (Mazzotti et al, 2016; Test, Fowler, et al, 2009). Anderson et al (2003) found special education department chairpersons and instructors reported the primary method of delivering transition content was through infusing this material in existing coursework.…”

“…Although some studies have focused on preservice students engaged in educator programs (i.e., Morningstar, Kim, & Clark, 2008; Wandry et al, 2008), the last nationally representative study of educator preparation occurred more than 15 years ago (Anderson et al, 2003), well before emerging research began to confirm the critical practices and predictors most likely to lead to postschool success (Mazzotti et al, 2016; Test, Fowler, et al, 2009). Anderson et al (2003) found special education department chairpersons and instructors reported the primary method of delivering transition content was through infusing this material in existing coursework. Unfortunately, programs that reported infusing transition content also reported less coverage of critical transition practices than programs with one or more courses devoted to the topic of transition to adulthood.…”

“…Given the strong growth in transition-related research and practices over the past decade, it is appropriate to follow up past research (cf. Anderson et al, 2003) and identify how and in what ways EPPs are engaged in offering transition-related content and coursework (Pham, 2012). Although we were interested in advancing the understanding of how EPPs are currently supporting transition preparation, we did not intend to directly compare the original Anderson et al study, given the limited usefulness of the original items.…”