3-4 slides

Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 2010, 45(3), 3 3 9 -3 4 6 © Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities

F a m ily P e rs p e c tiv e s o n P o s t-S e c o n d a r y E d u c a tio n f o r S tu d e n ts

w i t h I n t e lle c t u a l D is a b ilit ie s

Megan M. Griffin, Elise D. McMillan, and Robert M. Hodapp Vanderbilt University

Abstract: This study investigated the issues that fam ilies consider when m aking decisions regarding post- secondary education (PSE) fo r y o u n g adults w ith intellectual disabilities. Survey respondents were 108 fam ily members o f transition-aged students with intellectual disabilities. Although respondents were generally positive about PSE programs, they reported that educators ’ attitudes were less supportive. Respondents identified many barriers that prevent their understanding o f PSE options, but a lack o f inform ation a n d guidance was the barrier cited by the most respondents. When considering PSE options, respondents were most concerned about student safety, a n d they considered a focus on employment to be the most important program component. C ontinued research is needed to investigate the factors critical in developing successful PSE programs fo r students with intellectual disabilities.

Although recent decades have seen a shift toward providing inclusive, age-appropriate educational opportunities for students with intellectual disabilities (Neubert, Moon, Gri- gal, & Redd, 2001), prospects after high school remain bleak for these students, many of whom experience segregation and social isolation (Chambers, Hughes, & Carter, 2004). In fact, of all students with disabilities, those with intellec- tual disabilities are the least likely to be involved in jo b training, paid employment, or education after high school (Wagner, Newman, Cameto, Garza, & Levine, 2005).

As an alternative to such p oor post-school outcomes, a movem ent has arisen to provide these young adults with inclusive post-second-

We thank mem bers o f the Tennessee Task Force for Post-Secondary Education for Students with In- tellectual Disabilities for support o f survey develop- m ent and dissemination. We especially thank those who supported the survey distribution, particularly the Autism Society of Middle Tennessee, the Down Syndrome Association Middle Tennessee, The Arc o f Williamson County, the Tennessee Council on Developmental Disabilities, and the V anderbilt Kennedy C enter. C orrespondence concerning this article should be addressed to Megan M. Griffin, D epartm ent o f Special Education, V anderbilt Uni- versity, 230 Appleton Place, Peabody Box 228, Nash- ville, TN 37203. E-mail: megan.m.griffin® vanderbilt.edu

ary education (PSE) options. Now num bering over 150 across the United States, PSE programs are located on college campuses and allow stu- dents with intellectual disabilities to continue their education alongside typical peers (Consor- tium for PSE for Individuals with Developmen- tal Disabilities, 2009). In PSE programs, stu- dents learn academic material, expand social networks, gain em ploym ent skills, and de- velop independence. Although colleges have historically excluded students with intellectual disabilities, PSE programs offer these students an alternative to traditional college admission and participation (Hart, Grigal, Sax, Martinez, & Will, 2006).

As m ore PSE program s becom e available, families are increasingly considering this op- tion (N eubert et al., 2001; H art e t al., 2006). Since families, particularly parents, are instru- mental in transition planning, understanding their perspectives can improve the approaches taken by educators and service providers (Chambers et al., 2004; Lehmann, Bassett, & Sands, 1999; Momingstar, Turnbull, & Turn- bull, 1995). In prior studies, researchers have focused on general transition outcomes for stu- dents with intellectual disabilities compared to typical students (Whitney-Thomas & Hanley- Maxwell, 1996) and to students with other dis- abilities (Polat, Kalambouka, Boyle, & Nelson, 2001; Wagner et al., 2005). Not surprisingly,

Family Perspectives / 339

parents of students with intellectual disabilities are among the most pessimistic about transi- tion outcomes, including PSE participation (Wagner et al.).

A smaller literature has focused specifically on the perspectives of parents of students with intellectual disabilities. For example, Kraemer and Blacher (2001) found that the primary concern for these parents is determining what the young adult will do during the day after high school; however, this study did not dis- cuss PSE programs as a transition option. Sim- ilarly, Cooney (2002) found that parents were very concerned about the transition process, but also did not address PSE options. In a more recent study of both parent and sibling perspectives, Chambers et al. (2004) found that respondents considered PSE an impor- tant outcome, but that their knowledge of programs was limited and they did not think their family member would pursue this op- tion. Although PSE options are increasingly available to students with intellectual disabili- ties, no studies have investigated the issues that families consider when making decisions regarding PSE participation.

To examine such perspectives, we surveyed families of high school students with intellec- tual disabilities concerning PSE program par- ticipation. We had three goals for this study. First, we wanted to determine family percep- tions of transition planning, as well as deter- mine those barriers that families encounter in learning about PSE programs. Second, we wanted to identify those demographic charac- teristics that might correlate with differential expectations for students after high school. Third, we wanted to examine both the con- cerns that families have about enrolling stu- dents in PSE programs, and the program characteristics that families consider most important. Our goal was to attain an overall sense of families’ knowledge and perceptions of PSE programs.

Method

Participants

Participants included 108 family members of transition-age students with intellectual dis- abilities in Tennessee. Survey respondents

were excluded if they lived in a different state, or if the student was not 14-25 years old.

Family members of students with intellectual dis- abilities. Of the 108 respondents, 94% were parents or guardians, and 91% were female; in all, 87% of respondents were the student’s mother. The majority of respondents were White (88%); remaining respondents were 8% Black, 1% Hispanic, 1% Asian/Pacific Is- lander, and 2% other. The majority of respon- dents were 40 years or older (87%); from urban areas (81%); working part or full time (81%); and had completed college or a higher level of education (76%).

Students with intellectual disabilities. The re- spondents’ family members with intellectual disabilities were 66% male and 34% female. The respondents reported diagnoses of the students, and in some cases selected more than one category. Their diagnoses were: 35% Mental Retardation; 35% Autism Spectrum Disorders; 29% Developmental Disabilities; 17% Down Syndrome; 10% Cerebral Palsy; and 1% Williams Syndrome. Respondents in- dicated the academic ability of their family member by estimating the student’s reading level, with 32% indicating that the student reads at a First Grade level or lower; 32% between the Second and Fifth Grade level; and 36% at a Sixth Grade level or higher.

Procedure

This study was performed in collaboration with the Tennessee Task Force for Post-Sec- ondary Education for Students with Intellec- tual Disabilities, a group that supports the d e v e lo p m e n t o f PSE p r o g r a m s o n T e n n e s s e e college campuses. The Task Force is com- posed of representatives from various stake- holder groups: the Vanderbilt Kennedy Cen- ter, the Tennessee Council on Developmental Disabilities; the Tennessee Division of Voca- tional Rehabilitation Services; community and disability advocacy groups; the public school system; higher education institutions; Tennes- see’s Division of Mental Retardation Services; and involved parents and community mem- bers.

In conjunction with the Task Force, we cre- ated and distributed a survey to learn more about family perspectives toward PSE pro- grams. The survey was designed in both elec-

340 / Education and Training in Autism and D evelopm ental Disabilities-Septem ber 2010

tronic and p rin t formats; it was form atted elec- tronically using web-based survey software (Survey Gold 8). Respondents who com pleted the online survey first read a description of the study and an explanation that they could choose to participate o r not, withdraw at any point, and skip questions. Next, respondents were directed to the survey; finally, they were asked if they would like to subm it their re- sponses. Respondents could only subm it an- swers to the secure website if they answered this question affirmatively. Approximately 94% o f participants responded via the web- based survey. T he rem aining respondents com pleted and mailed p rin t surveys, which were then manually en tered into o u r data- base.

Participants were recruited in several ways. The survey was advertised through the Vander- bilt Kennedy Center’s web-based Studyfinder; internal e-mail messages sent through Vander- bilt University Medical Center; and flyers distrib- uted through local newsletters and at commu- nity events. In addition, various community agencies th at had been involved with the T en- nessee Task Force distributed the survey. Be- cause we wanted survey respondents to be as candid as possible, we assured them that all answers would rem ain anonymous.

Survey Instrument

To develop the survey, we drew on prior re- search th at had addressed post-secondary op- tions for young adults with disabilities (Cham- bers et al., 2004; Kraemer & Blacher, 2001; Polat et ah, 2001; W agner et ah, 2005). Survey developm ent involved collaboration with Task Force members, including researchers, dis- ability advocates, and family m embers o f stu- dents with intellectual disabilities. T heir feed- back inform ed the final survey, which was com posed o f 50 items and divided into four sections.

1. Information about primary respondents. T he first section of the survey asked 12 ques- tions regarding dem ographic inform ation about the respondent. Using either multiple- choice o r open-ended formats, this section asked about the respondent’s age, gender, ethnicity, relationship to the student, place of residence, level of education, em ploym ent sta-

tus, occupation, marital status, and nu m b er of children.

2. Information about the student with intellectual disabilities. Comprised o f 22 questions about the student with an intellectual disability, ques- tions in this section asked about the student’s age, gender, ethnicity, place o f residence and disability diagnosis. O th er questions ad- dressed the stu d en t’s health, em otional well- being, and adaptive behavior. Questions also addressed functional abilities: respondents were asked to rate on a 5-point scale (1 = not at all; 5 = very well) how well students per- form various activities (e.g. walking, speaking, eating, preparing meals, taking medications, groom ing).

This section also included questions about students’ academic history, attitude toward school, and transition plan. Items about aca- demic history concerned the stu d en t’s IEP, reading level, most recent school setting, and prospects for graduating with a regular di- ploma. O th er questions asked respondents w hether the student seems to like school, and w hether the student seems interested in edu- cational opportunities after high school. Fi- nally, questions asked respondents how aware they are o f PSE options, how they learned about them , and what barriers they encoun- tered during this process.

3. Perspectives on PSE options. This section asked respondents about post-secondary op- tions, and specifically about characteristics o f PSE programs. Items asked respondents what their children would most likely do after high school, and w hether they thought th at PSE program s were a viable option. A series of questions asked respondents how concerned they were about various factors when consid- ering PSE for their family member. O n a 5-point scale (1 = n ot at all concerned; 5 = very co n cern ed ), respondents rated these fac- tors (e.g. the stu d en t’s health; cost o f the pro- gram; the stu d en t’s safety; the stu d en t’s ability to function without parent; similarity to a typ- ical college experience; focus on em ploym ent after program completion; and distance of program from hom e).

A nother series o f questions asked about die degree o f im portance o f various program com ponents. O n a 5-point scale (1 = n o t at all im portant; 5 = very im portant), respondents rated the degree o f im portance that they at-

F a m ily P erspectives / 341

tributed to such PSE program components as residential options; inclusive learning environ- ments; individual choice in curriculum; struc- tured social activities; access to a college cam- pus; certification in a vocational area; and a focus on employment after completion of pro- gram.

4. Open-ended questions. The final section was composed of open-ended questions, in- cluding: (a) “What would help you make de- cisions about the options available to your child after high school?” (b) “What advice would you give to parents of younger children with intellectual disabilities to better prepare them for the transition that their children will face after high school?” and (c) “If you could design a program for your child to participate in after high school, what would it look like? What would be the most important aspects of the program?”

Data Analysis

All survey data were transferred for analysis to the Statistical Package for the Social Sci- ences (SPSS) 16 for Windows. First, we used descriptive analyses to determ ine demo- graphic information for both the primary respondents and the students with intellec- tual disabilities. Next, we perform ed analy- ses of variance (ANOVAs) to test hypotheses of group differences. Finally, we employed repeated-measures ANOVAs to analyze, within individual respondents, their ratings of relative concern about aspects of PSE participation and of relative importance of different PSE program components.

Results

Parental Perspectives on Transition Planning

Descriptive findings regarding students’ tran- sition plans indicated an inconsistency be- tween parent and teacher perspectives. Com- pared to parents, who indicated that PSE opportunities would help their child transi- tion to adulthood (M = 4.0, sd = 1.25), edu- cators were perceived as being less encourag- ing of these children pursuing PSE (M = 2.87, sd = 1.56), t (108) = 6.79, p < .0001. In

addition, only 26% of parents affirmed that their child’s IEP included a plan for the time immediately following high school; 53% re- ported that the IEP did not include this, and 21% were unsure.

Barriers to Parents Understanding PSE Options

Beyond inadequate transition planning, par- ents also reported many other barriers to un- derstanding PSE options for their children. Most respondents (73%) reported a “lack of general information or guidance,” and the next most-reported barriers were “school and other staff did not help me understand” (36%), and “financial constraints” (36%). Fi- nally, many respondents reported barriers re- lated to services: “different services did not work well together” (30%); “long waiting list for explanation of services” (26%); and “staff from different services gave conflicting ad- vice” (25%). Thirteen percent reported that “written and online materials were difficult to understand;” 9% of all respondents reported that they did not encounter any barriers.

Student Reading Ability as a Correlate to Parent Perspectives

Although as a group parents were generally positive about PSE, parents of students with lower reading levels were less likely to think that PSE would help their children transition to adulthood, F{2, 104) = 10.73, p < .01. Parents of these students also thought their children were less interested in educational opportunities after high school, F{2, 104) = 13.47, p < .01; were less often encouraged by school staff to pursue PSE, F(2, 104) = 10.40, p < .01; and less likely to enroll their child in PSE, F\2, 104) = 15.44, p < .01. In each of these questions, major differences were found between parents of children at the First Grade reading level or lower compared to parents whose children read at the Second-to-Fifth Grade and Sixth Grade-or-higher levels (see Figure 1).

Parental Concerns and Priorities Regarding PSE Programs

Parents also differed in their concern over various aspects of PSE participation, F{6,

342 / Education and T raining in Autism and D evelopm ental Disabilities-September 20 10

Will PSE help your child Does your child seem Have educators Do you think your child transition to adulthood? interested in PSE? encouraged your child to might pursue PSE?

pursue PSE?

F igure 1. D iffe re n tia l p a re n ta l a ttitu d e s tow ard PSE a cc o rd in g to s tu d e n t re a d in g level.

642) = 26.78, p < .01. Among 7 different items, parents were by far the most concerned about their child’s safety; almost 9 in 10 re- spondents rated this item a “5” on a 5-point scale. Conversely, parents were less interested that the PSE program provided an experience similar to a typical college environment; this item averaged the lowest rating (3.44) and received the lowest proportion of “5” ratings (30.6%; see Table 1). Similarly, as shown in Table 2, respondents reported that the most important PSE program component involved a focus on employment, whereas the two least important program components involved ac- cess to a college campus and residential op- tions, F{6, 642) = 8.48, p < .01.

Open-ended Questions

Of the 108 respondents, 94 (87%) answered at least one open-ended question.

Transition decisions. The first question asked respondents what would help them make transition decisions. Of the 92 respon- dents who answered this question, 57% an- swered that they needed more information to make educated decisions. Respondents noted that such information could come from a va- riety of sources, including teachers, service providers, PSE program representatives, and other parents. One respondent wrote, “It would be great if the school system had the information to give the parents on the options

TABLE 1

M ean S cores o f th e 7 P a re n ta l C o n c ern Item s, a n d P e rc e n t o f the Sam ple G iving th e H ig h e st R ating (5 = Very C o n c ern e d )

Concern Regarding PSE Programs Mean Percent Highest

Y our c h ild ’s safety 4.72 (0.94) 88.0% Y our c h ild ’s ability to fu n c tio n w ith o u t you 4.34 (1.15) 64.8% Focus o n e m p lo y m e n t a fte r c o m p le tio n o f p ro g ram 4.29 (1.35) 67.6% Cost o f th e p ro g ram 4.06 (1.41) 61.1% D istance o f th e p ro g ra m ’s c am p u s away fro m y o u r h o m e 3.94 (1.26) 47.2% Y our c h ild ’s physical h e alth 3.81 (1.56) 53.7% P ro g ra m sim ilar to a typical college e x p e rie n c e 3.44 (1.55) 30.6%

Family Perspectives / 343

TABLE 2

Mean Scores o f the 7 PSE Program Component Items, and Percent Giving the Highest Rating (5 = Very Im portant)

Program Component Mean Percent Highest

Focus on employment after completion o f program 4.36 (1.15) 67.6% Structured social activities 4.24 (1.09) 56.5% Individual choice in curriculum 4.22 (1.12) 57.4% Inclusive learning environments 4.08 (1.24) 53.7% O pportunity for certification in a vocational area 4.01 (1.29) 50.0% Access to a college campus 3.60 (1.43) 38.9% Residential options 3.47 (1.45) 47.2%

for these children. The school system drops the ball with these children.” Many respon- dents (37%) also wrote about specific pro- gram characteristics (e.g. location, cost, safety, and employment training). Fewer (16%) mentioned student characteristics, and the importance of matching programs to the spe- cific needs of students. Finally, 6% expressed the need for more options; as one respondent wrote, “Options should be offered. Opportu- nities should be everywhere, just like they are for the general public.”

Advice to other families. Of the 84 respon- dents that answered this question, 56% ad- vised families to inform themselves about their rights and to plan ahead, for example, by placing the student on waiting lists for adult services early. A subset of this group (17% of respondents) advised parents to work with schools, community organizations, and other families. In contrast, 10% of all respondents advised parents not to rely on others. As one respondent wrote: “Do not wait for your guid- ance counselor . . . You need to be proactive and persistent in gathering this information.” A final group (15%) emphasized the impor- tance of high expectations and individualized goals for students.

An additional 8% expressed their inability to answer the question at all, stating that they needed advice themselves. One respondent wrote, “There is not a good road map. Things have been pretty clear up to this point. Part of this is likely my own unwillingness to look at a future that feels pretty bleak. Also, I am just tired of advocating and creating opportunities out of whole cloth.”

Desired PSE characteristics. The final ques- tion asked respondents what an ideal PSE pro- gram for their child would be. Of the 85 re- spondents that answered this question, 21% mentioned practical skills development (e.g. training in handling money), and 19% em- phasized the need for skilled teachers who can provide students structure and support. Other respondents (18%) emphasized employment training; another 18% expressed interest in social skills training, recreation, and socializ- ing. Remaining respondents wrote about a variety of program components: academics, skills training, inclusion, and similarity to a typical college experience.

D isc u ssio n

As an initial step in determining the viability of PSE programs, our findings extend prior research by investigating the perspectives of families of students with intellectual disabili- ties. Findings emerged in three major areas: family attitudes toward PSE options; correlates with differential attitudes toward PSE; and families’ priorities and concerns about PSE programs.

First, we found that parents considered PSE opportunities to be beneficial for their transi- tioning children, but that they did not think that educators encouraged this option. In comparing ratings of parent versus teacher encouragement of PSE options, parents rated themselves more interested than teachers. Most respondents (73%) lacked information and guidance about planning for PSE and, in the open-ended answers, parents wrote that school staff could do much more to facilitate

344 / Education and T raining in Autism and D evelopm ental Disabilities-Septem ber 2010

PSE planning. While poor communication has been well-documented as a general barrier to effective transitions to adulthood, our survey ad- dressed this issue specifically within die context of PSE planning. Indeed, while other studies have found that families are generally positive about PSE (Chambers et al., 2004) and have documented poor communication between par- ents and teachers (Lehmann et al., 1999), this survey is the first to docum ent the barriers to PSE planning and access.

Second, parents o f students with lower read- ing levels were less likely to think that PSE would help their children transition to adult- hood. In this study, the break po in t was be- tween the group of students who read at the First Grade level or lower, com pared to stu- dents reading at the Second Grade level and higher. This finding mirrors results o f the Na- tional Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (Wagner et al., 2005), which reported that youth with higher functional cognitive skills were m ore likely to participate in PSE. However, we also noted th at parents o f those students with the lowest reading abilities were n o t wholly nega- tive about the prospect o f PSE for their chil- dren. Although parents o f students with the lowest reading abilities were less positive about this option, some o f these parents still considered PSE for their children.

Third, we found that parents harbored both specific fears and specific expectations about PSE programs. Their major fear related to their child’s safety. Indeed, from among 7 potential concerns that we surveyed, parents consistently reported their child’s safety as the highest rated concern. As Table 1 shows, this single concern averaged dose to 5 on a 5-point scale, was almost half of a standard deviation above all other con- cerns, and was rated the highest score by almost 90% of parents.

Although the salience o f the students’ safety was somewhat surprising to us, it makes sense that parents would be most concerned about this issue. In addition to parental concerns over their child’s vulnerability (Fisher & H odapp, 2009; Hanley-Maxwell, Whitney- Thomas, & Pogoioff, 1995), individuals with intellectual disabilities may actually be m ore likely to be abused and taken advantage o f by others. As Fisher, Hodapp, and Dykens (2008) have recendy noted, individuals with intellec- tual disabilities often display personal and fa-

milial characteristics that predispose them to abuse and exploitation; recent studies report that such individuals suffer abuse at rates from 2-10 times those noted am ong non-disabled individuals. Thus, while no research has yet addressed this issue in the context o f PSE, concerns over safety will undoubtedly influ- ence parental decisions about their stu d en t’s participation. PSE programs, in turn, will need to respond to parental concerns by tak- ing appropriate measures to ensure student safety and by com m unicating these efforts to families.

Parents also reported a strong preference for certain PSE program characteristics. Com- pared to o th er program com ponents, parents want PSE program s to focus on their child’s employment; indeed, post-program employ- m ent was rated as a “5” by 68% o f all respon- dents. While o th er studies have also found that parents consider employm ent to be a pri- mary outcom e (Chambers et al., 2004; Krae- m er & Blacher, 2001; Whitney-Thomas & Hanley-Maxwell, 1996), none have yet ad- dressed this issue in the context o f PSE. Addi- tionally, although many PSE program s cur- rendy include em ployment training, this com ponent takes a variety of forms and is emphasized to varying degrees (H art e t al., 2006). Given o u r findings, PSE programs should prioritize preparation for em ploym ent as the primary outcom e for their students.

In contrast, there were also program char- acteristics that parents did not prioritize. Most noteworthy in this regard were residential op- tions and the program ’s similarity to a typical college experience. These views from parents contrast sharply with informal conversations that we have had with potential PSE students themselves. Considering this contrast, we won- d e r w hether parental attitudes align with the priorities of their children, who are ultimately the participants in PSE programs. Given that these students are young adults transitioning to full adulthood, understanding and h o n o r- ing their perspectives seems especially critical.

Taken together, the results of this study have implications for both families and prac- titioners. First, parents’ limited knowledge of transition plans and PSE options is a major concern, one th at needs to be addressed by high school educators, paren t groups, service providers, and PSE programs. Second, given

Fam ily Perspectives / 345

that educators’ and parents’ post-school ex- pectations for students may not align, there seems to be a need for more effective commu- nication. Third, educators should offer more information about PSE options, even to fami- lies o f students with lower academic skills.

Although an important first step in under- standing parental perceptions o f PSE pro- grams, this study also has several limitations. First, responses were based on the reports of family members and not confirmed by school records, student observations, teacher reports, or other sources. Second, responses may re- flect priorities that were specific to our sam- ple. Although we are not certain that our re- spondents were more informed about PSE options than family members o f other stu- dents with intellectual disabilities, their knowl- edge o f the survey and choice to respond indicates that this may have been the case. Given that we may have surveyed a “con- nected” sample o f parents, our findings re- garding limited knowledge o f PSE options are even more troubling.

Despite these limitations, this study extends the existing research by identifying barriers that families encounter when trying to under- stand PSE options, as well as identifying spe- cific parental concerns and priorities regard- ing PSE programs. Such information has implications for families and professionals, both of whom strongly influence students with intellectual disabilities during the transition to adulthood. Our results can also inform PSE program development, providing much- needed research to guide what has become a growing national movement.

R efe r e n c e s

Chambers, C. R., Hughes, C., & Carter, E. W. (2004). Parent and sibling perspectives on the transition to adulthood. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 39, 79—94.

Consortium for PSE for Individuals with Develop- mental Disabilities, University o f Massachusetts B oston/Institute for Community Inclusion. (2009, March). The National Institute on Disabil- ity and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) estab- lishes project to research postsecondary educa- tion for individuals with intellectual disabilities. Think College Newsletter, 1, 1. Retrieved April 2, 2009, from h t t p : / / thinkcollege.net/new sletter/ TC_march2009.pdf.

Cooney, B. F. (2002). Exploring perspectives on transition o f youth with disabilities: Voices o f young adults, parents, and professionals. Mental Retardation, 40, 425-435.

Fisher, M. H., & H odapp, R. M. (2009). U nderstand- ing the social vulnerability o f individuals with in- tellectual and developm ental disabilities. U npub- lished manuscript.

Fisher, M. H., H odapp, R. M., & Dykens, E. M. (2008). Child abuse am ong children with disabil- ities: W hat we know and what we n eed to know. International Review of Research in Menial Retarda- tion, 35, 251-289.

Hanley-Maxwell, C., Whitney-Thomas, J., & Pogoloff, S. (1995). T he second shock: Parental perspectives o f their child’s transition from school to adult life. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 20, 3-16.

Hart, D., Grigal, M., Sax, C., Martinez, D., & Will, M. (2006). Postsecondary educationoptions for stu- dents with intellectual disabilities. NCSET Issue Brief: Examining Current Challenges in Secondary Ed- ucation and Transition 3(2), 1-4.

Kraemer, B. R., & Blacher, J. (2001). Transition for young adults with severe m ental retardation: School preparation, p aren t expectations and fam- ily involvement. Mental Retardation, 39, 423-435.

L ehm ann,J. P., Bassett, D. S., & Sands, D. J. (1999). Students’ participation in transition-related ac- tions: A qualitative study. Remedial and Special Ed- ucation, 20, 160-169.

M om ingstar, M. E., Turnbull, A. P., & Turnbull, H. R. (1995). What do students with disabilities tell us about the im portance o f family involve- m ent in the transition from school to adult life? Exceptional Children, 62, 249-260.

Neubert, D. A., Moon, M. S., Grigal, M., & Redd, V. (2001). Post-secondary educational practices for individuals with m ental retardation and o th er sig- nificant disabilities: A review o f the literature. Journal o f Vocational Rehabilitation, 16, 155-168.

Polat, F., Kalambouka, A., Boyle, W. F., & Nelson, N. (2001). Post-16 transition o f pupils with special educational needs. (DfES Research Report RR315). London: DfES.

Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., Garza, N., & Levine, P. (2005). After high school: A first look at the postschool experiences of youth with disabilities. A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

Whitney-Thomas, J., & Hanley-Maxwell, C. (1996). Packing the parachute: Parents’ experiences as their children prepare to leave high school. Ex- ceptional Children, 63, 75—87.

Received: 14 May 2009 Initial Acceptance: 18 July 2009 Final Acceptance: 15 September 2009

346 / Education and T raining in Autism and D evelopm ental Disabilities-Septem ber 2010

Copyright of Education & Training in Autism & Developmental Disabilities is the property of Council for Exceptional Children, Division on Autism & Developmental Disabilities and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.