National Capacity Building Institute
Spring 2002 Proceedings

"Supporting Individuals with Disabilities Across 
Secondary School, Postsecondary School and Employment"

National Center for the Study of Postsecondary Educational Supports
National Institute for Disability and Rehabilitation Research

March 6-8, 2002
Honolulu, Hawai'i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION: page 3 
CAPACITY BUILDING INSTITUTE AGENDA: page 5 
PRESENTER BIOGRAPHIES: page 7 
ANNOTATED PAPERS AND GROUP DISCUSSION: page 11 

ROBERT A. STODDEN, PH.D. AND MEGAN A. JONES, PH.D. 

SERVICES, SUPPORTS AND ACCOMMODATIONS FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES: AN ANALYSIS 
ACROSS SECONDARY EDUCATION,POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT: page 12 

DOUGLAS FISHER, PH.D. 

HIGH SCHOOL INCLUSION + SEAMLESS TRANSITION = DESIRED OUTCOMES: 
A BRIEF REPORT: page 20 

NOTICING DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SECONDARY AND POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION: 
EXTENDING AGRAN, SNOW, AND SWANER’S DISCUSSION: page 22 

STAN SHAW, PH.D. 

POSTSECONDARY SUPPORTS FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES: page 26 

RICHARD G. LUECKING, ED.D. 

DOING IT THE COMPANY WAY: EMPLOYER PERSPECTIVES ON WORKPLACE SUPPORTS: page 29 

DAVID MANK, PH.D. 

PATTERNS OF SUPPORT FOR EMPLOYEES WITH SEVERE DISABILITIES: page 33 

SUMMARY OF REACTOR PRESENTATIONS: page 36 
RESULTS OF ONLINE AND GROUP DISCUSSION: page 40 
VOICES FROM THE FIELD: WHAT PARTICIPANTS SAID DURING THE ONLINE DISCUSSION: page 41 
RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON STRUCTURED GROUP DISCUSSION: page 44 
EVALUATION: page 46

INTRODUCTION 
Aloha and welcome to the Proceedings 
document for the National Capacity Building 
Institute, “Supporting Individuals with 
Disabilities Across Secondary Education, 
Postsecondary Education and Employment.” The 
Institute was held in Honolulu, Hawaii, on 
March 6-8, 2002, and was co-sponsored by the 
National Center on Secondary Education and 
Transition (NCSET) and the National Center for 
the Study of Postsecondary Educational Supports 
(NCSPES). 
The Institute consisted of several different 
components: 
(1) Online readings and discussion with authors 
& researchers. Approximately a month prior 
to the Institute in Hawaii, participants were 
given the opportunity to read papers authored 
by the presenters. A rich on-line discussion 
evolved from these readings, with participants 
expressing their views about the goals of 
service delivery, the role of self-determination, 
the potential of postsecondary education for 
individuals with severe disabilities, and 
strategies for improving the employment of 
individuals with disabilities. 
(2) Intensive presentations and discussions in 
Honolulu, Hawaii. Participants came to 
Honolulu, Hawaii for a three-day workshop 
in collaboration with the Pacific Rim 
Conference on Disabilities. Five speakers 
presented current information on topics 
ranging from differences in how supports are 
provided across secondary school, 
postsecondary school and employment 
(Robert Stodden and Megan Jones); 
supporting individuals with severe disabilities 
to be fully integrated into secondary school 
(Douglas Fisher); establishing minimum 
standards of support provision in 
postsecondary school (Stanley Shaw); finding 
the “fit” between employees with disabilities 
and employers (Richard Leucking); and 
providing natural supports to individuals with 
disabilities in the employment environment 
(David Mank). Each presentation was 
followed by a reaction (Richard Radtke, Philip 
Rumril, Anne Lee, Jamesetta Logan), and a 
period of small group discussion. The 
discussion groups exposed participants to a 
variety of perspectives, and provided 
participants with the opportunity to link each 
presentation with the real world of disability 
through the development of 
recommendations for policy, practice and 
research. A range of recommendations were 
offered, with most groups highlighting the 
need to further explore innovative and 
effective means of supporting individuals with 
disabilities across secondary school, 
postsecondary school and employment; the 
need to support research in the area of 
Universal Design; and the need to ensure that 
individuals with disabilities are fully included 
in the decision-making process around their 
own supports. 
(3) Follow-up discussion surrounding next steps 
and the implementation of new knowledge 
and skills. Participants were given the 
opportunity to continue the discussion 
around support provision to individuals with 
disabilities by participating in the post- 
6-8 March 2002 Honolulu Hawaii 3
outcomes list-serve sponsored by the 
University of Hawaii. Questions posed by 
participants on the list-serve included, “How 
would I transition a student to a college if he 
is disabled and doesn't have a high school 
diploma?” “What types of transition planning 
workshops are done to link high 
schools with higher education?” and “Why are 
post-secondary students who are economically 
disadvantaged or who are minorities 
underrepresented in disabled services?” 
We hope that these Proceedings reflect the rich 
variety of participants, presentations and 
discussions that emerged from this Institute. 
Thank you to all who participated! Please look 
for future Institutes in the areas of selfdetermination, 
technology, and service 
coordination. For more information about this 
and future Institutes, or about the Post-Outcomes 
Network of the National Center on Secondary 
Education and Transition, please contact Velina 
Sugiyama, Administrative Assistant, Center on 
Disability Studies, University of Hawaii at 
Manoa, 1776 University Avenue, UA 4-6, 
Honolulu, HI 96822. Tel. 808-956-5688. 
Email. velina@hawaii.edu. Web. http:// 
www.ncset.hawaii.edu. 

ROBERT A. STODDEN, PH.D. 
Director 
Center on Disability Studies 
National Center for the Study of Postsecondary 
Educational Supports 
University of Hawaii at Manoa 
CBI Proceedings 

MEGAN A. JONES, PH.D. 
Assistant Professor and Coordinator 
Post-Outcomes Network 
National Center on Secondary Education and 
Transition 
University of Hawaii at Manoa site 

6-8 March 2002 Honolulu Hawaii 

CAPACITY BUILDING INSTITUTE AGENDA 
Feb. 3 – March 3, 2002 
Web site posting of readings: Discussions with authors and researchers around issues identified in readings. 
Tuesday, March 5, 2002 - Puna Room 

Pre-Institute Gathering (coffee and dessert provided) 7:00 – 8:00 pm: 

Wednesday, March 6, 2002 - Iao Needle Room 
6:15 - 7:30am: Experiencing the Great Hawaiian Morning – Canoe Paddle (optional)  
8:30 - 9:00am: Registration, Continental Breakfast and Introductions  
9:00 - 9:15am: David Johnson, “Welcome and Overview of NCSET”  
9:15 - 9:30am: Robert Stodden, “Introduction and Synthesis of Institute Theme”  
9:30 - 10:00am: Megan Jones, Review of Materials and Agenda  
10:00 – 11:00pm: Robert Stodden and Megan Jones, Overview of “Services, Supports and 
Accommodations” in Secondary Education, Postsecondary Education, & 
Employment Settings 
11:00 - 12:00 Reaction & Discussion 
12:00 - 1:00pm:Lunch (provided) Location – Molokei Room  
1:00 – 2:00pm: Douglas Fisher, “The Point of Transition: Organizing Supports During 
Secondary School For Positive Post-School Outcomes” 
2:00 - 3:00pm: Reaction and Discussion  
3:00-3:30pm: Break  
3:30 – 4:30pm: Stan Shaw, “Program Standards for Disability Services in Postsecondary 
Education” 
4:30-5:30pm Reaction and Discussion  
5:30pm - on Evening Activities (optional) 

Thursday, March 7, 2002 - Iao Needle Room 
6:15 - 8:00am: Experiencing the Great Hawaiian Morning – Diamond Head hike (optional)  
8:30 - 9:00am: Continental Breakfast  
9:00 - 9:30am: Overview of Agenda for the Day  
9:30 – 10:30am: Richard Luecking, “Doing it the Company Way: Employer Perspectives on 
Workplace Supports” 
10:30 - 11:30am: Reaction and Discussion  
11:30 - 12:30pm:  Lunch (provided) Location – Molokai Room 
12:30 - 1:30pm: David Mank, "The Link between Job Design and Employment Outcomes" 
1:30 - 2:30pm: Reaction and Discussion  
2:30 - 3:00pm: Break 
3:00 – 5:00pm: Structured Discussion Groups - Synthesis of Group Discussion 
Location – Iao Needle, Akaka Falls, Hilo, Puna 
5:00pm - on: Evening Activities (optional)  

Friday, March 7, 2002 - Iao Needle Room 
8:30 - 9:00am: Continental Breakfast  
9:00-10:00am: Phil Rumrill, Richard Radtke, Anne Lee, Jamesetta Logan, 
Reactor Presentations 
Discussion Group Reactions and Evaluation 10:00-11:00am: 
11:00am: Adjourn  
CBI Proceedings 6

PRESENTER BIOGRAPHIES 

DAVID R. JOHNSON, PH.D. 
Director and Associate Professor 
Institute on Community Integration 
National Center on Secondary Education and 
Transition 
University of Minnesota 

Welcome and Overview of the National 
Center on Secondary Education and Transition 
Dr. Johnson is presently Director of the 
Institute on Community Integration (University 
Affiliated Program) and associate professor in the 
Department of Educational Policy and 
Administration, College of Education of Human 
Development at the University of Minnesota. Dr. 
Johnson has more than 25 years of research, 
technical assistance and dissemination experience 
with a strong emphasis on secondary education 
and transition services. Over the years, Dr. 
Johnson has been the principal investigator and 
director of several federal and state research, 
training and demonstration projects in the areas 
of school-to-work transition, vocational 
education, interagency collaboration, secondary 
special education, employment, community 
living, and others. 

Dr. Johnson has directed the National 
Transition Network and has been a major partner 
of the National Transition Alliance for Youth with 
Disabilities. Both projects provide technical 
assistance, consultation and evaluation support to 
virtually all 50 states across the nation. His 
specific research interests include investigations of 
the post-school outcomes and status of young 
adults with disabilities, evaluations concerning 
access and participation of young adults with 
disabilities in postsecondary education programs 
and employment, studies on systems change, costbenefit 
analysis, and other policy-related research. 

ROBERT A. STODDEN, PH.D. 
Director and Professor 
Center on Disability Studies 
National Center for the Study of Postsecondary 
Educational Supports 
University of Hawaii at Manoa 

Introduction and Synthesis 
Title of Presentation: “Overview of ‘Services’, 
‘Supports’ and ‘Accommodations’ in Secondary 
Education, Postsecondary Education and 
Employment Settings” 

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. 

MEGAN A. JONES, PH.D. 
Assistant Professor and Coordinator 
Center on Disability Studies 
University of Hawaii at Manoa 

Title of Presentation: “Overview of ‘Services’, 
‘Supports’ and ‘Accommodations’ in Secondary 
Education, Postsecondary Education and Employment 
Settings” 

Dr. Jones is an Assistant Professor with the 
Center on Disability Studies at the University of 
Hawaii at Manoa. She coordinates the University 
of Hawaii site of the National Center on 
Postsecondary Education and Transition 
(NCSET). This site provides technical assistance, 
training and information dissemination geared at 
improving postsecondary outcomes for 
individuals with disabilities. Dr. Jones has 
presented at numerous national and international 
CBI Proceedings conferences and workshops in the areas of 
postsecondary support, technology, and sensory 
impairment. She has served as a consultant on 
several state and international projects in the area 
of severe disability, and has authored papers on 
the implications of acquired disability and on the 
application of technology for individuals with 
vision and hearing loss. Dr. Jones received her 
doctorate in Special Education from the 
University of California at Berkeley in 2001. 

DOUGLAS FISHER, PH.D. 
Professor 
School of Teacher Education 
San Diego State University 

Title of Presentation: “The Point of Transition: 
Organizing Supports During Secondary School 
For Positive Post-School Outcomes” 

Dr. Fisher is associate professor of teacher 
education at San Diego State University. His 
interests center on quality instruction and support 
for diverse learners. He is the author of “Inclusive 
High Schools” and “Inclusive Middle Schools” as 
well as numerous articles on supporting 
individuals with disabilities to be fully 
participating members of their schools and 
communities.

STAN F. SHAW, ED.D. 
Professor and Coordinator 
Special Education Program, Department of 
Educational Psychology 
Co-Director, Center on Postsecondary Education 
and Disability 
University of Connecticut 

Title of Presentation: “Program Standards for 
Disability Services in Postsecondary Education” 
Dr. Shaw is a Professor and Coordinator of the 
Special Education Program in the Department of 
Educational Psychology at the University of 
Connecticut (UConn). He is also Co-Director of 
the Center on Postsecondary Education and 
Disability. His responsibilities with the Center 
include Co-Principal Investigator for the grant 
implementing Universal Design for Instruction to 
improve access to college for students with 
disabilities, and serving as Coordinator for the 
UConn’s Annual Postsecondary Learning 
Disability Training Institute. 

Dr. Shaw was Co-Editor of the Journal of 
Postsecondary Education and Disability and is 
now a member of its Editorial Board. He has 
recently published articles in Career Development 
for Exceptional Individuals, Journal of Vocational 
Special Needs Education, the Journal of 
Developmental Education, Teacher Education 
and Special Education and the Journal of 
Postsecondary Education and Disability. His 
primary areas of interest are professional 
development for postsecondary disability 
personnel, services for college students with 
disabilities, transition, disability policy and law, 
and teacher education. 

RICHARD G. LUECKING, ED.D. 
President 
TransCen 
Rockville, Maryland 

Title of Presentation: “Doing it the Company 
Way: Employer Perspectives on Workplace 
Supports” 

Dr. Luecking is President of TransCen, Inc., a 
position he has held since 1987 when he was 
charged by the Board of Directors to create 
linkages between schools, service providing 
agencies, government, businesses, and families, so 
that youth with disabilities experience improved 
post-school outcomes. During his tenure in this 
position he has written, directed and/or overseen 
over two dozen federal research and 
demonstration projects and a nearly equal number 
of foundation-funded projects that address 
secondary education issues and school to work 
transition for youth with disabilities. He was an 
original consultant in the development of the 
‘Bridges From School to Work Program” of the 
Marriott Foundation for People with Disabilities, 
which has since been replicated and established in 
several national locations with the help of 
TransCen. 

Dr. Luecking has maintained active 
participation and held leadership positions in 
numerous local, state and national initiatives, 
including workforce development boards, schoolto-
career systems, business/education 
partnerships, and professional associations. He 
served in the National School to Work Office of 
the U.S. Departments of Education and Labor 
from 1997-99 under a special appointment to 
6-8 March 2002 Honolulu Hawaii 9
promote the engagement of employers in school 
to work initiatives. Prior to his term at TransCen, 
he has held positions in rehabilitation, education 
and non-profit organization management. He is 
the author of numerous publications on topics 
related to career development, school to work 
transition, business/education partnerships, and 
the employment of people with disabilities. Dr. 
Luecking regularly contributes to publications 
targeting practitioners in education and 
employment services. 

DAVID M. MANK, PH.D. 
Director 
Indiana Institute on Disability and Community 
University of Indiana 

Title of Presentation: “The Link between Job 
Design and Employment Outcomes" 

Dr. Mank is the Director of the Indiana 
Institute on Disability and Community at Indiana 
University, Indiana’s University Center for 
Excellence on Disabilities. In addition, he is a Full 
Professor in the School of Education, Department 
of Curriculum and Instruction. 

A prolific writer and researcher, Dr. Mank has 
an extensive background in the education and 
employment for persons with disabilities. His 
interest also includes a focus on the transition of 
persons with disabilities from school to adult life 
and community living. Over the past five years, 
Dr. Mank’s work has expanded to encompass not 
only persons with developmental disabilities, but 
those with mental illness, physical disabilities, and 
persons with traumatic brain injuries.

Since 1985, Dr. Mank has maintained 
responsibility for grant writing and management 
of more than 20 federally funded projects in 
which he has been the Principal Investigator, 
Director or Co-Director. Dr. Mank holds a 
doctorate in Special Education and Rehabilitation 
from the University of Oregon, Eugene (1985). 

Dr. Mank is a member of the editorial boards 
of the Journal of the Association for People with 
Severe Handicaps (JASH), the Journal of 
Vocational Rehabilitation, the Journal of 
Disability Policy Studies, Siglo Cero, and a 
Consulting Editor for the journal on Mental 
Retardation. He was elected to the Board of the 
Association of University Centers on Disabilities 
(AUCD) in 1997, and served as President of that 
association from 1999-2000. Additionally he is a 
member of the Board of Directors of the 
American Association on Mental Retardation and 
was recently honored by The Arc of the United 
States receiving the Franklin Smith Award for 
National Distinguished Service. This award is the 
highest honor bestowed by the Arc and it 
recognizes an individual whose contributions have 
had a nationwide impact of the lives of children 
and adults with mental retardation and related 
developmental disabilities. 

ANNOTATED PAPERS AND GROUP DISCUSSION

ROBERT A. STODDEN, PH.D. AND 
MEGAN A. JONES, PH.D. 
There are discrepancies in assistance to 
individuals with disabilities across environments 
(secondary education, postsecondary education, 
and employment), both in the laws and in 
practice. Modes of assistance are defined very 
differently in the different settings. These 
discrepancies make transition difficult for people 
with disabilities. 
When individuals with disabilities graduate, 
they leave a setting that is highly prescriptive and 
individualized under the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and enter a 
setting with vague guidelines and civil rights laws 
(the ADA and Section 504) that leave employers, 
service providers, and individuals with disabilities 
struggling over what is “reasonable” and what 
entitlement individuals have. 
In addition to the discrepancies in assistance, 
documentation systems are different across 
settings. The resulting lack of communication 
between settings and agencies further aggravates 
the experiences of individuals with disabilities. 
Adult services often require documentation of 
disabilities, but do not accept IEP documentation. 
There is a long waiting list for services for adults. 
Secondary providers are frustrated because after all 
their work, students with disabilities will be put 
on a waiting list. 
Some of the issues discussion groups raised, 
especially participants who were practitioners in 
the field, were the lack of communication 
between agencies, the lack of resources, and the 
unclear roles and responsibilities of different 
agencies. 

SERVICES, SUPPORTS AND 
ACCOMMODATIONS FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH 
DISABILITIES: AN ANALYSIS ACROSS 
SECONDARY EDUCATION, POSTSECONDARY 
EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

The complete text of this paper is available for 
review and download at: 
http://www.ncset.hawaii.edu/publications/pdf/services_supports.pdf 

INTRODUCTION 

There is increasing concern among special 
educators, individuals with disabilities and their 
supporters, and others in the field of disability 
about the poor educational and employment 
outcomes of youth with disabilities. These poor 
outcomes exist despite the existence of laws such 
as the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA), 
the Rehabilitation Act, and the Americans with 
Disabilities Act (ADA) that are supposedly 
designed to ensure equal access to and 
participation in society by individuals with 
disabilities. 
Little attention has been paid to how the kinds 
and components of support provision to 
individuals with disabilities, namely the provision 
of modes of assistance such as services, 
accommodations and supports, may be impacting 
the success of these individuals in different 
environments. There is evidence that these modes 
of assistance are legislated and applied differently 
in secondary school, postsecondary school, and 
employment, which significantly affects an 
individual’s transition across these three 
environments. There is a marked difference in 
the types of assistance that are offered across these 
environments and the entire process of 
accountability and decision-making concerning 
assistance provision. 
The meaning that is attributed to terminology, 
and the modes of assistance that they signify, 
appears to shift across secondary school, 
postsecondary school and employment, due in 
part to the prescription of the laws that govern 
these environments. Essentially, the degree to 
which a law is prescriptive translates into the 
practical components of assistance provision. 

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS 

As students with disabilities transition out of 
secondary education, there are significant changes 
in the type of assistance that Federal policy 
requires and the intent of the laws that govern 
policy. During secondary education, which falls 
under the umbrella of the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), services and 
service plans for students with disabilities are 
based on the individual needs that must be met in 
order to ensure a Free and Appropriate Public 
Education (FAPE). The provision of assistance in 
secondary school environments under the IDEA 
is initiated and paid for by the government, and 
purposed to benefit the individual and improve 
post-school outcomes. The IDEA is focused on 
the “services” that must be provided at the 
secondary school level. The Rehabilitation Act 
and the ADA focus on the circumstances under 
which institutions and employers must 
“accommodate” individuals with disabilities. 
INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT 
(IDEA) 
IDEA focuses on “services” and “related 
services” for children with disabilities and 
“supports” for families, teachers and staff. The 
term “services” is used to cover anything that 
helps students with disabilities benefit from their 
special education, enables them to participate in 
general education, enables them to attain general 
education standards or prepares them for 
transition out of secondary education. 
IDEA only covers education through secondary 
school. The services and supports provided via 
this Act do not extend to postsecondary education 
or employment. The contrast between the 
relatively high level of assistance that is provided 
under IDEA and much lower level of assistance 
that is provided in postsecondary environments 
poses many transition issues for individuals with 
disabilities. 

REHABILITATION ACT 
The bulk of the Rehabilitation Act is dedicated 
to establishing vocational rehabilitation centers, 
and uses the term “services” to describe the 
function of these centers. The term “support” is 
used in this Act more than it is in the IDEA or 
the ADA. The distinction between “services” and 
“support” is ambiguous, since “support” is not 
limited to finances and can be direct to 
individuals with disabilities as well as indirect. 
The term “accommodations” does not appear 
frequently in the Rehabilitation Act, and not at all 
in section 504. However, “reasonable 
accommodations” is used in federal regulations for 
employment based on section 504 in a manner 
6-8 March 2002 Honolulu Hawaii 13
consistent with its use in the ADA (45CFR 
Subtitle A § 84.12). Regulations for employment 
(45CFR subtitle A, Part 84, Subpart B) define 
“reasonable accommodations,” such as making 
facilities accessible, job restructuring, and 
interpreters, and also defines undue hardship 
based on the size, budget, and type of operation 
of the program. 
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) 
As with section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 
the ADA is much more open to interpretation 
than the IDEA. After secondary school, once an 
individual identifies his or her disability, the kind 
of assistance an organization provides is 
determined by what is “reasonable” and would 
not impose “undue hardship” on the organization. 
The term “accommodation” emerges in the ADA, 
where it was not used in the IDEA or the 
Rehabilitation Act. In particular, “reasonable 
accommodation” is the defining point in terms of 
what institutions “have to” provide and what they 
“might” provide. The term “services” is also used 
in the ADA, but mostly in terms of existing 
public services that need adjustment. Services for 
individuals with disabilities are required mostly in 
terms of “auxiliary services” (communicationrelated), 
which are defined much more narrowly 
than are services as defined by the IDEA. 

PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS 

SECONDARY SCHOOL AND TRANSITION 
An important aspect of services at the 
secondary school level is that they involve the 
addition or substitution of one means of 
delivering instruction for another (i.e. a sign 
language interpreter would not normally be 
present in the classroom, adaptive physical 
education is substituted for regular physical 
education). Accommodations at the secondary 
school level can be defined as “changes in 
materials or procedures that provide access to 
instruction and assessments for students with 
disabilities”. The focus of special education in 
elementary and secondary school has historically 
been to provide a program of services, often 
focused upon separate settings and content, rather 
than focusing upon providing different types/ 
levels of accommodations and supports for youth 
with disabilities to achieve within regular 
classroom settings and with the same curriculum 
content standards as other youth. 
Thurlow makes a distinction between 
“instructional accommodations” and “assessment 
accommodations.” Instructional 
accommodations would include changes in 
materials and curriculum such as alternative 
assignments and tape recorded versions of printed 
materials, and changes in methods and strategies 
such as highlighting key points to remember and 
presenting material in multiple formats. In the 
secondary school environment, “support” does 
not necessarily differ significantly from how one 
would describe the process of teaching or 
supporting any child to learn or to transition to 
adult life. 

POSTSECONDARY SCHOOL 
Services at the postsecondary level tend to be 
geared for use by categories of students rather 
than by individual students. “Service” tends to be 
used by postsecondary institutions to describe the 
general activities of programs that are designed to 
assist students with disabilities. The term 
“accommodation” is commonly used to describe 
assistance to students with disabilities at the 
postsecondary level. It is not uncommon for 
postsecondary institutions to use the term 
“reasonable accommodations” to categorize 
assistance. Many schools appear to be focused 
upon meeting what is “reasonable” under the law 
rather than upon what an individual student may 
need in order to be successful at college. 

EMPLOYMENT 
It is highly unusual for an employer to offer a 
disability-related “service” to an employee. The 
provision of a service for an employee with a 
disability would probably involve contracting 
with an outside service-provider and is often 
framed as an accommodation. The desire to keep 
production costs down provides many employers 
with an incentive to use a minimalist 
interpretation of “reasonableness” as a means of 
defining accommodations for employees with 
disabilities. 
Attempts to balance legal requirements with 
production costs and employee productivity 
creates extreme variability in terms of what kinds 
of accommodations employers will offer 
employees with disabilities. The use of the word 
“support” at the employment level, whether it is 
equated with accommodations or represents other 
means of assisting an employee with a disability, 
appears at times to be intentionally vague. 

DISCREPANCIES IN THE PROVISION OF 
ASSISTANCE ACROSS ENVIRONMENTS 

INTRODUCTION 
An exploration of variables surrounding the 
different types of assistance (services, supports, & 
accommodations) found as youth with disabilities 
transition through secondary education to 
postsecondary education and employment is 
rarely found in the professional literature. More 
significant, there seems to be little understanding 
of the process of assistance provision during these 
transitions, or of the potential negative impact 
that is experienced by youth with disabilities as 
they seek to prepare for and successfully access 
adult roles of value in their community of 
choosing. 
As youth with disabilities transition from lower 
education to higher education, they are 
significantly impacted by movement from the 
guidance of one federal policy (IDEA) to policy 
that is much less prescriptive and focused upon 
participation in normal adult community roles 
(ADA; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act). 

DISCREPANCIES IN PRINCIPLE: ROLES AND 
RESPONSIBILITIES 

INTRODUCTION 
The types of participants and the expectations 
of those who participate in the process of deciding 
and providing assistance to youth with disabilities 
in secondary, postsecondary, and employment 
settings varies widely as youth transition across 
these environments. This is a result of policy and 
practice in the sending environment and the 
6-8 March 2002 Honolulu Hawaii 15
failure to prepare youth with disabilities for the 
expectations of the receiving environment in the 
transition. Two considerations are important to 
youth with disabilities and their supporters, in 
this discussion: 
1. Who participates in and is responsible for the 
decision making and provision process. 
2. The responsibilities, roles, and expectations of 
those participating. These changing roles 
have a negative impact upon youth with 
disabilities. 

SECONDARY SCHOOL 
The selection of participants in the process of 
determining and providing assistance to youth 
with disabilities in lower education is specifically 
detailed in the IDEA, as the parent of a child with 
a disability (and/or an advocate), a special 
education administrator responsible for providing 
programs, and educational and related services 
personnel providing the program of services. 
Many efforts over the past twenty years to teach 
youth with disabilities “self-determination” skills 
have been separated from the process where 
decisions are made and assistance is provided, 
with little focus upon what is involved in learning 
increased responsibility and accountability for 
making decisions about one’s own needs and 
actions. 

POSTSECONDARY SCHOOL 
Responsibility for the provision of assistance to 
students with disabilities at the postsecondary 
level is much less clear and universally applied 
than at the secondary school level. The 
Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) only state that the student 
must be accommodated “within reason” and that 
these accommodations should be, again within 
reason, at the expense of the institution. 
However, funding for the provision of 
assistance to students with disabilities at the 
postsecondary level is a low priority with most 
institutions. Additionally, the roles of participants 
who are involved with the determination and 
provision of educational assistance during the 
postsecondary school years are not as clearly 
defined and are more determined by the intent 
and advocacy of the youth with a disability. 

EMPLOYMENT 
Employers, i.e. private agencies and 
institutions, are clearly responsible for providing 
assistance to their employees. As a result, 
responsibility for the provision of assistance shifts 
from the public to the private sector. If it is 
determined that a company cannot afford specific 
accommodations or if these accommodations 
would significantly interfere with the nature of 
their business, a.k.a. create an “undue burden”, 
then it may be left to the employee to either (a) 
fund an accommodation themselves (or seek 
funding elsewhere), (b) accept an accommodation 
that does not entirely meet their needs, (c) give up 
their employment, or (d) become involved in a 
time consuming and costly appeals process. 
Participant roles and responsibilities in the 
determination and provision of accommodations 
in employment settings are even less well defined 
and are even more dependent upon the intent and 
advocacy of the youth with a disability than in 
postsecondary settings. 

Many persons with disabilities are not prepared 
for or experienced enough to successfully fulfill 
the expected roles and responsibilities that are 
expected of them when seeking and participating 
in employment settings. There appears to be little 
opportunity in secondary or postsecondary school 
to develop these skills and obtain the experience 
to navigate the employment market. These skills 
are critical for all youth to participate in 
employment, yet for persons with disabilities, 
such skills are even more important given their 
additional accommodation and related service 
needs. 

DISCREPANCIES IN PROVISION: 
PROCESS AND OUTCOMES 
INTRODUCTION 
The process and basis for determining if and 
what educational assistance will be provided to 
youth with disabilities in secondary and 
postsecondary education and employment 
settings varies widely. The process for 
determining educational assistance for children 
and youth with disabilities in lower education is 
detailed very specifically in the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) as the steps 
educators and parents must follow in the 
development of an Individualized Educational 
Plan (IEP). 

SECONDARY SCHOOL 
The IEP process, as delineated in IDEA, 
requires the input of service providers and parents 
or their advocates into decisions concerning the 
types and levels of assistance to be received by the 
child, but does little to model or prepare youth 
with disabilities for what to expect after leaving 
secondary school. However, most youth with 
disabilities leave the IEP process with a complete 
lack of awareness or understanding of their own 
disability and/or the assistance needs they might 
have in order to successfully function in postschool 
environments. Further, most youth with 
disabilities leave the IEP process with few or no 
advocacy skills, or little understanding of how to 
advocate for their assistance needs in post-school 
environments. 
The basis for making decisions regarding the 
provision and type/level of assistance to be offered 
to a youth during the secondary school years is 
closely linked to the eligibility determination 
process under IDEA. Youth with disabilities often 
have little concern or interest in the basis of their 
assistance because it is mandated by federal policy 
that assistance be provided. Of greatest concern is 
what this process models and teaches youth with 
disabilities. They are ill-prepared in secondary 
school for the changes in thinking that they will 
encounter about why and if assistance is to be 
provided in post-school environments. 
The IEP is one means of measuring 
accountability to the student and the school in 
that each year specific goals are developed for each 
student and the services that are needed in order 
for the student to meet these goals are outlined. 
Consideration of outcomes for youth with 
disabilities at the secondary level often focuses 
upon immediate rather than long-term goals as a 
measure for success. The issue of focusing on 
short-term versus long-term goals boils down to 
the goals of the individual versus the goals of the 
school.

POSTSECONDARY SCHOOL 
The universal process for determining 
educational assistance for youth with disabilities 
in higher education is undefined, un-mandated, 
and varies extensively from one program setting to 
the next. Further, youth with disabilities become 
the entity or person wholly responsible for 
initiating, leading, managing, and following 
through with a process of determining assistance 
that might be provided by the postsecondary 
institution. 
In postsecondary education settings, the 
process of determining educational assistance is 
often impacted by what the institution has 
available and is able to provide. While there may 
be fiscal accountability to the State at public 
postsecondary institutions, institutions often are 
not held accountable for the achievement of 
specific goals or the provision of specific services 
unless through litigation under the ADA. Thus, 
at the postsecondary level there is little focus upon 
the long-term goals of the student in the 
determination of what types of assistance to offer 
the student with a disability. 

EMPLOYMENT 
The universal process of determining assistance 
for persons with disabilities in employment 
settings is often dependent upon the motivation 
of the applicant and the expectations and 
attitudes of the employer. Further, the discussion 
of assistance needs must often be initiated by the 
person with a disability during the process of 
applying for a position, adding weight to the 
decision about whether or not to hire the 
individual. 
CBI Proceedings 
It is clear that the process for determining 
assistance for youth with disabilities as they 
prepare and transition across lower education, 
postsecondary education and employment 
settings changes significantly with the passage into 
and through each environment. Characteristics of 
this shift include movement from (1) a mandated, 
individualized, and parent/agency driven planning 
process to a youth initiated, undefined process 
without required procedures or mandated 
outcomes; (2) parent/agency driven responsibility 
for decision making to youth driven responsibility 
for initiation, management, and follow-through 
of the decision making process; and (3) decisions 
and expectations of a comprehensive program of 
services (lower education) to decisions about 
specific and separate accommodations and 
supports to be implemented in the same postschool 
settings within which all other persons seek 
to access and participate. 
In the context of employment, the focus of 
assistance provision tends to be upon enabling the 
employee to perform the tasks that are necessary 
in order to complete the requirements of their 
position. 

SUMMARY 
Although policies such as the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the 
Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with 
Disabilities Act (ADA) are a positive step towards 
protecting this right, the application of these laws 
has not gone far enough toward giving youth with 
disabilities the same opportunities for 
postsecondary education and employment that 
are available to other youth. During secondary 
school there is a focus upon providing youth with
disabilities with specialized services, often in 
segregated environments. Students with 
disabilities are not active participants in this 
process. Thus, they leave secondary school 
without advocacy skills, without knowledge of the 
impact that their disability has upon their 
learning and the related modes of assistance that 
can help to mitigate this impact, and without an 
understanding of how to negotiate the “real 
world” where institutions are focused upon 
providing “reasonable accommodations” rather 
than upon meeting individual needs. 

Discussion Group Recommendations 

Funding 
· Look and think about policy in creative ways 
that would open up possibilities of funding for 
support. Policies need to look at how to align 
it all (resource mapping). 
Legal Clarification 
· Establish uniformity in definitions of terms. 

Collaboration 
· Support and improve relationships between 
agencies. 
· Develop a better understanding of roles and 
responsibilities between schools and adult 
systems. 

Consider long-range plans 
· VR needs to have a more long-term vision and 
plan, including postsecondary education as 
preparation for employment. 
· Secondary providers need to teach their students 
about their disabilities and support needs. 

DOUGLAS FISHER, PH.D. 
It is not necessarily the type of disability, but 
the sophistication of the system that determines 
inclusion. A sophisticated system works together, 
with professionals and natural supports, toward 
creative solutions for individuals with disabilities. 
Ideas that impressed discussion group participants 
were the way various stakeholders in Doug 
Fisher’s stories, made decisions together, advocacy 
engines (creating strategies that pull people in to 
provide supports), mobilization of peers, and 
employment outcomes through service 
coordination and creativity. 

HIGH SCHOOL INCLUSION + SEAMLESS 
TRANSITION = DESIRED OUTCOMES: 

A BRIEF REPORT 
The complete text of this paper is available for 
review and download at: 
http://www.ncset.hawaii.edu/institutes/mar2002/papers/pdf/HIGH SCHOOL INCLUSION + SEAMLESS TRANSITION = DESIRED OUTCOMES.pdf

INTRODUCTION 
Schools are being held accountable not only for 
the outcomes of typical students, but for those of 
students with disabilities as well. The expectation 
is that education should contribute to the 
preparation that all US citizens need to fully and 
meaningfully participate in public life. This right 
is deeply embedded in US law and heritage; it is 
an inalienable right (Gilhool, 1976). It is the 
responsibility of public education to help ensure 
that all American citizens, whatever their 
disabilities, are afforded an equal opportunity to 
actively participate in all community activities, 
events and opportunities. Outcome-based 
questions have become a standard for evaluating 
the effectiveness of education, i.e., “Has the 
school system done its job in preparing students 
with disabilities for adult lives, which involve 
active participation in work, home, educational 
and social environments?” 
Given the access to both inclusive education 
and a seamless transition, what are employment 
outcomes for students with significant disabilities? 
This report compares the outcomes for students 
with significant disabilities aging out of public 
school who experienced both inclusive education 
and a seamless transition with those who did not. 

FINDINGS 
The data indicate that students with significant 
disabilities who experienced inclusive education 
and a seamless transition entered their adult lives 
well situated for success. Four of the six students 
in the target group experienced a seamless 
transition, meaning that there had been 
significant coordination between the public 
school system and the adult service delivery 
system such that the student did not experience a 
disruption in services. For example, the school 
system contracted with direct service personnel 
(e.g., job developer, job coaches) from the adult 
service delivery system during the student’s final 
year of public school service (typically when the 
student was 21 years old) so that the same staff 
were consistent post-transition. 
Similarly, students were scheduled according to 
their work and non-work activities departing from 
the traditional school calendar and time frames. 
For example, one student’s employment required 
that he work during late afternoons and often on 
holidays. The integrated work environments and 
non-work activities were organized during personcentered 
planning sessions in which the student, 
his or her family and friends, school personnel, 
and adult agency staff were all present. Thus, the 
day after the termination of public school services 
did not vary greatly from what the student had 
been experiencing. 
None of the comparison group students 
experienced a seamless transition. These students 
often visited the adult program or sheltered 
workshop in the weeks prior to the end of public 
school services. However, the staffing patterns, 
environments, and expectations changed 
dramatically when school-based services ended. 
For example, on the Tuesday following the 
completion of school-funded services, these 
students rode different buses on new routes, met 
new support staff who often did not know the 
student’s goals, and faced unfamiliar 
environments in which to work. Most difficult 
for many of these students was the fact that the 
adult agency had to “start over with assessments” 
as they became acquainted with the students. 
In terms of employment outcomes two months 
after leaving school, students who experienced 
inclusive education and seamless transition fared 
well. While the actual numbers of students are 
low, average wages and hours per week worked are 
consistently higher for the target group of 
students. These results stand out in stark contrast 
to the national outcome of employment and/or 
postsecondary education within the first five years 
after exiting school, cited earlier. 
Interestingly, the types of integrated 
employment options were similar for the two 
groups, but students in the comparison group 
were less likely to access those jobs given that they 
were placed in sheltered workshops. The sources 
for the jobs held by students in the target group 
were more varied and included recommendations 
by high school peers. In addition, students in the 
target group were more likely to engage in 
integrated activities during their non-work hours. 
These activities included community college and 
adult school classes, recreation and fitness centers, 
and community stores and services. 

DISCUSSION 
While the sample was small and we encourage a 
cautious review of the findings, the data suggest 
that no harm was done and, in fact, the outcomes 
for the target students in this study were better 
than the outcomes for other students in the 
district in both work and non-work activities. 
We believe that the results were influenced by 
two variables. First, over the course of their high 
school years during which they attended general 
education classes, the target students developed a 
number of skills, relationships, and behaviors that 
may have increased their employability. In 
addition to the curriculum and content which is 
beyond the scope of this study, students were 
expected to arrive on time, engage in social 
exchanges, and attend to instructions in their high 
school classes. 
In terms of relationships and peer support, 
students with significant disabilities in general 
education classes experienced a wide range of 
friendships. As typical high school students began 
their part-time jobs during their junior and senior 
years, they often informed the special educators of 
jobs at their place of employment. These job 
recommendations were invaluable. 
Thus, we believe that access to general 
education classes had a significant impact on the 
integrated work outcomes experienced by the 
target students. It is important to note that the 
comparison students experienced a segregated 
academic curriculum and a significant number of 
hours spent in homogeneously-grouped 
community-based instruction during their high 
school years (age 14-18), and the vast majority of 
them transitioned into a sheltered workshop. 
The second variable we believe was important 
was the seamless transition planning that occurred 
for the target students. As school staff and adult 
providers talked with one another, worked 
together, and shared vital student support 
information, they were able to individualized 
supports, create workplace accommodations, and 
implement consistent behavioral support plans. 
This seamless transition service delivery model 
provided students and their families with an entire 
year to evaluate the appropriateness of the adult 
agency and its services. This arrangement 
significantly minimized the disruption students 
typically experience when transitioning from the 
public school system to the adult provider 
network. 

NOTICING DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SECONDARY AND POSTSECONDARY 
EDUCATION: EXTENDING AGRAN, SNOW, AND SWANER’S DISCUSSION 

The complete text of this paper is available for review 
and download at: 
http://www.ncset.hawaii.edu/institutes/mar2002/papers/pdf/Noticing Differences Between Secondary and Postsecondary Education.pdf

INTRODUCTION 
We were very interested in the survey 
conducted by Agran, Snow, and Swaner (1999) 
regarding secondary education teachers’ opinions 
about inclusion and community based instruction 
(CBI). Special education teachers in this study 
believed that both inclusive education and CBI 
were effective and beneficial ways of accessing 
peers without disabilities and preparing students 
with disabilities for their adult life. Agran et al. 
(1999) noted that their findings were inconsistent 
with the position that CBI and inclusive 
educational practices were at odds with one 
another. 

Although we agree that inclusion and CBI are 
each important components of the public 
education experience, we suggest that these efforts 
be differentiated by the age of the students. That 
is, we believe that there are, and should be, 
differences between the educational opportunities 
for students aged 14-18 (high school) and those 
over 18 (postsecondary). The respondents in the 
Agran et al. (1999) study were not asked to 
explain their opinions, nor was it certain whether 
these teachers considered the ages of students 
when reporting on social interactions and 
benefits. However, the authors suggested that 
educational programming be balanced between 
inclusive education and CBI regardless of student 
age.
 
This prompted us to speculate not only about 
why teachers answered as they did, but what their 
experiences had been with both inclusive 
education and CBI. We believe that students 
with significant disabilities should be members of 
age appropriate high school classes and then 
receive educational and community based services 
during their postsecondary or “transition” years of 
19-22. We would like to extend the discussion 
about meeting individual student needs in both 
secondary and postsecondary environments. 

THE SECONDARY SCHOOL YEARS 
Before students with disabilities had access to 
the core curriculum in middle school and high 
school, CBI was a reasonable educational 
alternative. Given that students with significant 
disabilities could not easily access the general 
education classroom, CBI provided the 
individualized education plan (IEP) team a way to 
address functional skills. Today, in many schools 
and districts, students with and without 
disabilities have access to a rich and diverse 
curriculum with appropriate accommodations and 
modifications, as well as personal and 
technological supports. Over the past two 
decades, parents and professionals have learned a 
great deal about infusing functional skills into 
natural environments and age-appropriate 
activities. For example, science classes may not 
only reinforce basic math skills, but are also ideal 
for teaching measurement, problem solving and 
teamwork (i.e., functional skills). 
One rationale for the emphasis on inclusive 
education at the secondary school level includes a 
knowledge base that students in high school can 
prepare for their careers and adult life by 
participating in the full range of activities offered 
as part of the curriculum and extra-curriculum. 
For example, district level content and 
performance standards typically require that all 
students explore career options, participate in 
interviews and resume writing, arrive to class on 
time, complete tasks assigned by a supervisor 
(teacher), access technology as a tool for learning, 
and learn to resolve conflict with peers. 
Obviously, students with disabilities benefit from 
these expectations as well. There is evidence that 
people from disabilities are more often dismissed 
from a job due to poor attendance and lack of 
social skills than because of their work skills. We 
believe that high schools provide a wealth of 
opportunities for the development of 
interpersonal relationships and effective work 
habits. 
Furthermore, high school classes offer students 
with disabilities more than preparation for work. 
They also may gain membership, social 
relationships, access interesting core curriculum, 
and increase their literacy. Students without 
disabilities also benefit socially and academically. 
Beyond the immediate benefit of inclusive 
education for students without disabilities, we 
believe that those who experience inclusion in 
school will also realize advantages later in life. As 
the current school-aged population becomes the 
next generation of neighbors, friends, co-workers, 
employers, and parents of individuals with 
disabilities, inclusive education will not be 
questioned, but rather will be used as a baseline 
for examining quality of life issues. Removing 
students with disabilities from high school classes 
today not only impacts their postsecondary 
potential, but also affects the circle of support 
available for years to come. We will never forget 
the high school junior who advocated for a peer 
with a disability in his English class to be hired in 
a part-time job. Nor will we forget the high 
school senior who plans to become a pediatrician 
saying to us, “I will never tell parents to 
institutionalize their children with disabilities.” 

POSTSECONDARY SCHOOL YEARS 
Before natural supports were widely available in 
colleges or the workplace, students with 
disabilities rarely accessed postsecondary 
education or integrated employment. Today, 
competitive employment, supported living, and 
lifelong learning are expectations for adults with 
significant disabilities. School systems are 
responding to this need by establishing 
postsecondary (or transition) programs in the 
community. New postsecondary (or transition) 
programs are now being created to provide the 
link from high school to a valued adult life for 
students with disabilities from age 19 to 22. 
Many of these programs are located in the 
community to facilitate job development, job 
training, and continuing education, which cannot 
easily occur on the high school campus. Further, 
students use public transportation to go to work, 
college or community events; increase access to 
stores and public services; and adjust to schedules 
that mirror adult life. 
For most of us, postsecondary education and 
our subsequent career development differed from 
our high school experience. Most of us physically 
left the high school campus, remained with our 
same age peers, and pursued unique and 
challenging futures. Unfortunately, for many 
students with disabilities, there is little or no 
difference between high school and postsecondary 
education and career development. Students over 
the age of 18 often remain on the high school 
campus, lose access to their nondisabled peers, 
and continue working on similar educational 
goals and objectives year after year. Thus, 
consistent with the expectations for students 
without disabilities, a distinction must be made 
between high school (students 14-18 years of age) 
and postsecondary education (individuals over 
18). 
Where people with disabilities spend time, with 
whom they interact, and the activities they choose 
are key considerations for program development 
and service delivery options. These choices must 
reflect the range of experiences that students 
began exploring in high school and expand to 
include career, continuing education, and social 
opportunities alongside their peers without 
disabilities. As students with disabilities increase 
the quality and quantity of their participation in 
these experiences during high school, the more 
likely they are to have access to the support 
required for success in postsecondary 
environments. If, as the study by Agran et al. 
(1999) suggests, students do benefit from a mix of 
inclusive education and CBI, then we must say 
that the primary deciding factor should be age. 
We are in no way suggesting that 16 year-old 
students with disabilities should not be supported 
in work experience classes or after school jobs. 
The school system should continue to provide 
coordination and support, but in natural 
postsecondary environments. 
Thus, we agree with the teachers in the Agran 
et al. (1999) study, that both inclusive high school 
experiences and well-coordinated postsecondary 
experiences are necessary preparation for adult 
life. However, we maintain that there are 
differences between inclusive secondary education 
and integrated postsecondary options that are 
worth discussion. 

Discussion Group Recommendations 
Inclusion and natural supports 
· Divert some funds to create incentives for 
natural support participation. 
Transition to adult life 
· Get students 18 and over off the high school 
campus and into adult life learning environments. 
Training 
· Train general education teachers about general 
education classroom supports--ongoing professional 
development on inclusion. Not just to 
get it going, but to keep it going. 
On-campus supports 
· Utilize peers (tutoring, support, etc.), and 
provide incentives for participation (verbal 
approval, credit, etc.). Make such qualities as 
empathy, empowerment, etc., part of the 
curriculum (i.e., like peer tutoring programs). 
Postsecondary institutions also should offer 
credit for service learning and peer tutoring. 
Sharing what works 
· Create and maintain a website of creative 
strategies for inclusion and other resources. 
· Document what works for individual students: 
what they do well, what supports are effective, 
etc. 
Outcomes of inclusion 
· Candid research on the post-school outcomes 
of inclusion. 

STAN SHAW, PH.D. 

The field of disability services in higher 
education is still relatively new. Therefore, 
developing professional standards and service 
standards is an important step toward ensuring 
equal access to postsecondary education. Among 
the important issues for postsecondary education 
are self-determination and universal design. 
Students with disabilities who enter a 
postsecondary institution must know understand, 
and advocate for, their support needs and make 
decisions for themselves that were recently made 
for them by their IEP. By applying universal 
design in instruction and technology, faculty can 
make course material accessible to a variety of 
learners and reduce transition difficulties for 
students. 
The issues that participants thought were 
important were universal design, selfdetermination, 
faculty collaboration, independent 
learner strategies, and standards for postsecondary 
education disability services. Most comments 
were based on training postsecondary faculty 
about universal design, self-determination, and 
disability issues. 

POSTSECONDARY SUPPORTS FOR 
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 

The complete text of this paper is available for 
review and download at: 
http://www.ncset.hawaii.edu/institutes/mar2002/papers/pdf/POSTSECONDARY SUPPORTS.PDF

INTRODUCTION 
Over the last several decades, students with 
disabilities have made significant strides to fulfill 
their expectation to be fully integrated into adult 
life. Increasing numbers of students with 
disabilities have received special education services 
that have supported their academic development. 
The implementation of the concepts of 
mainstreaming, least restrictive environment and 
inclusion combined with formal transition 
planning activities foster high school completion 
and expectation for postsecondary school. 

CURRENT REALITIES REGARDING 
POSTSECONDARY SUPPORTS 
Although postsecondary supports for students 
with disabilities have been more available in 
recent years, little research has addressed the 
planning and organization of these services. 
Many studies have called for a more systematic 
approach to service provision for students with 
disabilities. It is difficult to have a well-planned 
program if personnel are not appropriately 
trained. There are currently only three or four 
programs that actually prepare postsecondary 
disability personnel. It is not surprising that these 
postsecondary disability professionals provide 
services based on their diverse personal 
backgrounds. Schuck and Kroeger (1993) 
identified this problem, noting that “inconsistent 
services are a significant problem in higher 
education programs for students with disabilities”. 
Too often the supports and policies that are 
provided foster dependence that has, 
unfortunately, overwhelmed the intention of 
providing not only a productive and successful 
postsecondary education, but one that would lead 
to graduation and employment. The seminal 
research by Gerber & Reiff regarding successful 
adults with learning disabilities, identified taking 
control, self-advocacy and reframing one’s 
disability as keys to success in employment. 

CHANGING THE DISABILITY SUPPORTS 
PARADIGM 

FOSTERING SELF-DETERMINATION 
Given its importance for college students with 
disabilities, self-determination must be the prime 
directive for postsecondary disability personnel. 
Unfortunately, postsecondary personnel have 
often inadvertently adopted the dependence 
provoking behaviors typical in many elementary 
and secondary programs. Research indicates that 
“practices that promote dependence in students 
with LD are given more emphasis than strategies 
that foster independence and self-determination” 
despite the knowledge and desire of postsecondary 
personnel to do the opposite. 
College students with disabilities must be 
afforded choices so they can learn to take 
responsibility for their own lives. Professionals 
should, therefore, seek to be the facilitator of the 
process, someone who provides support for the 
student to learn to navigate the system. The 
professional should offer information, ask 
questions, and foster reflection to help the student 
make choices and achieve personal goals. 
Students with disabilities need to have the 
availability of supports that foster independence, 
not dependence. As noted above, too often 
dependence-provoking supports such as course 
waivers and substitutions not supported by 
assessment data and content tutoring that may 
have helped the student receive passing grades but 
not necessarily learn---have been provided. It is 
important to acknowledge, however, that supports 
and accommodations requested by a student that 
meet a documented need and which enhance 
student learning can be productive. 
Examples of individualized supports that are 
consistent with self-determination include 
activities such as providing students with 
information, listening as a student verbalizes his/ 
or her plans, helping a student identify options, 
and asking questions that help students reflect on 
and learn from the self-determination process. 
The ADHD coaching process is an excellent 
model for encouraging these behaviors. 

STANDARDS FOR DISABILITY SUPPORT SERVICES 
The Program Standards indicate essential 
expectations for all postsecondary institutions in 
terms of minimum supports that must be 
available to provide equal access for students with 
disabilities. There is now a benchmark to use 
when considering availability of appropriate 
supports, conducting a program evaluation, 
considering staff development needs or 
implementing program development. In 
addition, consumers now have a clear basis for 
determining the efficacy of program supports. 
These Program Standards represent service 
components that are fundamental for assuring 
equal educational access for postsecondary 
students with disabilities. They are a researchbased 
vehicle for professionals when helping their 
institutions provide all the necessary elements to 
effectively meet the needs of college students with 
6-8 March 2002 Honolulu Hawaii 27
disabilities, and provide consumers with a baseline 
of what to expect from postsecondary disability 
services, a format for evaluating potential colleges, 
and a clear expectation of what may or may not 
be available (i.e., special classes, preferential 
treatment). 

A NEW STANDARD FOR INSTRUCTION 
The primary means to assure equal access to 
instruction for college students with disabilities 
has been to provide modifications and 
accommodations. Students correctly note that 
college faculty need to learn different teaching 
approaches which would help all students, not 
just students with disabilities. By adapting the 
principles of universal design to reflect the 
instructional practices that have been 
acknowledged as effective with students with 
disabilities, a more inclusive paradigm for 
teaching emerges. 
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and other 
legislation has fostered the application of universal 
design in architecture (i.e., providing curb cuts, 
ramps, doors that open automatically, elevators, 
wide doors, accessible bathrooms) so that all 
people, including those with physical disabilities, 
can access stores, schools and other facilities. 
Therefore, just as a student in a wheel chair needs 
no disability services in such a physically 
accessible environment, a student with a learning 
disability may not need disability services in an 
instructionally accessible environment. Such an 
environment will obviously foster student selfdetermination 
because options are available that 
allow the student to select personally productive 
approaches to learning. It is recommended that 
disability personnel focus on effective instruction
and self-determination for all students rather than 
just accommodations and modifications for 
students with disabilities. 

CONCLUSION 
It has been demonstrated that individuals who 
are self-determined are more successful in 
achieving their stated goals. If a campus-wide 
emphasis on fostering self-determination, 
fulfilling the Program Standards and 
implementing Universal Design for Instruction 
were undertaken, the research indicates that it 
would likely increase achievement and 
effectiveness across the campus, among staff and 
faculty as well as among students, both with and 
without disabilities. 
Discussion Group Recommendations 
Universal Design 
· Promote policy for universal design. 
· Have orientations for new and continuing 
faculty about universal design and disability 
issues. 
· What are effective instructional strategies and 
how can they be promoted? 
Self-determination 
· Explore how independent learning strategies 
can be made available for all students. 

RICHARD G. LUECKING, ED.D. 

Workforce development personnel need to take 
advantage of the Organization Development 
(OD) framework to match employers with 
employees with disabilities. Staff need to be 
trained to treat employers as consumers. We need 
to focus on how we can help employers meet their 
needs, rather than focusing on our need to place 
people with disabilities. The balance between 
selling the person’s strengths and selling the 
advantage of support services is tricky. Discussion 
participants expressed a concern that individuals 
with disabilities who focus on presenting their 
skills may be overlooked for people without 
disabilities who have the same skills. On the 
other hand, there is a disadvantage to being 
connected to services that are seen as serving 
disadvantaged people (only poor people). It puts 
a label on them. One discussion participant said, 
“Where I work, they sell the disability first, like a 
charity case.” A possible solution is to sell the 
person and his/her skills, then if that’s not enough 
sell the company or services s/he is working with. 
Other issues discussion participants thought were 
important were: preparing students early for 
transition to work, increasing collaboration with 
Vocational Rehabilitation, and training personnel. 

DOING IT THE COMPANY WAY: 
SUPPORTS 

EMPLOYER PERSPECTIVES ON WORKPLACE 
The complete text of this paper is available for 
download and review at: 
http://www.ncset.hawaii.edu/institutes/mar2002/papers/pdf/DOING IT THE COMPANY WAY.PDF

INTRODUCTION 
This paper examines workplace supports that 
have proven effective for people with disabilities 
and relates them to employer perspectives of 
hiring and accommodating people with 
disabilities. Employment supports are also 
examined using an organization development 
(OD) framework that often influences general 
human resource management. A review of the 
literature and two case studies illustrations 
strongly suggest that employer attitudes toward 
disability are less significant when making hiring 
decisions than other factors, notably the 
identification of workplace supports and 
interventions that also contribute to improvement 
of companies’ operational and organizational 
processes. Combining disability employment 
interventions with OD interventions can facilitate 
the achievement of a more universally designed 
workplace. There have been significant advances 
in the identification and application of 
accommodations and supports that enable people 
with all manner of disability to successfully 
perform in the workplace. These advances include 
an array of technologies and methodologies, 
including, but not limited to, assistive devices, 
alternative and augmentative communication 
strategies, architectural modifications, 
telecommuting, re-structured job assignments, 
mentors and coaches, flexed -time and other 
scheduling accommodations, and employee 
assistance and other employer human resource 
management programs. These advances, along 
with legal protections from discrimination 
available through the Americans with Disabilities 
Act (ADA), have created an environment in 
which job seekers with disabilities can better 
promote their job qualifications and advocate for 
necessary accommodations. 
There are numerous studies and 
documentation of employment success when 
specially trained and assigned job coaches are 
available for people requiring a high level of 
support. For example, for people with significant 
disabilities who were successful in their jobs, 
Unger found that almost all necessary 
accommodations were available in the 
employment environment and/or facilitated by 
disability employment agency staff. People with 
disabilities continue to experience a host of 
barriers to employment and careers, as evidenced 
by: low rates of post school employment for 
former special education recipients, with high 
rates of SSI/SSDI dependence for youth and 
adults with disabilities, and high rates of job 
failure. 
The irony, then, is that in a climate of 
expanding knowledge of workplace support and 
accommodation, and therefore theoretically better 
employment opportunities, unemployment 
remains a reality for too many people with 
disabilities who are seeking employment. Keys to 
making workplaces ready for individual workers 
with disabilities and to implementing effective 
workplace supports might best be found by 
examining how employers perceive these issues. 

OD INFLUENCES ON EMPLOYEE 
RECRUITMENT, MANAGEMENT, AND 
RETENTION 
Ultimately, company- operating strategies, 
especially the management of employees, are 
fundamentally linked with company success and 
profit. Successful companies must get the most 
out of their employees, and to do so requires 
devising processes, interventions, and supports 
that exploit individuals’ strengths. In the absence 
of these processes and supports, any employee is 
likely to experience difficulty in the workplace. 

EMPLOYER PERSPECTIVES OF DISABILITY IN 
THE WORKPLACE 
The review concluded that employers' 
expressed willingness to hire applicants with 
disabilities still exceeds their actual hiring, 
although this gap is narrowing. Employers are 
often unaware of, or naïve about, the availability 
of people with disabilities as a supplemental labor 
pool. When they are aware of disability resources, 
there often is confusion due to fragmentation of 
disability-related information or perceptions of 
not having the experience and resources to 
adequately support their employment. 
Several employers who said that especially in 
labor-short economic circumstances, the company 
wants to look at the person and determine the 
possibilities, that is, match the person to a 
situation, not merely to a job. Overwhelmingly, 
people with disabilities and disability employment 
specialists identified such “soft” factors as 
employers’ understanding attitudes and flexibility 
to make accommodations. By contrast, employers 
pointed to quality service from employment 
specialists and competence in particular workers 
as the contributing factors in successful 
employment. 

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR EMPLOYMENT 
ADVOCACY AND SUPPORT 
Employers often willingly exceed the legal 
mandates for reasonable accommodation under 
circumstances when there is available competent 
assistance to do so. We have also seen that 
companies prosper when organizational processes 
are addressed and enhanced as a result of both 
universally and individually designed workplace 
supports and accommodations. 

SELF-ADVOCACY FOR EMPLOYMENT AND 
WORKPLACE SUPPORTS 
Reinforcing this notion, Bolles and Brown 
further suggest that applicants with disabilities 
should explain how accommodations often add to 
innovation and productivity for other workers in 
the company. For example, company units have 
achieved increased data entry productivity for all 
of its their workers by adopting computer macros 
that were originally implemented for to enable 
someone with a mobility disability to enable faster 
keyboarding more quickly. These concepts suggest 
several important directions for advocating for 
and iimplementing employment and workplace 
supports. Disclosure of disability is a personal 
choice, but with or without specific reference to a 
disability, a discussion of relevant 
accommodations or alternative methods for 
completing work should take place. Employers are 
already arranging accommodations such as job 
restructuring, job sharing, and alternative 
methods of providing instruction and training to 
non-disabled workers. 

IMPLICATIONS FOR SECONDARY AND 
POSTSECONDARY PROGRAMS 
The ability of education professionals to add 
value to a company’s human resources processes 
requires: 
· Business acumen: the ability to identify “return 
on investment” for companies who work with 
the program and hire youth it represents, for 
example, noting how the company might 
improve production when implementing 
various workplace supports; 
· Analytical skills: the ability to identify an 
employer problem and offer a solution, for 
example, showing how accommodating one 
worker with a disability might result in adaptation 
for all employees across the board so they 
all are more productive; 
· Change management: OD is predominantly 
about change – change in processes, job designs, 
workplace designs, internal and external 
outputs, etc., and so, for example, education 
professionals should be available to help manage 
any changes that might occur as a result of 
the implementation of workplace supports; 
· Change management: OD is predominantly 
about change – change in processes, job designs, 
workplace designs, internal and external 
outputs, etc., and so, for example, education 
professionals should be available to help manage 
any changes that might occur as a result of 
the implementation of workplace supports; 
· Strategic planning: educators might offer to 
perform organizational assessment and determine 
what is important along the “serviceprofit 
chain,” and how certain aspects are 
amenable to modification and ultimately the 
inclusion of a worker who requires supports 
and accommodations;
· Influencing/persuading: the identification of 
workplace supports interventions that also 
contribute to improvement of companies’ 
operational and organizational processes are 
easier to “sell” to companies than vague and 
confusing explanations of what is meant by 
“disability;” and 
· Courage: talking to and engaging people 
outside of their usual comfort zone, and learning 
to speak in the language of those who do 
think differently, takes some initial courage on 
the part of education professionals, but as these 
contacts occur more often, interacting with 
employers becomes more comfortable and 
productive. 

CONCLUSION 
Workplace supports are as much an issue of 
organization development as they are about 
employer attitude toward disability. When 
identifying, advocating for, and implementing 
workplace supports it is constructive to do so 
within the framework of company organizational 
processes as much as in the context of individual 
support requirements. A more universally 
accessible workplace is often the practical result. 
Discussion Group Recommendations 
School/work partnerships 
· Increased partnership between schools and VR. 
· Legislation needs to address the issue of protecting 
the employer when they bring young 
people into the workplace. One way to offset 
that is for school districts to have more insurance. 
Personnel training 
· One-stop offices need to be more cognizant of 
the supports that people with disabilities need. 
Services are so minimized. 
Preparation in high school 
CBI Proceedings 
· Develop skill portfolios that follow the person 
from high school to college to work, adding to 
it as they go along. Empower students to 
articulate this portfolio. 
· Integrate more career development in all 
aspects of secondary education. We need to get 
students to identify their strengths and connect 
it to employer needs. 
· Make intake forms at VR compatible with skills 
portfolios (VR and schools should work together 
to create them). 
Collaboration 
· Make intake forms at VR compatible with skills 
portfolios (VR and schools should work together 
to create them). 
Employer needs 
· Research what kinds of skills, attitudes, and 
knowledge make a difference in who firms hire. 

DAVID MANK, PH.D. 

The factors that influence the outcomes of job 
development need to be considered. The nature 
of the disability, typicalness of job situation, living 
situation, and integration with co-workers need to 
be taken into consideration when doing job 
placement for a person with a disability. The level 
of function impacts opportunity, and group 
homes are related to less desirable outcomes. The 
role of co-workers is significant for the success of 
people with disabilities. Supported employment 
is no longer just about the individual’s skills for a 
job. All these factors make a difference for 
success. 
Groups discussed how it is important for job 
development workers to do it right the first time: 
compromising at the start does not lead to 
improved outcomes later. Job match at the start is 
important. Supporting the individual and the 
environment at the same time is important; for 
example, diversity training has lead to better 
outcomes for employees. 

PATTERNS OF SUPPORT FOR EMPLOYEES 
WITH SEVERE DISABILITIES 
The complete text of this paper is available for 
review and download at: 
http://www.ncset.hawaii.edu/

ABSTRACT 
Increasingly, supported employment is 
discussed in tandem with the notion of natural 
supports. “Natural supports,” emphasizing the 
use of existing supports typically found in the 
workplace, has become a commonly used strategy 
for improving economic and integration 
outcomes valued by people with disabilities, their 
families, and those who advocate for them. This 
paper provides an analysis of data collected from 
462 people in eight states. This analysis suggests 
that understanding and incorporating “typical” 
employment features in workplaces is associated 
with better wage and integration outcomes. 
These data are discussed related to potential 
implications for job development and workplace 
analyses. 

INTRODUCTION 
For over a decade, supported employment has 
successfully demonstrated that individuals with 
severe disabilities are capable of securing typical 
jobs and working productively within their 
communities. The term supported employment 
has become synonymous with integrated jobs in 
community settings where persons with 
disabilities have the opportunity to work 
alongside people without disabilities, and are 
provided with individualized supports for long 
term success. 
The evolution of supported employment for 
people with severe disabilities has resulted in 
improvements in wages and integration in 
comparison to sheltered and segregated programs. 
Increasingly, the focus on supported employment 
as a viable alternative to segregated vocational 
programs has been coupled with the notion of 
“natural supports” in the workplace. Natural 
support is considered a set of strategies that 
include the support of coworkers and supervisors 
in helping provide support and assistance that 
allow an individual with disabilities to secure and 
maintain a job. Many supports can be
successfully provided using informal supports and 
“typical” company human resource processes. 
Discussion of supports for employee success in 
companies is not limited to the field of 
rehabilitation. Articles from business and 
sociology include studies on corporate culture, 
company provided supports, and the role of 
coworkers in supporting each other. Employees 
with disabilities who have more typical 
employment features are more likely to earn 
higher wages and be better integrated; and finally, 
they report that higher levels of social interaction 
and wages are associated with more typical 
employment status even when controlling for 
level of mental retardation. The purpose of this 
present study is to investigate the relationship 
between employment features and employment 
outcomes for employees with disabilities in 
individualized or small group supported 
employment jobs in relation to the concept of 
natural supports. 

DISCUSSION 
This report provides an analysis of relationships 
between features of employment and employment 
outcomes for people with disabilities in 
community jobs. It seems clear from these 
analyses that people with disabilities who have 
more typical employment status are more likely to 
have greater monthly earnings than people with 
less typical employment status when compared to 
people without disabilities in the same 
workplaces. 
While Mank, et al. (in press), report that 
persons with more mild mental retardation tend 
to have higher earnings than persons with more 
severe mental retardation, the positive relationship 
between typicalness in employment and wages is 
true even when controlling for level of mental 
retardation. In addition, people with disabilities 
in work settings where coworkers received training 
by supported employment personnel have higher 
wages and more typical participation in social 
activities with coworkers without disabilities both 
at, and away from, work. 
People with disabilities working in companies 
where training is provided about diversity or 
disability awareness have more typical social 
participation with coworkers without disabilities. 
A somewhat intriguing finding in these data is 
that persons receiving four or more hours of direct 
support are likely to have lesser wages, a less 
typical compensation package, less similarity in 
work roles to others in the workplace, and less 
typical orientation and initial training on the job. 
This finding should be interpreted cautiously. 

IMPLICATIONS 
TYPICAL FEATURES OF EMPLOYMENT ARE 
ASSOCIATED WITH HIGHER WAGES OUTCOMES 
Innovations in employment opportunities for 
people with severe disabilities have become 
increasingly integrated and typical when 
compared to people without disabilities (e.g., 
from institutions to non-work programs, to 
workshops, to affirmative industries, to crews and 
enclaves, to individualized jobs). Generally, 
employment outcomes have improved along the 
way. These data show that, even in the context of 
individualized jobs and small groups of people 
with disabilities in work settings, those employees 
experiencing employment similar to people 
without disabilities in the same workplaces are 
more likely to realize higher wages. In addition, 
Mank, et al. (in press), reported that those with 
more typical employment status are more likely to 
have better integration and interaction patterns 
with coworkers without disabilities. 
The point here is that the more typical the 
features of employment, the more likely wage and 
integration outcomes will be higher. This means 
that the typical process should be understood in 
each workplace and that it appears to be a good 
idea to follow the typical process while insuring 
individualized supports and accommodations 
needed for success. 

TRAINING OF COWORKERS APPEARS TO BE 
ASSOCIATED WITH BETTER OUTCOMES 
Advocates of natural supports may not be 
surprised to see that employees with disabilities 
working in companies where coworkers received 
training have higher wages and more typical social 
participation. Involvement of coworkers appears 
to be important for improving outcomes in 
supported employment. Unfortunately, these data 
do not tell us anything about the nature of that 
training and support to coworkers. This study 
asked but a single question about providing 
training and information to coworkers. Future 
studies are needed which inquire about the 
content, nature, and scope of training and 
support provided to company personnel. 

QUALITY IN EMPLOYMENT IS STILL AN INDIVIDUAL 
MATTER 
While the focus of this report has been about 
the relationship between typical features of 
employment and employment outcomes, quality 
and satisfaction are individual matters. A person’s 
employment may be unsatisfying, boring, or 
devalued and still be typical for a given workplace. 
For people with disabilities, more typical status is, 
however, associated with better outcomes. 
Whether it is acceptable employment, remains an 
individual decision; a decision to be made with 
family and friends. 
Finally, as noted earlier, typical doesn’t always 
mean it is the best for a given person in light of 
the supports needed for long- term success. 
However, it seems important that the typical 
process be understood and utilized to the greatest 
extent possible, while insuring that individual 
supports and accommodations are provided in the 
context of what is typical in the workplace. 
Discussion Group Recommendations 
Eligibility 
· More consistent definitions of eligibility 
criteria, disability, services, and performance 
measures (grounded in common understandings 
across agencies and in research). 
Incentives 
· Incentives for large corporations to incorporate 
their own disability programs (education, 
training, coworker support, diversity and ADA 
awareness etc.). 
School inclusion to work inclusion 
· Schools should set precedents for workplace 
inclusion with classroom inclusion. 
Research on job preparation 
· Is there a relationship between how we integrate, 
socialize and orient classrooms and those 
atmospheres in the workplace? 
Research on optimizing employment 
· How can we use existing co-workers and 
natural supports rather than bring in coaches? 
· What cultural differences exist for supported 
employment outcomes? 

SUMMARY OF REACTOR PRESENTATIONS
Reactor comments about the Capacity Building 
Institute and speakers were all positive. Reactors 
highlighted important points covered, 
commended their discussion groups for the 
variety of perspectives included, and expressed 
excitement about future endeavors in the field of 
disabilities. They stressed the importance of 
disseminating research and effective practices, 
saying that the kind of information presented at 
this institute should be more readily available 
elsewhere. They also reminded fellow participants 
that we still have a lot of work to do. 
Richard Radke, a professor at the University of 
Hawaii at Manoa, will soon begin working with 
disadvantaged people on issues in employment 
and education, and said that the papers presented 
came at a good time for him. Dr. Radke 
emphasized the following recommendations for 
the field: 
1. We need transition between the laws because 
everything is in a box. The paper presented by 
Drs. Stodden and Jones presented the problems 
well, which is really courageous. 
2. We need to look at things that do work, as well 
as the exceptions. Try to learn from them and 
duplicate successful practices. 
3. We’re not just looking for employment; we’re 
looking for people to have choice. 
4. We need to share our success stories with 
people. When we are doing our jobs, it’s 
important that we also get it out there. Now 
we have the Internet to help us let people know 
when we find the things that work and the 
exceptions. 
Phillip Rumrill, an associate professor at Kent 
State University, said that he was motivated by the 
presentations and by all the work we have yet to 
do. Issues that he thought were important were: 
1. Everybody has the right to be a life-long 
learner. It’s an integral part of community 
living. 
2. We all value the importance of work, although 
we often excuse people from working through 
lowered expectations. It’s really important to 
keep the sense that most people want to work. 
The idea of local connectedness, when people 
get jobs is important. 
3. Inclusion is for everybody, and if we are leaving 
anyone behind, it’s not working like we intended 
it to. Stress support and technology as 
the great equalizers. 
4. None of the philosophies of inclusion or 
natural supports can be separated from the 
outcomes we hope to achieve. We have to look 
at outcomes in a multivariate sense. Real 
outcomes don’t boil down to whether somebody 
graduates or gets a job. Certainly, in my 
field of rehabilitation counseling we are justifiably 
criticized for boiling it down to yes or no 
(job or not). I think we’ve got a ways to go to 
looking at quality of life and inclusion as part 
of the outcomes we want to achieve. 
Jamie Logan, a graduate student at the 
University of Hawaii, highlighted the forces 
driving changes in the field of employment: 
1. An information economy, making critical 
thinking and analytical skills important for 
human resources. 
2. The global economy, shaping how people with 
disabilities are perceived, as well as the job 
opportunities available to them. 
3. The aging Baby Boomer generation, widening 
the population of people with disabilities. 
4. Technology, driving the design and engineering 
6-8 March 2002 Honolulu Hawaii 37
of jobs. Because of the growing influence of 
technology, the opportunities for universal 
design are boundless, making settings more 
accommodating for everyone. 
Ms. Logan said she was excited by the research 
presented by the speakers. She said we can take 
this back to what we do and drive the changes 
that will make it a reality in our world. 
Anne Lee, a law student at the University of 
Hawaii, shared a poignant, personal perspective 
that can be represented best in her own words: 
“In the past few days I realized how similar 
your role is to lawyers and judges-- and I say this 
because you have an incredible amount of power 
as advocates for children and adults with 
disabilities, whether it is because you do research 
and write about people with disabilities, or 
whether it's because you're helping that person 
with a disability find a job. Your understanding 
of that person, and his or her potential, and how 
you describe that person to an employer or a 
person who is reading your research can make a 
big difference. So I wanted to share with you one 
of the most important things I learned in law 
school -- which is to be aware of assumptions. 
We all have assumptions. You and I deal with 
it everyday, in terms of how other people see 
disabled people. But what we don't often 
acknowledge or understand, is the extent to how 
assumptions shape the way we see the world. It's 
important to understand this because when that 
person with a disability walks in that room -- 
certain assumptions might pop in your head. 
And when that person with a disability walks in 
the room with a teacher or an employer - those 
assumptions also pops in that person's head -- and 
based on what they're thinking -- they make their 
decisions -- should I hire this person? Is this 
person really capable? So then the question 
becomes, how can we recognize what those 
assumptions are? And how can we change those 
assumptions? 

Martha Minow, a law professor at Harvard 
University wrote a book called Making all the 
Difference. She explains that there are a few 
common assumptions we tend to make when we 
look at differences, whether it be race, religion, 
handicaps, or gender. But I'm just going to talk 
about one -- that is the tendency to think that our 
existing social and economic arrangements, that 
is, the way we learn in the classroom, and the way 
we work, and the way our laws work -- are natural 
and neutral. For example, there is a town in 
Martha's Vineyard, which had a high incidence of 
recessive deafness. There were a lot of people who 
were born genetically deaf in the community. But 
the interesting thing about this town is that a 
great proportion of the community was able to 
communicate fluently in sign language -- not just 
deaf people, but also hearing people-- and these 
include people who might not have family 
members who are deaf. Because so many people 
knew how to communicate in sign language -- 
deafness was not seen as a disability, but rather, a 
difference. To the town people, deaf people do 
not have a handicap --they were just seen as 
different. Many of these deaf people were well-todo, 
and were even politicians, very active in town 
life. 
Say a deaf child from that town decides to 
transfer to a school here. What would happen to 
her? Well, first of all she wouldn't be able to 
communicate with anyone here -- unless they 
know sign language. Second of all, we could get a 
sign language interpreter, or maybe CART -- but 
wait a minute, we have to check to see if it would 
be a reasonable accommodation. And you know 
what else, I bet it's too expensive. Yeah, so it's 
unfair. But hey, you were born with that 
disability. Don't come to us and complain 
because we can't give you what you need. We 
don't give people special treatment just because 
they have a disability. 
Sounds familiar doesn't it? But this is what I 
want to ask you . . .Does that sound fair to the 
child who just moved in from Martha’s Vineyard, 
where everyone is able to communicate in sign 
language? Do you think it seems natural to her 
that people think it's a waste of money to hire 
someone to help her communicate with the rest 
of the world? We do that for people who cannot 
speak English, don't we? Well maybe to her, it 
would not be considered fair and natural.

But for me, I would say yes. It does seem fair.
And it does seem natural. That's just the way the 
world is. But then I learned about this 
technology-- the microphone and CART and I 
was actually able to hear what other people were 
saying. And because I could hear what other 
people were saying, other people could hear what 
I have to say. So I felt like a human being; and I 
felt really, really smart. Then a few months later, I 
read a Supreme Court case that basically says, we 
looked at the ADA -- and there are only six real 
examples of discrimination by the state against 
people with disabilities. Six? Yes, six. Then I got 
really really mad. Because they have no idea what 
it's like to have a disability and yet they can tell 
everyone, including my classmates and my law 
professors how irrelevant disability discrimination 
is. Later on, I realized that the Supreme Court 
also discriminates against African Americans and 
women and that power belongs to whomever 
owns it. And THAT is the natural world we live 
in. Power. Not ability or disability. But power. 
A few people, in making their presentations, 
have mentioned the Universal standard -- that is 
the idea of changing the environment so that the 
person with the disability as well as everyone else 
can benefit. I like that idea. Because say for 
instance, something like CART (live action 
captioning) becomes standard in the courtroom 
and in the workplace -- and actually it is with 
some law firms on the mainland -- then it 
wouldn't seem like a big problem to hire me 
would it? I would be able to hear everything 
going on in the room. So what's the problem? 
Why can't we change that environment right 
now? 
Well, I can't answer that question. I am not a 
specialist in your field. In fact, I am your client. 
But I want to ask you whether it's truly 
impossible to see a "universal standard." And I
sincerely hope you tell me it's not. Because if you 
tell me that well, it might be a little difficult -- I 
would tell you - I want to hire a new lawyer. But 
wait; see, like most people with disabilities, I can't
do that. You are my lawyers. You know what the
judges are going to think. Help me with my
problem. Help me get out of this trap.”

RESULTS OF ONLINE AND GROUP DISCUSSION
VOICES FROM THE FIELD: WHAT 
PARTICIPANTS SAID DURING THE ONLINE 
DISCUSSION 

WHO SHOULD GET SUPPORT? 
“Are there certain types of disability that are 
impossible to overcome for college or even 
employment success, no matter how much 
support students get?” 
“Success has less to do with the individual’s 
disability than with the sophistication of the 
support system (school, workplace, college, etc.). 
Once the capacity is built within the system, 
people with more significant disabilities can be 
easily supported.”

"I have a severe disability. A lot of my support has been
from my family, in part because often I did not get the support
that I needed from school or the community, but I am lucky. A
lot of people do not have the support of their families to fall
back on."

SELF-DETERMINATION 
“The thing that scares me about the selfdetermination 
movement is that somewhere along 
the way students may be denied necessary services 
in the name of promoting independence. How 
can we guard against that while still fostering 
independence?” 
“We never want to suggest that seeking support 
or accommodations is ‘bad’. To be an effective 
professionals, however, we have to try to move 
students toward increasing degrees of control over 
their own lives.” 
“’Sometimes asking for help is selfdetermination, 
too.’ There appears to me to be a 
frequent confusion of the terms selfdetermination 
and independence, and hence a 
confusion about the goals of self-determination in 
education…Asking for, and accepting, help…are 
ways in which the disabled and non-disabled 
alike, every day, get things done efficiently, often 
enjoying it more because of the human 
exchange… If students are to have an equal voice 
in anything that matters to them, they need to 
learn to ask for help, just as surely as they need to 
learn when they don’t need help and how to tell 
that to others.” 
“Researchers and workers in disability must 
walk a fine line in facilitating self-determination 
so that the individual has ownership of his or her 
supports and needs. By defining others’ needs, we 
put ourselves in a patronizing role and send a 
message that we know better than they what’s 
best.” 
“Students with disabilities who usually let their 
parents decide for them may be unprepared when 
they are given the responsibility of determining 
their accommodation requirements. It is also 
important to make sure they have all the 
information necessary and are given opportunities 
to make their own decisions, even as they are 
guided through the process by professionals.” 

IMPACT OF AGE ON SUPPORT PROVISION 
“I don’t think that it is productive to have 22 
year olds hanging around the high school campus 
— there are many more exciting places that they 
can be!’ 
“I think the difference should not be so much a 
function of whether they are 17, 18, or 19, but of 
6-8 March 2002 Honolulu Hawaii 41
the individual needs of the student and the goals 
of his or her IEP. In the same way, supports that 
students with disabilities may require in 
postsecondary school would depend more on the 
progression of the student in the program than on 
actual age.” 

TRANSITION 
“The term ‘transition’ has many meanings to 
different peoples. People transition from 
institutions to community living, from job to job, 
from one provider to another.” 
“’Transition’ should cover three phases: 1) 
Preparation for the new environment, 2) actual 
change from old to new, and 3) adjustment to the 
new environment. A transition from high school 
to college is not complete before a student is 
actually settled in college. Perhaps the reason 
‘transition’ seems so vague is because we are always 
in transition.” 

POSTSECONDARY SUPPORTS 
“Success in postsecondary educational settings 
is based more on what students can actually 
accomplish, because it is not compulsory 
education, but a privilege that is earned through 
academic achievement. Postsecondary education is 
supposed to ‘sift the wheat,’ so to speak, so that 
when employers hire they know they are getting 
the cream of the crop.” 
“Assistance provision should level the playing 
field… At the postsecondary level, students’ 
learning goes far beyond the classroom setting… 
Rather than a minimalist approach, postsecondary 
institutions should be focused on facilitating an 
environment where its students with disabilities 
(and all its students) can succeed in a holistic 
fashion.” 
“Employers have expectations that people with 
a postsecondary degree will have rational thought, 
skills, perspective, etc. So why, when schools have 
all sorts of programs and student supports to 
support students, do so many postsecondary 
institutions fail to properly support students with 
disabilities?” 

DISABILITY SUPPORT PROGRAM STANDARDS 
“When determining what standards are 
important for equal access to education, the 
students themselves should be allowed a voice in 
the process.” 
“These standards are not necessarily THE 
bottom line in terms of what should be provided, 
but they are a start and they [do] provide insight 
into how providers view supports/into how they 
perceive THEIR capacity to provide supports.” 
“What is ‘effective’? That word could mean 
‘within budget,’ ‘well evaluated,’ ‘meets legal 
requirements,’ or even ‘feels good to disability 
personnel.’ ‘Effective’ needs to include ‘results in 
student success.’” 

EMPLOYMENT SUPPORTS 
“Many years ago, I heard that the two most 
common reasons that adults with disabilities lose 
their jobs included being late and not having 
social skills for breaks/lunch. That really got me 
thinking about what happens in secondary 
schools — in segregated high schools, students 
don’t have to be on time and they don’t have 
much opportunity to interact. There you have it!” 
“We can’t ignore this entire issue that even if 
students are given support in secondary school, 
they enter a very different ‘real world’ of post sec 
ed and employment where supports are 
completely different and where a lot more is 
expected of them in terms of procuring and 
managing support.” 
“Corporate cultures that embrace diversity in 
all its myriad facets recognize that there is strength 
in differences. The harsh reality is, however, that 
not all corporate cultures embrace diversity.” 

GOALS OF SUPPORT PROVISION 
“I think the term ‘assistance,’ along with 
‘accommodations,’ ‘services,’ and ‘supports,’ 
means that a situation that was impeding an 
individual before is, through some mode of 
assistance, improved… If a student receives 
accommodations in college but still fails in class 
only because of the barriers of her disability, was 
she really assisted? If a deaf employee’s co-workers 
take sign language classes, but still exclude the 
deaf employee from office interactions, is he really 
assisted? Programs or individuals responsible for 
offering assistance should not just stop at meeting 
requirements. Their goal should always be the 
success of those they serve.” 

EMPLOYER ATTITUDES TOWARD APPLICANTS 
WITH DISABILITIES 
“Employer attitudes affect hiring and 
accommodation decisions in a couple of ways, 
First, inexperienced employers will make 
uninformed and perhaps prejudiced decisions. 
Disability awareness training generally, and 
information on the attributes of individual job 
applicants in particular, will often change naive 
perceptions held by employers about disability. 
Second, according to many studies and confirmed 
in my experience, employers with experience with 
disability, either at the workplace or in their 
personal lives, are considerably more likely to hold 
favorable opinions about applicants with 
disabilities.” 
“From my experience with past employers, they 
offer training on diversity issues but rarely is 
disability mentioned or given much time.” 
“If the applicant is armed with clear 
information about how his or her skills can 
contribute to the employer’s enterprise and is clear 
on how accommodations will work, then there is 
a higher likelihood that the applicant will be 
considered.” 
“I view the job search as potentially yielding 
additional opportunities for individuals within a 
hiring organization to see accommodations and 
supports of people with disabilities in action.” 
“Fit can be both objective and subjective. The 
important thing is that it is defined, however 
nebulously, by the employer. An individual with 
disabilities should have the required skills and be a 
‘fit’ with the employer’s environment.” 

MEANINGFUL EMPLOYMENT 
“Choices, preferences and personalizing job 
searching and support are very important. 
Somehow, the ‘system’ seems to make these things 
more difficult to realize than it should be. 
Increasing employment for people with 
disabilities is surely a matter of dealing with 
system problems.” 
“To me, ‘meaningful employment’ means 
working in a job that fits your skills, talents, goals 
and purposes, as well as your financial needs. My 
job to me is meaningful if I am contributing to 
the greater good of others, if I am using and 
developing my gifts and skills, and if my future 
looks bright and secure because of it.” 

RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON 
STRUCTURED GROUP DISCUSSION 
As the culmination to two days of discussion, 
discussion groups were asked to make 
recommendations for policy, practice and research 
based on the presentations, reactions and 
discussions that emerged from the Institute. Five 
key concepts were drawn from these 
recommendations and are outlined below. 

SELF-DETERMINATION 
Because of discrepancies across Federal policies 
and contextual environments, individuals with 
disabilities need the skills necessary to advocate 
for services and to develop and reach their goals. 
Participants recommended promoting and 
enhancing self-determination development for 
individuals with disabilities in secondary, 
postsecondary, and employment settings. They 
recommended the use of consumer-centered 
services, advocacy networks, and improved 
teaching of strategies for independence. 
Participants highlighted the need to: 
• Revisit the IEP process, thinking of the longterm 
goals of the student. Include students 
more in their own Individual Education Plans 
(IEPs). 
• Create a link for students between what they 
are learning in school and future work. 
CBI Proceedings 
• Provide students with disabilities, as well as 
those who support them (personnel, family 
members, etc.), with the attitudes, skills, and 
knowledge that they need in order to 
collaboratively develop and implement selfdetermined, 
individualized transition plans. 
• Keep in mind the ultimate goals of students’ 
postsecondary education and career outcomes 
and take steps that lead toward reaching those 
goals. 
• Offer individuals with disabilities all of the 
available options for training, jobs, etc., not 
just those that personnel judge to be appropriate. 

INCLUSION 
Establishing policies and practices that promote 
inclusive practices in secondary, postsecondary, 
and employment settings could improve 
outcomes for youth with disabilities. Participants 
recommended the use of universal design; access 
to the general education curriculum (integrated 
curriculum, service learning); and seamless 
transition into postsecondary and employment 
settings in order to meet this goal. Participants 
highlighted the need to: 
• Establish policies that support universal design, 
access, participation, and progress in the 
general education curriculum. 
• Adopt formal/informal policy in all schools 
that teachers teach all students. 
• Utilize and encourage natural supports (peer 
tutoring, mentoring, job coaching, etc.) at all 
levels. Research outcomes of peer mentorship, 
adult mentorship, job coaching, etc.; it’s effect 
on the mentor as well as on the person with a 
disability. 
• Provide accessible technology for students with 
disabilities in an inclusive setting where they 
44
can work side-by-side with their peers (e.g., 
departmental labs). 
• Explore how attitudes of students with or 
without disabilities change over time with 
inclusion. 

INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION 
Outcomes for students with disabilities can be 
improved by establishing clearly defined roles, 
responsibilities and resource alignment across 
systems. Participants recognized that there is a need 
to develop flexible systems that are responsive to 
individuals rather than to categories of individuals. 
Participants highlighted the need to: 
• Improve resource and systems alignment 
through promoting policies that support 
flexible funding and service provision. 
• Make policies and the use of the language that 
is used to describe assistance provision more 
uniform across Federal statutes and across 
different agencies (schools, vocational rehabilitation, 
developmental disabilities organizations, 
etc.). 
• Create win-win situations for both students 
with disabilities and employers (i.e. consider 
the employer as a “customer”). 
• Employ policy and practices that promote 
common goals, trust and cooperation between 
stakeholders. 

INFORMATION SHARING 
Applying the information learned in research to 
policy and practice is continually important. 
Participants stressed the need to emphasize the 
strengths of effective practice on both a macro and 
micro level. Participants highlighted the need to: 
• Use the Internet to share information about 
what works, at all levels. For example, a 
website could be used to recognize best practices 
in supporting employees and to show off 
companies that have had real success with 
providing support. 
• Provide training and support for co-workers to 
increase inclusion in work settings. 
• Require and provide professional development 
for disability services personnel, job development 
professionals, and teachers regarding 
collaboration, self-determination, universal 
design, and other disability issues. 
• Adopt policies that enhance communication 
between secondary and postsecondary schools 
in regards to individuals with disabilities. 
• Study what works in different contexts and 
cultures (i.e., self-determination interventions, etc.). 

UNIVERSAL DESIGN 
The need to establish universal design of 
facilities, technology, instruction, and worksites to 
create inclusive educational and work 
environments is becoming increasingly apparent. 
Participants believed that an emphasis on 
universal design would create ready access to all 
people, with or without disabilities. Participants 
highlighted the need to: 
• Create policies that are based on research and 
that incorporate universal design. 
• Provide training to teachers and faculty in order 
to help them effectively teach students with a 
wide range of abilities and disabilities. 
• Conduct research on effective instructional 
strategies and technology that employ the 
principles of universal design. 
• Research factors that impact persistence, 
retention, and performance, and incorporate 
these factors into universal design. 
 
SUMMATIVE PARTICIPANT EVALUATION REPORT 

2002 Capacity Building Institute 
March 6 – 8, 2002 Honolulu, Hawaii 

As part of the evaluation process, participants were asked to rate their experience and offer 
additional constructive comments for each category. The components of the Institute that 
participants were asked to rate are given on the left-hand column of the table below. The top 
column indicates the rating scale (scale of 1-5, 1 being unsatisfactory, 3 being satisfactory, 5 being 
excellent, n/a being not applicable). 

CATEGORIES 

I. REGISTRATION

1-- N/A
2-- N/A
3-- N/A
4-- N/A
5-- N/A
N/A-- 0
Avg. 2001-- N/A
Avg. 2002-- 5

A. Ease of Registration

1-- 0
2-- 0
3-- 2
4-- 5
5-- 21
N/A-- 6
Avg. 2001-- 4
Avg. 2002-- 5

B. Responsiveness to enquiries

1-- 1
2-- 0
3-- 3
4-- 3
5-- 21
N/A-- 6
Avg. 2001-- 4
Avg. 2002-- 5

II. ONLINE PAPERS AND DISCUSSION

1-- N/A
2-- N/A
3-- N/A
4-- N/A
5-- N/A
N/A-- 0
Avg. 2001-- N/A
Avg. 2002-- 5

A. Relevance of Papers to my interests

1-- 0
2-- 0
3-- 3
4-- 7
5-- 18
N/A-- 6
Avg. 2001-- 4
Avg. 2002-- 5
 
B. Format/style of papers

1-- 0
2-- 0
3-- 2
4-- 10
5-- 15
N/A-- 7
Avg. 2001-- 4
Avg. 2002-- 5

C. Ease of access to papers on line

1-- 0
2-- 0
3-- 3
4-- 5
5-- 18
N/A-- 8
Avg. 2001-- 4
Avg. 2002-- 5

D. Relevance of discussion questions to my interests

1-- 0
2-- 0
3-- 4
4-- 8
5-- 14
N/A-- 8
Avg. 2001-- 4
Avg. 2002-- 4

E. Ease of access to discussion online

1-- 0
2-- 2
3-- 4
4-- 6
5-- 12
N/A-- 10
Avg. 2001-- 3
Avg. 2002-- 4

III. PRESENTATIONS

1-- N/A
2-- N/A
3-- N/A
4-- N/A
5-- N/A
N/A-- 0
Avg. 2001-- N/A
Avg. 2002-- 5

A. Relevance of the presentations to my 
interests

1-- 0
2-- 0
3-- 1
4-- 16
5-- 14
N/A-- 3
Avg. 2001-- 4
Avg. 2002-- 4

B. Presentation styles

1-- 0
2-- 0
3-- 1
4-- 12
5-- 17
N/A-- 4
Avg. 2001-- 3
Avg. 2002-- 5

IV. Reactions

1-- N/A
2-- N/A
3-- N/A
4-- N/A
5-- N/A
N/A-- 0
Avg. 2001-- N/A
Avg. 2002-- 4

A. Added to my understanding of the issues

1-- 0
2-- 2
3-- 6
4-- 7
5-- 15
N/A-- 3
Avg. 2001-- N/A
Avg. 2002-- 4

V. Discussion

1-- N/A
2-- N/A
3-- N/A
4-- N/A
5-- N/A
N/A-- 0
Avg. 2001-- N/A
Avg. 2002-- 4

A. Discussion format

1-- 0
2-- 4
3-- 1
4-- 7
5-- 19
N/A-- 3
Avg. 2001-- 4
Avg. 2002-- 4

B. Discussion outcome/output

1-- 0
2-- 3
3-- 0
4-- 12
5-- 16
N/A-- 3
Avg. 2001-- 4
Avg. 2002-- 4

VI. Materials

1-- N/A
2-- N/A
3-- N/A
4-- N/A
5-- N/A
N/A-- 0
Avg. 2001-- N/A
Avg. 2002-- 4

A. Content of binder materials

1-- 0
2-- 0
3-- 4
4-- 3
5-- 24
N/A-- 3
Avg. 2001-- 4
Avg. 2002-- 5

B. Style/format of binder materials

1-- 0
2-- 0
3-- 0
4-- 6
5-- 24
N/A-- 4
Avg. 2001-- 4
Avg. 2002-- 5

Total number of Responses: 34
Percent of Participants: 59%

OVERALL AVERAGE RATING OF INSTITUTE 5 

REGISTRATION 
Ease of Registration 
• Registration easily accessible and most importantly, with a smile – courteousness and 
aloha. 

ONLINE PAPERS AND DISCUSSION 
• Good idea to have online discussion before Institute. Also, having the information was 
good preparation. 
• I was too busy at the time near the conference to read the papers. 
• Excellent way to introduce information and topics before event – good use of technology. 
• There was not enough time afforded to the discussion – only a week or so. Need to give 
2-3 week timeframe. 
Relevance of the presentations to my interests 

PRESENTATIONS 
• All of the topics were well connected & relevant. I liked having a presentation, questions 
on cards, reactions speakers & then structured questions for the group. 
• There are currently no “modes of assistance” or training (employee-sensitivity) on 
working/servicing adults/students with disabilities. This conference is extremely 
valuable to lay a solid foundation for future incorporation and implementation of 
policies/procedures. 
• Fabulous presentations. I would recommend limiting the formal presentations to 4, and 
keeping the CBI to two days. 
• The speakers presented their topics well. Their contribution to this conference expanded 
my knowledge and support in employing and placing disabled individuals in the 
workforce. 
• I wish there had been a stronger 2-year institution perspective. 
Added to my understanding of the issues 
Presentation styles 

REACTIONS 
• The institute greatly enhanced my thinking on these topics individually & then across the 
contexts of high school, postsecondary and employment. It really helped me to think 
hard about the relationship between policy, practice and research. 
• It is interesting to hear different points of view. I would have preferred reactions to be 
more structured 
• Excellent reactors, they were good in summarizing the points and relating presentations 
to other arenas or other perspectives. 
• This part of the session took up time of discussion, which I thought was more important. 
• Handouts of Power-Point presentations of speakers would have made it easier to follow 
the outline and allowed me to focus more and take less notes. 

Discussion format 

DISCUSSION 
• In the discussion format, group leaders need to make sure that all participants are active 
and no one person dominates. Guiding questions were great to focus discussion. 
• Very valuable. Group size and mix was successful. 
• Format could be more useful if groups could rotate in order to hear other viewpoints 
• I appreciated the opportunity to get to know people at the institute. I am glad we were 
• Helped give opportunity for members to get to know each other and feel comfortable 
• I really enjoyed the various backgrounds of the individuals in my discussion group. Our 
• There was a lot of networking/sharing of people’s interest, job and personal experiences. 
able to stick with the same discussion group. 
speaking up. 
varied experiences and expertise allowed and encouraged good discussion. 
A great time to re-cap what was spoken and a time to voice opinions. 
Discussion outcome/output 
• We had just enough time to complete the four questions…sometimes we had to curtail 
discussions that were at a deep level to move to the next question. 
Comments 

MORNING AND EVENING ACTIVITIES 
• Thank you! The morning activities allowed me to get to know people outside my 
discussion group. They also made it easier to concentrate during the day. I felt like I had 
the chance to experience Hawaii and attend the institute at the same time. 
Content of binder materials 

MATERIALS 
• Binder materials were very well organized and extremely user-friendly. Everything was 
at our fingertips. I thought all of the materials for both PacRim and the CBI were very 
creative. 
• The binder and contents helped me to gather information beforehand that greatly 
increased my knowledge of each topic and to be aware of what to expect. 
• Information I will take home and use! 
Style/format of binder materials 
• Great job! 
• I liked being reminded of the real experience of these issues, and that people with 
disabilities have so many more perspectives to share from besides their experiences of 
their disability. 

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 
What was the highlight of the Institute? 
• Opportunities for participants to share their perspectives in small discussion groups 
• The quality speakers, their papers and the follow-up discussion. I like having the guiding 
questions…they allowed us to integrate information across 3 contexts and the links 
between policy, practice and research. 
• Quality of handout materials. 
• Diversity in small group discussions, and the quality of the presenters and papers. 
• Meeting so many professionals and learning from so many different perspectives. 
• We were able to hear “cutting edge” information/research presented by the researchers 
• I enjoyed hearing from the students who have disabilities – their perspectives are vital to 
and able to ask them questions. 
research and needs to be heard! 
• Opportunity to network, gather info on issues that are relevant in our roles to provide 
direct service. 
What would you improve about the Institute? 
• The length of the day – the Institute should formally end at 3:30, with informal 
discussions outside with group members. 2 speakers per day are sufficient. 
• Variety of materials (laptop, color markers, flow chart) for use during group discussions. 
• Train facilitators to be inclusive. 
• Just to allow us to get to know other participants and their ideas by rotating groups. 
• More breaks. 
• We need multi-sensory instruction, flip charts, chunking, breaks – internal summaries. 
• More people with disabilities speaking about their personal experiences with service 
providers and how they think different service providers can improve. 
• Let everyone introduce themselves in the beginning. 
• Allow more time for people to participate in the on-line discussions. 
What is the most valuable idea/contact that you took away from the Institute? 
• That severity of disability is not the primary predictor of life outcomes. 
• Disability is the “last frontier of discrimination”. 
• Knowledge of creating an inclusion policy for my agency. 
• All groups identified the need for students to be self-determined – we MUST deliver! 
• There are resources out there to help improve our program in transition as well as 
employment for the disabled individual. 
• Ways to integrate students into employment. 
• The idea of universal design and its application to secondary, postsecondary and 
employment environments. 
• I was struck by the importance of peer support, (or supports for the peers) in all 3 
settings. 
• The idea of including organizational development in rehab pre-service training.
What would encourage you to use the pre-Institute on-line discussion? 
• Being introduced to a small number of participants who share background or interests 
with me. 
• It’s a great idea, but I find I have a lot to do before the PacRim and CBI, as well as 
organizing my own staff’s work while I’m gone. Thus, I didn’t have time for the online 
discussion. 
• I see more value in post-Institute online discussion. I did not see the value of it in 
advance of meeting presenters et al, and reading papers. 
• Do we really need a password to get on to the discussion page? 
• Finding the time to do it! It’s a great idea! 
• I thought following the chain of postings was rather cumbersome. What if they were all 
strung together like an email digest? 
What suggestions do you have for future Institute themes, papers and presentation? 
• Career services for college students with disabilities. 
• Self-determination across secondary, postsecondary and employment. 
• How to work effectively with Voc. Rehab. 
• Universal design. 
• More on “hidden” disabilities. 
• Cross-cultural studies – policy and practice implications for minority persons with 
disabilities. 
• I would like to see a presentation concerning rural communities and cultural diversities. 
• More papers on employment outcomes/self-employment. 

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: www.ici.umn.edu/ncset 
www.ncset.hawaii.edu 

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.