National Summit Proceedings Supporting Individuals with Disabilities across Secondary, Postsecondary Education, and Employment July 8, 2002 National Press Club Washington, D.C. Sponsored by the National Center for the Study of Postsecondary Educational Supports (NCSPES), University of Hawai`i at Manoa TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION: page 3 FRAMEWORK FOR SHARING RESEARCH FINDINGS AND IMPLICATIONS: page 5 OVERVIEW OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE NATIONAL SUMMIT: page 9 KEYNOTE PRESENTERS: page 15 RESPONSES FROM THE FIELD: page 16 RESEARCH PANEL PRESENTATIONS: page 17 SELF-DETERMINATION AND ADVOCACY: page 17 PROVISION OF SERVICES, SUPPORTS, AND ACCOMMODATIONS: page 18 COORDINATION AND MANAGEMENT OF SUPPORTS AND Services: page 20 SUMMIT AGENDA: page 22 PARTICIPANTS: page 25 INTRODUCTION Welcome to the proceedings document for the National Summit: Supporting Individuals with Disabilities across Secondary School, Postsecondary Education, and Employment. The Summit was held in Washington, DC at the National Press Club on July 8, 2002. The Summit was sponsored by the National Center for the Study of Postsecondary Educational Supports (NCSPES) with the support of its national network of collaborators, including the National Center on Secondary Education and Transition (NCSET). In attendance were representatives from the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), the National Institute on Disability Research and Rehabilitation (NIDRR), the National Center on Secondary Education and Transition (NCSET), the Social Security Administration (SSA), the Department of Labor (DOL), the Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) and the Association on Higher Education and Disability (AHEAD). Additionally, researchers, practitioners, and consumers participated in the event. The purpose of the National Summit was to share the synthesis of research findings from the National Center for the Study of Postsecondary Educational Supports. The Summit included data and information from a national network of individuals, and research centers, with implications for disability-focused federal policy, priorities, and practice within the field. Many significant recommendations resulted from the Summit and are highlighted in this report. The results of many findings from NCSPES studies were developed into a Briefing Book and White Papers, which were distributed at the Summit and are available online, at: http://www.ncset.hawaii.edu/view briefs.htm. The book includes implications briefs organized around a Strategic Plan of Research across three types of support settings: 1) preparation and transition in secondary school 2) postsecondary education, and 3) subsequent employment. The Briefing Book also includes three areas of investigation: 1) self-determination/advocacy 2) services, supports, and accommodations, including technology, and 3) coordination and management of supports and services. The White Papers are more comprehensive explorations of the areas described above, and can be accessed online at: http://www.rrtc.hawaii.edu/products/phases/phase3.asp. The synthesis in the Summit Briefing Book reflects five years of research. A broad description of all of the research is available at www.rrtc.hawaii.edu. NCSPES was designed and implemented using the strategic plan of research. During the Summit, researchers presented material from the Briefing Book and White Papers. These were followed by reactions from the field and supported by prominent keynote speakers. Keynote speakers included Assistant Secretary for Education Dr. Robert Pasternack, who used the Summit to announce the findings from the President.s Task Force on Excellence in Special Education. We hope that these proceedings reflect the rich array of findings and recommendations from the National Summit. Note that a more detailed CD/ROM of the Proceedings is available by contacting Juana Tabali Weir or Velina Sugiyama at the addresses at right. You may also contact them for alternative formats to these written Proceedings. ROBERT A. STODDEN, PH.D. Director MEGAN A. CONWAY, PH.D. Assistant Professor Technical Assistance Coordinator (NCSET) TERESA WHELLEY, ED.D. Assistant Professor Coordinator of Research (NCSPES) For more information about the National Center on Postsecondary Educational Supports, please contact: Juana Tabali-Weir Telephone: 808-956-3975. E-mail: juana@cds.hawaii.edu Web: http://www.rrtc.hawaii.edu To obtain copies of the Summit Briefing Book, CD ROM or White Papers, or for more information about the National Center on Secondary Education and Transition, please contact: Velina Sugiyama Telephone: 808-956-6166 E-mail: velina@hawaii.edu Web: http://www.ncset.hawaii.edu Preparation of this report was supported by grant # H133B980043 from the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) and by cooperative agreement # H326J000005 in partnership with the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), U.S. Department of Education. The opinions expressed in this document do not necessarily reflect the policy or position of any sponsoring agency. Center on Disability Studies National Center for the Study of Postsecondary Educational Supports (NCSPES) National Center on Secondary Education and Transition (NCSET), Post-Outcomes Network University of Hawai`i at Manoa 1776 University Ave., #UA 4-6 Honolulu, HI 96822 http://www.cds.hawaii.edu A FRAMEWORK FOR SHARING RESEARCH FINDINGS AND IMPLICATIONS Robert A. Stodden, Ph.D. Director, Center on Disability Studies (CDS) and National Center for the Study of Postsecondary Educational Supports (NCSPES), University of Hawai`i at Manoa Strategic Plan of Research Leadership in the nation.s business and education communities has long pointed to the need for highly educated and skilled workers as the nation seeks to succeed in the competitive global economy. Further, over the last 20 years, changes in the nation.s labor market have increased the importance of possessing a postsecondary education. Students who continue their education after high school maximize their preparedness for careers in today.s changing economy as they learn the higher order thinking and technical skills they need to take advantage of current and future job market trends. For persons with disabilities, completion of some type of postsecondary education, including vocational-technical training, significantly improves their chances of securing meaningful employment. In fact, for persons with disabilities, a stronger positive correlation is demonstrated between level of education and rate of employment than is found in statistical trends for the general population. Given this important data, there are a number of positive signs supporting the participation of persons with disabilities in postsecondary education and employment. According to the OSERS, USDOE, 2000 survey, the Harris Survey of 2000 and the HEATH Survey of 1998, there is data to indicate that: • The percentage of students with disabilities graduating from high school with a diploma has risen slowly but steadily in recent years (51.7% in 1994, compared to 55.4% in 1998); • The percentage of adults with disabilities who report completing high school has increased significantly between 1986 and 2000 (61% in 1986, compared to 78% in 2000); • The number of students with disabilities dropping out of high school has begun to decrease (35% dropped out in 1984, decreasing to 31% in 1998); • The percentage of students with disabilities entering college has more than tripled over the last 20 years (3% in 1978, increasing to more than 9% in 1998); • Learning disabilities are the most common type of disability in postsecondary education; • Although, students with disabilities are more likely to attend two-year postsecondary education programs than four-year programs, two-year programs provide a greater range of supports and services (both disability-focused and generic learning supports) than four-year programs. Despite the above areas of significant progress, a number of gaps, issues, and problems remain for persons with disabilities as they seek to prepare for, access, and succeed in postsecondary education and subsequent employment. Continuing issues include: • Students with disabilities are less likely than their peers without disabilities to complete a full secondary school academic curriculum, resulting in lower levels of academic achievement and preparation for postsecondary education (differences are most significant in math and science curriculum areas); • Youth with disabilities drop out of high school at twice the rate of their peers without disabilities (these rates are much higher for youth with significant disabilities); • Youth with disabilities are less likely than their peers without disabilities to graduate from high school, both with a diploma and with other forms of certification; • Youth with disabilities are less likely to start postsecondary education than are their peers without disabilities (two years after receiving a high school diploma, 63% of students with disabilities had enrolled in some form of postsecondary education, compared to 72% of their peers without disabilities); • Students with disabilities face many barriers as they enter postsecondary education, including the need for, and lack of, training in self-determination and self-advocacy skills. • Youth with disabilities who start postsecondary education are less likely to retain and complete a degree or certificate than are their peers without disabilities; • Students with disabilities also face barriers because of the inconsistent range and types of supports and services at postsecondary institutions that are frequently offered in a non-individualized, uncoordinated manner due to lack of awareness of these students. needs for technology, career development, and instructional support. • Students with disabilities who finish postsecondary education take significantly longer to complete their degree than do their peers without disabilities. In the fall of 1998, the National Institutes for Disability Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) funded a Rehabilitation Research & Training Center (RRTC) at the University of Hawai.i at Manoa to further address the issues facing persons with disabilities as they seek access and success within postsecondary education and subsequent employment. Phase I of the Strategic Plan of Research for the new RRTC obtained further clarity around a number of barriers facing persons with disabilities seeking to access and participate in postsecondary education, as follows (National Survey of Educational Support Provision, 2000; National Focus Groups of Youth with Disabilities, 2000): • The type and range of educational supports and services provided in postsecondary education varies extensively from campus to campus. A two-year follow-up study of educational support offerings (2002) indicates that such offerings continue to expand on postsecondary education campuses; • Educational supports and services offered to persons with disabilities in postsecondary education are not well integrated with instruction.often it is the responsibility of the student to understand and make this linkage; • Obtaining educational supports and services in postsecondary education requires that students understand their own disability needs and that they have the advocacy skills to explain those needs to disability support personnel. Too frequently, such understanding and skills are not taught in secondary school, and the IEP procedural requirements do not include the opportunity for youth to develop these skills; • Large numbers of youth with disabilities accessing postsecondary education require case management assistance with their education and related support needs; • Educational supports and services offered in postsecondary education are not .individualized. according to a student.s needs (as required in lower education), but rather are offered as a menu of services, often associated with disability type; • Faculty members and other personnel in postsecondary education settings are often unaware of disability needs, have a limited range of differentiated instructional skills, and have low expectations of students with disabilities; • Technology can be an equalizer for students with disabilities in postsecondary education, however, youth in secondary school have little opportunity to become aware of or obtain the technology skills related to their educational support needs; and • There is little awareness of the need of youth with disabilities in postsecondary education to obtain subsequent employment or to transfer educational supports to the work setting. Based upon findings from Phase I studies, a team of national leaders in secondary education, transition, postsecondary education, and employment met to formulate a number of next generation, active research studies (Phase II of the Strategic Program of Research). Study questions were generated during the Forum and further refined and ordered within a matrix to address critical areas of need as identified in Phase I studies. The matrix (Strategic Plan of Research.Phase II) consisted of studies bridging three types of settings (secondary school preparation and transition, postsecondary education, and subsequent employment), and three areas of investigation (1. advocacy/self-determination, 2. types of services, supports, and accommodations, including technology, and 3. coordination and support management). Also included in the matrix were studies focused upon two areas identified as critical needs for study. participation in postsecondary education of youth of minority cultural and linguistic status, and youth with significant and multiple disabilities, including cognitive disabilities. Table 1: Strategic Plan of Research Phase II: Framework for Sharing Findings and Implications The table below represents a framework for sharing the findings and implications of research conducted by the National Center for the Study of Postsecondary Educational Supports (NCSPES). The headings across the top of the table represent the three environments of study. The headings down the left side represent the three areas of focus. In the Briefing Book, studies that focus on self-determination for secondary school students, for example, would be found under section A1. Studies that focus on self-determination for postsecondary students would be found under section A2, etc. Phase II Self-Determination and Advocacy Secondary Education, Preparation, and Transition-- A.1 Access Retention, and Participation in Postsecondary Education-- A.2 Transfer to Subsequent Employment-- A.3 Services, Supports, and Accommodations, Including Technology Secondary Education, Preparation, and Transition-- B.1 Access Retention, and Participation in Postsecondary Education-- B.2 Transfer to Subsequent Employment-- B.3 Interagency Coordination and Management of Supports Secondary Education, Preparation, and Transition-- C.1 Access Retention, and Participation in Postsecondary Education-- C.2 Transfer to Subsequent Employment-- C.3 End of Table 1 OVERVIEW OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE SUMMIT Self-Determination and Self-Advocacy Issue: Secondary school preparation and the transition process between secondary school and postsecondary school for youth with disabilities do not provide adequate opportunities for youth to learn and experience self-determination and self-advocacy skill development. Youth with disabilities are often observers rather than active participants of their secondary education IEP process, and consequently, transition services may not be linked with a student.s actual long-term goals. There is also a lack of participation in this transition process by adult support agencies (rehabilitation counselors, postsecondary disability support personnel, and other individuals) that could play an important role in supporting youth with disabilities in postsecondary education and employment settings. Recommendation: Secondary students with disabilities are required, according to changes to language in the IDEA, to attend and actively participate in their IEP meetings. Secondary school personnel and parents are also required to assist students in obtaining the necessary skills and knowledge they need to be active participants in the IEP and support provision process. In addition, vocational rehabilitation and postsecondary disability support personnel should be strongly encouraged to attend IEP meetings and to facilitate the transition of educational and related supports to post- school environments. Recommendation: More federal funds need to be allocated to researching and providing technical assistance for evidence-based practice in the area of self- determination and self-advocacy for youth with disabilities. States should also be provided with incentives to promote and evaluate evidence-based practices. Communities must combine their efforts to increase the self-determination skills of youth with disabilities and educate people about valuing and respecting individuals with disabilities. In order for self-determination to result from the collaboration of all the agencies, parents, and individuals supporting students with disabilities, expectations among these supporters must be raised to encourage youth with disabilities to prepare for and expect to access postsecondary education. In addition, training on self-determination and career development must be integrated into teacher pre-service and in-service training. Disability service providers, parents, and other members of the community must also be trained. When communities work as a team to assist students with disabilities with their transition process, these students gain the invaluable lifelong benefit of having the skills to advocate for themselves and attain the necessary supports and assistance they need to live productive lives. Services, Supports, and Accommodations Issue: Students with disabilities are often enrolled in programs of study that do not lead to their chosen careers. They also lack needed work experience to build a resume and portfolio of success prior to graduating from college. Parents, teachers, and service providers of students with disabilities need to increase their expectations that these students will participate in postsecondary education. Increased expectations could be encouraged through the development and reauthorization of federal policy and the development and sharing of data and information surrounding .evidence-based practice.. Recommendation: Increased expectations at an earlier stage among people in support roles to students with disabilities will help these students choose appropriate fields of study. As expectations increase, all persons in support roles in postsecondary education and employment settings will have a clearer understanding of the need for skills and knowledge related to diverse teaching, learning, and working accommodations and supports. Coordination between the White House Office for Disability Policy and other advocacy/public relations entities to discuss and plan a strategy for promoting and impacting upon the attitudes and behaviors of persons working with students with disabilities in post-school settings. Such a plan should be driven by national data and .evidenced-based practice., which supports high expectations and the participation and success of persons with disabilities in postsecondary education and professional employment roles. Issue: The range and type of services, supports, and accommodations (including technology) provided to persons with disabilities in postsecondary education settings varies extensively. There is a need for a standard of quality support provision for all persons with disabilities in postsecondary education. Further, it is important for youth with disabilities and their supporting family members to have access to organized data and information on the status of and satisfaction with support provision within postsecondary education settings. Such information is critical for persons with disabilities so they can select an institution that provides supports that match their disability- related needs. Recommendation: To develop and fund a national network of training and technical assistance centers within postsecondary education settings. The intent of such centers would be to work collaboratively with faculty development and disability support services in postsecondary education settings, and to provide effective practice models, training of faculty and support personnel, technical assistance to programs and persons with disabilities, and information. The centers could be modeled after the current University Centers for Excellence, funded in each state through the Administration on Developmental Disabilities. An authorization and appropriation should be developed within the Higher Education Act (up for reauthorization in 2003) for grants to be made to institutions of higher education in each state. Under these proposals, services, supports, and accommodations provided to persons with disabilities would be upgraded in each state.s institutes of higher learning. Recommendation: We must determine what services postsecondary educational institutions0 throughout the United States offer. The selective use of financial incentives to public and private colleges for enrolling, supporting, and graduating students with disabilities could be a highly effective strategy through an amendment to the Higher Education Act. The Higher Education Act, NIDRR, and IDEA should earmark research, demonstration, and training funds to study issues such as flexible admissions policies, eligibility for receiving services, assistive technology, and benefits counseling in four- year colleges. Section 508 requires that all government-procured equipment be accessible. All institutions of higher education that receive student federal aid should be required to provide this. The Assistive Technology Act, a small program administered by NIDRR, is up for reauthorization in 2003. Its sole purpose is to promote universal access to technology for people with disabilities through grants in every state. Supporters of the act could push for the requirement that higher education institutions include technology access. In addition, the definition of .access. in higher education settings needs to be modified to include students with disabilities, not just low income and minority students. Students with disabilities should also have access to technology that promotes positive academic and career outcomes. Other recommendations include training of faculty and administrators in universal design, and technology that includes accessible web-sites, among other possibilities. Students with disabilities who use assistive technology should be able to experience a seamless transition as they move from the K-12 environment to the postsecondary environment and onto the employment environment. Issue: Currently, there is no national database on the following issues for youth with disabilities leaving high school and transitioning to postsecondary education: 1) transition success and progress made by youth with disabilities in postsecondary education; 2) secondary school factors that support success or failure in postsecondary education; and 3) the extent to which persons with disabilities complete and benefit from postsecondary education. The past and current National Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS) funded through OSEP does not follow youth with disabilities into postsecondary education and employment and does not address the questions or concerns for this population and setting. Recommendation: An authorization and appropriation should be placed in the IDEA to specifically follow youth with disabilities as they transition into and through postsecondary education and to subsequent professional employment. This authorization should seek to track the progress of youth with disabilities in postsecondary education settings and identify what works for them within secondary school, transition, and postsecondary support programs as related to successful completion and subsequent professional employment. Recommendation: To develop and fund a national web-based register on the type and level of educational supports, services, and accommodations provided through postsecondary education programs. The database would provide a search function based upon region and the type and range of support provision needed by type and level of disability, and other special features offered through the postsecondary education services. It would differentiate students with disabilities who are served by section 504 from students who are served in special education under IDEA. This web-based, user friendly register would be authorized and appropriated by IDEA (currently under reauthorization), thus supporting individuals with disabilities, their parents, and secondary school counselors seeking a match with an appropriate postsecondary education program of study. This appropriation would provide funds for the ongoing planning, implementation, and evaluation of the need and value of this service to counselors, persons with disabilities and their family members, and participating institutions of higher education. Recommendation: Postsecondary institutions should be supported and required to provide a wider variety of supports than are currently available to meet the varying needs of students with disabilities. Postsecondary education institutions receiving federal funding should be held accountable for using evidence-based practices as linked with higher graduation rates for youth with disabilities in postsecondary education. Coordination and Management of Supports and Services Issue: There is currently a lack of assistance with coordination and management of educational supports, services, and resources for youth with disabilities as they seek access to and pursue postsecondary education and subsequent employment. In order for youth with disabilities to participate in postsecondary education, these youth are often faced with having to manage or seek out and coordinate a variety of educational supports offered within postsecondary institutions with necessary related supports provided by different outside agencies. The many complex laws and systems these students must navigate include the ADA, the rehabilitation amendments, the Workforce Investment Plan, the Ticket-to-Work Incentives Improvement Plan, and others. The institutions and agencies that are available to assist youth with disabilities have varying criteria and purposes, resulting in service gaps and overlaps. Key policies that govern the provision of assistance to individuals with disabilities during secondary school and after are also inconsistent, and create barriers to youth as they transition from secondary school to postsecondary school and subsequent employment. Efforts to create a seamless transition for students with disabilities have not had a very significant impact. Studies have found that only 27% of students with disabilities go on to postsecondary education compared to 68% of students without disabilities. Recommendation: Federal agencies such as the ODEP Rehabilitation Services Administration, and the Social Security Administration should conduct an analysis of current federal policies and develop policy language that encourages the pursuit of postsecondary education and meaningful employment for individuals with disabilities. Such policy revision should seek to eliminate disincentives, such as unnecessary paperwork, loss of critical benefits, and inflexible program participation criteria for persons with disabilities seeking postsecondary education and employment. Supports and services need to be aligned using this policy analyses. Recommendation: Policies and related guidelines that support the participation of students with significant disabilities, age 18-21, in inclusive postsecondary education and employment, need to be developed. Federal policies that guide procedures for the provision of supports in mandates such as the IDEA, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, should be re-examined for inconsistencies in language, responsibilities, and requirements. These inconsistencies should be examined with the purpose of streamlining and improving the provision of supports to all individuals with disabilities as they transition across secondary education, postsecondary education, and employment environments. Students with disabilities should have access to services when they need them, and not have to go through another reapplication process. Recommendation: Resource mapping is one solution for comprehensive coordination at the state and local levels. Resource mapping identifies organizations, agencies, institutions, and individuals within specific communities that are available to assist individuals with disabilities. In this case, resource mapping could include cross-system service gap identification. Resource mapping can foster agency partnerships and the alignment of supports across federal, state, and local levels. In addition, the current New Freedom Initiative facilitates interagency cooperation at the federal level. This will illuminate how the practices, policies, and initiatives introduced at the federal level may impact services at the state local level. Recommendation: In keeping with the New Freedom Initiative, state and local government agencies need to establish unified policies and practices such as issues of common intake and referral procedures, unified databases, common service plans, and comprehensive planning. Recommendation: Conflicting eligibility requirements and processes lead to disruption in the delivery of supports and services. There are some innovative funding and coordination strategies that may alleviate these conflicts. Demonstration and research need to be conducted on pooled funding strategies and interagency funding of service coordination. SPEAKER KEY POINTS Keynote Speakers Robert Pasternack Assistant Secretary of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services (OSERS), U.S. Department of Education • We shouldn't lower the bar, we should have high expectations and support kids with disabilities in meeting those expectations. • All kids with disabilities have the right to access higher education. • We need to simplify the transition language currently in IDEA and include stronger language regarding service integration and linkage of transition and academic goals, by removing the 14- to 16-year-old requirements, the .if appropriate. clause from youth participation in the IEP, including evidence-based practice in self- determination, and increase the number of youth receiving diplomas. • Students should be at every IEP meeting. • We need more evidence-based practice to support self-determination and self- advocacy. • The government must mandate federal interagency collaboration through the issuance of an Executive Order. • Postsecondary institutions need to have a wider variety of supports to help students with disabilities attend college. • The government should create an advisory committee to provide input to the Rehabilitation Act. The reauthorization process should address needs for common language in both the act and in the IDEA. • Vocational rehabilitation personnel need to attend IEP meetings and participate in the transition discussion. • We must support the training of personnel in postsecondary schools regarding the support needs of persons with disabilities for postsecondary education and employment. Steven Tingus Director, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR), U.S. Department of Education • Young people with disabilities should have the preparation and support to access postsecondary education. • The coordination and provision of personal attendant services and community supports with educational supports is important for persons with disabilities to succeed in postsecondary education. • There is a need for a paradigm shift toward interagency cooperation at all levels of government. • Transition services need to focus on high expectations for youth with disabilities that include planning for postsecondary education. Stephanie Lee Director, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), U.S. Department of Education • We need to look at the needs of each individual child and family. • Students with disabilities should be included in the accountability system. This could help integrate separate programs such as general and special education. • We must use students. time to gain job experience and to get them involved in the community. • Public policy must address the barrier of low expectations for youth with disabilities in education and employment settings. • Parent organizations and associations need to upgrade their expectations of youth with disabilities regarding postsecondary education and professional employment. Aryah Herman Researcher, National Institute on Health; George Washington University • Low budgets lead to inadequate support of students with disabilities in high school. • Individualized plans of support, including accurate diagnosis of disabilities and needs, make it possible to succeed in college. • Each individual has a right to succeed in academic and professional life, and can contribute to many areas of society. Preparation, advocacy, and accommodations are all necessary components for individuals with disabilities to succeed. • We need more educational programs, mandatory federal training, and increased communication about disabilities to higher academic institutions and private corporations. • The government needs to fund programs about disabilities for the general population. Responses from the Field David Johnson Director, Institute on Community Integration & National Center on Secondary Education and Transition (NCSET), University of Minnesota • There is a higher percentage of youth with disabilities leaving high school that are seeking access to postsecondary education each year. • The number of youth with disabilities not obtaining an academic diploma in high school creates access issues when they seek postsecondary education and other life-long learning opportunities. • There should be concern about the increasing numbers of persons with disabilities entering the ranks of the working poor. Postsecondary education is a pathway for improving one.s self and achieving an improved quality of life. Paul Wehman Director, RRTC on Workplace Supports, Virginia Commonwealth University • Strategies and techniques are needed to enable students with disabilities to receive comprehensive career services through resources and services offered on college campuses. • The Higher Education Act, NIDRR, and IDEA should earmark research, demonstration, and training funds to study issues such as flexible admissions policies, eligibility for receiving services, assistive technology, and benefits counseling in four-year college settings. • We must determine what services (by disability) colleges throughout the United States offer. • We need to disseminate the successful .Support Education Model., Virginia Commonwealth University, and the .DO-IT. model, University of Washington, through OSERS funded programs. William Kiernan Director, Institute on Community Inclusion & RRTC on Vocational Rehabilitation Systems, University of Massachusetts, Boston • Parents and guidance counselors of children with disabilities need to encourage youth with disabilities to prepare for and expect to access postsecondary education. • We need to look for other measures of effectiveness besides the number of students who exit a program. We need to look at getting services to people when they need them, rather than when they are entering and exiting the system. • There is a need to focus upon professional employment outcomes for youth with disabilities across all federal agencies that impact disability policy. • The use of natural support networks with other community networks linking employers, postsecondary education programs, and people with disabilities should be explored. Margo Izzo, Megan Conway, David Leake To view briefs relating to the presentations below, please go to the Web, at: http://www.ncset.hawaii.edu/summits/july2002/briefs/default.htm. To view a White Paper on Self-Determination and Self-Advocacy, please go the Web, at: http://www.rrtc.hawaii.edu/products/phases/phase3.asp. • There is a need to involve students in a coordinated assessment and planning process and facilitate student-centered IEP meetings and self-directed learning models. • There is a need to infuse self-determination and career development into the curricula and into training for teachers, service providers, parents, and community members. • We need to give parents and teachers incentives to get students actively involved in their IEP meetings during secondary school. • We need to pair up mentors who are successful adults with disabilities and youth with disabilities. • Efforts to increase the self-determination skills of youth with disabilities must be coupled with educating others about valuing and respecting individuals with disabilities. • Other people's attitudes are one of the most significant barriers that students with disabilities face. • We need to promote self-determination of individuals with disabilities in a way that does not diffuse the importance of relationships and responsibility to others. • We need to be aware that promoting self-determination may alienate families if it means their children start going against their wishes or cultural values. • We must always keep our approach individualized. Each youth and family is unique, and his or her special circumstances need to be taken into account in self- determination, just as in any other area of support. Reaction Panel Sue Swenson • Youth with disabilities need to feel they "belong" in postsecondary education. This can be fostered through participation in extracurricular and other types of activities. • Bring advocates into schools. Many adults with intellectual disabilities don.t want to return to their high school, but might if they knew they could work with young people who need to learn self-advocacy skills. Research Panel: Provision of Services, Supports, and Accommodations Note: For reactions by David Johnson and Stephanie Lee, please see .Keynote Speakers. and .Responses from the Field. Sheryl Burgstahler, Liz Getzel, Michael Sharpe To view briefs relating to the presentations below, please go to the Web, at: http://www.ncset.hawaii.edu/summits/july2002/briefs/default.htm. To view a White Paper on Services, Supports and Accommodations, or one on Technology, please go the Web, at: http://www.rrtc.hawaii.edu/products/phases/phase3.asp. • We must ensure access to assistive technology at all levels and through transitions. • We must include students in the purchase of technology, provide training to all stakeholders, give students work-based learning opportunities that use technology, and promote the purchase of accessible technology in schools. • Inter-agency collaboration should be fostered to ensure a seamless transition of assistive technology across environments. • For every goal we establish for a child with a disability, we should ask the question: what role could technology play in reaching this goal? • Preliminary findings indicate that intensity and frequency of service and support use, access to technology, and student persistence are strong predictors of student performance and outcomes. • Further research is needed in terms of effective models on university campuses that provide multiple approaches for students to access services. • Students entering postsecondary education and graduate school need to look at how their accommodations and support needs change over time. • We need to do more at the secondary level and below to make sure the Child Find identification mandates are being implemented as intended. • The number of students with psychiatric disorders is increasing, raising questions about the clarity of operational definitions of disabilities in secondary schools and postsecondary schools. • There is a significant difference between secondary and postsecondary school in how often students need to communicate with instructors about their disability. • 38% of participants in Project Grad indicated they first learned to use assistive technology at the postsecondary level. Reaction Panel Jane West • There is a need to use research to influence IDEA reauthorization, focusing on transition and personnel preparation. • Disability issues should be emphasized for reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, and relationships with higher education organizations need to be strengthened. • Higher education must be a new focus in the reauthorization of the Assistive Technology Act. Richard Melia • We need to look at the needs of students who acquire disabilities while they are in secondary and postsecondary schools. • We have to know more about how and with what frequency students in hidden disability populations go out into the workforce. Note: For reaction by Paul Wehman, please see "Responses from the Field". Research Panel: Issues of Coordinating and Managing Supports and Services Teresa Whelley, Peg Lamb, Debra Hart To view briefs relating to the presentations below, please go to the Web, at: http://www.ncset.hawaii.edu/summits/july2002/briefs/default.htm. To view a White Paper on Coordination and Management of Supports and Services, please go the Web, at: http://www.rrtc.hawaii.edu/products/phases/phase3.asp. • There are few partnerships that establish interagency cooperation at the state and local levels, and little coordination between secondary and postsecondary supports and services and adult service providers. • We need more resource mapping and alignment on state and local levels. • We need more identification of service gaps and development of resources to • Families play significant roles in the lives of individuals with or without disabilities • Having a college preparation class can help to develop self-advocacy and self- • Making a team of service providers available to problem-solve with students who • Students report that participation in projects such as the BRIDGES Project has address them, especially for individuals with severe disabilities. through postsecondary education into employment and throughout their lives. determination skills in postsecondary students with disabilities. have disabilities can regularly increase their self-determination skills. helped them think about their future career and meet their goals, as well as increased their responsibility and problem-solving ability. • For students with significant disabilities, participation in postsecondary education correlates positively with competitive and independent employment. Policies need to reflect this finding. • There is a need to provide professional development and training for pre-service and in-service professionals, students, and families in postsecondary education options for students with significant disabilities. Reaction Panel Martin Gerry • The Social Security Act was written in the theme of retirement plans, not insurance, which helps to explain why we have failed on the insurance aspect. Social Security has been maintaining a return-to-work rate of 2/10ths of one percent. • The Social Security Administration is combining with the Department of Education, the Department of Labor, and the Department of Health and Human Services to run a project aimed at systems change and innovative transition services. The initiative as a whole is targeting all youth with disabilities, with the theme of improving choice and control of resources in the consumer environment. • The SSA is also initiating a job creation effort aimed at hiring beneficiaries to help with a major undertaking to upgrade the system to electronic files. Carol Kochhar • Interagency service coordination is an area that needs a tremendous amount of continuing research. • Evidence-based practices, especially those that are long-term rather than demonstration projects, are needed to prove that transition works. Note: For reaction by William Kiernan, please see "Responses from the Field". SUMMIT AGENDA JULY 8, 2002 8:00 A.M. - 8:30 A.M. COFFEE, ROLLS, AND DISCUSSION 8:30 A.M. - 9:15 A.M. Welcome & Opening Remarks Robert A. Stodden, Director, Center on Disability Studies (CDS) & National Center for the Study of Postsecondary Educational Supports (NCSPES), University of Hawai.i at Manoa Steven Tingus, Director, National Institutes on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR), United States Department of Education 9:15 a.m. - 9:45 A.M. Focusing the Scope of Discussion: A Framework for Sharing Research Findings and Implications Robert A. Stodden, University of Hawai.i at Manoa 9:45 a.m. - 10:15 A.M. Responses from the Field: Forward Directions David Johnson, Director, Institute on Community Integration & National Center on Secondary Education Transition (NCSET), University of Minnesota Paul Wehman, Director, RRTC on Workplace Supports, Virginia Commonwealth University William Kiernan, Director, Institute on Community Inclusion & RRTC on Vocational Rehabilitation Systems, University of Massachusetts, Boston 10:15 a.m. - 10:45 A.M. A Federal Perspective on Postsecondary Education and Education & Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), United States Department of Education (USDOE) 10:45 a.m. - 11:30 A.M. Research Panel Presentations: Self-determination and Advocacy Margo Vreeburg Izzo, Project Director, Nisonger Center, Ohio State University Megan (Jones) Conway, Project Director, Center on Disability Studies, University of Hawai.i at Manoa Youth with Disabilities Robert Pasternack, Assistant Secretary, Office of Special 10:45 a.m. - 11:30 a.m David Leake, Project Director, Center on Disability Studies, University of Hawai.i at Manoa 11:30 a.m. - 12:15 p.m. Reaction Panel Presentations: Implications for Future Policy, Research, & Practice David Johnson, University of Minnesota Stephanie Lee, Director, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), United States Department of Education Susan Swenson, Executive Director, Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr. Foundation 12:15 a.m. - 1:15 p.m. Lunch and Presentations: Experiencing Postsecondary Education as a Student with a Disability and Policy Reaction Aryah Herman, Recent Graduate, George Washington University Stephanie Lee, Director, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), United States Department of Education 1:15 p.m. - 2:00 p.m. Research Panel Presentations: Provision of Services, Supports, and Accommodations Sheryl Burgstahler, Director, DO-IT Programs, University of Washington Elizabeth Getzel, Project Director, RRTC on Workplace Supports, Virginia Commonwealth University Michael Sharpe, Project Director, Institute on Community Integration, University of Minnesota 2:00 p.m. . 2:30 p.m. Reaction Panel Presentations: Implications for Future Policy, Research, and Practice Paul Wehman, Director, Rehabilitation Research & Training Center on Workplace Supports, Virginia Commonwealth University Jane West, Principal, Washington Partners, Washington, DC Richard Melia, Director of Research Sciences Division, National Institutes for Disability Rehabilitation Research, United States Department of Education 2:30 p.m. - 3:15 p.m. Research Panel Presentations: Coordination and Management of Supports Debra Hart, Project Director, Institute on Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts, Boston. Teresa Whelley, Coordinator of Research, National Center for the Study of Postsecondary Educational Supports, University of Hawai.i Margaret (Peg) Lamb, Project Director, Holt Public Schools/Lansing Community College, Holt, Michigan 3:15 p.m. - 3:45 p.m. Reaction Panel Presentations: Implications for Future Policy, Research, and Practice William Kiernan, University of Massachusetts, Boston Martin Gerry, Deputy Commissioner, Social Security Administration Carol Kochhar, Professor, School of Education, George Washington University 3:45 p.m. - 4:15 p.m. Response: Students with Disabilities in Postsecondary Education Summary and Next Steps 4:15 p.m. Robert A. Stodden NATIONAL SUMMIT PARTICIPANTS Jennifer Aaron, Program Assistant Ohio State University Lucinda Aborn, Project Director Special Resource Center El Camino College Adela Acosta, Commissioner President's Commission on Special Education Dean Blakey Hugh Berry, Research Analyst OSERS Carol Blessing, Senior Extension Associate Cornell University Natalya Bolshun, Analyst U.S. General Accounting Office Lori Briel Virginia Commonwealth University Christa Bucks, Camacho Policy Analyst Office of Employment Support Programs Sheryl Burgstahler, Project Director DO-IT Programs University of Washington Jeremy Buzzell Office of Special Education Programs Joyce Caldwell National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research Shammi Carr Northeast ADA & IT Center Cornell University Kelly Chang, Graduate Assistant University of Hawai`i at Manoa Thomas Conway, Media Specialist University of Hawai.i at Manoa Dorothy Cordova, Board Director Brain Injury Association of PA Carol DeSouza, Compliance Officer ADA/504 University of Massachusetts, Boston Andi Edelman, Project Coordinator Academy for Educational Development Lisa Ekman, Policy Analyst Social Security Administration Pamela M. Ekpone, Director The George Washington University Jeff Finlay, Assistant Director Center for Teaching & Learning University of Maryland University College Glen Gallivan, Director Bet Glen 2 Win Martin Gerry, Deputy Commissioner Office of Disability & Income Security Programs Liz Getzel, Project Director Virginia Commonwealth University Patricia Gonzalez, Education Research Analyst Office of Special Education Programs Paul Grossman, Chief Attorney Office for Civil Rights, San Francisco Patti Hackett, Co-Director Academy of Educational Development Ashley Haines NDSS Debra Hart, Education Coordinator University of Massachusetts, Boston Gerrie Hawkins, Program Specialist National Council on Disability Cathy Healy, Kennedy Fellow Office of Disability Employment Policy Aryah Herman, Researcher National Institute of Health Diana Hinton, Policy Associate National Conference of State Legislatures Paul Hippolitus, Director of Programs Office of Disability Employment Policy Eileen Hanrahan Office for Civil Rights U.S. Department of Education Margo Izzo, Principle Investigator Ohio State University George Jesien Association of University Centers on Disability David Johnson, Director University of Minnesota Melodie Johnson, Vocational Rehabilitation Program Specialist Office of Special Education & Rehabilitative Services Bonnie Jones, Project Officer Office of Special Ed. & Rehabilitative Services Megan A. (Jones) Conway, Assistant Professor University of Hawai`i at Manoa William Kiernan, Director University of Massachusetts, Boston Carol Kochhar-Bryant, Professor George Washington University Noelle Kurth, Project Coordinator Kansas University Peg Lamb, Director Holt Public Schools David Leake, Project Coordinator University of Hawai`i Stephanie Lee, Director Office of Special Education Programs Adam Lenkowasky Richard Leucking, President TransCen Inc. Nancy Long, Professor Northern Illinois University Justine Maloney, Washington Representative Learning Disabilities Association of America Pamela Mazerski, Senior Policy Advisor Office of Disability & Income Security Programs Virginia McCaskey, Research Analyst Social Security Administration Ken McGill, Associate Commissioner Office of Employment Support Programs Shannon McManus Virginia Commonwealth University Richard Melia, Director Research Sciences Division, NIDRR Susan Miller Pacific Outreach Initiative University of Hawaii at Manoa Marianne Murphy, Senior Extension Associate Cornell University Kim Musheno, Policy Analyst Association of University Centers on Disability Debra Ann Neubert, Associate Professor University of Maryland Tranchau Nguyen, Senior Analyst General Accounting Office Robert Pasternack, Assistant Secretary OSERS, U.S. Department of Education Victor Pineda Disabled Students. Union University of California, Berkeley Mary Podmostko, Project Associate Institute on Educational Leadership Debra Price-Ellingstad, Education Program Specialist Office of Special Education Programs Nancy Reder, Deputy Executive Director NASDSE Curtis Richards, President The Advocate Group Carmen Rioux-Bailey, Research Specialist Academy for Educational Development Cyndi Rowland, Director WebAIM Center for Persons with Disabilities Tiece Ruffin NASDE Jennie Schaff Helen A. Kellar Institute for Human Disabilities George Mason University Paul Scribner TransCen, Inc. Michael Sharpe, Research Associate University of Minnesota Stan Shaw, Professor and Co-Director University of Connecticut Jennifer Sheehy Thomas J. Simmons University of Louisville Marlene Simon, Associate Division Director Office of Special Education Programs Gerardine Wurzburg, President State of the Art, Inc. Ann Yurcisin Ohio State University Theda Zawaiza, Consultant National Council on Disability Policy Sandra Smith .I Can Walk!. Project Robert Stodden, Professor and Director University of Hawai`i at Manoa Susan Swenson, Executive Director The Joseph P. Kennedy Jr. Foundation Cherie Takemoto, Executive Director PEATC Steven Tingus, Director NIDRR OSERS Louise Tripoli Office of Special Education Programs Delores Watkins, Program Specialist NIDRR, OSERS RoseMary Watkins, President ACCESS-NOW, Inc. Paul Wehman, Director Virginia Commonwealth University Cate Weir, Project Coordinator University of New Hampshire Jane West, Principal Washington Partners Washington D.C Teresa Whelley, Coordinator of Research University of Hawai`i at Manoa Rosemary Wolfe, Program Officer FIPSE Cynthia Wright, Counselor Michigan Rehabilitation Services