National Capacity Building Institute 

Proceedings 

Portland, Oregon 
July 2001 

National Center on Secondary Education and Transition 
University of Hawaii at Manoa Site

The following document is a record of the proceedings of a National Capacity Building Institute that
was held in Portland, Oregon, in July of 2001. The primary focus of the Institute was how to support
youth with disabilities as they transition to, and participate in, postsecondary education. These proceedings
also reflect the outcome of group discussions that were begun at a similar Institute held in Honolulu,
Hawaii, in March of 2001. During both Institutes, professionals, educators, and consumers gathered for
presentations, discussions and strategic planning. The Institutes were jointly sponsored by the National
Center for the Study of Postsecondary Educational Supports (NCSPES), University of Hawaii at Manoa,
and the National Center on Postsecondary Education and Transition (NCSET), University of Minnesota.
A special thank you to all of the presenters, participants, students, and staff who worked hard to ensure the
success of the Institutes and the comprehensiveness of these proceedings. 

Table of Contents 

Introduction: page 4 
Agenda: page 7 
Presenters: page 10 
Annotated Papers: page 15 
Discussion Output: page 27 
Evaluation Form: page 58 
Table of Contents 

Introduction 

Megan A. Jones, Ph.D., Assistant Professor and Coordinator 
Kelly Chang, Graduate Assistant 

National Center on Secondary Education and Transition 
Center on Disability Studies 
University of Hawaii at Manoa 

For the past twenty years, despite data showing the economic and social value of a postsecondary education
little attention has been given to research or policy directives in the area of transition and
postsecondary education for individuals with disabilities. Until recently, not much was known about the
knowledge, skills and behaviors that youth with disabilities need in order to access and succeed in
postsecondary education and lifelong learning. Nor was there much empirical evidence linking specific
transition and postsecondary support strategies with successful outcomes for individuals with disabilities.
During the past two years, in an effort to provide empirical evidence and technical support that will lead to
better policy and practice, staff at the National Center for the Study of Postsecondary Educational Supports
(NCSPES) and, more recently, the National Center on Secondary Education and Transition (NCSET),
have aimed to increase national understanding about this important area of work.
 
The March and July Capacity Building Institutes of 2001 focused on the latest research findings, their
implications for various audiences, and strategies for the application and dissemination of these findings.
Both Institutes occurred in three phases of activity: (1) A preliminary period of online readings and
discussion with authors and researchers; (2) Two to three days of face-to-face intensive discussion workshops,
and (3) One month of online follow-up and discussion about next steps and the implementation of
new knowledge and skills. Through the presentation of papers followed by related discussion groups, the
July Institute focused upon the development of four main issue areas within the topic of transition and
postsecondary support for individuals with disabilities: (1) Supporting student empowerment, self-advocacy
and self-determination; (2) Working to provide quality experiences as well as accommodated experiences;
(3) Enhancing the role of technology, and (4) Managing supports and related services. Although
these topics are seemingly diverse, a number of common themes emerged during the Institute. It is evident
from these proceedings that our main goal is to give students with disabilities the power to live
independent, productive lives in and out of school. The reality is that secondary education for youth with
disabilities does not adequately prepare them for the transition to post-secondary education or employment.
We must recognize that providing an education to students with disabilities should not stop at
making it possible for them to go to school, but should extend to ensuring that they have the same opportunities
for post-school success as do youth without disabilities. All responsible parties, including secondary
and post-secondary institutions, government, support service providers, families and students with
disabilities, have an obligation to work together to prepare students for the difficult transition to postschool
environments and beyond. 

The March and July 2001 Capacity Building Institutes are only the first in a series of Institutes that are
planned by NCSPES and NCSET. Future Institutes, including those planned for March and July of
2002, in Honolulu and Washington D.C. respectively, will develop single topics in greater depth and/or
will bring together members of specific audiences (i.e. policy makers, researchers, youth with disabilities,
postsecondary education support providers, etc.). For further information about upcoming Institutes,
please contact NCSET, Center on Disability Studies, University of Hawaii at Manoa. Contact information
for NCSET is given on the back cover of this document. 

The proceedings in this document are primarily a record of the Institute that took place in Portland,
Oregon in July of 2001. A record of the March Institute has already been distributed to participants
and is available to non-participants upon request. 

Agenda 

July 1 – July 22, 2001 – Web site posting of readings and issuance of passwords to institute 
participants. Activate (issuance of passwords) question/answer and discussion group assignments. 
Conduct discussions with authors and researchers around issues identified in readings. 

Saturday - July 21, 2001 (Pre-Institute Evening Gathering) 

Sunday - July, 22 2001 (Day One of the Institute) 
7:00 – 8:30 a.m.: Experiencing the Great Northwest morning (optional activities)
8:30 – 9:00 a.m.: Continental Breakfast & Review of Curriculum Materials
9:00 – 9:30 a.m.: Introductions and Review of Institute Format
9:30 – 10:30 a.m.: A Framework for Addressing Issues and Needs in the Preparation of 
Youth with Disabilities for Postsecondary Education & Employment 
(Robert Stodden)
10:30 – 11:30 a.m.: Reaction and Discussion of Framework: Building Capacity New 
Information for Policy, Procedure and Practice 
11:30 – 1:00 p.m.: Lunch (provided) and Structured Discussion
1:00 - 2:00 p.m.: Student Self-determination & Advocacy Skills Preparing Youth with 
Disabilities for Postsecondary Education & Employment (Margo Izzo 
& Peg Lamb)
2:00 – 3:00 p.m.: Reaction and Discussion of Challenges: Building Capacity for New 
Policy, Procedure, & Practice
3:00 – 5:00 p.m.: Break for Thought, Reflection & Problem Solving
5:00 – 6:00 p.m.: Individual & Small Group Sharing of Expanded Thoughts
6:30 p.m. – on: Evening Activities & Discussion (Optional) 
July 2001 Portland Oregon

Monday – July 23, 2001 (Day 2 of the Institute) 
7:00 – 8:30 a.m.: Experiencing the Great Northwest Morning (Optional Activities)
8:30 – 9:00 a.m.: Continental Breakfast & Review of the Day (provided)
9:00 – 9:30 a.m.: Overview of Format for the Day
9:30 – 10:30 a.m.: Role of Technology in the Successful Preparation of Youth with
Disabilities for Postsecondary Education & Employment (Sheryl
Burgstahler & Soon Kim-Rupnow)
10:30 – 11:30 a.m.: Reaction and Discussion: Implications for Policy, Procedure, and Practice 
11:30 – 1:00 p.m.: Lunch (provided) and Discussion with the Office of Postsecondary
Education (OPE) Demonstration Project Directors
1:00 – 2:00 p.m.: Challenges to Successfully Supporting and/or Accommodating the
Needs of Youth with Disabilities in Postsecondary Education &
Employment. (Teresa Whelley).
2:00 – 3:00 p.m.: Individual and Small Group Thought and Reflection
3:00 – 4:00 p.m.: Reaction, Challenges and Steps for Future Action (Jane Storms,
Western Regional Resource Center)
4:00 p.m. Closing Remarks - Robert Stodden
6:30 p.m. – on: Evening Activities (Optional)

Tuesday – July 24, 2001 (AHEAD Institute on Postsecondary Supports) – Optional & held at the Convention Center with separate 
registration – see web ULR at www.ahead.org

Title: What if Youth with Disabilities were Prepared for Success in Postsecondary Education: 
New Roles for Disability Support Personnel in Postsecondary Education. 
The Institute will address two critical questions for disability support personnel in 
postsecondary education: 
(1) What are the expectations and preparation that youth with disabilities bring with 
them when entering postsecondary education, and 
(2) What constitutes a “quality educational experience” compared to an 
“accommodated educational experience” in secondary education and 
postsecondary education settings? 
July 2001 Portland Oregon 
 
Presenters

Robert Stodden 
Peg Lamb 
Weol Soon Kim-Rupnow 
Margo Izzo 
Sheryl Burgstahler 
Teresa Whelley 

Presenter Bios

Robert A. Stodden, Ph.D. 
Director and Professor 
Center on Disability Studies 
University of Hawaii at Manoa

Dr. Stodden is Director of the Center on Disability
Studies and the National Center for
the Study of Postsecondary Educational Supports,
and is a Professor of Special Education at the University
of Hawaii at Manoa. Previously he has served
as chairperson of the Department of Special Education
at the University of Hawaii at Manoa and Coordinator
of Career/Vocational Special Needs Training
Programs at Boston College. Over the past 25
years, Dr. Stodden has served as principal investigator/
director of more than 100 research and training
projects spanning the areas of secondary school transition,
postsecondary education, and employment
for youth with special learning and behavior needs.
He has been an invited speaker and presenter at
many international and national conferences focused
upon the preparation and employment of youth
with special needs and disabilities, and has served as
a consultant for several state departments and national
initiatives. During the process of reauthorization
of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA) of 1997, Dr. Stodden served as a
Kennedy Senior Policy Fellow with the Disability
Policy Subcommittee in the United States Senate,
drafting and negotiating much of the transition service
language found in the legislation. He has consulted
with several countries, states and school districts
in the areas of transition systems change, curriculum-
based vocational assessment, and secondary
and postsecondary education program development
for youth with disabilities. He currently serves
on numerous association and editorial boards and
has an active record in the field for more than twenty
years.

Margo Izzo, Ph.D. 
Program Director 
Nisonger Center 
Ohio State University

Dr. Izzo is Program Manager for the Special
Education and Transition area at the Nisonger
Center. Currently, Dr. Izzo is the principal investigator
of two federally funded projects, Next Steps
and The Partnership Grant. Dr. Izzo has conducted
numerous focus groups and trainings with faculty
and students. She has identified various curriculum
and IEP needs. She has established a SEED
Grant program and funded projects that have created
the Web Accessibility Center (WAC) and an
accessible University writing center. Dr. Izzo has
leveraged over $175,000.00 from Technology Enhanced
Learning & Research (TELR) to produce
examples of appropriate uses of assistive technology.
Prior to her current position with OSU, Dr.
Izzo was the Project Coordinator of Ohio’s Transition
Systems Change Grant, a five-year federally
funded project located at the Ohio Department of
Education. Dr. Izzo received her M.A. in Vocational/
Special Education from George Washington University,
Washington D.C. She completed her Ph.D.
in Special Education, Rehabilitation and Research
at the Ohio State University in 1998.

Peg Lamb, Ph.D. 
Project Director 
Bridges Project 
Holt Public Schools 

Dr. Lamb is currently the Project Director
for Bridges, a transition model funded by the
National Science Foundation. Faculty from Holt
High School, Lansing Community College, and
Michigan Rehabilitation Services work
collaboratively to support students with disabilities
at the Community College pursuing careers in Science,
Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology.
The Bridges Project is a comprehensive model to
develop the linkages between these institutions and
other agencies to better prepare students in their
transition to post-secondary education. Dr. Lamb
has a Ph.D. in teacher education and policy from
Michigan State University. Her research interests
include self-determination, transition, and post-secondary
educational supports for students with disabilities.

Sheryl Burgstahler, Ph.D. 
Director and Associate Professor 
Project DO-IT 
University of Washington 

Dr. Burgstahler directs project DO-IT (Disabilities,
Opportunities, Internetworking and
Technology) at the University of Washington. DOIT
has been the recipient of many awards, including
the National Information Infrastructure Award
in Education, The President’s Award for Mentoring,
the Golden Apple Award in Education, and the
AHEAD Program Recognition award. DO-IT is
funded by the National Science Foundation, the
U.S. Department of Education, the State of Washington,
corporations, foundations and private donors.
Dr. Burgstahler has published dozens of articles
and delivered presentations at national and international
conferences that focus on the full inclusion
of individuals with disabilities in postsecondary
education, distance learning, work-based learning,
and electronic communities. She is the author or
co-author of six books on using the Internet with
pre-college students. Dr. Burgstahler has extensive
experience teaching at the pre-college, community
college, and university level. She is Assistant Director
of Information Systems and Affiliate Associate
Professor in Education at the University of Washington.
She has had significant personal experience
with disability - her first husband, who is now deceased,
was a wheelchair-user.

Weol Soon Kim-Rupnow, Ph.D. 
Assistant Professor 
Center on Disability Studies 
University of Hawaii at Manoa 

Dr. Kim-Rupnow earned her Ph.D. in Educational
Psychology at the University of Hawaii.
She has more than two decades of professional
experience teaching linguistically and culturally diverse
students at all levels. Dr. Kim- Rupnow has
been with the Center on Disability Studies since
1993, and is currently a researcher with the National
Rehabilitation Research and Training Center
(RRTC) on Post-Secondary Education Supports for
People with Disabilities. She also serves as coordinator
of the Computer ACE Reading project. Her
research interests include the application of technology
to improving motivation and learning for
students with disabilities and students who are learning
English as a second language. 
waii. She has more than two decades of professional 
experience teaching linguistically and culturally diverse 
students at all levels. Dr. Kim- Rupnow has 
been with the Center on Disability Studies since 
1993, and is currently a researcher with the National 
Rehabilitation Research and Training Center 
(RRTC) on Post-Secondary Education Supports for 
People with Disabilities. She also serves as coordinator 
of the Computer ACE Reading project. Her 
research interests include the application of technology 
to improving motivation and learning for 
students with disabilities and students who are learning 
English as a second language.

Teresa Whelley, Ed.D. 
Assistant Professor 
Center on Disability Studies 
University of Hawaii at Manoa 

Dr. Whelley completed her Ed.D. at Peabody
College, Vanderbilt University, in 1990. She
is the Research Coordinator of the National Center
for the Study of Postsecondary Educational Supports
(RRTC). She has family members who have disabilities.
Dr. Whelley has worked with and for people
with disabilities for 25 years in institutions, community
services, state agencies, public schools, and
colleges and universities. She has worked in the area
of transition from school to work for 15 years. Her
research interests include postsecondary education
and disability, transition to work, families of people
with disabilities, and people with significant cognitive
disabilities. Dr. Whelley also enjoys teaching
pre-service teachers and community support personnel.

Annotated Papers
 
The following annotations consist of excerpts from papers that were presented at the July Capacity
Building Institute. The papers explore emerging issues and current research surrounding the area of
postsecondary support for individuals with disabilities. Stodden reviews the literature in this area and also
provides the reader with an overview of the goals and methodology of the Rehabilitation Research and
Training Center (RRTC) at the University of Hawaii. Izzo and Lamb discuss the importance of selfdetermination
to the post-school success of youth with disabilities and suggest ways of improving the selfdetermination
skills of secondary school students with disabilities. Burgstahler emphasizes the importance
of technology and describes a project at the University of Washington that aims to enhance the use of
technology by youth with disabilities. She also discusses the application of distance learning and universal
design. Whelley describes a national study conducted by the RRTC at the University of Hawaii that
looked at the current status of postsecondary education supports for individuals with disabilities. In
another paper, Whelley looks at the various challenges to providing postsecondary support to individuals
with disabilities, including the issue of how best to coordinate supports.

These papers were available online approximately one month prior to the Institute. Through questions
that were posted alongside the papers, participants were encouraged to reflect upon and discuss
the content of the papers with their authors. Institute participants were also given a binder of materials
that contained hardcopies of the papers and discussion questions. The annotated papers presented in these
proceedings are currently available in their entirety online at the University of Hawaii’s RRTC website and
by request from the Center on Disability Studies at the University of Hawaii.

Robert A. Stodden, Ph.D.
Postsecondary Education Supports for Students with Disabilities:
A Review and Response

This article conducts an extensive review of literature
concerning participation and support
of persons with disabilities in postsecondary education
settings. It also discusses efforts to respond to
identified needs and issues through the efforts of
the Rehabilitation, Research and Training Center
focused upon Postsecondary Education Supports at
the University of Hawaii, Manoa.
The Amended Rehabilitation Act of 1992 (PL
102-569) clearly acknowledges that “disability
is a natural part of the human experience and in
no way diminishes the civil rights of individuals.”
Despite this legislation, persons with disabilities continually
encounter various forms of discrimination
in such critical areas as postsecondary education,
transportation, health care, and employment. Given
the increasing need for persons with disabilities to
succeed in postsecondary educational programs, thus
being able to access and participate successfully in
the work force, it is imperative that we understand
present and future needs, emerging strategies, technologies,
and approaches to enhancing access, participation,
and performance for persons with disabilities
in postsecondary education.
The transition from secondary to postsecondary
education for students with disabilities is complex
and challenging. Upon graduating from high
school, students with disabilities move from a protective
environment in which school personnel are
legally responsible for identifying and providing
appropriate services under the IDEA, to an environment
in which the students are expected to identify
themselves as a person with a disability and seek
out and request specific accommodations under
Section 504 and the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA). Thus, self-advocacy/self-determination (the
ability to make informed decisions, and then advocate
for those decisions) appears to be the most important
skills for students with disabilities to possess
before beginning their postsecondary experience.
Over the past twenty years, the changing demands
of the labor market have increased the
importance of having a postsecondary education.
Research demonstrates that persons with disabilities
are negatively and disproportionately affected
by changes in current general employment trends.
Given the low ratio of employment for persons with
disabilities, access to postsecondary education becomes
even more critical; a clear positive relationship
between disability, level of education, and adult
employment has been firmly established.
While the data show a consistent positive correlation
between valued employment prospects
and higher levels of education, postsecondary education
enrollment levels for persons with disabilities
(although on-the-rise) remain low in comparison to
the general population. Even when people with disabilities
overcome barriers to enrollment in
postsecondary education, disturbing evidence suggests
that many of these students experience difficulty staying
in and completing their programs of study. Systemic
failure to provide appropriate academic development
services, supports, and programs for students
with disabilities may explain their significantly lower
than average grade-point averages. This, in turn, may
hasten their withdrawal from postsecondary settings.
 
Though variable in quantity and quality, support
services to students with disabilities are
available at most of the nation’s 3,000 postsecondary
institutions. Any research program studying
postsecondary supports should identify: (1) Which
of these services students find most effective; (2)
How students would like to see the services delivered;
and (3) How postsecondary institutions can
function efficiently and effectively while accommodating
student needs in ways that are empowering
for students. Any research program must also plan
to identify those emerging and exemplary strategies,
technologies, services, supports, and programs that
are most effective and successful in (1) facilitating
successful transition of students with disabilities
from secondary to postsecondary settings, (2) improving
student performance and graduation rates
within those settings, and (3) promoting personally
satisfactory employment outcomes for persons with
disabilities leaving postsecondary education.
The purpose of this RRTC, or the National
Center for the Study of Postsecondary Educational
Supports (NCSPES), is to explore ways to
increase access to and improve educational and employment
outcomes for students with disabilities in
a variety of postsecondary educational settings, and
to directly involve students with disabilities, families,
educators and other support persons in such
research activities.

The Study of Postsecondary Educational Supports:
A Formative Approach to an Emerging Area of Study

The purpose of this document is to introduce
the emerging area of study surrounding the
provision of educational supports to youth with disabilities
in postsecondary programs. A further purpose
is to establish a rationale for following a formative
approach to the development of a strategic
plan of research in this emerging area of study. Given
that disability-related services and supports are a relatively
new addition to the postsecondary environment,
there is a great need to assemble a strategic
plan of research focused upon the study of
postsecondary supports for students with disabilities.
Currently, insufficient information exists regarding
the availability and use of educational supports
and how such supports might effect successful
access for, and performance by, students with
disabilities within postsecondary educational and
subsequent employment environments.
Following a comprehensive literature review of
educational support provision in postsecondary
settings, faculty and staff at the University of Hawaii
at Manoa determined the need to initiate a formative,
consumer directed approach to the development
of a Strategic Program of Research for this
field of study. The approach involved the following
attributes:
(1) Structured discussions with critical stakeholders,
including students with disabilities.
Staff conducted a series of community
discussion groups to obtain a grassroots
perspective of the issues concerning
students with disabilities, those who teach
and support them, and related agency
personnel in postsecondary educational
programs.

(2) A diverse group of stakeholders and a
consumer vision crafting retreat. Rather
than focusing only on issues and needs,
the retreat sought to describe a “futuristic”
and “desired vision” for students with
disabilities, support providers, instructors,
and other supporting agencies as they
work together toward within an improved
postsecondary school experience for
students with disabilities for the 21st
century.

Researchers and stakeholders concluded that a
strategic research program in this field of study
must address: (1) Individual characteristics; (2) Family/
community/society issues; (3) Rehabilitation systems;
(4) Postsecondary institutional environments,
and (5) Labor force/workplace environments. Further,
participating stakeholders shared the vision of
educational support provision as an individualized
and flexible process guided by the needs of students
with disabilities as they struggle to meet the requirements
of postsecondary school programs.
The purpose of our Phase I Research Plan was
to review and characterize the field of
postsecondary educational supports as never before.
In years two through five, we will conduct a series
of studies on intervention, demonstration, policy
analysis, etc. During years four and five, interventions
that have shown educational support value
could be replicated in other postsecondary settings.
The RRTC is conceptually designed to be consumer-
driven and therefore, research activities
are conducted within a participatory action research
(PAR) framework that maximizes the participation
of consumers. This paper also presents and discusses
a model for participatory action research and relates
it to a case illustration at a series of focus groups
that were conducted by our RRTC project.

Mar Margo Izzo, Ph.D. and
Peg Lamb, Ph.D.
The Development of
Self-Determination and
Self-Advocacy Skills:
Essential Keys for Students with
Disabilities

In several Capacity Building Institutes conducted
by NCSET in February and March of 2001, professionals,
parents and consumers discussed four significant
issues that need to be addressed to improve
post-school outcomes for students with disabilities:
1) The “preparation for adult life phase” received by
students with disabilities in lower education under
IDEA; 2) Educational supports available to students
with disabilities in postsecondary education; 3)
Coordination of educational supports with related
service personnel, and 4) Transition or transfer of
educational supports to subsequent employment
settings. The issue that was addressed most frequently
across settings was the need to support student
empowerment, self-advocacy, and self-determination.
Students with disabilities need to be
empowered to act as causal agents towards their own
future – that is, they need to be self-determined and
have an internal locus of control. If students do not
have the opportunity to learn how to make their
own choices during the middle and high school ex-
perience, they are at-risk for not achieving positive
post-school outcomes.
Self-determination is a combination of skills,
knowledge and beliefs that enables a person to
engage in goal-directed, self-regulated behavior. Selfdetermined
people know what they want and use
their self-advocacy skills to get it. Self–determination
skills consist of seven components: Self-awareness;
Self-advocacy; Self-efficacy; Decision-making;
Independent performance; Self-evaluation, and adjustment.
Locus of control, or the place of control,
has to do with where one places the responsibility
for one’s actions and the results of one’s actions. Operating
with an internal locus of control, an individual
feels that they have some control over what
happens to them. Most general education teachers
and employers are not familiar with specific disabilities
or common accommodations. It may be the
responsibility of persons with disabilities to discuss
strengths, limitations and needed accommodations
and supports. Self-determined students approach
sharing their personal experiences and educating
others with a greater degree of self-assurance.
The questions that arise are:
• How can we restructure high schools to
develop and guide students in practicing
their skills in self-determination and selfadvocacy,
and develop a stronger sense of
internal locus of control?
• How can we, as educators, work in partnership
with parents to reinforce these
skills in school and at home?
This paper discusses the need to:
• Rethink the role of the secondary special
educator.
• Revisit the IEP to determine whether it
leads to the exit goals students need.
• Develop a credit-bearing class on selfdetermination.
• Nurture self-determination skills by selfdirected
IEP meetings, promoting disabilityawareness, developing students’ internal
locus of control, and developingstudents’ self-advocacy skills.

Sheryl Burgstahler, Ph.D.
Roles of Technology in Preparing Youth with Disabilities for Postsecondary
Education and Employment

Although access to technology can help people
with disabilities achieve higher levels of independence,
productivity and participation in academic
and career opportunities, they are less than
half as likely as their non-disabled counterparts to
own a computer, and they are about one-quarter as
likely to use the internet. This is true despite the
fact that high-tech careers are particularly accessible
to individuals with disabilities, because of advancements
in assistive technology that have increased
access to computers and scientific equipment for
people with a variety of disabilities.
There are two primary challenges to realizing
the full potential for the use and application
of technology for students with disabilities, namely,
assuring access to and appropriate use of technol- 
ogy. Basically, how can we assure that students with
disabilities:
• Are guaranteed access to the technology
that has proven effective in others’ positive
postsecondary and career outcomes?
• Use technology in ways that effectively
contribute to positive postsecondary and
career outcomes?
The following examples demonstrate how
technology can be used by students with disabilities
to prepare for college and careers. Specifically,
technology can help them:
• Maximize their independence in
coursework.
• Participate in classroom discussions.
• Provide greater access to peers, mentors,
and role models.
• Offer more opportunities for self-advocacy
and self-determination.
• Gain access to the full range of their
educational options.
• Succeed in work-based learning experiences.
• Prepare for the transition to college and
research career opportunities.
• Live more independently.
• Get involved in high-tech career fields.

However, significant challenges must be addressed
in order for college-bound students
with disabilities to gain the full benefits of technology as they 
transition to college and careers. These
include:
• Funding
• Selection of technology
• Anytime, anywhere access to technology
• Full participation in pre-college academic
and employment opportunities
• Promotion of self-advocacy, independence,
and self-determination
• Peer support, mentoring, and role modeling
• Access to distance learning options. 

Working Together:
People with Disabilities and Computer Technology

People with disabilities encounter barriers of all
types. However, computers help to lower many
of these barriers. Although people with disabilities
face a variety of difficulties in providing computer
input, interpreting output, and reading documentation,
adaptive hardware and software have been
developed to provide functional alternatives for these
standard operations. For example, some options
now available are:
• Equipment that increases flexibility in the
positioning of monitors, keyboards,
documentation, and table tops.
• Braille keyboards for individuals who are
blind.
• Voice output to read screen text to blind
computer users.
• Refreshable Braille displays that allow
line-by-line translation of the screen
display into Braille.

• Scanners with optical character recognition
that can read printed material and
store the text electronically.
• Large print key-top labels.
• Screen display enlargement and background/
foreground modifications.
• Voice output systems.
• Speech and hearing disorders alone do not
generally interfere with computer use.
However, advanced speech synthesizers are
close enough to human quality to act as
substitute voices and thus provide a
compensatory tool for students who
cannot communicate verbally.
 
Equal Access: Computer Labs
Everyone who needs to use your lab should be
able to do so comfortably. To make your lab
accessible, employ principles of universal design.
Universal design means that, rather than designing
your facility for the average user, you design it for
people with a broad range of abilities. Keep in mind
that individuals using your lab may have learning
disabilities or speech, hearing, visual and mobility
impairments. Make sure visitors can:
• Get to the facility and comfortably maneuver
within it.
• Access materials and electronic resources.
• Make use of equipment and software.
Also make sure that staff are trained to support
people with disabilities and have a plan in place
to respond to specific requests in a timely manner.

Peer Support: What Role Can the Internet
Play?

Many young people with disabilities have few
friends and limited support from peers. In
addition, students with disabilities are rarely encouraged
to prepare for challenging fields such as science,
engineering and mathematics (SEM), and they are less
likely to take the courses necessary to prepare for
postsecondary studies in these areas.
Computer-mediated communication (CMC),
where people use computers and networking
technologies to communicate with one another, can
connect people separated by time and space who might
not otherwise meet. The removal of social cues and
distinctions like disability, race, and facial expression
through text-only communication can make even shy
people feel more confident about communicating with
others. Adaptive technology makes it possible for anyone
to participate in computer-mediated communication
regardless of disability.
The DO-IT project demonstrates the role that
CMC can play in helping disabled students minimize
social isolation and achieve academic and career
goals. DO-IT Scholars are college-bound disabled high
school students from throughout the country who are
interested in SEM. They meet face-to-face during
short, live-in summer study programs at the University
of Washington in Seattle. DO-IT Scholars then
communicate year-round with each other and adult
mentors and access information resources via the
Internet.

Scholars report making and maintaining friendships
with other disabled youth as the most significant
benefit of participating in DO-IT. Scholars
discuss academic issues related to science, mathematics
and other academic areas, as well as college transition
and adaptation. Many Scholars report that increased
access to web-based resources helps them to
obtain information that was previously inaccessible because
of their disabilities. Scholars inspire, tutor and
act as role models for each other, as well as help each
other to gain valuable career skills in the process.

Opening Doors thr through ough Mentoring:
One Program’s s Experiences Using the
Internet Mentors are valuable resources for their
protégés in project DO-IT. Most DO-IT
Mentors are college students, faculty, practicing engineers,
scientists, or other professionals who have
disabilities. Protégés are high school students who
are planning for post-secondary education and employment.
Frequent electronic communications and personal
contacts help DO-IT protégés and their
mentors explore academic, career, and personal
achievements together. Participants learn strategies
for success in academics and employment. Mentors
act as professional role models, providing direction
and motivation to their protégés and helping
them to develop their own leadership skills.
Most mentoring in DO-IT takes place via the
Internet. Electronic communication eliminates
the restrictions of time, distance, and access
that are characteristic of in-person mentoring.

Teaching on the Net: What’s the
Difference?
Now delivered world-wide over the Internet, a
course in adaptive computer technology is
offered for three college credits in both rehabilitative
medicine and education through the University
of Washington. The course surveys the field of
adaptive technology as it can benefit people with
disabilities, including their ability to perform tasks
related to employment, education, and recreation.
Topics include use of interface devices, computer
applications, compensatory tools, increasing access
to information technology, legal issues, and implementation
strategies. The primary vehicles for learning
are text, videotape, electronic mail, an electronic
distribution list of course materials, and a web server.
In the distance learning course, lessons are distributed
weekly to the course distribution list;
they take the place of course lectures and handouts.
Once distributed, the lessons are archived on the
course website where they can be easily referenced
by the students and instructors.
In the distance learning class, full-class discussions
take place via the class electronic distribution list.
Participants can also communicate individually
with each other and with the instructor via electronic
mail. Additionally, students purchase, as part
of the required course materials, a videotape which
overviews adaptive technology options. A guest
speaker can join in class discussions easily, regardless
of where the speaker lives or works, and reference
materials are easily accessible from the course
website. Finally, students are required to make a
site visit as part of one of their assignments.

Universal Design of Instruction
How can we design instruction to maximize
the learning of all students? The field of universal
design provides a starting point for developing
an inclusive model for instruction. The purpose
of universal design is to construct products and
environments usable by all people, to the greatest
possible extent, without the need for additional adaptation
or specialized design. Making a product
accessible to people with disabilities often benefits
other users as well.
The term “universal design” refers to instructional
materials and activities that are designed
to make learning goals achievable by individuals with
wide differences in their abilities to see, hear, speak,
move, read, write, understand language, attend class,
organize, engage, and remember. However, employing
universal design principles in instruction does
not eliminate the need for specific accommodations
for students with disabilities.

Teresa Whelley Whelley, , Ed.D.
Current Challenges to Successfully
Supporting and/or Accommodating the
Desires and Needs of Youth with
Disabilities in Postsecondary Education
and Employment

In ten years there have been significant changes
in the population of students with disabilities,
and the complexity of their supports and support
activities have not kept pace. Postsecondary educational
services, supports, and programs available to
students with disabilities (a) vary extensively across
states as well as campus-to-campus, (b) are generally
not programmatically well developed, and (c)
tend to lean toward advocacy, informational services,
or remediation of content rather than training in
the compensatory areas necessary for independent
learning and self-reliance.
The "National Survey of Educational Support
Provision to Students with Disabilities in
Postsecondary Education Settings" identified the
educational supports most commonly offered in
postsecondary institutions/programs as (a) note
takers, (b) personal counseling, and (c) advocacy
assistance. However, in a national focus group
project, students with disabilities stated that the type
and timing of advocacy assistance generally provided
in postsecondary education was not helpful to them.
Also disappointing was that only two-thirds of the
institutions surveyed offered accessible transportation
for students, even though students reported that
access to transportation was of critical importance
to them.

Additional findings were that students in
postsecondary education long for a partnership
between disability services departments on campus
and university administration, and that they feel
the roles of professionals and agencies in the coordination
of supports in postsecondary education are
unclear. Finally, while the most obvious outcome
of postsecondary education is the attainment of
higher-level employment and its accompanying increase
in quality of life, students with disabilities
seem to fear their transition to employment.
Currently, there are several significant challenges
to successfully supporting and/or accommodating
the desires and needs of youth with disabilities
in postsecondary education and employment,
including:
• Ensuring that students with disabilities in
postsecondary education are capable selfadvocates
and feel able to self-determine.
• Ensuring the quality delivery of academic
material to students with disabilities in
postsecondary education.
• Ensuring that quality educational supports
and accommodations are delivered to
students with disabilities in postsecondary
education.
• Ensuring the coordination of
postsecondary supports and accommodations.
• Ensuring that all students exiting
postsecondary education have opportunities
for quality employment and living.

Current Status of Educational Support
Provision ovision to Students with Disabilities in
Postsecondary Education

The focus of this study was the provision of educational
supports for students with disabilities.
Survey methods and statistical analyses were
used to describe the range and nature of educational
supports provided for students with disabilities. Specific
areas of support provision explored were: Including
the role of assistive technology, Special learning
centers, and the Transfer of supports from educational
settings to employment. The findings provide
a national foundation of information regarding
the provision of educational supports for students
with disabilities in a diverse range of
postsecondary education settings.
Little is known about the effectiveness of existing
postsecondary educational supports, particularly
as we consider the diversity of types of disabilities
and of postsecondary programs. The situation
is further complicated by a lack of consensus
regarding the definition and measure of “successful”
outcomes of educational support provision. The
National Center for the Study of Postsecondary
Educational Supports (NCSPES) at the University
of Hawaii at Manoa conducted a survey of educational
support provision across a nationally representative
sample of two and four-year postsecondary
educational programs, focusing upon the types and
frequency of educational support offerings for students
with disabilities. Specifically, the study investigated
the following research questions:
1. What educational supports are available to
students with disabilities in a range of
postsecondary educational settings? What
is the nature and range of these supports?
2. What technical supports and assistive
devices are available to students with
disabilities in postsecondary educational
settings?
Results from the survey indicate that testing accommodations
were the most frequently offered
form of supports to students with disabilities
in postsecondary educational settings. Disabilityspecific
scholarships and supports for study abroad
were the most infrequently offered supports.
Other educational supports commonly offered
in postsecondary institutions included (a)
note takers, (b) personal counseling, and (c) advocacy
assistance. In regards to advocacy assistance,
however, there is an overwhelming tendency for disability
support coordinators to advocate for students
with disabilities instead of teaching students to advocate
for themselves. Additionally, adjustment or
self-improvement areas such as study, memory, communication,
organization and time management
skills, and meta-cognitive strategies were commonly
offered within many postsecondary institutions.
Adaptive furniture was the most frequently offered
support, and real-time captioning was the least frequently
offered technological support.
We currently have little information on the
methods used to deliver educational supports,
or information on the level of student satisfaction
with such supports. Future research is
needed to examine these areas to further determine
the effectiveness and value of educational supports
in postsecondary education.

Discussion Output

During the March Capacity Building Institute, discussion groups were formed around four major
issues, namely, self-determination, quality of services, technology, and service coordination. These
discussion groups continued on through the July Capacity Building Institute, giving focus to the proceedings
and an opportunity for participants to interact. Most importantly, the groups served as a vehicle for
directing attention towards how research in the field of postsecondary support can actually be applied to
make a positive difference for people with disabilities. To this end, each group attempted to define a
problem, describe the components of that problem, and come up with solutions to the problem that could
be driven by research. Not surprisingly, all four groups agreed that research, training and information
dissemination is needed. Suggestions among the four groups for how this should be accomplished included
developing self-determination curriculum in secondary education, including youth with disabilities
in decision making, providing better quality services in higher education, exploring the potential of universal
design, and encouraging collaboration between institutions and individuals.

A comprehensive summary of the output from these discussion groups follows. Each summary
is followed by an analysis of that discussion written by two of the Institute participants, Wendy
Blaauw and Stacie Martin. Many thanks to Ms. Blaauw and Ms. Martin for their insight, and to the
discussion group leaders who recorded and synthesized the discussion group output.

Issue Area I:
Supporting Student Empowerment
Self-Advocacy and Self-Determination

What is Self-Determination?

Self-determination is a process and a problem
solving strategy that can be taught and reinforced
in a variety of life situations, including academic
settings. It is a combination of skills, life strategies,
choices, self-determination, a process, an outcome,
and an attitude. Self-determination includes:
• Knowing your limits/strengths
• Knowing what you need
• Having the opportunity to choose
• Knowing options and consequences
• Making informed choice
• Setting and having goals
• Being self-directed
• Communicating your goals and needs
• Taking responsibility
• Thinking, feeling, emoting
• Being valued
• Experiencing and doing.

Issue 1: Acceptance of Self-
Determination within the Educational
Curriculum

Self-determination is not an identified and valued
part of the education curriculum. To increase
systemic recognition of the importance of selfdetermination
skills, we must first change the attitudes
of students and teachers about the importance
of self-determination.

Why Is This an Issue: Issue 1

In order for self-determination to be included in
the education system, it must be accepted by the
system and valued. In a school system, learning
objectives become valued when they are reflected in
the educational standards. If self-determination is
not reflected in standards, it is more difficult to infuse
into both general and special education curricula.
Self-determination can, but does not need
to be taught within a self-contained curriculum.
Since all students need self-determination, these
skills can and should be taught through the general
education curricula. Self-determination can be integrated
into classroom activities and can enhance
the delivery of content. However, completing activities
in self-determination curricula does not necessarily
guarantee that students will internalize the
process and the skills. In other words, students can
go through the motions and not really develop the
internal constructs to be more self-determined. Furthermore,
teachers and sometimes parents suppress
students’ expression of their own ideas because it
changes the nature of the control in the school environment
and the home. As students become more
self-determined they may challenge the autonomy
of authority figures such as teachers, administrators
and parents. The process of becoming self-determined
continues throughout life.
Many self-determination skills, such as selfawareness
and the ability to self-advocate,
are difficult to assess and measure. These skills are
often referred to as “soft skills” – skills that will vary
given the context of the situation. We need to
strengthen the stature of learning self-determination
skills and raise the level of importance to individuals,
teachers, the family, school and commu-
nity. Students must know why it is important to
self-advocate. If students know how to self-advocate,
they will be more successful in postsecondary
and employment settings throughout their life.
Until self-determination becomes a valued commodity
and is measurable, it will not be viewed as such
systemically and will not be encouraged or facilitated
by secondary education. School districts need
to include a comprehensive pre/post evaluation of
students’ self-determination skills in their overall assessments.
In order to address the issue of self-determination
as a society we must look at our culture and
how we value people. In our society, self-worth is
competency based. People are valued based on their
skills and competence. The value or worth of a person
is based on their abilities and what their actual
and/or potential contributions to society may be.
The implication of this societal view is a lack of appreciation
for diversity. In this vein, students with
disabilities as a group are seen by some as lacking in
ability and are therefore deemed as unworthy of
accessible higher education. If students with disabilities
cannot meet the standards or the competencies
required in postsecondary education, some
question their need for access to that setting.
In truth, there is often not enough value and concern
for students who are either at-risk and/or
have disabilities. Many of these students do not
develop the academic nor the self-determination
skills necessary for economic independence. These
groups of students need both academic support and
direct instruction in the development of self-determination
skills. Though some high school and college
students are able to develop self-determination
skills, many who are not academically successful can
attribute their poor academic performance in part
to a lack of these critical skills.

Implications for Solving the Issue: Issue 1

Research on self-determination indicates that individuals
with higher ratings of self-determination
have more positive outcomes. More specifically,
self-determined individuals with disabilities are
more likely to be employed and are more likely to
have enrolled in postsecondary education. Students
with disabilities who are successful seem to have and
gain self-determination skills.

Recommended Research, Training,
and Information Dissemination:
Issue 1

Curriculum-Standards and Assessment

Research Questions
• Is there a relationship between assessment
and self-determination skills?
• How do we ensure curricula and supports
are in place within an educational system
so teachers have the opportunity to teach
self-determination skills?
• Is there a correlation between “passing
standards” in schools and improved
employment outcomes? Are these school
standards aligned with employment
outcomes/workplace skills?

Recommended Strategies
• Develop a position paper that outlines
how self-determination can be taught
through existing general curriculum. Selfdetermination
skills training may already
exist in general education curriculum.
• Infuse self-determination in all levels of an
institution and make self-determination
available for all students. Self-determination
is both a process and an attitude.

Changes to the Law and IEP

Recommended Strategies
• Change IDEA policy language to involve
students in the process of developing the
IEP. Student’s IEP (using the IEP team)
should be based on his/her self-determined
vision, informed choices, knowing
one’s limits/strengths, knowing one’s
needs, knowing options and consequences,
setting and having goals, being
self-directed and person-centered, communicating
goals and needs, taking
responsibility, having value, experiencing
and doing, and being appreciated for one’s
wisdom.
• Within the IEP process, outline approved
accommodations and determine how the
student will take responsibility to negotiate
these accommodations in general
education.
Technical Assistance, Dissemination and
Resource Support

Recommended Strategies
• Develop and provide a framework for
technical assistance on self-determination
so LEAs/SEAs understand how to incorporate
self-determination into the IEP
process. Use person-centered planning
strategies and incorporate self-determination
into the development of “defensible”
IEPs.
• Self-determination skills need to be
presented as part of curriculum, professional
development for teachers, standards
for schools, and standards for states.
• Promote awareness with web resources,
video, print, and testimonies that address
self-determination curricula, resources,
importance, and process, for students
(curricula, youth groups), teachers (CEC,
schools), parents (PTI), and policymakers.
Use websites to collect and
disseminate best practices for teaching and
developing self-determination skills. See
website: www.uncc.edu/sdsp.

Issue 2: Effective Teaching of Self-
Determination Skills

Self-determination is not being taught effectively
in an educational setting and students are not
exiting school as self-determined young adults who
are able to participate in post-school settings (such
as community living, employment, and life-long
learning).

Why Is This an Issue: Issue 2
Though curricula exist, strategies to teach selfdetermination
are often poorly understood. If
asked to teach self-determination, teachers might
not know what a self-determined student is supposed
to look like and what resources exist to support
the teaching of self-determination in schools.
Even if teachers do have the knowledge and skills
necessary, they may not feel that they have time to
teach self-determination because of the competing
demands for instructional time (i.e. graduation requirements
and competency testing).
Another challenge to teaching is the type of dis-
ability and maturation of the student, which
may change the delivery of self-determination training
and necessitate approaches that fit unique learning
styles and needs. Furthermore, the concept of
self-determination is scary and may be intimidating
to students, families and teachers. Having
choices may be both liberating and threatening.
Parents and teachers become the facilitators for selfdetermination,
which may be viewed as a threat to
an adult’s control over a child. On a related note,
parents and teachers may not believe students are
able (i.e., mature enough, responsible enough) to
make good personal decisions.
Most parents do not understand the importance
of self-determination and self-advocacy
because they are so focused on making sure
their student graduates from high school. Special
education teachers are so bogged down with helping
students to meet graduation requirements and
pass proficiency tests that they do not have time to
devote to teaching self-determination and self-advocacy.
Frequently, parents have difficulty advocating,
so they sometimes cannot serve as role models
in that capacity for their children.

Implications for Solving the Issue: Issue 2
• We need to look at how to increase
opportunities in secondary education and
supports in postsecondary education to
create balance between opportunity and
supports. We also need to look at how to
set standards for a knowledge base, in
order to determine what should be included.
• Employers looking for trained employees
are willing to accommodate workers with
disabilities if it fits their bottom line.

Recommended Research, Training
and Information Dissemination:
Issue 2

Teachers/Professionals

Research Questions
• How do we empower teachers to teach the
concept of self-determination?
• How do we balance the need to assist
students and yet allow them to experiment,
learn, test and face consequences
for themselves, i.e., allow students to drive
their own learning process?

Students
Research Questions
• What does a quality self-determination
experience on campus look like compared
to an accommodated self-determination
experience? What is the profile of a selfdetermined
student? What is the profile
of a student who is not self-determined?
(Create a composite or case study).
• Do students in general education take
advantage of accommodations? In what
ways, and with what results? Accommodations
are a way to help students to
increase their ability to self-determine.
• What are the results of training for students
with disabilities? What are the costs
of accommodations? How are accommodations
used and what are their contributions
to student performance?

Recommended Strategies
• By the time students graduate from high
school they should have an articulated
self-advocacy plan describing their
strengths, challenges, and necessary
accommodations (including assistive
technology) in written or electronic form.
• Students should have ongoing assistive
technology assessment from elementary
school and beyond so that technology can
be a tool for them to incorporate into
their learning process as they enter
postsecondary education and employment.

Parents

Research Questions
• How can facilitators help parents understand
that there is a shift after secondary
education, and that self-determination is
critical beyond high-school?

Curriculum and Assessment

Recommended Strategies
• Teach the process of decision-making and
allow students to actively participate in
the decision-making process, even allowing
them to experience the consequences
of their own decisions.
• Select model programs that have integrated
self-determination, career guidance,
effective use of technology, and disability
awareness into a credit-granting course of
study.
• A neutral person needs to teach the
curriculum for self-determination and
address the development of these skills.
• School districts need to include a comprehensive
pre/post evaluation of self-determination
skills in their assessment of
students with disabilities.

Technical Assistance, Dissemination and Education

Recommended Strategies
• Determine effective strategies for empowering
parents, students and service providers,
and help them get the information
they need to make good decisions.
• There needs to be ongoing communication
between secondary special education
teachers, vocational rehabilitation counselors,
members of other agencies, and
postsecondary disabilities counselors, on
exit competency skills in self-determination
for students with disabilities.
• Disseminate self-determination information
to a broader audience involving
general educators, principals, administers,
and legislators.
• Postsecondary institutions need to build
some capacity to continue the development
of the self-determination/selfadvocacy
skills of students with disabilities,
in order to increase their probability
of success in that setting and bridge the
gap between IDEA and ADA. A selfdetermination
experience on campus
includes a classroom opportunity or
seminar for students with disabilities to
further develop their self-determination
skills for college success.
• Infuse in general and special teacher
education training programs knowledge
about the culture of the school and issues
of control, and how to develop selfdetermination
skills in students. The
concepts of self-determination and student
locus of control need to be part of
the required curriculum for pre-service
teachers in special education and vocational
rehabilitation counselors.
• Parents need to better understand the
concept of self-determination and the
skills related to this concept. They need to
serve as role models for their children with
disabilities.
• Parent Training and Information Centers/
Network may be a vehicle for families to
better support their students with disabilities.
We need to leverage parent information
centers to teach parents more about
self-determination.
• Self-determination skills can be further
strengthened during summer classes or
through programs such as Outward
Bound, student foreign exchange programs,
summer camps, and summer sports
programs.
• Identify research strategies about how to
disseminate information about transitions
and accommodations disseminated to
families. For example, use focus groups at
the secondary level to clarify families’/
students’ current perceptions about this
transition.
• In order to improve student outcomes, we
need to highlight models that implement
program improvement cycles, and models
that gain feedback from employers.

Issues Analysis
Stacie L. Martin

Issue 1: Supporting Student
Empowerment, Self Advocacy and Self- Selfdetermination
determination

There were two main issues that were identified
in the document. The issues addressed
were whether or not the concept of self-determination
is being valued in the school curriculum and if
teachers are effectively teaching the skill of self-determination
that students need to be successful in
school and post-school environments. Overall, in
my opinion the group’s discussions were very comprehensive
in identifying factors and some future
ideas on how to address the issues. Even though I
am not in the educational system, but in the vocational
rehabilitation field, these issues will affect how
consumers ask for and utilize services.
There was a statement made that made reference
to self-determination as a process that
continues through life. I agree that teaching selfdetermination
is a life long process and not a nineweek
course. Teaching self-determination skills
needs to start when a child enters elementary school.
Participation from the student, parent/guardian and
school personnel are critical. I agree with some type
of outcome measurement with the usage of pre/post
skill checks. I feel this could help to evaluate whether
or not teaching strategies used are effective. I do
question the idea that most parents do not understand
the importance of self-determination. From
my experience the system “forces” parents into a role
of having to be an advocate for his/her child in order
to obtain the appropriate resources. This involvement
may not be formally recognized as selfdetermination,
but advocacy skills are being utilized.
In my opinion, once a diagnosis is formally made,
we as professionals need to give parents the tools
and resources that they need to become better advocates.
I would like to add a response to the question,
“How can we help parents to understand that
there is a shift after post-secondary, so that parents
really know that self-determination is critical beyond
high school?” I suggest that the entire Individualized
Education Planning Team would begin to address
this at the age of 14 as part of the transition
plan.
I was a participant in the discussion area. The
group’s discussion seemed to be tied to the wording
and placement of ideas of the previous group’s
written output. The facilitators did a great job
making sure everyone had input. The group interacted
with sharing of some common challenges. The
group did seem to rely on one member for wording
and placements of thoughts. This member tended
to bring a more philosophical viewpoint to the
group.

Wendy Blaauw
Issue I: Supporting Student
Empowerment, Self-Advocacy , and Self-
Determination

I agree with the majority of this group’s output,
and much of it mirrors discussion we had in the
group I participated in. Students with disabilities
do not typically exit the secondary school experience
as empowered, self-determined young adults.
However, neither do many students who do not have
disabilities. The educational system for all students,
those with disabilities and those without, needs to
be restructured in a way that will teach students the
wide variety of skills they need to become self-determined.
For most students, this would mean that
they would have a solid base of self-knowledge from
which to make sound decisions about educational
and employment opportunities. This self-knowledge
should include an understanding of personal
strengths and challenges, as well as any accommodations
and supports that have been a factor in past
successes.
I am not sure I agree with the notion that all students
should complete pre and post training assessment
of their self-determination skills. The majority
of students who are in special education have
volumes of information about their strengths and
deficits, and, if the student is ages 14 or older, the
IEP team probably has compiled information that
would indicate how self-determined the student is
as part of the transition planning process.
I support the notion that all educators, special education
and general education, should receive
training and instruction at the pre-service level on
how to build in self-determination as part of the
general curriculum. Additionally, if school boards
adopted standards around employment and adult
living objectives for all students, educators would
be looking at ways to bolster instruction in this area.
Finally, I am hopeful that the language of IDEA
in the area of self-determination will be
strengthened in the next reauthorization. So much
of what educators are required to do under IDEA is
carried out for the student rather than with the student.
Ideally, IDEA would include language or clarification
to increase the student’s responsibility in
meeting post-school goals.

Issue Area II:
Working to Provide Quality Experiences
as Well as Accommodated Experiences

What Is a Quality Experience?

When an individual comes away having benefited
from an experience, that is one indication
of a quality experience. This is distinct from
an accommodated experience, where an individual
is given the opportunity to participate.
What Is the Issue?
A growing number of students with and with-
out identified disabilities are exiting secondary
education without the necessary skills to transition
to post secondary education, employment, or
community living. Greater attention needs to be
focused upon providing individuals with disabilities
with a quality as well as an accommodated educational
experience.
• The culture (process and content) of
special education program provision in
secondary education settings is NOT
available in post-school environments.
• Secondary schools need to be responsible
for preparing youth with disabilities for
the manner in which accommodations
and supports are provided in post-school
settings, as well as how to advocate for
those supports and accommodations.
• Postsecondary educational settings need to
provide a wider range and more individualized
supports and accommodations for a
diverse population of youth with disabilities.
• Secondary school educators need to
understand the potential of, and set high
expectations for, youth with disabilities as
these youth prepare for adulthood.
• Secondary school educators need to have a
better awareness and understanding of the
culture and expectations of post-school
educational and employment environments.
• Youth with disabilities in secondary school
need to pass through “reality checks”
regarding the needed skills and knowledge
required to succeed in postsecondary
educational and employment environments.
• Parents of youth with disabilities need to
be aware of and understand the culture
and realities of supports and accommodations
found in post-school educational
environments, and ways they can prepare
their child for success in such environments.

Why Is This an Issue?

Vast differences exist between secondary and
postsecondary environments in terms of the
content of learning, methods of instruction, and assessment
procedures.

Secondary School

Content of Learning
• General education standards are set for all
students in the State.
• Less than 1% of youth with disabilities
participate in individualized curriculums
or certificate programs.
• All students are assisted to learn – responsibility
of the instructor.
• Accommodations can be made to one or
more standard or content areas.

Methods of Instruction
• Schools are responsible for diverse and
individualized methods.
• Teacher-parent-student conferences are
required.
• Teachers have flexibility in classroom
management and learning strategies.
• There is greater use of effective instruction
methods.
• Accommodations can include increased
time, tutoring, segmenting of materials or
content, adjusting class size, getting help
through a student support team, assistance
through pre-referral strategies.
• For students who need it, specialized
instruction is provided (special education
classes).
• IDEA mandates that instruction be
individualized according to the needs of
the student; the local education agency is
responsible for funding the necessary
supports, services, and/or programs.

Assessment Procedures
• Some students participate in regular assessments,
with test taking skill assistance.
• Students can receive extra time on a test, be
in a smaller group, or receive the text in
different formats.

Figure 1: Current Status

Content of Learning

Secondary: standards set, low number of individual certificate programs, responsibility of instructor, accommodations cross standards/content
Postsecondary: vary by instruction, minimum program standards, instructor freedom, must request accommodations, require disclosure of disability of disability, negotiation with personnel, standards

Methods of Instruction

Secondary: individualized, conferences, teacher flexibility, use of effective methods, variety of accomodations, special ed classes, IDEA mandates participation/responsibility
Postsecondary: lack of faculty teaching skills, student's responsibility to learn, diverse teaching methods and materials, lack of funding for accommodations, support not mandated, depend upon funding

Assessment Procedures

Secondary: regular and with assistance, extra time, smaller groups, different formats, out of level, measure progress, alternatives
Postsecondary: adjustments faculty-member specific, ADA & 504 provide limited guidance, no standards or guidelines

End of Figure 1

• Students can take “out of level” assessments,
or take tests which measure progress toward
their IEP goals.
• Approximately 1% of youth with disabilities
can take an alternative assessment depending
upon their IEP goals.

Postsecondary School

Content of Learning
• Courses and programs vary by institution.
• Most schools are accredited for minimum
program standards in undergraduate
education or vocational training programs.
• Instructors have significant freedom to
teach what they want in a course.
• Some content accommodations are
available, but are often provided on a
person request basis.
• Any content accommodation requires
student disclosure of disability and negotiation
with disability support personnel
and instructors.
• Standards can be modified, extended, or
made functional.

Methods of Instruction
• Postsecondary faculty have little or no
training in teaching methods.
• General sense that it is the student’s
responsibility to learn.
• Diverse teaching methods and materials
are individual faculty person specific and
require the student to personally advocate
for any support, accommodation or
assistance.
• Little funding is available for support
provision or assistance.
• Services and supports are not mandated
and depend upon funding and availability.

Assessment Procedures
• Any adjustments or accommodations are
faculty-member specific.
• The ADA and 504 provide some guidance
for equal access.
• No standards or guidelines for assessment,
accommodations, or supports exist.

Implications for Solving the Issue
A focus upon a quality as well as an accommodated
experience in both secondary and postsecondary
environments will increase the likelihood that individuals
with disabilities are successful in a variety of
educational, employment, and community living
settings. There is a need to develop and articulate a
vision of a quality secondary and postsecondary experience
for youth with disabilities.

Secondary School

Content of Learning
• High Standards for academics and career
preparation are maintained for all youth,
including all those with disabilities and
other diverse learning needs.
• Standards are focused upon the requirements
of the next environment (i.e., postschool
environments).
• Students receive learning within the
context of “real life” experiences.
• Infuse self-determination skills within the
context of secondary education experiences.
• Require early exposure to post-school
options and environments including the
range of postsecondary education options.
• Need joint responsibility (school-familycommunity)
for preparing youth with
disabilities for post-school environments.
• Need to include “student voices” in
decisions of what needs to be improved
and in making it happen.
• Self-advocacy skills and behaviors are a
part of curriculum for all students.
Methods of Instruction
• Create communities of learning and
eliminate content departments.
• Seek to restructure the way students are
supported to look more like
postsecondary education and employment
settings.
• Build in processes for students to increasingly
take responsibility for decisions
about their lives in secondary school (what
they learn, how they learn it, including
when, where, and why they are learning it).
• Adjust IDEA to make “Age of Majority” a
meaningful learning experience for youth
with disabilities and their family members.
• Build in processes where youth with
disabilities (all youth) take increasing
responsibility for their own learning
(including the supports and accommodations
needed to learn) as they go through
the secondary school years.
• Encourage use of technology as a primary
support for all youth with disabilities.
Assessment Procedures
• Use assessment as a process to assist youth
with disabilities to discover and understand
their strengths and weakness, as well
as their need for accommodations and
supports in different setting context.
• Make assessment a meaningful learning
experience for all students.
Transition
• Alter IDEA and other legislation to reflect
the preparation for, and assumption of,
adult environment responsibilities as
required in post-school settings.
• All secondary educators, counselors, and
youth with disabilities and their parents
will have the necessary information to
explore and select postsecondary education
and life-long learning programs.
• Increase the use of natural supports (as
represented in post-school environments)
as youth move into and through secondary
school.
• Gradually mold the preparing or sending
environment to match the context and
requirements of post-school environments.
• Increasing involve and make responsible,
students themselves, their family, and
community members in choices about life
preparation.
• Seek to further the awareness and understanding
of persons within post-school
receiving environments to better support

Figure 2: Project Status

Secondary School to Transition to Post-Secondary School

Secondary School

Content of Learning: high standards, focus upon the next environment, "real life" experiences, self-determination skills, early exposure to post-school options, joint-responsibility-- school, family & community, include "student voices", self-advocacy skills
Methods of Instruction: communities of learning, restructure supports, student responsibility, make "age of majority" meaningful, technology as primary support
Assessment Procedures: use to promote self-awareness, meaningful learing experience

Transition

Alter IDEA for more Futures Preparation
Access to Information
Increase Natural Supports
Sending Environments Match Post-School Environments
Include Students and Families in Choice
Increase Awareness in Post-School

Post-Secondary School

Involve Youth with Disabilities in Improvements
Faculty Apply Diverse Teaching Methods
Individual Needs Rather Than Categories of Services
Expand Universal Design Concepts
Evaluate Disability Support Services and Share Info

End of Figure 2

and accommodate the needs of persons
with disabilities.

Postsecondary School
• Actively involve youth with disabilities in
all recommended improvements.
• All postsecondary education faculty
increase their capacity to teach diverse
learners including those with disabilities.
• Instructional support offices focus upon
the individual needs of youth with disabilities
rather than offer categories of
service or programs.
• Work to expand Universal Design concepts
throughout postsecondary education
settings, benefiting all students toward
improved learning.
• Encourage those programs providing
information to youth with disabilities and
their parents to review and evaluate
disability support services on
postsecondary campuses-this information
should be shared widely.

Recommend Research, Training and
Information Dissemination

Position Papers/Research Synthesis

Survey Existing Exemplary Research-Based
Models For Secondary Education
• What are the lessons and implications for
youth with disabilities?
• What specific challenges need to be
addressed to ensure a quality secondary
experience for youth with disabilities?
• What are the issues related to an accommodated
experience?

Develop A Series of Practice Briefs
These should be two page descriptions of “What’s
Working” for administrators, teachers, parents,
youth, etc. For example, “What do teachers need
to know to support the successful transition of students
to post secondary education?”

Develop A Series Of Professional
Development Papers
Possible Topics:
• Teaching and learning- differentiated
teaching
• Assessment
• Linking secondary and post secondary
education
• School leadership: Developing a school
culture that promotes a quality secondary
experience and promotes successful post
secondary outcomes
• General and special education collaboration
within secondary education
• Articulation
• Diverse learning opportunities – multiple
strategies for helping students achieve to
high standards
• Alternative education options
• Business education partnerships that support
an improved secondary experience.

Capacity Building Workshop(s)
These should focus on one topic or a related
cluster of topics. Develop a workshop or series
of workshops that provide state and local teams
with an opportunity to learn from a combination
of content experts and practitioners. The suggested
composition of the teams would be based on the
topic area and the individuals needed to promote
change. Each team would be provided with facilitated
planning time during the workshop. Content
experts and successful practitioners would be
available to participate in team planning time and
to answer questions. Each team would develop a
plan of action. Center staff would provide post
workshop follow and support to teams to insure
implementation of workshop plans.

Input to Policy Makers
• As a part of the IDEA reauthorization
process, advocate for language that will
train and increase student responsibility
for determining and acquiring accommodations
and supports in secondary school.
• Make it clear that the student outcomes
(around support and accommodation
provision) should not be the same in
secondary school as they are in elementary
school – There is a need for a different
kind of education in secondary school.
• Insert wording in the IDEA that will
ensure that “transition” is not an add-on
activity or class, but an ongoing process to
be experienced by all youth as a part of
their elementary and secondary education.
• Coordinate policy recommendations with
the newly reauthorized ESEA.
• Emphasize the role of technology as a
support or accommodation for all youth
with disabilities.
• Ensure that the process of obtaining
supports and accommodations for persons
with disabilities is consistent across secondary
school and post-school environments
to be accessed in adult life.
• Recommend and fund demonstration
projects that support the development of
skills and behaviors necessary to successfully
advocate for and access services,
supports, and accommodations as needed
in various post-school context.

Issues Analysis
Stacie L. Martin

Issue II: W Working orking to Pr Provide ovide Quality
Experiences as W Well ell as Accommodated
Experiences

The main issues discussed were the differences
between secondary and postsecondary environments.
In my opinion, the group’s product
clearly outlined the differences between secondary
and postsecondary in the areas of learning, instruction
and assessment. I thought the group gave some
clear recommendations in the three different areas.
I particularly noticed they included a section for
policymakers, who we all know are key players.
In my personal experience I have found that I too,
have come across the differences that were described
in the document. I feel the information
presented was accurate. There were a couple of
statements made that I have questions about. For
example, the statement “postsecondary educational
settings need to provide a wider range and more
individualized supports and accommodation for a
greater range of youth with disabilities.” My experience
is that when a consumer who has a disability
goes to the Student Support Office on campus,
provides documentation of disability and knows
what supports he/she needs, the campus is obligated
under law to provide those needed accommodations.
These accommodations are provided. However, it’s
been my experience that not all postsecondary institutions
will provide the same level of support;
some will provide minimal supports enough to meet
the requirements of the law. The other statement
is, “Youth with disabilities in secondary school need
to pass through ‘reality checks’ regarding the needed
skills and knowledge required to succeed in
postsecondary educational and employment environments.”
I would add that all students, not just
students with a disability can benefit from these “reality
checks.”
An additional idea might be to explore the con-
cept of peer mentoring. I am presently looking
into setting up such a program. The idea is to
connect potential or new students with other students
who are attending that institution.

Wendy Blaauw
Issue II: Working to Provide Quality
Experiences as Well as Accommodated
Experiences

This is the group that I participated in, and we
had lots of good discussion. I think our group
struggled to wrap themselves around this issue. It took
us awhile to fully grasp the key elements of this topic
area and to decide how best to address those elements.
Until this topic area was presented, I honestly hadn’t
given it much thought, and I think my thinking shifted
as we talked through specific issues.
Much of the discussion in our group focused
on the reality that the educational experience
in the secondary school setting under IDEA and
the postsecondary environment are set up very differently.
For students in special education who are on
IEPs, educators spend a great deal of time identifying
the individual student needs and providing the appropriate
supports and services to enable the student to
progress in the general curriculum. Little responsibility
rests with the student for understanding one’s own
needs and accessing assistance. At the postsecondary
level, all of the responsibility falls on the student to
self-identify and request supports and services. The
“accommodated experience” is in reality poor preparation
for students with disabilities to achieve post-school
success.
As our group worked through this issue and tried
to identify key elements, I was inclined initially
to advocate that the postsecondary setting needed to
more closely resemble the secondary setting. Furthermore,
secondary educators should be trained more like
elementary educators in that all teachers would be able
to provide instructional accommodations for individual
student learning styles and needs. As we talked through
this, however, I came to realize that the accommodated
experience is not real life experience. If we continue to
provide students with disabilities the safety net of IDEA
without also providing them with the necessary knowledge
and skills to understand their own needs, preferences,
and interests, we are probably doing them more
harm than good. Potentially, we are creating students
who are ill- equipped for the “real world” - young adults
who don’t know how to cope with failure and fully
participate in the human experience.
I do agree it would be helpful to somehow align
the secondary and the postsecondary experience so
that students don’t fall into some black hole of services
after exiting secondary school with no knowledge of
how to successfully navigate the system and access supports.
We must also look to find ways to ensure that
all students, especially those with disabilities, take on
increasing responsibility in planning their educational
experience.
I still concur with most of the recommendations
made by our group for influencing policy and
research. I am not sure I see the implications for assessment
around this issue. I feel this topic area is largely
one of successfully preparing students (and their families)
and educators to meet the challenge of IDEA to
use the transition planning requirements to positively
impact post-school education and employment outcomes.
 
Issue Area III:
Enhancing the Role of Technology
What is Technology?
Technology can be defined as products outside
of an individual’s natural system that support
learning, employment, and/or independent living.
Technology includes such items as calculators, keyboards,
software, computers, splints, and wheelchairs.
Technology has the potential to improve the
educational, career, and adult living outcomes for
people with disabilities. However, this potential will
not be realized unless barriers to its selection, acquisition
and use are overcome. Issues that must be
addressed include those related to 1) funding, 2)
knowledge of stakeholders, 3) transition planning,
and 4) accommodation vs. universal design.

Issue 1: Funding
Funding technology is often cited as a barrier to
technology access for people with disabilities,
although the cost of technology is often lower than
anticipated. This issue is likely to grow increasingly
important as secondary educators are faced with
implementing the assistive technology requirements
of IDEA, as technology in general becomes more
widely available as an effective tool for improving
student learning, and as awareness of adaptive technology
increases. Besides overall costs, deciding who
(school, government agency, family) should pay for
technology under specific circumstances, and who
owns the technology as a student transitions between
various levels of education and employment, create
additional challenges to be overcome. How these
issues vary at different levels of education and between
private and public institutions should also be
explored. Besides selection and purchase, the question
of who is responsible for upgrades and technical
support must be answered.

Why is this an Issue: Issue 1
Funding is an issue because it directly and immediately
impacts whether students are provided
with needed technological devices and services.
Concerns include:
• Choices are too often driven by the
availability of funding instead of individual
needs.
• There is lack of clarity about who is
responsible for paying for technological
devices and services (e.g., schools, families,
insurance), particularly as students transition
to postsecondary settings.
• There sometimes is a lack of funding for
training personnel to deliver technological
services and increasing awareness among
key stakeholders (e.g., families, general
educators, administrators).
• There is also a concern about who is
responsible for providing technological
services to students at the secondary
level—should it be an “expert” model or
one in which all stakeholders are involved
in the selection of and the provision of
technological services and resources?

Implications for Solving the Issue: Issue 1
If funding issues, including who pays for the initial
technology and who provides support and
upgrades, are adequately addressed, more students
will have access to empowering technology that will
increase their participation, independence and productivity
in education and employment settings.
Recommended Resear Research, ch, T Training raining and
Information Dissemination: Issue 1
The following research, training, and informa
tion dissemination is recommended to resolve
funding issues regarding technology for students
with disabilities:
• Research is needed regarding cost-effective
uses of technology to help educators and
others select devices and services that
maximizes opportunities for the student
while minimizing costs, duplication of
services, etc.
• Research is needed to identify exemplary
models of shared funding service agreements
at the state and local level.
• Longitudinal studies are needed to document
the long range effectiveness of
technology in helping students gain access
to the general education curriculum and
extracurricular activities.
• There is a need to study state policies
regarding initiatives for the funding of
technology in the following areas: (1)
How funding for technology in general
addresses the needs of students with
disabilities; (2) How it impacts funding
and decision-making at the local level and,
(3) The extent to which it includes shared
funding through interagency agreements
and integration of service systems.
• The relationship between technological
access and lifelong learning should be
explored.
• We need to explore successful practices for
making funding systemic and systemwide.

Issue 2: Knowledge of Stakeholders
The planning and implementation of effective
technological supports for students with disabilities
requires enhanced knowledge, skills, and
awareness among all stakeholder groups, including;
general and special education teachers, related services
personnel (occupational therapists, physical
therapists, etc.), policymakers, paraprofessionals,
pre-service and in-service trainers, employers, interagency
and community service providers, students,
families, technological professionals, medical equipment
providers and others. All represent key stakeholders
that participate in the planning process and
are responsible for ensuring that students are provided
with the appropriate technological devices and
services to meet their individual needs.
Why is this an Issue: Issue 2
If key stakeholders are not aware of how technology
can support the needs of students with disabilities,
the following issues are likely to emerge:
• Technological needs will not be accurately
assessed or considered as required by
IDEA.
• Technological needs will not be integrated
into the IEP nor integrated into the
curriculum.
• Service providers will not have the capacity
to keep pace with rapidly changing
technologies that will benefit students
with disabilities.
• Students with disabilities will not be
provided with developmentally appropriate
devices or services.
• Students with disabilities will fail to use
technology effectively and will not be able
to self-advocate regarding their technological
needs.
• Other key stakeholders will fail to understand
the value of technology to the
student (general educator perception that
technology “gets in the way” of learning
basic skills, misunderstanding among
employers, fears of expensive accommodations,
etc.).
Increasing knowledge, skills, and awareness of
technology can lead to improved levels of identifying
resources available to students and facilitate
cooperation among all types of service providers to
ensure that students are provided with the supports
that will increase readiness, motivation, and transition
to postsecondary and adult living. Smaller institutions
and programs face special challenges in
maintaining current information about technology
and its most appropriate applications for students
with disabilities.

Implications for Solving the Issue: Issue 2
If teachers, related services personnel (occupational
therapists, physical therapists, etc.), policymakers,
paraprofessionals, pre-service and in-service trainers,
employers, interagency and community service
providers, students, families, technological professionals,
medical equipment providers and other
stakeholders were more aware of the potential uses
and the availability of technology for people with
disabilities, technology would be employed more
effectively to maximize independence, productivity
and participation of people with disabilities at all
levels of education and employment.
Recommended Resear Research, ch, T Training raining and
Information Dissemination: Issue 2
The following research, training the information
dissemination is recommended to improve
knowledge of stakeholders:
• There is a need for baseline data on the
present skills, knowledge and awareness of
key stakeholders that can be used in the
planning and implementation of technology
for students with disabilities.
• Information is needed regarding effective
training approaches for each stakeholder
group. With regard to the training needs
of students, age and interest-appropriate
strategies are needed.
• Research is needed regarding the efficacy
of the “expert” model vs. a team planning
approach—(e.g. study whether experts are
any more effective than the IEP planning
team). Also, we need to investigate the
effectiveness of an interdisciplinary assessment
process.
• Research is needed about effective ways of
training students to self-advocate regarding
the use of technology in the classroom
and workplace.
• Training is needed to increase collaboration
among various stakeholders, in order
to provide students with an integrated and
seamless system of technological supports
that facilitate transition into
postsecondary settings.
• Information is needed regarding the
extent to which students with disabilities
are provided with technology, but don’t
know how to use it. The following question
should be addressed: “To what extent
can students with disabilities research their
own technological needs?”
• Internet technologies (e.g., email, Web
pages, discussion lists, bulletin boards)
should be used to effectively train stakeholders.
• Training needs to target pre-service
teachers.
• Research and training should be focused
on early technological access and training
for children with disabilities.
Issue 3: Address ess Role of Technology in
Transition Planning
The concept of transition is integral to students’
planning of postsecondary and adult living objectives.
Like all other aspects of the transition process,
the role of technology must be addressed.
Why is this an Issue: Issue 3
Many people believe that technology has the
potential to promote positive school and
career outcomes for students. However, this is contingent
upon a number of various factors, systemic
and otherwise, to be successful. Coordinated education
and community service systems are essential
in ensuring that the transfer of technology is a seamless
process for students. This can be facilitated by
the development on the transition IEP of interagency
and/or cost sharing agreements that identify
specific roles and responsibilities of agencies. In
addition, student transition plans need to include
self-advocacy objectives so that students are able to
articulate their technological needs to others (e.g.,
teachers, professors, employers).

Implications for Solving the Issue: Issue 3
A considerable body of information exists on
the transition process, but little has been focused
on technological issues. If technological issues
were adequately addressed in a student’s transition
to higher education and employment, fewer
problems would result as the student moves from
pre-college to postsecondary education to employment
settings.

Recommended Research, Training
and Information Dissemination: Issue 3
• Research is needed regarding the use of
technology at the secondary level that
“scales” or generalizes well to
postsecondary and employment objectives.
• Information is needed about effective
models that promote interagency collaboration
in the transition process with regard
to the provision of technological devices
and related services.
• Research is needed to study effective
approaches to the development of student
knowledge and self-advocacy skills in the
area of technology. For example, effective
participation in the transition IEP development
process is essential for students in
the assessment of their technological 
needs. Effective strategies are needed with
regard to how students can “negotiate”
with teachers and employers as they
transition from the “umbrella” of IDEA to
the ADA.
• Research is needed to study the role of
technology in secondary education in
relation to postsecondary education and
employment outcomes. Proposed research
questions include: “ What is the progression
and cross-application of technology
through stages from elementary to middle
school and secondary education and how
can it best be integrated into instruction
and transition planning to achieve
postsecondary school and employment
outcomes?”

Issue 4: Accommodations vs. Universal Design
It is important to create inclusive environments
that are universally accessible to all people, with
and without disabilities. A universal design approach
to the development of technological devices and services
will help to ensure that students with disabilities
will be provided with full access to programs
and activities in the school and community.

Why is this an Issue: Issue 4
One concern about the use of technology is
that it can often involve the use of devices
that are highly specialized and only applicable to a
limited consumer market. As a result, there is little
incentive for commercial vendors to engage in research
and development activities in this area, reflected
in high technology costs for students with
disabilities. A universal design approach can help to
reduce the cost of technology as well as to:
• Facilitate the transfer of technology from
secondary to postsecondary education
• Promote cross-application and compatibility
in education and workplace settings
• Reduce stigma, cultural and attitudinal
barriers; and
• More immediately and cost-effectively,
adapt to the changing technological needs
of students (e.g., developmental appropriate
technology).

Implications for Solving the Issue: Issue 4
If universal design were more often employed
when technological hardware, software and facilities
were being designed and purchased, fewer
adaptive technologies and other special accommodations
would be required by people with disabilities
as they attempt to use computing products and
labs.

Recommended Research, Training and
Information Dissemination: Issue 4
• Research is needed to study the extent to
which the application of universal design
results in less of a need to provide students
with special accommodations.
• All stakeholders need training so that they
will be proactive in employing universal
design principles to design and select
facilities, computers and software in order
to minimize the need for special accommodations
for individuals with disabilities.
• Technology-related postsecondary technology
programs should include the
principles of universal design regarding
hardware, software, and facilities.
• Efforts should be made to assure that all
Web developers employ universal design
principles to make their pages accessible to
everyone.
• Policies and procedures should be established
at all levels to assure the purchase
and use of hardware and software that is
accessible to everyone.

Issues Analysis
Stacie L. Martin
Issue III: Enhancing the Role of
Technology

The main issues discussed encompassed funding,
knowledge of stakeholders, role of technology
in transition planning and concept of universal
design. I have limited knowledge and experience
in the area of technology. My overall impression
with the document was that the information
made sense and touched upon some critical issues
for continued discussion.
My limited experience has been with the challenges
of funding issues for students at the
postsecondary level. I agree with the issue of the
need to address what agency will be responsible for
ensuring that upgrades and technical support are
given on an ongoing basis. I agree that educating
key stakeholders is important. In my opinion, when
you talk about technology most people think about
the expense. When in reality a simple adaptation
can be of minimal cost but make a significant difference
in the life of a student. There was a point
made regarding cost sharing agreements. In Kansas
we are fortunate to have the Assistive Technology
for Kansas project (ATK). There is a statewide
board. The majority of members are consumers with
other members from school, VR and other related
agencies involved with assistive technology. My favorite
piece of this document was about the concept
of universal design. My personal perspective
is that too many times people get labeled because
not everyone can fit that “ideal” mold. If we can
break that mold, then who is to say who is different?

Wendy Blaauw
Issue III: Enhancing the Role of
Technology

This group identified four core issues around
this topic area. The first area, funding, of
course, is and probably always will be an issue. And
it is not an issue that is easily solved. The other
three areas, knowledge of stakeholders, the implications
for transition planning, and universal design
are, potentially, the areas where policy and research
can be most influential.
Often when technology needs of students with
disabilities are addressed, the discussion is
focused on assistive technology needs, and educators
do a fair job of considering those supports. I
think access to basic, everyday technology for students
with disabilities is often overlooked. Most
students in general education are provided computer
lab time as part of their educational experience beginning
in kindergarten. Do we consistently provide
students with disabilities the same experience?
The whole concept of universal design is important
here. Many schools are not physically equipped to
provide students with disabilities with equal access
to areas like computer labs, etc.
When it comes to transition planning, again,
assistive technology is one piece. IEP teams
must also consider and give equal weight to evaluating
how well students with disabilities are accessing
and receiving instruction in basic computer skills
that employers and postsecondary education expects.
One suggestion I would make for this topic
area is that further exploration be done to
look at ways to partner better with businesses and
employers. So much of what can be done in the
area of technology and the use of technology for
persons with disabilities directly impacts the business
community. One impact is how well consumers
with disabilities can access the service or product
of the business. The other area of impact is how
technology can be used to better equip persons with
disabilities to become successful employees.

Issue Area IV:
Managing Supports and Related
Services

What are the Challenges to Managing
Supports and Related Services?
Students with disabilities face many challenges
as they try to access supports when leaving high
school and entering postsecondary education. Challenges
include, but are not limited to, a lack of coordinated
services between secondary school and
postsecondary school (e.g., conflicting eligibility
criteria, processes, implementation issues and terminology),
the need for instruction in self-determination
and leadership skills before, upon entry
to, and during postsecondary education, and the
need for greater linkage with employment related
supports.

Issue 1: Collaboration and Coordination of Services
Access issues must first be addressed through col-
laboration between institutions, agencies,
providers, and individuals and families to ensure that
coordinated services are available at all levels of education
and on to employment. Primary challenges
to access for students include lack of information
about how secondary and postsecondary environments
differ, how eligibility for support is determined,
what constitutes effective supports for individual
students, and how various supports might be
financed. Inconsistencies between adult human service
agencies regarding eligibility, evaluation and
outcome data further confuse the already complex
processes of gaining access to, participating and progressing
in postsecondary education.

Why is this an Issue: Issue 1
The challenge to effective transitions and coordinated
supports for students with disabilities
is complex. These challenges include resistance to
change at the secondary and postsecondary level,
attitudes framed by low expectations for students
with disabilities, the need for professional development
in high schools and colleges, personnel, different
missions of institutions (i.e. academic standards),
concerns regarding resource availability, and
legal mandates that are unclear and sometimes contradictory.

Implications for Solving the Issue: Issue 1
• Evaluate models for flexibility in and
collaboration between institutions and
agencies involved in transition.
• Delineate effective versus ineffective
practices and strategies of support services.
• Identify resources needed for successful
transition to postsecondary education and
develop agreements to co-mingle funds
and other resources.

Recommended Research, Training
and Information Dissemination: Issue 1
• Identify effective practices: Identify where
they are happening and how are they
doing it.
• Identify a common agenda for all agencies
to endorse that encourages interested
students with disabilities to continue their
education after high school.
• Examine resource mapping, agency
funding, processes and evaluations.
• Design data collection systems linked to
funding, services provision and student
outcomes.
• Encourage professional development at all
levels (secondary education, college and
community support institutions) in the
acquisition, application, and alignment of
supports for students in postsecondary
and employment settings.

Issue 2: Self-Determination and Leadership
Students with disabilities often face additional
difficulty accessing postsecondary education because
they have not actively participated in many of
the experiences that would prepare them for the challenges
of life after high school. Like their peers,
however, students with disabilities want to advocate
for themselves. Self-advocacy training—self-determination,
management, self-knowledge—needs to
be in place throughout their educational experience,
including in college where students are mandated
to advocate for their own services and accommodations.

Why is this an Issue: Issue 2
As students move into adulthood, all students
are expected to advocate for their own needs.
Students with disabilities and their families may not
have the additional knowledge or role models they
need to make this process less confusing. The transition
originates in an environment where the identified
“adults” (teachers and parents) make most decisions.
In addition, accommodations and services
for students with disabilities are linked to institutions
and agencies with conflicting purposes and the
cost of services is often perceived as too high.

Implications for Solving the Issue: Issue 2
• Determine the impact of techniques of
self-determination on the acquisition of
supports.
• Identify the elements, educational and
cultural, that determine and support selfdetermination.
• Identify the administrative processes that
support or are barriers for self-determination.
• Identify the unintended prejudicial factors
that prevent students with disabilities
from attending postsecondary education.

Recommended Research, Training
and Information Dissemination: Issue 2
• Self-determination training at both the
pre-college and postsecondary education
level is needed for students, faculty and
support personnel, to determine success in
acquiring support. Training should be
integrated within typical curriculum and
activities.
• Investigate the use of service brokers
across the transition period to facilitate
coordination.

Issue 3: Postsecondary Education and
Links to Employment
In order for students to transition to work, it is
necessary to develop work place skills (SCANS)
as well as specific occupational skills. Information
about adult services and related assessments are not
available early enough in the educational process or
simply do not exist for students with disabilities.
Non-inclusive educational and vocational instruction
in high school or college, lack of career exploration
and internships, and low participation in typical
early employment experiences (e.g., after school
jobs), deny students with disabilities the full range
of learning experiences necessary to make important
career decisions. Department of Labor Initiatives,
like the Ticket-to-Work, and One-Stop Centers
may be able to assist students in their effort to
connect with education that leads to employment.

Why is this an Issue: Issue 3
Students with disabilities continue to be at a disadvantage
because they are underrepresented in
postsecondary and employment settings. Students
with disabilities do not enter postsecondary education
because expectations—theirs and others—are
low, and without postsecondary education students
are less likely to succeed in the workplace. Studies
show that alignment of services and supports is effective
but is not widely practiced. Often there are
concerns regarding insufficient resources to support
students, particularly if their supports and accommodations
seem complex. At each stage, a person
with disabilities faces policies and procedures that
their non-disabled peers need not address.

Implications for Solving the Issue: Issue 3
• Share resources, for example, between
general education and special education
(including career-related courses and
internships).
• Determine commitment and knowledge
• Could we mimic the way support is
provided in the postsecondary world and
remain in compliance with IDEA?
• Determine to what extent is gate-keeping
at colleges or high schools a factor in
college attendance.

Recommended Research, Training and Information Dissemination:
Issue 3
• Identify and disseminate best practices in
secondary, postsecondary, and employment-
related supports (to cover career
preparation — for example, affiliations
and internships required by college career
tracks).
• Identify what factors contribute to successful/
unsuccessful transitions to target
employment following postsecondary
education.

Issues Analysis
Stacie L. Martin

Issue IV: Managing Supports and Related Services

There were three main issues that were addressed
relating to managing supports and related services.
Those issues focused upon collaboration and
coordination of services; self determination and leadership
and post secondary education and links to
employment. Overall, the group touched upon issues
that are relevant to challenges students face
when planning for their future needs.
As I was reviewing this document there were
statements made in which I have had different
experiences and perspectives. For example, under
the issue of postsecondary education and links
to employment. There was a statement made “that
information about adult services and related assessments
are not available early enough in the educational
process or simply do not exist for students
with disabilities.” I question what type of transitional
plans are being made for students with disabilities.
It is my understanding of I.D.E.A. that
transition is required for all students with disabilities.
Person-centered planning strategies can be incorporated
into the Individual Education Plan. I
have had experience with being a grant reviewer for
School to Work grants. Those grants awarded included
the concept of work from Kindergarten to
Secondary school. Through my work at VR we
have vocational evaluators that often provide assessment
for secondary students who are referred from
his/her VR counselor. The assessment can cover
from interests to aptitude to job tryout situations
to “try out a particular job of interest.” I agree that
students with disabilities continue to be at a disadvantage
because they have to go through extra hoops
sometimes to receive services.
The document addressed employment, self-advocacy
and postsecondary education options.
An additional perspective would be to include life
skills or independent living skills as an issue. In my
experience the three are interrelated. Independent
living can cover from basic daily living skills ( hygiene,
dress, cooking) to managing ones own affairs
such as banking , paying bills and knowing resources
in ones community.

Wendy Blaauw
Issue IV: Managing Supports and Related Services

This group identified three key themes for this
topic area: Collaboration and coordination of
services; Self-determination and leadership, and
Postsecondary and links to employment. It is interesting
that common threads were identified in
all four major topic areas, namely self-determination
and postsecondary education and employment.
Collaboration and coordination of services is a
complex issue, and I think one that is typically
more challenging for students with more severe
disabilities. IDEA clearly articulates the expectation
that other agencies that may be involved
in and potentially pay for identified transition services
should be invited to the IEP. However, since
the school is ultimately responsible for ensuring that
the IEP is carried out, I think that there is a reluctance
to invite outside agency participation. Funding
and turf issues complicate the collaboration issue
further. Certainly evidence supports the research
implications identified by the group of exploring
flexible interagency models of collaboration. This
is a recurring topic in practice as so many federal
grant initiatives currently exist to fund these endeavors
in an attempt to influence systemic change.
The discussion of self-determination echoes the
issues described in other groups. Clearly, this
is an area that has been identified as having significant
potential to positively influence the post-school
outcomes of students with disabilities. Self-determination
models and demonstration projects have
shown that students benefit from this type of curriculum
and instruction. The challenge now is to
better prepare educators and school systems to build
this component into existing practice.
The successful transition of students with disabilities
into postsecondary education and employment
certainly is an indicator of how well education
collaborates and provides for the coordination
of services. Longitudinal studies like the national
study currently being conducted will hopefully
provide the field with additional insights into
how effective current practice has been in improving
these outcomes. Continued dissemination of
best practices and successful demonstration projects
should be encouraged.
Reflecting upon the two days of the institute, it
is encouraging to see so many researchers and
professionals sharing information and resources designed
to help students with disabilities achieve postschool
successes. It would be easy to look back over
the 10 plus years since transition was written into
IDEA and become discouraged that we are still battling
so many of the same issues. However, there is
also a significant increase in the development of materials,
trainings, and research that demonstrates that
we are, in fact, making progress. Opportunities to
participate in institutes such as the one in Portland
go a long way to reinforce these efforts.
 
Evaluation Form

Please help us to improve our future Institutes by filling out the form below. Please email the completed 
form to mconway@hawaii.edu or print out the form and mail to Megan Conway, Center On Disability 
Studies, 1776 University Avenue, Honolulu, HI 96822. Thank you! 

Rate the areas in the corresponding box using a scale of 1-5; 5 being excellent, 3 being satisfactory, and 1 
being unsatisfactory. We also welcome comments in the space provided. 

Registration 

Ease of registration: 
Responsiveness to enquiries: 

Comments:



Online Papers and Discussion 

Relevance of papers to my interests:
Format/style of papers: 
Ease of access to papers on-line: 
Relevance of discussion questions 
to my interests:  
Ease of access to discussion on-line: 

Comments: 



Presentations 

Stodden 

Relevance of presentation to my interests: 
Presentation style:

Izzo 
Relevance of presentation to my interests: 
Presentation style:

Burgstahler 
Relevance of presentation to my interests:
Presentation style:

Whelley 
Relevance of presentation to my interests:
Presentation style:

Comments:



Discussion: 
Relevance of discussions to my interests:
Discussion format:
Discussion outcome/output:

Comments:

 

Morning and Evening Activities 

Comments:



Lunchtime Discussions 

Comments:



Materials

Content of binder materials:
Style/format of binder materials:

Comments:



Please answer the questions below:

What was the highlight of the Institute?


What would you improve about the Institute?


What is the most valuable idea/contact that you took away from the Institute?

 
What would encourage you to use the pre-Institute on-line discussion?


What suggestions do you have for future Institute themes, papers and presentations?



For more information about training, technical 
assistance, and dissemination activities mentioned 
in these proceedings, or for information about 
future Institutes, please contact: 

Robert A. Stodden, Ph.D., Director 
Megan A. Jones, Ph.D., Coordinator 
National Center on Secondary Education & 
Transition (NCSET) 
University of Hawaii at Manoa Site 
1776 University Avenue 
Honolulu, Hawaii 96822 

Tel: 808-956-6166 
Fax: 808-956-7878 
Email: meganj@hawaii.edu 
Web: http://www.ici.umn.edu/ncset 

Preparation of this report was supported by 
cooperative agreement #H326J000005 in 
partnership with the Office of Special Education 
Programs (OSEP), and by grant #H133B980043 
from the National Institute on Disability and 
Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR), U.S. 
Department of Education. The opinions expressed 
in this document do not necessarily reflect the policy 
or position of any sponsoring agency.

Department of Education
National Center on Secondary Education and Transition
National Center for the Study of Postsecondary Educational Supports
National Institute for Disability and Rehabilitation Research